Home / Palin in 2012: Let’s Get the Party Started!

Palin in 2012: Let’s Get the Party Started!

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

With the election of 2008 already days behind us, it’s time to shift our focus to the election of 2012. The main order of business now is to rid the Republican Party of the few remaining moderates who stand in the way of party unity and party purity.

Sarah Palin has already proven that she can simultaneously be a uniter and a divider. Among her many God-given talents is her uncanny ability to exhibit a cheerful, sunny, Reagan-like disposition while channeling the hatred that the Almighty feels for gays and liberals and socialists and terrorists and immigrants and abortionists and women who get abortions and Democrats and moderates. She will divide the Republicans by uniting the base. (By “the base” I mean the core of the party – Evangelicals and other individuals with superior moral values – not “base” in the sense of being crass or vulgar.)

Sarah will also end whatever wars we are engaged in and will fight evil-doers around the world instead with a series of Crusades. I know that I speak for all real Americans when I say that I would be much more inspired to support the endless loss of life and continual destruction required to rid the world of terrorists and druggies and poor people if such actions were referred to as the Crusade Against Terror, the Crusade Against Drugs, and the Crusade Against Poverty.

The cost of these Crusades can be kept to a minimum by utilizing the synergies between and among them. We could enlist poor people to fight the terrorists. (Okay, I’ll admit we already do that to some extent, but we need to enlarge and extend our efforts.) When they die by the thousands, voila – we have reduced poverty.

Likewise, with the drug abusers. We can entice them to join the armed forces of this great nation of ours by shifting the focus of the “don’t ask – don’t tell” policy from homosexuality to drug use. Of course, I do not condone drug use (other than alcohol, cigarettes, and prescription drugs legally obtained by paying for doctor visits), but the trade-offs in this case make it worth it. First of all, while illicit drug use offends Our Heavenly Father, He gets much angrier at the mere thought of homosexual activity. And now that gays are pushing to violate the sanctity of marriage by making life-long commitments to one another we really need to have a Crusade Against Homosexuality. We obviously can’t allow gays to serve in the military during such a crusade.

Furthermore, if soldiers operating under the influence of dangerous narcotics remain in the service long enough they will eventually screw up and get themselves killed. (Having fallen during a noble crusade against terrorists and other wicked people, they will be allowed to spend eternity in Purgatory instead of Hell. That should be a comfort to them and their loved ones). More importantly, their deaths will reduce drug use.

Make no mistake about it, we are engaged in an eternal struggle against evil. Even in our own country there are evil-doers who are constantly doing evil things, such as standing in the way of prayer in school, opposing religious tests for candidates for public office, and favoring civil liberties for their own wicked kind. Those of us who are righteous, morally superior individuals, who share a hatred-fueled love for this great country of ours, can never tolerate or accept the dirty deeds (done dirt cheap) of these godless infidels.

By definition, this struggle between true Americans and pretend Americans is a civil war. That does not mean we have to be civil in conducting it. We need leaders with the ability to spew hatred with a cheerful disposition and smiles on their faces. Leaders like Sarah the Impaliner.

We cannot allow Sarah Palin to go back to Alaska and fade from public view. We can not expect the lady who will smash the glass ceiling (that the impure Hilary Clinton could only crack) to go back to shopping at consignment stores after growing accustomed to stocking her closet with the finest clothes that other people’s money can buy.

The liberal media has been quick to proclaim the end of the Reagan Revolution. We true believers know that the revolution has just begun. The Gipper has been reborn in Sarah Palin. The Second Coming of the Gipper is at hand. With crusades launched simultaneously against evil-doers of every variety we can bring on the glory of the “end days.” We can herald Armageddon and The Rapture.

Hallelujah! Praise Palin and pass the ammunition.

Powered by

About Winston Apple

Winston Apple is the author of "Edutopia: A Manifesto for the Reform of Public Education." He is a former teacher. He has a Masters Degree in Curriculum and Instruction from the University of Missouri at Kansas City (1990). He is also a singer-songwriter and recording artist.
  • On your last question, I said that – as the CONTEXT clearly shows – as part of a diatribe one might expect from the stereotypical redneck…and I’ve known more than a few.

    I think you and I will have to agree to disagree then, because I know I’m right and I suspect that you know I’m right too…but (at least in your replies) you’re sure that you’re right and I’m wrong.

    I’ll let it be at that.

  • Clavos

    You cannot take your statement as ‘stand-alone’,…

    I didn’t; i was suggesting an example (not mine).

    …for within that statement you referred to someone else’s statement. Moreover, your statement is but a small part of the debate on this topic and it is colored by the context of the other statements you (and others (including myself)) have made.

    True, Glenn. But it’s a statement, not a context. You’re still missing my point.

    You said: “but the context above CLEARLY shows otherwise.” In reference to my statement.

    To which I replied: “My statement you quote (it’s not a context) concludes that…” meaning that the statement in and of itself, is not its own context; it is simply a statement.

    BTW, why do you mention, when referring to the school you attended that it was “major’ty-NEgro,…” Does that matter to you?

  • And BTW, not every statement does have a context; a stand alone statement, for example, lacks a context.

    I disagree. In addition to the context within the document in which a statement is written or the situation where it is uttered, all statements have broader social and situational context including who made the statement, his background and other influences in the environment in which the statement is made.

    For example, there’s a huge difference between a white man shouting “dumb nigger” out the window of his car and Chris Rock saying it on stage. The words are the same, but the situational context is very different.


  • Clavos –

    You cannot take your statement as ‘stand-alone’, for within that statement you referred to someone else’s statement. Moreover, your statement is but a small part of the debate on this topic and it is colored by the context of the other statements you (and others (including myself)) have made.

    Still wiggling, huh? Better to refuse the obvious than to admit error, huh? Admit it, Clavos – you made a mistake, just like we all do. You’re human. To continue to try to wiggle out of this one only reflects poorly upon you, whereas a simple dose of humility by admitting error will do wonders for your self-esteem.

  • Clavos


    You say:

    EVERY statement has ‘a context’.

    True. “Has,” Glenn, not “is.”

    And BTW, not every statement does have a context; a stand alone statement, for example, lacks a context.

    Merriam-Webster online defines context (of language) as:

    the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning

  • And one more thing –

    “My statement you quote (it’s not a context) concludes that….”

    Um, Clavos, EVERY statement has ‘a context’. ‘Context’ is the relevant constraints of the communicative situation that influence language use, language variation and discourse.

    Perhaps you should not denigrate someone else’s edjimication (that’s ‘education’ for those what didn’t get their learnin’ real good like I wuz in a poverty-ridden, major’ty-NEgro, welfare-luvin, guv’mint-run Southern school in the Mississippi Delta ‘cross the road from the cotton field) until you are more conversant with the subjects at hand.

    Doggone it, now where’d I put that there Jeff Foxworthy eight-track tape? Mebbe it’s back in the John Deere I ran inta the ditch over by Jones’ bayou. I’d better go get it afore some sumbichin’ redneck gets it fust….

  • Clavos

    Not going to happen, Glenn. I know what I said, and I stand by the comment that the dude is egocentric; an egotist.

    I don’t need you “forgiving” me.

  • WRONG!

    You did NOT preface Ruvy’s statement with “while”, and by failing to do so you lend support and NOT a caveat to Ruvy’s statement.

    And you DID preface your statements about diagnosis and psychiatrists with “perhaps”…as in MAYBE they wouldn’t diagnose it as such, BUT – and then you give the SINGLE MOST CRUCIAL symptom of a narcissist.

    The lack of a caveat or refutation strongly implies support.

    The use of “perhaps…but” and the following use of the single most crucial symptom makes your context glaringly obvious.

    IOW, you got caught and you’re trying to wiggle out of it. Give it up, Clavos…or do like I’ve done on many occasions and do a mea culpa – and find out that most people (particularly liberals) are pretty forgiving when someone says “sorry, my bad”.

  • Clavos

    Ruvy has a point about Obama’s narcissism. Perhaps it’s not narcissism as defined in the DSM-IV, and perhaps no psychiatrist would diagnose him as such, but he is certainly egocentric. How many people have written not one, but two autobiographies?

    You said you didn’t call him a narcissist, but the context above CLEARLY shows otherwise

    You must have learned to read in government schools, Glenn.

    My statement you quote (it’s not a context) concludes that, while Ruvy has a point about Obama’s narcissism, it isn’t narcissism, but egocentricity.

    And I stand by that observation.

  • Clavos –

    “Ruvy has a point about Obama’s narcissism. Perhaps it’s not narcissism as defined in the DSM-IV, and perhaps no psychiatrist would diagnose him as such, but he is certainly egocentric. How many people have written not one, but two autobiographies?”

    You said you didn’t call him a narcissist, but the context above CLEARLY shows otherwise. You’ll deny it, of course…but I’ve long since gotten used to those who don’t want to take responsibility for the words they post….

  • Glenn,

    I found out how much fun it was when the “other” side had a teflon president when Rotten Ronnie was elected. He started America down the road to disaster by not raising holy hell when your country slipped into debtor status. Having a prick like George HW Bush for a VP didn’t help much either.

    I never accused Obama of being an Arab, or a Moslem or a terrorist, either. He might have had terrorists who supported him – indeed Hamas endorsed him originally – but I never said he was a terrorist.

    The issue of his birth place remains one for a court to decide. Responses are due Justice Souter on a certiorari application on 1 December. I personally prefer that he not be disqualified. I want him for president – a fact that continually slips you by, Glenn.

    His appointments and advisors – particularly the informal ones – indicate an anti-Israel tilt that under the proper circumstances could easily turn anti-Jewish. All these have nothing to do with narcissism. I happened to run across the article I forwarded because you demanded some proof of an allegation of narcissism. The article resonated with me. It made sense. It’s a tad alarmist in its wording – but it makes sense.

    The point about his books is not that they are bad – Obama appears to be a gifted writer. The point is that they are about HIM.

    Like you, Glenn, I believe in G-d. I believe that Obama is here for a purpose. He first made the national spotlight on Tish’a b’Av, a day that is the day of disaster for Jews. These things have significance, in my eyes. It is not mere coincidence that he became a national candidate that day (the response to him certainly indicated to him the possibility), nor is it mere coincidence that he was able to effectively steal the nomination away from Hillary Clinton, who began running for president on 21 January 2001.

    Exactly what his Divinely appointed purpose is, I don’t know.

    But I don’t have to like him. And I don’t. I don’t have to trust him. And I don’t.

  • Clavos

    his dreams…

  • Clavos

    Sorry to disappoint you Glenn, my lack of interest in Obama’s life or the dreams of his father is total…

    I said he’s egocentric, with lots of hubris. Just the fact he ran for president is evidence enough of that.

