…and this is a 
We're learning more about what Obama is actually going to do in office, and while there are some negatives, right now the positives outweigh them.
Let's get the bad decisions out of the way first.
Rick Warren, professional homophobe, bigot, and smirking airhead, will be prominently promoted in the invocation at the inauguration. This is a symbolic slap to the face of rationalists and GLBT citizens of our country, and is not a good sign.
The man who will be the Interior Secretary, a position which should be concerned about conservation of the country's natural resources and which has been typically filled with vultures and exploiters from industry by Republican presidents, is going to be more of the same: Ken Salazar, who will almost certainly promote mining and ranching interests.
Both of those are real disgraces, and it's not as if Obama was boxed in or lacking alternatives. They're also incomprehensible. Warren is a sneaky little creep who already got more respect than he deserves by hosting one of the presidential debates, and he's also a guy who is anti-Democratic policies — you know he did not vote for Obama. So why throw him another bone? Salazar just sounds like a lazy choice, somebody who was picked to appease industry…but he's not a steward of the environment.
The bads are awful, but I've got to say that his good decisions are very, very good.
The director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy will be John Holdren of Harvard University, a professor of environmental policy who takes a hard line on global climate change — he was an advisor to Al Gore on the movie, An Inconvenient Truth.
Jane Lubchenko is a professor of marine biology at Oregon State University. She'll be in charge of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, another key appointment in climate change policy.
Co-chairs of the Council of Advisers on Science and Technology will be Harold Varmus, who won a Nobel for his work on viral oncogenes, and Eric Lander, a very big name in genomics research.
Another Nobel laureate, Steven Chu, will be the Secretary of Energy. Chu has also been outspoken about climate change and is a strong promoter of alternative energy sources.
If these good people are actually listened to by the president, expect to see major improvements in energy policy and biology research, and some serious attention paid to carbon. This is, overall, a net plus for science and a real strike against anti-science in the White House, a huge change from the last 8 years. Salazar is troubling, some people are concerned that NASA will suffer, and sucking up to the odious Rick Warren still makes me wonder what atavistic social policies might be nestled in Obama's mind, but there is some hope on the horizon, at least. Now if only he could do even better.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Kel | December 20, 2008 10:50 PM
The science appointments are excellent, here's hoping he listens to them.
Posted by: 10channel | December 20, 2008 10:54 PM
Do we know why Obama chose each of them? Presumably Obama would not have chose the bad decisions because he thought that they were bad, but rather because he (erroneously) thought that they were good.
Posted by: The Science Pundit | December 20, 2008 11:02 PM
I'm not happy about Salazar, but overall I'm quite content.
Posted by: Longtime Lurker | December 20, 2008 11:04 PM
I have made peace with Obama's invitation to Rick Warren by convincing myself that it could be the equivalent of a Roman general parading a captured barbarian chieftain through the city during a triumphal procession. Yeah, Baracus Obamacus shows the barbarian Warrenix the might of the assemble liberal masses.
In this case, it's up to the assembled populi to show their scorn. I think a big LGBT kiss-in would be the best response to this bigot.
Big ups to Obama for the science staff choices.
Posted by: Zeno | December 20, 2008 11:04 PM
Warren doesn't matter. I wouldn't have chosen him and I'm sorry that Obama's inauguration committee did, but all Warren gets to do is mumble some meaningless words on January 20. He's not a member of the administration and he's not a policy advisor. I hope his selection for the inauguration ceremony is just a sop to the Christians, but I doubt they can be bought off that easily.
The science appointments, on the other hand, those are of cosmic importance. And they're stellar. (And I have no opinion yet on the selection of Salazar.)
Posted by: Von Krieger | December 20, 2008 11:06 PM
I thought that it was Congress that decided on Warren for the inaugeration, rather than Obama?
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 20, 2008 11:08 PM
You mean he's the one responsible for the lies in that "documentary"?
Posted by: 10channel | December 20, 2008 11:10 PM
Well, there is this question: did Obama pick Salazar based on his own opinion that he was good, based on the idea that the public will see it as good (which, of course, is false, since the public does not see it as good), or based on the persuasion of the mining and ranching interests?
When there is a strange choice like Salazar, I would think that either Obama was mis-informed, or that he was convinced by the mining/ranching interests.
Posted by: scooter | December 20, 2008 11:11 PM
Michael Bérubé's letter to Barack Obama about Rick "The Evangelical Jimmy Buffet" Warren is so good from start to finish that I don't want to blockquote any of it.
http://www.michaelberube.com/index.php/weblog/comments/1207/
Posted by: Trent1492 | December 20, 2008 11:12 PM
What "lie" do you find the most egregious? What is your source for this "lie"?
Posted by: Ken from Oregon | December 20, 2008 11:14 PM
The Rick Warren choice is just Obama's reminder to the left that he's everyone's president. He is throwing a bone to the religious right to make them feel a bit warm and fuzzy. It's meaningless and they won't buy into it.
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | December 20, 2008 11:18 PM
Am I the only atheist/agnostic who simply does not give a crap about Rick Warren being there? Who cares? He'll give his little mystical speech and then be gone. Honestly, folks, it comes across as raving when you go on and on about the little stuff. There's much bigger battles to fight, probably right in you own backyards. How do your local schools handle evolution, for example? From what century are the science books?
As for Salazar. meh. The League of Conservation Voters seems OK with him. Good gravy, give the man a chance. Remeber this is the guy that debunked Bush's claim that the oil shales could somehow magically save the day whe gas was over $4 a gallon. The shales may be exploitable some day, but that breakthrough hasn't occurred yet. Interesting technical problem, though.
Posted by: SHV | December 20, 2008 11:22 PM
I'm not happy about Salazar, but overall I'm quite content.
**********
Ray La Hood..the person who led the Clinton impeachment debate? La Hood with the progressive punch score of 13%? Even the reactionary Dem Gene Taylor has a score of 53%. And Mr Ethanol Vilsack for Ag sec. With a strong Dem Senate he could have done much better. Larry Summers??? etc.
Posted by: Rox | December 20, 2008 11:22 PM
PZ, I believe the USFS and the BLM are tasked with managing our public lands, not conserving them.
I feel obligated to also point out that we as a nation would not be so rich and powerful without the presence and exploitation of our abundant natural resources. As someone who has worked in the mining industry most of his life, I find it frustrating that people decry the exploitation of our natural resources while using computers, living in houses, driving cars, riding bikes, and driving on roads that would not be possible without mining or oil and gas production.
Our minerals come from the earth, if they don't come from our own resources, then they come from other countries -- other countries that may not have the environmental regulations that we do, other countries that do not pass on earned riches to their own citizens, and other countries whose own citizens are willing to murder each other in order to control those resources.
Mining is not about raping the earth. It's about providing you and I with a good quality of life and providing our country with the strategic minerals it requires to keep us safe. Stop mining and you stop development. Who really wants to go back to living in caves?
I voted for Obama against the advice of a good portion of my colleagues in the mining industry, knowing full well I may lose my livelihood -- and as of last month, I did. But to me, the future of my country was far more important than my job. Today, though, I am a little more optimistic about my future.
Posted by: mus | December 20, 2008 11:23 PM
Being gay myself, I must say I hate Rick Warren. However, I'm willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. First off, I'm not entirely sure whether or not it was Obama himself who chose him. Secondly, giving the invocation is frankly irrelevant. and finally, he might benefit politically. Sure, I hate Warren and his anti-gay and anti-abortion views, but this IS politics we're talking about. You cannot get very far in politics without appealing to as many people as possible, without getting people to agree to do what you want, etc.
I think electoral-vote.com said it well:
"It was a brilliant move on Obama's part. By reaching out to a relatively moderate evangelical who has focused on AIDS and world poverty and getting liberals to react angrily (because Warren is antichoice and antigay) Obama has accomplished two things. First, a lot of evangelicals will come to regard Obama as not so bad after all, which will surely help him when he actually starts to govern. Second, by getting liberals visibly furious with him before he is even inaugurated, he will be much better able to defend himself against right-wing cries that he is a "liberal" (a pejorative in some circles). The move costs him no political capital at all. Warren gets a few minutes to speak on national TV. He's not going to use it to bash gays if he has any expectation of becoming the new Billy Graham. But later when Obama does controversial things--like pushing for some kind of national health insurance--he can claim to be balanced by saying: "I am a centrist, look, I let Warren speak and I support national health insurance, something for everyone." That is hardly an even trade but it will get him a lot of mileage in the media. Despite what some people may think, Obama is a very clever politician and fully understands that making small gestures to the right, however meaningless, generate good will he will need later. The incident brings to mind the comment of John Mitchell (Richard Nixon's attorney general): "Watch what we do, not what we say."
[in a later post...]
Gay and lesbian groups fiercely denounced Obama for letting Warren play a role in his inauguration, but Obama emphasized yesterday his support for equality for gays and lesbians. He also said he wants diverse voices to be present at his inauguration and that includes Warren. Finally, he noted that Rev. Joseph Lowery, a civil rights icon who found the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, will give the closing benediction. Warren and Lowery don't agree on much and Obama pointed out that the magic of America is that it is a diverse country where multiple opinions are tolerated. The choice of Warren was no accident. Obama knew exactly what he was doing: trying to get evangelicals who voted against him to take a fresh look. Unlike many evangelical preachers who talk only about the hot-button issues, Warren is well known for saying that Christians have a duty to address world poverty and social injustice. By picking Warren, he is giving Warren (and his expanded agenda) a huge amount of credibility in the evangelical community. If Obama can get the evangelical leadership to stop focusing entirely on abortion and gay marriage and start addressing AIDS and poverty as issues, he will ultimately benefit immensely from giving Warren valuable exposure."
(emphasis mine. Sorry for the long post, but I couldn't link to the posts directly)
Posted by: H.H. | December 20, 2008 11:23 PM
More and more, his picks makes it looks like Obama's a man of one issue: stemming global climate change. That's the thing he has set his sights on to tackle in his administration, and every other issue has become a potential sacrificial pawn in the drive to make that happen. Not that that's entirely a bad thing. Maybe the realities of politics does mean you can't fix everything, so you have to pick the most important, more pressing issue, and be willing to make concessions on everything else. Let's just hope we can look back and say it was all worth it.
Posted by: noahpoah | December 20, 2008 11:24 PM
Both of those are real disgraces, and it's not as if Obama was boxed in or lacking alternatives. They're also incomprehensible.
Obama knows that people like you will vote for him as long as he's a better choice (in your eyes) than his opponent. If he wanted to, he could probably push a lot harder courting rightwing votes and still count on the vast majority of leftwing loyalists. In any case, he doesn't even need to worry about votes for another four years, so a single 'bad' cabinet appointment today are likely pretty low risk.
some people are concerned that NASA will suffer
Manned space flight programs should suffer. And then die.
Hooray for central planning!
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 20, 2008 11:26 PM
Take your pick. My personal favorite is the suggestion that Hurricane Katrina was caused by "global warming". Sure it was, Al. Just like all of the snow we've gotten this week. Or was that "global cooling"?
Posted by: Mike from Ottawa | December 20, 2008 11:27 PM
Re: Rick Warren
From The Nation:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081229/posner?rel=hp_picks
Posted by: Jason A. | December 20, 2008 11:29 PM
'Global Warming Is A Scam' links to a site I'm sure he thinks supports his premise. The very first paragraph on the very first post there states "There will undoubtedly also be a number of claims made that aren't true; ...global warming hasn't 'stopped', CO2 continues to be a greenhouse gas"
I love it.
Posted by: 10channel | December 20, 2008 11:30 PM
Well, seeing how Rick Warren does not have much to do with science policy, I think it would also be appropriate to comment on non-science policy.
The thing about Obama is that in this day and age, foreign policy is perhaps the most important thing, especially with all the bad things that have happened ever since 9/11. In the foreign policy aspect, although Obama is faintly better than Bush in certain aspects, I do not see that much of a difference. He seems to eschew the same idea of "military might can solve all international problems" (which, in this day and age where 90% of war casualties are civilians, is always a bad idea), as did Bush.
So, although his science appointments are good, are his foreign policy appointments any better?
Posted by: John Morales | December 20, 2008 11:30 PM
Trent1492, you might want to hover your mouse on GWIAS before further responding.
Posted by: SHV | December 20, 2008 11:34 PM
Posted by: Ken from Oregon | December 20, 2008 11:14 PM
The Rick Warren choice is just Obama's reminder to the left that he's everyone's president. He is throwing a bone to the religious right to make them feel a bit warm and fuzzy. It's meaningless and they won't buy into it.
******
It fits into a possible pattern beginning with the SC "Gospel" tour: Donnnie McClurkin, Kirbyjon Caldwell, Mary-Mary....Obama statement that as a "Christian he is against Gay marriage but that he could afford to give them some rights"...Doug Kmiec, a strong prop 8 supporter, leading the Obama "Values" tour. I don't think any politician should be cut any "slack" for pandering to the worst instincts of some voters.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 20, 2008 11:43 PM
obviously someone who understands the whole climate warming thing.....
dummy
Posted by: 10channel | December 20, 2008 11:44 PM
@#23 SHV
Presidents are politicians. Like Lincoln, for example. I don't think it is good to expect anything "purely good" from them, since they got there by being elected, and they got elected by pandering for votes. Indeed, I do not think that presidents can be any good "agents of action" other than the fact that the entire nation is focused on a single person, listening to a single voice, which might mobilize the masses to do something - but that depends on the mood of the people. I think of presidents mostly as a measure of the times - after all, that is what they are. Politics is not moral, after all - Machiavelli's principles of "what is successful for politics" holds everywhere in politics - and there is no escaping it.
Posted by: CW | December 20, 2008 11:45 PM
That's weather not climate.(Said for the thousandth time, and to no discernable effect.)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 20, 2008 11:46 PM
F- on evolution for 300 alex
Posted by: John C. Randolph | December 20, 2008 11:49 PM
I'm not at all surprised by Obama's choice of Rick Warren for the appearance at the inauguration. Watch one of Obama's speeches, and watch Warren's TED talk. They're both very good at emotional manipulation, and when you boil down what they've said, there's very little of substance remaining.
-jcr
Posted by: SHV | December 20, 2008 11:52 PM
Posted by: 10channel | December 20, 2008 11:44 PM
@#23 SHV
Presidents are politicians. Like Lincoln, for example. I don't think it is good to expect anything "purely good" from them, since they got there by being elected, and they got elected by pandering for votes.
**********
I agree and that is why politicians shouldn't be excused or cut any slack for trying to appeal to some of the worst instincts of voters. To remain silent is equivalent of approval of this kind of despicable behavior.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 20, 2008 11:53 PM
How typical of a Warmista. Nothing substantive, just kindergarten-level insults.
Yes. Now perhaps you could tell your fellow alarmists that the next time the temperature's over 100 degrees and they start to shriek "The sky is falling!!!"
Posted by: Rich Lawler | December 20, 2008 11:55 PM
Global Warming is a Scam,
Your not-so-subtle moniker doesn't jive with the content of the website to which it is linked. Have you even bothered to read the content of the website you're linked to? Maybe next time, homework first, naysaying second.
Posted by: Epikt | December 20, 2008 11:57 PM
Global Warming Is A Scam:
Why on earth would you provide a link to RealClimate? That's a site maintained by real climate scientists, and its position has consistently been one hundred eighty degrees from "Global Warming is a Scam."
For instance, one of the principals writes, in a review of Gore's movie:
"How well does the film handle the science? Admirably, I thought. It is remarkably up to date, with reference to some of the very latest research"
And, directly contradicting your claim, this:
"He also does a very good job in talking about the relationship between sea surface temperature and hurricane intensity. As one might expect, he uses the Katrina disaster to underscore the point that climate change may have serious impacts on society, but he doesn't highlight the connection any more than is appropriate."
The reviewer does discuss some minor errors in the movie, but adds,
"The small errors don't detract from Gore's main point, which is that we in the United States have the technological and institutional ability to have a significant impact on the future trajectory of climate change."
So--you fail Again.
Posted by: 10channel | December 20, 2008 11:58 PM
@30 Global Warming Is A Scam
It is not like anything you have said merits anything more than an insult. After all, if someone walked up to you and said, "the world is flat," surely that is not something one would take and answer seriously.
Moreover, there are few alarmists when the temperature is over 100 degrees. People are not ignorant of the difference between weather and climate, and when the temperature is hot, you will find that people are not so quick to attribute it to climate change, which, by the way, is undoubtedly happening.
Posted by: Kel | December 20, 2008 11:59 PM
lol @ Global Warming is a Scam. I'm sure he's a climatologist who is familiar on the latest scientific consensus, otherwise he'd just be a misinformed fool who thinks he knows better than almost the entire scientific community.
Posted by: 10channel | December 21, 2008 12:04 AM
@34 Kel
Given the fact that he has linked to that RealClimate website without having read it, I would say that he is not a climatologist; otherwise, he would not have been so careless as to post a link to a website like that without even knowing what it is. Besides, scientists (like climatologists) have to have at least some intelligence in order to be scientists.
Posted by: I believe in God | December 21, 2008 12:04 AM
Hey, look at me, I'm "global warming is a scam."
Posted by: Michael Hawkins | December 21, 2008 12:05 AM
I wrote about this earlier in the day. It's nice to see that the Obama administration is appointing people who are actually qualified for authoritative positions, especially on science. It will be such a relief to be rid of this current anti-science administration.
Posted by: Ben | December 21, 2008 12:06 AM
@36
Well done
Posted by: Joel | December 21, 2008 12:08 AM
I think the simplest explanation is usually the correct explanation. There is not grand political scheme going on here. This is Obama paying off a political debt. Rick Warren helped deliver the evangelical vote and this is his reward.
It is well known that Obama does not personally believe that gay men and women should be allowed to marry, so why would it bother him in the least if he pals around with someone who shares his belief? Obama is certainly not going to try to convince Rick Warren that gay men and women should be allowed to marry, if Obama himself is not convinced of it.
But hey, there's a gay band!!!
Posted by: 10channel | December 21, 2008 12:08 AM
@37 Michael Hawkins
Well, you know, the American people have always (starting with Andrew Jackson) been afraid of people who are smarter than them, and want someone who is like a "common person" so that the common person can feel good about themselves - which, of course, shows how careless the common person the American people (up till now) have been, for not wanting to choose someone better than themselves. After all, Obama has been accused of being "elitist" many times.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, | December 21, 2008 12:09 AM
Dummy
Posted by: Ichthyic | December 21, 2008 12:09 AM
I've been waiting for Lubchenco to get a post like that for 20 years now.
she is one of the leading conservation biologists in the world.
has one of the best publication records in marine ecology of anyone in the country.
it goes way beyond issues relating to global warming.
seriously, take a look at what she's done over the last couple of decades:
http://lucile.science.oregonstate.edu/lubchenco/
awesome.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 12:13 AM
So linking to a site = endorsing it? Whatever it is you're smoking (inaling the fumes from the exhaust of Algore's private jet?), give me some.
I wanted to give an example of Officially Santctioned IPCC PropagandaTM, just to give the Warm-mongers equal time.
But worry not, I have linked to a legitimate site this time, just to keep you Warmistas happy!
Obviously you're not, since I am an atheist. I most certainly DO NOT believe in God, or Allah, or Christianity, or any other religion, including Global Warmism. Please purchase a clue at your earliest opportunity.
Posted by: Fedaykin | December 21, 2008 12:13 AM
As a resident of Colorado:
I don't understand the disappointment with Salazar. My experience (limited I admit) is that he's a decent level headed center-left guy with a pragmatic approach to conservation in Colorado. In Colorado environmental rapist don't get elected. Responsible use and conservation of natural resources in Colorado is a huge deal. Our economy is based on natural resources and tourism. Seems like a decent choice of SoI as far as political position stands.
On the issues confirms my opinion:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Ken_Salazar.htm
Is there something I am missing?
Posted by: Ichthyic | December 21, 2008 12:14 AM
I wanted to give an example of Officially Santctioned IPCC PropagandaTM, just to give the Warm-mongers equal time.
1. you're lying.
2. you're trolling.
EOS.
bugger off, pissant.
Posted by: Ben | December 21, 2008 12:16 AM
"So linking to a site = endorsing it?"
Well...yeah. Is that difficult for you to follow?
Posted by: John Morales | December 21, 2008 12:18 AM
Thank you, GWIAS, for confirming you're trolling. I thought at first it was troll-bait.
Bah.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 12:19 AM
Yes, I would say that pretty much describes the web site to which you linked. But then again, it was put together by the IPCC, a division of the Useless NationsTM.
Posted by: Diane G | December 21, 2008 12:19 AM
mus @ #15: may I copy your post to another forum I'm on (Great Lakes Humanists/MI Humanists & Freethinkers) where we've been discussing the same topic? Thank you for copying the electoral-vote.com comments, btw!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 21, 2008 12:20 AM
I'm curious, what is your take on scientific consensus?
Posted by: Michael Hawkins | December 21, 2008 12:22 AM
@#40 10channel
I know. It's absurd that people would think it a good idea to put stupid mooks in charge. We don't want our children to have average teachers; why do we want to have average leaders?
By the way, were you responding to the post on Obama (to which I linked) or did you happen to read my earlier post about the public's aversion to education?
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 12:23 AM
Global Warming is a Scam, can you confirm your Climatology credentials? If not, what makes you think you know better than the overwhelming majority of the scientific community?
Posted by: Trent1492 | December 21, 2008 12:24 AM
@Global Warming is a Scam
I got the following quote from a site that has the transcript for an Inconvenient Truth
"Now I'm going to show you, recently released, the actual ocean temperature. Of course when the oceans get warmer, that causes stronger storms. We have seen in the last couple of years, a lot of big hurricanes. Hurricanes Jean, Francis and Ivan were among them. In the same year we had that string of big hurricanes; we also set an all time record for tornadoes in the United States. Japan again didn't get as much attention in our news media, but they set an all time record for typhoons. The previous record was seven. Here are all ten of the ones they had in 2004. The science textbooks that have to be re-written because they say it is impossible to have a hurricane in the South Atlantic. It was the same year that the first one that ever hit Brazil. The summer of 2005 is one for the books. The first one was Emily that socked into Yucatan. Then Hurricane Dennis came along and it did a lot of damage, including to the oil industry. This is the largest oil platform in the world after Dennis went through. This one was driven into the bridge at Mobile. And then of course came Katrina. It is worth remembering that when it hit Florida it was a Category 1, but it killed a lot of people and caused billions of dollars worth of damage. And then, what happened? Before it hit New Orleans, it went over warmer water. As the water temperature increases, the wind velocity increases and the moisture content increases. And you'll see Hurricane Katrina form over Florida. And then as it comes into the Gulf over warm water it becomes stronger and stronger and stronger. Look at that Hurricane's eye. And of course the consequences were so horrendous; there are no words to describe it."
Please go learn the difference between climate and weather.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | December 21, 2008 12:26 AM
Oh, it's GWIAS again, here to warn us about the Freemasons, or Proctor & Gamble's Satanic link, or mind control chemicals in Twinkie filling...
The fact that he's got no evidence only proves the conspiracy! Run for it!
Posted by: Ben | December 21, 2008 12:26 AM
GWIAS, you are very lame. Most trolls come up with answers much more quickly than you. Even as a troll, you fail. Put the bottle down and go to bed.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 12:30 AM
Ichthyic's definition of "lying":
"Disagreeing with me in any way, shape or form."
Ichthyic's definition of "trolling":
"Failure to march in lock-step with the drumbeat of my far-left warmista agenda."
Wow, I haven't heard that one since the third grade. Were you playing with the older children this week, or are you just projecting?
John Morales's definition of "troll":
"Anyone who does not march in lock-step with the drumbeat of my far-left Warmista agenda."
Posted by: John Morales | December 21, 2008 12:33 AM
GWIAS, predicable.
Yawn.
---
To get back to the post, though I'm not American I'm hopeful for you guys. Things are looking up! ;)
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 12:33 AM
Global Warming is a Scam, can you confirm your Climatology credentials? If not, what makes you think you know better than the overwhelming majority of the scientific community?
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 12:34 AM
Another Warmista trots out the conspiracy strawman.
Yawn.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 21, 2008 12:35 AM
Someone needs to up their tin foil supply.
Lots of blah blah little substance.
Scientific consensus, deny it please.
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 12:35 AM
Global Warming is a Scam, can you confirm your Climatology credentials? If not, what makes you think you know better than the overwhelming majority of the scientific community?
Posted by: Brownian, OM | December 21, 2008 12:35 AM
Unlike us Kel, GWIAS hasn't been hoodwinked by the Liberal-Feminist-Grey Alien Cabal (which, incidentally, also cooked the tobacco-cancer data to cover up the fact that cancer doesn't really exist--tumours are actually live tissue experiments conducted as part of the plan to genetically engineer humans to live on the moon for when the planet is given to the Scottish, who are actually scouts for an alien race in need of a new homeland).
For a conspiracy theorist, that's all the credentials one needs to know the Truth™!
Posted by: 10channel | December 21, 2008 12:37 AM
@#56 GWAIS
Okay, now you're just wasting our time. The total substance in that post was 0.
@#51 Michael Hawkins
Actually, I would not need to read that post to know about the public's aversion to education in the United States. In fact, it is quite obvious, isn't it? Even a simple look into popular culture reveals as such - an anti-intellectual culture.
Posted by: Ben | December 21, 2008 12:37 AM
GWIAS, I'd call you a dim-witted sloth, but that wouldn't be fair to sloths.
Do you not have friends? Why are you here?
Posted by: John Squire | December 21, 2008 12:38 AM
I don't know if anyone has mentioned it here yet, but Steven Chu is one of the signatories on NSCE's "Project Steve" list.
http://ncseweb.org/taking-action/list-steves
Posted by: Brownian, OM | December 21, 2008 12:39 AM
It would only be a strawman if I haven't already seen your schtick here enough times, stupid.
You're like the Beatles White Album: so overplayed one could recite your track listing in one's sleep.
Talk about yawn.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 21, 2008 12:40 AM
typical idiot Portmanteau without substance.
LABEL THEM!!!!!
Posted by: Michael Hawkins | December 21, 2008 12:40 AM
@63 10channel
I do suppose that is true. It's such a shame, really.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 12:43 AM
Strawman much?
And that someone would be admitted liar "Dr." James Hansen.
A pretty accurate description of the IPCC, if you ask me.
Define "scientific". Define "consensus".
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 21, 2008 12:45 AM
Brownian wrote:
I'll see your yawn and raise you a zzzzz. The tinfoil hat brigade's fear-mongering blather is a sure cure for insomnia.
Now, back to the cricket.
Posted by: John Morales | December 21, 2008 12:46 AM
Ignoring the troll, I'm not sure what's with AGW deniers. Jerry Pournelle's site (that I've followed from its inception*) is a platform for his denial, and he is not keen on Obama's appointments.
I found this recent entry interesting:
* What can I say? It's a window into the conservative view, and I admire much of what he says, though saddened by his denialism on this topic and on evolution.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 21, 2008 12:47 AM
Don't be an idiot. You know what scientific consensus means.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | December 21, 2008 12:48 AM
Please. Anyone who talks about 'far-left warmistas' is so used to running with strawmen his friends all call him Dorothy.
Have I missed the 9:00 showing of 'Mann's Hockey Stick is Flawed' and the 9:15 showing of 'Why Dendochronologists are Ether Huffers', or should I just put your "Best Of GWIAS" CD on repeat?
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 12:54 AM
Whoosh!
You know you've won the argument when all the other side has is insults not worthy of a below-average middle school student.
You might want to ask yourself the same questions.
Yes, it was. To anyone lacking in reading comprehension skills, that is.
Can you confirm your climatology credentials, or are you making a long-winded, long-running argument from authority.
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 12:54 AM
Why are you evading my question GWIAS?
Global Warming is a Scam, can you confirm your Climatology credentials? If not, what makes you think you know better than the overwhelming majority of the scientific community?
Posted by: 10channel | December 21, 2008 12:58 AM
Indeed, I think that one thing to keep in mind, though, is that although the appointments are good, the American psyche (which, of course, includes anti-intellectualism) has not changed at all. Whether Obama chooses good people or bad people has no impact on whether the common person in the United States is ignorant or not on issues that matter. However, it may be a sign that this anti-intellectualism may be decreasing just a little bit... who knows?
Well, unlike religion, there is, of course, no easy way to poll this, which is why I have not seen many polls on this.
Posted by: Epikt | December 21, 2008 12:59 AM
Global Warming Is A Scam:
You know, you pretty much fit the classic definition of "crank."
Guffaw. And just how many people do, in fact, ask you?
Posted by: Brownian, OM | December 21, 2008 1:00 AM
What a creationist thing to say.
Have fun with him guys, but GWIAS is such a waste of time he'll bore you retroactively. I'm outta here while I've still had a productive day to look back on.
Posted by: Bourgeois Nerd | December 21, 2008 1:01 AM
I don't get why Salazar is so dreadfully disappointing. Everything I've read and heard indicates he actually has a decent record on the issues.
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 1:04 AM
I'm not a climatologist, but the overwhelming majority of climatologists are saying that the climate is changing and we are having an effect on it. This isn't some post-modern issue where one person's opinion is as good as another's. This is an area that takes decades of research, where thousands and thousands of people have delicately and intricately studied the evidence.I'm on a climatologist and I have not studied the environmental effects. Like the issue of particle physics, I'll listen to those who are experts on the matter because while they may be wrong at least they have put the time into researching it. So I ask again, what makes you think you know better than the overwhelming majority of climate scientists over the last 50 years?
Posted by: Rey Fox | December 21, 2008 1:06 AM
I see that the link in GWIAS's name suddenly changed after his first post. How embarrassing, he can't even keep his propaganda straight. Typical of a Denialista, and such third grade...I'm getting bored just parodying him.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 1:08 AM
But obviously you don't, since you can't define either term.
How dare I tell the truth about your religion like that! Why, next thing you know, I'll be insulting all the other religions too!
Did I miss the midnight episode of "Global Warming Caused Hurricane Katrina", immediately followed by "Snow Melt on Kilimanjaro Is Caused By Global Warming" at 12:15? Should I just put "The Best Lies of "Dr." James Hansen" on repeat?
Just like Pat Robertson "isn't sure what's with Christianity deniers" (aka atheists).
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 1:09 AM
I ask again, what credentials or evidence do you have that the current consensus on global warming is wrong?
Posted by: LisaJ | December 21, 2008 1:11 AM
Eric Lander - that's fantastic!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 21, 2008 1:12 AM
dodge
Posted by: Epikt | December 21, 2008 1:13 AM
Brownian, OM:
Ah, the voice of reason. Global Warming Is A Scam is a Crank isn't even a very creative or clever troll; he's at best a cheap veneer of snottiness duct-taped over the rotting particle board of ignorance. Snoozing is far more worthwhile than paying him any attention.
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 1:14 AM
GWIAS, there is a consensus among climatologists that the climate is changing and it's due to human activities. It's no more a religion than believing in the 4 fundamental forces because there is a consensus among physicists. So I ask again, what makes you think you know better than all those climatologists who have studied the problem extensively?
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 1:17 AM
Creationists say that evolution is a religion too. They say that those who believe are Darwinists, and anyone who defends evolution is simply defending their religion. Shit, all we'd have to do is change Global Warming is a Scam to Evolution is a Scam, and your rhetoric would apply the same.
So again I ask, what are you credentials and what makes you think you know better than almost the entire scientific community?
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 21, 2008 1:18 AM
Obviously because he really, really, really believes he does. And his mum always tells him he's smart when he asks her.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 21, 2008 1:18 AM
"You know you've won the argument when all the other side has is insults not worthy of a below-average middle school student."- current troll.
This is an admission of our increasing intelligence apparently. 1st it was 2nd grade, then 3rd grade, now middle school.
It must flush a lot of unpleasant memories out when you get to watch in real time as a group of your peers completely outstrip you in intelligence.
But your intellectual dishonesty continues to lend to the projection- as it surely will if you respond to this comment.
So...what, are a few measly idiots like Rey Fox and Micheal Chrichton your "Experts." Well, color me impressed then *roll*
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 1:20 AM
So you are making an argument from authority; i.e., parroting the IPCC (which, by the way, is most certainly not a scientific organization, but rather a political one, being a division of the Useless Nations).
Please learn to read for comprehension. I have already explained this.
Brownian's definition of "productive":
"Praying at least six times per day to the Goracle."
And I call bullshit on the "I'm outta here" part.
Try climateaudit.org.
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 1:23 AM
No, I'm not. I'm making an argument from the scientific method, arguing from those who actually study the evidence that's presented. Which is why I'm asking you what evidence do you have that makes you think you know better than the scientific community?If you think the scientists are wrong, why don't you show it? What evidence do you have that makes you think you know better than the scientific community?
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 1:27 AM
GWIAS, you are the one who is going against the scientific consensus on the issue, why aren't you providing evidence to support your position? Why instead are you insulting anyone here as being members of the global warming religion then complaining that people are insulting you back? Why can't you back up your assertions that show you know better than those people who actually study climate change?
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 1:27 AM
You're forgetting one minor detail: there actually exists legitimate scientific evidence for evolution. All the warm-mongers have is pseudo-science and a documentary made by a failed US presidential candidate.
Posted by: 10channel | December 21, 2008 1:28 AM
@#91 GWAIS
When you make extraordinary claims, you have to back it up with extraordinary evidence. You think we need to present this evidence right here, right now, but in reality, it is well-established, that if you wanted any evidence, you could find it. As such, we need not provide the evidence here, so much as to say, "it exists." You, however, have no such luxury, since you are the one making the extraordinary claim.
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 1:31 AM
The climatologists say there is legitimate scientific evidence for human-induced climate change. Is the evidence for evolution legitimate because you say it is? The climatologists who work on the problem of climate change would say their evidence is legitimate. Why are they wrong?You are simply denying that evidence exists, on what grounds do you do this? What are your credentials?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 21, 2008 1:32 AM
I'm pretty sure WND has a editorial spot reserved for you and your fun little names.
Posted by: sangfroid | December 21, 2008 1:33 AM
GWIAS:
lol. C'mon guys, stop feeding the trolls.
GWIAS, if you're honestly here for something besides starting a flame war, maybe you could try explaining to us Warm-mongers where we went wrong instead of just asking hilarious rhetorical questions.
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 1:34 AM
Are you actually going to show us how the scientific community is wrong on global warming, or use the Kirk Cameron approach?
Posted by: RickrOll | December 21, 2008 1:36 AM
Well, if Kel's arguing from authority, what the Fuck are you doing then dumbass?
Seriously GWIAS, what are you even saying? Or do you have a point other than concern trolling (i.e. "I'm an atheist, but I'm fully capable of being stupid!")? There IS no case for you here. Get lost.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 1:37 AM
The "climatologists" are far from unanimous on "climate change". When did science become a democracy anyway?
Posted by: 10channel | December 21, 2008 1:38 AM
I think that GWAIS will stop posting nonsense as soon as (s)he realizes that (s)he is being ignored and nobody is listening to him/her. GWAIS, so far, has proven to be nothing more than a waste of our time.
Posted by: John Morales | December 21, 2008 1:38 AM
sangfroid, it's an unoriginal troll - dime-a-dozen around here. First, the contentious assertion, then the quibbling. It wants food, it will get indigestible non-nutriment.
See, that's your problem. We do. We comprehend you made an assertion at the beginning, and since then have merely tried to get responses to satisfy your need. Luckily, it also satisfies our need to diss some fool. You mean, like we're saying climate scientists are authoritative regarding climate science? D'oh. Hint - Who're collectively the authority on physics? Mathematics? History? Climate?Since the troll linked to realclimate.org in its first post, its clear all it wants is dissension and not explanation - it will damn well know there's no scientific controversy.
Heh.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 21, 2008 1:43 AM
Following that line of logic, what's your take on evolution?
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 1:46 AM
There's an overwhelming majority who agree that humans are having an effect on the climate. And when was it a majority? It's always been that way. Ideas fight for acceptance amongst those in the know, those who have studied in that field. It's the way of all science.If we have to throw out Global Warming on the grounds that science is not democracy, we have to do the same for all science. You are in effect casting doubt on the scientific method, but pretending otherwise by just targeting the one field you don't agree with the conclusions on. Creationists do the same thing, I've heard so many times "I like science, and evolution is not science - it's a religion." You are doing the exact same thing with global warming.
But I'm being conciliatory here, so I'm giving you a chance to explain why you think you know better than the vast majority of climatologists. I'm asking you how you know they are wrong, and asking for the evidence that supports you being right. I've asked this several times and all you've done is played the rhetoric game. Like creationists, you have no substance, nothing to validate your position. You don't like the conclusions of the scientists who actually study this field so you play a game of outright dismissal.
Climatologists have put forward a plethora of evidence to support their theories on global warming, there is a staggering amount of peer-reviewed research done on global warming. Why is all of that wrong? Just how do you know better? And why are you focusing on rhetoric when all science is about evidence?
Posted by: BobC | December 21, 2008 1:46 AM
President Obama will never make idiotic statements about science education like Bush did. Obama, has far as I know, has never used any religious word (god, etc.) in the same sentence with the word "science". Bush and McCain can't seem to talk about science education without invoking their magic fairy.
What a radical change this is going to be. From one of the most stupid presidents in American history to perhaps the most intelligent president in history.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 1:47 AM
So why are you dodging my questions, Rev? Is there nothing in the Official Handbook of Warmista Talking PointsTM to cover this situation?
That's funny. I'm pretty sure WND hires only religionists such as yourself. Projecting again, are we?
sangfroid's defintion of "troll":
"Anyone who does not march in lock-step with the drumbeat of my far-left Warmista agenda."
Posted by: llewelly | December 21, 2008 1:48 AM
GWIAS:
Micheal Crichton wrote State Of Fear , which describes a conspiracy different in detail but every bit as ridiculous in character. He marketed it as fiction, but stuffed it with delusion-filled footnotes which insist it's based on facts. His admirers (notably Inhofe and Gray) have upheld it as if it were truth.
Posted by: Zeno | December 21, 2008 1:49 AM
Pretty intense troll infestation here tonight. It's probably not a useful exercise to try to debate with someone whose pants are down around his ankles while he types. (They're called wankers for a reason.) They're best ignored, so resist the temptation to "debate" them. It's futile. I'll say no more (despite the temptation).
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 1:54 AM
So why are you dodging my questions, Rev? Is there nothing in the Official Handbook of Warmista Talking PointsTM to cover this situation?
That's funny. I'm pretty sure WND hires only religionists such as yourself. Projecting again, are we?
sangfroid's defintion of "troll":
"Anyone who does not march in lock-step with the drumbeat of my far-left Warmista agenda."
Posted by: llewelly | December 21, 2008 1:54 AM
Read it regularly for years.It's been right twice.
What was that joke about the clock?
Posted by: RickrOll | December 21, 2008 1:55 AM
Zeno- agreed. No "helping hands" to smack the fucktards' brainless heads. it only pleases them.
Posted by: sangfroid | December 21, 2008 1:56 AM
Show's over people, move it along, nothing to see here.
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 1:56 AM
GWIAS is useless as a debater. If he thinks he knows better than the scientific community, I echo NoR's challenge for Stimpy and ask him to submit his idea for peer review. Maybe that way he'll drop the "global warming is a religion" rhetoric and focus on the evidence - which is what all good science is about.
Posted by: Ichthyic | December 21, 2008 2:02 AM
GWIAS is useless as a debater
please tell me that line is a set up.
..because I'd have to disagree.
he's a masturdebator.
gees, are you guys that desperate to chomp on such old and stinky bait?
might i suggest a nice chianti to go with that 10 year old fruit cake?
seriously, it's like chewing on old shoe leather.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 2:03 AM
Even if this was true (it's not, by the way), that would still be twice more than the International Profligate Climate Crazies.
Projecting again, are we? Seriously, you warmista trolls need to get some new material. The masturbation bit is getting rather old. Oh, I get it...You can't stop talking about it because you can't stop doing it.
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 2:05 AM
Are you going to step away from rhetoric and actually provide some evidence for your assertions here Stimpy? I mean GWIAS
Posted by: 10channel | December 21, 2008 2:06 AM
@BobC 106
One thing about Bush was that much of his idiocy was, in fact, fake idiocy, pandering to the people who want a "common person" as president. Bush, indeed, did some things a "common person" would do as president, even if he was pretending. Well, we will see how Obama fares - you cannot well predict it. It is important to note: that although a president may say intelligent-sounding things, what a president does is, in the end, more important - so it is a little rash right now to pass a judgement like so. Hopefully, though, it will be this radical change as you have said.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 21, 2008 2:06 AM
Ummm Kel, Nerd's challenge was completely ignored. As was the evidence.
What makes you think a troll 3 times as bad as the resident IDiot would take the high road? I hate to dash your faith in humanity, bud.
Posted by: clinteas | December 21, 2008 2:07 AM
Posted by: sangfroid | December 21, 2008 2:08 AM
Let's change the subject!
New study on the Last Universal Common Ancestor
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 2:08 AM
Posted by: John Morales | December 21, 2008 2:10 AM
:) A real coward, this troll.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 21, 2008 2:10 AM
By the by, could this not be a poe?
He seems to readily adopt any word or phrase we drop almost immediately. Maybe KC is back?
Just sayin'.
Posted by: clinteas | December 21, 2008 2:12 AM
oops,blockquote fail in my 120.....
Posted by: RickrOll | December 21, 2008 2:12 AM
Ah well, one more for the dungeon i suppose. Tis the Season!
Posted by: RickrOll | December 21, 2008 2:14 AM
GWIASP: Fapmonkey.
case and point:
blah blah blah=fap fap fap
Posted by: tomh | December 21, 2008 2:16 AM
Salazar was a very puzzling choice. Politically, it removes a Democratic Senator, and even though the Colo gov'r will appoint a Democrat, there is no guarantee that the person appointed will win the next election in 2010, whereas Salazar apparently would have been easily reelected. That seems like too big of a risk when there was another Hispanic, Grijalva from Arizona, available.
About all I can see is that Salazar and Obama came to the Senate together in 2004 and live in the same apt building, so maybe Obama picked him because they are friends. Every other explanation makes even less sense.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 2:16 AM
I'm still waiting for you Warm-mongers to provide legitimate scientific evidence to support your "The sky is falling, it's the end of the world as we know it" rhetoric. And no, propaganda from political organizations like the IPCC doesn't count, nor does work done by people who receive funding from left-wing foundations or the Useless Nations or left-wing governments, since their conclusions are pre-ordained. I won't be holding my breath.
The consensus y'all keep referring to is political, not scientific.
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 2:17 AM
I am aware of that. I'm also aware that I've asked Mr. Scammy several times what reasons he thinks he knows better than the climatologists on this issue and all I've gotten in reply was an attack on my credentials (despite me not going against the scientific community) and evasion after evasion. It's a simple question, it at least deserves some sort of answer.Posted by: clinteas | December 21, 2008 2:17 AM
Back to thread topic before derailment by fringe loon:
Even if Obama means the appointment of this Warren fella as a way of saying,"everyone's included in my new America" blabla,I would have wished he'd have the guts to leave the homophobic fringe weirdos out.Wouldnt that have sent a nice clear message.But pandering to all sides of the fringe spectrum is apparently a conditio sine qua non for anyone who wants to stay in power over there.
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 2:24 AM
You could always search the peer reviewed articles on Pub Med, you'll need to do that if you want to break the climatologists. But here's a summary for you done by the fine people at skeptic magazine. The Weathermakers by Tim Flannery is also a must read.Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 2:27 AM
Yes, because anyone who opposes our agenda must be silenced immediately.
It's "case in point", genius. But you'll learn that next year in the first grade, hopefully.
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 2:27 AM
You know that arguing from ignorance is not a valid argument right? Why aren't you out there researching what climatologists have to say before asserting they have no evidence?
Posted by: clinteas | December 21, 2008 2:29 AM
No,because all the fringe loons spouting garbled non-scientific nonsense without evidence on this blog bore us to death.
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 2:37 AM
He's avoiding questions, flaming people, not providing anything more than rhetoric, now he's claiming persecution? He is a creationist, just one wearing a climate change denial hat.