    I did NOT say he’s a narcissist; what I actually did say was:

    Perhaps it’s not narcissism as defined in the DSM-IV, and perhaps no psychiatrist would diagnose him as such, but he is certainly egocentric.

    I’m really not interested in pinning any labels on him other than president of the USA, which I’ve heard will actually be his title in a few weeks.

    This whole discussion with you bores me, Glenn. Go play with some of the other kids.

  • Clavos, Ruvy –

    Tell you what – why don’t the two of you look up “Dreams of My Father” and “The Audacity of Hope” and see if these are TWO autobiographies.

    “The Audacity of Hope” is, according to the Wikipedia, “a book-length account that expanded upon many of the same themes he originally addressed in the convention speech.” And as with any political book you care to name, contains descriptions of the author’s experience and the lessons he or she learned from such experience. This does NOT make it an ‘autobiography’.

    But doe this matter to you? Of course not – you’ve made up your minds (on NO evidence that could stand up in court or in the light of history) that he’s a narcissist.

    And WHY have you made up your minds that he’s a narcissist?

    Easy. The ‘Arab’ label didn’t stick. Neither did the ‘elitist’, ‘jew-hating’, or ‘terrorist’ labels. You gotta find something, and ‘narcissist’ is the accusation du jour.

    Guess you’re in the middle of finding out how much fun it is when the other side’s got a ‘Teflon president’….

  • Glenn – Heh. Crystal meth logic.

    You mean I attacked zing when I should have gone after Glenn? My bad. Thasnks for noticing Baronius.

    Correction to comment #176

    Understanding Obama: The Making of a Fuehrer
    By Ali Sina|

    All that you wish to call hauteur, voyeurism, arrogance, hubris and crystal clear meth logic is found in the article. I used it as a referent point. I do not necessarily accept it as gospel.

    So, Glenn, don’t stick words in my mouth I did not utter.

  • Baronius

    Glenn – Heh. Crystal meth logic.

  • [shrugs]

  • Zedd


    “Is there something in my comments over the years that would make you think that your statement was too deep for me to comprehend?

    Frankly, yes.”

    That’s disappointing. Thought you had better insight.

    “None of the other royals used their position for good.

    Again, a ridiculous assertion.”

    You missed what I was saying (doing). Another disappointment. Maybe next time. It couldn’t be that you feel cornered and are all in a tizzy. The dialogue wasn’t all that serious. Perhaps you are having a bad streak or are stressed. It happens. Perhaps it’s the prop 8 thing. You get all irrational when that issue comes up.

  • It was directed to the don’t-know-it all groovy Ruvy. I just didn’t feel like addressing him. And his comments seem to be written for an effect along the lines of an boxer or a person who waits in the alley, nay a voyeur.

    How he thinks he knows what like is like here for black men and people in general is beyond me. Even if he lived here before, which I doubt, what hubris, what nerve.

    And Ruvy says that Hitler wrote one when he was a nobody, too!

    Obviously neither of you read what I wrote at comment #155.

    For your edification: This article came to me without a URL. I used this as my referent point. You read it and decide for yourself. Admittedly, the “psychoanalyzing” of someone from a distance is a dangerous thing to attempt, but the evidence is there. As for dealing with narcissists, I damned near shacked up with one thirty five years ago and am grateful I did not. I couldn’t belive how much of that girl-fiend pun unintendedI saw in this article.

    Understanding Obama: The Making of a Fuehrer
    By Ali Sina

    All that you wish to call hauteur, voyeurism, arrogance, hubris and crystal clear meth logic is found in the article. I used it as a referent point. I do not necessarily accept it as gospel.

    So, zing, don’t stick words in my mouth I did noit utter.

    Finally, Heloïse, I was born on 11 September 1951, at Manhattan General Hospital, now part of the Mt. Sinai Medical Complex. I grew up in Brooklyn, living for a number of years in both the Bronx or Manhattan. I moved to the State of Israel on 4 September, 2001. My fiftieth birthday was spent in a pizza parlor on ben-Yehuda Street in Jerusalem watching Moslem terrorists destroy the tallest building of the city of my birth.

    I spent a number of years on the Board of Directors of an anti-poverty organization that had been put together by blacks in St. Paul in the 1960’s under the aëgis of the Great Society. I got my understanding of blacks from these people, hard working, brave, tough civil rights pioneers in the city of St. Paul.

    I don’t give a rat’s ass whether you or your past lives believe me or not. Nor do I give a rat’s ass whether you wish to engage me or not. It is not my problem.

    What I did see in St. Paul was a huge amount of hatred and rancor towards white people by many blacks, which often expressed itself as a “hate success” syndrome. I saw a third grader busted for selling drugs in my childrens’ public school.

    I look at the Ethiopian kids who live here who struggle against the discrimination of the rich Ashkenazi elite – the kind of peole Rahm Emanuel hangs out with – and I see tough, hard-working kids building a society that they can call HOME – instead of starving in a land where they are called Falasha – STRANGER. They do not have a hate-success syndrome, in spite of the barriers that rich white bigots in Israel put in their way.

    So, it is clear that a hate-success syndrome is not endemic to blacks. It’s not an issue of melanin, it’s an issue of culture. Fanned by the likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright – along with the hate-authority lyrics of a lot of hip-hop songs – well, there it is.

    You want to call that analysis racist, hubris, nerve? Go ahead. Scream all you want. But there are also people like Bill Cosby expressing the point of view of the disappointed elders of the anti-poverty agency I worked with in St. Paul. I learn from them. I would hardly call Bill Cosby an anti-black bigot. You can if you wish, Heloïse. That’s your privilege.

    Have a pleasant Monday.

  • Clavos

    So, Glenn,

    How many people HAVE written more than one autobiography?

    I’m sure there are a few, but I’m equally sure that it’s a sign of egocentricity and hubris; writing even one autobiography presupposes one considers one’s life is of interest to others, in itself hubristic.

    And just FYI. I don’t hate Obama, I don’t even dislike him; I’ve never met him.

    I know that he’s the president-elect, and that he’s a left of center democrat. That’s all I know about him.

  • Is there something in my comments over the years that would make you think that your statement was too deep for me to comprehend?

    Frankly, yes.

    None of the other royals used their position for good.

    Again, a ridiculous assertion. It is, for instance (by his own admission), Prince Charles’s entire raison d’être.

    That is all.

  • Clavos and Ruvy –

    Clavos says “How many people have written not one, but two autobiographies?”

    And Ruvy says that Hitler wrote one when he was a nobody, too!

    OOOOOOOhhhhh! Such CRYSTAL clear logic. As in crystal METH logic. I guess every politician who wrote an autobiography must be a Hitler-in-waiting.

    FYI, Ruvy, Obama was not a nobody, for IIRC he wrote his first one after he became SOMEbody, after his speech before the DNC.

    But nothing I say here will be of any use, for both of you are just looking for something to hate, an excuse to hate the liberal du jour, Obama. It doesn’t matter that every single one of your accusations that I’ve seen so far have been proven false or at least greatly overblown – for the hard-and-fast FACTS don’t matter to you, as long as you get to make your accusations.

  • Zedd


    Is there something in my comments over the years that would make you think that your statement was too deep for me to comprehend? Get ahold of yourself.

    I got what you were saying. Hence the touche’. It was a simple point. There was no need to make a bigger issue of it. Perhaps you were proud of it and thought it was deep and wanted more discussion. Not sure. Okay, doc here goes…. Britney Spears could be a Bono but she is not because she just sings and does drugs. Di did (much like Bono) use her position for the good (even though she also did drugs). None of the other royals used their position for good. Its like bono doing good and Brit Brit not doing good. The bells go off, confetti flies and the band plays. Where is Confucius have I got a rival for him. Plato? Whatev. Its all about the Doctor!! Whistle whistle yeeehaw, yeah baybeeeee, chest bumb and all that.

    I moved on to give props to Bono. I think he is amazing so in my mind, saying Bono is simply enough.

    Now can we end this.

    Heloise, don’t know if Kennedy ran interference there but what are you on about?

  • Jet

    Doc, you never know, she may have thought you meant Sonny Bono.

  • Heloise…


  • Clavos

    I dunno, Doc, but I think she understood your point perfectly*…

    *(Holy shit! Im siding with Zedd!?)

  • Dr. Dread LOL. I think she just wanted to say “nuff said.” Funny. Bono the musician cum california congressman/politician who died skiing I think? Yeah why did you bring him up…I didn’t read all the threads.


  • Zedd, Zedd, Zedd…

    I can honestly say that I have never before had occasion to – nor have I ever heard anyone else – end an argument by saying, “And then there’s Bono. ‘Nuff said.”

    Do you even have the slightest idea why I brought Bono into the discussion? Why don’t you look him up on Wikipedia?

  • Jet

    I still say he’s filling in for Arch while he’s on his “forced” vacation. Wouldn’t that be funny if we moved the whole website to a different e-address just for one day so Arch couldn’t find us?

  • No not really Jet. It was directed to the don’t-know-it all groovy Ruvy. I just didn’t feel like addressing him. And his comments seem to be written for an effect along the lines of an boxer or a person who waits in the alley, nay a voyeur.

    How he thinks he knows what like is like here for black men and people in general is beyond me. Even if he lived here before, which I doubt, what hubris, what nerve.

    Just watched Obama interview on 60 minutes and what does this man miss now: taking a walk in his beautiful neighborhood, which I know VERY WELL and also walk in when I’m there…which I will be for Christmas

    Yes he walks…just like I do every day. He also walks alone. Never been known to have an affair or cheat on his wife. Now does that sound like an ego maniac or an extreme narcissist. My God his car and clothes were in taters for years!!!

    Talk about narcissist you should be talking about John Edwards!!!


  • Jet

    Heloise, is that directed at me regarding #159 or am I just being paranoid?

  • Oh boy, narcissism now–the pathology du jour. What about the Bush family…a bunch of Peter Pans all. Peter Pan syndrome is related to severe narcissism. But one thing that analogy above leaves out is that Peter Pans and extreme narcissists tend to come from white middle class homes.

    Obama’s growing up and family situation is as my daughter put it “just like us.” I hate all these window shoppers who don’t know WTF they are talking about. You ain’t black, have not lived in the midwest and sure ain’t biracial. While I am not biracial my kids have often been mistaken for same and you have the same experiences as one who is biracial…a little ID confusion. Big deal no.

    But trying to profile a black man in America from those who can’t say same: I don’t think so.


  • Zedd


    You could end a lot of arguments by saying “and then there’s Bono. ‘Nuff said.”

    It it would all be over.

    Touche’ Doc.

  • Jet

    I posted it as an editorial, what the hell, it’s not going to get posted any way!

  • Jet

    I’d have posted the above as an article, but the language needed to stand if it was to be effective, but somehow I think I just wasted a lot of time…

  • Jet

    Read this all the way through if you dare, you might learn something, but I doubt it.

    Look what we’ve done to ourselves!!! YOU-YES YOU LOOK AT US AND WHAT WE’RE DOING!!!

    We all rallyed behind him during the first gulf war, Hell-half of us wanted to erect a statue to the man in front of the capital (myself included) but half of us wanted badly to see him fail in revenge for how the ultra right-wing “christian conservatives” kidnapped the republican party and held it for ransom!!!

    It was during this period that I switched from a liberal Republican to a conservative democrat.

    We never gave President Bush I a chance in 1988. But stop and look at the work he’s done since leaving office for world disaster relief etc, and wonder what he could’ve done as president-had we only given him a chance!

    LOOK WHAT WE DID TO BILL CLINTION The moment he took office the right-wing tried to find any way you could to bring him down whether he deserved it or not.
    Bitch and CLAIM all you want, but in the end it comes down to you refusing to cooperate and rally around him to make this country great, much less get behind a man who like it or not brought down our deficit and presided over one of the most peaceful and prosperous times in American History!!! Remember we’re not talking deficit-were talking SURPLUS!


    Despite dragging him into impeachment, the only trumped up charge you could make stick was lying to his wife and the American people about getting a fucking blow job-a god damned BLOW JOB-something any husband would lie about in the same circumstances.

    You can beat your partisan chests till your blue in the face and CLAIM he was guilty of anything you want, BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE, but in the end a REPUBLICAN congress did not have enough on him to bring him down and he remained in office… despite what “facts” you sore losers will regurgitate up

    And look what we did to George W. Bush. Hell after 9/11 we were all ready to put the man on Mt. Rushmore!!! I was so pumped up with patriotic lust, I flew a giant flag from my penthouse balcony for months afterward.

    But when the chips started to go south, rather than rally around the man-OUR president-OUR country, we all got together and nearly shoved him over a political cliff-and for what?

    Partisan bickering and posturing.

    George Bush may go down in history as one of the most ineffective, reviled and embarrassing presidents of the United States, because half the country prayed for him to fail the moment he took office in revenge for what the Republicans did to Bill Clinton!

    And look at us now.
    JUST LOOK AT US! is it any wonder the United States has lost nearly all respect we’ve ever had worldwide?

    Have any of you pompous asses ever met, much less gotten to know Barack Obama? No-well I haven’t either, and yet you have the arogance and nerve to judge the man, based on only your own sources of information (selected to confirm anything you want to say about the man), which may or may not (emphasis on not) be reliable.

    Considering the enormous job the man is facing, you’d think you’d at least give him the benefit of the doubt; but no.

    You WANT him to fail-EVEN IF IT MEANS WATCHING OUR COUNTRY GO BACKRUPT it’d be worth it to see Obama fail?… because you know that’s the only way your opposition parties will win the next elections.

    Hell, I’m ashamed to say that there are parts of our country that want to see him assinated because they don’t want some nigger in the whitehouse… now that something to fill you with national pride isn’t it?

    It’s time for us to pull ourselves up by our goddamned jockstraps and turn this country around-not later-now!!!!

    Worry about the damned elections in four years, not January 21st 2009 and help Obama pull this country back together before it’s too late.

    I don’t really know why I bothered to post this, I lost the people this was aimed at, after the third paragraph, becouse this country is filled with sore losers too fucked in the head to admit that they’re wrong, even if it means the downfall our our country so you can puff your chest up and spout your foregone conclusions.

  • It’s what you do with your place in life, Zedd, whether earned, inherited or married into.

    If you want to argue that Britney Spears being a mere pop star doesn’t give her access to those in positions of influence, fine. Let me just put it this way:

    There’s Diana,

    there’s Britney Spears,

    and then there’s Bono.

    ‘Nuff said.

  • Zedd


    If you had access to all of the leaders of the world, had no job, could do whatever, had footmen, would it be such a feat to hug a sick child or talk a walk in a desolate area while making a statement. It’s not feeding the multitudes after walking through the desert on foot for years now is it. Plus she got good PR and got to rub her good deeds and adoration in the face of the Queen (is the q capitalized?).

    Anyway, looks like you are indeed a Believer. I won’t knock it. Everyone gets to choose their heroes and beliefs.

    Not a Britney fan in any respect but that kid has been working since she was 9 yrs old, every day. SHE pays her entourage. I’m guessing she pays for her own drugs. Without being too disrespectful, I have to ask, did the drugs come from the system of socialized medicine or were they street drugs or what?

    Okay enough of the silliness. It was fun though. Thanks for indulging me.


    Pipe up you.

  • Zedd


    You get a lot of things and often don’t articulate what it is that you get but make a joke to suggest that. It’s cool. As a person from outside the US I get it and think its awesome (not that you care).

    This time you missed it.

    Obama was deflecting. Don’t forget, he was going up against the Republican spin machine that shredded the Clintons and kept them occupied quite a bit of time, swatting the infestations from the time they hit the scene. Those autobiographies were designed to end the questions about his nontraditional lineage, his misdeeds as a youth, to clarify any questions possible impropriaty. Had Palin had bios, perhaps her gaffs may have been overlooked or put into some context because we would have a detailed explanation of what makes up a Sara Palin. We ended up making broad stroked conclusions, beauty pageant contestant, news anchor, small town major, governor of isolated small sparse state… not ready for prime time.

  • Glenn,

    Has this been diagnosed? Have you ever worked for years with a narcissist? I have – it’s no fun.

    I’m not interested in what the American right wing has to say, by and large, Glenn. They do not mean anything to me. I live here, and my priorities are here. I’m interested in what my bunch of folk have to say. We’re forced, by the level of American interference in the internal affairs in Israel, to pay an inordinate amount of attention to you, attention you do not really rate, and part of my posting articles here is part of that attention. I like a lot of people here, but there is a motive beyond mere liking people that causes me to write here.

    This article came to me without a URL. I used this as my referent point. You read it and decide for yourself. Admittedly, the “psychoanalyzing” of someone from a distance is a dangerous thing to attempt, but the evidence is there. As for dealing with narcissists, I damned near shacked up with one thirty five years ago and am grateful I did not. I couldn’t belive how much of that girl-fiend I saw in this article.

    Understanding Obama: The Making of a Fuehrer
    By Ali Sina

    I must confess I was not impressed by Sen. Barack Obama from the first time I saw him. At first I was excited to see a black candidate. He looked youthful, spoke well, appeared to be confident – a wholesome presidential package. I was put off soon, not just because of his shallowness but also because there was an air of haughtiness in his demeanor that was unsettling. His posture and his body language were louder than his empty words. Obama’s speeches are unlike any political speech we have heard in American history. Never a politician in this land had such a quasi ‘religious’ impact on so many people. The fact that Obama is a total incognito with zero accomplishment, makes this inexplicable infatuation alarming. Obama is not an ordinary man. He is not a genius. In fact he is quite ignorant on most important subjects. Barack Obama is a narcissist. Dr. Sam Vaknin, the author of the Malignant Self Love, also believes, ‘Barack Obama appears to be a narcissist.’

    Vaknin is a world authority on narcissism. He understands narcissism and describes the inner mind of a narcissist like no other person. When he talks about narcissism everyone listens. Vaknin says that Obama’s language, posture and demeanor, and the testimonies of his closest, dearest and nearest suggest that the Senator is either a narcissist or he may have narcissistic personality disorder (NPD).

    Narcissists project a grandiose but false image of themselves. Jim Jones, the charismatic leader of People’s Temple, the man who led over 900 of his followers to cheerfully commit mass suicide and even murder their own children was also a narcissist. David Koresh, Charles Manson, Joseph Koni, Shoko Asahara, Stalin, Saddam, Mao, Kim Jong Ill and Adolph Hitler are a few examples of narcissists of our time. All these men had a tremendous influence over their fanciers. They created a personality cult around themselves and with their blazing speeches elevated their admirers’ souls, filled their hearts with enthusiasm and instilled in their minds a new zest for life. They gave them hope! They promised them the moon, but alas, invariably they brought them to their doom. When you are a victim of a cult of personality, you don’t know it until it is too late.

    One determining factor in the development of NPD is childhood abuse. ‘Obama’s early life was decidedly chaotic and replete with traumatic and mentally bruising dislocations,’ says Vaknin. ‘Mixed-race marriages were even less common then. His parents went through a divorce when he was an infant (two years old). Obama saw his father only once again, before he died in a car accident. Then, his mother re-married and Obama had to relocate to Indonesia: a foreign land with a radically foreign culture, to be raised by a step-father. At the age of ten, he was whisked off to live with his maternal (white) grandparents. He saw his mother only intermittently in the following few years and then she vanished from his life in 1979. She died of cancer in 1995.’

    One must never underestimate the manipulative genius of pathological narcissists. They project such an imposing personality that it overwhelms those around them. Charmed by the charisma of the narcissist, people become like clay in his hands. They cheerfully do his bidding and delight to be at his service. The narcissist shapes the world around himself and reduces others in his own inverted image. He creates a cult of personality. His admirers become his co-dependents.

    Narcissists have no interest in things that do not help them to reach their personal objective. They are focused on one thing alone and that is power. All other issues are meaningless to them and they do not want to waste their precious time on trivialities. Anything that does not help them is beneath them and do not deserve their attention. If an issue raised in the Senate does not help Obama in one way or another, he has no interest in it. The ‘present’ vote is a safe vote. No one can criticize him if things go wrong. Why should he implicate himself in issues that may become controversial when they don’t help him personally? Those issues are unworthy by their very nature because they are not about him.

    Obama’s election as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review led to a contract and advance to write a book about race relations. The University of Chicago Law School provided him with a fellowship and an office to work on his book. The book took him a lot longer than expected and at the end it devolved into…, guess what? His own autobiography! Instead of writing a scholarly paper focusing on race relations, for which, he had been paid, Obama could not resist writing about his most sublime self. He entitled the book Dreams from My Father .

    Not surprisingly, Adolph Hitler also wrote his own autobiography when he was still nobody. So did Stalin. For a narcissist no subject is as important as his own self. Why would he waste his precious time and genius writing about insignificant things when he can write about such an august being as himself?
    Narcissists are often callous and even ruthless. As the norm, they lack conscience. This is evident from Obama’s lack of interest in his own brother who lives on only one dollar per month. A man who lives in luxury, who takes a private jet to vacation in Hawaii, and who has raised nearly half a billion dollars for his campaign (something unprecedented in history) has no interest in the plight of his own brother. Why? Because, his brother cannot be used for his ascent to power. A narcissist cares for no one but himself.