Posted by: John Morales | December 21, 2008 2:45 AM
Kel, not a creationist. Just your ordinary troll.
Note how it picked up on the first nit it found. So keen to find disputable points from others, whilst offering absolutely nothing itself.
Like a typical idiot troll, it picks on the idiom and evades the message. Of course, it doesn't realise it talks about silencing it's agenda, though its posts remain for posterity as an example of attention-seeking.
Heh. Run of the mill, yet still an amusing specimen.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 21, 2008 2:53 AM
"He's avoiding questions, flaming people, not providing anything more than rhetoric, now he's claiming persecution? He is a creationist, just one wearing a climate change denial hat."
Ah, you see the light at last Kel. Come join us as we laugh at the little troll yapping up at us from down in his intellectual hole. And soon to be his prison in the dungeon.
Squeak your last inanities, GWIAS.
Posted by: craig | December 21, 2008 2:55 AM
Don't feed the trolls.
I'm starting to have the opinion that pointless interaction with such blatantly obvious trolls is a similar phenomenon to trolling itself. Both examples of just not knowing when to step away from the keyboard. Commenting for the sake of commenting. Compulsive behavior and possibly evidence of a form of dissociation.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 21, 2008 2:59 AM
John, is this a sign that trolls are evolving to keep pace with society? Will we not be rid of the trolls without religion? Oh horror of horrors!
Note, i think Kel was merely drawing parallels, not stating fact. And i agree. All symptoms, but a different strain of troll. Verily, this is an ominous portent for the interwebs.
/hyperbole
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | December 21, 2008 3:00 AM
I've blogged extensively about these recent developments here. I've included lots of links to right-wing dismay at the appointments, as well as videos of recent policy speeches by some of Obama's appointees. Enjoy!
Posted by: clinteas | December 21, 2008 3:00 AM
SIWOTI !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Annie M | December 21, 2008 3:09 AM
Perhaps a case of keeping your friends close and your enemy closer?
Posted by: RickrOll | December 21, 2008 3:14 AM
SIWOTI !!!!!!!!!!!!!
'Tis a double-edged sword, to be so keenly tuned to the howls of the trolls. are we pleasured in their slaying, or are they- like the Hydra- sustained by the poison of our wit?
Are we doomed to our mutual destiny- ignorance contra intellect?
/alagory (?)
Posted by: craig | December 21, 2008 3:14 AM
"I've blogged extensively about these recent developments here. I've included lots of links to right-wing dismay at the appointments, as well as videos of recent policy speeches by some of Obama's appointees. Enjoy!"
Just an FYI, the link in your name has a typo and takes you to a site with ads for Christian singles. :D
Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 21, 2008 3:16 AM
GWIAS,
FALSE . 97% of climate scientist believe ""global average temperatures have increased" during the past century.
84% believe humans are responsible.
Now, you're claiming that most these scientist are either outright lying or are incredibly incompetent. The burden of proof is on YOU. Where is your evidence?
Posted by: clinteas | December 21, 2008 3:16 AM
Oh Scott,I never knew.......
Posted by: RickrOll | December 21, 2008 3:19 AM
errors, errors galore.
Must sleep. And dream of a tomorrow free of mistakes.
Like always.
Posted by: Diane G | December 21, 2008 3:24 AM
Annie, that's brilliant. Perfect use of the old saying, which I had yet to dredge up...
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 3:29 AM
You get it!Posted by: Rey Fox | December 21, 2008 3:40 AM
"Please learn to read for comprehension. I have already explained this."
Yeah, I read your embarrassed backpedaling after you realized you posted the wrong link.
But never mind that. Perhaps instead I'll just throw out some acronyms, and you can give us your hilarious nicknames for them, since you seem to think that's a legitimate way to make a point. How about...ACLU?
Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 21, 2008 3:56 AM
The global warming deniers and the creationists have much in common. They both are creating a "controversy" where none exist. Both their adherent use rationalization to avoid changing, whether it be their world view or their lifestyle. Both use the anti-scientific method; assume you are right and make the facts fit.
In fact, you'll frequently find people who are both creationist and GW deniers. In their minds it doesn't matter what we do to the planet since Jesus is gonna come soon anyways.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 21, 2008 4:05 AM
Yep Kel i get it (condescending? *Shrugs*). I think a little more understanding about how writing is constructed is necessary to really have decent dialogue in the interwebs. A lot of it is more subtle than people are willing to admit, and you give an example. It isn't just an endless string of factiods and logical inferances, with liberal amounts of god-smacking to lighten the tone.
There is something to be said about making comparisons and stating perspective. IMHO shouldn't be mandatory after every line.
But i'm tired and therefore slightly cross, so i'll just shut up and go to sleep.
Posted by: John Morales | December 21, 2008 4:07 AM
craig @139,
They're not being fed - they're being baited.Perspicacious of you, and your concern is noted.
In most fora, trolls are dreaded. Here, they're fair game, and a source of amusement (we like to see how much punishment they can absorb). And they contribute to PZ's coffers. Also, some of us are afflicted with SIWOTI syndrome.
The only other place I recall where such was routine was alt.tasteless - though the M.O. was (ahem) slightly different.
Once in a blue moon PZ says "enough" and bans the troll. The rest of the time, we get to dish it out and feel virtuous about it! ;)
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | December 21, 2008 4:09 AM
That's ideology for you. The world is composed of angels and demons and nothing in between. Or anyone that has anything to do with Evil Big Business is sullied for all time, or something like that. *shrug* Don't quite understand it myself, nor the attraction of it.
I just can't believe the whole skeptical blogosphere is still keening over Rick Warren. Jesus Tap Dancing Christ, no wonder the general populous never takes us seriously. The economy is falling apart, and we're foaming at the mouth over some dumbass pastor giving a prayer. If it wasn't Warren it'd be someone other mythology peddler. As they said back in the old neighborhood, whaddya gonna do?
Well, they certainly aren't intelligently designed!
(rimshot)
Hey-yo!
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 4:16 AM
Nope, not condescension just relief.Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | December 21, 2008 4:48 AM
Y'know, I see a dozen commenters baiting GWIAS, and I envision a dozen housecats playing with the same mouse. It's about as evenly matched. (Of course, it doesn't hurt matters that the truth is on the side of the housecats... that is, the commenters.)
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | December 21, 2008 4:53 AM
Quiet_Desperation @ #155:
Excuse my pedantry, but the term you're looking for is "general populace".
"Populous" means 'densely populated'. "Populace" is 'the people of an area'. ("Populous" is a noun only if you're referring to the work of Peter Molyneux.)
Posted by: mirroreyes | December 21, 2008 5:10 AM
A bigot like Warren at the inauguration? Sounds like a good thing - reminds me of Godfather II, when Corleone told the Senator "...and I would appreciate if you put up the fees yourself". Don't let the bigot just watch progress in action ... make him participate in it!
Posted by: Brian Coughlan | December 21, 2008 5:18 AM
I actually found the whole GWIAS episode quite comforting.
I still remember the days when a global warming reference would unleash hordes of denier zombies, and not the your classic zombie either, more the "28 days later" type. Rabid, relentless and single minded fallacy generation machines. Consuming healthy brains at a truly terrifying rate. Well those days are clearly over.
Today we got one little zombie denier, a "Day of the Dead" class shuffler. Ambling along at a snails pace, while making the occasional inarticulate moan. It's a clear cut example of progress people:-)
Posted by: SoMG | December 21, 2008 5:20 AM
Eric Lander is hot. That guy is smarter than anyone. Well almost anyone. Trained as a mathematician and forward-looking. In fact he's the most qualified person for the mission of maximizing the benefits we get from having sequenced the human genome. Short, medium, and long-term.
I'm as pro-gay as anyone and I see Obama hooking up with Rick Warren as a good sign. It causes fissures in the Right and will make it easier to do more meaningful pro-gay things.
Posted by: AnotherPedant | December 21, 2008 5:23 AM
Benjamin Geiger, # 158: he was trying to say "pop u, loser"!
Posted by: SoMG | December 21, 2008 5:39 AM
I have also heard Steve Chu speak. Very clearheaded.
One could argue that his Nobel work--laser cooling and trapping--was a little right-place-at-right-time-y, and the real credit should go to the people who developed tunable lasers. Of course that's always true to some extent.
His suitability for the position seems mostly based on his work after getting the Nobel. I can see how it would lead in though--climate science is essentially atmospheric chemistry, and that depends on being able to probe for information about short-lived molecular entities (ions, radicals) in the gas phase in a highly illuminated setting, which is what he did. Applying it to the Earth came afterwards.
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | December 21, 2008 5:42 AM
"Populous" is a noun only if you're referring to the work of Peter Molyneux.
I loved that game. :-)
And give a guy posting a 1:30AM a break, huh? :-P
Posted by: John Morales | December 21, 2008 5:52 AM
Quiet_Desperation, near-homophones are a bugger.
No worries, Benjamin is probably upset he missed out on the troll-bashing ;)
Relax, you made a good post. And kudos for Benjamin for true pointless pedantry. To be sure, commenting here is fraught with danger - and 'tis a fine tradition he upholds.
Posted by: Matt Heath | December 21, 2008 6:19 AM
B. Hussein Obama picked Salazar because they are both members of the Americans with the Name of a Dictator community and he owed favours to the AwtNoaD lobby groups who funded him at the start of his career. ;)
I've a question. Is Steven Chu a religious man? I did a quick Google search and nothing says either way. Since religion in science Nobelists is treated as an interested quirk, my guess is he has none. If he is irreligious is it good for the godless?
Posted by: Brian Coughlan | December 21, 2008 6:38 AM
some people are concerned that NASA will suffer
Manned space flight programs should suffer. And then die.
I have to reluctantly agree with this. It seems odd to spend 99% of your cash on systems to keep the most obviously redundant part of the spacecraft alive.
That money would be better spent on space elevator tech, or research into some kind of quantum "spooky action at a distance" comms that would make human space flight finally, and eternally spurious.
HSF may have made some kind of limited sense in the 1950's Werner von Braun vision of space exploration. Today, it's just an anachronism.
Posted by: SoMG | December 21, 2008 6:43 AM
I actually knew someone who was head of LBL before Steve Chu--one David Shirley. This guy argued for funding for the Advanced Light Source on the floor of Congress and brought in eleven million which was more then than it is now. (He was astonishingly skilled at lecturing in a way that made the listener feel good.) I can tell you if you can run LBL and not run it into a ditch, you're a multi-talented genius. Traps are everywhere AND you have to know where you're going. Radiation safety alone requires outstanding organization and charisma--you have to inspire self-policing. Appoint the wrong person and you're done. You have to know all the stuff you supposedly learn about in business school, how to subdivide, prioritize, and delegate, plus be literate in every scientific speciality from intrastellar nuclear chemistry to marine agriculture.
Another very forward-looking chemist to be aware of, whose ideas apply to just about everything, is Peter G. Schultz. I doubt he'd want to leave his lab though. Does this sound familiar: random variation plus functional selection replaces intelligent design? That's his career. In more ways than you can think of. Stuff that increases the RATE at which we make discoveries. Plus, expanding the genetic code to make ribosomes in living organisms incorporate unnatural, lab-synthesized amino acids into growing proteins at genetically-specified sites. To everyone else a Nobel worthy idea; to Schultz just one project (or class of projects) of many.
Posted by: GBM | December 21, 2008 6:50 AM
I for for one am actually very happy the Obama chose warren. Before you crucify me (lol) I should say that it isn't because i agree with anything that idiot has to say. The reason is this; one of the scariest things about the xians is how hermetically sealed their world is. Incidentally this is not so much a comment on their immunity to contrary evidence (few truly are immune, most are just resistant in my experience) as much as their insularity. They can go to xian schools, xian colleges, get employed at xian businesses of various sorts while getting their information from xian bookstores, xian radio, xian TV, all while living in xian only towns. the viability of this lifestyle is incredibly dangerous for democracy as a whole, because that is how totalitarian movements get started and more importantly achieve viability. So as much as i despise rick warren, his presence means that Obama will be better able to talk to those people, maybe with a mind towards folding their dialogue back into our national dialogue, i think this is a worthy goal and it entirely excuses the presence of one so odious.
Posted by: SoMG | December 21, 2008 6:58 AM
Matt Heath, I don't know about Chu's religion, but if you are interested in great scientists who are Jesus freaks you should google Henry Fritz Schaeffer who gave out Jesus-freak literature to people interviewing for positions in his lab, led his group in daily prayers, and left the greatest chemistry department in the world to live in the Bible Belt. (He was also known for badgering visiting academics to nominate him for the Nobel Prize.)
Posted by: Svetogorsk | December 21, 2008 7:02 AM
The mere fact that GWIAS has pointedly ignored all the posts asking him to do anything challenging (such as refuting reams of evidence in peer-reviewed detail) in favour of responding to ones that merely insult him tells us everything we want to know.
Someone who GENUINELY believed that global warming was a scam, and who has amassed copious amounts of scientific evidence to support his case, would do the exact opposite - he'd ignore the insults and focus on the science. After all, how else is he going to get his message across?
Ergo, GWIAS = troll. Or Poe. But not worth taking seriously.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 21, 2008 7:09 AM
The liar GWIAS is, as his "far-left Warmista" crap indicates, politically motivated; he's probably a "libertarian" or similar. The fact of anthropogenic global warming shows quite clearly that "free markets" cannot deal with certain environmental problems. The nearest to a possible "free market" solution to AGW is an internationally agreed "carbon trading" system, whereby a wholly artificial market in permits to emit greenhouse gases would be established. Fortunately, the debate among scientists and policy-makers has moved on from "Is it happening?" to "What should we do about it", leaving the liars and morons behind.
While the details of AGW theory and evidence are complex, the basic points are fairly simple:
1) CO2, CH4, N2O, CFCs and certain other gases are greenhouse gases. In the case of CO2, this has been known for around 150 years.
2) The concentration of these gases in the atmosphere has increased considerably over the past century, particuarly the past 30 years.
3) Both isotopic evidence, and satellite imaging, show that human activities are the main source of these excess greenhouse gases.
4) Surface, ocean and tropospheric temperatures have increased over the past 30 years, to an extent which cannot be accounted for without taking increases in greenhouse gas concentrations into account. (Energy reaching Earth from the sun has not increased significantly over that period although it did increase in the early part of the twentieth century and was probably responsible for most of the warming in the period 1900-1950.)
5) Moreover, the stratosphere has cooled over the past 30 years. This is exactly as expected if the cause of the warming is increased greenhouse gas emissions, but inexplicable otherwise. Other facts about the spatio-temporal distribution of temperature change also fit the AGW theory.
6) Study of longer-term changes in temperature (the ice ages) also confirm that CO2 concentrations affect surface temperature. While the trigger for such changes are thought to be changes in Earth's orbit, these cannot account for the magnitude of swings between stadials and interstadials without feedback from CO2: the initial warming at the end of an ice age causes CO2 to be emitted from the ocean (warmer water holds less CO2), and this (along with changes in albedo) causes further warming.
AGW denialism is indeed, as has been noted, closely parallel to creationism. Both claim that the scientific consensus is ideologically motivated (classic projection of course), and that the scientists supporting it are corrupt liars who care only for their funding. Both are almost entirely devoid of ideas that can actually generate research, the proponents of both hop from one talking point to another without the slightest concern for consistency, both ignore refutations of their talking points, both are funded by far right foundations.
IPCC reports, of course, are drawn up by relevant scientific experts, based on the peer-reviewed literature. If anything they tend to be over-conservative (in a scientific sense) in their projections and recommendations, since these must command the broadest possible range of scientific opinion. In addition to the IPCC, the theory of anthropogenic global warming has been explicitly supported in statements issued by the national scientific associations of the G8, plus China, India and Brazil, the editors of Science and Nature, practically every relevant scientific association in the USA (even the Association of Petroleum Geologists has dropped its opposition in the face of the overwhelming evidence), politicians from across the political spectrum - even George Bush has recently admitted its reality, and many representatives of Big Business. But of course liar GWIAS will tell you that all these bodies and individuals are "far-left Warmistas", or at best, dupes and fools. Contemptible is far too weak a word for such as GWIAS.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 21, 2008 7:10 AM
I'll put my money on the bet that Salazar is an astute choice. He knows the players in the industry and the public won't be immediately inundated with a "destroy him at all costs" industry PR campaign. Just as Hillary was hawkish and Gates pursued W's agenda on the war, they are both working for Obama now and will support and carry out his agenda. Gates has already announced he is starting the process to close Gitmo. As another poster already pointed out, Salazar's job is management of federal lands and resources. As manager he does not set policy, he executes it.
Warren's choice is an attempt to blunt the religious right's monolithic power. While it won't change many minds it is a signal that idiots like Dobson aren't the only Christian game in town. A least Warren is making an effort to refocus priorities more towards charitable actions and some sense of responsibility towards the environment. Don't get me wrong. I abhor his views on homosexuality, abortion, etc. But better a tentative relationship based on common goals looking for solutions for poverty, disease and climate change than the all out war on reason championed by the far wingnut religious right that Republicans and amoral supercapitialists have effectively stoked for the past 30 years.
Obama has made it explicitly clear he is about effective solutions based on facts and science, not ideologies. That should be music to the ears of all people of education and reason.
GWIAS is a wingnut ass's ass and probably a Libertarian who worships the Free Market God. He blows out enormous amounts of methane while claiming he is representing substance and fact. And like methane, as hs failed illusion of substance rapidly dissipates into the atmosphere, there is nothing left but a slightly annoying malingering odor as a reminder of the damage already done.
Posted by: andyo | December 21, 2008 7:26 AM
Hey guys, did you hear? Apparently, Global Warming is a scam.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | December 21, 2008 7:28 AM
Obama seems to be appointing people on the basis of competence. The Bushite criteria was ideology (which is how Michael "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job" Brown became FEMA Führer).
I don't really care about Warren's role in the inauguration. He's going to say "Oh Lord, bless Obama and our country, amen," only not in so few words. Unless he says something really outrageous, by the next day who's going to remember what he said? People will think of him as Warren the fundie homophobe, not Warren the fundie homophobe who gave the invocation at Obama's first inauguration. This is a tempest in Russell's tea pot.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 21, 2008 7:29 AM
That money would be better spent on space elevator tech, or research into some kind of quantum "spooky action at a distance" comms that would make human space flight finally, and eternally spurious. - Brian Coughlan
Brian, I agree with you about manned space flight, but I read recently that "space elevators" are physically pretty near impossible. While it would be premature to write off the possibility completely, we should not base any plans for the future use of space on this dream. As for "Spooky action at a distance" - if FTL communication ever turns out to be possible, I'll go back in time and eat my grandfather! Robotics is the way to go, with the mining of near-Earth asteroids and the moon, and perhaps satellite solar power and/or production of hydrogen for use on Earth the most likely industrial applications.
Posted by: andyo | December 21, 2008 7:40 AM
Nick #176,
Dude, you forgot to href your a.
Posted by: Brian Coughlan | December 21, 2008 7:45 AM
As for "Spooky action at a distance" - if FTL communication ever turns out to be possible, I'll go back in time and eat my grandfather!
I agree about the robotics, but that will only get you so far. The "spooky action at a distance" has got to have some comms potential, it's just a question of working out the details. Seperate the entangled particles, get one to Mars and measure the local one for changes. Haven't you ever heard of Heisenberg Compensators? Although I'll grant you, I'm far from an expert. Still I think there are enough unknowns in quantum physics to allow for some wide ranging speculation:-)
As for space elevators ... damn you Gotts ... must you ruin everything?
Posted by: Moses | December 21, 2008 7:50 AM
It's because you don't get it. Billy Graham, who is every bit as bad, and anti-Semitic to-boot, is a cultural icon and his ideas, odious and disgusting as they are, are mainstreamed and he's held up as a paragon of virtue, despite the fact he's a fucking hateful troll.
The economy will recover faster from this crap than society will from the mainstreaming of Warren's hate through legitimizing Warren. Which Obama has done twice. First, by going to him to answer his ambush questions. Second, after getting ill-treated by an intolerant religious zealot, to invite him to give the invocation at his Inauguration.
What's next, the KKK sitting at his right hand in the "spirit of inclusion?" Because Warren is the fundy equivalent of a Grand High Wizard.
Posted by: Brian Coughlan | December 21, 2008 8:03 AM
What's next, the KKK sitting at his right hand in the "spirit of inclusion?" Because Warren is the fundy equivalent of a Grand High Wizard.
Yet roughly 30% of the American electorate are on the exact same page as Warren. So, your concern for this drivel being part of the mainstream is a little overdue. About 30 years too late.
Obama has made a good move with some potential to expand his base, by splitting the religious right. Even if he just manages to shave off a few percentage points, perhaps transfer the right wing focus from gay rights, abortion and sex education to something productive like poverty eradication, it will be a massive win.
This move should reassure us that an intelligent and capable politician is in charge, not unleash a torrent of whining.
God ... I'm so incredibly rational.
Posted by: andyo | December 21, 2008 8:14 AM
That's exactly what can't be done in principle, isn't it?
Although not for communication, Brian Greene explains in The Fabric of the Cosmos (IIRC), how physicists have "teleported" one particle by "riding" on entangled ones. Long time since I read it, but that's a wonderful read, if you haven't. Looking at your interests, that's the first book I'd recommend (Maybe do a double-feature with The Elegant Universe).
Posted by: silkworm | December 21, 2008 8:17 AM
Obama's choice of Arne Duncan as Secretary of Education is disastrous for America. Duncan's plan to corporatize public education will destroy it.
Posted by: Twin-Skies | December 21, 2008 8:20 AM
@Global Warming Is A Scam
I live in a country that has been hit with four times the normal amount of typhoons that we normally expected in a year for the last three years.
So please, stop pretending not to be aware just because global warming's effects have not hit your home yet.
Posted by: Brian Coughlan | December 21, 2008 8:20 AM
That's exactly what can't be done in principle, isn't it?
Well. Yes. But a fellow can dream can't he? Especially when the discussion concerns an area where we only have a vague notion of what is actually going on.
Thanks for the book recommendations:-)
Posted by: Twin-Skies | December 21, 2008 8:24 AM
@Nick Gotts
IIRC, the recent UN Poznan convention regarding the Kyoto Protocol showed that several of the Protocol's Annex 1 countries were vying for a unified Cap-and-Trade system.
Posted by: Brian Coughlan | December 21, 2008 8:30 AM
IIRC, the recent UN Poznan convention regarding the Kyoto Protocol showed that several of the Protocol's Annex 1 countries were vying for a unified Cap-and-Trade system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emission_Trading_SchemeThe EU already has this on the road, the US just needs to join.
Posted by: NewEnglandBob | December 21, 2008 8:38 AM
I have to laugh and laugh at the troll named "Global Warming Is A Scam".
He/she/it has not given one fact yet in many posts. Not one bit of evidence to support its claim.
Just bashing of others.
He/she/it wants attention, like a two-year old child.
Ok, we gave you attention, so go take your nap now.
Posted by: Marc Abian | December 21, 2008 8:38 AM
One of the most annoying things is the disingenuous groups funded by oil companies to manufacture controversy. My hope for humanity took a bit of a blow after finding that out.
Posted by: Anonymouse | December 21, 2008 8:50 AM
Brian Coughlan @ #178
Sadly, real life is more complicated than Star Trek.In real life, you'll have to phone back to the other guys at Earth, asking them what they got from their measurement, to interpret the result you got from the entangled particle at Mars. So no FTL there. Cf. "No communication theorem", it's not a small detail to work around.
Posted by: WCG | December 21, 2008 8:58 AM
I don't see the point about going around and around with a global warming denier - again! - but more importantly, I still haven't heard why Salazar is so bad.
I'm serious. Could we get a few more details here? I don't know much about the guy, but the little I've heard seems to be favorable. So what's the big problem with Ken Salazar?
I've been very impressed with the rest of Obama's cabinet (especially since, you know, he did promise to bring the country together, to avoid intense partisanship,... and to put Republicans into his cabinet). Yeah, I don't like the Warren thing. I wish he'd skipped the religious mumbo jumbo at the inauguration altogether. But come on! This is like getting the best meal of your life, then bitching because you don't like the parsley garnish on the appetizer.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 21, 2008 9:01 AM
@silkworm
While I can appreciate and understand your concerns about Duncan, he is not a corporate shill, has no agenda to privatize and is a strong supporter of a public school system. He does worry some union members, although he has many who support him, because he believes that tenure should not be an impenetrable shield for incompetent teachers. He would prefer the unions take the lead in a producing a solution. He is definitely not a teacher's union buster.
The essay at Truthout which you seem to have read IMO is a bit alarmist while presenting some interesting observations.
http://www.truthout.org/121708R
For a more measured opinion I suggest you read:
http://educationpolicyblog.blogspot.com/2008/12/what-arne-duncan-means-for-educational.html
At any rate, Duncan and Obama will not destroy public education.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 21, 2008 9:30 AM
andyo@177,
Thanks, so I did. Here's the URL:
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/26/2251258
Posted by: Epikt | December 21, 2008 9:30 AM
SoMG:
Steve Chu's brother Gil was my physics TA sophomore year. He was bright, an excellent teacher, and committed to seeing that we all understood the material; a fundamentally decent human, and probably the best TA I had. This is perhaps a meaningless statement, but if Steven is anything like Gil, it could be a very good appointment indeed.
It's been argued that he may not have the political experience to be effective, but, as you say, I don't think you can get to be the head of a national lab without being politically savvy. So, again, I'm optimistic.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 21, 2008 9:40 AM
Twin-Skies@185, Brian Coughlan@186,
Unfortunately the EU experience suggests cap-and-trade (which is a carbon-trading scheme) is very vulnerable to corporate capture: the current scheme has ended up handing out windfall profits to the main polluters, because permits were given away. It's possible such a scheme can be made to work, and I understand US experience with a scheme to tackle acid rain has been successful; but I'm sure it won't be enough. We also need to direct investment on a huge scale into energy conservation, low-emission energy production, forest conservation, low-till agriculture... - and this needs to be internationally planned and coordinated, as the infrastructure requirements for different approaches would compete for resources.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 10:46 AM
At least I am upfront about my political leanings, unlike you Warmistas. I'm willing to bet that you are a big-government socialist who sees more government as the answer to every problem, as your "denialist" crap indicates.
"Anthropogenic global warming" is NOT a "fact"; it is a wet dream of far-left liberals such as yourself to justify more government intrusion into people's lives. Tell me, Nicky, what have governments accomplished in terms of dealing with environmental problems.
That's what I thought.
Yes, they are. Points such as the Medieval warming period and the fact that there has been no warming for the past decade. Inconvenient truths to a fully-indoctrinated Warmista, I suppose.
Wrong. Since Global Warmism is a religion, it is what most closely parallels creationism. And, of course, you just had to deal the "denialism" card, with its association with Holocaust denial (which you will very disingenuously deny doing), from the bottom of the deck.
Since the IPCC is a division of the UN, and the UN consists mostly of anti-American partisan political hacks, yes of course they are ideologically motivated. Duh! As to liars, your hero "Dr." James Hansen has already admitted to being one.
Interesting. First you claim that we have no research, then you claim that we are "funded by far right foundations". Funded for what? Why, research, of course! Naturally, you make no mention of far left foundations like those operated by the likes of George Soros which, along with governments, spend billions on "climate change" "research". But why let a few small details like facts get in the way of a good Warmista rant?
Experts chosen by the far-left Useless Nations, of course, whose conclusions have been pre-ordained by the Oracles of Global Warmism. As for "peer review", I have just one word: SOKAL.
I love it!!! George Bush says something; therefore it absolutely, positively MUST be true. I guess you also believe that WMD were found in Iraq, that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, that Iraq attempted to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger and that waterboarding is not torture! Talk about deluded!
Nicky's definition of "liar":
"Anyone who does not march in lock-step with the drumbeat of my far-left Warmista agenda."
I do have one question for all of you Warm-mongers, however. What is the "ideal" global temperature for our planet? Within 3 degrees Celsius will be fine. Justify your answer.
PZ Myers has in the past linked to the Discovery Institute and WorldNet Daily. I guess, in your world, that means that he endorses the views expressed by said organizations.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 21, 2008 10:51 AM
Gee whiz, no links to any data to back up your illogical assertions. You cannot be a scientist, since if you were, you would understand that that would absolutely be required. Just another know-nothing quack in the wind.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 10:54 AM
No links? You mean, like you just did? I guess you aren't a scientist either.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 21, 2008 10:59 AM
Ok, answer Kel's repeated question as to your credentials. Mine are Ph.D. in ChemIstry with 30+ years experience in academia and industry.
By the way, I made no factual claims other to your previously exposed quackery. Ergo, no references were needed. You made claims. Either back them up or shut up.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 11:02 AM
Finally, some honesty for a Warmista. Thank-you for your candor, Red!
Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 21, 2008 11:05 AM
GWIAS,
You moron, Sokal published his infamous paper in a journal that had NO peer review.
Sokal Affair
Posted by: Svetogorsk | December 21, 2008 11:11 AM
Sadly, Melanie Phillips hasn't (yet) blown a gasket about Obama's appointments (she's one of the shrillest opponents of the climate change consensus on my side of the Atlantic), but I thought you'd be glad to hear that she's just been voted the fifth most ludicrous person in Britain by readers of the Independent on Sunday.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 21, 2008 11:14 AM
Ah, the candor of denialist, lie, lie lie, quote mine (lie), lie. When are you going to tell any truth and show evidence to back you up?
And you still haven't answered Kel's question as to your background. PZ, please ban this troll if he doesn't present his credentials.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 11:18 AM
Yes, because we cannot tolerate dissent from our Officially Sanctioned Talking PointsTM
Please answer my question about the "ideal" temperature of the planet.
Posted by: mus | December 21, 2008 11:20 AM
Diane G @ #49: mus @ #15: may I copy your post to another forum I'm on
Of course! most of it actually isn't my own writing anyway :P
BTW, if you want to see the posts I took the quotes from, see here: http://tinyurl.com/9snemw and here: http://tinyurl.com/9xly8p. They're both at the bottom of the page.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 21, 2008 11:21 AM
Grow up. Seriously. The use of your cute little names exposes not only you intellect but your maturity.
You know good damn well what scientific consensus means.
Do you deny evolution as well?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 21, 2008 11:23 AM
you = your
typos for the win
Posted by: Enshoku | December 21, 2008 11:24 AM
overly silly labels for people...
link to real climate...
more bite and less actual response in each post...
passive aggressive behavior...
invoking something to do with Hitler or Nazism...
putting "blah blah blah" in place of some peoples post...
guys, leave the little troll alone pl0x, and by troll I of course mean:"people who use the phrase 'Failure to march in lock-step with the drumbeat of my far-left warmista agenda' without laughing"
...then again, he probably is.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 11:24 AM
Yes, because we cannot tolerate dissent from our Officially Sanctioned Talking PointsTM
Please answer my question about the "ideal" temperature of the planet.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 21, 2008 11:26 AM
Poor GSIAS, must not be anything more than an ignorant RW sockpuppet. Otherwise, he would be able to handle simple things like giving us his background. Must not be on their official denial answer sheet.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 11:40 AM
I have grown up. As such, I have left childish concepts like religion (including global warmism) behind. You might want to try doing the same. I certainly have exposed my intellect (wrt its superiority to that of the average warmista), and my maturity is evidenced by the fact that I don't go around screeching "The sky is falling!" 24X7.
But you keep dodging my request to provide a definition of the term, indicating that you DO NOT KNOW what it means.
As I've already said, I don't "deny" evolution because there exists a wealth of scientific evidence to support it. Not so with faith-based beliefs like Christianity, Islam and Global Warmism.
Red's definition of "sockpuppet":
"Anyone who does not march in lock-step with the drumbeat of my far-left Warmista agenda."
I have the same background as this rather shrill individual but, since he is on your side, I don't expect you to whine about it in his case. Typical.
Posted by: Svetogorsk | December 21, 2008 11:47 AM
As I've already said, I don't "deny" evolution because there exists a wealth of scientific evidence to support it. Not so with faith-based beliefs like Christianity, Islam and Global Warmism.
In which case you'll have no problem taking comment #172 apart, sentence by sentence, and providing peer-reviewed evidence in support of your forensic demolition job.
And he's insulted you into the bargain, so you have every motivation for hammering him into the ground with your superior scientific knowledge - frankly, I don't know what's stopping you.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 21, 2008 11:48 AM
At least I am upfront about my political leanings, unlike you Warmistas. I'm willing to bet that you are a big-government socialist - GWIAS the halfwit
Where have you been "upfront"? Even now you do not identify your political views. Yes, I'm a socialist, but the great majority of those acknowledging the reality of AGW are not. Nor do I see government action as the solution to every problem.
Tell me, Nicky, what have governments accomplished in terms of dealing with environmental problems. - GWIAS the liar
You're really making it too easy for me here, it's like refuting creobots:
1)Clean Air Acts (before the first of these in the UK, in 1952 IIRC, thousands of people died every year from the effects of smog in cities.
2) Cleaning up rivers. We now have salmon back in the Thames (and many other rivers) due to regulations preventing industrial waste and raw sewage being pumped into them.
3) Controlling acid rain. In the US, this was done by introducing a cap-and-trade system.
4) Forcing the removal of lead from petrol, thus preventing childhood brain-damage.
5) Systems of national parks in many countries, protecting natural environments from destruction.
6) The Montreal Protocol, phasing out the production of CFCs and other stratospheric-ozone depleting chemicals. Since which, the ozone hole has stopped getting larger, on the timescale predicted by scientists at the time.
I could go on pretty much indefinitely, but that'll do for now.
there has been no warming for the past decade - GWIAS the halfwit
False. Measured as running averages over a number of years - the scientifically valid approach - warming has continued. See for example 2008 temperature summaries and spin. Only an ignoramus (such as yourself) would expect every year's surface temperatures to be hotter than the last.
Experts chosen by the far-left Useless Nations, of course, whose conclusions have been pre-ordained by the Oracles of Global Warmism. As for "peer review", I have just one word: SOKAL. - GWIAS the liar
Good grief what a moron. The experts are not chosen by the UN (which is of course not "far-left" - your paranoia is showing) but by the relevant working group of the IPCC, these groups themselves being composed of experts nominated by governments and other organisations. Where are these alleged "Oracles of Global Warmism?" Maybe they are in the appendices to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?
Sokal's hoax was played on Social Text, a non-peer reviewed journal of postmodernist blether, with as much relation to science as your burblings, you dimwit. Apparently, however, you reject peer-review, and therefore, science as a whole.
First you claim that we have no research, then you claim that we are "funded by far right foundations". Funded for what? - GWIAS the halfwit
Spreading lies and confusion of course. Point me to some of the research, if it's so extensive.
I love it!!! George Bush says something; therefore it absolutely, positively MUST be true. - GWIAS the liar
My point was simply that even you surely cannot identify George Bush as "far-left" - but maybe I've underestimated your lunacy, since you identify the billionaire financier George Soros as such. How about dealing with the other supporters of the scientific consensus I identified?
What is the "ideal" global temperature for our planet? - GWIAS the halfwit
What a stunningly stupid question. There is, of course, no such temperature. What is dangerous is rapid temperature change because human societies (and other lifeforms) are adapted to the current temperature. Anyhow, since, according to you, global warming isn't happening, what possible relevance has this question? That you ask it is clear evidence that you know damn well it is happening, and that human activities are responsible, and you're preparing the ground for a shift to the next reason to do nothing about it.
My definition of liar: one who lies habitually. Prototype example: GWIAS.
Finally - don't go out without your tinfoil hat, and look out for black helicopters. Once Obama's in office, they will surely be given free rein!
Posted by: Enshoku | December 21, 2008 11:50 AM
aww...don't be sad little troll...you could always head over to 4chan if the comments here dry up... or you could troll a climatologist forum that doesn't have very zealous mods...keep your options open, m'kay?
Posted by: CSue | December 21, 2008 11:54 AM
- ...Tell me, Nicky, what have governments accomplished in terms of dealing with environmental problems. -
Our government banned the use of lead in gasoline. There is now much less lead in our atmosphere, and therefore less in our bloodstreams, since we are inhaling less of it. Higher IQs for everybody! Government-mandated lead-free gasoline FTW.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 21, 2008 11:54 AM
GWIAS said "Interesting. First you claim that we have no research, then you claim that we are "funded by far right foundations". Funded for what? Why, research, of course! "
Still blowing odorous methane I see. You know they are funding propagandists who toe the wingnut line... paid shills like "Junk Science" liar Steven Mallloy. Even you aren't that stupid.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Junk_science
But then again you are a fundie capitalist denialist Libertarian just as I predicted and worship the Free Market God so maybe I shouldn't give you that much credit.
And don't bother excreting one of your non-answers to me because it will be void of any facts or substance and a waste of my time to even consider contemplating.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | December 21, 2008 11:55 AM
Right wing troll who objects to global warming for political rather than scientific reasons but pretends otherwise.
BTW, GWIAS, if your objections to global warming wasn't political, you wouldn't keep whining about "far left Warmistas" and making libertarian statements about government.
Posted by: Brian Coughlan | December 21, 2008 11:56 AM
Damn ... just when my outrageous claims were getting some attention.
Posted by: aratina | December 21, 2008 12:01 PM
I see too much apathy about Rick Warren in the threads. What happens if this invocation is more than just two minutes of gibberish? What if it is the stepping stone to Rick Warren's appointment to head Obama's cabinet level position for the Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships which he promised to create to save our planet and end poverty? (What a coincidence! Rick Warren stands for exactly those issues.) I don't think anyone expected Obama to give Rick Warren any part in the inauguration, especially not the very first word. Obama took full responsibility for placing Warren first at the inauguration. We need to act now to make certain that Obama never slips Warren into any seat of power ever again in the new administration.
Posted by: aratina | December 21, 2008 12:07 PM
Another thing, it amazes me that the same people who deny there is such a thing as global warming believe weather forecasts. Why believe the data from the same model in one instance but not in another? Sounds a lot like pick and choose biblical fundamentalism to me and quite ignorant.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 21, 2008 12:15 PM
aratina,
Point of information: weather models and climate models are entirely distinct, and work in different ways.
Posted by: Svetogorsk | December 21, 2008 12:21 PM
It's also well worth noting that the British Clean Air Act of 1956 was passed by a Conservative administration - hardly a cabal of extreme leftism.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 12:25 PM
And your evidence for this claim is:
[crickets]
Nick the liar: please show us where you have advocated for anything other than a government solution to a problem.
The "scientifically valid approach" according to those who have already reached the pre-determined conclusion that global warming will mean the end of the world as we know it, of course. You know, you really need to be more creative with your lies. Even Larry what's-his-name does a better job of lying than you do.
These "other organizations" being far-left foundations and groups of far left academics, of course.
No, I reject pseudo-science of the sort peddled by the IPCC. Way to entirely miss the point (not the first time, I'm sure).
Shorter Nicky:
Logic: UR doin it rong.
Then again, if, as you claim "there is no such temperature", then global warming is irrelevant, since by definition the temperature wouldn't matter. This is clear evidence that your ilk is preparing the ground for a shift to the next great scare / hoax.
Bush is a big-government tax-and-spend liberal who gave us trillions in debt, two costly wars, no child left behind,... Soros founded the far far left Daily Kos, which speaks for itself.
And of course, no evidence is presented to support this assertion. Why am I not surprised? Oh, right, you are a religionist.
The tinfoil hat store is sold out...too many visits by Warmista alarmists.
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 21, 2008 12:26 PM
Again? Excatly what seat of power has Obama already placed Warren in? If you're saying that his slot delivering the invocation is a position of power, I think you're way over-inflating the significance of this pick, and looking at it in the wrong light.
And I agree on the bad choices, but I'm waiting until the team kicks into action to level judgement. Obama has said again and again that it is not the individuals he appoints that set the agenda, but rather they are responsible for carrying out his agenda, and will be held accountable for doing so. As a military man, I understand his method here. It is always better to bring the leaders of your opposition close to you in an effort to work with them and foster an environment of cooperation. As for the suggestion that he should have brought in a different conservative-leaning pastor that aligns more with his stance on LGBT issues, even if they are lesser known, I believe that would defeat the purpose of his intention in picking Warren. He wanted to reach out to that constituency, and he knows that the best way to do so is to extend an olive branch of sorts to one of their prominent leaders in the hopes of bringing him, along with those who follow him, a little closer to being amenable to change and compromise. The one lynchpin that holds it all together is the fact that he is making the case that he expects his vision to be implemented, regardless of his subordinates' individual leanings.
He may prove me wrong, but I believe he has the capability to channel even the bad choices into the avenues that support his own agenda, especially with Rahm Emanuel as his CoS. And on top of that, providing he can successfully keep them in his lane of intent, the choices that seem bad now could very possibly turn out to be regarded as very politically smart, because if he succeeds with these choices, he will have brought the two parties that much closer together, and will have done it through his own force of will. He set out to prove that ideology and political party lines do not define our nation, and this is the perfect way to prove that point. All in all, I think people need to simply give it a little time and see how he and his team perform once they take office. It is fine to comment now on the potential efficacy of his choices, but until we see how he manages them and what directions he takes them in, it is all merely speculation. And since speculation is based heavily on past experience, it is particularly inapplicable here, because we are - in more ways than one - in uncharted political waters right now. Not only do we have the first African-American President-elect, but he is assembling a team so diverse, in more ways than one, in comparison to recent administrations that there really is nothing to compare it to looking back over the past 20+ years.
So in keeping with the campaign theme that won him the election, I'm holding out hope - albeit quite justified in my mind, in light of his intelligence and political savvy - that Obama will show us all that his way of assembling such a politically diverse team is light years better than the ideologically driven and homogenous ways of the administrations in the recent past.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 21, 2008 12:33 PM
brokensoldier, OM
Amen brother. I could only say that in a much less elegant manner.Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 21, 2008 12:36 PM
GWIAS has got to be one of the dumbest trolls we've gotten here in awhile, and that's saying something.
- He/she/it argues against the idea of global warming while having his/her/its name linked to a site supporting the idea.
- To argue against the peer review system GWIAS invokes the Sokal affair, in which a physicist published a ridiculous paper in a journal which had NO peer review process.
- Comment #210 shows GWIAS doesn't know how to link properly
- He/She/It actually wrote this:
Posted by: Svetogorsk | December 21, 2008 12:38 PM
GWIAS, we've all spotted the way you pre-emptively strip all substantive content from the posts you're pretending to fisk, and we've all noticed the lack of substantive content in your own posts, so I don't know why you're bothering - who are you trying to impress?
But do free to prove me wrong by fisking Nick's actual scientific assertions, once you've picked them up from your electronic cutting-room floor.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 12:42 PM
Posted by: CJ | December 21, 2008 12:44 PM
Giving Obama the benefit of the doubt on Salazar (which, not being a fan of Obama, I am somewhat hesitant to do), I'd like to think it was a mechanism for getting him out of the Senate as he clearly can be better controlled in a cabinet position.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 21, 2008 12:46 PM
Rox @#14 sez:
True in the same sense that shooting wolves from airplanes is not "about" causing extinction. The concern is for the consequences of the means, not for the intention of the ends. The BLM and USFS are indeed "tasked" with management of public lands, but the point is that these lands are public, and that the task is management for multiple use, including the conservation of endangered species and notable ecological communities. The perennial problem is that these agencies traditionally and nearly without exception give priority to extractive use for private profit, despite the expressed wishes of the public that owns the land in question. The concern about Salazar is that he will continue this tradition.
Mining is not intrinsically evil, but IMO (and the O of many others), ridiculous sops to private industry like the archaic 1872 mining law need to be abandoned in favor of a more fair balancing of extractive (and, sorry, often destructive) uses with longer-sighted considerations, including conservation of what little is left of natural-ish ecosystems.
Posted by: Nightshadequeen | December 21, 2008 12:46 PM
Dear Global Warming is a Scam:
Try La Nina. It tends to bring down the temp in the Americas a bit.
On the other hand, I live in Texas, and so far the forecast is 73 degree F on 25 Dec 2008.