    This election is like no other in the history of America . The issues are insignificant compared to what is at stake. What can be more dangerous than having a man bereft of conscience, a serial liar, and one who cannot distinguish his fantasies from reality as the leader of the free world?

    I hate to sound alarmist, but one must be a fool if one is not alarmed. Many politicians are narcissists. They pose no threat to others.. They are simply self serving and selfish. Obama evinces symptoms of pathological narcissism, which is different from the run-of-the-mill narcissism of a Richard Nixon or a Bill Clinton, for example. To him reality and fantasy are intertwined. This is a mental health issue, not just a character flaw. Pathological narcissists are dangerous because they look normal and even intelligent. It is this disguise that makes them treacherous.

    Today the Democrats have placed all their hopes in Obama. But this man could put an end to their party. The great majority of blacks have also decided to vote for Obama. Only a fool does not know that their support for him is racially driven.

    Let us call a spade a spade. This is racism, pure and simple. The truth is that while everyone carries a misconceived collective guilt towards the blacks for wrongs done centuries ago by a bygone people to a bygone people, the blacks carry a collective rancor, enmity or vendetta towards non-blacks and to this day want to ‘stand up’ to the white man.. They seem to be stuck in 19th century.

    The downside of this is that if Obama turns out to be the disaster I predict, he will cause widespread resentment among the whites. The blacks are unlikely to give up their support of their man. Cultic mentality is pernicious and unrelenting. They will dig their heads deeper in the sand and blame Obama’s detractors of racism. This will cause a backlash among the whites. The white supremacists will take advantage of the discontent and they will receive widespread support. I predict that in less than four years, racial tensions will increase to levels never seen since the turbulent 1960s. Obama will set the clock back decades… America is the bastion of freedom. The peace of the world depends on the strength of America , and its weakness translates into the triumph of terrorism and victory of rogue nations. It is no wonder that Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, the Castrists, the Hezbollah, the Hamas, the lawyers of the Guantanamo terrorists and virtually all sworn enemies of America are so thrilled by the prospect of their man in the White House. America is on the verge of destruction. There is no insanity greater than electing a pathological narcissist as president.

  • Well, Zedd, when la Spears actually accomplishes something of real lasting value to the world, like enhancing AIDS awareness or getting an anti-landmine treaty signed, get back to me.

  • Clavos

    Britney has a job.

    Bimbo is a job???

  • Clavos

    Ruvy has a point about Obama’s narcissism. Perhaps it’s not narcissism as defined in the DSM-IV, and perhaps no psychiatrist would diagnose him as such, but he is certainly egocentric. How many people have written not one, but two autobiographies?

    Would that Obama would emulate JFK as much as possible. At least I would love for Obama to emulate Kennedy’s tax policy. People tend to forget that Kennedy instituted a huge tax cute, especially for the rich, which resulted in a prolonged period of significant prosperity (as tax cuts always do).

    I think people tend to over idolize Kennedy because he was assassinated, which naturally produces feelings of sadness in most people. His assassination cut short his presidency; had he lived and had two full terms, our opinion of him as a president might be more sanguine and less rooted in fantasy.

    But to his credit, he was a major tax cutter, and as a result, his legacy was prosperity.

  • Zedd


    Fair enough.

    “And I’m sorry: comparing Princess Di unfavourably to Britney Spears is just ludicrous.”

    Yes. Britney has a job.

  • Ruvy –

    One wonders where this perception of “Obama’s a narcissist” came from.

    Has this been diagnosed? Have you ever worked for years with a narcissist? I have – it’s no fun.

    What you’re dealing with, Ruvy, is the same old accusations thrown out by the right wing. So far, we’ve heard that Obama’s an Arab, an elitist, a terrorist, a ‘pal’ of terrorists, a power-hungry Chicago politician, NOT an American citizen (though his birth certificate looks EXACTLY like my son’s (who was born in Hawaii))…and now he’s a ‘narcissist’.


    Ruvy, you’re not dumb by any stretch of the word – and that’s not patronization. That’s a simple fact. I am confident that someday you’ll see through the American right-wing rhetoric and see it for what it is…a group of men for whom patriotism is only a tool to keep power. Every country has some of the same.

    It’s hard for me to think of any group of people more deserving of sheer contempt than the Nazis…but as with the most evil of despots in history, there are things we can learn from them, too – as in this quote from Hermann Goering:

    “Naturally the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

    Consider what Goering said…and then look at what the American right wing has been accusing Obama (and every other non-neo-con) of for decades. And you can also see the same sort of rhetorical attacks in Israel, too.

    I know you see the connection. You can’t help but see the connection.

  • I agree with Cannonshop in much that he says. I find him to be rather optimistic. But I have to agree with his basic premise – Americans have been looking for a second JFK since the original was murdered. There is no getting round that. Every president since Kennedy has had to live in the shadow of the hope of a new generation that John Kennedy inspired. Robert Kennedy came closest. But he too was murdered, executed by an Arab in front of our eyes. The possibility was seized away from us before it even had the possibilty of being realized. I feel that especially, having worked in his campaign. Ronald Reagan tried with the idea of “morning in America” but his false dawn was fuelled by overspending that sent the American coracle on the rocky river to the falls of disaster it now faces.

    Obama is a narcissist. If he is indeed seated as president, his administration will be still-born – strangled not by his lack of ability to deal with a cataclysm, but by the cataclysm itself.

    But even if there were no economic/finacial/geo-political cataclysm facing the United States, Obama would at best be a small man, accomplishing little. Narcissists are interested in themselves alone, and after a time, Americans, who may still be in the thrall of an expert manipulator now, would see the man plain. Obama is smart enough to consult those “older and wiser” than he is – but it appears that those he seeks to consult all walk in the shadow of failure themselves. They will bring disaster upon you, and upon us in turn.

    But this is not a bash-Obama comment. Not really. After WWII American industry, both labor and business, could have retooled for success in the long run. Instead, it re-tooled for greed, for planned obsolescence, for a false prosperity that eventually had to disappear. And now that it has, the awful bill is coming due. Sixty years of mismanagement at the corporate level, along with irresponsible practices of labor unions, are now strangling you Americans, and may well strangle those of us overseas who have thrown out lot in with you.

    In this, Obama is a mere footnote, if that. And Americans did not choose wrong. They had no choice to begin with.

    Do note: Sarah Palin, the supposed target of this article, was not chosen by the voters at all, but by a near senile fool who should have been put out to pasture years ago.

  • Jet

    Sometimes I wonder why I bother…

  • Cannonshop

    #144 I think I disagree, Jet. Y’see, the Kennedy, as in JOHN Kennedy was the sort of man you get once in five hundered years if you’re very, very, lucky as a nation. Democrats (and to a certain extent, Republicans) have been desperately looking for a JFK ever since the REAL one was taken away.

    Barack Obama is NOT John Kennedy-he’s not even close, other than being relatively young, good-looking, and a “Democrat” (though not a JFK Democrat-check the guy’s record, look at the books he wrote about himself. JFK wrote a book, and it was about people JFK admired. Barack Obama wrote two books about…Barack Obama. Even trying to match JFK’s deeds in the civilian world, Obama falls short.)

    The thing about AMERICANS is that we don’t NEED “royals”. We need LEADERS. JFK was a LEADER first, and the adoring throng made him “regal” enough that his drunken kid brother could use the family name to stay in the Senate essentially the rest of his working life.

    Until he Proves otherwise Barack Obama is to John F. Kennedy what a Mirage is to an Oasis in the desert-cosmetically similar only from the most illusory distance, but up close nothing substantially similar.

    Obama isn’t a Millenium Man, he’s not a Century man, he’s at best a quadrennial man who might be given a second term if he doesn’t completely fail in the office. If he manages to exceed mediocrity, he’ll be doing rather well.

  • Jet

    Dear God Clav, we agreed on something!

  • Clavos

    Britney Spears without talent is….

    Britney Spears!

  • Jet

    We once had royals Doc. The Kennedys. When John was in the whitehouse, most of us looked up to that beautiful family like royalty.

    They had looks, they had style, JFK had a Pulitzer prize, he had courage and their kids were a cute and cuddly as little playful puppies.

    Then it got torn away from us.

    I can understand how the Brits can look up to the royals, it’s like no matter what scandals, no matter how tough it gets, you’ve always got them as a constant pride that never changes.

    I hope we get that with the Obamas, they’ve got the talent, but will nigger-haters in the south and GOP rednecks let them have a chance to prove their worth?

    I saddly doubt it.

  • You have a queen that is the wealthiest woman on Earth for goodness sake.

    Not any more. She’s not even in the top 10. And I didn’t say that Britain no longer has a class structure: just that it’s now very weak and pliable and money speaks LOUDER.

    The royal family is a special case. It’s really a whole other discussion because it doesn’t really have much to do with the class system as it used to be. The Civil List – that part of the national budget which pays for their upkeep – has been trimmed to the bone in recent years: most of the royal family except for the Queen, Philip and possibly William and Harry live entirely off their own incomes. Nevertheless, the monarchy gives us a national sense of coherence, continuity and tradition; an identity that is uniquely British. Without it, we’d just be France without the good food.

    And I’m sorry: comparing Princess Di unfavourably to Britney Spears is just ludicrous.

  • Zedd


    I really don’t care. You don’t have a people. It’s just you and your mean spirit. All alone in that aging body of yours. Let it go already. Just be nice while doing whatever it is that you are doing over there. Can’t be good to live like that. May peace be unto you. You know Davis Duke also thinks his venom is justified because of his love for HIS (none existant) PEOPLE.


    You have a queen that is the wealthiest woman on Earth for goodness sake. You had Princess Di. What-tha.. was that all about? Britney Spears without talent. I never said anything about things being as they were in the past. You still have a tier. One of the first things that Blair illuminated when addressing Congress here was the contrast of the limitations of class in your country and this country where it doesn’t exist. Again, I’m not saying it is as pronounced as it used to be, but it’s there.

  • slybone

    Winston, you are perfectly on. Thanks so much!

  • Zedd,

    I know you need to be right really badly right now….

    I don’t need to be right – I am. I said nothing about England other than that is has changed in the decades since I learnt about it. I’ll let knowledgable Englishmen attempt to educate away what misapprehensions you have about their society. They know and I don’t.

    I’ll not argue with you over what you perceive to be my distortions of your words. It’s not worth my time. You’ve mischaracterized me in a most vicious way, and while I have to strive not to hate you, I do not have to forgive you – or hold you in anything less than contempt.

    You are ignorant – particularly about my people. You know nothing about us at all, for all that you think you know, and for all that I’ve written here, you know nothing about me. Don’t bother to lecture me – your words are worthless.

    And no, I don’t forgive you; and I don’t have to be nice to you. I need merely be civil.

    I’ve said what I have to say – we’re quits.

  • Zedd,

    The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats trace their roots back to the old Tory and Whig parties, both of which were formed of the landed gentry – the only people allowed to vote back in the day. Labour, the only modern political party to have gained any traction, started out as a workers’ party. So yes, I suppose British politics would have looked different if there had been no class system.

    But that’s past. Labour is now, and has been for some decades – despite some embarrassing attempts in the seventies and eighties to convert it to a socia1ist workers’ movement – a modern social democratic party. The other two parties also modernized long ago. All three now attract voters from every socioeconomic bracket.

    The magazines Hello and OK, and others like them, are concerned with celebrity in general. It matters not a jot to them where you got your fame and money from, only that you have them. You might well read an article in one of them about the Duke of Bedford: however, turn a couple of pages and you are just as likely to see a piece about Victoria Beckham.

    What you will not find is an article about young Lord Knumbknutts, whose family went bankrupt on the Stock Exchange three generations ago and who works as a tax accountant in Kidderminster.

  • Zedd


    Come on, if there was no class system your political parties would be configured differently. The tabloids would not dedicate so much time watching the “blue bloods”. There wouldn’t be magazines dedicated to the lives of that class. Again, the word posh would be abolished. A person’s accent wouldn’t mean so much. Come on admit it.

  • Zedd


    I know you need to be right really badly right now however, class still matters in Britain. While class doesn’t have an economic benefit, like it used to, it still matters, else the monarchy would have no relevance. Yes there are some who want to abolish it and there are some who are practical and understand it’s economic draw (who cares about England without the Buckingham Palace…). However, there are still those who revere the royals and many more who will not admit it but take the entire class thing to heart. The entire notion of poshness has it’s roots in that ideal. That is a worship that is more than eye rolling.

    As for admitting anything, I never spoke about not being able to process ideas. Small people look at distorting ideas as a beneficial thing. Ruvy you are much to old for that. While it’s clear that you are a theatrical and rather dramatic sort, lying is beneath you. When you distort peoples statements, that is lying. Don’t lie.

    By the way, I forgive you. Now try to be nice.

  • Jet

    The folly of a theocracy was the changing of the constitution to ban all consumption of alcohol-never come between a man and his beer.

    Then there was no business on Sunday (blue laws).

    Here’s a prime example…

    …Claude Nowell known as Corky, had another epochal encounter. He saw a monolith depicting the Ten Commandments on the courthouse grounds in Salt Lake City, says Su Menu, the Summum religion’s current leader, and “felt it would be nice to have the Seven Aphorisms next to them.” The monument would be inscribed with the principles that, according to Summum doctrine, Moses initially intended to deliver to the Hebrews before deciding they weren’t ready to understand them.

    Several Utah municipalities Mr. Ra approached declined the opportunity to display the Seven Aphorisms, provoking a legal battle that arrived at the Supreme Court Wednesday. The high court heard the plea of one Utah town, Pleasant Grove, to reverse a lower court decision requiring it to accept the Seven Aphorisms — or, perhaps, remove the Ten Commandments and a dozen other monuments from its Pioneer Park.

    Apparently it’s okay to mix goverment with religion, as long as it’s only one kind of religion and not others-a state religion.

  • Lee Richards

    Look, it’s a free country: believe or don’t, pray often or never, worship or ignore it, go to the church of your choice or pass them all by.

    Mind your own business, live and let live.

    What bothers me is when the christian right (Palin’s base)wants to use their party and politics to change our government into a reflection of their faith.

    As Huckabee said, he wants the Constitution to be more like the Bible. They want followers, not free-thinkers in control.

    The danger isn’t in individaul belief or non-belief–that’s our right–but in certain believers trying to abridge that right because it’s “God’s will.”

  • On the other hand, Chris, enjoy Zedd’s comments. They are full of the foolishness and the intellectual laziness she herself admits to, but she is finally targetting things.

    I find it interesting that in Britain the most embarrassingly archaic or childish (high school) system exists among mankind. Your class structure is mind boggling when considered. You guys BELIEVE that the slight adjustments in ones speech inflections actually determine the tier that they are in (I suppose in terms of their universal significance). One’s respectability is limited by whose vagina they came out of(????). Regardless as to how useless or stupid, immoral, mean or boring one is, because someone is born of people who were born of those people, they are better than most. Some are actually paid to be better and get parades where they wave at you as a favor. What?

    The England I learned about as a child has certainly changed in the last several decades; perhaps you would like to educate the young lady. Doing so myself is “above my pay grade”.

    I’d leave off the god stuff if I were you. You’re an atheist. Nothing to be ashamed of. You’ve made yourself crystal clear. We heard you the thousandth time, even if you won’t admit to it yourself. You’ll have a hard time trying to redraw society’s paradigms to meet your own personal prejudices.

    It’s hard enough disoputing the lies and distortions in the mass media. Redrawing society’s paradigms – trying to stick us believers in a “faithist” box of your own making, for example – is going to be very hard work. Marx ignored the fact that people tend to do what they damned well please, and you are ignoring that fact too.

    Enjoy life – at least until the collapse of the big three auto makers starts to affect the world economy….

    And shavúa tov – have a good week.

  • Blimey, I’ve missed a lot of lively stuff…

    zing2: I too have seen the hand of God. Three years ago we stayed on a beautiful island in Fiji. Alas, all good things come to an end, but when it was time to leave we petitioned the Deity to let us stay. This was his response.

    Chris: what is your problem with agnosticism? I come from a long line of agnostics (or I may not: I don’t know. My great-great-great-grandfather was an Anglican vicar, which tends to argue against that. But I digress.) It’s not necessary to have a firm position on everything, even important issues. Do you, for instance, have an opinion on whether a presidential term in Russia should be four or six years? What the UK transportation budget for FY2009 should be? Puntland’s right to self-govern independently of Somalia? I don’t.

    Zedd: where on Earth did your #131 come from? The class system in Britain is a relic of the time when the invading Normans needed, in order to retain power and legitimacy, to demonstrate to the conquered Saxons who was boss. It survived for astonishingly long, but is now pretty much an archaism. No-one (except possibly the aristocrats themselves) seriously believes any more that those ‘to the manor born’ have any innate superiority over the rest of us. Many aristocrats are dirt poor and have had to sell their ancestral piles just to put some food on the table. It’s even OK to trash-talk about the royal family (although not if you’re an outsider!).

    In fact, Zedd, I suspect that the system of royalty and nobility has a lot more currency these days among your people than it does among mine. Thoughts?

  • Chris,

    I would respond to Ruvy’s propaganda and self-serving waffle but the ship of reason and respect for others has long since left his mental harbour so there is no point.

    You weren’t addressed, Chris – no response is necessary.

  • Zedd


    I find it interesting that in Britain the most embarrassingly archaic or childish (high school) system exists among mankind. Your class structure is mind boggling when considered. You guys BELIEVE that the slight adjustments in ones speech inflections actually determine the tier that they are in (I suppose in terms of their universal significance). One’s respectability is limited by whose vagina they came out of(????). Regardless as to how useless or stupid, immoral, mean or boring one is, because someone is born of people who were born of those people, they are better than most. Some are actually paid to be better and get parades where they wave at you as a favor. What?

    I’d be more peeved about that goofiness than people’s private experiences and assessment of the cosmos. Maybe it’s just me.

  • Jet

    I think on of my early heros said it best…
    “Sfthufferin Sfthucatache”

  • Dan

    “S o c i a l i s t, okay now what?”

    word association? oh goody. um, Hitler? Stalin? parasitic government? things that lead to impoverishment?

  • Jet

    S o c i a l i s t, okay now what?

  • Zedd


    Words describe. We use them to communicate. Your defiance against using the word which describes a person like you is silly. It’s very early teen like.

    Do you realise that there are words in various cultures that describe things that don’t have a word in other cultures. There is a word in some language for the sound of satisfaction that a baby makes right after they suckle. Beautiful! Now a person in that culture could decide not to use that word because that word doesn’t exist in other languages. However, that would be dumb. Its a word that describes something. Use it. Stop the drama or goofy protest. Okay you are an atheist. Big wup.

  • Zedd


    No need to get ugly. Focus please.

    You can’t possibly agree or disagree with me for that matter, if you don’t understand what I have said. You don’t have to throw a jab to make your point more significant. No one is trying to win here. It’s all about gaining understanding.

    I am trying to understand what the spiritual is in your eyes if it has no purpose or goal. If you are simply a biological organism that happens to have an awareness of itself and can (or will eventually) analyse all that is, what purpose does it serve to be spiritual? I am not judging you, I am just trying to figure out what the point is. Basically, I am matter, there is matter everywhere, endlessly… so. Why would that invoke anything within? I really do want to understand.

    I hope that you will develop spiritually to the point where you can accept that your perspective is finite and it serves one well to be respectful and humble about matters that one doesn’t understand. Your being so dogmatic sounds just as ridiculous as people who claim healing from a prayer cloth. It just does. At least allow your curiosity to cause you to make inquiries instead of boldly deciding what the laws, even the limits of the universe are. Take a page from Dan’s book. He’s smart enough to qualify his stance. :o)

  • Dan

    Dan (Miller), “agnosticism/atheism”. Is that like being sort of pregnant?

    “Yes, that is a polite way of saying that they are wishful thinking and gibberish.”

    Thanks for your deference.

    Of course, “wishful thinking” doesn’t have much to do with ID. Design doesn’t imply an afterlife, or a reward for pleasing a creator, or even a punishment for being “happily ignorant”. Though admittedly, some think so. But then, they’re not scientists following evidence where it leads.

    “I don’t have much respect for agnosticism, which is just a convenient and lazy cop out of actually taking a position.”

    I don’t speak for all agnostics, but aside from mild enjoyment of the comical irony of theists and atheists ridiculing each others faith based beliefs, I respect the possibility of their positions while being content with the position of not taking a position.

    I’m also agnostic on the Bengals/Eagles game this weekend. Though 9.5 points, and home field advantage (such as it is) seems like a good possibility.

  • zingzing

    “thou art?”

    i don’t trust your units of measurement.