And as for global warming evidence/problems:
Coral reef bleaching. Polar bear drowning. Increased storms. Melting permafrost releases methane, which contributes to even more global warming.
http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#Existence_of_a_scientific_consensus
http://www.ghgonline.org/evidence.htm
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/evidence/
http://www.earthscape.org/p1/sdv01/sdv01e.html
Dear Feynmaniac:
One of the things I've noticed is that richer people tend to discount global warming. (Disclaimer: This is ancedote, not fact). I'm guessing it's because they don't want to change their lifestyle. Also, I've noticed even scientists deny the vality of science when it comes to their personal beliefs. My father, who was born and raised in China, can't handle the slightest critism against acupuncture. The moment I say anything against it, he accuses me of being with Big Pharm.
Personally, I think this is evident among denialists of any sort. They typically know little to nothing in the field they wish to debunk. They rant on and on about conspircies in the other court. Finally, they never seem to offer up evidence.
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 21, 2008 12:48 PM
There is no longer any wiggle room in which one can intelligently deny that the planet is warming. The only such wiggle room that exists lies solely in the cause of said warming - which conservatives like Palin have already latched onto by saying that we either don't need to know what caused it, or that "liberal" assertions about it being caused by human activity are utterly misguided. (Though I wonder from where in her education she draws the requisite knowledge to accurately refute established planetary scientists in statements like that.)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4495463.stm
And for an even more detailed explanation as to how this proves the Earth is warming...
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=more-proof-of-global-warm
It is simple. To deny that our planet's temperature is increasing - and that further increases could adversely affect life on Earth - is to deny proven science. No more, no less.
Posted by: Joel | December 21, 2008 1:02 PM
Message to heterosexual supporters of Barack Obama
Telling us you don't think it's a big deal that a homophobic bigot has been invited to give the invocation at Barack Obama's inaugeration?
Because Barack Obama has got to reach out to those homophobic, sexist, racist evangelical Christians. And it's not a big deal when in doing so he insults LGBT people.
What else are we good for, if not to be the group that people of all religions can insult? It's not as if Obama needs to treat LGBT people with any respect: the sane ones know he's better than any Republican alternative, the insane ones suck John Hagee's dick in airport restrooms and thank him for the privilege.
http://jesurgislac.wordpress.com/2008/12/19/message-to-heterosexual-supporters-of-barack-obama/
Posted by: mayhempix | December 21, 2008 1:08 PM
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 21, 2008 12:33 PM
brokensoldier, OM
-"So in keeping with the campaign theme that won him the election, I'm holding out hope - albeit quite justified in my mind, in light of his intelligence and political savvy - that Obama will show us all that his way of assembling such a politically diverse team is light years better than the ideologically driven and homogenous ways of the administrations in the recent past."
--"Amen brother. I could only say that in a much less elegant manner."
My position exactly.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 21, 2008 1:10 PM
And your evidence for this claim [that the vast majority of those recognising AGW are not socialists] is - GWIAS the liar
Socialism is, as I'm all too aware, a minority political view. I've already given you a list of organisations and people who have issued statements in support of the scientific consensus, which you have not challenged. Is the AAAS stuffed with socialists? The American Association of Geographers? The national scientific associations of Japan, France, Italy, Germany etc? These representatives of big business?
Nick the liar: please show us where you have advocated for anything other than a government solution to a problem. - GWIAS the liar
I couldn't give a damn whether a liar like you believes me or not.
The "scientifically valid approach" according to those who have already reached the pre-determined conclusion that global warming will mean the end of the world as we know it, of course. - GWIAS the liar
No, it's a simple matter of statistics. When you have a noisy time-series, you can't identify trends from too few items in the series. The scientific consensus is that in climatic time-series, you need to look at periods of about 30 years to identify a trend reliably. The last decade, as it happens, includes 7 or 8 of the 10 warmest years ever recorded.
These "other organizations" being far-left foundations and groups of far left academics, of course. GWIAS the liar
You clearly regard anyone who accepts the scientific consensus on AGW as "far-left". This is what's called an "armoured dogmatism".
No, I reject pseudo-science of the sort peddled by the IPCC. - GWIAS the liar
All the science referenced in IPCC reports is peer-reviewed. In a previous piece of garbage, you said: 'As for "peer review", I have just one word: SOKAL.' Of course you were too ignorant to know that Sokal's hoax was perpetrated on a non-peer-reviewed journal, but the clear implication is that you reject peer review and hence, as I said, science as a whole - which you are now pretending you do not. This, of course, will do as just one of the many pieces of evidence that you are, indeed, a barefaced liar.
Then again, if, as you claim "there is no such temperature", then global warming is irrelevant, since by definition the temperature wouldn't matter. - GWIAS the liar
Even you're not quite this stupid. As I said, the problem is rapid temperature change. Got that?
Bush is a big-government tax-and-spend liberal
Bwaw-haw-haaaaw! So I did underestimate your lunacy. What a fruitcake!
The tinfoil hat store is sold out - GWIAS the liar
So you did go looking for one, evidently. I suggest you make your own. The black helicopters are coming for you!
Posted by: mayhempix | December 21, 2008 1:17 PM
@Joel
Ummm Joel...
You are aware that Obama nominated openly lesbian Nancy Sutley as the chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. That makes her the President's top advisor on all environmental issues facing the country.
If that doesn't give you a clue to his bigger agenda and strategies then I don't know what to tell you. Please read some perceptions on my post #173 as to why Obama asked Warren.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | December 21, 2008 1:19 PM
Joel,
None of us are happy about Warren giving a five minute prayer at the inauguration. The guy's a right-wing, anti-abortion, homophobic christard. Many of us at this particular website are annoyed and even angered that there's an invocation at all, no matter who would be giving it.
However, after Warren gives his invocation, then what? He hangs around in the background until the ceremony's over. He gets a free meal and a dance with the missus. Next morning he gets on a plane and goes back to Bumfuck, Mississippi or wherever his home is. He's not setting GLBT national policy, he's not camped out in Obama's front office, he's not whispering in Obama's ear about those nasty queers. In short, he's not a big deal.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | December 21, 2008 1:21 PM
Joel,
None of us are happy about Warren giving a five minute prayer at the inauguration. The guy's a right-wing, anti-abortion, homophobic christard. Many of us at this particular website are annoyed and even angered that there's an invocation at all, no matter who would be giving it.
However, after Warren gives his invocation, then what? He hangs around in the background until the ceremony's over. He gets a free meal and a dance with the missus. Next morning he gets on a plane and goes back to Bumfuck, Mississippi or wherever his home is. He's not setting GLBT national policy, he's not camped out in Obama's front office, he's not whispering in Obama's ear about those nasty queers. In short, he's not a big deal.
Posted by: Joel | December 21, 2008 1:33 PM
Obama personally opposes equality for gay men and women, Obama will not repeal don't ask don't tell, Obama considers a gay band marching at his inauguration a fitting symbol of his support of gay rights and Rick Warren a fitting symbol of his support of fundamental Christianity.
Hmmm...fine.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 1:33 PM
Nice cop-out, Nick the Liar.
There's that "scientific consensus" nonsense again. Please define this term and then prove that one exists with respect to "global warming".
30 years is the chosen time frame because it supports your pre-determined conclusions.
The last decade most certainly does not contain "7 or 8 of the 10 warmest years ever on record", since the world has been cooling since 1998.
Define "scientific". Define "consensus". I regard as far-left anyone who advocates ever-increasing government intrusion into my private life based on long-ago-debunked pseudo-science as being far-left. This is what's called "realism". I explicitly reject all dogma of the Church of Climate Change.
A remedial course in logic is required for Nick.
But if what it is changing to is irrelevant, then why worry about the change at all? Oh, that's right. We've got research grants to maintain. Wouldn't want to actually do anything productive with all of that funding. Besides, unemployment sucks.
No, I called the store. They said some guy named Nick came and bought out their entire supply for all of his buddies at the IPCC.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 21, 2008 1:40 PM
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam anytime
Blah blah blah blah blah pthllllllTTTTttttttppppPPPPPTTTTTTHHHHHH!!!!! blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah pthllllllTTTTttttttppppPPPPPTTTTTTHHHHHH!!!!blah blah blah blah blahpthllllllTTTTttttttppppPPPPPTTTTTTHHHHHH!!!! blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah pthllllllTTTTttttttppppPPPPPTTTTTTHHHHHH!!!!blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah pthllllllTTTTttttttppppPPPPPTTTTTTHHHHHH!!!!blah blah blah blah blah blah blah pthllllllTTTTttttttppppPPPPPTTTTTTHHHHHH!!!!blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah pthllllllTTTTttttttppppPPPPPTTTTTTHHHHHH!!!!blah pthllllllTTTTttttttppppPPPPPTTTTTTHHHHHH!!!!blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah pthllllllTTTTttttttppppPPPPPTTTTTTHHHHHH!!!!blah blah blah blah blah blahpthllllllTTTTttttttppppPPPPPTTTTTTHHHHHH!!!! blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blahpthllllllTTTTttttttppppPPPPPTTTTTTHHHHHH!!!
A perpetual methane machine.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 21, 2008 1:45 PM
'Tis Himself
I disagree: I think the deliberate insult to the LGBT community, and indeed to atheists and non-fundie Christians, is important; and there should be as much fuss as possible made about it. If people don't tell Obama when they disapprove of something he's done, there is no pressure on him not to do similar things, or worse, again. And while it's true he knows sane atheists/libruls/LGBTs aren't going to vote Rethuglican in 2012, he doesn't know they won't vote for a third party, stay at home, or just not donate and volunteer. Given the economic situation, he's likely to be looking at a tough contest then, and he'll need the active support of those who came out for him this year.
BTW: what's Matt Nisbet's take on this? I haven't checked his blog, but I think I can guess.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 21, 2008 1:48 PM
As a practical suggestion, how about chucking some shoes at Warren during his invocation? Or would the chuckers be too likely to be shot?
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 1:49 PM
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 21, 2008 1:51 PM
Sorry, mayhempix@239, that's way too rational and coherent to pass as anything GWIAS might produce.
Posted by: Svetogorsk | December 21, 2008 1:52 PM
Define "scientific". Define "consensus". I regard as far-left anyone who advocates ever-increasing government intrusion into my private life based on long-ago-debunked pseudo-science as being far-left.
When exactly was this "pseudo-science" debunked, and by whom?
Posted by: mayhempix | December 21, 2008 1:57 PM
"Obama personally opposes equality for gay men and women."
-Not true. Obama supports complete civil equalities for gay men and women. You must be referring to what some term as "traditional marriage". He does not support that as an issue that should be addressed at this time. He is a pragmatist and picks and chooses his battles. Not all frontline issues can be what you feel is paramount.
"Obama will not repeal don't ask don't tell."
-Again not true. Please show proof of your statement. Again, just because it is not currently a frontline issue does not mean he will not work to repeal it.
"Obama considers a gay band marching at his inauguration a fitting symbol of his support of gay rights."
Is there someting wrong or derogatory about a gay band marching at the inauguration? As I pointed out earlier he appointed a lesbian to a major position in his administration. Don't you consider that "a fitting symbol of his support of gay rights?"
"...and Rick Warren a fitting symbol of his support of fundamental Christianity."
Please explain how that means he supports fundamental Christianity. He has consistently said he disagrees with Warren's positions on homosexuality and abortion.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | December 21, 2008 1:57 PM
Nick,
Atheists 30% of the American population. Given the choice of not pissing off one of these groups, which one will a savvy politician cater to?
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 1:57 PM
So Nicky ol' girl, what's the optimal temperature of the planet? Or are you going to cop out on me again?
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 21, 2008 1:59 PM
Posted by: Joel | December 21, 2008 1:33 PM
If appointing an openly lesbian woman to a top post and openly stating his support for the LBGT community (check his response to these criticisms over his Warren pick, if you don't believe it - which, might I add, is an enormously progressive step considering that no recent President has ever even come close to announcing such open support) doesn't show you that he is far more motivated to achieve increased equality for gay men and women than any President before him, then your mind will apparently never be changed on this matter unless Obama simply aligns his policy decisions completely with your views and the views of your community. You should be warned, though, that kind of submission to individual interests is what got our country in the situation we're in now. To simply switch the monopoly on influence and governmental action from the right to the left, while repeating the Republicans' mistake of shutting out and/ or marginalizing dissident voices would only swing the nation right along the same pendulum of division and polarization. Obama's whole point is that all viewpoints - right, left, or otherwise - are necessarily going to have to come towards each other in compromise if we are ever going to truly unite the country, in the lasting sense of the word.
In short, Obama presents you with a fantastic opportunity for advancing the needs and concerns of your community, no matter which community or group that may be, because he is attempting to govern on a principle of universal equality for all Americans. Pragmatism will tell you that he likely will not be 100% successful in achieving this in his one or possibly two terms, but he is making an overt and obvious attempt at doing so, which is much more than anyone can say for most our Presidents in the past. What that means is that previously ignored groups will certainly have a larger voice. What that does not mean is that the previously dominant conservative constituency will have their voice taken away. And in my humble opinion, that is exactly the way it should be.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | December 21, 2008 2:01 PM
Damn, my post #246 got hammered because I used the less than sign. Let me try it again:
Atheists less than 10% of the American population. GLBT less than 10% of the American population. The total doesn't even come close to less than 20% because the two groups overlap. Fundamentalists greater than 30% of the American population. Given the choice of not pissing off one of these groups, which one will a savvy politician cater to?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 21, 2008 2:01 PM
Why do you keep copping out on giving us your credentials? Oh, that right, you don't have any, just like your not having a point.Posted by: mayhempix | December 21, 2008 2:01 PM
@Nick Gotts
"Sorry, mayhempix@239, that's way too rational and coherent to pass as anything GWIAS might produce."
Yeah, you're right.
But he took the troll bait. It's something he clearly understands and can relate to...
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 2:04 PM
I already answered that one. Please make an effort to keep up. Also work on your reading comprehension. Remedial courses are available at your local elementary school.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 21, 2008 2:06 PM
"...how about chucking some shoes at Warren during his invocation?"
We can start a shoe throwing collection drive and call it:
Saving Soles For Rick Warren
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 21, 2008 2:10 PM
Oh, thats right, they are so small nobody can find them. Just like your science, or lack thereof. Still waiting for you to show scientific evidence backing up your position. Oh, yes, there is none, so you have to make it up as you go along.Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 2:21 PM
Talking about your genitalia, are you?
So tell me, why is it that when some blowhard like computer scientist Tim Lambert or college drop-out / failed comedian Ed Brayton prattles on about "global warming", no one ever questions him about his "qualifications"? Is it because qualifications don't matter as long as you toe the Warmista party line?
Posted by: Arnosium Upinarum | December 21, 2008 2:31 PM
The Salazar pick bugs me. A lot. The "symbolic pick" of the other schmuck is orders of magnitude more trivial and not worth the symbolic spit required to read to one's self about it.
The science picks are all very good...but it will still take an awful lot of doing in many cases to dig out from under a stinking heap of evangelistism-spiked bureaucratic dysfunction.
They're going to need some major heavy equipment to pry science loose from many of the bean-counter types that are still employed.
Posted by: roadrider | December 21, 2008 2:38 PM
NickGotts@240
Well said.
I find the "dear leader" syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Jong-il) displayed by the Obama-trons in this incident to be quite disturbing. Their thinking seems to be:
Rule #1: Obama is so much smarter than everyone and he's incapable of making mistakes or using poor judgment.
Rule #2: If Obama ever DOES make a mistake or use poor judgment see Rule #1.
As for us non-believers, we should be using this issue to point out that a religious "invocation" and a "benediction" have about as much place in the Presidential inaugural as an appearance by a soothsayer or an astrologer and both should be banned as a violation of church/state separation. I sent such a message to Obama's change.gov site.
To those claiming that this is no big deal since Warren is not being given an official position in the new administration (sorry, I'm too lazy to look up the numbers of your posts) - I would say 'you mean not yet'.
I voted for Obama (reluctantly) mostly because he was not McCain. He's never been my idea of a progressive and I think this whole vacuous past-partisan stance of his is pure drivel that he will have to abandon (I fervently hope) the moment he tries to do something substantive that the right-wingers are opposed to. I don't trust him any more than I trusted Bush (especially after his FISA flip-flop and his announcement that he will continue Bush's faith-based social initiatives).
One point I agree with the Obama-trons on is that we don't want a Democratic version of Bush administration. However, I interpret that to mean that Obama and the spineless Democratic Congressional leaders will have to watched carefully and held accountable by the people. "Dear leader is always right" is not a helpful approach.
Posted by: Svetogorsk | December 21, 2008 2:41 PM
I repeat: when was this "pseudo-science" debunked, and by whom?
Come on, GWIAS - you've got loads of people hanging on your every word, so why are you missing every opportunity to rub our faces in our credulous ignorance? Insults don't work. Peer-reviewed evidence demolishing the consensus most certainly does - so why so coy?
Posted by: NewEnglandBob | December 21, 2008 2:51 PM
I am still laughing and laughing at the troll named "Global Warming Is A Scam".
He/she/it has still not given one fact yet in many posts. Not one bit of evidence to support its claim.
Just bashing of others. A real low life.
He/she/it still craves attention, like a two-year old child.
So pathetic. Time to grow up.
Ok, we gave you attention, so go take your nap now.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 21, 2008 2:53 PM
GWIAS has no science to back him up and he knows it. He has no ability to use any argument from authority as he has none. So his sole recourse is to try to mock us. After all the creobots and theobots, this AAGWbot is just pathetic. GWIAS, until you cite the peer reviewed literature to back up your arguments, the only scam being run here is being run by you. We will listen, but you have to present peer reviewed evidence.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 21, 2008 2:58 PM
The last decade most certainly does not contain "7 or 8 of the 10 warmest years ever on record", since the world has been cooling since 1998. - GWIAS the Liar
Yes it does. GISTEMP, HadCRU and NCDC all show this. 1998 was an exceptional year because of an unusually intense ENSO event, but all the years since then have been very warm by historical standards.
Define "scientific". Define "consensus". GWIAS the weaseler
When someone resorts to demanding definitions of well-understood terms, you know they've lost the argument. "Scientific" describes the procedures and institutions used by science to detect error and allow research to build on what has gone before: peer-reviewed journals and grant applications, scientific conferences, scientific societies, university departments and research institutes. In this context, a "consensus" exists when the vast majority of scientists in a particular field of study, such as climate science, agree that a question has been settled to a degree that means scientific debate can and should move on, or concentrate on refinement of the generally accepted findings. In the case of AGW, not only does the vast bulk of peer-reviewed papers accept its reality, but because of the politically-inspired denialism you exemplify, it is unusually clear that such a consensus exists, because the national scientific societies of all the main countries producing scientific work, the editors of the most important journals, and the major scientific associations of the USA - the pre-eminent scientific country - have all declared that the evidence for AGW is clear.
But if what it is changing to is irrelevant, then why worry about the change at all? GWIAS the moron
OK, I was wrong - you really are that stupid. Look you moron, if temperatures change rapidly, in either direction, crops will not grow well where they grew before, new pests and diseases will attack them, buildings, transport infrastructure etc. will not be well-adapted to the new temperatures, species will die out because they can't live in the new conditions. Additionally, patterns of rainfall will change, so that fresh water will not be available where people have been used to it being available. In the case of significant warming, glaciers will melt (as is already happening), and the billions of people dependent on glacier-fed rivers will not have water. Rising sea-levels will make large coastal areas - where people are concentrated - uninhabitable. Of course if all these changes were to happen over thousands of years, adaptation would be feasible, which is why it is absurd to say that there is an optimum global temperature. When such changes happen over decades, adaptation will be incredibly expensive if possible at all, billions of people will be displaced, and governments are likely to try to seize land from neighbours to replace what is no longer usable, and to seek to divert the anger of their populations against domestic or foreign scapegoats.
long-ago-debunked pseudo-science - GWIAS the Liar
So when did this debunking happen and why has no-one but far-right fruitcakes like you (who think George Bush is a liberal - I'mn still chuckling over that one!) noticed? Where are all the peer-reviewed publications that have debunked AGW? Where are the scientific associations saying it's nonsense? You really are exactly like the creobots: lie, lie and lie again. I guess you think that if you tell the same lie enough times, it becomes true. Wrong. It just becomes more obvious what a barefaced liar you are.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 3:00 PM
Wow, Bob, no facts, no evidence, just bashiing of me, like a two-year old child.
Oh, I get it: you're projecting.
And, as I explained earlier, and as you are apparently too lazy to read, I did grow up, and in so doing, left religion, including "global warming", behind.
You're using that word again. I do not think you know what it means.
Posted by: Svetogorsk | December 21, 2008 3:06 PM
You're using that word again. I do not think you know what it means.
Assuming you're referring to the word "consensus", I'm very happy to go along with Nick's definition.
And in any case you know perfectly well what I mean, and I know perfectly well why you've dodged every single question asking you to back up your assertions with independently-checkable evidence - because you have no case whatsoever.
I repeat: you're welcome to prove me wrong, but the longer you continue to split trivial hairs, the more you reveal about how much you're worth listening to.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 21, 2008 3:07 PM
As a 30+ year working scientist who has been on both ends of peer review, I know exactly what it means, unlike a doofus with no scientific background. Peer reviewed or nothing. Put up or shut up.
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 21, 2008 3:08 PM
I'm afraid you've inflated the sense of importance I and a lot of others here hold concerning Obama. If you'll carefully go back and read just what I wrote, you'll see that my main reason for holding out on going for his jugular for his every step that I perceive to be outside my or my community's wishes is not that he is a "Dear Leader" or that I am an "Obama-tron" as you so derisively put it, but rather my restraint is based on one thing. He hasn't taken office yet. You can speculate on what this pick means or what that person may do under him, but until his administration kicks off and we see first-hand exactly how he manages those he has been appointing, then the speculation will be almost entirely without substance. And I also already explained why such speculation is far less effective in our current situation than it has been for other matters in the past.
And on another note, the conflation of agreement with Obama or restraint in critiquing his decisions prematurely with being obsessively infatuated with him and comparing him to Kim Jong-Il and his supporters to Jong-Il's oppressed populace fawning over his every move is simply a political tactic of stereotypical characterization of an entire opposition group using a caricature of only the most extreme elements of that opposition in order to marginalize them unjustifiably. It is a tactic that Karl Rove has honed to an art in recent history, and continuing the practice while simply switching targets doesn't move us forward at all.
And for you to call the concept of post-partisan politics vacuous astounds me. Unless you think this country is better off mired in the partisanship of the last few decades, post-partisan politics is an inevitable stop along the path of political progress. And the only way to get from one point to another is to simply take the first step. You can't wait for it to become popular before trying it out, or it will turn from a goal into a horizon we will never reach. I mean, would you have him simply be a partisan as opposed to trying to offer an example of what a post-partisan politician should be?
I do not fawn over Obama's every word. I don't believe him to be infallible, omnipotent, or any other of the wildly exaggerated characteristics his opponents accuse his supporters of believing. What I do see him as is a politician who is trying to move government in the direction we need to go in order to remain the most prosperous nation in the world. What I do see him as is a man who will try to do these things, and will inevitably be imperfect along the way. The question is whether or not his mistakes will be made in pursuit of the nation's interest, or in pursuit of his own. From all that we have seen so far, there isn't any behavior or pattern of such that suggests he will resort to latter over the former. But should that time come to pass when he does, he will receive no sympathy from me, just like any other politician. This is because I am not devoted to the improvement of a party or particular group of society. I am interested in those things that make our nation stand out in the world, and restoring and preserving those institutions and that benevolent global image. Though we have taken steps down the immoral and dark path of human rights and prisoner abuses, personal privacy and individual liberty invasions, and feeble federal responses to help those in need during disasters, our nation is not forever changed. If we completely cease to be a nation of open, tolerant debate, a nation of non-negotiable human freedom, and a nation who leads the world in the important issues of the day - all of them - then we will go through exactly the same thing every previous dominant civilization in the world has gone through before us. If we cease to be these things, our children and grandchildren will see a very different, and much less bright America than we live in now.
Posted by: Joel | December 21, 2008 3:44 PM
@ Brokensoldier, No, I don't see Obama as the most progressive President ever on the issue of gay rights.
I'm not sure who you are, I assume your name means that you are a veteran and possibly heterosexual. I was discharged from the Army almost 30 years ago for being gay and ineligible for re-enlistment, ever, basically for my immorality.
Why should I listen to yet one more person who enjoys rights I am currently denied tell me I need to be open to compromise and be willing to wait even one more minute? Why should I believe one more politician who supports my rights, but personally doesn't believe in them, and his opinion is informed by some God? Just what the eff does that mean anyway?
Obama is a master of doublespeak and gay rights is one issue where he plays both sides of the fence. Obama doesn't offer me a thing.
Posted by: Brian Coughlan | December 21, 2008 3:45 PM
"Dear leader is always right" is not a helpful approach.
True, but as it happens, Obama is almost certainly right in this instance, and for reasons that are rather obvious to anyone with a little political savvy.
If Obama doesn't withdraw the US from Iraq, doesn't close down Gitmo, doesn't convincingly invest in alternate energy and stem cell research ... well ... THEN, you'll have a case, and I'll be bitching and moaning right along with you.
However, for the next year or two, I'm just going to have to go with the judgement of the guy who has spent the last 2 years beating the most powerful political machines on the planet.
This was a good call, maybe even a great call. Not least because skeptics like yourself should be better equipped to see through the fluff than the constituency Obama is trying to influence through this decision.
Posted by: Rey Fox | December 21, 2008 3:48 PM
"ever-increasing government intrusion into my private life"
Exactly what intrusion are you referring to here? Higher standards for fuel economy in the car you drive? Or do you really think Gore et al. are breaking into your house and thumbing through your magazines? Surely this paranoia has some basis to it.
Posted by: Joel | December 21, 2008 3:54 PM
Brokensoldier, the fact that you don't recognize that there has been no partisianship politics the past few decades leads me to wonder just where the hell you've been.
Since the Reagan era we've been living under conservative administrations whose opposition caves at every available opportunity. Even when we've had Democratic administrations, they've had to out conservative the conservatives.
Obama's post-partisian politics is just another word for triangulation.
Posted by: William Mattsson | December 21, 2008 4:02 PM
PZ: One other appointment which should trouble you considerably is Obama's choice to be Sect. of Ed., one Arne Duncan. This guy is currently operating the Chicago Public School District as if it was a for-profit corporation, where the bottom line - student proficiency - can be improved by standardized testing and curriculum imposed by the superintendent's office with no interference by parents, teachers and other distractions. He is also a firm believer in "Zero Tolerance," a scheme which treats children like third-time criminal offenders - for their first misstep. Truthout has an excellent overview of this latest assault on public education by the neoliberals and their ilk: the religious right, the Republican right wing, and all the privatization schemers who want to cash in on public funds - and who absolutely abhor teacher's unions. The article is by Henry A. Giroux and Kenneth Saltman, posted in the Perspective section on Wednesday, Dec. 17, 2008.
Will. M.
Posted by: Louis | December 21, 2008 4:03 PM
Hmmm GWAIS strikes me as very Bobby O'Brian-esque.
I'm guessing we have a familiar chum on our hands here.
Louis
Posted by: GaryB | December 21, 2008 4:08 PM
Global Warming Is A Scam
It means the majority. Simple numbers. There are more scientists engaged in research and publishing papers that accept AGW than doubt it. The consensus is real, despite your desires.
30 years was chosen as a time that successfully accounts for noise. It was chosen out of necessity. Just because every decision you make is based on your emotional state does not mean everyone else does likewise.
Aside from your poor logic - it is very easy to have 7 or 8 of the last 10 be among the warmest despite a downward trend - the information can be easily looked up.
Here you go, from warmest to coolest, the top 10 years.
# 1998 0.52
# 2005 0.48
# 2003 0.46
# 2002 0.46
# 2004 0.43
# 2006 0.42
# 2007(Jan-Nov) 0.41
# 2001 0.40
# 1997 0.36
# 1995 0.28
I count 7. How about you?
If you have to ask for definitions for science and consensus you have come here completely unprepared to debate the issue.
I take it you so value your freedom from government that you are willing to delude yourself into ignoring a solid science. You sound pretty much like every creationist I've encountered who doesn't want science intruding on his/her bit of pseudo-reality.
Posted by: Nigel | December 21, 2008 4:08 PM
Perhaps more importantly, in more recent times Varmus has been a leading advocate of open access online science publishing, and the prime mover behind PloS. I like this appointment a lot!
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 4:09 PM
Where did you do that? When I asked you, all you did was turn it back on me. You are an intellectually-dishonest evasive liar. You've barely answered any question that anyone has presented, shown no evidence for your side, engaged in a rhetorical discussion and engaged in ad hominem attacks on anyone who disagrees with your point of view.Again I ask, what are your credentials, and what makes you think you know better than the vast majority of climatologists who have spent decades studying the data?
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 4:16 PM
GWIAS, if you go to PubMed and do a search for "Climate Change" there are 7470 peer reviewed articles on there. For "Global Warming", there are 4626 articles. That is the peer reviewed science on the matter, those are the articles you have do show are wrong.
http://www.pubmed.gov
Posted by: GaryB | December 21, 2008 4:18 PM
Nick Gotts:
Hit him again Nick, I think I saw him move.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 21, 2008 4:19 PM
Atheists less than 10% of the American population. GLBT less than 10% of the American population. The total doesn't even come close to less than 20% because the two groups overlap. Fundamentalists greater than 30% of the American population. Given the choice of not pissing off one of these groups, which one will a savvy politician cater to? - 'Tis Himself
That depends on what (s)he can hope to get - or has to lose - from each group. Obama is unlikely to get much support from fundies, under any circumstances. He received an extraordinary degree of support from those who passionately wanted him to win. He could lose that passionate support, converting it into lukewarm preference or indifference - and one of the best ways of doing that is to symbolically give them the finger, as he has done by choosing Warren. OK, as brokenSoldier says, he's not been inaugurated yet, and the real test will come once he is - but I don't think pissing off your core supporters is a good move politically. "New Labour" have consistently done that in the UK - and now the Tory party has finally found a leader with broad appeal, and stopped tearing itself apart over the EU, they have nothing to fall back on: the party is a rotting shell. Appealing to the persuadable centre ground (and for the most part the fundies are not part of it) is only one part of politics; mobilising your support is at least as vital.
I find the "dear leader" syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Jong-il) displayed by the Obama-trons in this incident to be quite disturbing. - roadrider
Roadrider, you approved my #240, but I can't return the compliment, at least as far as this quote is concerned. I have actually seen little if any unconditional support for Obama among the liberal or further left (admittedly I'm viewing the whole thing from Britain); and I've seen this kind of sneering almost exclusively from the right. However I do agree with you about "post-partisan" politics: politics is always partisan, and the left in the USA (and Europe) has over the past thirty years repeatedly compromised with the right, to be rewarded with a series of kicks in the teeth. Time to shift that Overton window - and that cannot be done by sucking up to homophobic fundie shits like Warren.
Posted by: I'll second that | December 21, 2008 4:23 PM
Don't feed the trolls.
I'm starting to have the opinion that pointless interaction with such blatantly obvious trolls is a similar phenomenon to trolling itself. Both examples of just not knowing when to step away from the keyboard. Commenting for the sake of commenting. Compulsive behavior and possibly evidence of a form of dissociation.
Yes.
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 21, 2008 4:24 PM
Posted by: Joel | December 21, 2008 3:44 PM
Number one, he hasn't even had one day in office, so you have no idea how his administration will perform concerning the advancement of gay and lesbian rights. Number two, I'd like you to name a few out of our long list of Presidents that have openly supported gay and lesbian rights. Just because he invited Warren to deliver a five minute (at most) invocation does not mean that he shares in Warren's bigotry and disdain for the LBGT community.
No, you most certainly do not know who I am, who I am close to, who I identify with, or anything else about me. Yet your assumptions are somewhat correct. I was in the military, and I am heterosexual. What I have a problem with is you conflating me with the bigots in the system three decades ago that wronged you. If you can't differentiate between a 28-year old soldier disillusioned with our recent and current national leadership and a military bureaucracy tilted against gay and lesbian rights, then that is your problem. You have no idea where my sentiments lie, and assuming I am part of the problem based on a military pseudonym and all the pursuant stereotypes that go along with that is a very closed-minded thing to do.
And if the fact that I enjoy rights that you do not currently enjoy somehow makes my points or assertions not worth considering, then you're going to have a very hard time getting any traction in improving your rights. Just because I was allowed to serve in the military does not make me a bigot by association.
And as for why you should listen to politicians who don't agree with your lifestyle, though still supporting your right to have it, the reason for that is simple common sense. If you expect to make everyone in the world agree with your opinion on gay and lesbian rights, you're fighting an impossibly quixotic battle, because that will simply never happen. The aim is to change the law of the land to reflect a society where all are equal - not where all agree.
Except the opportunity to make gains in the fight for equality. But by all means, if you still want to think that Obama somehow offers an equal or lesser chance for making those gains than did Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, or Bush II, then please help yourself. But wallowing in self-pity because he's not perfect will get you just as far as you've gotten in the past 30 years under those former Presidents.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 21, 2008 4:26 PM
I know what you mean, but I can't put a finger on it either. I've been trying to keep track of the regulars including the trolls, but not the occasional obnoxious troll.Kel, reading between the lines, I suspect a libercontrarian type who doesn't want anybody tellin' him nothin', especially anythin' that might cause him to change his habits.
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 4:28 PM
So he's not a post-modernist then?Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 21, 2008 4:30 PM
Gary B@276,
Actually I'm done with him. At least, I'll wait until he comes up with at least a pretence of putting forward some argument based on facts, rather than invincible ignorance and batshit-crazy paranoia of a kind that would shame a creobot. He knocked himself out of the ring when he declared George Bush to be a liberal!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 21, 2008 4:37 PM
Could be. Lots of room between the lines. I threw out my two cents worth of opinion. If everybody contributes we might get a profile good enough we can send the black helicopters after him. ;)Posted by: I'll second that | December 21, 2008 4:42 PM
[what brokensoldier, OM said]
Yes.
[what mayhempix said]
Yes.
Posted by: Joel | December 21, 2008 4:50 PM
Brokensoldier,
The problem here is the bigots are still at work three decades later, and no end in sight. Me questioning whether someone who enjoys a right denied to someone else, should be telling the people who are denied the right to be open to compromise and wait, isn't associating that person with the bigots.
It's simply, you don't have anything to tell me about what I should expect and when I should expect it. I've spent a good part of my life patiently waiting for the rest of the world to come to their senses and I don't see any point in continuing to go down that road, it just doesn't work.
Oh, and you can talk to me about not wallowing in self pity once you change your name from brokensoldier.
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 4:51 PM
Though I guess Post-modernist doesn't work because he's not taking the view that one opinion is as good as another. He believes he is right and others are wrong, and he does so with no credentials - and that makes him a creationist.Posted by: GK4 | December 21, 2008 5:08 PM
GWIAS,
You identify the far left as a problem. But what makes someone far left, as you see it?
Where do you find yourself on the Political Compass?
http://www.politicalcompass.org
Posted by: BMS | December 21, 2008 5:11 PM
OK, let me be 100% clear here: BEING LGBT IS NOT A LIFESTYLE.
WE ARE NOT A "SOCIAL ISSUE."
When we (and by "we" I mean LGBT people) tell you that we are saddened / angered / insulted / whathaveyou by Obama's selection and approval of Warren the homobigot as the one to deliver the inaugural invocation, I for one do not appreciate being told, overtly or otherwise, to "get over it."
Fuck.
Posted by: BMS | December 21, 2008 5:17 PM
Rick Warren, in his own words #1, conflating a state of being (LGBTQI) with urges toward promiscuity:
OK, so we are (1) immature and (2) we lack character. Cool.
Posted by: BMS | December 21, 2008 5:22 PM
Rick Warren in his own words #2:
So, great - now my marriage is the equivalent of child rape, incest, and polygamy. Triple cool.
Posted by: Carlin | December 21, 2008 5:24 PM
Obama's positive message of hope and change will forever be tarnished by the image of Rick Warren next to him at the inaugeration. It is sad and disgusting that Obama is giving such an honor to a homophobic bigot who teaches hate and intolerance at his "church." This is just a craven vote grab by Obama who hopes to gain evengelical votes with this stunt. Obama is banking on the fact that gay americans have no where else to go in a reelection campaign.
Posted by: Carlin | December 21, 2008 5:26 PM
Obama's positive message of hope and change will forever be tarnished by the image of Rick Warren next to him at the inaugeration. It is sad and disgusting that Obama is giving such an honor to a homophobic bigot who teaches hate and intolerance at his "church." This is just a craven vote grab by Obama who hopes to gain evengelical votes with this stunt. Obama is banking on the fact that gay americans have no where else to go in a reelection campaign.
Posted by: BMS | December 21, 2008 5:30 PM
Rick Warren in his own words #3, later in that same interview with Steven Waldman, lying about the effect of his ability to preach in California if Proposition 8 had failed:
Lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, and -o- lie again.
(1) Telling lies about me and about us is decidedly NOT civil. And can we agree on that?
(2) We have this little document in the United States called the Constitution, which then has this littler thing in it called the 1st Amendment. Rick can spew all the hate and lies about us he wishes to (as long as he is not inciting violence) - but doing so should absolutely 100% DQ him from delivering the inaugural invocation.
Posted by: BMS | December 21, 2008 5:45 PM
And finally, the Saddleback Church position on homosexuals as members:
Posted on Steven Waldman's blog today, December 21, 2008.
I am unable to find the quoted passage on Saddleback's webpage. Has it, perhaps, been scrubbed?
Now, as an atheist, I don't give a flying fuck what sky fairy babble Rick believes. But again, as I stated above, he, and anyone else espousing such lies about us, should absolutely 100% be disqualified from delivering the invocation. Just as a matter of ethics.
Posted by: BMS | December 21, 2008 6:06 PM
OK, really finally this time.
brokensoldier:
See above in re: we are not a lifestyle.
Clearly, Joel who was discharged over 30 years ago, before you were born, has listened and listened and listened - for longer than you have been alive. I have listened for longer than you have been alive. Nothing new is being said about us now that was not said in the '60s, the '70s, the '80s, the '90s, and at present by these ignorant, assholish, holier-than-thou, homophobic nimrods.
Why on earth must we continue to listen to the same old lies and bullshit that's been said for decades about us? Why?
No shit.
But we do not need to waste our time with Warren and those of his ilk who are so clearly entrenched in their regurgitated bullshit, and who continue to spew the same tired lies as were spewed in the '60s, when there are actually people out there who can be reached.
Now I suggest you take a great big step back and examine your heterosexual privilege a little bit more deeply before you deliver another lecture to the uppity queers about how we should behave and think and feel when we are verbally shit on. Or beaten. Or killed. Merely for being LGBT and for standing up for ourselves, for explaining ourselves.
Posted by: Enshoku | December 21, 2008 6:06 PM
*comes back to the topic after several hours*
you guys are STILL feeding the trolls? Give it up guys, the more you respond, the more lulz he gets. If you attempt to make an actual point he will "blah blah blah" you, and if you insult him he gets both an ego boost and plenty of lulz. He isn't here for a real debate guys, the only people who attempt to start long and winding debates at pharyngula are either stupid enough to not know that forums are much better discussion tables(ie; your average creationist), or they are smart enough to know that message boards work well for using poes or trolling. Give it up ladies and gents, trolls only die from starvation.
Posted by: Joel | December 21, 2008 6:17 PM
Well said BMS!
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 21, 2008 6:18 PM
Posted by: Joel | December 21, 2008 4:50 PM
No argument here about the system, but saying that I have no insight into the struggle you're fighting is an incorrect assumption. Nowhere did I tell you you should have to wait. Nowhere did I say it was right that it will take so much to get the equality you deserve. But I am saying that since the institutions of government have been stacked against you for so long with opinions fairly well entrenched, it is not possible to simply push the government into alignment with the progressive movement in one term, or even two. That is not condescension from the comfortable inside - it is pure pragmatism. And while I would rather have someone else besides Warren at the inauguration, all I said earlier was that involving Warren seemed to be an outreach to a certain portion - and a sizeable one at that - of our country in order to do exactly what he promised in his campaign, which was not to govern from an ideological edge, but rather to attempt to bring the different groups and people in our country a little closer together after decades of political division and demonization of the opposition.
Those who supported Obama were furious at the allegations that said simply because Obama was associated with the likes of Rev. Wright and William Ayers (two individuals whose personal histories were seriously and maliciously misrepresented), he necessarily shared their political and/ or personal beliefs. And I realize that by selecting Warren, Obama made the connection himself, but it is still just as specious. He invited a progressive pastor for the benediction, and a conservative one for the invocation - and whatever your disagreements with Warren, of which I personally have a great deal, Obama chose a conservative pastor who has a considerably more moderate tone than the majority of mainstream conservative religious leaders. His presence at the inauguration, while justifiably repugnant to some, holds no real significance other than to show that Obama will not shut out any voice. Immediately assuming he will proffer political dividends to those of Warren's ilk simply derived from his invitation to Warren to give a prayer is a major jump to a very improbable conclusion. And he has repeatedly stated that he will ensure that his administration - the ones he has actually appointed to governmental positions, as opposed to a ceremonial prayer slot - effectively carries out his directives. I just hope that if/ when one of his subordinates makes a mistake in that execution, he will take the responsibility upon himself to the degree necessitated by the specific situation.
And again, you don't have any idea how much I do or do not know about the difficulties and prejudices faced by gay and lesbian men and women in their fight for equality. In light of that, you have no idea whether or not I have any informed input to offer on this topic. You seem to be prone to taking my observations - incorrectly, I might add - as commands for you to wait for your share of the table scraps, and I doubt anything I say to you, substantive or not, would budge your perception of my comments.
As for not seeing any point in "continuing down that road" of "waiting for the world to come to their senses," (I would argue that no motivated group of people have found it effective to follow such a strategy, including the gay and lesbian community, which is why they haven't been simply waiting patiently) what exactly do you propose to do? If the course we're taking now - working to correct injustices in the law of the land to ensure equality is a legally protected institution - "just doesn't work," what exactly would be your alternative? If you cannot realize that we are now in a much better position politically to effect some real changes in how our nation views both the entire breadth of its citizenry and the rights they are entitled to, then I doubt you'll ever be able to be satisfied with any sort of progress except that sort which brings you everything you want, all at one time. And before you try to sling some more "you don't get an opinion" mud, you might need to realize that there are plenty of groups, both ethnic and otherwise, that have gone through the very same marginalization, oppression, and dismissal that you have experienced, and in some cases it was much worse. I will not go to the trouble of explaining how I identify with one such group or which group that is - I doubt it would make much difference in your opinion.
And here's another of your assumptions that is way off base. Yes, I am a wounded soldier, but the pseudonym brokensoldier is in no way a display of self-pity. Quite the contrary, I have a great deal of pride in what I have done and what happened to us overseas. Just because someone has lost a portion of their physical abilities does not mean they automatically see that loss as a situation deserving of pity. (And before you ask, this is not the group I was referring to identifying myself with in the above paragraph.) For you to assume that I was somehow soliciting pity from anyone here shows your inexperience with this board, not to mention the fact that it shows even further the extent to which you do not know who you are assuming all of these things about.
Posted by: amphiox | December 21, 2008 6:34 PM
The free market solution to anthropogenic global warming is simply this: business as usual until the climate collapses. With the ecological support mechanisms thus removed, humans will no longer be able to engage in the activities that contribute to climate change. Natural cycles will then come into play to restore the climate balance. The surviving humans (being originally a subtropical species, some of us will most likely survive even the worst warming trends) will then be poised for another 10000 year interval of civilization building and prosperity, followed by another collapse, and the cycle will repeat itself.
If all you care about is the environment of planet earth, you need not care one whit about climate change. In fact you should encourage it, in order to bring about the collapse and recovery all the sooner. Earth has been far warmer than present many times in the past, and as far as we know, the biosphere did just fine during those times, and may have been even more productive than it is now or has been in the recent past. The only hitch is that human beings and human civilizations were not around during those times.
Only those who care about human beings (and human temperate climate dependent civilization in particular) need care about global warming.