  • Clavos

    ah zing thou art too cool by far…

  • Christopher Rose,

    Should you read my comment #110 again, you will notice that it referred to “unintelligent” design (demonstrated, perhaps, by my typo in the preposition immediately preceding he word “unintelligent.” On the other hand, that may just be evidence of my laziness).

    As to “agnosticism/atheism,” it is a phrase I use to mean that I don’t know whether a god or gods exist(s), but lean toward the view that none do(es).


  • zingzing, so he did. Word blindness can strike any of us. All I can say is it’s been a long day.

    Sorry for the misread, Dan(Miller).

  • zingzing

    chris, if you pay attention, dan said “unintelligent design.” his post had, possibly, two typos, possibly one, possibly none. and by his “evidence every day,” i can only assume dan is quite regular.

    and that’s all head, baby!

    ok, and some inadvertent hand.

    the only “god” on that field was the official.

  • Zedd, no, I am saying that there is nothing to suggest that a god does exist so there probably isn’t. The fact that there is no evidence also means that your belief that there is a god is either fantasy or wishful thinking.

    I too feel connected to, to use your phrase, the big picture and am in a certain degree of awe of it. Where we differ is that you are content to make up stuff – the existence of a god – whereas I am content not to.

    It is perfectly possible and even reasonable to experience spirituality but, again, no deity is needed for that to be so.

    You are right though in saying that your statements don’t make sense. As such, I see little point in taking them seriously…

    zingzing – ouch! That still hurts. We were robbed!

    Dan, I am happily ignorant of the basics of ID and, barring the unlikely arrival of the theoretical designer, will almost certainly remain so. I can’t really comment on the rest of your words as they don’t appear to contain any meaning. Yes, that is a polite way of saying that they are wishful thinking and gibberish.

    Dan(Miller), I don’t see how you can find evidence of intelligent design without first having evidence of a designer. That’s like saying you can see evidence for a car being designed but no idea who did it. However, I am willing to spend a couple of idle moments in contemplation of any such evidence as you care to present.

    I don’t have much respect for agnosticism, which is just a convenient and lazy cop out of actually taking a position.

    As to atheism, it’s not a word I would use. I don’t see why we need it, for much the same reasons that their is no word for people who don’t believe in astrology. Except sane possibly…

  • Zedd

    errrrrrrrrr. Maybe some other time Buddy, ole Pal, Nice zing….

  • zingzing

    yesssss, zedd! bring them!

    oh, of course, i have no lawn. nor could they see me from my “front” window… which would that be? the one that looks onto my lonely courtyard? or the one in the room i never go in unless called?

    i do have bread! but no toaster… sigh…

    your followers will be mighty disappointed. also, tell them that this area is rather dangerous. there are many criminals about…

  • Jet

    Run for the hills zing!

  • Zedd


    Nope you were healed. I insist. I am bringing over multitudes to place candles and pictures of the Virgin Mary on your lawn. Perhaps you should cut out your hand print on toast. Toast always gets the masses hyped for some reason. You could charge. Simply (dramatically) brush the curtain away from your front window and place your hand on it at unpredictable intervals. You’ll have them swooning.

    I’m making the announcement tonight!

    On a brighter note, I misspell and submit comments that are sometimes jumbled up because I’m too lazy to seriously edit. I’ll change a sentence but forget to delete all of the part of what I was changing so it comes out all crazy. I should be embarrassed when I read my comments and sometimes I really am but my laziness overtakes me. The embarrassment is not enough to make me be more careful. Sad really. Not really.

  • zingzing

    clavos is cooler… than cool… or maybe he doesn’t know what nihilism is… or assumes too much… or has a bug bite he can’t scratch… at least he’s not bald… but his pants are too tight… and his socks don’t match…

  • Jet

    110-indeed so Dan

  • Clavos

    nihilism is cool…

  • zingzing

    nah, i wasn’t healed. the no capital letters thing is out of pure laziness. i quoted you, and out of that same laziness, i didn’t change your capitalization. of course, out of forgetfulness, i forgot to put your words in quotes. maybe because i was too excited to test out the hyperlink, which is also something i’m usually too lazy to bother with.

    so, NO, i am not healed. of course, it doesn’t both me, so i don’t really care.

  • Despite my agnosticism/atheism, I can find substantial evidence for the theory or unintelligent design. The evidence manifests itself daily.


  • Zedd


    I thought you didn’t do capital letters? Were you healed????? See.

  • Dan

    ” Dan, “Prominent Scientists” can sign off on all kinds of things-and still be wrong. “Argument from Authority” doesn’t really prove much.”

    Depends on what the point of argument is. If you’re arguing that “Argument from Authority” does exist, then an extensive list of authority does the trick.

    “There is a difference between blind acceptance and Faith… but is there a differnce between blind Faith and acceptance?”

    Word order?

    “There is no scientific justification for the “theory” of intelligent design unless you buy into the already unsupported notion of a creator to start with. Please join Zedd at the back of the class…”

    Not necessary. I won’t be attending your…um, “class”.

    Unless you are ignorant of the basics of ID theory, (significant possibility), you would know that ID doesn’t rely on any specific creator. The question is easily side stepped in much the same way that a Darwiniac would counter the question of how matter such as primordial soup, planets, and atmosphere, spontaniously appeared: “we’ll get back to ya on that”

    The significance of a list of prominent authority, like the one I provided, is that it puts to lie the false claim by Atheist/Evolutionists that
    ID is only a kind of desperate grasp whose sole supporters are religous extremist antagonists.

    It’s this incredulous over-reach by Atheist/Evolutionists that demonstrates to the reasoned observer their real motive: fear.

    Just to tie this in to the original topic, It’s also an incredulous over-reach by “anonymous” (red flag) Sarah Palin detractors that extremely bodacious Sarah believes Africa is only a Country.

    Anybody buyin’ that?

  • Zedd


    You are not hurting anyone directly by being the way you are. Yes your venom has a residual effect much like ones carbon footprint does on the environment, but overall, you are mad all by yourself. Your bitterness and rehashing only cheats you. No matter how angry you get or how much your stomach turns, it’s only you who feels it. The world goes on. People dance, laugh, sing, fall in love, die, give birth, despite the level of your fervor.

    You see Jews were made up. A group of people just decided to stay together and call themselves a group at some point in history. There is nothing mystical about it. You are not a monolith. You are multitudes of individuals with different personalities. Some good, some bad, some lazy, some industrious. You talk of Jews helping in the civil rights struggle as if you and all people of Jewish decent get points for that. Those were good people. Good individuals. You and your mean self don’t get points for their deeds because they were of the Jewish faith. They were individuals who were brave and did the right thing when it was hard to do so. They have nothing to do with you or Netanyahu or anyone else. You don’t get points for their sacrifices. You know that there are Jews in this country who don’t agree with Israel’s policy against the Palestinians. There are Jews in Israel who are against that policy. Are they Jew haters? No. They don’t agree with the current politics not “Jewness”. There is no Jewish way of thinking. There is no Jewish political party or ideology. By limiting who and what the Jewish people are you feed into the sick ideas of there being some big Jewish agenda.

    Your meanness and venom has nothing to do with religion. It has nothing to do with your people. It’s just you. You choose it. It feeds you and you have no identity outside of it. You are scared to let it go, like all radicals.

  • zingzing

    God however has graced me by allowing me to see his hand.

    and here it is.

  • Zedd


    Ah, so you are saying that it is you who doesn’t believe that “it” doesn’t exist. You are not saying that you KNOW that there is no such thing. In other words, you don’t know that “it” does exist. Perhaps you should behave as one who doesn’t know.

    I am not a “religious” person; not ritualistic; don’t think I know God. I do believe in God and that there is a big picture, to state it lazily. I feel connected to “that big picture” and am in awe of it’s magnitude (can’t explain it). I don’t believe that the way that we have filled in the gaps- our awareness of the divine and what His plans are for us- makes much sense (most organized religion). I think we get bits and pieces of it right but off course make up most of it to feel important and to get attention. I think there is some truth to even some of the most fundamentalist ideas but we let ego take over and the message is lost in the drama. Had I not had some personal spiritual experiences, I would be rolling my eyes along with you. Actually I roll my eyes quite a bit, even upon reading some of the responses on this thread. Unfortunately or fortunately (depending how you look at it) I was blessed to experience the amazing and cant help but to believe. I sort of hate it because I loose cool points. Religious people are often really shallow thinkers. Most of the time they come across as needy. God however has graced me by allowing me to see his hand. I am humbled and full because of it. I am grateful and hope to live out my purpose while experiencing the abundance of the joy that is in store for me.

    Doesn’t make sense. I know….

  • Golly gosh, where to start with this lot!

    Zedd, I’m not missing any theoretical possibility at all, but it simply isn’t possible to have a meaningful discussion about what may be, unless you are simply looking to have a speculative conversation. In that case, I postulate that you are entirely a figment of my alter ego’s imagination. Go to the back of the mystical class!

    Dan, just because not all scientists are committed to following a rational approach doesn’t undermine it. There are many scientists who are actually actively trying to have their cake and eat it too.

    There is no scientific justification for the “theory” of intelligent design unless you buy into the already unsupported notion of a creator to start with. Please join Zedd at the back of the class…

    Cannonshop, you attempt to paint my argument as emotionally based, as a prelude to undermining it, but you are simply leaping to that characterisation with no basis in the words I wrote.

    I am absolutely committed to the let’s find out approach but that doesn’t mean every mad cap theory has to be treated with respect.

    Your assertion that atheism is “every bit as much a RELIGION as Christianity, Satanism, Buddhism, Islam, and Shinto” is just the standard waffle trotted out by every sad faithist that desperately seeks to add a scrap of intelligence to cover their ignorance and superstition.

    Until such time as the basic claim of faithists, that there actually is a god or gods is supported, everything else they have to say lacks any credibility at all.

    Your follow up remark “It relies and insists on unproveable absolute statements and supports itself with its own dogma of faith-based assertions to prevent questioning” is simply, sorry but I can’t find a better word, bullshit.

    I would respond to Ruvy’s propaganda and self-serving waffle but the ship of reason and respect for others has long since left his mental harbour so there is no point.

  • To the rest of you reading comment #102:

    I’d prefer to write and communicate like a gentleman. But if I’m characterized as Zedd has chosen to characterize me, I’ll respond in kind.

  • Zedd,

    Reading the hate that is expressed by Ruvy and then having him say that his religion is the support for his bitter, and hateful expressions, would cause anyone to roll their eyes.

    O Zulu warrior princess.

    I don’t need “religion” to state unequivocally that western “civilization” is sluiced through and through with genocide, racism and Jew-hatred. A history book can tell me that.

    I don’t need “religion” to state that Barack Obama is a deceitful liar. Evidence of his own actions and of what he feels he needs to hide proves that.

    I don’t need “religion” to state that the only difference between Hamas and the PLO is that Hamas wants to kill and then loot, and the PLO wants to loot first, and then kill. Their behavior proves this.

    I do not need “religion” to demomnstrate that the Arab terrorists here think like savages and lie through their teeth to stupid naïve fools like you. Both their savage behavior and your blindness to their savage behavior in your comments prove my assertions.

    I don’t need “religion” to state unequivocably that the British, particularly Lord Curzon and Winston Churchill, sabotaged the Mandate in Palestine, and sabotaged the sovereign rights of the Jewish People here, rights that arose in international law, purposely distorting the trust given to Britain and violating the Mandate; finally doing an act of perfidy that the British people shall be judged for before the Almighty, shutting the doors of the only real refuge the Jewish people had – the Land of Israel.

    I do not need “religion” to prove to me that the leaders of the land I live in are bought out traitors, bought out largely by the American government. Their cowardly and suicidal behavior, consistently acting in YOUR interests rather than ours, proves this.

    I do not need “religion” to tell me that the land of your birth is going to hell in a handbasket, soon to be turned over to a thug and rapist. I do not need “religion” to tell me that the land you have adopted as your home is going to hell in a handbasket, its last bits of wealth looted by thieves in the White House and their banking friends. It’s all in the news.

    I need religion to demonstrate none of this. It’s all painfully evident from what I read on-line. My religion is the support for none of this. I see bitter truths and I tell you them. That you want to plug your ears or roll your eyes tells me more about you than me.

    So what support does my religion afford me? It reminds me always before Whom I stand; it reminds me that I’m expected to uphold certain laws and commandments; and to remember them when I arise, when I travel on the road, to teach them to my children, and to ponder them; it reminds me that no matter how much you distort my words, I cannot afford to hate you; it reminds me to hold you to the standard of the Laws of Noah, rather than the laws that I am held to; it reminds me that I am held accountable to the G-d of Israel for my deeds and for my words, and that none of either are forgotten by the G-d Who guards Israel, and Who neither slumbers nor sleeps. My religion reminds me always to seek the World of Truth, and not to be seduced by the World of Lies.

    In return, I get the spine and determination to continue to speak truth, and to tell someone like you to go try and wield your spear of hatred and lies on someone else. I could be condescending and say I feel sorry for you. But the truth is that I don’t give a damn.

  • Cannonshop

    #99 There may be. All faith is, in the end, reliant on trust. Trusting that something without clear evidence is true. “blind” faith requires a kind of Absolute trust-trust even in the face of circustances and evidence to the contrary. To have “Blind” faith, one must, by some definitions, be willing to believe in something so strongly, that prove-able contrary evidence is not merely disregarded, but actively rejected as it does not fit the paradigm of belief.

    Acceptance, on the other hand, is more or less a condition in which one finds an answer, and stops questioning. Not rejecting new, contrary data, but more or less not seeking it either. Acceptance is more passive than Blind Faith, in my opinion, as it does not require constant justifications, nor active defense. It simply is.

  • zingzing

    look, “god,” as you know him, does no exist. it’s true. think about it.

    you cannot know god.

    you don’t understand things the same way he does.

    your understanding of god, if he exists, is just as false as an atheist’s.

    anything you try to say is “god’s will,” or “god’s way,” or “god” is not god, but your idea of that will or way or god.

    you’ve confused things.

    you. don’t. know. shit.

    and the sooner you realize that, the sooner you can understand humanity.

    we–humans–are all the same. if god exists, he is quite different. you can’t think, even in your heart of hearts, that you understand anything different. you are not god, so you do not know what god is.

    just live a good life. that’s all there is. beyond that, leave it up to chance–which is the true “god,” because that’s what you’re hoping for.

  • Jet

    There is a difference between blind acceptance and Faith… but is there a differnce between blind Faith and acceptance?

  • Cannonshop

    #97 Dan, “Prominent Scientists” can sign off on all kinds of things-and still be wrong. “Argument from Authority” doesn’t really prove much.

    #94 Chris, your argument is as emotionally based as any argument I’d get from a fundie. You’re using absolutes you can’t conclusively test, or prove, to condemn people you barely even know, including most of the “Faithful” who post here. Unless you can somehow pop up with experimental evidence proving that:

    1. The universe spontaneously and without outside agency or control manifested itself

    2. there is no such thing as something we can’t measure, weigh, or test with the current technology or existing theoretical technologies.

    Your argument is absolutely faith-based, and unscientific.

    There are six words-they’re the most important words in science:

    “I don’t know, Let’s find out.”

    In your very, very, long post, you make assertions indicating you’ve already rejected the first half (“I don’t know”), and you appear condescending and contemptful toward those who may, in some way, be pursuing the second half of the key six words: “Let’s Find Out”.

    Atheism, Chris, is every bit as much a RELIGION as Christianity, Satanism, Buddhism, Islam, and Shinto. It relies and insists on unproveable absolute statements and supports itself with its own dogma of faith-based assertions to prevent questioning.

    When I make reference (in mocking tones) to people’s belief in “Their Omnipotent Imaginary Friend”, it’s non-serious. When cornered, I’ll state the same thing I know for certain I CAN prove- “I don’t Know, Let’s find out.”

  • Dan

    “Having looked it up, I can see why you would be attracted to teleology, but I can’t see any basis for it being anything more than an interesting but ultimately false concept that is perilously close to the, to my mind, discredited notion of intellignet design.”

    Here is a list of prominent scientists who do not think the notion of intelligent design has been “discredited”. They may not all be fully on board, but they are at least properly respectful of the scientific justification for the theory. They are, however, unanimous in their skepticism for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.

    The necessity of publishing a list like this seems to demonstrate a willful, ideologically biased disruption of free and open scientific inquiry.

    My take, is that it is an impressive list, but I dunno, maybe they are all just “young earth bible thumpers”.

  • Zedd

    Christopher Rose

    “A scientific or rational approach can and eventually will come to understand and explain everything.”

    It depends on what you mean by that. If you are saying that at some point we would be able to make models which could predict what will happen, I would have to disagree. That would be the only way to explain everything. If you are saying that we will be able to understand HOW everything happens, you may be right. But that still doesn’t speak to the WHY. Those who have a certain spiritual sensibility are intrigued by that notion. Science can’t answer that unless god (that which intended the universe to be) gives an interview.

  • Zedd


    You are missing the possibility that there may be an experience out there that you may not have been privy to yet. It may be possible that we human beings possess a sense that can’t as of yet be quantified, which links us to whatever universal element that is out there. Because you have not discovered that within yourself doesn’t mean that it doesn’t or can’t exist. You may be missing out on the most powerful possession or capability that our species has.

    However, the dogma that is spewed by so many would cause one to think that religion is for dummies. Reading the hate that is expressed by Ruvy and then having him say that his religion is the support for his bitter, and hateful expressions, would cause anyone to roll their eyes. Yes people do use religion as a tool to make them feel better than others. It’s used as something to rally around. It is used as a social club. It is used as a legitimizer. Every kook claims to have a word from the divine. But don’t we do that with every possession? Cars don’t just represent the utility that they provide. Neither do our, homes, clothing, or even our bodies. We use what we have to make ourselves seem better than others, or to fit in to a particular “club”. We can’t however dismiss the usefulness of any either of this things simply because they are used for purposes other than their basic function.

  • Cannonshop, I don’t accept your setup about the questions science and religion ask, so once again, the argument doesn’t stand up.

    As far as I’m aware of the monotheistic position, what is right and wrong is spelled out in the dogma and there is precious little questioning going on. After all, a questioning approach is always going to undermine the dogma.

    Furthermore, there is no need for religion to be involved in addressing the issues of right and wrong.

    Science isn’t the whole of rationality, it’s simply a tool or process for understanding whatever is being examined or researched.

    I don’t believe I’ve said that science should be used to prove the existence of gods, but the fact of the matter is that there is no evidence of any kind whatsoever that they do indeed exist – unless you buy into the dogma in the first place and believe it uncritically. You call that faith but I see it as a big lie.

    It is absolutely not the role of religion or philosophy to tell us what something is for. That, as always, is a human judgement call.

    Baronius, it’s just so predictable that you would chime in support of Cannonshop argument, but your thinking is obviously distorted by the preconceptions you bring to the subject.

    As I believe I’ve told you before, I’ve no objection in principle to believing in the existence of gods or even worshipping them if that is what they require. On the other had, short of performing some mind-bending assault on reason, I can’t find anything in any of your arguments to support that case. Just because you were taught something doesn’t mean it is true.

    There is no supernatural, so once again, there is no role for religion, except as a force for ignorance and manipulation.

    Having looked it up, I can see why you would be attracted to teleology, but I can’t see any basis for it being anything more than an interesting but ultimately false concept that is perilously close to the, to my mind, discredited notion of intellignet design.

    You can try and persuade yourself that my approach is simplistic all you want but it is just another self-serving argument in support of your already made up mind.

    Equally, you can try and hang onto some philosophical framework all you want, but philosophy is absolutely not a science, so it is yet another self serving and circular argument in support of your dogma.

    I can’t find any meaning in your statement that “science can’t exist without a philosophical structure”. Of course it can, science is simply trying to explain the universe we live in.

    Philosophy is just a bunch of waffle and opinion based on absolutely nothing, rather like your religion, which is presumably why you are trying so hard to elevate it.

  • I have to side with Baronius on this one. There’s a reason why science was once known as ‘natural philosophy’.

    Science – or at any rate the scientific method – is philosophy. It is, just like any other philosophical discipline, a way of looking at and making sense of the universe. What differentiates it from the likes of Bergson, Leibniz, (some) Aristotle, Plato and other cobblers is that in science we seem to have finally hit on a philosophy which actually works, eschews cloud cuckoo land and delivers practical results.

  • Baronius

    Chris, in that last comment, I wasn’t trying to write past you. I guess I didn’t refresh my page for an hour. That being said, philosophy isn’t a science, but science can’t exist without a philosophical structure. Science becomes just a random collection of facts. Aristotle points to this when he labels philosophy as “first philosophy” and science as “second philosophy”. Science requires a unifying structure.

  • Baronius

    Cannon – Great. Great stuff. The way I learned it is that science deals with the natural, and religion deals with the supernatural. Natural being defined as that which almost always happens. Nature is the repeatable or verifiable. Super-nature is by definition unverifiable by science, because it can’t be repeated.