I'd also like to advance the hypothesis that GWIAS is a climate poe.
Posted by: Joel | December 21, 2008 6:37 PM
Brokensoldier,
My view, my individual interest and my position, simply put, is this. There is no compromise, no separate but equal, there is no more waiting for the nitwits to get used to me, there is equality.
When it comes to assuming, you need to check yourself.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 6:46 PM
Sorry guys I've been bullshitting all along. I really do believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming and fully support the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I'm sorry for having wasted everyone's time and for being such a dirty, filthy liar.
It may interest you to know that in real life I am a 40 year old male virgin and I live in my Mummy's basement. Sometimes she let's me stay up past 9pm. But only if I've been a good boy.
Oh... it looks like while I was getting so excited over my e-masturbatory skills, I soiled myself. Mmm I'm all wet and sticky down there, mmm... oh god....
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 21, 2008 6:47 PM
Posted by: BMS | December 21, 2008 6:06 PM
If you want to take that as an insult, go right ahead. Don't bother yourself with the fact that it wasn't meant in a derogatory manner. Don't bother yourself with considering that I might be simply arguing for practical progress rather than arguing against your interests. If you still want to think that I'm a naive, ill-informed, privileged heterosexual, that's completely fine with me. It takes no extra effort to be so wrong, though it would take a bit of work for you to read through the things I have written and see for yourself where I fall on the ideological scale.
And by the way, being homosexual most certainly is a lifestyle unique from others, just like heterosexuality is a lifestyle. If you want to take that one word and perceive it as some sort of insult, that's on you. It's not meant that way, and I gave no other indications that it was intended to be taken that way. The problem enters when people try to claim that it is a chosen lifestyle rather than an intrinsic part of who a person truly is.
In a perfect world, I totally agree. But considering the fact that a great majority of this country would much rather toss science, reason, and humanism out the window in favor of clinging to traditional and bigoted beliefs, it is a necessary step tpo involve a leader from that ideological area. If you do not, you risk retribution from shutting them totally out of the system. And given that this country is already prone to religious fervor, I for one do not want to give the fundamentalists any valid excuse for trying to use their influence with our populace to mount a return in four or eight years, bent on even more power and influence than they have had for the past two decades.
I get what you're saying, I really do. All I am saying is that it would be counterproductive to our goals to shut out that section of the population, no matter how many hundreds of times over they may deserve it. It would only give them more ammunition to make a push to send this nation even farther into intolerance and fanaticism.
And again, nowhere did I presume to lecture anybody, and nowhere did I even hint at calling anyone uppity or queer. While I do recognize that there is an anger and frustration there that I'll probably never fully understand, I do have someone in my life that knows those things firsthand, and I have been by her side more times than I could count, with her crying and asking me why people were they way they are. Every time, I just wish I could give her a good answer, or go force the change of opinion we need down those people's throats, but I can't do either.
And as a former Catholic who grew up largely in the south, I have seen my fair share of extreme, irrational, and utterly ignorant prejudice. I even caught two beatings at my middle school during my time living in southern Alabama purely because my family went to the one Catholic Church in town. In my case, though for other reasons unrelated to the prejudice, I separated myself from the church. So even though I know what it is like to be irrationally targeted, I can't imagine what it would be like to be targeted for something over which I had no control, such as my sexuality. In that, I absolutely concede to your experience, but my observations remain - I still think that Obama is on the right track, even though I don't agree with the Warren choice. I don't like it, but I'm choosing to view it as an inauguration of doing away with the old, homogenous, fundamentalist administration while ringing in a new, more open one with the ceremony being wrapped up by Warren's polar opposite. I don't know if that symbolism was intended, but it is something I noticed.
Posted by: BMS | December 21, 2008 6:48 PM
Joel #297
My pleasure. Had to be addressed, IMO.
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 6:57 PM
Apology accepted, now go and clean yourself. Stop wasting other people's time.Posted by: Joel | December 21, 2008 6:58 PM
Brokensoldier,
If you were aware of us, as you have said, you would understand that lifestyle, when used in conjunction with gay men and women means being gay is a matter of choice, one of the arguments against equality.
Actually, you presume to lecture, a lot. And even though you claim to understand the anger and frustration you choose to label it as wallowing in self pity. I bet she appreciates your understanding.
Jeez.
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 21, 2008 7:01 PM
Joel:
You're confusing my views of what should be with my views of how our system works. I agree that there is no compromise when it comes to individual freedoms and rights, but unfortunately it takes compromise for anything to get done in our political system. This is exactly the reason George Washington tried to warn us off of political parties, but his advice was not heeded. In my mind, everyone is already equal, regardless of the opinions of those who administer and legislate our nation. But the sad fact is that - barring an outright coup - compromise is a necessary part of political practice in our government. There are things that should not be open to compromise, and I believe Obama has a good grasp of what those things are and how they should be handled to get the desired results. Warren is saying a five minute prayer, and is not even a stand-alone entity, because he is not giving the benediction. Far more important are those that he has chosen for his cabinet that will actually set and implement policies. For me, Warren is disgusting, but irrelevant. I don't pray, so his appearance holds absolutely no significance to me, because I don't believe that Obama is willing to concede anything in the area of social equality to Warren in exchange for this appearance. I believe it was simply a gesture of good faith to those who have long forgotten to extend them to us while they were in power. And should Obama offer more to Warren, my view of him will nosedive, but I seriously do not see that happening. For now, I am waiting until January 20th to see how he actually handles himself in office.
Actually, I have made no assumptions that I have left unexplained. And despite your suggestions otherwise, I have insulted or denigrated no one here, and don't intend to do so. Projecting bigotry onto me simply because I'm willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt over his selection for a ceremonial, meaningless appearance is a faulty assumption in and of itself.
Posted by: BMS | December 21, 2008 7:05 PM
You might wish to re-read your responses and consider why they are assessed as such.
A really really long post or a really really long reply to someone reads exactly like a lecture (and yes, my own posts are a lecture series).
Posted by: BMS | December 21, 2008 7:11 PM
And what Joel said:
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 21, 2008 7:21 PM
Posted by: Joel | December 21, 2008 6:58 PM
You simply take it as lecturing. If you show me where I talked down to you and told you when and how you should get your rights, as you have suggested, then I'd agree that I was lecturing. But I was not, so you won't find those things. I surmise that you'll find certain statements and conflate them with prior buzz words of intolerance, and then call me guilty by association for using such 'bad' words.
If you would actually read what I'm writing, instead of skimming for points to try to take offense from, you'd see that I did not label you as wallowing in self-pity because you are oppressed or because of the injustice you face. The self-pity remark was directed at your absolute rejection of Obama over one choice for one prayer at one inaugural event. But you're obviously going to take things the way you choose to, without trying to actually understand what I'm writing, so further conversation is probably unnecessary.
And you keep showing that you don't have a single clue about me or my situation. I don't know what the difference between you is, but my friend is capable of understanding the fact that insults are intentional speech acts - not particular words or phrases. And she fully understands my opinions and somehow thinks that I'm one of her best friends. I guess she must not be smart enough to catch the insults hidden in my words like you seemingly are.
If it suits you to think that I am somehow demeaning you with typical anti-homosexual tag words, then go right ahead. That is far easier than actually having a substantive conversation.
Just to wrap it up, the only point I was trying to make here was that while Obama pissed a lot of people off with this pick, I believe that once his agenda is set in motion, we'll realize that this invitation to Warren was nothing more than a political olive branch - a symbol of his willingness to engage all comers. And engaging all voices of input does not equate to the validation of all the invited viewpoints.
Goodnight - I was not intending to get pulled into an argument or be called condescending, but I guess that's what they mean about the "best-laid plans," so I'll just bow out now before it gets any worse.
Posted by: Joel | December 21, 2008 7:22 PM
Compromise does not work when applied to equality. Separate but equal was a compromise to desegration of the school systems. It did not create equality in education and civil unions will not create equality in marriage.
As to Rick Warren. Relationships with the President of the United States are extremely valuable. Rick Warren given the opportunity of this very visible honor says clearly that he is a respected and valued friend of the President of the United States in spite of your attempts to trivialize the honor.
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 21, 2008 7:26 PM
BMS:
But just because something structurally resembles a lecture does not mean that it is a diatribe bent on telling you how you should think or feel, which is what was meant by the assertion that I was lecturing Joel or you. Those are two very different usages of the word, and such a conflation is misleading. And long posts are something I'm hopelessly prone to - for some reason, my comments start out short most of the time, but end up as borderline dissertations.
But in the interest of conversation, I apologize if I came across that way. It's the last thing I would have intended.
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 21, 2008 7:33 PM
Posted by: Joel | December 21, 2008 7:22 PM
I have already said the exact same thing. And that is what I meant by saying that I believe - from what he has said - that Obama knows what can be compromised and what is not open to it. Just because compromise is a necessity of American politics does not mean that your rights will be the entity compromised. It is simply a tool that must be used in order to achieve the rights that must be recognized for everyone.
Here is where you're assuming - you're asserting that by virtue of his invitation to Warren, he is necessarily a "respected and valued" friend to the pastor. That is what I disagree with, and only time will tell which situation will be shown to be true. (Though I don't think Obama is that close to Warren personally, even if that was the case, I believe Obama is intelligent and politically savvy enough to differentiate between those he maintains friendships with and those he takes policy advice from, especially concerning issues as important as individual rights across the spectrum.
Posted by: BMS | December 21, 2008 7:34 PM
It did come across that way. We know what our issues are - we don't need them explained to us by you or anyone else. And thank you for the apology.
I would suggest that, if you are interested in learning more about the LGBT community beyond what you've experienced with your friend, you spend some time (as in, over the course of months at least) reading LGBT blogs and websites from our advocacy groups.
You might then be able to understand why using the word "lifestyle" to describe our state of being is an insult.
Because regardless of your intent (and regardless of Obama's intent with his invitation to Warren) it is an insult.
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | December 21, 2008 7:35 PM
Yes, that actually was the premise of my post. And I get the existence of a protest. It's the *level* that I don't get. The invocation (provocation?) is set, we protested, let's move on to more important issues. You savvy?
Well, at least you didn't invoke Hitler.
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 21, 2008 7:48 PM
Yes, it has been scrubbed. Archives:
http://web.archive.org/web/20071026063007/www.saddlebackfamily.com/smallgroups/saddleback_church_faq.html
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 21, 2008 7:51 PM
http://www.webcitation.org/5dEzhdI4w
http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:PXTZQFA_15kJ:www.saddlebackfamily.com/membership/group_finder/faqs_saddleb/unack.asp?id=7509
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 21, 2008 7:52 PM
BMS:
And that's where you're wrong. You can keep insisting upon it, but it doesn't change the fact that there was no insult present aside from the one you perceived. There was no insult intended on my end, no derogatory language (aside from the word lifestyle, apparently) in my responses, and no indication that I do not support individual rights for every human, regardless of who the person may be. The fact that you won't recognize that is telling, because not only do the gay and lesbian men and women in my life not see the word lifestyle as an insult (unless of course it is connected to the concept of choice in sexuality), but they also have no qualms about discussing with me their experiences and feelings, and feel no qualms referring to their way of life as their lifestyle.
But if you're set on being insulted, I guess I can't do much more in the way of conversing. And if you perceive long posts that don't line up 100% with your opinions as lectures, I'd suggest that you not pay attention to 90% of the posts here, because the discussions and comments get quite long, if you haven't found that out by now. And despite my repeated insistence to the contrary, your tendency is still to go right to the defensive - no matter what I say - in response to the supposed insults my comments contain. Honestly, considering that you think I come across as condescending and lecturing, you come across as someone who does not accept input from anyone who doesn't pass your own litmus test of understanding.
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 21, 2008 7:54 PM
Because you're straight and not an ally, so it's not an important issue to you. We get the point. Feel free to repeat yourself ad nauseum.
Thank you, your concern trolling has been noted.
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 21, 2008 7:58 PM
Most unintentionally funny comment of the thread.
Once more into the breach! Never apologize! If those faggots refuse to understand that they're not allowed to be offended by anything you say, just say it again and again until they fucking well understand.
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 21, 2008 8:04 PM
Differentiate that statement from "It's because you're gay and don't understand family values." They both employ the exact same kind of stereotypical, bigoted, us vs. them mentality, and they assume that a person's individual identity both defines and limits the reach of their political interests.
I am straight, but that does not mean that individual liberty and human rights are not gravely important issues to me. This kind of statement is an exemplar of group-think, and is exactly what will destroy any progress we might make in advancing the causes of those groups that have been ignored in the recent past. Because if you want to get into a homogenous fight for rights where a person's ability to fight alongside you is wholly dependent on whether or not they share in your identity, you'll quickly find that there are more bigots in this country than there are those of us who still see this country as the bastion of tolerance that it was designed to be, and you'll be severely outnumbered.
Prop 8 was a perfect example of this, and a perfect example of why individual rights, especially those for groups in the minority of the population, should never be left up to the majority to vote on.
Posted by: BMS | December 21, 2008 8:04 PM
Oh good grief, brokensoldier. I don't think you could miss the point any farther if you tried.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 8:05 PM
Define "vast majority". Prove that this majority of "climate scientists" agree that the "question has been settled" by linking to the on-the-record comments of every person currently studying climate science, and show that this "vast majority" scenario is happening. I'm not holding my breath.
And large swaths of land could also become arable. Greenland could live up to its name. Deaths from cold weather (which now greatly outnumber deaths from heat) could be greatly reduced. Heart attacks caused by shoveling snow could be minimized. The roads could be much safer in the winter. Now that I think of it, I could get to like this "global warming".
Projecting again, are we? How pathetic.
But par for the course with a warmista troll.
Posted by: I'll second that | December 21, 2008 8:06 PM
[more of what brokensoldier, OM said]
Yes. Some people are determined to treat their friends and allies as enemies. Fortunately for them in this case, this will not become a self-fulfilling prophesy, no matter how hard they work at making it one.
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 21, 2008 8:09 PM
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 21, 2008 7:58 PM
I use the word lifestyle in a sentence, and you put the word 'faggot' into my mouth. That's rational and open conversation if I ever saw it. And just in case you couldn't bother yourself to read what's being talked about, you'll find that I actually did apologize for coming across as condescending, because it truly wasn't my intent. But go ahead and put all the words in my mouth you want - it still won't mean that I insulted you.
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 21, 2008 8:12 PM
Okay, asshole.
Because Quiet_Desperation is straight (not to mention a previously noted concern troll), he cannot understand what it is like to be gay and so he cannot understand Rick Warren's invocation as a personal insult the way a gay person can.
If you dispute this, you are a liar and an idiot.
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 8:13 PM
GWIAS, are you actually going to answer any of the questions posed to you in this thread, or just continue a rhetoric game that will ensure that everybody here will oppose you purely because you have no substance to your ramblings?
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 21, 2008 8:15 PM
Posted by: BMS | December 21, 2008 8:04 PM
No, I got that you take the Warren invitation as an insult, and I don't presume to tell you it shouldn't be taken as such - I simply said, to say it again, that people should reserve judgement on Obama's dedication to LGBT concerns until he actually starts making his policy positions clear with initiatives and legislation, and not rush to judgement over a ceremonial prayer invitation. I never said you shouldn't take the invitation as an insult - just that I believe it isn't the huge departure from his expressed convictions that it is being made out to be. The only thing that I told you was certainly not an insult was my comment.
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 21, 2008 8:16 PM
And then you went on and on and on about how it should not have been taken as an insult. Because gay people are too stupid to decide for themselves what is and is not insulting to them. Because only your intentions matter, not the actual effects that your words have.
And if you say "hey, my nigger" to your good black friend, it's his fault if he takes it the wrong way, and by no means can it mean that you insulted him.
Am I raising the stakes? Yes, as an argumentum ad absurdem. Your logic is fatally flawed and you've already demonstrated that you can't see that at a lower level of insult.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 8:17 PM
I have already answered every question asked of me. You really need to work on your reading comprehension.
By the way, what are your credentials? Besides the amazing ability to parrot IPCC talking points, I mean.
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 21, 2008 8:20 PM
A real apology is when you say "I'm sorry" and then you shut the fuck up. When you go on to tell the insulted party what they are and are not allowed to feel insulted about, you void the apology, because you've once again brought yourself and your privilege to the center stage.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 21, 2008 8:22 PM
GWIAS, you are the one running the scam. Answers Kel's question or be shown to be a liar and bullshitter, even bigger than you already are. You still haven't put up any refereed scientific data, like the liar you are.
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 21, 2008 8:22 PM
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 21, 2008 8:12 PM
I referred in no way to that commenter, but rather to the response his comment drew out, which was just as illogical as his original comment. And while not being gay necessarily means that one cannot feel the insult such a thing projects, that definitely does not mean that a straight person cannot see why you would be insulted. Again you're basing your opinion of me and my positions on my sexuality and my lack of common ground in that area with you. I just posted that the selection of Warren as an insult is something I can't and won't dispute, because I'm not in the required position to make that judgement. But go ahead and jump on the wagon to try to cry insult from my comments, even as you're the one calling people assholes.
Posted by: I'll second that | December 21, 2008 8:23 PM
I believe Obama is intelligent and politically savvy enough to differentiate between those he maintains friendships with and those he takes policy advice from, especially concerning issues as important as individual rights across the spectrum.
Yes. Biden and McCain are friends, as are Ginsberg and Scalia. One of my closest friends has a horrible attitude toward Palestinians, and yet I would gladly put him in a place of honor -- but that would not be an endorsement or validation of his views about Palestinians.
Posted by: BMS | December 21, 2008 8:25 PM
brokensoldier,
I would ask that you re-read my cut-n-pastes of Rick Warren's statements as well as his church's reasoning for refusing membership to unrepentant homosexuals, and I would ask also that you have your LGBT friends read them with you, too.
I am curious what your LGBT friends' thoughts are on Rick's statements.
Also, if I'm reading you correctly you want us to understand what you are saying. Trust me when I say I understand why you think Obama is extending an olive branch to evangelicals, and also that I understand why you think doing so is a good idea. You are not the first person to advance these ideas in the past few days. I'm sure you won't be the last.
I ask in return for you to understand our perceptions of it, to understand why we do not like it. (With full knowledge that I know some, a very very small some, LGBTs feel as you do about it.)
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 21, 2008 8:25 PM
pray away the gay,
You're going to keep playing the insulted card no matter what I offer as opinion, so I won't be answering you anymore. Just know that you'll find that your pool of allies in this fight is only going to get smaller and smaller if absolute submission to your viewpoint is your criteria for success.
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 8:25 PM
Liar.can you confirm your Climatology credentials?
what makes you think you know better than the overwhelming majority of the scientific community?
I ask again, what credentials or evidence do you have that the current consensus on global warming is wrong?
why aren't you providing evidence to support your position?
Why instead are you insulting anyone here as being members of the global warming religion then complaining that people are insulting you back?
Why can't you back up your assertions that show you know better than those people who actually study climate change?
The climatologists who work on the problem of climate change would say their evidence is legitimate. Why are they wrong?
Are you actually going to show us how the scientific community is wrong on global warming, or use the Kirk Cameron approach?
But I'm being conciliatory here, so I'm giving you a chance to explain why you think you know better than the vast majority of climatologists. I'm asking you how you know they are wrong, and asking for the evidence that supports you being right. I've asked this several times and all you've done is played the rhetoric game.
Climatologists have put forward a plethora of evidence to support their theories on global warming, there is a staggering amount of peer-reviewed research done on global warming. Why is all of that wrong? Just how do you know better? And why are you focusing on rhetoric when all science is about evidence?
GWIAS, if you go to PubMed and do a search for "Climate Change" there are 7470 peer reviewed articles on there. For "Global Warming", there are 4626 articles. That is the peer reviewed science on the matter, those are the articles you have do show are wrong.
Can you show me where you answered all these questions? I can't find it at all.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 8:26 PM
Which question is that, Red?
It wouldn't be hard to be a bigger liar than I already am, since I'm not one yet.
(That's called a tautology, by the way.)
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 21, 2008 8:27 PM
You're imagining shit. I said nothing of the sort. I said it's not up to straight people to decide for gay people what is and is not important to gay people, or how important any particular issue should be.
Quiet_Desperation has repeatedly said that this issue isn't as important as it's being taken to be. That isn't for him to decide. That's his privilege talking, and it's particularly sad that you're more interested in what a straight man (who is not a progressive, by the way, look up his previous posts here) has to say about gay rights than what gay people have to say about what matters day to day in their own lives.
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 8:28 PM
Really if you answer anything off that list, please answer the questions to do with evidence. "I'm asking you how you know they are wrong, and asking for the evidence that supports you being right."
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 21, 2008 8:30 PM
No, motherfucker, I am basing my opinion of you on your unwillingness to listen to the gay folks here about the effect of your own words.
Posted by: I'll second that | December 21, 2008 8:35 PM
To brokenSoldier, OM: again, yes to craig@139 -- your exchange has reached and exceeded the point of diminishing returns.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 21, 2008 8:37 PM
We always knew GWIAS was running a scam. His failure to answer direct questions and back up his inane assertions with peer reviewed evidence tells us he is less than a stupid troll, which is very hard to be. He will not engage in real discussion. PZ, plonking time for this pest. My guess is that he is a repeat offender. If the almighty cephalopod lord is feeling benevolent though, disemvowelment would be a lesser punishment.
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 21, 2008 8:38 PM
Look at the context, you self-assured shit.
Quiet_Desperation said "let's move on to more important issues" and I replied that he definitionally cannot know what is or should be more important to gay people because he is not gay. You responded that this was bigoted of me to say, and now illogical.
You are now doing the same thing he did. You're a straight man lecturing gay people on how to understand gay issues. Your complete blindness to your own privilege is tragic, but unsurprising.
Posted by: I'll second that | December 21, 2008 8:38 PM
You're going to keep playing the insulted card no matter what I offer as opinion, so I won't be answering you anymore. Just know that you'll find that your pool of allies in this fight is only going to get smaller and smaller if absolute submission to your viewpoint is your criteria for success.
Yes.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 8:38 PM
Yes, I can.
Prove that the "overwhelming majority" of the "scientific community" (whatever that is) disagrees with me. And show me how this is relevant. Prove that science functions as a democracy.
I'm simply following the lead of you warm-mongers, who do nothing but parrot IPCC talking points.
Instead of what? I didn't insult "anyone here", just those who actually belong to said faith-based belief system. I'm not complaining that people are insulting me. Quite the contraray. I love it!!! For it only goes to show the absolute paucity of their position.
Non-sequitir.
Objection, your honor. Asked and answered. Sustained.
Objection, your honor. Asked and answered. Sustained.
Is there a question in there somewhere?
There. Done. Happy now? No? Oh well, there's no pleasing a Warmista, I guess.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 8:40 PM
Yes, I can.
Prove that the "overwhelming majority" of the "scientific community" (whatever that is) disagrees with me. And show me how this is relevant. Prove that science functions as a democracy.
I'm simply following the lead of you warm-mongers, who do nothing but parrot IPCC talking points.
Instead of what? I didn't insult "anyone here", just those who actually belong to said faith-based belief system. I'm not complaining that people are insulting me. Quite the contraray. I love it!!! For it only goes to show the absolute paucity of their position.
Non-sequitir.
Objection, your honor. Asked and answered. Sustained.
Objection, your honor. Asked and answered. Sustained.
Is there a question in there somewhere?
There. Done. Happy now? No? Oh well, there's no pleasing a Warmista, I guess.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | December 21, 2008 8:40 PM
My goodness, you gents have hooked a big one this time. Without seeing all the spots, I'm guessing, a Large-Mouthed Sucker?
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 21, 2008 8:41 PM
Oh of course, it's just a "card," because no one here could honestly be insulted, nor does anyone have the right to be.
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 21, 2008 8:43 PM
Nobody, not even brokensoldier, thinks that you aren't a right-wing troll here to divide and conquer.
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 21, 2008 8:44 PM
Posted by: BMS | December 21, 2008 8:25 PM
While I find those statements to be more in line with the Dark Ages than modern America, I also fully recognize that the entirety of my disgust with him is small compared to the level of personal insult you must feel when Warren or his church says those things you've cited. I do get that now, and while I knew I was in no place to doubt someone's feelings of being insulted, I did not understand fully the difference between my disgust and my lacking estimation of what you must feel. (Which is why I never purported to deny Warren's invitation as an insult, only to explain why I think it might work out in the end.) And though I don't view his invitation of Warren as a legitimization of Warren's views, I can tell (tell me if I'm off-base in this) that even the prospect of such is enough of a reason to voice fervent objection and let Obama know how you - and the entire LGBT community - feel right up front.
Only one of my roommates is here right now, but the second I mentioned Rick Warren, she scoffed and turned around and walked down the hall. That message was received loud and clear.
A big mistake I make occasionally is to superimpose my friends' feelings and opinions on the entire LGBT community, and that is where I get the insensitivity you saw when I used the word lifestyle as a descriptive. Because it doesn't offend them, I assumed it shouldn't offend you - my mistake, and I'm sorry.
I appreciate your being willing to discuss it with me, and I really didn't mean to offend. you or anyone else.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 8:46 PM
We simply cannot tolerate this constant dissent from official Warm-monger dogma!!! Off with his head!!!111one!!!11
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 21, 2008 8:47 PM
I know you're not talking to me anymore, but thanks for that.
Posted by: BMS | December 21, 2008 8:47 PM
Re: "Insulted card"
I posted 4 direct quotes from Rick and his church and haven't gotten any good engagement on those at all.
All I received was accusations that I'm (faux?) insulted, time and time and time again even when I didn't even respond to them.
Sheesh can't a girl even pick her battles anymore?
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 21, 2008 8:49 PM
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 21, 2008 8:47 PM
Ah, hell, nothing's permanent. That was directed at whomever I offended, which I know includes you. I will say I'm sorry, but I can't make any promises on the "shut the fuck up" part...
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 21, 2008 8:53 PM
Posted by: BMS | December 21, 2008 8:47 PM
I meant that "insulted card" reference to be directed not towards Warren's invitation, but the fact that I wasn't meaning to insult anyone yet kept doing it anyway, apparently. I doubt you'll hear that one out of me again on this thread now that I see where you were coming from on both the Warren invitation and my comments.
Posted by: BMS | December 21, 2008 8:53 PM
Ha! Posted too quick on that one (#353), eh? Sorry for that!
brokensoldier,
Thank you for that insightful response. I was hoping I might get through to you. You're not an OM recipient for naught.
I sent an email to his team the other day expressing my sadness over the decision and expressing why it saddens me.
Thanks once again.
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 8:53 PM
You aren't answering the question, what are your credentials? 97% of climate scientists support the theory of global warming, and 84% attribute it to humans. Did you read post #146? Liar, you've been provided with suitable evidence. Hell, I even gave you a link to PubMed where you can look at the actual arguments yourself. Stop deceiving yourself, people here have given a strong case. Just read Nick Gotts at #172.You are throwing out the faith insult as a dismissal of the concept of global warming. That's despite there being over 10,000 peer reviewed articles involving the phenomenon on PubMed. That's despite the scores of scientists who work on it and study the evidence. By calling it a faith-based system you are trying to paint anyone who accepts global warming as irrational and thus using it as an insult. Again, stop with the rhetoric! No it's not, you are going out of your way to avoid providing any evidence for your assertions. You are implicitly claiming that those who work on climate change are wrong, so I want to know how and why you've come to that conclusion. If you know something greater than all these scientists combined, why are you avoiding telling us?Where did you show how they are wrong? All you've done is say that's it's not a legitimate science without saying why it's not legitimate. Yes, why are those ~11,000 articles all talking about the science behind climate change not legitimate? Given that you've continued the rhetoric game and not provided any real answers, no I'm not pleased. Stop being evasive and provide some fucking evidence that you know better than the scientific community. (and $10 says you are going to focus on me using the words "scientific community" instead of providing evidence)Posted by: BMS | December 21, 2008 8:56 PM
Phew.
OK, I have to go engage in my LGBT lifestyle now and prepare dinner for my wife.
Ta!
:P
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 8:58 PM
Hey Kel! Define "scientific community". Do you like to use terms you are incapable of defining?
Posted by: CSue | December 21, 2008 8:58 PM
Boring troll is boring.
Talk about a one-trick pony... *yawn*
Re: Rick Warren quotes and lack of response thereto - I think basically nobody here is surprised by anything that guy says on that subject any more, so it hardly requires a response. He strikes me as slightly less likeable on a personal basis than Mike Huckabee, but no less Dark-Ages-insane.
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 21, 2008 9:01 PM
Posted by: BMS | December 21, 2008 8:53 PM
Thanks to you for the compliment - and I'd be lying if I didn't admit that my hope for Obama's success in turning the country around didn't, in small part at least, inform my perception of this situation with the invocation and Warren. Being completely honest, I'm eagerly looking for positives in our national political scene, which - in concert with the fact that my friends weren't too up in arms about it - probably allowed me to wrongly believe it wasn't all that deeply insulting to the LGBT community.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 9:01 PM
Oh and Kel...what are your credentials? And what is the "optimal" temperature of the planet. Inquiring minds wanna know!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 21, 2008 9:02 PM
Lets see, GWIAS is up to five crimes against Pharyngula, working on more. Insipidity, slagging, stupidity, trolling, and wanking. And still no peer reviewed evidence to back up any allegations. Gross stupidity can be the only answer, because normal stupidity would have quit by now.
Posted by: I'll second that | December 21, 2008 9:03 PM
And though I don't view his invitation of Warren as a legitimization of Warren's views, I can tell (tell me if I'm off-base in this) that even the prospect of such is enough of a reason to voice fervent objection and let Obama know how you - and the entire LGBT community - feel right up front.
Yes. It is right and appropriate that people express their outrage at Warren's views and their strong disapproval of his selection to give the invocation. It is sad though that some go so far beyond that and reach all sorts of conclusions about Obama or others who don't feel the same or as strongly as they do or who defend Obama or rationalize his actions; such defenses and rationalizations do not make people enemies of the LGBTQ community -- in fact, quite a few of those people are members of that community.
Posted by: Alex Deam | December 21, 2008 9:04 PM
Calm down everyone!
FIrstly, I shall quote a comment I just made on Greg Laden's blog (http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2008/12/rick_warren_at_the_inaugural_w.php) about the Warren issue since I don't think people have people have picked up on this point.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 9:06 PM
Hey Red..how about some peer-reviewed evidence for what the planet's "optimal" temperature is. It should be in those thousands of "peer-reviewed" publications.
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 21, 2008 9:09 PM
GWIAS:
scientific community = scientists confident enough in the logic and comprehensibility of their work that they are willing to offer up their findings to other scientists and encourage them to check their work
To this point, the only ones who fit that description are those scientists who have demonstrated the plain fact that the planet is retaining more of the sun's energy than it is releasing, not to mention gaining heat and energy from sources other than the sun (geothermal, heat expelled from organisms, etc...) And if we're taking in more heat than we're letting off, common sense tells you we're getting warmer.
Well, maybe not you, but certainly anyone with a discerning mind and a lack of idiocy about them.
P.S.: No need to rebut this - it'll go pleasantly unanswered.
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 21, 2008 9:15 PM
GWIAS:
The planet does not, and will never have, an optimal temperature. There is an optimal temperature for certain individual life forms or ecosystems, but the entire planet has no "optimal" thermostat setting. As a matter of fact, the planet can survive any temperature range that has been thrown at it - it's us that won't be able to survive the coming changes if we don't start doing something. But then again, anyone who was truly informed on the subject of climate change would know that such a question is just idiotic.
Posted by: I'll second that | December 21, 2008 9:25 PM
Firstly, Warren isn't the only religious figure involved at the ceremony. Joseph Lowery also is, and according to Wikipedia, he has "advocated for LGBT civil rights and supports same-sex marriage".
Yes. (But no way no how does Lowery "cancel" Warren.)
Obama said, "It is no secret that I am a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans."
Yes that he is, although it does seem to be somewhat of a secret. Obama has previously said "I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states". He also favors repeal of DOMA, elimination of "don't ask, don't tell", passage of ENDA, and more: http://erlc.com/article/clinton-obama-other-dems-favor-repealing-part-of-doma
That, as Keith Olbermann said, is just about a first for an American President.
Yes, although not a first for (non-Republican) Presidential candidates.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 21, 2008 9:29 PM
Alex Deam, #365
Excellent work. Now GWIAS has two options - go away and read the articles you've posted, or comment here without doing so, opening himself up to another tidal wave of scorn.
Posted by: Alex Deam | December 21, 2008 9:41 PM
Sure he does. Lowery basically has the opposite views to Warren (aside from the whole Christian thing, but then that part is required). Isn't this how people maths works? Gandhi+Hitler=0?
I guess, but it matters not what they say as candidates, only what they do in the White House. Obama seems to be the first to say something like that as the incoming president. As much as I respect people like PZ and Greg being angry about the Warren issue, the fact that Warren is going to do the invocation at the ceremony is not going to make one iota of difference to Obama's policies over the next 4 years. In fact so far, looking at his appointments, his continued use of the internet after the election, and other things over the last few weeks, it looks like the next 4 years could be a liberal party where everyone's invited. And by that I mean he might actually do a good job. Here's hoping anyway!
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 9:46 PM
I told you, I'm not a climatologist. (I'm a computer scientist for the record) This is why I'm not arguing against the findings of climatologists, because they have studied this problem extensively and I have not. The same goes for biology, for chemistry, for physics, for history and for whatever other discipline out there I'm not qualified in. All I can ever really do is echo the sentiments of experts, those who actually are qualified.Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 9:56 PM
I wrote
Then GWIAS wroteBehold my mighty psychic powers!
As for scientific consensus - "Scientific consensus is the collective judgement, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity."
As for scientific consensus:
US National Academy of Science - "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth's warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ... On climate change, [the National Academies' reports] have assessed consensus findings on the science..."
American Association for the Advancement of Science - "The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Joint National Academies' statement."
American Meteorological Society - "The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papers--the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately--can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus."
Network of African Science Academies: "A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change."
Posted by: clinteas | December 21, 2008 10:00 PM
@ 325,328,
and
First,go learn some Latin if you want to impress anyone with fancy sayings around here.
Second,drop the persecution complex,it does not further your argument,in case you were trying to make one,its hard to tell over all the rambling....Your assertion that only a true gayTM person can be offended by Obama's decision to have a homophobic christofascist at his inauguration to me just means that you need some therapy,mate,quite frankly.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 21, 2008 10:00 PM
Hmm, I'll reword Kel's statement to reflect GWIAS's attitude:
All I can ever really do is echo the sentiments of
expertscrackpots, those whoactually are qualifiedlike to concoct elaborate conspiracy theories and use über-lame decriptors like 'warmistas'.So, do I pass the GWIAS test? Can I get my tinfoil hat now? How about a subscription to Gas Guzzlers Monthly - I hear the latest issue has an article on how to make my Suburban even less efficient - and a fat paycheck from big oil?
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 10:05 PM
It's the global warming denier equivalent to "Have you seen a cat turn into a dog?"Posted by: Enshoku | December 21, 2008 10:27 PM
No, Ghandi and Hitler together doesn't equal 0. It equals x^9999 - y^9999. If someone were to appoint half of his staff as serial killers, and the other half as absolute saints, that doesn't make him level, it makes him someone with horridly fucked up judgment.Posted by: I'll second that | December 21, 2008 11:58 PM
Obama seems to be the first to say something like that as the incoming president.
Like I said: yes.
Posted by: Ragutis | December 21, 2008 11:59 PM
GWiaS has all the charm of a hemorrhoid. I say throw the smarmy fucker in the dungeon until he/she/it submits something resembling an attempt at a reasoned discussion on the topic.
Posted by: Ragutis | December 22, 2008 12:26 AM
If someone were to appoint half of his staff as serial killers, and the other half as absolute saints, that doesn't make him level, it makes him someone with horridly fucked up judgment.
I would think that it would probably make him dramatically short-handed before long.
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 22, 2008 1:04 AM
Demonstrate one, you fucking lying piece of shit. It's a fun thing to claim your enemy has this or that, but you got to do the work to convince anyone of it.
And get you some motherfucking reading comprehension. You are one dumb fuck.
Posted by: Enshoku | December 22, 2008 1:24 AM
good point rag, but people can change, can't they? To be honest though, I'd rather have a murderer give the inaugural speech than warren. At least if it was a murderer, there would be a chance that some people would escape without losing pieces of their brains.
Posted by: Joel | December 22, 2008 1:39 AM
Ok, I thought about it. Obama doesn't have to concern himself about us because we have no place else to go. What a terrible idea.
Oh, if Barack says it, and Olbermann backs it up...it must be true. Let's just forget that Bill Clinton appointed in the neighborhood of 150 openly gay men and women. But that doesn't make him a fierce advocate.
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | December 22, 2008 1:44 AM
Oh my. I seem to have caused turmoil. And there's that "concern troll" label again. Oh well. At least I'm noted. :-)
OK, now that's just weird.
Besides, Gandhi + Hitler = Inhaled Right
Let's see another equation:
Obama + Biden = Media Nabob
Let's mix matter and antimatter:
Bush + Omaba = Aha! Bomb us! = Boa Ambush
And an identity:
Rick Warren = Wrier Crank
Posted by: clinteas | December 22, 2008 1:45 AM
Raging loon @ 381 :
Interesting what that says about you,actually.I personally dont think of people I disagree with on any certain topic as my "enemy".
Get some anger management classes mate.
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 22, 2008 1:49 AM
So you lie about people who you don't even consider your enemies?
How lovely.
Posted by: clinteas | December 22, 2008 2:00 AM
@ 386,
you are one disturbed individual,and clearly unable to think straight with all the hate and rage inside you,so I will not debate you anymore.
I probably shouldnt have bothered with your ramblings in the first place,seeing how you responded to brokensoldier upthread,one of the most patient,polite and knowledgeable commenters here.
Posted by: Round Earth Is A Scam! | December 22, 2008 2:02 AM
Everyone knows the optimal shape of the Earth is a pancake.
Mmmm, pancakes.
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 22, 2008 2:13 AM
Like you give a fuck.
Another fucking lie from a worthless shit with nothing to say. I've expressed myself clearly throughout, and if you could demonstrate otherwise, you'd have brought the goddamn quotes already.
It hasn't been a debate yet. All you've done is whine about some foul language. And your concern has been noted.
... who was, at the time, being decidedly impolite. The difference from your stupid ass is that brokensoldier realized his mistake and rectified the situation, whereas you're still shitty that someone dared to insist that gay people get to decide what's important to gay people. (Predictably, you'll claim that's not your complaint at all, and then we'll all be so fucking interested to know, just what the fuck is your specific grievance?)
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 22, 2008 2:16 AM
Oh. Many, many...many! species willl precede us in to oblivion.Posted by: John Morales | December 22, 2008 2:54 AM
Well, one of those threads, I see...
pray away the gay, having read your comments, you sure seem an intolerant person, and you do demonstrate paranoia.
Alex Deam @365, FFS! GWIAS is nothing but a common troll, not worthy of such a slab of a post. Spare the rest of us, the troll linked to realclimate.org in its first post, it damn well knows there's overwhelming evidence.
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 22, 2008 2:59 AM
Bring it, motherfucker.
Bring the quotes.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 22, 2008 3:05 AM
pray away the gay,
clinteas posted this:
You responded with:
Kind of proving he was pretty close to the mark.
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 22, 2008 3:16 AM
Are you really so insipid that a nasty remark throws you off the trail completely? Finding an example of me being incoherent would be a start, but clinteas never did that. That's precisely why I called the dumb fuck out for having a content-free complaint. Much like yourself.
Posted by: John Morales | December 22, 2008 3:22 AM
PATG @392, you want a quote? Sure:
Using your technique, I could easily write "You cannot understand what it's like to be me so you cannot understand my opinion the way [one of my group] can."That sounds rather dismissive and intolerant to me.
Not at all paranoid, no! ;)When you dismiss intentions and apologies, and insist offense is deliberate and ongoing, you show paranoia.
And your immediate use of "motherfucker" as applied to me shows you have no respect for mother fuckers. Tsk.
I'm male, so were I a father fucker, would that entitle me to an opinion on GLBT issues?
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 22, 2008 3:25 AM
Trail? What the fuck are you on about? Do you even know where you are? You called Clinteas a worthless piece of shit, a dumb fuck and a fucking liar. You called John Morales a motherfucker and now me a dumb fuck as well.
We get it - you're an asshole. If you feel you're justified in being in asshole, fine by me. Just don't be surprised when you get called on it - asshole.
Posted by: Twin-Skies | December 22, 2008 3:31 AM
While choosing Rick Warren for the invocation does leave us with a bad taste, I say this comment with all due respect to anybody it may offend:
Get over it.
Sure, Warren gets his five minutes of fame, but after that, we can resume ignoring him and his horrid book. Raging over him isn't worth your time (or health), while your energies can certainly be put to something more constructive.
Posted by: Kel | December 22, 2008 3:32 AM
Pray The Gay Away needs to calm the fuck down, seriously. This thread has gotten way too personal, and over what?
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 22, 2008 3:36 AM
And depending on the particular case, that might well be true. Just what the fuck is your point? Oh, this:
Dismissive? Who the hell cares. Intolerant? Details, shithead. What exactly is intolerant about noting that the experience of being gay is necessarily limited to people who are gay? Do you demand to be included in the struggle? You can start by sucking my cock. Failing that, why do so many straight white men start moaning when it's pointed out that not everything gets to be about them?
There are some things that are always going to be outside your experience. The rational thing to do is to defer to the experts when you don't and can't know what the hell you're talking about.
So every apology has to be taken at face value? Back the fuck up, you presumptuous piece of dogshit. Brokensoldier acknowledged in #350 that the insult had been ongoing at the time of my complaint, so you're already too wrong to be taken seriously. As for "deliberate", I never said that. Am I paranoid also for noting that you're putting words in my mouth? How about for noting that you're a stupid asshole with nothing to say?
Posted by: Twin-Skies | December 22, 2008 3:42 AM
...Somebody please tell me what pray the gay away's issue is, exactly?
I see a lot of flaming, albeit with no clear or valid reason for said flaming.
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 22, 2008 3:44 AM
Can't follow a fucking thread, Wowbagger?
"Another fucking lie from a worthless shit with nothing to say" does not prove "clearly unable to think straight with all the hate and rage inside you."
Hate, and rage, sure, conceded. I have good reasons, not that you give a shit, and not that I need to justify myself to you. But that's all nothing to do with my ability to think straight. That's the bullshit of clinteas's that you chose to wallow in, and you still haven't made the effort to back it up. Are you just another pearl-clutcher?
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 22, 2008 3:46 AM
Twin-Skies wrote:
Ah, crap. Bad choice of words, dude. He's going to go even more insane now. On the plus side, though, it might incense him so much his head will actually explode.
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 22, 2008 3:49 AM
Way back up there, Quiet_Desperation insisted that gay people have gotten quite mad enough already about the Rick Warren, thank you very much, and it's time to move on to "more important issues."
I pointed out that this wasn't his decision to make. Every reply to me since then has been either a whine that it's mean for me to suggest that straight people can't understand what it's like to be gay, or a whine that I'm being impolite, or both.
Both completely idiotic complaints, but the idiots just keep coming.
Posted by: Twin-Skies | December 22, 2008 3:51 AM
@pray away the gay
No offense man, but throwing expletives left and right isn't going to help you or the rest of the thread to calm down.
Posted by: Kel | December 22, 2008 3:51 AM
You aren't being polite at all, it's not whining, it's obvious to anyone who isn't you. Calm the fuck down already.Posted by: pray away the gay | December 22, 2008 3:57 AM
If that mattered to me, I'd surely take your good advice.
No shit,
yes it is.
Why?
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 22, 2008 4:01 AM
patg wrote:
A summary of what patg has called posters here:
asshole
liar
self-assured shit
motherfucker
asshole
fucking lying piece of shit
worthless shit
shithead
stupid asshole
idiot
Yeah, impolite. That's the word for what you're being.
Posted by: Twin-Skies | December 22, 2008 4:01 AM
There's an old saying in Tagalog regarding debates and heated discussions:
"Unang mapikon, talo."
Posted by: Twin-Skies | December 22, 2008 4:05 AM
Correction, the phrase is:
"Pikon, talo."
Posted by: kel | December 22, 2008 4:06 AM
No, maintain your indignity. It furthers your cause really well...Posted by: Wowbagger | December 22, 2008 4:12 AM
I don't think patg is going to calm down. He's just hoping that, eventually, someone here is going to write something else that he can choose to interpret as homophobic to feed his deep-seated, irrational, baseless belief that all straight people secretly hate all gay people, no matter how untrue it is. Then he'll be able to go away justified in keeping that belief.
He doesn't realise he's come to wrong place.
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 22, 2008 4:13 AM
Please. It's really no concern of mine whether I get angry and am seen as an asshole. Story of my life. It's actually very rarely a problem, as any asshole can tell you. My sole concern here is defending my words from misrepresentation. Anybody who wants to read less from me is advised to use common sense and a killfile. Any fuckwit like clinteas who wants to bring the noise is equally advised to quote specifically.
I really give a fuck whether you find my conduct unbecoming, shithole. Keep piling on the concern.
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 22, 2008 4:17 AM
Back the fuck up, dumbass. I don't think I've called anyone here homophobic yet. You really love putting words in my mouth, don't you?
It appears clinteas isn't the stupidest motherfucker around. You're obviously much more willing to completely make shit up and then pin it on me.
Posted by: John Morales | December 22, 2008 4:20 AM
PATG, my point is you only speak for yourself, not for an entire group, when you take offense at posters here.
You're entitled to your opinion no more than any other person, and I've been around here long enough to know that those commenters of whom you are so contemptuous and insulted by are by no means homophobic or dull-witted.
1. Nothing. What's intolerant is your imputation that that denies any non-gays an opinion. Try it with this substitution: "What exactly is intolerant about noting that the experience of being criminal is necessarily limited to people who are criminal?" in relation to criminal law reform. Are you contending only criminals have a right to express an opinion? 2. No, and no, thanks. The issue is inequitable laws and policies. One need not be homosexual to realise that denying such equal rights is unfair, or to have an idea of the political processes involved. Are you an expert at politics, and do you need to be to have an opinion on the process? His decision was to express an opinion. You responded by implying he cannot have a valid opinion, because he's not in your in-group, and that you found his opinion insulting.By the way, if "motherfucker" is supposed to be an insult (and I think it is, and that it's deliberately), can you explain what exactly is wrong with mother fucking in a way that's not analogous to the way homophobes object to gay sex?
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 22, 2008 4:21 AM
I can see tomorrow's headline:
Gays abuse liberals on left-wing, atheist Science blog! Rick Warren hears and opts out of inauguration swearing to never criticise gays again!
You keep up the good fight, patg. It might just happen.
Posted by: Jadehawk | December 22, 2008 4:28 AM
what is it lately with the emotional trolls on here lately? this is the second one this week...
Posted by: Kel | December 22, 2008 4:28 AM
Fuck it, I couldn't give a shit one way or the other. It's not my fault you have sand in your vagina, don't take it out on me.Posted by: Wowbagger | December 22, 2008 4:33 AM
patg wrote:
Maybe you'd better check that mouth of yours, 'cause these words came out of it - in post #328:
You accused a poster of making a derogatory, sweeping statement about all gays. Care to explain to me how that isn't accusing someone of homophobia?
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 22, 2008 4:34 AM
You're pretty dull-witted if you think that's what I'm saying.
Said nothing like that, asshole. Keep lying about me, though.
What I said to Q_D was that "Because you're straight and not an ally, it's not an important issue to you." And that was in response to Q_D moaning that he didn't understand why gay people were so worked up over Warren. It's pretty fucking obvious that Q_D's indifference is due to him not giving a fuck. Shit, that's almost a tautology. What I can't understand is why you're so offended that I'm pointing this out.
The issue, you illiterate scumfuck, is Rick Fucking Warren and his invocation at Obama's inauguration. Can you follow a thread? Can anyone here?
No, no, and no. Goddamn you are stupid beyond repair. That dumb shit started trying to dictate to gay people what they should take seriously and what they should not, and his own personal insult-meter should be the guide. That's just stupid, and all I've said was that that was stupid. And you still seem to have some big fucking problem with me saying that that's stupid.
Is this a serious question? Do you want an apology? If you back the fuck up and start listening to anything I've said, stop putting words in my mouth, quit making assumptions and start asking honest questions without implying that I'm not entitled to my anger, there's a possibility you'll get a retraction and an apology. I'm not sure you're up to the challenge, though.
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 22, 2008 4:39 AM
It was a notation of blindness to privilege. Not the same thing as homophobia.
However, it's extremely common for people to interpret recognition of straight privilege as an accusation of homophobia, or recognition of white privilege as an accusation of racism, and so on. I can understand how you'd make that common mistake.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 22, 2008 4:40 AM
"to feed his deep-seated, irrational, baseless belief that all straight people secretly hate all gay people"- Clinteas
And PATG thinks that this is made up? Based off of this:
"Hate, and rage, sure, conceded. I have good reasons, not that you give a shit, and not that I need to justify myself to you."
-I would say he was right on the money. I hope your moniker is sarcastic, becasue you have no fucking manners or general decency, clearly.
Feel free to get all pissed off for no reason now.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 22, 2008 4:43 AM
patg wrote:
I've no doubt you're entitled to your anger. What I have problem with is who you're fucking directing it at - people who, for the most part, agree with you.
Here's a hint: no-one here is a supporter of Rick fucking Warren. We probably can't hate him as much as you do, but that doesn't mean we don't have our own reasons for thinking he's miserable turd and a waste of fucking space the planet would be a better place without.
You're wasting your anger here. If there were a vote tomorrow to overturn Prop 8 or enact any other legislation to redress the balance of anti-gay discrimination I guarantee you nearly every regular poster here would be voting for it.
Why the fuck can't you see that?
Posted by: John Morales | December 22, 2008 4:43 AM
PATG:
1.Yes. Care to answer it?2. What for? You didn't insult me, you merely attempted to.
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 22, 2008 4:47 AM
A bottomless well of illiteracy. Nothing I said there holds any suggestion that I believe all straight people to hate gay people. Damn, you are dumb.
Posted by: Rey Fox | December 22, 2008 4:49 AM
This thread is a good confirmation of my thought when I first read that first post on Rick Warren: We shouldn't be having an invocation at this inauguration. Perhaps a valedictorian would suffice if we really have to have some danged speech or other. And no witch doctors of any sect allowed.
Wowbagger trying his hand at some glib name-calling:
"So, do I pass the GWIAS test? Can I get my tinfoil hat now? How about a subscription to Gas Guzzlers Monthly - I hear the latest issue has an article on how to make my Suburban even less efficient - and a fat paycheck from big oil?"
Hey...how did you know he has a subscription to Gas Guzzlers Monthly? You must be one of those government goons intruding into his private life!
Posted by: clinteas | December 22, 2008 4:52 AM
I see we are still at this with insult-flinger-man....
There's no rational debate to be had here sadly,that guy is way too far gone down the road of "lonesome hero of an oppressed minority that noone else can even begin to understand"....
Ironic,Q_D and myself are probably,if I remember correctly 2 of the more,ahem,open-minded commenters here lol(not counting the naked Bunny),and so do not have and never had,any problems with gay people and their lifestyle and struggle in society,ever,at all...
But insult flinger would never let facts get in the way of a wholesome rant,of course....
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 22, 2008 4:53 AM
patg wrote:
Oh, come on. You accused someone of saying all gays were stupid - how does that come under 'blindness to privilege'? I understand the concept, but it does not apply here. As far as I know being straight doesn't provide an innate intelligence or better access to education.
You could give equivocation lessons to a biblical apologist.
Posted by: John Morales | December 22, 2008 4:55 AM
clinteas, ooh you said "lifestyle" in relation to gays! Bad monkey! ;)
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 22, 2008 4:56 AM
On the contrary. This latest round started when clinteas accused me warrantlessly of having a "persecution complex" without backing that up, and then went on to claim I was incoherent, rendered illogical by my rage, and so on.
My rage does much to clarify my thoughts, I've said nothing incoherent, and it's quite a stretch to say that I've got a "persecution complex" when gay people really are persecuted and I'm not making claims of persecution by anyone here. Multiple times I'm misrepresented by people saying that I'm seeing some conspiracy of homophobia among the commenters here, despite my clarifications to the contrary, and so on.
All I'm doing now is setting the record straight. Anybody who wants me to shut up would do well to stop making shit up about me.
If I tell you ten more times that I already know that, will you stop impugning my motives?
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 22, 2008 4:59 AM
See, that right there is why you're still the dumbest fuck in the room.
There's nothing difficult to understand here, but you keep getting it wrong.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 22, 2008 4:59 AM
clinteas,
It seems that he's got it into his head that if he insults enough of us it's somehow going to make a difference. It's an interesting theory; I look forward to reading about how it pans out.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 22, 2008 5:00 AM
"Nothing I said there holds any suggestion that I believe all straight people to hate gay people."
Nice to see that you have no grasp of the concept of hyperbole- and the accusation that everyone else here is illiterate and braindead only makes the irony even more delectable. Your not making me angry, it's too funny. But you have fun with the psychosis and crucifiction complex.
And you must have some serious inadequacies in regards to your intelligence if you must constantly insult the intelligence of other posters.
Bringing up my second point.
"you are one disturbed individual"
"Like you give a fuck."- PATG
Yes, well i do at least. You seem incredably unstable, and it seems unfair that the world' people should have to deal with the likes of you. Secondly, it bothers me that you have to come over here to vent your frustrations on faceless individuals on the net. I mean, this is what therapists are for guy. And Perscription pads. ;)
But you apparently get way too much pleasure from being an asshole, so maybe i'm wasting my energy here. I feel like i'm addresing a primitive man who is injured and angery at the entire world for it. It's rather sad.
Posted by: clinteas | December 22, 2008 5:05 AM
I wasnt going to mention it.
Just came back from dinner with my friends next door.I told them about patg and what he said here,and they just shook their head,and laughed.
What I will concede,and what I know from talking to the gays on this blog capable of rational debate,is that there is much more persecution of gays going on in the US than it is over here,so sorry if I underestimated any sensitivities.
But the fact remains that you,patg,are a fucked in the head shitflinger.
Did I mention my mates next door are a gay couple.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 22, 2008 5:07 AM
patg wrote:
Then try explaining it to us - without abusing anyone. Right now you're like a kid screaming at the top of his voice that he's not screaming, and biting anyone who moves within arm's length.
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 22, 2008 5:15 AM
Hang on. I was using a rhetorical device. Look at precisely what I said:
To apologize and then explain at length how it wasn't an insult is to contradict the apology. One of the ways to explain that behavior would be an assumption, on the part of the speaker, that the listener was too dense to decide on their own what constitutes an insult. But this is hardly a statement about all gay people everywhere; it's clearly in the context of this thread, and the subjects are limited to gay people in this thread who took offense at the statement. That is no sweeping accusation of homophobia.
At any rate, I'm uncomfortable dissecting this further, because brokensoldier ended up being very reasonable about the matter, and I think it would be unacceptably rude of me to further use this example, after a sincere apology.
Suffice to say that I did not accuse brokensoldier of homophobia, either in general or toward specific people here. I don't want to leave that misunderstanding hanging.
Posted by: clinteas | December 22, 2008 5:15 AM
I will agree with rickrOll on this one,it is rather sad.
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 22, 2008 5:18 AM
Hyperbole is still several steps removed from outright lies. I've seen better trolling from the likes of GWIAS. Give it up.
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 22, 2008 5:22 AM
The new most unintentionally funny comment of the thread, especially in context of #350.
You continue to be an embarrassment to yourself, clinteas. At least I know when I'm being a prick.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 22, 2008 5:23 AM
patg:
Fair enough - I withdraw my accusation. And thanks for toning down the vehemence, since it's been difficult to see past that to the points you're trying to make. I consider many of the posters here my friends and dislike seeing them described in such a negative way; I'll always get defensive in that situation.
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 22, 2008 5:28 AM
What, in regards to #430? All there is to be said is that I'm making only very limited claims about what can and can't be understood: straight people cannot personally understand the persecution of gay people, and it's wonderful for them to try to get close, but detrimental to assume that they've grasped it or that their understanding should politically precede that of gay people.
That's nothing like "lonesome hero of an oppressed minority that noone else can even begin to understand," and such a blithe dismissal requires a complete misunderstanding of the discussion.
Posted by: clinteas | December 22, 2008 5:33 AM
And this remains a stupid statement,however much we like each other now.
You are an offensive narrow-minded shitflinger,hauling abuse at anyone who dares to critisize you or threatens your feeling of uniqueness and being the most persecuted minority on earth.Take a trip to Saudi Arabia,fuckhead.Might teach you something about minorities.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 22, 2008 5:36 AM
"Give it up."
Why should i concede a point to you, where there is none?
At any rate, i won't harass you now that you've calmed down a couple of notches. Not that clinteas needs to concede anything either, but i'll let you two fight it out. None of my business.
And, as was mentioned upthread, we all agree with you. Gays are terribly persecuted at the hands of Bible-toting hypocritical fucktards- something which is likely to not change so long as there are megachurches and fucktards. But i think things will improve. There is no Constitutional basis for shit like Prop 8, and i will continue to opperate under the guise that it will go the way of Jim Crow. We can't all emulate the South, nor will we. Have a little more faith in people.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 22, 2008 5:38 AM
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 22, 2008 5:39 AM
Then explain in detail how it's wrong.
Wow. For all my meanspiritedness, I never wished for anyone here to experience the persecution I have in America, let alone for any of you to have your heads chopped off. You really crossed a new line there, clinteas. Sick.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 22, 2008 5:40 AM
Agreed. I have no idea what that sort of persecution is like. But, that being said, there are going to be occasions when the opinions of people not directly affected by something can be helpful. And Rick Warren's not entirely fond of atheism or secularism either, so it's not like we don't have our own reasons to not want him there.
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 22, 2008 5:49 AM
Sure, opinions can be helpful. But "The invocation (provocation?) is set, we protested, let's move on to more important issues" is not such an example. This is between gay people and Barack Obama, and the appropriate level of excoriation is up to us. And some straight guy telling us when our issues are addressed and now no longer important enough to continue pursuing... that's completely unwelcome and warrants a hearty "go fuck yourself."
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 22, 2008 5:50 AM
Well, so is Warmista blowhard Tim Lambert. But you don't seem to have a problem with his lack of qualifications when he pontificates on "climate change". Oh, wait...he's on your side, so it's not a problem then.
So you admit to making an argument from authority and contributing nothing original to the discussion. Thank-you for your candor!
Posted by: clinteas | December 22, 2008 5:50 AM
Im not fighting anyone or anything.Therefore my term "persecution complex".
Shitflinger called me his "enemy" after I commented on his comments to brokensoldier.He insulted brokensoldier,who went out of his way to apologize for a "perceived" insult to patg,polite person he is.
Im done with this troll,well and truly.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 22, 2008 5:53 AM
Wowbagger, that's cus you aren't Black ;)
OR are you? Hmmmmm.
No seriously though:
I think that the parallels there ought to be easy to make. I mean, they were in the gas chambers at Auschwitz, they've been lynched in Alabama, and they have been treated like second-class citizens by most inadvertently. I think that it would be fairly easy to make those connections However tenative. But i can't speak for all "sexual juhadists" out there. And i certianly agree that no one's suffering is exactly like anyone elses.
I mean, that is the tragedy of human existance- empathy is flawed. But it doesn't mean we don't have an obligation to try.
Posted by: Kel | December 22, 2008 5:58 AM
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 22, 2008 5:58 AM
Retcon.
I had already thanked brokensoldier for the apology (to BMS, later extended to me) and that whole affair was over when you starting flinging your own shit at me.
Posted by: Kel | December 22, 2008 6:02 AM
Blockquote fail
Firstly, where was I advocating Tim Lambert? Secondly, he's not going against scientific consensus: you are! You are the one who thinks you know better than the scientific community, not me. Are you going to let us know just what credentials you have or not?If you are a climatologist, why are you sizing yourself up against non-climatologists instead of fighting for your idea through the peer review system? It seems you are just trying to bully people into thinking the way you do, yet despite people here playing your game, you continue to ignore them and play the game of evasion.
Science is done in academia, you won't change anything by complaining about it on a blog. You are nothing short of a lame hack who can't break from rhetoric.
Posted by: John Morales | December 22, 2008 6:04 AM
PATG, first, let me say I appreciate your post @435. That's quite reasonable.
OTOH, I consider you're still being hypersensitive when I see responses such as that @444.
Social attitudes towards gays and atheists in the US may be intolerant and unjust, but they utterly pale in degree and effect when compared to the institutionalised severe oppression of such in Saudi Arabia, for example.
Clinteas is, in essence, alluding to the fact that you need to get some perspective. Look, I have a female family member who works in Saudi Arabia, and she can't even leave the compound unless a male staffer deigns to take her; she feels like a dog on a leash. When she returns home, she doesn't feel slighted because I opine on that situation.
You apparently feel justified by the (relatively) light oppression you expericence enough to wax vituperative against perceived slights from those who support your cause, yet your oppression hardly rates when compared to that of other groups in other places, and is not incomparable to that which atheists experience. For example, here's a news story:
Try substituting "atheist" for "gay and lesbian" in that story, and you might get an idea that perhaps others have a reason to also be concerned and to have feelings, and that you're not the only oppressed group.Posted by: Wowbagger | December 22, 2008 6:08 AM
patg wrote:
Did anyone say you shouldn't, or did they just say that they didn't think there was much value in it? I can't see the rationale in telling you you can't, unless there's a perception that, by doing so, you'd be doing more harm than good to your cause. But that's not something I, personally, am in a position to assess the validity of.
No, not really. My great3 grandfather was a freed slave (who was at least part 'coloured' according to the records - their words, not mine) from no-one knows where (he has a French name) who ended up in Mauritius, then did something to get arrested, tried and sentenced to transportation to Australia. From there it's been a gradual whitening process to get to me, who's fishbelly pale with reddish-blonde hair. So I certainly can't claim to have suffered discrimination because of that.
Choosing to read books rather than play football, on the other hand, got me into trouble on more than one occasion.
Posted by: clinteas | December 22, 2008 6:11 AM
Thanks John,for summing up my argument much better that I could have,having lost patience with this one a while ago.....
Posted by: RickrOll | December 22, 2008 6:13 AM
John @453: And that's why i insist that we get along and tackle bigger issues like the proliferation of stupidity in this country. A large success will continue to degrade into many smaller ones. I think that bickering is childish and pointless. There's a lot of work to be done in this country without tearing out each others throats because we each want to be the most offended or oppressed people.
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 22, 2008 6:18 AM
Gay people are never murdered in America? That's great news! I feel so much safer now.
Just shut the fuck up, John. I've been beaten to near death multiple times for refusing to pass.
I'm also an atheist, and I know the discrimination we go through. I'm not going to draw comparisons, because it's a pointless distraction. Being an atheist is not like being gay, and it wouldn't be even if the penalties were regularly of similar magnitude. You really, really missed the point.
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 22, 2008 6:20 AM
Still putting words in my mouth, fuckwit?
Posted by: RickrOll | December 22, 2008 6:22 AM
Wowbagger: White people are boring. OK, i'm boring. So what?! lol ok enough distraction.
"then did something to get arrested, tried and sentenced to transportation to Australia."
a) well not necessarily. I know how it goes.
b) what a dreadful punishment ;) Australia's pretty neat, as far as i'm concerned. But maybe not so much back then (150 years?)
I'm from Spokane, so does that make me a serial killer by association? If you don't get it, well, look it up.
It's a rather large town in the middle of nowhere. Having an entire city with a small-town mentality has interesting effects, apparently...
Posted by: mayhempix | December 22, 2008 6:22 AM
Wow! I wake this morning and see that things have escalated from Joel's peception that Warren's participation is an intolerable insult proving Obama is not for gay rights, even though he has repeatedly and consistently stated he is, to see PTGA raging at any breeder who doesn't shut the fuck because they can't possibly understand persecution.
For any gay person to state there has been no progress in the past 30 years is simply a blindess fed by rage, no matter how justified. Until about a year ago, most African Americans would never have believed that one of them could ever be elected president. It is ironic that now that has happened and Obama has openly stated his unqualified support for gay rights, that people like Joel and PTGA are convinced that Obama is against them.
I mean let's be honest here, a gay person will be elected president before a declared atheist. And Rick Warren is just as bigoted and offensive to us. So the claim of privledege that we don't understand exclusion and persecution is just plain ass wrong. I mean should atheists take it as a personal insult everytime Obama appoints someone of any faith? Of course not because I do not believe he has a litmus test for being gay, atheist, female, muslim, jew, native american, etc. Obama states, and it would appear to be the case, that his choices are based on the combinations of the best person for the job, representation of the diversity of the whole of the US population and tactical considerations to pursue his visions of what needs to be done. Is he the 2nd coming for progressives and infallible? No. But he never claimed to be and the anger and disappointment that he is not is self inflicted by those who let their emotions cloud their ability to listen to he was actually saying.
It is pointless to try and convince those like PTGA that their rage clouds their reasoning (although I am glad he appears to have blown GWIAS of the thread.) I just hope that someday he understands the vast majority of the posters on this thread are not the enemy.
Posted by: Kel | December 22, 2008 6:23 AM
Why are you putting so much focus into yelling at us over the way you've been treated. The way you are acting here, it's like we are the ones who did it. Calm the fuck down, seriously and if you have some anger take it out on the cunts who actually oppress you.
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 22, 2008 6:24 AM
It's still just astonishing to me that so many people here can be so fucking stupid as to keep saying this when I've said nothing to the contrary.
Enough with the canned platitudes.
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 22, 2008 6:26 AM
Another moron with no reading comprehension.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 22, 2008 6:28 AM
Damn. Just as soon as I post GWIAS is gone... wham!! He reappears in a cloud of noxious methane. What an idiot gasbag. But he does loves the attention he obivously can't find in his real life. Being a perpetual methane machine does that to one's social life.
Posted by: clinteas | December 22, 2008 6:28 AM
I wish some of our gay commenters were around to tell this guy that he's lost the plot.
Provide evidence that the death rate for gays is higher than that for females,males,liberals,democrats,KKK members,clergy,Mets fans, or any other group.
Humour me,what are the penalties?Getting your head cut off,or your hand? 200 lashes? Having to walk around veiled? Didnt think so...
Perspective,youre doing it wrong.
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 22, 2008 6:29 AM
Go fuck yourself, shitbag. I thought you already said you were done here?
Fact is pieces of shit like John and mayhempix are telling me that I'm not sufficiently oppressed to have any complaint. The only reasonable response is to be clear that I have been assaulted to near death. I didn't bring that up out of nowhere, or for your fucking sympathy; it came up in a very specific context and you can shove your lecture right up your stupid ass if you aren't willing to follow the goddamned thread.
Posted by: John Morales | December 22, 2008 6:29 AM
PATG @457,
1. Very tolerant of you.2. Yikes. I have much sympathy for you, but those who assaulted you were surely considered criminals by the state, and by the community at large (I'm guessing you're American). In Saudi Arabia, they would've been heroes, where you live they're criminals.
You appear to have missed institutionalised.
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 22, 2008 6:34 AM
Go fuck yourself. Civility is the first refuge of a scoundrel.
The word doesn't just mean "legally sanctioned."
And I'm not here to play oppression olympics. Quit missing the point. You're the one who's trying to draw all these pointless comparisons and place all this shit on a continuum, when it can't be and there's no need to do so. And then when I respond, ignorant fucks say I'm claiming that X is worse than Y and so on when I'm not and that's not my point.
Fuck off.
Posted by: Ragutis | December 22, 2008 6:35 AM
PATG:
Try finding a blog or forum full of people that don't support your cause and spew your piss and bile there. It'll be just as effective as here (not at all), but at least then your anger is more likely to be directed at those that might deserve it. Right now you're calling people that are on your side about equality and marriage rights "motherfuckers" and "pieces of shit".
If there's any undecided lurkers reading this, that shit sure isn't going to win any points with them. Luckily, I'm guessing most of us have gay friends and family to show us that spluttering vitriol and apoplectic rage like that are the exception.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 22, 2008 6:35 AM
PTGA "Another moron with no reading comprehension."
Amazing. This could just as easily be a response from GWIAS or any other wingnut troll.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 22, 2008 6:36 AM
"Still putting words in my mouth, fuckwit?"
Maybe you're a poe? Why else would someone go out of their way to prove my point?
And once again, you think that what happens here in the States is the worst that you could have to deal with. His point still stands.
Thanks for trying to become that pursecuted minority once again, and in doing so, make zero headway in improving your situation or that of those who share your demograghic. You are embarrasing yourself.
I say that not to denegrade the reality of your suffering, but to tell you would be dead in Saudia Arabia. Point blank. Or, you could be homeless and get the double whammy of economic destitution and cultural stigma. So yeah, it gets worse.
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 22, 2008 6:37 AM
See this shit? See it? Nobody said anything like that, and yet mayhempix just sets up that straw man and knocks it over to demonstrate that I'm blinded by rage, etc. Fucking transparent.
Quit making shit up. Or is that how everyone rolls here?
Posted by: SC, OM | December 22, 2008 6:37 AM
Ok, it's early in the morning, I haven't read the whole thread as closely as I ordinarily would prior to commenting, but I'm going out on a limb here to say that I agree with pray away the gay's response to Q_D and that I think his position is being misrepresented and his words misconstrued.
Posted by: Atheist Chaplain | December 22, 2008 6:38 AM
"keep your friends close, and your enemies even closer"
throwing (P)rick Warren in might just be a bone thrown to appease some cons, I don't think anyone inside the Obama camp will be negatively affected by this and those who howl in derision are not giving the man enough long term planning credit.
Who knows, next term he might get Richard Dawkins to say a few words ;-)
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 22, 2008 6:40 AM
Anybody who puts words in my mouth deserves the venom.
Posted by: Kel | December 22, 2008 6:40 AM
Now you see, that isn't helpful. And I didn't say I was done, I said I didn't give a shit. You're being that stereotype Bill O'Rielly is using to demonise gay people. So if you want to maintain that rage, fine. Go ahead. Could you do it somewhere else though, you are being way too vicious even by this blog's standard.Posted by: RickrOll | December 22, 2008 6:40 AM
So, in the shortest of shorts PATG, Grow the fuck up.
Or leave. We are so sorry here that the world doesn't revolve around trolls like you.
Posted by: clinteas | December 22, 2008 6:42 AM
SC,
this thread has seen a few twists and turns,and way too many ad hominems,to not read it in full before chosing a side.....
Nothing misconstrued or misrepresented here,the fellow made his opinions clear enough for everyone....And in no uncertain terms,as far as insults and swear words go.Substance is lacking however.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 22, 2008 6:42 AM
Define "vast majority". Prove that this majority of "climate scientists" agree that the "question has been settled" by linking to the on-the-record comments of every person currently studying climate science - GWIAS the Liar
*Sigh* I meant not to respond further to this stupid turd, but since this may be useful to genuine enquirers, I will reference the following article:
BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes
Science 3 December 2004:
Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686
DOI: 10.1126/science.110361
Abstract:
Policy-makers and the public who are not members of the relevant research community have had to form opinions about the reality of global climate change on the basis of often conflicting descriptions provided by the media regarding the level of scientific certainty attached to studies of climate. In this Essay, Oreskes analyzes the existing scientific literature to show that there is a robust consensus that anthropogenic global climate change is occurring. Thus, despite claims sometimes made by some groups that there is not good evidence that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities, the scientific community is in overwhelming agreement that such evidence is clear and persuasive.
Of course, Orsekes does not link "to the on-the-record comments of every person currently studying climate science". Making such a ludicrous demand is itself sufficient evidence of GWIAS the Liar's bad faith. What Oreskes does is take a random sample of 928 peer-reviewed articles, selected objectively by searching for the phrase "global climate change", which of course genuine scientific sceptics would be as likely to use as proponents of the AGW theory when addressing the issue. She found that of those articles that actually address the issue (about 3/4 - in some cases, the climate change issue is just being used as a comparison with something else), 100% supported the AGW theory. Of course, GWIAS will dismiss this, as he dismisses all evidence - but any sane person will recognise that it does indeed prove the existence of the scientific consensus.
large swaths of land could also become arable. Greenland could live up to its name. Deaths from cold weather (which now greatly outnumber deaths from heat) could be greatly reduced. Heart attacks caused by shoveling snow could be minimized. The roads could be much safer in the winter. Now that I think of it, I could get to like this "global warming". - GWIAS the Moron
So, GWIAS has abandoned the untenable position that global temperature does not matter - and, implicitly, his position that global warming is not happening (after all, if it isn't, how could its effects possibly matter?). He is quite typical of AGW denialists who, like creobots, shift from one spurious objection to another without the slightest concern for consistency. If his position were a rational one, he would now undertake an investigation of the peer-reviewed literature to discover what the likely balance of advantages and disadvantages is. Of course it isn't, so he won't, but for anyone interested, the best place to start is the 2007 report of "Working Group II, Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability" of the IPCC. This is available in full online at http://www.gtp89.dial.pipex.com/chpt.htm, and includes extensive references to the peer-reviewed literature. Of course, GWIAS the Liar will bleat that this is part of the evil UN/far-left/socialist plot to destroy Amurrica, which has already taken over the AAAS and all other relevant US scientific associations, but he can easily use it as a starting point to search for articles disputing those referred to (Google Scholar, for those who are unfamiliar with it, helpfully lists all articles that refer to any given article - which of course you would necessarily do if you were penning a refutation). Of course, GWIAS the Fraud will do no such thing, because his objections are not scientific but purely ideological.
Naturally, there will be some advantages to warming, but the balance if rapid warming occurs will almost certainly be negative, and overwhelmingly so if mean temperatures rise more than around 2 degrees C (which we might just be able to prevent by prompt and radical action to reduce emissions). The largest risks are probably the melting of glaciers in the Himalayas and Andes, which would deprive billions of people of the water they need for their crops (I remind the selfish in other regions that both China and India would be badly affected, would desperately need more land, and both have nuclear weapons), the dessication of large parts of the world's most productive agricultural lands, particularly in the USA and Australia (no, Canada and Russia can't come anywhere near fully compensating - their soils are too poor and the growing season is limited by light levels as well as temperature); and above all the triggering of positive feedbacks from the warming of soils and ocean and the melting of permafrost, which could release vast additional quantities of CO2 and methane and carry the increase up to 5 or 6 degrees C - at which point, even the survival of humanity as a whole comes into question.
BTW, someone suggested GWIAS is a Poe. Oh, no. He's been here before - crops up almost whenever AGW is mentioned. He is without doubt the genuine 24-carat stupid.
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 22, 2008 6:44 AM
For the thousandth time, I'm not fucking saying that, fuck you.
My last response to clinteas makes that pretty clear, in fact.
You know, it's not even your dishonesty that makes this so pitiful. It's that I really think you can't understand what I'm saying. And even a few comments without cursing didn't help. You really are just a dumb shit who can't read.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 22, 2008 6:45 AM
PTGA "Fact is pieces of shit like John and mayhempix are telling me that I'm not sufficiently oppressed to have any complaint."
John and I said absolutely no such thing.
I was once surrounded by four wingnut Marines in Laguna Beach CA who were on a gay bashing spree. They proceeded to spit on me and punch me calling me a faggot. I was lucky to escape without serious injury so please don't tell me I don't get it.
You need to take a deep breath and chill out.
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 22, 2008 6:47 AM
I'd love to have an honest conversation. At least Wowbagger tried, and if I was just here to troll, I wouldn't have taken the time to reciprocate. You are a dumbshit, Rick, and you're welcome to start using that killfile any fucking time.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 22, 2008 6:48 AM
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 22, 2008 6:49 AM
Which is a fair comment, and a response he's certainly entitled to. What I and a few others took umbrage at was that he seemed overly vicious and hostile toward posters who, for the most part, agreed with him - but saw fit to question the need for such vitriol.
I guess he's just being treated like we would treat an aggressive creationist - which, while not fair, is at least in part explained by force of habit. One of us gets bitten; several of us bite back. The pack mentality is something we haven't quite evolved out of...
Posted by: John Morales | December 22, 2008 6:52 AM
SC, I refer you to #318 and #319.
@318, PATG missed that QD was talking about the invocation (and Warren's theological bent) - but PATG is a single-issue poster and assumed it was about gay rights.
@319, PATG uncharitably took brokensoldier's apology as insincere, rather than at face value.
It went on from there.
And I leave at this, nothing new has arisen and I've said my piece.
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 22, 2008 6:52 AM
Sure looks that way.
And if you've been assaulted for being gay or being perceived as gay, then I'm not telling you that you don't get it.
No, I don't need to do anything to make you more comfortable. There may be entirely too much comfort going around these days.
Posted by: clinteas | December 22, 2008 6:54 AM
No pack mentality Wowbagger,just that people that have commented here for years know each other and know each others strengths and weaknesses and opinions,and respect each other.
I get nervous when all I get is insults and swearwords thrown at me around here,it makes me suspect a deeper underlying trauma,and most of the time this makes any proper discussion impossible,as you well know.
Posted by: SC, OM | December 22, 2008 6:55 AM
And this strange idea that seems to underlie some of the arguments made here - that the Obama victory has somehow defanged the religious right to the point that it can now be handed a symbolic branch with no real effects - is a dangerous one, IMO. We can't ignore or dismiss them any more now than we could a couple of months ago. They are ruthless, they are organized, and they will continue to do everything in the power to contol the direction of the US and the world. They will take advantage of any opening or opportunity to advance.
I've read the exchanges with patg, and I disagree.
I also find it strage to see some people who have exressed support for truth machine get up in arms over rudeness or namecalling. I mean, c'mon.
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 22, 2008 6:56 AM
The only instance of that which I can remember is #404, which I responded civilly to. Everything else has been a misrepresentation of some sort, some of them undoubtedly honest mistakes, but an honest mistake still a dumbfuck makes.
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 22, 2008 6:59 AM
On the contrary. QD ignoring the gay issue and then declaring it time to move the fuck on, in the context of a post where PZ brought up gay issues as important, is quite pertinent.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 22, 2008 6:59 AM
@PTGA
FTR my "30 year" response was not directly about you. It was in reference to what Joel was saying yesterday:
Posted by: Joel | December 21, 2008 4:50 PM
"The problem here is the bigots are still at work three decades later, and no end in sight... I've spent a good part of my life patiently waiting for the rest of the world to come to their senses and I don't see any point in continuing to go down that road, it just doesn't work."
I understand how any oppressed minority can feel the anger they have, but progress, like or not, usually comes in increments and Obama's election is a move forward for gays in this country.
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 22, 2008 7:02 AM
Well, then I misunderstood you and I'm sorry for that. But I think you in turn misunderstood Joel, who doesn't seem to have been saying that there's been no progress, rather that the same set of bigots are using the same arguments and negotiating with them hasn't helped.
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 22, 2008 7:04 AM
Yes, that certainly explains why you dredged up an already-settled disagreement to start insulting my mental state.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 22, 2008 7:05 AM
"...but an honest mistake still a dumbfuck makes."
Oh, the irony!
Posted by: clinteas | December 22, 2008 7:05 AM
SC,
I know exactly what you are thinking,but this is not what I was talking to Brownian about way back at all.
PATG( and please think about the nick for a moment)has pretty much assaulted and abused every regular commenter here on his quest to picturing himself as the number one minority,and John,me and others have tried to put this into perspective,which was only answered by more insults.
And all this only after the guy insulted brokensoldier,who fucking bent over to apologize to the guy,just for having maybe hurt his feelings.
As far as Im concerned,we tried hard here to reason with this chap,but hes not after reasoning.
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 22, 2008 7:06 AM
Only if I were incapable of admitting my own mistakes, or denied that they reflected poorly upon me.
Still, go fuck yourself, just for good measure, shithead.
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 22, 2008 7:09 AM
1001 times now, bullshit, fuck you, liar.
Tell me about the nick. You've got my curiosity up now.
Any time now you can acknowledge that I gratefully accepted brokensoldier's apology, and it was you, clinteas, all you, who decided to bring it up again and start trash-talking me.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 22, 2008 7:09 AM
What exactly is intolerant about noting that the experience of being gay is necessarily limited to people who are gay? Do you demand to be included in the struggle? You can start by sucking my cock. - pray away the gay
Of course it's entirely possible that a gay man might not fancy sucking the cock of a paranoid shitbag like you. After all, you might suddenly decide they had insulted you and beat them about the head.
If you came here to demonstrate that gays can be bigoted shits as much as straights, you've succeeded triumphantly.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 22, 2008 7:12 AM
Well, I'm not up to a year here yet - heck, I think I'm only just up to six months - but I know that I, personally, can come in swinging if I see one of the regulars getting blasted; that it was someone as otherwise measured and civil as brokensoldier on the receiving end got me all riled up. I doubt I'm the only one that way inclined; ergo, the suggestion of at least occasional pack-like behaviour.
But it might be more my perception of it. That we fight amongst ourselves - the BobC/Holbach vs. a few others a couple of weeks back is evidence of that. So we're certainly not in lockstep or an echo chamber, despite what might get said by visitors here.
My opinion is that I don't know what it's like to be in patg's shoes, and that he must have reasons to be angry that I can't begin to appreciate. I'd prefer it if he didn't take it out on posters here, and I've told him so - and that's all any of us can do. We've got no right to tell him he can't be angry here. Only the Bearded Overlord can do that - but I doubt he will.
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 22, 2008 7:12 AM
Joke. Maybe not a funny one, but it's something else for you to accuse me of a propensity for physical violence. I'm not even the one who invited a gay man to go get killed in Saudi Arabia...
Posted by: mayhempix | December 22, 2008 7:20 AM
Posted by: SC, OM | December 22, 2008 6:55 AM
"And this strange idea that seems to underlie some of the arguments made here - that the Obama victory has somehow defanged the religious right to the point that it can now be handed a symbolic branch with no real effects - is a dangerous one, IMO. We can't ignore or dismiss them any more now than we could a couple of months ago. They are ruthless, they are organized, and they will continue to do everything in the power to contol the direction of the US and the world. They will take advantage of any opening or opportunity to advance."
While I completely agree with the latter part, I must respectfully disagree with the first. No one, at least as far as I can tell, has said Obama's victiory has defanged the bigoted religious nuts and that we can relax our vigilance against them. What I take issue with as espoused by Joel earlier is that Obama is talking out of 2 sides of his mouth and that Warren's participation means Obama has betrayed the gay movement. And while I can see there has been some misunderstanding by both sides on this thread, I feel that PATG's reaction to some posts, including mine, were unnecessarily personal without justification. At the same time I can see that he has tried to clarify his tone and engage to which I give him my complete my respect.
Posted by: clinteas | December 22, 2008 7:21 AM
Agree,same here.
And it was totally unwarranted.
And I wont shut up here ever if some shitface thinks he can insult people that are by far their intellectual,moral and ethical superior.
So yeah,eat my socks.
Posted by: SC, OM | December 22, 2008 7:25 AM
I don't think so. :)
?
Again, this is not how I read the exchange.
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 22, 2008 7:28 AM
How about when the entire exchange was already over, new understandings were reached, everything was settled, and I'd already said to brokensoldier "thanks for that."
Then might you shut up, clinteas?
Posted by: mayhempix | December 22, 2008 7:32 AM
@ pray away the gay | December 22, 2008 7:02 AM
Fair enough.
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 22, 2008 7:34 AM
For this, and subsequent comments, thank you, SC. I knew I was quite able to think straight and communicate, even "with all the hate and rage" inside me, and it's reassuring to know that I was clearly understood.
Apologies and thanks to brokensoldier and Wowbagger, and PZ.
Good bye, Pharyngula.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 22, 2008 7:35 AM
"I'm not even the one who invited a gay man to go get killed in Saudi Arabia..."- Guess who
SIWOTI
We said over and over that you should note that your life doesn't suck comparitively, and thet you ought to be at least partially gratefull for the support of people on this site who- all of them- want equal rights for gays. But no, you want everyone to be the enemy so that you can continue to be the "victim" to endlessly feed your deep-seated rage and frustration, so that you have the energy to continually assume victimhood status.
A Herring Sandwich of psychological justification.
Empathy- yours is broken. Other people care, regardless of whether or not you take the time to notice.
Personally, i think Rick Warren is a complete tool in this case, a token gesture. Maybe pissing off fanatics like yourself was the aim? Meanwhile i think he will continue to ratify Gays' Rights just to spite your venom, because he feels that they deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. And they do.
You however, do not. I can no longer accept you as any sort of spokesperson for the Gay community (or humanity for that matter)- the chip on your shoulder doesn't exactly mesh with the idea of Progressivism (or even sanity).
By the by, which Congressman got your letter for supporting Gay Rights? What action are you doing to further your cause- besides piss off those that support your ideals?
Posted by: RickrOll | December 22, 2008 7:37 AM
It's done eh? then ignore what i said.
Posted by: clinteas | December 22, 2008 7:39 AM
YAWN
Mate,if anyone here shuts me up its going to be PZ,not you....
I noted you didnt have anything to say to this remark by John Morales.It doesnt surprise me.
This is your 319:
there was no insult present aside from the one you perceived.
Most unintentionally funny comment of the thread.
Once more into the breach! Never apologize! If those faggots refuse to understand that they're not allowed to be offended by anything you say, just say it again and again until they fucking well understand.
And this one: You're going to keep playing the insulted card no matter what
Oh of course, it's just a "card," because no one here could honestly be insulted, nor does anyone have the right to be.
I have no agenda or issue here at all mate,I was responding to your insulting offensive posts.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 22, 2008 7:43 AM
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 22, 2008 7:06 AM
" 'Oh, the irony!'
Only if I were incapable of admitting my own mistakes, or denied that they reflected poorly upon me.
Still, go fuck yourself, just for good measure, shithead."
And just when I thought when we might be returning to some some level of mutual civility...
Of course you just might be trying to be sarcastically funny like was, but unfortunately previous vitriol makes it virtually impossible to discern. Another problem is the lag time between comments and responses... it throws off a true perception of timing and someone is often responding to a post that has already been corrected or more clearly defined.
Posted by: clinteas | December 22, 2008 7:43 AM
Left and thanked the ones who didnt call him out on his bullshit,a true heroes exit...Its ok,I can live with it....
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 22, 2008 7:45 AM
patg wrote:
No problem. What I sincerely hope for now is that your fears and doubts about Obama prove to be unfounded, and that he steers the US out of the dark ages and away from the repressive right-wing religious idiots who've been calling the shots for far too long.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 22, 2008 7:45 AM
Yo clinteas, drop it. The Flame War is quite over. We don't need a rehash. thank you.
And he did respond to John's post that you mention, he said something to the effect of, "I'm an atheist, so i already knew about that." And That Gays are way more brutalized. Both fair points.
Posted by: SC, OM | December 22, 2008 7:47 AM
Well, Twin-Skies @ #397 said:
Q_D's comments suggested the same mindset, as did some others, IIRC, on the earlier thread in which this was discussed.
I didn't involve myself in the discussion earlier because I don't have any interest in the motives of, or the pressures and constraints upon, elected politicians. My only concern with elected regimes of elites is the space they allow for social movements to operate in bringing about change. Obama is not going to change anything; only people battling for their rights will. we shouldn't let down our guard or stop fighting for a second.
I disagree.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 22, 2008 7:58 AM
clinteas wrote:
That's hardly accurate. I called him on it a number of times, but that didn't work, so I asked him (albeit somewhat politely) to tone it down. He did so, and then he made several posts - without abuse - where he explained himself. I got an idea of where he was coming from, even if I disagreed with his anger. But he's an angry guy, with good reason by the sound of it. How often do atheists get tarred with the 'angry' brush for speaking out when, by our standards, we're barely raising our voices (figuratively speaking)?
Abusing him back wasn't achieving anything. Remember, he's not a creationist religiotard; the rhetoric we use to deal with them isn't going to work the same way.
Posted by: clinteas | December 22, 2008 8:02 AM
*Retires*
rickrOll,
there was no flame war here,just some irate guy abusing everyone and spouting hateful nonsense.And I said as much.
Posted by: clinteas | December 22, 2008 8:11 AM
Wowbagger,
I agree wholeheartedly with that,I know where he is coming from,even if he doesnt believe any non-gay person can.
But Im an unforgiving bastard I guess,so despite the fact that he was very angry,I still think he could have toned it down and practised some civilized discourse before his arguments were rejected because of the tone....
There should be a word for SIWOTI + too much alcohol btw LOL....
Posted by: mayhempix | December 22, 2008 8:12 AM
@SC OM
My take on Twin-Skies, Q_D, et all was that they were trying to make the point that Warren's participation was fairly inconsequential relative to the agenda Obama will pursue in terms of gay rights. Whether one agrees with that or not does not mean they were saying that we can relax now that Obama is the next president.
"Obama is not going to change anything; only people battling for their rights will."
In my opinion it those with power in the public arena do have the ability to mainstream change just as those like Warren have ability to block it. Having a president openly state that he completely supports gay rights and their right to live like any other American is important and helps to influence people... especially youth. It's also a signal that bigotry will not be tolerated in the workplace and in public. And again, I completely agree we cannot let up for a second. The Myth of Sisyphus says it all: as soon as stop working to push the rock uphill, it immediately starts rolling back.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 22, 2008 8:21 AM
clinteas wrote:
That's what made me stop and check my thinking - I'm not gay and so I can't begin to understand what it's like. Yes, I'm an atheist, but - as you well know - it's not the same here in Australia as it is in the US. I've been on the receiving end of assorted low-level bigotry (mostly variations of anti-intellectual), but that wasn't all that serious, and certainly not in comparison.
So I chose not to treat him like a closed-minded religidiot who chooses willful ignorance over the truth.
Too much alcohol? I guess you don't have to be at work tomorrow morning - at least I hope you don't. Which reminds me, it's well past my bedtime. Nothing like SIWOTI to keep me from my much-needed sleep...
Posted by: SC, OM | December 22, 2008 8:26 AM
Obama won't pursue any agenda in terms of gay rights unless he is pressured - consistently and strongly - to do so (and even then quite possibly not). Indeed, even more than I fear that people on the left think Obama's election has defanged the right, I fear that it has genuinely defanged the left. I don't think people should be making excuses for politicians when they do something that works against our rights or backing off on them because they seem to be supportive of our goals. On the contrary, I think the political space opened up by the Obama election should be entered and used to fight for our rights.
Accepting this for the sake of argument, you can't have it only one way. What is Warren's appearance a signal of? Why is Obama's statement consequential but the Warren invocation not?
Posted by: clinteas | December 22, 2008 8:35 AM
Wowbagger,
I did my duty over the weekend,and am currently enjoying brief respite before Christmas shifts...
Was following the thread and watching " Mamma Mia",and you just cant have Abba songs without getting drunk lol...
So nice we're back to thread topic !
And my first thought about Warren's call to do this speech was,why couldnt Obama have picked some black pastor from a social hotspot parish,who would have actually been able to send a message to believers and the under-represented at the same time?
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 22, 2008 8:52 AM
Obama is not going to change anything - SC, OM
Elected politicians have power (the POTUS above all), elected politicians differ greatly in their views, intentions and alliances. On the most important issue of all, AGW, Obama shows every sign of acting very, very differently from Bush. Of course it won't be enough, of course he has to be pressured, of course organisation from below is essential, of course no individual should have the power the POTUS wields, but if intended literally, your statement is simply false.
Posted by: Svetogorsk | December 22, 2008 9:04 AM
Indeed, even more than I fear that people on the left think Obama's election has defanged the right, I fear that it has genuinely defanged the left.
I believe this point has already been made several hundred comments earlier, but it's well worth scrutinising British political history since May 1997 for a warning of what might happen under Obama unless he's savvy enough to make sure that it doesn't. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown cozied up to the right pretty much from the moment it seemed highly likely that they'd win the 1997 election, tossing all sorts of juicy scraps to the likes of the Daily Mail and the Sun (the most aggressively right-wing tabloid newspapers) while assuming that they had the left in the bag already and could pretty much ignore them.
At the time, we accepted this as a necessary tactic to secure a desperately needed election (they'd been out of office for eighteen years), but they continued along near-identical lines while in office. And while it's true that they've passed a great deal of genuinely progressive legislation that would have been unimaginable under their Conservative predecessors, they were also ridiculously timid: they had landslide majorities from 1997 thru 2005, and they have a pretty hefty one even now (bigger than Margaret Thatcher's first term), but they've been governing as though they only just scraped in by the skin of their collective teeth and could be thrown out at any time.
The bitter irony is that they probably are going to lose the next election, at least as much for their cowardice as for any other reason. (Even Iraq didn't prevent Tony Blair from romping home in 2005).
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 22, 2008 9:11 AM
At the time, we accepted this as a necessary tactic to secure a desperately needed election - Svetogorsk
Speak for yourself - I voted Plaid Cymru/Green ;-)
Seriously, in Blair's case at least this cosying up to the right represented his deepest convictions: he was and is a right-wing shit. Labour would have won in 1997 if led by a rabid wolverine.
Posted by: SC, OM | December 22, 2008 9:27 AM
Nick,
Please see my follow-up/clarification @ #520. My concern is that the points you and I both made - "Of course it won't be enough, of course he has to be pressured, of course organisation from below is essential" - are being lost in the belief that now that someone to the left of other US elites (which isn't saying much) on some issues is in office people should let a lot of things go and, I don't know, give him a chance. (This alienation of political power is one of the many issues I have with electoral "democracy" more broadly, but that's a rant for another occasion...) The irony of this is that Obama himself has pointed out that this is not how things will or should happen.
I was concerned when these kinds of arguments and excuses were made during the run-up to the election, but at that time people were saying "Oh, once these people are elected and in power, then they can get to work." Then, when they get elected and behave similarly, it's brushed aside for different reasons. I'm just saying we shouldn't count on politicians for anything, and that even if they use their power in some ways to create positive change, that change will be eradicated when the right next comes to power (legally or illegally) if we are not organized, vigilant, and capable of defending ourselves and our rights. Allowing the election of "friendly" politicians to weaken us rather than using at an opportunity to gain strength is a huge mistake, as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by: Svetogorsk | December 22, 2008 9:35 AM
Speak for yourself - I voted Plaid Cymru/Green ;-)
I voted Lib Dem (tactical anti-Tory vote). I then moved to a rock-solid Tory seat and had great pleasure in voting Monster Raving Loony in 2001 and Legalise Cannabis Alliance in 2005, secure in the certainty that it would have no impact on either the local or national result whatsoever.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 22, 2008 9:35 AM
SC,
Agreed. I'd seen your #520, and on the Warren issue I completely agree with you - see my #240.
Posted by: Joel | December 22, 2008 9:40 AM
How is the election of someone who disagrees with my right to marriage due to his belief in God a step forward for gays?
How gracious of Obama to support us in spite of his good sense not to.
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 22, 2008 9:41 AM
Posted by: SC, OM | December 22, 2008 8:26 AM
I can understand the apprehension and reluctance to believe an elected official, but what about Obama shows you that he will have to be pushed into advocating equality for gays and lesbians? I mean, there isn't much more he could say or do to demonstrate that he is committed to both progress and an attempt to unify the disparate political groups in the country. And while the progress part of that is the most desirable, the unification part is more necessary in order to get to that progress. That is the only reason I suggested that the Warren invitation was both irrelevant to Obama's support of the LGBT community and a politically smart move in terms of bringing voices together that haven't been heard in the same forum for nearly a decade, especially one so central as an inauguration of a President.
If Obama's invitation of Warren to give the invocation is really to be considered an insult coming from Obama, the problem is that there are too many groups that Warren fervently opposes for it to be a specific slight against the LGBT community (just to be clear, that assertion was not meant to marginalize anything Warren has said or done against gays and lesbians, but rather to point out that he has been just as vocal about his opposition to other groups and the rights they should or should not have).
To answer your question, I'd say the Warren invitation is not inconsequential, but I think it matters in a way different from what I perceive your take on it to be. It is important in that it is a move that shows the new administration will be open to all voices, but open equally, and - unlike in the majority of past administrations - no one group will enjoy a level of influence above anyone else (at least, to the greatest possible extent).
So it is not that the Warren pick wasn't disgusting, repugnant, and insulting to some simply because of who the man is, but I believe the idea that Obama will listen to Warren on issues facing the LGBT community simply based on his invitation to say a prayer is jumping the gun a bit. As for why Obama's statement is consequential, it is because it was an open statement by a President-elect expressing support for the LGBT community. If someone can show me where such an open, unequivocal statement has been made by a President or President-elect in the past, it would be a surprise to me.
In short, the statement by Obama was a direct show of support that he will be held to, and he knows that. His invitation to Warren will be a non-issue as soon as the invocation is done, and is not in any way a statement of support for Warren, his followers, or the policies and positions they espouse.
Posted by: SC, OM | December 22, 2008 9:47 AM
Ah. I completely agree. I said I hadn't read the thread as closely as I usually do before commenting. Cut me some slack - I'm still recovering! :)
From your #240 (in case it hasn't been answered):
Heehee. Matt Heath linked to Nisbet's post on the earlier thread, noting astutely that (I'm paraphrasing) "Nisbet thinks it's a good idea - a clear sign that it's bad." You should really check it out. It includes an amusingly lame video.
(Speaking of amusing, I got a laugh earlier thinking about how if truth machine and MAJeff had a love child it would look much like pray away the gay.)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 22, 2008 9:55 AM
OT, SC, have you heard from MAJeff recently? How close is he getting to defending?
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 22, 2008 10:00 AM
Posted by: SC, OM | December 22, 2008 9:27 AM
While I completely get what you're saying, the plain - and some times sad - fact is that we have no choice but to count on politicians. We, by the nature of our system, have to depend on politicians to get things changed in our system, because they are the stewards of our government. And I don't see how it helps us to view the election of arguably the most progressive President in recent history as anything but an auspicious opportunity. All of this discussion about how it weakens us to elect such politicians, and that it weakens us even further to show a modicum of restraint in criticizing him prior to him taking office, frankly confuses me.
In my humble opinion, what will hurt us more is our failure to rally behind someone who - for all the flaws he might have - is the best chance we have right now in pushing back against the neo-conservative gains of the past eight years. If we foster division among progressives in the name of "staying sharp" and elect the Democratic foils of the Republican politicians we've endured the past eight years, all we'll be doing is giving the religious right the crack in the dam they need to drive their wedge back in and regain their previous levels of power and influence. If you'll remember, Jimmy Carter, despite his sizable intelligence and coherent plans for recovery, was defeated by a candidate that was bankrolled by the religious right and who played upon the divisions among the left to win in a true-to-form landslide. The other big issue in that election, the hostage crisis (which was the right's major objection point to Carter's methods), was another area where the right engaged in double-speak. They blasted Carter for trying to engage the Iranians in negotiations, while at the very same time Reagan was making under-the-table deals and promises to the Iranians if they played ball with him and the Republicans. (And it was no surprise that after Reagan's election, the hostages were released and it wasn't too long before there was a scandal uncovered that showed Reagan's administration's secret dealings with the Iranians.)
If we want a replay of 1980 in four years, all we have to do is treat Obama exactly like the country, left and right alike, treated Carter during his term. I think a better route to take would be to give Obama time to show the nation what his agenda and policy positions will be, and then deliver judgement on their merits. Until then, we're just guessing what his actions mean about what he might do in the future.
Posted by: SC, OM | December 22, 2008 10:18 AM
Everything about every politician shows that. Even if Obama were a gay man himself who had previously been a very strong and vocal advocate for gay rights (which he isn't and hasn't), the constraints he faces as an elected official - of which this pick is some evidence - make it such that he will not act meaningfully on this issue without pressure to do so.
First, I believe these two last goals to be mutually exclusive. Second, if there isn't much more he can do to support gay rights, then he doesn't really have the power in this area that some people are attributing to him and his effectiveness is mostly based on symbolic gestures, making the Warren invocation more consequential than you're suggesting.
Bullshit. Would inviting a white supremacist to speak be more necessary to advancing racial justice than, y'know, advancing racial justice? I have zero interest in listening to the voices of the proto-fascist US religious right or engaging in discussion with them. They should be fought, hard, and marginalized. This idea that giving them and their ideas a global political stage will somehow marginalize or quiet them makes zero sense. It's quite likely true that Obama is under or feels he's under pressure to do so, but it will never advance gay rights or the rights of any other group the religious right is oppressing or seeks to oppress. And "unification" is meaningless to me - I don't identify in national terms.
I haven't made that argument. You're missing the point, and also trying to have it both ways. It's a signal, as you say, that these people and their bigoted views are not to be held - as they should be - in contempt, that they are voices worthy of inclusion in the debate on this issue.
So I'll ask the question again: If a single statement is consequential, why is a single action not?
So? Seems like more reason for more people to be angry, not less.
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | December 22, 2008 10:22 AM
QD ignoring the gay issue and then declaring it time to move the fuck on, in the context of a post where PZ brought up gay issues as important, is quite pertinent.
No, I *was* referring specifically to the invocation. Sorry if it was implied otherwise. I was comparing, in my mind, some religious prick giving an invocation to, for example, our national GDP reaching zero along with the federal funds rate.
C'mon, folks, it nearly Christmas! Peace on Earth and goodwill to men! And women. Especially the ladies. And dogs and cats. Find a kitten to pet. I promise you'll feel better. Fa la la la la and all that rot.
Posted by: SC, OM | December 22, 2008 10:41 AM
He just left me a message the other day, but I haven't gotten back to him yet. He sounded good. :) I'll let you know when I talk to him.
No, I don't think you do, quite frankly.
Gag. No. We have to fight - direct action outside the electoral system being a fundamentally effective means - to change things. This will put pressure on politicians, in addition to putting pressure on them directly. We should never count or depend on them to do anything on our behalf.
Whoop-de-doo.
I've already said that I view his election as a (relative) opportunity. The question is what we're going to make of it.
Where was all of that discussion?
Why should people whose fundamental rights are being denied have to show any restraint in criticizing him?
(This has nothing at all to do with his personal flaws, but rather with the nature of electoral politics as a system.) You can rally behind anyone you like. My study of history has shown me that this has always been a fatal mistake, so you'll understand if I don't join you in your rallying. He is not the best chance we have in this fight: we are.
No, we're commenting on and protesting what he's doing in the present. I don't get why you're having such a difficult time understanding this.
Posted by: JeffreyD | December 22, 2008 10:44 AM
SC? You been sick, darling? Hope you are better. Still fighting my own illnesses, the old immune system took a beating over the past year.
Been lurking and have truly enjoyed reading this entire thread. Much to think about, much to ponder about attitudes and assumptions. At times, it is easy to be objective about an issue, not realizing that that objectivity can be offensive to the people to whom the issue is a living pain.
Also, I was glad to see parts of the discussion move from rancor to civil again.
Happy High Primate
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 22, 2008 10:48 AM
SC:
So, in your mind, there isn't a damn thing Obama can to do change your mind about his chances for changing anything. The simple fact that we elected him makes him unworthy of our trust or confidence? I don't see how this is even slightly productive or contributory in any way to the progress we need to make.
You believe progress and unity to be mutually exclusive? As in, you can't have one with the other? That is a very nihilistic viewpoint, and does not mesh with our political system at all, because if you want to get anything positive done, you are forced to do so within the system, at least to some degree. And your assertion that I meant there wasn't anything else he could do to support gay rights is deliberately misleading. I simply said there wasn't much more he could have said already to demonstrate that he is an advocate of advancing the causes of the LGBT community. Of course there is much more he can actually do - the man hasn't even been inaugurated yet.
Well, then I'd say you're SOL. If you don't want to pursue the path of national unity, you might want to think about why that is. If it is because the nation hasn't done you any favors, I'd again point out that Obama offers quite an auspicious chance to change that. If you don't identify nationally with anyone else in this country simply because you don't believe the nation will ever be unified enough to do any good, you're effectively arguing that it isn't even worth trying to bring anyone together. Both of those are very pessimistic and disheartening arguments. The plain fact is that we are a nation, whether you identify nationally or not. We are going to have to fight these fights, because not being a nation is simply not an option on the table.
And to say that Obama's invitation to Warren is just a step along the path towards including hate groups like the KKK or neo-nazis in governmental procedure is simply rehashing the ridiculous and tired argument that gay marriage will lead to things like incest or bestiality. To say that Warren's invitation is a precursor to hate groups at the government table discounts the intelligence and political savvy of many, including Obama, because you're assuming he doesn't know where to stop when trying to engage dissident viewpoints, and I don't believe that to be true.
Yes, you have, as have many other people on this thread, albeit indirectly. Your statements imply (and others' statement come right and and say it) that by inviting Warren, he is at the very least legitimizing Warren's positions, and possibly signaling that Obama is preparing to offer Warren some sort of position in his administration. If you're not arguing that the invitation is a sign that Obama will lend his ear to Warren, then you're arguing that it is simply the invitation for a prayer recitation that is a show of support for Warren by Obama - and if you're making that case, you're necessarily calling Obama a liar, as he has repeatedly and very recently stated his support for the LGBT community.
And yes, it is a signal that all voices will be heard. What it is not is a signal that all viewpoints and opinions will be accommodated, but rather will be viewed and judged on their merits according to the man we elected into the office. If a majority trusted him enough to elect him, it seems only logical that we'd trust him enough - at least initially, before he has the chance to prove us wrong - to intelligently execute his duties amid disparate viewpoints. His goal of being able to "disagree without being disagreeable" may not be achieved during his time in office, but anyone who says that it is not worth having as an operating principle is simply stuck in the past decade of politics, without the desire to budge from it.
Not my point at all. My point is that a stoic look at the situation should tell you that Obama is not trying to signal support for Warren or insult those groups Warren speaks out against, even though it does insult some. And plenty of people are angry - that isn't the issue. The issue is that people are projecting predictions onto Obama's intentions and plans because of this one invitation, despite all of the other statements he has made supporting LGBT rights and equality. It is the guilt by association argument, which is made without regard to the individual in question and their prior statements of both intent and support.
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 22, 2008 10:54 AM
SC:
I agree, but without a President amenable to our ideas, we won't get anywhere. Have you forgotten the past eight years already? The idea that politicians are irrelevant and always the enemy is both idealistic and counterproductive.
While you are commenting one one minor thing he has actually done, you're also projecting what it means he will or will not do in the future, and using those predictions as evidence that we can't and shouldn't trust him or depend on him for positive action.
And the comprehension insults aren't necessary - I don't think either one of us is a troll deserving of such condescension.
Posted by: facilis | December 22, 2008 11:19 AM
Come on, Rick Warren isn't a homophobe. He's a biblical marriage proponent. I haven't seen him do anything hateful or discriminatory to the homosexual community.
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 22, 2008 11:23 AM
Posted by: facilis | December 22, 2008 11:19 AM
You don't have to be overtly nasty to be a homophobe, which Rick Warren definitely is, just in a polite voice. He advances the slippery slope argument with the best of them, and offers up no arguments other than those that are dictated by the bible and his closed-minded motivations.
He might not be the devil incarnate, but he's damn sure a homophobe. And just so you know, defending him here is not that productive an exercise, considering he has so fully proven himself to be diametrically opposed to progressivism, science, and reason. (Unless you're a poe, in which case, I guess I just wasted some energy...)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 22, 2008 11:27 AM
Facilis, which form of biblical marriage? There were many.
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 22, 2008 11:28 AM
Quick correction - I checked facilis's blog, and he's no poe - he was actually defending Warren as not being a homophobe. Amazing.
Posted by: Josh | December 22, 2008 11:29 AM
Didn't he assert that homosexuals aren't really welcome within the community defined by his church? That's not discriminatory?
Posted by: mayhempix | December 22, 2008 11:31 AM
@SC OM
"Obama won't pursue any agenda in terms of gay rights unless he is pressured - consistently and strongly - to do so (and even then quite possibly not)."
- On what do you base this? If it is about marriage he has aleady made it quite clear that is not part of his agenda. And while I cannot prove that you will ultimately be proved wrong, there is no proof that your statement has any basis or merit.
"I don't think people should be making excuses for politicians when they do something that works against our rights or backing off on them because they seem to be supportive of our goals."
-I have not made any excuses and I really don't see who did on this thread. Trying to understand why Obama included Warren is not making excuses.
"On the contrary, I think the political space opened up by the Obama election should be entered and used to fight for our rights."
-We are in complete agreement on this although for some reason you seem not able to accept it.
"What is Warren's appearance a signal of?"
-Warren appeared at the premier of an "An Inconsequential Truth" and "enthusiastically voiced support for reducing carbon emissions and expressed outrage over official neglect of the global warming issue... and vowed to do whatever he could to get the word out. And Warren delivered. Many credit his efforts with making global warming and environmental stewardship issues in young evangelical congregations across the country. Similarly, his own church's work to ameliorate the suffering of HIV-positive Africans has drawn the support of many film celebrities..."
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-cause20-2008dec20,0,2838854.story?track=rss
Don't you think there is value in nurturing that relationship relative to those issues? We need people on the right to support environmental issues so that we have a mandate to do something. Just because Warren is a bigot on homosexual issues does not mean we should reject his overtures on environmental and health issues. And given that Obama has clearly repeatedly stated, even as recent as Friday, that he strongly disagrees with Warren on homosexuality and abortion, I think it is perfectly clear what his appearance is about... and it is definitely not about oppressing homosexuals.
"Why is Obama's statement consequential but the Warren invocation not?"
-He has appointed a high profile lesbian as a key advisor... is that not a signal and at least an initial proof of the intentions of his statement? He also has another religious figure speaking who supports gay rights and their right to marry... what does that signal? Above I addressed the Warren invocation.
I am a lifelong atheist and completely reject Warren's religious arrogance and bigotry, but I do not reject his support of issues we have in common. And that, in my perception, is the same thing Obama is doing. It is no different than trying to work with the Chinese on the same issues even though they execute people for crimes against property. I abhor capital punishment but we can't let that preclude communication and alliances on other important issues facing us and the rest of the world. Not speaking out and being clear about our positions is one thing, but acting like the wingnut right and demanding all or nothing is a recipe for disaster as proven by the past 8 years.
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 22, 2008 11:31 AM
Posted by: Josh | December 22, 2008 11:29 AM
It's no use, man. That dude is a confirmed religiot. Go to his blog and check for yourself what kinds of things he views to be undisputed facts -- it'll explain a lot.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 22, 2008 11:33 AM
Yes, facilis is a godbot. An ignorant, unthinking godbot. Have some fun with him.
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 22, 2008 11:34 AM
mayhempix:
Very nicely put.
Posted by: Josh | December 22, 2008 11:41 AM
It's no use, man. That dude is a confirmed religiot. Go to his blog and check for yourself what kinds of things he views to be undisputed facts -- it'll explain a lot.
*sigh*
I know, I know. I can't ever seem to stop hoping that somewhere, in one of them, there will be a glimmer of reason.
*sigh*
Airborne...
Posted by: mayhempix | December 22, 2008 11:46 AM
Posted by: Joel | December 22, 2008 9:40 AM
"How is the election of someone who disagrees with my right to marriage due to his belief in God a step forward for gays?"
I was never aware that he said it was due to his belief in God. Can please show me conclusively when he stated exactly that?
If you disagree with the fact that he won't support gay marriage (which I do support and vote against Prop 8) for politically expedient reasons, I can accept it. But it doesn't mean I agree that makes Obama a religious bigot like Warren.
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 22, 2008 11:47 AM
Josh:
I know the feeling - but I doubt the ones who come here to empty their intolerance banks will ever be so inclined. Usually we just get the godbotters, but occasionally there's one open to discussion. The problem for them is that when someone shows up truly open to reason and discussion, they either don't stick around long or are turned into something a little less preachy and absolute, thereby removing them from the ranks of the religiots. (That is a very rare occurrence, though, and you can chalk that up to the efficacy of religion's ability to insulate the mind against rational argument.
PS: Was that 'Airborne" comment meant the way my military mind thinks it was? ;)
Posted by: SC, OM | December 22, 2008 11:54 AM
Sigh. OK, I'll try this again. Since this is starting to look like a rehash of the argument I had with truth machine a couple of months ago about Kay What's-Her-Sniff, I'll state again that for me this has nothing whatsoever to do with my views of Obama as a person or his personal strengths or weaknesses. It is in the nature of electoral systems in general, and an electoral system in a capitalist and imperialist context in particular, that politicians, particularly those at the top levels of government, cannot be relied upon to advance social justice absent strong and organized pressure from below. And changes that are created are only defended by organized movements of people. That the election of "progressive" politicians can lead these efforts to lapse at precisely the moment when they can be most effective is one of the supreme ironies of electoral systems, and a phenomenon capitalized upon by the forces of oppression.
I was speaking about a specific case. Progress in terms of gay rights is not compatible with "unity" with the religious right. Sometimes, no compromise is possible. This is one of those times. Your assertion that unity with the religious right is in fact more important at present in advancing gay rights than the direct fight for rights is ludicrous.
Who is "you"? If you is Obama, then I agree. Again, this is a problem. If you is a social-justice movement, then I disagree. Indeed, I think working within the system often zaps energy and resources that could be better spent working outside the system (which would, in many cases, have greater repurcussions within the system than would working within the system).
First, there's plenty he could have done prior to now to demonstrate this support. But this was precisely my point: If all he can do at this point is make statements and symbolic gestures, then the Warren invitation should count as much as his statement.
I wonder if it's because I'm an anarchist, as I've made clear here on probably hundreds of occasions.
There's a difference between believing in bringing people together and believing in bringing them together around a national identity. I thoroughly believe in transnational organizing and identify strongly with others (especially, but not exclusively, anarchists) in Bolivia, South Africa, France, or anywhere else in the world who are fighting for social justice, freedom, and real democracy. I'm not about to let someone else tell me that I should seek unity with the religious right simply because I was born in the same country as them.
Not at all. I'm fighting for a path of action that I see as effective in the long run and against one that I see as self-defeating. Just because I don't agree with your approach doesn't mean I have no hope for change.
Your idea of fighting this fight is to show respect for the religious right, or to condone such shows of respect. My fight is against them.
Not in the short term, I agree. But resisting efforts to coopt oppositional views by claiming some need for "national unity" is important to me.
WTF? That's not what I said. I was making a comparison. I wasn't saying it's a step along any path, but the equivalent (or approaching it - it's not a perfect analogy) of inviting a bigot in some other area. What do you see as fundamentally different?
He clearly doesn't, since where to stop engaging ignorant, hateful bigots is with treating their views with open contempt and not giving them a national political stage. That's what I'm criticizing him for, FFS.
Of course he is, if only symbolically.
OK, I don't even know what to say to that. You'll find that nowhere in my posts.
And the views of bigots merit inclusion in the inaugural ceremony. Other than that, your statement is essentially meaningless.
This goal is an absurd platitude, and none of the movements that made Obama's ascension to power possible operated on such a stupid principle when they were dealing with oppressors. If I'm "stuck" in anything it's knowledge of the political history of several countries over a far longer span than a decade.
I've already answered both of these points. For me, this isn't about his personal motives. Nor is it about predicting the future. It is about standing up in the present.
Hi, sweetie! Yes, but only for a few days, and I'm much improved today. Sorry to hear you've not been well. Sending you healthy vibes. :)
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 22, 2008 11:59 AM
I completely agree. I said I hadn't read the thread as closely as I usually do before commenting. Cut me some slack - I'm still recovering! :) - SC
The reference to my earlier comment wasn't intended to be reproachful - just informative! As a matter of fact, I think Obama's course will be far more determined by external events than any recent POTUS: the economy is bound to be his short-term priority, and I expect things on that front to get very difficult in 2009.
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 22, 2008 12:00 PM
mayhempix:
He has said that concerning his personal beliefs, which he makes no bones about expressing, would prevent him from agreeing personally to gay marraige, yet that doesn't prevent him from recognizing that everyone should have an equal right to marry under the law. That is the crux of his argument, in that he believes religion to be a personal entity, rather than an entity that should wield political power over social issues. I think people are conflating his personal beliefs with his opinions on what should be national policy.
He has made it clear that his personal objections do not color his political opinions on equality, but that hasn't stopped his detractors from pointing out hypocrisy that just isn't there when you take an impartial look at what the man has said.
Even though I disagree with religion, I do not hold anything against someone who chooses to worship in their personal life. To do so would be bigotry akin to the religious kind against atheism. I might think they are miring themselves in a belief system of archaic superstition, and are possibly worse off intellectually for it, but the very foundation of our nation is that they are completely free to believe in such things, as long as their beliefs don't impinge upon the rights of those who do not. Where the problem comes in - and where the serious and vociferous objections should come in - is when he allows his personal religious beliefs to control his policy decisions. Since he has made it clear he does not intend to let that happen, I believe we should allow him to either prove himself right or prove himself to be a typical politician before we prematurely tag him as the latter. An invitation to a ceremony to give a customary prayer - even though I think it shouldn't be there in the first place - has no bearing on his policy decisions.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 22, 2008 12:08 PM
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 22, 2008 11:34 AM
"Very nicely put."
Thanks. I can only aspire to be as clear and eloquent as you are...
"... it is a signal that all voices will be heard. What it is not is a signal that all viewpoints and opinions will be accommodated, but rather will be viewed and judged on their merits according to the man we elected into the office."
This is exactly the point I think others either miss or dismiss.
I'm also disappointed in the inference of others that somehow our positions can be likened or linked to Nisbett. This is not about the PR tactics of framing. This is about finding consensus on common goals to produce results, not grooming a turd to look and smell like a rose.
Posted by: SC, OM | December 22, 2008 12:14 PM
Well, it isn't true that we won't get anywhere, but an Obama administration, as I've said here at least twice, is clearly more conducive to organizing and activism. Of course, this is only if we fucking recognize the need to organize and be active rather than rallying behind or putting our faith in some political figure.
Have you forgotten my earlier comments on this thread already?
I'm starting to feel like patg. You could at least make an effort to appreciate what I'm saying before misrepresenting it.
I don't know how many times or in how many ways I can say that this is not my argument.
Whatever, brokensoldier. You don't seem to be comprehending what I'm saying.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 22, 2008 12:23 PM
This is not about the PR tactics of framing. This is about finding consensus on common goals to produce results, not grooming a turd to look and smell like a rose.
But Obama has invited a turd to give the invocation at his inauguration. Aren't we entitled to complain about the smell?
Posted by: mayhempix | December 22, 2008 12:25 PM
@ brokensoldier OM
"He has said that concerning his personal beliefs, which he makes no bones about expressing, would prevent him from agreeing personally to gay marraige, yet that doesn't prevent him from recognizing that everyone should have an equal right to marry under the law."
That I did understand. Where I wasn't clear in my response to Joel is that I wasn't aware Obama has stated he would oppose gay marriage when and where it has officially been legalized or the attempts to do so based on his religious belief. I did not see Obama campaigning for gay marriage in CA, but at the same time I didn't see him supporting Prop 8 to repeal it.
Posted by: Josh | December 22, 2008 12:36 PM
Josh: I know the feeling - but I doubt the ones who come here to empty their intolerance banks will ever be so inclined. Usually we just get the godbotters, but occasionally there's one open to discussion. The problem for them is that when someone shows up truly open to reason and discussion, they either don't stick around long or are turned into something a little less preachy and absolute, thereby removing them from the ranks of the religiots. (That is a very rare occurrence, though, and you can chalk that up to the efficacy of religion's ability to insulate the mind against rational argument.
Agreed. We had an ID proponent named Jim on here about a year ago, and it was darkly amusing to watch the fires of reason spark, start to light, start to light, start to light, and then get blown back to warm twigs by years of indoctrination.
PS: Was that 'Airborne" comment meant the way my military mind thinks it was? ;).
All the way, my brother.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 22, 2008 12:37 PM
@Nick Gotts
"Aren't we entitled to complain about the smell?"
Of course you are, but it is Warren that smells, not Obama in this case. By all means throw shoes at Warren. I would be tempted to join in... he certainly deserves it for his bigotry.
;^ )
Posted by: SC, OM | December 22, 2008 12:42 PM
I've dealt with this is my earlier comments (with which this perhaps crossed). It's a structural and not a personalized argument.
Really. I don't have the time to go through all of the comments now to pick some out, but do you really believe no one has, on this thread or the earlier one?
Huh?
Well, I meant with regard specifically to LGBT issues. But while we're on the subject, what policies do you think he and other evangelicals support in Africa that have led and continue to lead to the suffering of HIV-positive Africans to begin with? Global gag rule, perhaps? Other restrictions on reproductive rights?
What if he were a racial bigot? And how does not inviting him to speak at the inauguration due to his bigotry equal rejecting overtures on various issues?
Well, as several people here have pointed out, that's very easy to say if you're not gay.
So if he gives other signals the Warren decision should be ignored?
I am not the US government, nor do I identify with it. I support working with people in social-justice and environmental movements in China. I support fighting against the authoritarian Chinese government.
Show me where I'm doing either of these things. I'm a radical - I believe radical change is both desirable and necessary. I also have an educated lack of trust in politicians or electoral action in creating positive change, and I'm promoting alternative courses of action. I've "demanded" nothing from anyone, and I don't appreciate the comparison to the "wingnut right." And I didn't see a lot of demands being made in the past eight years.
Posted by: Diagoras | December 22, 2008 12:51 PM
The digs against Salazar stem from Center for Biological Diversity director, Kiernan Suckling, who has already had a judgment against the Center for "false, unfair, libelous and defamatory statements." So articles that mine him for quotes make me skeptical. (He's got a MA in philosophy - but he's often quoted as an expert in the Endangered Species Act. Fred Cheever is an expert. Suckling is a hobbiest.)
Raúl Grijalva is the guy Suckling was backing for the Interior nod. He has a BA in Sociology, and a long career as school board member, and Pima County supervisor. Additionally, he was the Assistant Dean for Hispanic Student Affairs at U Arizona. He was elected in 2000 as a Congressman in a newly created district that was a heavily Democratic, majority-Hispanic district. That he, as a Hispanic-Democrat, was elected and re-elected there - not a big shocker. His voting record can be as liberal as he wants - he has no centrist base to consider when casting votes. (I like him for his long public service record, 98% voting alignment with the ACLU, and strong stances on environmental protection.) But, unlike Suckling - I don't think he's the ideal person for the Interior position. He just doesn't have a lot of environmental-specific credentials on his resume. (Thin, like FEMA-director Michael D. Brown).
I don't think Obama's choice was a "bad" one on Salazar. Salazar worked as a water and environmental lawyer for 12 years, was Director of Colorado's Department of Natural Resources, implemented a program to teach environmental education in public schools, was Colorado AG, has gone toes with Focus on the Family over judicial appointments. He took over a Republican Senate seat, fighting for it against Pete Coors for a narrow victory. Salazar, unlike Griljalva, is in a rather centrist state - big grouping of red-state mojo with a blue Denver+Boulder center. Salazar also understands the very complicated enviro statutes - RCRA, CERCLA, CAA, CWA, ESA - the complex regs from BLM, EPA - and has braved the wonky prior appropriation water rights in Colorado. He has a fairly chunky curriculum vitae. Not all of it is pro-environment to the detriment of development. It's a mix of balancing issues. Which is what the interior secretary is supposed to do. http://capwiz.com/lcv/bio/keyvotes/?id=31624&congress=1102&lvl=C This is his voting record this year. 100% pro-environmental actions. 73% is his lowest. His record doesn't speak as to kowtowing to ranching/oil interests. (Grijavla's is sitting at 85% this year on environmenal issues - and he has no worries about getting reelected in his district.)
Right then - don't necessarily thrust Salazar as Interior Sec. (even though I disagree with him on some big issues - wiretapping, Gonzo, Gail Norton) into the negative category. I think he'll be fairly decent as interior secretary - and his conservative-based votes in the Senate (which we don't need)- will be eliminated.
Posted by: SC, OM | December 22, 2008 12:55 PM
What if Warren had said the same things about Jews that he has about gay people?
Posted by: Joel | December 22, 2008 12:56 PM
mayhempix,
I think Obama has said this on a number of different occasions and in different ways.
http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism/p/BarackObama.htm
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 22, 2008 12:57 PM
SC:
But this discussion is not an exercise in general electorate and social theory - it is a discussion of what Obama's decision to invite Warren actually means. And to suggest, even in a general sense, that we cannot depend on those we elect to administer our government is an idealistic, revolutionary concept that is quite valuable in motivating people into action, but holds little value in actually accomplishing the goals we set for social change.
(Since you're insisting on continuing with the obvious patronization, it's my turn.) Sigh - I'll try this again. I know what you were trying to say, but your idea that we'll have to get rid of the religious right completely before attaining true equality for gays and lesbians is simply implausible. There is no way we're going to get rid of such a large constituency in our electorate, nor should we. What we should do is engage those individuals within that movement who align with our views on some issues, even though they completely oppose our views on others. Somewhere in the process, we need to make the effort to change their minds just enough to get the laws changed to reflect what our society should be, and shutting them out completely will be absolutely counterproductive to that effort.
Just to preempt another of your smug dismissals, I (whether you want to admit it or not) completely understand your stance, and even agree with it in large part, but my point is that it is not a practical position to take when trying to effect actual change in our system, which is what we seriously need right now.
I used "you" there in a general sense, so it meant both Obama and the electorate in general. I think you're missing the fact that I recognize that there are necessary roles to be played outside the system, but those on their own are inadequate to get the things done that we need done. To think that purely external effort can effect beneficial change in our government ignores the fact that our government is the very entity that has the power to change our founding document and the pursuant laws that dictate our national social policies. Examples abound that show when a populace acts against their government, rather than trying to effect change from within it, that nation is not long for this world, and at the very least experiences a severe drop in prosperity. This is largely due to the fact that governments will resist any effort to remove them from the scene, and what you end up with is either a successful coup or a failed revolution. Both situations result in many, many dead humans and a barely functioning government at best.
This is the same "soaring rhetoric, yet no real action" argument made first by Hilary Clinton, then even more fervently by the Republicans against him. How many times can I say it - he hasn't taken office yet. So there is necessarily nothing he can do until January 20th to set his agenda in motion, so any criticisms about his lack of real action will be irrelevant until after then. And taking the Warren invitation as an insult, without allowing him the benefit of the doubt that he will be intelligent and progressive enough to ensure that Warren's ultra-conservative views do not hold sway in his administration, is being a bit closed-minded, in my opinion. I understand that Warren's appearance disgusts and insults a great deal of people, but I think that it is also a calculated move to try to prevent the mistakes of the last Republican administration in shutting out dissident voices, no matter how unpopular they may be.
Then your mind is made up about a great deal of people in this country, and leaves no room for their possible change of course in the face of polite, intelligent discourse brought on by universal inclusion in the political process. While it may be true that the ultra-conservative leaders of the religious right will likely never embody that change, they are only the leaders for the moment. Just as our off-the-rails country can change both leadership and direction, I believe that religious groups in this country can do the same thing. You don't seem to be open to that possibility, which simply mirrors their opinions of us.
It's amazing that you denied saying Warren's invitation was a "step along the path," yet in your response admitted that you think that the invitation is roughly equivalent to having the Grand Wizard of the KKK at the table. That is purely unjustified equivocation, because this is how I see the two as fundamentally different. Warren is not at any policy negotiation table, he is not an advisor, and he is not involved in any form of governmental administration. He is a religious figure who has been asked to deliver a prayer at a ceremonial event. Nothing more, nothing less. The two are clearly different, and saying that the two are equivalent is even worse than saying one will necessarily lead to the other.
Your desire to completely ignore viewpoints you consider unworthy is unsettling. The President of our nation is required to at least listen to all of the citizens within it, even though he may fervently disagree with them, as Obama does with Warren over LGBT rights and abortion. But in order to reduce resistance to the progressive agenda, you have to bring them closer to the process (whether doing so is palatable to you or not), and there is no better way to do so than to extend an invitation to deliver a meaningless prayer at a ceremonial event - as opposed to appointing them to high governmental office in the interest of diversity of opinion. In my mind, he put Warren in a harmless slot, yet achieved what he wanted in bringing him and his followers a little more into the fold.
I don't know how you confuse a five minute prayer with a pulpit fropm which to issue a political manifesto. It would be naive to think that Obama will not have approval authority over what will be said, and I doubt he'll allow any morally repugnant statements denigrating the individuals Warren looks down upon so much. You're acting like Warren is getting an open mic to vent his hate, when all he is actually getting is a menial task to deliver something that will be forgotten soon after it is completed.
So, in your view, it is absurd to hope for civility in our national political discourse. There is absolutely nowhere you can go - in a forward direction, at least - when you're operating off that basic assumption. It seems as if you're saying that the only way we will get the change we need is to simply expel the religious right from having any representation in our government. I hope that I don't need to point out how implausible that is, not to mention being just as discriminatory as those who think this country won't be complete until all the gays, lesbians, and atheists are out of it.
And on a side note, knowledge of the political histories of multiple countries is definitely useful and informative, but it does little to elevate your ability to predict how Obama will act above that of all the rest of us, because the election of a minority to the highest office is something that not even other democracies have done previously, which should tell you that there is something going on in this country that is at least a little unprecedented in that political history you're fluent in.
But you're basing your present stance upon these assumptions about his intentions that are simply unfounded at this point. There is no way to separate your opinions on what his future actions will be - based on his invitation to Warren - from your present stance, and I was merely making the point that those assumptions aren't strong enough yet to support the idea that he isn't going to fight for what is right. And you can't separate your overall opposition to in-system operation from the reality of our political system. Objecting to the specific invitation of Warren necessarily means that you're not simply objecting on a level of general principle, but rather for specific reasons relating to what Warren stands for and what you think his invitation means for our near future.
In short, I don't think we're too far from each other, because I share a lot of your views in the realm of what should be. But when it comes down to playing with the hand we have been dealt, such concerns are impractical. We need someone who can strike a balance between both in order to move us in the right direction.
Posted by: Steven Sullivan | December 22, 2008 12:58 PM
I'm really enjoying all this discussion about Obama's *science policy appointments*. Sheesh. Some of you dudes sure do like to bloviate.
Anyway, I'm completely delighted that both of the co-chairs of Obama's science advisory council are biologists -- and not just any biologists, but Varmus and Lander quality. So *suck it, physicists*. (Kidding!)
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 22, 2008 1:07 PM
SC:
Jesus, SC, no one is saying that it isn't an insult to gay people. What we're saying is that Warren's views are insulting to a wide range of people, and that his invitation to deliver the invocation may turn out to have political positives that allow us to make much-needed progress in bringing the people of this country together, whether you believe that to be necessary or not.
Warren also has some choice words for why groups other than gays should not be included in our national society, and I'm sure members of those other groups believe that the insult to them is just as sizable as the insult you feel. It isn't a matter of disagreement over whether it is an insult, it is a matter of perspective and pragmatism.
PS: Pretending that no one in the world is capable of empathy with the struggle the LGBT community continues to face is getting old, and quite frankly, annoying. True, I may not feel it personally to the level you do, but insinuating that it is easy for me to dismiss your concerns just because I don't share your identity is both dismissive and narrow-minded.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 22, 2008 1:16 PM
Steven Sullivan,
If you read the post, despite the title it begins with PZ's views on the invitation to Warren. However, I do think that the discussion of Warren is pretty much exhausted, and I am delighted by Obama's choice of Chu, Holdren and Lubchenko - three top scientists who are also very strong on the urgent need for action to mitigate anthropogenic climate change. I have no doubt, however, that Obama will come under immense pressure not to do anything that will "harm American competitiveness", "jeopardise economic recovery" etc. - I hope these three will be able to stand against this pressure, and to do so, they will need the strongest possible pressure from below.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 22, 2008 1:21 PM
@ SC OM
" 'it is perfectly clear what his appearance is about... and it is definitely not about oppressing homosexuals.'
Well, as several people here have pointed out, that's very easy to say if you're not gay."
- That still doesn't mean what I stated is not true.
I find it interesting in that I usually agree with your comments and also greatly appreciate and can relate to your wonderfully punny sense of humor. My comment about the "wingnut right" was not meant personally as a direct reference to you and I sincerely apologize if it came across that way. That is why I put in a separate paragraph after the rest of my replies to your comments. It was meant to be a more general comment about the ideological all or nothing mindset that destroys effective communication and the ability to work effectively towards common goals.
"And I didn't see a lot of demands being made in the past eight years."
- I think you misunderstood the intention of my statement. It was in reference to the all or nothing demands of the wingnut right about abortion gay rights, etc and was not about the Dems' or the left's response to the Bush government.
-I too see myself as a radical, though not as a particular type of anarchist like yourself in that I believe that change must come from both within the system as well as from without and that governments and institutions have vital and necessary roles.
And finally you once claimed you "loathed" me. I took that as a humorous response to the fact I said it was hot down here while you were experiencing a cold winter. I still hope that is the case.
Salud.
Posted by: Matt Heath | December 22, 2008 1:27 PM
Yeah they just get an actual cabinet member. Sucks to be them, huh?Posted by: I'll second that | December 22, 2008 1:35 PM
Bob Ostertag on Rick Warren, gay marriage, and politics:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-ostertag/why-gay-marriage-is-the-w_b_152717.html
Yes.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 22, 2008 1:38 PM
Diagoras (@#561): Thanks for that; it makes me feel a little better.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 22, 2008 1:56 PM
@Joel
Please see my clarification in post #557.
To reiterate an important point, it's not that gays should not feel insulted by Warren's inclusion, it is that Obama does not mean he stands with Warren against homosexuality and agrees with Warren's bigoted views. And as I have stated previously I personally wish he had not invited Warren, however I can understand why he did.
I also think that the semantics about term "marriage" get in the way of a resolution of this discriminatory situation. Part of me thinks that maybe we should just let the idiots have the word marriage as a religious term and let "civil union" be the universal term for a formal bonding sanctioned legally by the state. I am "married" but have absolutely no problem in it being called a civil union since we were not married in a religious ceremony. Why would any gay person want to get married by a religious institution that rejects them anyways?
But please understand that I still prefer that any couple... gay, transgendered, mutlti-racial, whatever... be allowed to get married in way way shape or form they want and see fit.
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 22, 2008 1:57 PM
SC, regardless of your incessant insistence to the contrary, I have repeatedly said that I understand your points. But for someone who perceives me as unable to comprehend your statements, you're awfully prone to ignore mine.
All of my arguments have been pointed at the fact that we have a chance to change things with this new administration coming in, largely because we are in a state of crisis in many areas, in addition to the fact that our incoming President is far more progressive than the one that is leaving. But every time I advance a point to that effect, you say that I'm not understanding your point. Exactly how do you view this coming administration - with hope, or with indifference? Do you think that Obama will make strides to advance our cause, or do you think that he is necessarily ineffective because he is a politician? You can't separate the 'overall principle' argument from the individual in this situation - either you think he'll be helpful, or you think he won't. I'm not debating the value of action outside the political system, or the inherent ineffectiveness within it - I'm simply saying that this situation we find ourselves in right now, even considering the Warren invitation, is decidedly better than any we have been in throughout recent history concerning the possibility for advancing universal rights and freedoms. I have been trying to get at what exactly you think about this, but maybe I've been going at it wrong.
Posted by: Diagoras | December 22, 2008 2:01 PM
DOI people are the ones I have to deal with most in my current job. Bureau of Indian Affairs, Reclamation, National Park Service, BLM, Geological Survey, Minerals Management. We have a 6000 mile of transmission system, not to mention storage fields. So - kinda important to have the right people in the job - rather than the shoddy management over the last eight years. Trust me - anything is an improvement over Norton and Kempthorne. And someone who can navigate the holy-shit complicated of the water rights in Colorado - which has the headwaters of 7 major rivers - is a fairly decent person to put in charge.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 22, 2008 2:07 PM
Interior is a minefield of competing interests, no doubt. As a sometimes-ecologist, my main concern is the integrity of the Endangered Species Act, so I consider Suckling and the CBD to be on my side. They have put up a pretty impressive fight against the corporate shills that have been in charge for the last 8 years, and I think they'll play an important role in keeping the next Administration honest when it comes to biodiversity issues (I'm pretty happy about Lubchenco at NOAA for the same reason). But the rhetoric gets a little over the top.
Posted by: I'll second that | December 22, 2008 2:16 PM
Where I wasn't clear in my response to Joel is that I wasn't aware Obama has stated he would oppose gay marriage when and where it has officially been legalized or the attempts to do so based on his religious belief. I did not see Obama campaigning for gay marriage in CA, but at the same time I didn't see him supporting Prop 8 to repeal it.
Repeating my previous link: http://erlc.com/article/clinton-obama-other-dems-favor-repealing-part-of-doma
And Obama on Prop 8 specifically:
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1051404.html
Yes to google and to correcting ignorance and misrepresentation.
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 22, 2008 2:18 PM
SC:
This is the point of yours that I specifically disagree with, because it posits that no politicians can be relied upon to be self-motivated enough or able to bring about change. And if your main argument here is that he'll need pressure on all issues exactly because of your view above, then there is no reason to single out the LGBT issue and criticize him for not supporting it, because his selection of Warren was not an admission of support for Warren's views.
And even granting that politicians aren't motivated without activism and pressure from the populace, was Obama's massive small donor base and similarly massive volunteer force not proof that we're at least moving in that direction? I don't see anything in the last election that says our society is lazy in its activism for change these days.
The reason I kept bringing it back to Obama, even though I understood your arguments were structurally based, was the plain fact that this is a discussion that turned into a referendum on Obama's LGBT positions due to his invitation to Warren - not because I was unable to comprehend your statements.
Posted by: SC, OM | December 22, 2008 2:27 PM
First, you don't get to define what a discussion is about. Second, when I entered it it seemd primarily about the most appropriate or effective response to this action - not its "meaning." This is simply your trying once again to suggest that I'm making some claims about Obama's motives or intentions, which I'm not. Third, if we're talking about action in an electoral system, our judgments should be formed and statements made within a broader sociohistorical understanding and framework. Otherwise, any claims about what is really effective are nothing but idiosyncratic opinions based on nothing.
OH NOEZ! Not revolutionary! What part of anarchist do you not understand?
To be called idealistic numerous times by someone who volunteered to serve in the military of a nation-state that has engaged in aggressive and criminal military actions for more than a century, willingly participated in a criminal war, declared that he was proud of having done so, was screwed over by his government when most in need and called upon people here for action on his behalf (I immediately sent your information on to organizations that I thought could be of assistance), and after all of this criticizes others for not exhibiting sufficient faith in politicians or government is really a bit fucking much. If more people had been more critical, more outspoken, more demanding, and more active outside and inside the system for the past 8 years, perhaps you wouldn't have had to suffer as you have. Obama's election means some things have changed. It is naive to overestimate how much.
Argument by assertion.
No, you still don't!
This is not my idea. What a stupid strawman.
Again.
I'm just seeing if I have this straight: So we should recognize the validity of the views of even fascists or white supremacists in the conversation and give them public recognition if they, what, think AIDS is bad and believe in the reality of global warming?
Fighting against them does not equal shutting them out. I will try to convince people who show evidence that they can be convinced. People who are promoting oppression should be fought.
Argument by assertion.
I don't agree with this, but even assuming I did, this is a strawman version of my argument. I was arguing against the position that people should tone down their criticism or relax in terms of oppositional activism because a "progressive" has been elected to the presidency.
Again, what part of anarchist do you not understand?
First, all direct action is not revolutionary. Second, it's everything I can do not to reply to this snarkily.
You need to study more history.
This has become crazy, bs. It wasn't a criticism of his lack of action - it was a response to your "What more could he have done...?" and your suggestion that the Warren invitation was inconsequential because it's merely a symbolic gesture. At this moment, it's as consequential as any other statement or gesture.
It can be an insult and a symbolic recognition of abhorrent views without portending anything to come.
And if they're treated with official respect, and few speak out, future leaders will look a lot like them.
I said nothing about involvement in the administration. I've still seen no argument made for how this differs from inviting someone who had said similar things about other racial groups.
I'm not ignoring them. I'm recognizing the power of these people and their organizations in a way your high-school-civics-class version of politics doesn't.
And you're wrong. This won't reduce resistance to the "progressive agenda," and they're already in the fucking fold. They wield a great deal of power in this country.
Yes, I didn't mean to suggest that. But it isn't a menial task in the sense that it lacks symbolic import.
It's absurd to champion civility at the expense of genuine struggle, or to see it as always possible or appropriate (as some people did with regard to the shoe incident).
Well, the only way we'll get the change we need is to expel the government from any representation in government. :) In the meantime, the religious right as the religious right shouldn't have any representation in government. As Obama said in that earlier speech, arguments about public policy should be formulated in secular terms or should carry no weight. He's said and done several things since that make him look rather like a hypocrite.
There's a difference between fighting and seeking to marginalize political beliefs and views, and those who hold them to the extent that they're oppressing others, and seeking to eradicate people.
That's a bit silly. And have you not heard of South Africa? Bolivia?
No, it doesn't.
No one's going to move us anywhere. We can only move ourselves and get them to climb aboard.
(By the way, speaking of symbolic gestures, did anyone else note that Lori L. Brown mentioned in the MN Atheists broadcast yesterday that the Secular Coalition is having trouble finding a congressperson to sponsor an act recognizing the 200th Darwin celebration? Wow.)
OK. I'm sure when the page refreshes I'll find plenty I'll want to respond to, but I do have to get back to grading for at least a few hours. Sorry to bail.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 22, 2008 2:39 PM
@ I'll second that
Thank you for the timely, informative and supportive links and posts.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 22, 2008 2:40 PM
Wow indeed; that's really fucked up.Posted by: SC, OM | December 22, 2008 2:42 PM
Um, dude, I'm not gay. I am, however, a woman, and offended by his views on abortion, now that I've learned of them (not that I'm surprised - it just hasn't been the focus of the discussion).
Again: straight girl here. What's grown old as far as I'm concerned is this insistence on framing what this action is "about" for other people and dismissing their legitimate objections with glib remarks about self-pity and inconsequentiality. I don't know what it's like to be a wounded veteran, but if you were protesting a parallel situation related to yourself, I would seek to understand where you were coming from and recognize your ability to understand the situation rather than accusing you of trying to play some identity card.
Posted by: SC, OM | December 22, 2008 2:52 PM
mayhempix:
OK. Maybe I was being too sensitive. :)
OK - I misunderstood that one, too. :)
Claro.
Claro.
Posted by: Joel | December 22, 2008 2:52 PM
@I'll second that,
I guess if you want to take Obama at his word, which ever word it happens to be this week, that works. My experience with people who believe something because God tells them is they are not likely to be committed to a cause that runs counter to their chosen beleif system.
Within the same paragraph you quoted, Obama expresses support for Don't Ask Don't Tell, yet even before he's gotten into office he's begun managing the expectations concerning it's repeal. Word is now it will not be looked at until at least 2010, and some say not during his first term.
If Don't Ask Don't Tell are too touchy a subject to address now, where do you think DOMA and equality are going to stand?
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 22, 2008 2:55 PM
SC:
And I truly appreciate that.
Though I respect you and your opinions, I won't be responding anymore after this, as you don't seem to recognize that I am not trying to insult you, but rather simply trying to explain my position. If I insulted you by calling your ideas idealistic, I'm sorry. There was no malice there, simply a descriptive that I think describes the idea that we cannot - as a matter of principle - trust politicians to take the course we as a populace believe needs to be taken.
As for my military service, it was not idealistic to choose to serve - it was realistic. I did not have any flighty ideas about saving the world, but rather I felt a sense of obligation to do my part. Whether or not you find that silly, I don't care. Second, I needed help getting out of my situation then, and the military provided that chance. You don't have a clue concerning my motivations behind joining, but I'd have thought you would have given me more credit than to assume I joined for idealistic reasons, given that we've talked about this before.
And I did not "willingly" participate in a criminal war. I was required to do so, against my will, because the civilian government gave the President the authorization to order me to do so. Again, this is something that has been repeatedly addressed in posts in the past that I know you read and were a part of, so I don't know why you're advancing such statements now.
And nowhere did I criticize anyone for "not having sufficient faith" in Obama. I simply said that I was holding out judgement until he actually makes policy decisions that will outline what his agenda will be, and that I thought it would be smart for more people to do the same. That was a misrepresentation of my comments on your part, though I don't know if it was unintentional or deliberate.
Right, and the fight we're in right now is to reduce the religious right's disproportionate level of influence, along with trying to get that community to replace their bigoted and closed-minded leaders with individuals more amenable to the progressive viewpoint. Simply listening to them does not mean that they will retain their political clout as a result.
Those two countries have elected individuals to their highest office that would be considered a minority in this country, but not in their own. That's what I meant. Bolivia has never elected a non-hispanic head of state, and since the fall of apartheid, South Africa has not elected a non-black President.
I don't disagree totally, I just don't believe that there are no politicians that do not genuinely want to change things - upward pressure may be necessary on the whole, but in my view there are politicians out there who don't require that we tell them what they need to do before they can begin to fight for what's right.
Posted by: Diagoras | December 22, 2008 3:03 PM
@ #575 Sven
CBD's lawyers are a kickass team. No doubt about that. They're experts. And I'm certainly for transparency and accountability in government. Suckling is an artist of semantics, and twisting words, though. So he triggers my have-to-look-up-and-actually-see-what-person-actually-said button of skeptic-mojo. If he does that for everyone - I view that as a good thing, because I like people to be better informed. (I'm not sure that it does, though) (And I'm a word-twister, myself, so I can appreciate him on that level. He's very good at defending his position.) I just don't happen to believe that Salazar is a bad choice in light of his considerable experience, and the competing interests involved in the DOI, nor do I believe the person Suckling set forth was a great choice.
But, we'll see how Salazar runs the place - and I'll be glad CBD is there, poking and prodding the DOI to weigh environmental impact carefully in making their decisions. I just prefer to get my analysis on the issues from sources like this : http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=960124 - to the things Suckling utters to the AP. (Truth is a complete defense to defamation - so I'd like him to sling more of that, and less with the rhetoric. Truth is potent and damning enough.)
Posted by: SC, OM | December 22, 2008 3:03 PM
I'm not saying it doesn't ever happen. I'm saying that due to the structural characteristics of the system it can't be relied upon to happen, and that the election of seemingly friendly politicians should never be cause to let down our guard or to be less active or outspoken. Similarly, while we may find stories in the MSM that don't support elite interests, given the structure of the MSM we can't count on this. We need to develop alternative media and at the same time view critically any information coming from MSM sources.
Must...tear...self...away...from...thread...
My argument is indeed not at all issue-specific (though the amount of pressure necessary is I'm sure not perfectly even across issues). I entered an ongoing discussion about the LGBT issue; I didn't single it out.
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 22, 2008 3:10 PM
Posted by: SC, OM | December 22, 2008 2:42 PM
Sorry, I didn't realize. I assumed you were, and was obviously wrong. I apologize. I did not dismiss anyone's objections - I think you may be confusing my comments with someone else's. That was part of the misunderstanding between PATG and myself. I simply said that though the Warren pick was disgusting, there may be a political positive to it that will outweigh the negative we're feeling about it right now.
And though it is not a complete understanding, I have made a great deal of effort, both on and off this board, to understand the areas of this debate that I do not have any first-hand experience with. And I never made any reference to an 'identity card' being played - the only reference I made anywhere close to that was to say that I thought some people on this thread were looking for insult where there was none (I think I phrased it as 'the insulted card', and later apologized for it after realizing it was taken as an affront), and I didn't include you in that group. Quite the contrary, I wouldn't deign to insult your intelligence. (FWIW, you're one of the few commenters here that I search the threads for.)
All in all, I have never presumed to tell anyone what they should think or feel, and I never told anyone they should not feel insulted - only that I don't believe Obama meant it as a slight to the LGBT community. I simply related my own thoughts and feelings, and why I think they're justified.
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 22, 2008 3:17 PM
Posted by: SC, OM | December 22, 2008 3:03 PM
There's nothing there I don't agree with - I guess my whole point was that even though I agree that we - as a general rule - shouldn't rest on our laurels after electing a decent candidate, I don't think that in our current situation we are doing that. I've actually be really surprised at the level of involvement in the past few months.
And that's where I confused your comments with the ongoing discussion - mine were limited to that issue while yours were not. My mistake.
I know - I'm beginning to think its futile to try...
Posted by: SC, OM | December 22, 2008 3:30 PM
That seems a bit pouty, and I never said I thought you were trying to insult me, so I don't know what that's all about.
You didn't insult me. I simply think you were wrong, and that it is your position that is idealistic.
Given that we've talked about this before, and I've read your conversations with others on this subject, I do have a clue. (And the bit about doing your part is indicative of idealism.)
That statement on my part was overreaching (and more than a little mean). I retract the "willingly" and the general sense of that remark. As for the rest, it's definitely not a conversation I want to have now. We can continue to agree to disagree.
I don't think so. You presumed to tell others who are more personally affected the meaning and significance of the act, and chastised them for not showing the restraint you believe is necessary under the circumstances, lecturing them on how they should wait for him to do his thing.
We're not talking about "simply listening to them." We're talking about a specific decision. To claim that the selection of Warren will in any way contribute to achieving the two goals you're talking about is simply contrary to reason. "I want to reduce their influence and get them to replace the more bigoted leaders, so I'll recognize one of the more bigoted leaders in an inaugural ceremony."
Actually, a minority is a group distinguished by physical or cultural characteristics and subordinated. It's not about numbers or percentages. Black people in South Africa are a minority. And Evo Morales is indigenous.
Idealist. :)
Posted by: SC, OM | December 22, 2008 3:46 PM
*touched* Likewise.
OK. Part of the problem may be that some others were suggesting the things that you've been attributing to me (the assumptions about Obama's intent or what it means for his future policies), so when I entered the discussion we were already kind of talking across each other.
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 22, 2008 4:05 PM
That tends to happen when someone (me, I mean) gets so intent on trying to explain a point that bits of critical info sometimes fly right by.
And not to belabor a point you don't want to discuss, but I will say that I am fully aware that I was a part of a criminal war. That is one of the things that made me try to focus on the good I could do, of which we did some - though it was not enough, in my opinion, to make up for the pain those people are going through. And even though I probably would have still made the choice to serve back then ('97), these recent events have made me firm in the decision to try my best to discourage my children (whenever they may come) or any of my friends or family in joining, at least right now. The other thing that eats at me is that I gave up a portion of my health, but I have nothing I can point to to make it worth it. I can try to center on the development and interaction we tried to make happen, or the infrastructure we built, but nothing really makes it worth it.
You got me on that one. But I think that is one area that isn't pure idealism, because there are those types of politicians out there, even if they're not the ones drawing the most attention.
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 22, 2008 4:13 PM
This 2006 data is the most recent census-type info I could find (the last census was 2001), and it lists "African" (black) at 79.5% of SA's population, and "Coloured" (mixed-race) at 8.9%, while the percentage of whites in SA was 9.2%.
http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/P0302/P03022006.pdf
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 22, 2008 4:18 PM
Hispanic was the wrong word to use concerning Bolivia, too. All I meant was that Morales is not considered a minority in Bolivia, though his status as the first indigenous President in almost 500 years is similarly historic in my mind.
Posted by: Facilis | December 22, 2008 4:22 PM
[Quick correction - I checked facilis's blog, and he's no poe - he was actually defending Warren as not being a homophobe. Amazing.]
I haven't heard much about Warren but I checked wikipedia and he seems like a nice person. I mean he wants "to fight international poverty and disease expanding educational opportunities for the marginalized, and caring for the environment."
I'm glad Obama's associated with him. I wouldn't mind if he was my pastor (He's probaly better than J. Wright) .I'm sure you might disagree with his views on the definition of marriage but that's no reason to say he's a homophobe.
Posted by: facilis | December 22, 2008 4:35 PM
[Facilis, which form of biblical marriage?]
The kind Jesus was talking about when he said "a man and a woman shall become one flesh".
Posted by: SC, OM | December 22, 2008 4:38 PM
But you (like around 15% of my students on the midterm) missed the definition of minority. Wikipedia is actually decent on this, but for their initial focus on voting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_group
Again, it's not a numerical question. There are many cases in which minorities have constituted or constitute the largest group in terms of numbers.
Posted by: facilis | December 22, 2008 4:38 PM
[Go to his blog and check for yourself what kinds of things he views to be undisputed facts ]
I was careful to cite Phd New testament scholars and historians like N.T. Wright and Gary Habermas when I talked about whether the facts were disputed. Is there some kind of error you would like to point out?
Posted by: Rey Fox | December 22, 2008 4:41 PM
"He's a biblical marriage proponent. "
Good for him. Now could we just leave the biblical marriage for biblical people?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 22, 2008 4:48 PM
I though biblical marriage meant plural wives and many concubines. Which is why I asked. And guess what, that is still in the bible. So biblical marriage must include polygamy. You don't get to pick and chose. All is correct, or none is correct.
Posted by: facilis | December 22, 2008 4:52 PM
[I though biblical marriage meant plural wives and many concubines. ]
That was only a couple richer people like Solomon. And a few early figures like Abraham and Isaac.God did say that he permitted some people things because their hearts were hard(for example God hated divorce but permitted it). I'm opposed to polygamy though.
Are you opposed to it? And why?
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 22, 2008 4:55 PM
Point taken. The only one I was trying to make was that Obama's election was unique in that the numerical majority of the country does not share his ethnic or racial identity.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 22, 2008 4:55 PM
Not good enough. All the bible is good or nothing about it makes sense. Make your pick, and quit lying, equivocating, and godbotting.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 22, 2008 4:55 PM
Yikes, I just checked back on this thread after about a day and I gotta say: What a clusterfuck! Any time someone says this place is an echo chamber I'm linking here. Are people not having a Happy Monkey?
QD, you seem to have a knack for unintentionally starting flame wars (no pun intended). Use this power for good! Go over to Rapture Ready or Ray Comfort's blog and start some trouble.
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 22, 2008 5:02 PM
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 22, 2008 4:55 PM
I seriously doubt he'll do any of those, which is why it is useless to engage him. For someone so obviously conservative, the notion that he hadn't heard much of Rick Warren (especially considering all the publicity around the Saddleback Presidential Forum) is just dishonest.
The conservative giveaway was the jab at Jeremiah Wright, and his insistence on not recognizing Warren - in light of his outspoken belief that homosexuals should not be allowed to enjoy the same rights as the rest of us - as a homophobe is the concern troll tell.
He's here to sound polite, not listen, and annoy the piss out of whomever he can get to respond.
Posted by: Rey Fox | December 22, 2008 5:02 PM
With regards to polygamy, I am not opposed to it in and of itself. I believe that consenting adults should be able to enter whatever living arrangements/resource sharing/sexual intercourse that they think they can handle. I am opposed to polygamy as it is typically practiced in various Christian sects; i.e., where a few alpha males essentially force underage girls into their harems.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 22, 2008 5:05 PM
facilis,
OT, but I like to hear your response to this.
2 Kings 2
Was it right for God to send 2 bears to kill 42 children for simply mocking Elisha for being bald?
Posted by: Kel | December 22, 2008 5:09 PM
God simply wanted to reward the bears for years of prayer and devotion ;)Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 22, 2008 5:09 PM
the election of a minority to the highest office is something that not even other democracies have done previously - brokenSoldier
A lot depends on how you define "minority"!
Actually, a minority is a group distinguished by physical or cultural characteristics and subordinated. It's not about numbers or percentages. Black people in South Africa are a minority. - SC, OM
That's a strange use of "minority", that I haven't come across before, and one bound to be misunderstood. "Oppressed group" is surely clearer. Either way, you're right about Bolivia, since indigenes are an oppressed numerical majority, but prior to Morales, all elected leaders have been from the white numerical minority! Similarly in Venezuela, most of the population are mestizos, but Chavez is the first mestizo to be elected President. Ditto, I think, Correa in Ecuador. In none of these countries, of course, does the description "Hispanic", used by brokenSoldier, make any sense at all. In Guyana, Cheddi Jagan was a member of the largest numerical minority (East Indian Guyanese) - no group forms a numerical majority - which also has a history of oppression. The current President, Sam Hinds, is a member of the smaller Afro-Guyanese minority, also with a history of oppression. In the UK (but in pre-Democratic times), Disraeli was a member of the Jewish ethnic minority, although a baptised Christian. Benito Juárez in Mexico, again before full democracy (women had no votes) was a full-blooded Zapotec - a minority member in all possible senses. Jean Chrétien was a member of the Francophone minority in Canada. Manmohan Singh is a member of the Sikh minority in India (but was appointed to his post after the last election by the leader of Congress, the Italian-born Sonia Gandhi. De Valera was a member of the Protestant minority in the Irish Free State (now the Republic of Ireland). Bruno Kreisky was a member of the Jewish minority in Austria (astonishing, considering the breadth and depth of antisemitism there).
Of course if we go with SC's definition, anywhere that has elected a woman counts!
I could go on, but I'll leave it there - once I started, I kept thinking of other possible examples!
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 22, 2008 5:10 PM
Those are some interesting rationalisations, facilis. Funny how the judeo-christian god seems to favour the preferences of rich people. I wonder why that would be? Couldn't have anything to do with generous donations to the church, would it? I've always found it strange that god needs money.
So, you're against divorce? You must spend a lot of time arguing with fundamentalist christians, amongst whom divorce rates are higher than other groups.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 22, 2008 5:14 PM
brokenSoldier,
I posted my#608 (which took some time to put together using google) before reading your #593.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 22, 2008 5:18 PM
brokensoldier, OM
You're right, of course, but I really enjoy mocking godbots. Maybe if I goad him right he will say something to cause PZ to ban him.By the way, good to see you back posting on a regular basis, even if may only be for a few days. Hope things are going better for you these days.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 22, 2008 5:20 PM
SC OM
"Claro"
Buenisimo.
Posted by: Jadehawk | December 22, 2008 5:22 PM
Merkel is both a woman and a former citizen of the GDR, does that count? :-pPosted by: SC, OM | December 22, 2008 5:27 PM
Well, if we're being technical about it, the majority of Bolivia's population doesn't share Morales' ethnic/racial identity. But I think the larger point for me is that even politicians from oppressed groups or who have themselves struggled and suffered for human rights and social justice can't be relied upon to create positive change. Even Morales
and I'll post this recent piece by him:
http://www.alternet.org/environment/112765/bolivian_president_evo_morales:_20_ways_to_save_mother_earth_and_prevent_environmental_disaster/
doesn't escape this judgment. This is not in any way to suggest that there aren't politicians of the past and present whom I admire and respect greatly or whose sacrifices I recognize. I oppose the system, and recognize what I see as its fundamental flaws. This doesn't mean I view all politicians throughout time as enemies or incapable of doing anything good.
Well, I'm not. My friend who offered me a ride home is leaving tomorrow morning, and since I've been sick there's no way I'll be able to finish grading and get everything together by then (no, not even if I tore myself away from here completely, in case anyone's wondering). So I'll be stuck here, probably alone, for the holidays(?) rather than with my family and friends.
*wallows momentarily*
*laughs at herself*
*gets over it*
Posted by: Kel | December 22, 2008 5:28 PM
1 Jesus died by crucifixion 2 The tomb was empty 3 Jesus' disciples were disheartened after he was dead.However they had experiences that led them to believe that Jesus had physically risen from the dead and appeared to them. They were so convinced they suffered and some were martyred for their belief.Show any historical evidence for any of that, though given your abysmal spelling I'll bet you'll just appeal to the bible.
Posted by: facilis | December 22, 2008 5:36 PM
[For someone so obviously conservative,]
I'm not really conservative. I tend to side with the conservatives on issues like abortion and gay marriage though.
[ the notion that he hadn't heard much of Rick Warren (especially considering all the publicity around the Saddleback Presidential Forum) is just dishonest.]
I can honestly say the first time i heard of Warren was when my dad bought his book and then when the gay people attacked a Saddleback church.I honestly haven't listened to him much.
[The conservative giveaway was the jab at Jeremiah Wright,]
During the elections (here in Texas) they ran a bunch of attack ads featuring Wright's "preaching". He's a very angry guy.
Posted by: facilis | December 22, 2008 5:41 PM
@Wowbagger
So, you're against divorce? You must spend a lot of time arguing with fundamentalist christians, amongst whom divorce rates are higher than other groups.
I go with what Jesus said. The only permissible reason for divorce is adultery
Posted by: SC, OM | December 22, 2008 5:41 PM
No, that's the standard sociological definition of minority, found in the text I use as well as others. It's only bound to be misunderstood by those who use sociological terminology imprecisely. Heck, it's the one given by Wikipedia in the link I provided.
It isn't my definition, man. I didn't want to open that particular can of worms, but that's arguably true.
Posted by: Rey Fox | December 22, 2008 5:54 PM
"During the elections (here in Texas) they ran a bunch of attack ads featuring Wright's "preaching". He's a very angry guy."
Do you not think that black people in this country have legitimate reasons to be angry?
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 22, 2008 5:56 PM
It's only bound to be misunderstood by those who use sociological terminology imprecisely. - SC, OM
Or those who aren't sociologists (which is the vast, er, majority ;-) ). AFAIK, they didn't invent the word.
Posted by: Malcolm | December 22, 2008 6:05 PM
Nerd of Redhead,
Ficilis has to pick and choose which bits of the bible he follows. Anyone who actually followed all of the rules in the bible would be locked up.
Christians don't get their morals from the bible. They use the bible as an excuse for their immorality.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 22, 2008 6:11 PM
facilis,
As Kel, says, your description of 1-3 of your "Facts" in the "counter-challenge" as such is either dishonest or ignorant and self-deceiving. Why, therefore, should we believe you when you say you are "not a conservative", especially given your homophobia and misogyny?
Posted by: SC, OM | December 22, 2008 6:12 PM
No, but it was developed as a term meaning something about racial/ethnic identity and group subordination within sociology. I do agree that it can be misunderstood (more reason for people to take sociology! :)), though, so that remark was a bit dumb. Nonetheless, my original comment with the definition was in response to brokensoldier's remark about how the election of Obama, a minority member, is somehow a special case to which my political notions don't apply. The contention that the election of Mandela is not a good comparative case because black people constitute(d) the numerical majority of SA's population really shows why a sociological and not numerical meaning is what we need to preserve here.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 22, 2008 6:35 PM
The contention that the election of Mandela is not a good comparative case because black people constitute(d) the numerical majority of SA's population really shows why a sociological and not numerical meaning is what we need to preserve here. - SC
True as far as its sociopolitical significance is concerned, but once democracy was achieved in South Africa, it was a pretty safe bet that a black President would be elected, because blacks constitute such a large numerical majority. Obama is a member of a minority in both senses, and I'd say this means there is no close parallel for his election - the nearest is Kreisky. Kennedy would be the closest US parallel - I forgot him earlier.
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 22, 2008 6:52 PM
I never meant to imply that your notions did not apply to Obama's election - I was only trying to point out (obviously slightly incompetently) that Obama's election was an insiringly unique occurrence, even if it is not totally without similar precedent.
Posted by: kpss | December 22, 2008 6:54 PM
I told you, I'm not a climatologist. (I'm a computer scientist for the record) This is why I'm not arguing against the findings of climatologists, because they have studied this problem extensively and I have not. The same goes for biology, for chemistry, for physics, for history and for whatever other discipline out there I'm not qualified in. All I can ever really do is echo the sentiments of experts, those who actually are qualified.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 22, 2008 6:58 PM
kpss@626 - WTF?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 22, 2008 6:59 PM
Malcolm, reading the bible and seeing all the contradictions in black and white is enough to turn a teen to atheism. Been there, done that. Ficilis is just showing himself to be liar. Historical Jebus didn't exist, so quoting him is like quoting the wind. But he has to decide which end of the bible he believes, since he can't believe it all without freezing his mind. Even Jebus contradicts himself, all forgiving one minute then smiting the next.
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 22, 2008 7:03 PM
Posted by: SC, OM | December 22, 2008 5:27 PM
Gotcha - the only way we differ, I think, is that though I don't always agree with the system, it still seems to me to be the best way to get done what needs to get done. But you're right in the fact that in our current political climate, it is going to take a watershed of citizen involvement to change course. But I do think this last election was a good start, and I think we're a lot closer on certain issues than we have ever been.
Unfortunately, that makes two of us! :( I've stocked up on movies, so it shouldn't be a big deal.
Posted by: Kel | December 22, 2008 7:04 PM
Why the fuck are you quoting me?
Posted by: SC, OM | December 22, 2008 7:04 PM
Except bs's point seemed to be that due to these unique circumstances he was more likely to act in a way that would confound my structural argument about politicians. My argument is not that Obama's election can't be seen as novel in any sense, but that it shouldn't be seen as exceptional in terms of the broader structural argument I'm making (indeed, much less so than others). I'm open to counterarguments, but to be honest I'd say that the chance of convincing me that I should put my trust in Obama when I don't even put my trust in Morales is virtually nil. Obama's election may be historic, but it hasn't turned the world upside down.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | December 22, 2008 7:05 PM
Oh good, we've got a godbotherer to play with instead of an angry gay and a climate change denying libertarian.
So why shouldn't gays be allowed to marry? Is it because:
* You think what they do in bed is icky?
* God thinks what they do in bed is icky?
* If gays can marry, then dogs will be marrying fire hydrants?
* Other?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 22, 2008 7:11 PM
The Redhead and I were discussing what would happen to our 30+years of marriage if her gay cousin could marry his partner of 15+ years. The results are shown below:
(*crickets chirping*)
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 22, 2008 7:13 PM
That's fair, but I don't trust him unconditionally, and surely never would. Instead, my trust in his judgement is based upon the things that he has written, the legislation he has authored and co-authored, and the fact that he was able to maintain a two-year campaign with hardly a hitch while also maintaining a fair, even tone and without resorting to the kinds of attacks that McCain and Palin made almost daily.
I would say that it can both be seen as exceptional while also being held to skeptical standards of accomplishment once he gets into office. True, I do enjoy taking a minute to realize we got one right, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm blinded by optimism. I believe it's possible to harbor both optimism and skepticism at once.
Posted by: facilis | December 22, 2008 7:16 PM
@Kel
Ypu can read the other posts on my blog where I defend those facts. You can also pick up any book by NT Wright or Gary Habermas if you want to go more in depth.
Posted by: SC, OM | December 22, 2008 7:22 PM
I know. I'd say jokingly that if I wanted to sit around agreeing with everyone I'd go to an anarchist blog, but we're not exactly known for our easy agreement. I think I'd rather argue with Piltdown than an anarchoprimitivist.
I just want to make sure it continues to be seen as a start - or better, an opportunity - and not an occasion to leave it to the leaders.
Sadly, that's not saying much. And a lot of time and energy will yet again have to be spent merely trying to regain ground that had been won earlier and that was lost over the past several years and continuing to fight against further encroachments.
I don't even have food. Too bad we're not in the same area. :)
Posted by: Kel | December 22, 2008 7:22 PM
Wow, those names are impressive. A new testament scholar and an apologist... I'm convinced.
Posted by: facilis | December 22, 2008 7:23 PM
[As Kel, says, your description of 1-3 of your "Facts" in the "counter-challenge" as such is either dishonest or ignorant and self-deceiving.]
So I suppose the vast majority of New testament researchers are also ignorant and self-deceiving.Me and my scholarly research ....
[Why, therefore, should we believe you when you say you are "not a conservative", especially given your homophobia and misogyny?]
I'm not homophobic. I've never met a homosexual but I'm sure they're normal people like you and me. I don't hate women either. Why are you throwing out all these ad homs?
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 22, 2008 7:24 PM
Posted by: facilis | December 22, 2008 7:16 PM
Ahhh, the more you try to stay away, the more you get pulled in...
facilis, you may have made the attempt, but your defense is little more than a minestrone stew of argument from authority, appeal to the supernatural, and circular reasoning. And perusing historical speculation from theologians is not much more productive at all. So I'm sure if Kel wanted to waste some time, there'd be far more preferable ways to do it. You're not fooling anyone here - they're simply having fun with you.
Posted by: Joel | December 22, 2008 7:25 PM
Really? How old are you and where the hell do you live?
Posted by: Kel | December 22, 2008 7:26 PM
Facilis, how much evidence for Jesus comes from outside the bible?
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 22, 2008 7:27 PM
It's not an ad hominem attack when you've demonstrated the fact that you don't believe those classes of humans should enjoy the same rights as you do. Again, you don't have to be overtly nasty to be a bigot. You can be polite all you want about it, it just makes you a polite bigot. And homophobe.
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 22, 2008 7:30 PM
You're "sure they're normal people"? You don't have to meet a certain kind of human to know that they're just like you and me in that department. Be careful, your homophobia is showing.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 22, 2008 7:35 PM
The one thing I know about Obama is that he is throughly decent. His original senate opponent, who was a moderate republican, was going through a bitter divorce with his soon to be ex actress wife, and it came out that he took is wife to some sex clubs. Most of the state went eh? OK, that was with his wife, no harm, no foul. The rightwingnuts went wild. Eventually caused the guy, who was running neck to neck with Obama, to pull out, and brought in Alan Keyes to be the "pure conservative republican" candidate. Obama won with >60% of the vote. (That pretty much destroyed the reputation of right wing republicans in Illinois.) And Obama never made any bad comments about his early opponent, even when he might have scored political points by doing so. So I'm going to give him a break until I see what he and his administration really does.
Posted by: Kel | December 22, 2008 7:38 PM
Yep, that's just it. You know there's going to be nothing of substance there, there isn't a single artefact ever discovered that Jesus ever owned or even touched. There's not a single piece of evidence that Jesus ever existed. You'd think that believers who saw Jesus as God on earth would have been clamouring to preserve every little piece of God they could, that they would have preserved every piece of information.Instead what do we have? A collection of "eyewitness accounts" written by people who never met Jesus, the founding of the religion my someone who Jesus "revealed himself" to, and those alone are meant to be enough to convince others that a man defied all known laws of physics? Where's the cave Jesus was buried in? Where's the pieces of cross? Where's the lance of longinus? Where's the historical record of his crucifixion?
There's simply no evidence for who people claim Jesus to be, for a god in man's flesh, his appearance made little impact on the nearby world.
Posted by: SC, OM | December 22, 2008 7:43 PM
For me, it's not a matter of either, but of continuing to act (including openly criticizing politicians who do things I believe are contrary to justice or rights or freedom), hoping and in some cases expecting that the seemingly-friendlier politicians will respond supportively or at least not turn around and oppose us along the way and that the hostile ones won't respond violently (less optimistic about this last). So for me it's not "about" them, the politicians, but about us. Frustrating - I can see the differences in our general perspectives visually, as a diagram, but unfortunately can't recreate that here in the comments.
Posted by: facilis | December 22, 2008 7:44 PM
[Malcolm, reading the bible and seeing all the contradictions in black and white is enough to turn a teen to atheism. Been there, done that.]
I guess I think differently from you. Either it's all true or its not? That's a big false dichotomy
[Ficilis is just showing himself to be liar. ]
Yep me and all those New testament schlars are lying
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | December 22, 2008 7:57 PM
I've never met a homosexual
*boggle*
Where do you live? Iran? Slappy Ahmadinejad said they don't have any there when he did his standup routine at Columbia University a while back. A so-so act, and I thought the joke about the airline food on the WTC planes was in poor taste.
but I'm sure they're normal people like you and me.
Gee, are you sure? C'mon, you're kidding, right? Don't make me come over there.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 22, 2008 7:57 PM
Facilis wrote:
Willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty - which they are guilty of - isn't the same thing as lying.
Posted by: Kel | December 22, 2008 8:03 PM
I think facilis inadvertently hit the nail on the head there. His is an appeal to the honesty of those who wrote on the subject. The story of Jesus is one of physics defying miracles, incredulous tales that would be otherwise absurd if not for the fact they are systematically indoctrinated through dogma. Yet facilis is putting all his eggs into the basket that the people who wrote the stories were being entirely honest, as if being honest and believing something with great conviction is a good measure of truth. I know plenty of people who say they've seen a ghost...
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | December 22, 2008 8:04 PM
But I can't control it! :-( I'm like Thomas Covenant with the Wild Magic in the Steven R. Donaldson books. It has a mind of its own! Haaalp!
What are those? Religious blogs? I can't read those. They make my neurons get all wonky. The stoopid hurts, and not in a good way like when Mistress takes the whip and-[REST OF POST CENSORED BY FCC PROTECTRON MONITOR]
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | December 22, 2008 11:08 PM
Nerd of Redhead wrote:
Not quite. Obama's opponent, Jack Ryan, had a bitter divorce from his wife, Jeri Ryan (who played 7 of 9 in Star Trek: Voyager). Their divorce papers were sealed. The Chicago Tribune and a Chicago TV station sued to have the papers released. Illinois GOP Chair Judy Baar Topinka asked Ryan if there was anything in the papers which would cause embarrassment. Ryan told her "no." When the papers were unsealed, the story about Ryan taking his wife to sex clubs became public. Topinka said that Ryan had lied to her. The State Republican Committee "suggested" that Ryan withdraw from the race, which he did.
In short, it wasn't the sex clubs that did Ryan in, it was lying to his own party that caused his downfall.
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 23, 2008 1:15 AM
I think our difference lies in the fact that my personal emphasis is on the effective use of the system, while your emphasis lies with the effective use of the voice directing that system. Close?
Posted by: JPS, FCD | December 23, 2008 1:36 AM
(Perhaps repeating points made above after post #300 or so; if so, I apologise)
A few months ago I heard Chris Hedges speak more or less on the topic of "American Fascism" -- his talk was based on his book with that title. He didn't mention Rick Warren during the talk, but was asked what he thought of Warren during the following Q&A. Hos response (paraphrased): "Rick Warren is a prime exponent of the gospel of prosperity."
I was dismayed when I learned about Warren's being invited to deliver the invocation at the inauguration. As the bumper sticker puts it, I'm straight but not narrow, although I was born, was educated for 18 years, and now live about an hour down the road from Ken Ham's museum. My university library keeps "losing" books by Hitchens, Sam Harris, and others with comparable viewpoints. "American Fascism" hasn't been lost yet though. I read it over this past weekend. I recommend it to all Pharyngula readers.
I'd prefer to have an inauguration with no invocation at all (Hedges would disagree with me on this point), but that clearly is not politically possible.
Posted by: JPS, FCD | December 23, 2008 1:38 AM
Forgot to say: brokenSoldier, I'm glad to see that you're back!
Posted by: SC, OM | December 23, 2008 1:57 AM
Erhhhhhhh.........
no. :) Perhaps a map is more like it. "The system" is not the key structuring feature of my map. I see history as a the history of social movements, operating within and across various institutional contexts. So, I imagine your global map to show a series of more-or-less bounded sub-national and national entities, with, I don't know, "action arrows" pointing towards institutional political centers (and all eventually, in the case of the US, to DC). Mine's a lot messier. While of course I don't deny the existence of the formal US political structure, my arrows point in a number of directions, sometimes intersecting with these institutional centers and sometimes not, sometimes crossing formal national boundaries or intersecting with international organizations and sometimes not. My anchor points, the sources and locations of action, aren't formal political actors or institutions, but social-movement groups and organizations (and the movements in general, though they're harder to pin down). Not sure if this will make any sense to anyone or not...
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 23, 2008 7:00 AM
the chance of convincing me that I should put my trust in Obama when I don't even put my trust in Morales is virtually nil. Obama's election may be historic, but it hasn't turned the world upside down. Agreed! Though the Great Crash of 2008 has at least knocked it sideways!
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 23, 2008 7:09 AM
I suppose the vast majority of New testament researchers are also ignorant and self-deceiving. - facilis
Well certainly many are, since like N.T. Wright they start with the conclusion they want to reach and work backwards. Others, however, including Christians, and ex-Christians who have looked at the evidence honestly and thereby lost their faith, do not believe the "empty tomb" claim - John Dominic Crossan and Hector Avalos for example. So as I say, pretending your 1-3 are agreed facts is either dishonest or ignorant. Of course even if they were, the claim of resurrection would still be garbage. We know religions can start from the most ludicrous and dishonest beginnings - look at Mormonism and Scientology for example. And of course doctrinally orthodox Christianity is necessarily false: nothing could possibly be "wholly God and wholly man" as the Nicene creed has it.
Posted by: Alex Deam | December 23, 2008 5:57 PM
Looks like the dust has settled since my last comment. To be honest I'm surprised that PZ didn't have to come out brandishing his admin stick.
John Morales said:
Yes, and what harm did a quick copy and paste by myself do? Oh noes I took up a quarter of the scrollbar length, whatever will people do except scroll down? It's not like the previous 364 comments were that productive, with most consisting of GWIAS's trolling and responses to that trolling or a flame war of PTGA versus everyone. Obviously the troll didn't want to objectively look at the evidence on real climate, same as it didn't want to look at the evidence from the IPCC, so I provided some evidence for AGW which was undigested by bloggers and IPCC people so that he/she can interpret the evidence themselves. Not my fault if all they now want to do is post "blah blah blah" repeatedly and not listen.
Enshoku said:
Okay so the Gandhi+Hitler thing equaling zero was a bit of an exaggeration (but they are the first two people I could think of who lie at opposite ends of my moral compass). But my point was that Lowery+Warren=0 is true. People here and elsewhere have been irate about the "appointment" of Warren, because they say that having Warren give the invocation "panders to 'anti-LGBT' views". But by EXACTLY the same logic, having Lowery at the ceremony, panders to 'pro-LGBT' views. So which is it then? Obama is both simultaneously supporting LGBT hatred and love? No of course not. The views of these two men are mutually exclusive, and therefore it can't say anything about Obama's position on LGBT rights. In fact the only thing it can say for certain about this is that Obama wants "to create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable". Of course, there may be a particular issue that Obama is looking for Warren to provide the evangelical right's support, and this issue is obviously not LGBT rights, because of Lowery. Wat is it then? Well, as mayhempix said, it is global warming and environmentalism. Warren is a supporter of that, and if he can get the evangelical people focused on that instead of LGBT rights, then that's great. (Also, the fact that I reckon that Obama is a shrewd politician (i.e. he knows what pawns to play and when), makes me suspect that Warren is partly a diversion to get news of Blagojevich out of the headlines for a week until Obama's team releases details of all the conversations. This stops discussion in some channels of Obama somehow being involved in the scandal (which of course he wasn't, but he doesn't want to chance is name to be linked with scandal too much). Perhaps anyway. But the environmentalism is the main thing anyway).
Unless the murderer was known as Gabriel Gray? :P
Joel said:
No you didn't. Least not for long enough anyway. That was not my point at all. I said that Obama "doesn't need to pander to the LGBT community in his inauguration. They are already on board." They are already on board! And why? Because he supports their views! They wouldn't be on board if he didn't support their views. You say "because we have no place to go". True, but you make it sound like you have been pigeonholed to support Obama. Far from it. Obama supports LGBT rights! And obviously he has to "concern himself" with LGBT people when he's in office (else he would be a liar), but getting some guy to do a prayer at his inauguration has nothing to do with that!
Olbermann wasn't backing Obama up on that fact that he supports LGBT equality, he was making the point that it is "just about a first" for an American President (okay in-waiting) to come out and say that. And I wasn't quoting Olbermann because it makes it true, I quoted Olbermann because it would be intellectually dishonest of me to claim that I came up with that point when I had heard it on Countdown. It is a first for a President, so I don't know what the LGBT community have to worry about from Obama.
And? That was Olbermann's point, that Obama is the first in his position to advocate LGBT equality. Appointing 150 gay men and women does not make Clinton an advocate. As I'll second that said, Obama "favors repeal of DOMA, elimination of "don't ask, don't tell", passage of ENDA, and more". That is a lot more than appointing 150 gay men/women (and Obama's administration hasn't appointed that many people in total yet I suspect). Besides, how can (in your view) the naming of Warren for the invocation be a sign that the administration will be anti-gay, but Clinton's 150 actual appointments meant nothing? Because Clinton actually did the whole "don't ask, don't tell" thing, so it mattered not how many gay people Clinton appointed, his policies were what mattered. So just perhaps you could accept the fact that who Obama names to give the invocation at his inauguration doesn't matter, and therefore, just perhaps, Obama might do some good for LGBT rights?
Also Joel, why have you responded to my comments to Greg both here and on Greg's blog, but with slightly different comments?
Whatever the reason, I shall respond here:
How in any way is he pissing on you? Fucking Lowery, remember?
And HE DOES support equality for you guys, and his actions are in sync with his rhetoric. Goodness gracious me, Warren gets to give a little prayer at the ceremony, and automatically Obama is anti-gay! Hows about Obama be given a chance to actually get past January 20th so he can actually do some "actions". Give the guy a fucking chance. All he can do at the moment is say things like, "It is no secret that I am a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans." And as others have said, he wants to repeal anti-gay legislation. How much more pro-gay can he be (without actually "coming out"), when he isn't the President yet?
Joel later said:
Well this is mighty stupid. You don't trust what Obama says, but you trust the "word" of someone who thinks they can predict Obama's administration 4 years in the future?
Quiet_Desperation said:
Lol, very clever. Remind me never to mix matter and antimatter.
Round Earth is a Scam said:
Oh good god, either in reality or in parody, a flat-earther!
But this raises an important question. Do flat-earthers believe in global warming? Because FEs say that the world is flat and surrounded by a wall of ice. Do they believe this ice is melting? Or do they believe AGW is a hoax perpetrated by the same people who have "blinded the world" into believing the world is round i.e. every scientist, politician, soldier, sailor, astronaut etc etc?
Svetogorsk said:
The comparisons between Obama and Blair are false. Obama, in his campaign, has always expressed left of centre views for the most part. Blair (and Labour) expressed pro-capitalist from 1994, when Blair first proposed changing Clause 4 of Labour's constitution. The bit that said they were a socialist party and wanted to nationalize lots of things. He created New Labour, a centre-right party in effect.
Most people actually voted Labour because they wanted a change from the Tories, most didnt notice that they were on the right (i.e. wrong) side of the centre ground of politics. As Nick Gotts said, Labour would've easily won the 1997 election, new or old.
They aren't going to lose because of cowardice or for being too timid. Where on Earth has this come from? Iraq, 10p tax, 42 days, Afghanistan, the last pre-budget report, Shoot-to-kill policy over terrorist "suspects", tuition fees, part-privatization of the Post Office being considered, etc etc. These are not the policies of a "timid" government.
No, Labour are going to lose for they same reason they won in 1997: people want change. And why? Because most people read the Daily Mail and the Sun, and so get all this garbage bombarded at them of "stealth taxes", "stalinist", "'uman rights", "loony left", "econuts", "'elf n' safety gone mad" (which as QI just showed yesterday, is a load of bull), "EU bureaucrats", "Metric martyrs" etc etc, which is all fictitious and utterly utterly ridiculous. Of course Kent is not a part of France now you moronic tabloids (that story really was produced!). The drumbeat of scumbag Richard Littlejohn has swayed enough people (it didn't have quite enough in 2005). Don't get me wrong, Labour haven't been a good government, but they haven't been a bad one either. But it's now the perennial time when people change between Labour and the Tories. I never understand why people don't vote Lib Dem (that's what I'll be doing when I get my first chance to vote - I'm a Brit). People always go: "I don't like Labour anymore, I'm gonna vote Tory instead as an anti-Labour vote" (or vice-versa). Why? Why not Lib Dem? The very things DM readers complain about (so-called "authoritarianism") will be less under the Lib Dems than the Tories, since the Tories are basically an unevangelical, moderated version of the Republican party in the US. They may stay out of your way in business, but not in your private lives.
Nick Gotts said:
Hmm, Blair wasn't "right-wing", he was and still is to the left of the Republican party (party of Lincoln my arse!), and also the Tories. I would say more centre-right. As Svetogorsk has pointed out, he has done progressive things, such as the minimum wage, women's and LGBT rights improved, (some) environmentalism, to name a few. But Labour's favouritism of the city (and Rupert Murdoch) and reluctance to crack down on tax havens (I hope Obama presses Brown on those), refusal to renationalize anything, and privatization of some things, shows the right wing policies of them. These are basically the same policies followed since Reagan in America too, and are at the root cause of the world's economical troubles now. So on the economy, Labour have been more right wing than not. On social issues, they have been about centre. So I reckon centre-right is a fair position to put them.
Steven Sullivan:
Actually I reckon 80% of the above discussion is either trolling or flame warring. I think I think we are entitled to the other 20% to discuss "Prospects for science policy" which is what the blog post is about.
You are aware that the physicist Steven Chu will be the Secretary of Energy? *Gloats* (I'm a physics undergrad). :P
But anyway back to the original discussion: please guys do remember poor old forgotten Lowery. PZ should really have mentioned him in the original post.
SC, OM said:
Well Obama has no need (or desire probably) to invite fascists or white supremacists. Even if these fascists or white supremacists haven't done anything illegal, it doesn't matter if there is one available who supports action against global warming and happens to be a preacher. Why not? Because fascists or white supremacists are not a large part of the electorate that Obama would need on board to stop global warming. Seriously, how many fascists or white supremacists do you know? The fascists or white supremacists that have somehow managed to keep themselves on the right side of the law aren't a huge movement in America. The US isn't the Weimar Republic, you know.
But unfortunately, the Christian evangelical right is a large movement in the US, so if Democrats want liberal policies enacted and to be popular among the population too, then something has to be done about them. There are two ways of going about this. Either you marginalize them (which isn't easy, can anger other religious people, and could easily get a Republican elected in 4 years time on the back of an "Obama is antichristian or antireligious" campaign, and we could have another Reagan on our hands) or you CHANGE them. Which is what Obama could well be attempting by making Warren the voice of the Christian right, and thus the Christian right more focused on environmentalism than social issues. Obama is trying to change them, it seems. I thought you Americans voted for Obama because he promised to bring change? What happened to "Change We Need"?
SC, OM then said:
I haven't come across this definition before. Interesting. If we then say that minority group=subordinate group (like Wikipedia does), then surely black people in South Africa constitute a majority group under this definition too?
Kel said:
Not true. Most historians agree that someone called Jesus (or Joshua) probably existed at the time, and that he was a "charismatic" preacher. Even Richard Dawkins says this much.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 23, 2008 6:17 PM
What I saw was the neocons were not happy that a moderate republican had won the primary, and were looking for any excuse to remove Ryan and replace him with a "true conservative", even if doing so caused them to lose the general election (which was still close). Never mind the true conservatives lost the primary. They lost the general election by a much bigger margin than they figured. So it did damage the neocons statewide at the end of the day. Oberweiss, a primary mover in removing Ryan, can't even win the congressional district that belonged to Hastert, a Speaker of the House, because he is too conservative.Posted by: Facilis | December 23, 2008 6:53 PM
[Well certainly many are, since like N.T. Wright they start with the conclusion they want to reach and work backwards.]
Some do otherwise. Look at scholars like Pinchas Lapide.
[John Dominic Crossan]
John Dominic Crossan believes all 5 facts except for the empty tomb. Well not exactly. He thinks that there was a tomb but the tomb was empty because Jesus' body wa thrown to the dogs and people mistook the empty tomb for Jesus' tomb.
[Hector Avalos for example.]
Has Hector Avalos published any work on New testament history?
[So as I say, pretending your 1-3 are agreed facts is either dishonest or ignorant.]
J.D. Crossan is probaly dishonest too. (I believe I quted him on saying fact #1 was indisputable)
[Of course even if they were, the claim of resurrection would still be garbage.]
Find a better explaination of the facts and we can talk.
[ And of course doctrinally orthodox Christianity is necessarily false: nothing could possibly be "wholly God and wholly man" as the Nicene creed has it.]
Please demonstrate this.
Posted by: Facilis | December 23, 2008 6:57 PM
[It's not an ad hominem attack when you've demonstrated the fact that you don't believe those classes of humans should enjoy the same rights as you do.]
Please demonstrate this. Look up the American bill of roghts and tell me exactly what rights in there I denied to homosexual and women.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 23, 2008 7:02 PM
Facilis, please demonstrate some physical evidence for your imaginary deity that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine origin. After all, no deity implies no holy book and/or dogma. You have avoided doing so to date.
Posted by: Facilis | December 23, 2008 7:04 PM
[Facilis, please demonstrate some physical evidence]
Must all evidence be physical?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 23, 2008 7:07 PM
Only if you don't want to be considered delusional. After all, then all the evidence just exists between your ears, and no where else.This is a scientific blog, and science is physical evidence based. So show your evidence or shut up about god and prayer.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 23, 2008 7:09 PM
To an extent - if you are making the claim that your god can interact on the physical plane (i.e. our universe) then there would be physical evidence, yes. If your god cannot or does not then it has no capacity to have impact on our lives and can be ignored.
Posted by: SC, OM | December 23, 2008 7:12 PM
From today's Democracy Now! - "Max Blumenthal on 'Rick Warren's Double Life'":
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/12/23/max_blumenthal_on_rick_warrens_double
"insidiously" - an apt adverb
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch | December 23, 2008 7:14 PM
Posted by: Facilis | December 23, 2008
Must all evidence be physical?
I offer stuff that I pulled out my ass that is now spilling out of my head. Metaphorically.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 23, 2008 7:25 PM
Postulating temporarily for the sake of argument that God exists:
God is alleged to be infinite.
Man is definitely finite.
Finite and infinite are contradictory attributes.
Since they are contradictory attributes, it is not possible that something can be simultaneously finite and infinite.
Thus, nothing could possibly be "wholly God and wholly man".
QED.
Posted by: SC, OM | December 23, 2008 7:28 PM
And if they were, and had the power and influence the religious right does in the US, a parallel situation would be acceptable to you. Wow.
This is precisely my point. They are already in the fucking fold. They are so in the fucking fold they're stitched-in fucking pleats. We need to get them out.
Right. Because this invitation is really going to make these people and groups who have been dedicated to oppression throughout their entire existence back off on those issues. Utter foolishness. Utter, utter foolishness.
Sure. Watch the above interview. "Fighting the culture wars with a velvet glove" is a good description. They're not softening; nor are they being domesticated. And their agenda hasn't changed one iota.
If he is, he's being extremely foolish (as I stated above, this whole line of thinking runs counter to reason). In the process, he's aiding the cause of oppression.
Posted by: Facilis | December 23, 2008 7:29 PM
@Nerd of Redhead
Are you asserting "all assertions must be supported by physical evidence"?
if so Please provide evidence for this assertion.
I've seen transcendental and ontological arguments for God that are not based on physical evidence. Are they invalid because they do not rely on physical evidence? If so please demonstrate it.
Science also relies on basic philosophical principles like logical and mathematical concepts and induction.Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch | December 23, 2008 7:32 PM
Hey! Who would have thought that? The arrow will never hit the target. Let us skip the physical proof.
Posted by: SC, OM | December 23, 2008 7:33 PM
The "They" in those sentences refers to the religious right in the US.
Posted by: Facilis | December 23, 2008 7:34 PM
This is rather vague. Which of his attributes is necessarily infinite? Which of man's attributes is necessarily finite
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch | December 23, 2008 7:36 PM
Concerning Rick Warren, sounds like a man will will accept me for who and what I am. I think he is such a "reasonable" fellow.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 23, 2008 7:39 PM
Facilis, you are just a liar and bullshitter until you present physical evidence. Either god doesn't involve himself with the real world. If that is the case, god or no god give the same results, and Occam's razor says no god. Or he can effect the real world, in which case there will be physical evidence of his divine presence. If god can effect things but doesn't effect the real world because he doesn't give a shit about humans, we are back to the first case.
Show your evidence, or go away as just a godbotter.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 23, 2008 7:46 PM
Er, all of them - according to standard christian theology. Omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent is the usual way of describing it. How can something be all-seeing, everywhere at once and all-powerful if it's not infinite?
Most of them. How about vision? How far away from that vision poster in a doctor's surgery can you be before you can't read what's on it? If you can't answer 'infinity' then it's finite.
Oh, and I'm glad you've got the hang of blockquotes.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 23, 2008 7:56 PM
facilis,
Was it right for God to send 2 bears to kill 42 children because they made fun of the fact that His prophet was bald ( 2 Kings 2, 22-25, look at comment #607 for exact quote)?
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 23, 2008 7:56 PM
Interesting. Do you deny that God is infinite in existence, i.e., eternal? Do you deny that God is infinite in knowledge and power, at least inasmuch as those attributes don't contradict each other?
If so, your conception of God is very different from most people's.
Er, all of them?
Posted by: facilis | December 24, 2008 4:00 PM
From my bible commentary here, it says the Hebrew word can also mean "young man" and is not always a little child.(The same word is used to describe Joseph when he is in his 20's.) But yes. Those men were mocking God's holy prophet and it was right for God to punish themPosted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 24, 2008 4:06 PM
Why does an omnipotent, omnipresent being need a prophet? Shouldn't he be able to communicate directly with people? Also, is that the type of being you wish to worship? That imaginary deity is one sick dude.Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch | December 24, 2008 4:18 PM
Incredible how an infinitely strong creature is so easily insulted. It is so thin skinned that it has to kill people that say a cross word to it's surrogate.
Your deity sounds like a petty tyrant. And you are a kiss ass.
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 24, 2008 4:35 PM
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch | December 24, 2008 4:18 PM
Not to mention that such an omniscient being wouldn't know that he created children in a manner that nearly universally results in them being fairly boisterous and ornery until taught by their elders how to behave in a socially acceptable manner. Curious that he would simply kill them instead of refining the "design."
Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 24, 2008 4:39 PM
facilis,
I don't know Hebrew so I wouldn't argue whether it was "children" or "young men" (maybe Owlmirror can help). Even if it was "young men" that's still incredibly horrible. They weren't just killed, they were mauled by bears! Just for making fun of someone for being bald!
Thanks for answering my question and showing true Christian love.
Posted by: Nick Gotts, OM | December 24, 2008 4:42 PM
Okay so the Gandhi+Hitler thing equaling zero was a bit of an exaggeration (but they are the first two people I could think of who lie at opposite ends of my moral compass). - Alex Deam
This reminds me of a sketch in the 1960s British TV comedy series "Not Only... But Also", which was written by and starred Peter Cook and Dudley Moore: a cricket match between Good (captained by Gandhi) and Evil (captained by Hitler). The sketch climaxed with Gandhi staging a sit-down protest in the middle of the pitch - the strip between the wickets, along which the bowler bowls to the batsman - at which Hitler "called for the heavy roller" (the captain of either side can ask for the pitch to be flattened using a large and very heavy metal cylinder), and Gandhi ended up paper-thin.
In real life, Gandhi was rather naive about Hitler, writing him friendly letters in the run-up to WW2, and calling on Indians to practice non-violent resistance if he invaded India.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 24, 2008 4:45 PM
facilis wrote:
Which in itself is fine - well, apart from being monstrous that is - except that we atheists are told that your god is kind and loving and, above all, infinitely just. Sending 2 bears to kill anyone is most certainly not the act of a being who is kind, loving and infinitely just. It's the act of an insecure, petty, character-deficient prick.
It's the contradiction we have problems with - I, personally, would not worship or revere your god even if you could make Nerd happy and provide some of the much-needed evidence; my reaction to such a vile creature would a combination of fear and hatred.
What it also says is that the christians responsible for the versions of the bible where it does describe the victims of your god's injustice as children are also monsters, since - if your translation is correct - they felt that it would have been right and good for your god to have killed 42 children under such circumstances.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | December 24, 2008 4:53 PM
facilis #681
Your god is a sadistic bully. The more I heard and read about the Abrahamic god, the more he's shown to have the maturity of a spoiled five year old.
Posted by: Nick Gotts, OM | December 24, 2008 4:54 PM
And of course doctrinally orthodox Christianity is necessarily false: nothing could possibly be "wholly God and wholly man" as the Nicene creed has it. Facilis
The Christian god is said to be omnipotent. Human beings are limited in power. Hence nothing can be both "wholly God" and "wholly man", since nothing can be both omnipotent and limited in power. Similarly with regard to divine omniscience and limited human knowledge; and divine omnipresence and circumscribed human spatial location. Rather simple really.
Posted by: Rey Fox | December 24, 2008 4:55 PM
"[It's not an ad hominem attack when you've demonstrated the fact that you don't believe those classes of humans should enjoy the same rights as you do.]
Please demonstrate this. Look up the American bill of roghts and tell me exactly what rights in there I denied to homosexual and women."
Way to shift the goalposts. We're not talking the Bill of Rights. The operative words here are "enjoy the same rights as you do." Although if we add the Declaration of Independence to the discussion, we can point "pursuit of happiness".
Posted by: Nick Gotts, OM | December 24, 2008 5:00 PM
Sorry, just demonstrated my human lack of omniscience by leaving out Facilis's request that the italicised statement in #689 (which was mine) be supported.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 24, 2008 5:07 PM
Your Hebrew commentary sucks, then, because the text itself reads "נְעָרִים קְטַנִּים", ne'arim kitanim, little youths. And the word used of those that the bears killed is "יְלָדִים", "yiladim", which always means "children", never "young men".
Fixed that for you.Finally we get a sense of how you define morality — and it is exactly as ugly and relativistic as Hitler's: You agree that it is "good" to slaughter children for the "crime" of saying "Rise, baldy!"
Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 24, 2008 5:07 PM
They always say that atheism will lead to immorality, but here we have atheists abhorring 42 people (possibly children) being killed by bears and a Christian saying it was alright because they were mocking someone for being bald.
Posted by: Ken Cope | December 24, 2008 5:08 PM
Those men were mocking God's holy prophet and it was right for God to punish them
See Facilis suck up to the Alpha Bully.
And it would have been good, good for them to have been wished into the cornfield.
Posted by: Ken Cope | December 24, 2008 5:23 PM
So, let me get this straight. One day, some old bald theistic misanthropist is teased by a gang of little kids, and he curses them using his most scary mumbo-jumbo, at which point, Facilis, standing metaphorically on the sidelines, commits the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy and assumes that because two she-bears start slaughtering the children, after the old fuck started babbling a load of bile at the little kids, the she-bears went on the rampage because the old geezer could swear to the right imaginary sky fairy. Facilis commences to applaud and cheer and pray that he stays on God's good side.
What a sick, odious little fuckwit is our little Facilis. My seven year old has more moral sense than Facilis does and, unlike Facilis, can reason his way out of a paper bag.
Posted by: Nick Gotts, OM | December 24, 2008 5:25 PM
John Dominic Crossan believes all 5 facts except for the empty tomb. Facilis
So, as I said, he doesn't believe your claim that 1-5 (actually only 1-3 matter here) are facts. Stop quibbling.
Has Hector Avalos published any work on New testament history? - Facilis
Yes: http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/01/pages-from-dr-hector-avalos-book-end-of.html
Supposing for a moment your 1-3 were facts, several variations on a more likely alternative explanation than resurrection are evident.
1) Jesus' body was removed by the Roman authorities, who were angered that a convicted criminal should be buried with honour. The empty tomb, combined with hallucinations on the part of some of his followers (hallucinations of the dead person are by no means unusual in the aftermath of a death), then gave rise to his cult.
2) Jesus' body was removed by the Jewish sanhedrin, for similar reasons. The empty tomb, combined with hallucinations on the part of some of his followers, then gave rise to his cult.
3) Jesus' body was removed by grave-robbers motivated by the hope of gain: since he was reportedly wrapped, they may have thought valuables could be concealed under the wrappings. The empty tomb, combined with hallucinations on the part of some of his followers, then gave rise to his cult.
4) Jesus' body was taken from the tomb by scavangers. The empty tomb, combined with hallucinations on the part of some of his followers, then gave rise to his cult.
Posted by: Nick Gotts, OM | December 24, 2008 5:39 PM
Blair wasn't "right-wing", he was and still is to the left of the Republican party (party of Lincoln my arse!), and also the Tories. I would say more centre-right. As Svetogorsk has pointed out, he has done progressive things, such as the minimum wage, women's and LGBT rights improved, (some) environmentalism, to name a few. Alex Deam
He is certainly far to the right of the Tory Party of my youth in economic matters. With regard to environmentalism, he's blethered, but done fuck-all. Many right-wingers (i.e. "libertarians") support women's and LGBT rights: the left/right division is fundamentally about the attitude to economic inequality, and Blair loves it.
I don't vote Lib Dem, incidentally, because they are yet another bunch of right-wingers. Now I'm in Scotland, I vote SNP if the Greens aren't standing (and now the SSP have imploded), in hopes of breaking up the UK. (As a result of unusual political circumstances, the Scottish Parliament is elected by a pretty democratic system, and the whole political spectrum is considerably to the left of that in England.)
Posted by: Nick Gotts, OM | December 24, 2008 6:48 PM
@696,
Another possibility occurs to me. Actually, it's one that has occurred to many people, but it's only just occurred to me that it is (just about) compatible with Facilis's claims 1-3:
Jesus was still alive when taken down from his cross, and was quickly removed from the scene, either by some of his followers, or perhaps by members of his family who were not followers, but wanted to save his life. (It's worth noting that he was supposedly only crucified for 3 hours, far less than was usually required to kill the victim unless their legs were broken, which his reportedly were not.) A mock burial was performed, with a living person being wrapped up and put in the tomb, then later released while Jesus was hidden and nursed, but later died of his wounds - and hence "died by crucifixion" in the sense that he died of the wounds caused by his crucifixion.
Posted by: Nick Gotts, OM | December 24, 2008 6:57 PM
Are you [Nerd of Redhead] asserting "all assertions must be supported by physical evidence"?
if so Please provide evidence for this assertion. - Facilis
Myself I think Nerd overdoes the "physical evidence" bit, but there is no inconsistency in saying that all factual assertions about the world should be supported by physical evidence but not supporting this with physical evidence, since it is clearly a methodological principle, not a factual assertion about the world.
Posted by: Nick Gotts, OM | December 24, 2008 7:05 PM
A moral question which occurs to me: would it be right for Facilis to be torn to pieces by bears as punishment for his disgusting immorality in attempting to justify his god's child-murders? While it would clearly be poetic justice, I would personally vote "no", being opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances.
(Please note: I'm not suggesting that we take any steps to bring this about, even if the majority of Pharyngulites decide he does.)
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 24, 2008 7:11 PM
And one last thing about the bears from me, facilis. In that story, God did not punish those children, he killed them. There is a HUGE difference. Punishment is intended to influence future behavior, but those children in your bible had no chance to amend their behavior, because they were dead. Some benevolent, loving god you have there...
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 24, 2008 7:13 PM
Sounds like the description of the Passover Plot by Hugh J. Schonfield (1965).Posted by: 'Tis Himself | December 24, 2008 7:18 PM
Nick,
Re your post 700, I feel that facilis should be mauled by bears but not killed by them. A few weeks recovering in a hospital bed might give him time to consider the morality of a sadistic, bullying deity killing children because they were rude.
Posted by: Nick Gotts, OM | December 24, 2008 7:46 PM
Nerd@702,
I haven't seen it, but I've heard of it (couldn't think of the title). I think D.H.Lawrence had a similar idea in his short story "The Man Who Died", but his Jesus survived. There's actually a supposed "tomb of Jesus" in Kashmir.
Posted by: Nick Gotts, OM | December 24, 2008 7:57 PM
'Tis Himself@703,
Hmm... I see the attraction, but the problem lies in the training of the bears. Maybe he could be mauled by weasels instead?
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 24, 2008 8:14 PM
Oh, I'd pay to see that. Not that facilis himself is all that deserving of a mauling, except for ironic purposes - he's just unthinking cut-and-paste believer with a love of the argument from authority - but because I just like the idea of it.
I can probably think of some posters more deserving - one incoherent dribbler 'from Canada' comes to mind...
Posted by: Kel | December 24, 2008 8:30 PM
Wow, you're a pretty fucked up person.Let's try this game. Jesus was a homosexual, him and peter were performing violent sodomy. Scared that his secret would get out, he instead went on a crusade to shake up Judaism. He was really executed because he was a faggot, not because he was disobeying Jewish law. That Jesus really loved the cock, the lord and messiah of the universe was really a self-hating homosexual. But it's too be expected, it was a very intolerant society back then.
If Jesus comes again, it'll be over a gay man's face in a scat porn film.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 24, 2008 8:31 PM
"Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel." - Homer Simpson
Actually, I thought facilis would weasel out and simply not answer my question about the 42 children being killed. Or perhaps argue something about it being Old Testament or saying say that should just be taken metaphorically. I didn't think he/she was deluded enough to actually defend it. I guess I was wrong.
Posted by: Nick Gotts, OM | December 24, 2008 8:39 PM
I can probably think of some posters more deserving [of a mauling by weasels] - one incoherent dribbler 'from Canada' comes to mind. - Wowbagger
Agreed! My concern in such an eventuality would be solely for the weasels.
BTW, I was probably unconsciously paying tribute to Frank Zappa.
Posted by: Kel | December 24, 2008 8:39 PM
I didn't say they agree that he existed, I said there was no physical evidence for the existence of Jesus. No artefacts, no records, the earliest documents are the letters of Paul who never met Jesus. Then the gospel of Mark was ~40 years after the alleged date, then the other gospels followed, then there's records of early Christian activity around 60 years after the fact.I find it extremely surprising that not a single piece of evidence remains of the man god. Ever seen Life Of Brain? Shit, they kept his holy sandal ;)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 24, 2008 8:41 PM
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 24, 2008 8:49 PM
Must have missed closing the blockquote in 711.
The Passover Plot was later made into a movie. I read the book (still have it somewhere), and it was part of my transformation into an atheist. The fact that something like the resurrection could be staged using the tools/medicines available at the time was an eye opener. That started my road to skepticism.
Posted by: Kel | December 24, 2008 8:55 PM
I don't doubt the middle earth scholars when they say that Frodo had the ring bitten off his finger by Gollum who fell into the fiery pit of Mt Doom, I just doubt that the third age of middle earth was a genuine historical account.Posted by: Nick Gotts, OM | December 24, 2008 9:02 PM
Nerd of Redhead@712,
I'll have to get hold of it - sounds interesting. The only full-length Jesus-fiction I've read (not counting the gospels, which I've never read right through) is Robert Graves' King Jesus, in which Jesus is the rightful king of the Jews by ancient (matrilineal) Jewish law, and also grandson of Herod the Great. Can't remember much more than that, so I don't think it can have been as good as his I, Claudius and Claudius the God. There's also an SF short story about time travel (title and author escape me) in which time-tourists go back to view the crucifixion, and turn out to make up the entire crowd shouting for him to be crucified (suspiciously Christian, that one sounds).
Posted by: Nick Gotts, OM | December 24, 2008 9:07 PM
I don't doubt the middle earth scholars when they say that Frodo had the ring bitten off his finger by Gollum who fell into the fiery pit of Mt Doom, I just doubt that the third age of middle earth was a genuine historical account. - Kel
You have been deceived by Sauron! Repent!
Posted by: Kel | December 24, 2008 9:17 PM
Sauron couldn't have deceived me, he was destroyed at the end of the third age.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | December 24, 2008 9:39 PM
I saw it with my very eyes. In fact I've got a DVD showing it. I suppose that next you'll say that Legolas didn't kill a mamuk at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields. I got that on DVD as well.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 24, 2008 9:43 PM
We seess what you did there, yesss we doesss... sssneaking in contrafactual assssumptionssss....
*Ahem.*
I would vote "no" on bears (or weasels) for facilis, but I think they ought to be held in store as a threat for the inevitable rhetorical failures.
"So you say God isn't infinite? It's bears for you! Bring on the bears!"
Posted by: Kel | December 24, 2008 10:05 PM
Well it's Christmas, and I for one am not going to call Tolkien a liar. Look at the writing he created, it's all too improbable and complex for him to have just made it up. The only tenable conclusion we can draw is Middle Earth is very real and we are descendants of elves mating with hobbits who took to the shores of the grey havens.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 24, 2008 11:10 PM
Tolkien is definitely more believable than the bible. The bad guys are bad. The good guys are good. And the good guys don't kill 42 kids for a simple insult. Gandalf would give them a bad case of the itch rather than kill them.
Posted by: thalarctos | December 25, 2008 12:46 AM
Lemme know if you change your mind on this, Nick, because I know where to get you some bears if you want.
Problem is, they're Asian black bears, not grizzlies, so they'd probably just ignore him if he wasn't already covered with ants. You'd have to festoon him with bacon to ensure their attention, although experience shows that method doesn't always work, either.
Posted by: Facilis | December 25, 2008 11:18 AM
Well since what are considered rights varies from state to state I figured we would just go for the constitution which all states follow so as to avoid confusion. Doesn't the declaration say something about all men being created by God? Do you believe that? Jus curious.Posted by: Facilis | December 25, 2008 11:24 AM
As to the questions on the incarnation, I've kind of fell behind. I was looking for a good article I could link to.
Anyway, God can put self-imposed limitations on some of his attribute without ceasing to be God. A boxer can be tied up so he can't punch anyone,but still be a boxer. In the same way jesus imposed limitations on his divine nature while still being wholly God.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 25, 2008 11:25 AM
Facilis, Missing the point per SOP for the religiously insane. You haven't shown god to exist, so quit talking about something that only exists between your deluded ears. Now, prove god exists with physical evidence, then show the bible was divinely inspired by god and written by men. You have a lot of work to do before you make any other arguments. Bringing up irrelevancies simply says you have irrelevant arguments.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 25, 2008 11:27 AM
DOH! That should be ......and not written by men.....
Posted by: clinteas | December 25, 2008 11:30 AM
One of the most fascinating things on this blog is to see christians squirm,duck and wriggle when confronted with facts and reality,to uphold the fantasy world they have created for themselves,and this there is a great example.
Posted by: facilis | December 25, 2008 11:46 AM
Your Hebrew commentary sucks, then, because the text itself reads "נְעָרִים קְטַנִּים", ne'arim kitanim, little youths.
The same word kitanim is used to describe Rachel in relation to Leah in Genesis. It does not happen to support your case
What about places like Daniel 1 where it is used to describe Daniel and the other people who left Jerusalem (My bible translates it as "youths"). Again these men were insulting God's holy prophet.It isn't just some normal guy. You can read more on it here http://www.tektonics.org/af/callahanproph.html#2kin223
Just curious. Do you believe in objective moral truths?
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 25, 2008 12:02 PM
Do you believe in objective moral truths?
objective - adj. - not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased
subjective - adj. - existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ).
(bold mine for emphasis)
Sure, I do. But you don't, if you take your morality from your religion. Religiously-based morality is - by its very nature - subjective morality, because you're living by a moral code defined not by reason or independent analysis, but instead by rote and edict from a central authority that has been defined and constantly revised by the entirely speculative (i.e. wholly a product of thinking, as there is no independent corroborating evidence of any kind other than the written word and passed down stories) field of theology.
Check a dictionary the next time you want to ask a smug question like that.
Posted by: Nick Gotts, OM | December 25, 2008 12:02 PM
God can put self-imposed limitations on some of his attribute without ceasing to be God. A boxer can be tied up so he can't punch anyone,but still be a boxer. In the same way jesus imposed limitations on his divine nature while still being wholly God. - Facilis
This is essentialist hooey: if he didn't have God's powers, he wasn't "wholly God", and saying otherwise doesn't make it so. (Reminds me of Abraham Lincoln's question: "How many legs does a dog have, if you call the tail a leg?" The answer is, of course, four: calling the tail a leg doesn't make it one.) If "God" can't end any self-imposed limitations on his powers at any time, he's not "God" - or are you saying God could place limitations on his powers that he couldn't then remove - in clear contradiction to his supposed omnipotence?
Second, "God" is supposed to be eternally unchanging. This is incompatible with temporary restrictions on his powers.
Third, did Jesus know his relation to God (whatever that was)? If he did, clearly he wasn't "wholly man". If he didn't, clearly he wasn't wholly God, as he lacked full self-knowledge.
See, Facilis, your religion really is utter crap. If you can't wean yourself off religion altogether, convert to Islam: at least it's consistently monotheistic.
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch | December 25, 2008 12:10 PM
Well, dah! It is a different can of worms if those she-bears were ripping teen aged and young men as opposed to children. The main thing is this, those who wear mauled were big ole meanies who said nasty things to a surrogate.
But at least they were not tortured!
Posted by: clinteas | December 25, 2008 12:15 PM
One thing's for sure,Janine is in a weird mood tonite LOL.....
Posted by: Nick Gotts, OM | December 25, 2008 12:19 PM
Again these men were insulting God's holy prophet.It isn't just some normal guy. - Facilis
You are utterly disgusting, and you worship a sadistic, tyrannical, pathologically jealous bully. I'm sure that's what you are too. My deepest sympathies to anyone you have power over.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | December 25, 2008 12:19 PM
#723 - Facilis - That is the stupidest excuse for gawd I've ever read. You deserve some sort of damned fool award for that.
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch | December 25, 2008 12:21 PM
Just because it is night for you does not mean it is for me. Right now I am getting in the right frame of mind so I can get through a few hours with my family.
Good night OZ and Happy Monkey.
Posted by: Facilis | December 25, 2008 12:31 PM
Let me specify , by objective I mean something not subject to bias or opinion or majority rule.
Good to hear that. Now please account for this objective standard where it comes from(if it does not come from human interpretations or opinions) and why we have an obligation to follow it and why it is significant. I am not arguing for religion -based morality. Of course there are false religions. I understand that God's holy nature is the ultimate standard of morality by which human actions are judged. He makes his nature known to use through revelation and other mechanisms like natural law . It's not a smug quesion. The large majority of atheists I've met do not believe in any kind of objective moral truths. I'm glad to see you're different.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | December 25, 2008 12:35 PM
So what? Did they beat Elisha up? Did they throw stones at him? Did they offer to kill him? No, they were rude to him. So not only was your god a sadistic bully, but his boy Elisha was a whiny prick. "LORD, they're being mean to me, time to do some smiting. Teach those meanies not to be snotty with me. Amen."
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch | December 25, 2008 12:38 PM
The large majority of atheists I've met do not believe in any kind of objective moral truths.
Because sometimes I murder people just because I feel like it.
Posted by: Nick Gotts, OM | December 25, 2008 12:38 PM
I understand that God's holy nature is the ultimate standard of morality by which human actions are judged
His "holy nature" as a pathologically jealous (and proud of it), tyrannical, sadistic, megalomaniac, genocidal piece of shit as recorded in the bible, you mean?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | December 25, 2008 12:45 PM
Your circle of atheists is how large? Three? Even four? The vast majority of atheists I've met, and I strongly suspect I know a whole lot more than you do, are objective moralists. But as a subjective moralist yourself, you possibly have trouble recognizing objective morality in others.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 25, 2008 12:49 PM
Logically speaking, he could do no such thing.
Your analogy sucks. Although it's interesting that the first example that leaps into your mind is a pugilist...
Nope. Contradiction.
=================
I'm sorry, but you're being disingenuous, which is to say, deliberately stupid.
Rachel was Leah's little sister.
Oh, and you're also fucking up on your Hebrew again. The word "kitanim" is the masculine plural; the actual word in Gen 29:16 is the feminine singular, which is "kitanah".
Watch out! There's bears coming! They're going to eat your disingenuous ass up!
It still means "children".
Does it surprise you that Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon is more merciful than God; sparing the children of the people he conquered?
Fixed that for you.Fuck God and fuck God's holy prophet.
I see no bears here.
You obviously don't.
Look, you bear-bait: You are saying that you believe that it is good for the strong to hurt the weak. Is that an objective moral truth; that might makes right?
Posted by: Patricia, OM | December 25, 2008 12:57 PM
Which religion is false?
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch | December 25, 2008 1:11 PM
Posted by: Patricia, OM | December 25, 2008
Which religion is false?
Just get on your knees and ask, it will be revealed to you. Or natural law will come by and slap you upside the head.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | December 25, 2008 1:32 PM
Oh you are a minx today Janine!
Posted by: God | December 25, 2008 2:45 PM
Oh!
I.... I.... My feelings are hurt! You are so going to get it!
Wait.
Posted by: Satan | December 25, 2008 2:47 PM
Angels we have heard on high
Singing "There's pie in the sky,
that will be yours by-and-by
O, but not until you die."
Posted by: Patricia, OM | December 25, 2008 2:56 PM
There you are Satan.
You slacker! You sent no hellfire my way. I've asked you twice. Damn yourself.
Posted by: Nick Gotts, OM | December 25, 2008 2:56 PM
Satan,
In Joe Hill's original, the line I quoted is the last from the chorus:
"You will eat, bye and bye,
In that glorious land above the sky;
Work and pray, live on hay,
You'll get pie in the sky when you die."
Scans better than yours.
Posted by: Satan | December 25, 2008 3:13 PM
Alas, it's God who controls the purse strings for the primordial heat, and He's a skinflint.
You'll have about as much luck as Pons and Fleischmann.
Ah, but can the original be sung as a carol parody? I don't think so.
I am trying to come up with a flowery Latin phrase for the chorus, perhaps one that translates to "It's a scam", or something similar, but I am blocked.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | December 25, 2008 3:34 PM
Thou shalt not try to fool me Satan.
I'm still trying to guess who god is.... another clue god?
Posted by: thalarctos | December 25, 2008 3:42 PM
I shot a man in Vegas, just to watch him die.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 25, 2008 3:47 PM
You're doing a lot of tapdancing, facilis - unfortunately (for you) I'm going to ask you to add in another step.
What I'd like to know is this: how can you rationalise the common description of your god as 'kind, loving and infinitely just' when he sent the bears to kill the taunters - children or otherwise?
Note my lack of the term 'moral'. Focus on the three I did use - 'kind', 'loving' and (most significantly') infinitely just'.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 25, 2008 6:24 PM
I think God and Satan might be the same person.
@facilis
Again, I'm not qualified to argue about Hebrew. However, even if they were young men it's still horrible to kill 42 of them for merely mocking someone.
Yes. Do YOU have objective moral truths or is simply anything that God does good? If God were to burn to death 250 people for offering incenses is that good?
Posted by: Kel | December 25, 2008 6:43 PM
Morality isn't objective, it's provisional. It's a social construct that determines our pattern of behaviour. And why do we follow it? Because not following it is an act of isolation from the group. Doing something that your social group considers immoral has wider consequences. So at the very basic social level, we adhere to the communal standard where possible because the rewards that stem from adhering and the punishment for breaking it make it an unfavourable option in most cases.There are no objective moral truths, it's misrepresenting the nature of morality and misrepresenting human nature to claim their is. The more universal traits can be better explained through game theory over repeated interactions than they can with a single metaphysical giver of truths.
Posted by: Malcolm | December 25, 2008 9:15 PM
Facilis weaselled,
If you aren't arguing for religion based morality, what does this mean?
And if you really believe this, does that mean that it is ok to kill all bullies? How about ones picking on the Pope?
Posted by: Anton Mates | December 25, 2008 10:56 PM
And given that Rachel didn't become fertile for well over seven years after Jacob first met her, she may have been little indeed....
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 26, 2008 11:45 AM
I do not kill - not because anyone commands me not to, but rather because I'd prefer no one kill me. I do not steal - not because anyone commands me not to, but rather because I'd prefer no one steal my belongings. I could go on, but I don't enjoy needless redundancy. I agree with Kel above, in that objective is a less adequate word than provisional, but in basing morality on the impartial analysis of cause and effect in society, it ceases to be subjective, as religious morality clearly is.
Regardless of what you took that statement to mean, it was not that there are no false religions. It was instead an observation that you take your morality from your religion, and I agree with you that there are false religions. Although, I go one religion further than you do in that statement. Just as I am an atheist concerning the gods of religion, you're an atheist with respect to Baal, Anu, Thor, Mithras, and any other non-Christian deity.
And you cannot logically argue in the same breath that you're not arguing for religion-based morality while also stating definitively that "God's holy nature is the ultimate standard of reality. Unless you like directly contradicting yourself, that is.
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 26, 2008 2:51 PM
"ultimate standard of morality" -- not reality