    I do think there’s too much emphasis on the differences between religion and science, though. I’ve been banging my head against the concept of teleology recently, which if I understand it correctly could significantly break down those barriers. Then there’s the matter of Scholastic philosophy, which teaches that all means of knowing the truth must point to the same truth, since truth cannot be contradictory. Also, as I stated earlier, within philosophy, there can be integration between the philosophies of religion and of science.

    There’s so much to this. The more you look into it, the more maddening Christopher’s simplistic approach is.

  • Baronius, fascinating but one major flaw. Philosophy is not a science so everything you wrote is false.

    Religion and science aren’t contradictory for the same reason, religion is false too. I note that you switched in faith for religion too, which kind of proves my point. you aren’t thinking logically, you’re presumably trying to find a way to defend your own “faith”.

    I’m taking a break now but I’ll be back later tonight to see what else, if anything, you’ve got.

  • Cannonshop,

    Agreeing with you almost 100% – except that science and religion have the same basic sources of wisdom at base, and while they do different tasks, they can be convergent where appropriate.

    It is certainly not the job of science to attempt to prove the Divinity. What can be proven is events in history.

  • Since most scholars agree that Exodus was written some time between 1500BC and 400BC, and that the Turin Kings List (which presumably is the ‘Book of Kings’ referred to) probably dates from the reign of Rameses II in the 12th century BC, and that the authors of the former lived in the territory of the latter, why is it surprising that the two documents have a degree of correlation?

  • Cannonshop

    A lot of people seem confused about Religion and Science-not just Religionists, but also those who try to replace it with Science.

    Science asks “What is it, how does it work?”

    Religion asks “What is right, what is wrong?”

    you can’t scientifically determine what is morally right-science doesn’t work that way. Science can tell you how your brain works, but it can’t tell you what you SHOULD be thinking, see?

    Further, once you get to the point you can’t observe, science is pretty much paralyzed.

    1. Observe the Phenomena
    2. Make Hypothesis
    3. Test Hypothesis
    4. Peer Review (with testing)
    5. Process of Elimination-it fails the test, the hypothesis is wrong.
    6. Repeat for Verification.

    You can’t test a hypothesis if you can’t observe the test.

    The Hierarchy of what is verified scientifically is generally classed as followed:

    1. Hypothesis-an informed guess that is untested.
    2. Theory-an Hypothesis that has managed to pass through testing, verification, peer review, and verification.
    3. “Law” a Theory that influences other Theories, is reliable, has been tested, verified, retested, reviewed, reverified, and then verified in a previously thought unrelated experiment. (Gravitation is an example of this, as are the equations controlling electromagnetic interactions, as well as basic thermodynamics.)

    The existence or non-existence of a god, much less the god of the Abrahamite religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Satanism) can not be tested, it can not be peer reviewed, it can not be retested, it can not be observed reliably using scientific means, methods, or techniques.

    This does not mean it/he/she/whatever does not exist, it simply means that scientifically, one can neither prove, nor disprove, said deity’s existence in a scientific manner…but then, that’s not the job of Science anyway.

    The job of science is to tell us how something works, what it’s made out of, and what it does. what it’s “FOR” is not a job for science, it’s the job of philosophy or religion- methods that do not require scientific rigour, but instead require Faith and inward examination.

  • Baronius

    Chris – I’ve been reading a little Aristotle recently. I think it’d help you to understand what we’re talking about. The idea is that any study, any science, is the development of a set of rules which characterize that field correctly. Above any such set of rules has to be a set of rules which organizes those sets correctly. That top set of rules is the field of philosophy. Philosophy allows one to integrate sciences. Indeed, the definition of the word “science” is beyond the scope of any science; the task falls to philosophers.

    An integrated philosophy may be theistic, atheistic, or agnostic. The only requirement is that it must be consistent. Glenn and Ruvy each have their own theistic philosophies which are compatible with science (as you or I would define the term). The fact that your philosophy sees theism as an intrusion, or a contradiction to science, doesn’t change the fact that their philosophies don’t.

    Your error isn’t in religion or science, but in philosophy. You’ve prejudged religion and science to be contradictory, and (rightly) no amount of religion or science can change that view. But you don’t need to understand data of religion or science. You need to understand philosophy better.

    (This is so hard. If I understood philosophy better, I could explain it adequately. If I understood theoretical physics, I could approach the questions posed by Glenn and Ruvy. Really, this is more a response to Rose’s comment, which does a good but not perfect job of addressing religion and science. I think Rose needs to take one step further back.)

    Chris, you’d recognize the irrationality in the following statement:

    “Faith can and eventually will come to understand and explain everything.”

    Yet you make the exact same irrational statement about science:

    “A scientific or rational approach can and eventually will come to understand and explain everything.”

    I think it’s because you lack the philosophical framework that would allow you to catch such wild assertions.

  • agree with you about the level of metaphor in Genesis as well. The six days of creation, the flood, and much else HAD to be metaphor…for in the physical world these would have been impossible.

    Don’t confuse yourself over what I wrote, Glenn.

    No normative rabbi (I’m not talking about “conservative”, “reform” or “reconstructionist” rabbis) will ever say that the Bible is mere metaphor. He will state that a given portion, the Creation Story in Genesis, is cloaked in parable – but never will you hear any rabbi say that the Bible is mere metaphor. Looking forward, you will see “Six Days” – six ages of verying lengths that bring you to the point where a neshamá a spirit that communicates with G-d, is put into a man. Looking backwards, you will be counting 15 billion years to the Big Bang from the day that the neshamá had been implanted in a man.

    These numbers are not “me too” numbers that rabbis have adopted from scientists – they were found centuries before the boys in the lab coats started trying to figure up the age of the universe.

    The length of lunation – the average time it takes for the moon to go round the earth – an average that scientists cannot reasonably estimate without the aid of a computer – was discovered long ago encoded in the Torah and was used by the High Priest to declare a new moon when witnesses could not be found. I want to emphasize this point. The Levites who served as “ministers” to the Children of Israel were NOT astronomers. They were not naming stars like the Arabs later did. They were priests who looked in the scroll for the data – and who passed the data down orally, from father to son.

    There was a flood – there is physical evidence of one in addition to many “myths” of one throughout the world. The question I raise is the length of the amót, the cubits, mentioned in the Torah with respect to how high the water went, and how large the boat was. The Sumerians have a Flood tale that tallies in many ways with our own, and indicates that the so-called Sumerian “gods” were not gods at all, but people with very advanced technology.

    The Exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt is truth. Archeological evidence has been found of an Egyprian prime minister or vizier who saved Egypt from a famine, and who lived 110 years. Evidence has been found in the Egyptian Book of Kings of an Egyptian pharoah, Pepi II, who ruled for 94 years. The Midrash states that the pharaoh who ruled Egypt and who enslaved the Israelites ruled for 94 years. Evidence has been found in the Egyptian Book of Kings of this pharaoh’s son, who was a midget. The Midrash states that Moses was able to step on the pharaoh from whom he demanded the freedom of his fellow Israelites. There was no ruler of Egypt after this midget mentioned for about 400 years except for a queen who succeeded the midget.

    Women were not supposed to rule Egypt at all.

    As evidence accretes, it becomes clearer and clearer that the Torah is not mere metaphor at all.

    But some deluded souls will not hear of this at all. De Nial does not flow merely in Egypt. It is a river of stupidity and blindness found world wide.

  • Jet

    Oh… and two paragraphs in 66 as well… sorry

  • Jet

    Which brings us back to my post #62 and 63, a paltry few paragraphs-not a 2000 sermon Chris.

  • Apologies in advance for the mild “conflict” but I think this

    Both science and spirituality are the search for truth. One is the search for the truths of the physical world; the other the search for the truth of the nature of consciousness. As such there is no conflict between them.

    is wrong.

    Science is a search for understanding about and of how things are. This quite easily encompasses both the physical world and, to use your words, “the nature of consciousness”.

    There is an obvious spirituality and reverence for the phenomenon of life all around us. The stars, planets and all life is essentially the same stuff; we are one, if you like.

    I think that is why many people feel a very powerful urge to be part of something much larger than just their own life. The answer, to me at least, is that we all already are.

    The annoying and even offensive thing about religion is that it co-opts this rational feeling, to coin a phrase, in service to a false proposition.

    A scientific or rational approach can and eventually will come to understand and explain everything.

  • Rose

    This is an interesting bit from a scientist by the name of Russell Peters. Rather than bickering over the details he takes a more pragmatic view. Although meditation does not seem adaptable to my Western mind I see his point quite clearly.

    Science and Spirituality

    Both science and spirituality are the search for truth. One is the search for the truths of the physical world; the other the search for the truth of the nature of consciousness. As such there is no conflict between them.

    For the same reason, there is currently little meeting between the two either. The current scientifc paradigm does not include consciousness or mind as a fundamental reality, but seeks to explain everything in physical terms. Western science has now looked out to the edges of the Universe, back in time to the beginning of creation, and down into the sub-atomic structure of matter; and it finds no place, nor need, for God. But this is because it has not yet included the inner realm of mind in its scope. When science explores mind as fully as it has explored space, time and matter, it will create a new worldview„one that includes spirituality.

    Spirituality, on the other hand, is often very unscientific in its approach to self-liberation. People believe things simply because someone has said it or written it. But this is hardly the best way to arrive at truth. The Buddha warned against this 2,500 years ago when he said “Do not believe anything because I have told you it is so. Only believe it when you have tested it for yourself.” In this respect spiritual growth can, and should, be very scientific. We can form a hypothesis — that certain meditation practices enhance awareness, for example — set up a personal experiment in meditation practice, and see what the results are. This is important not only to make sure that we do not deceive ourselves, but also to ensure that our spiritual progress is as rapid as possible. And rapid spiritual growth is something the world today needs very badly

  • Whooo – I knew there’d be people snorting in derision at my post, but I didn’t think they’d start throwing things at each other….

    Chris – “I couldn’t prove He exists…but I presented what may very well be His footprints….” That’s the pertinent statement. EVERYthing came from SOMEthing. If MWI is right – and if you want to argue that it isn’t, then go tell Hawking why it ain’t – then all is predetermined…but on a scale we never dreamt. Could there be a non-religious reason for MWI’s predetermination? Sure. But religion’s been telling us for thousands of years about predetermination, and science indicated that predetermination was a crock…until MWI came along. Like I said – not proof of God’s existence…but possible metaphorical footprints that He left behind.

    Ruvy – The Church of which I am a member believes that much within the Bible is parable or metaphor, particularly Revelation. I agree with you about the level of metaphor in Genesis as well. The six days of creation, the flood, and much else HAD to be metaphor…for in the physical world these would have been impossible.

    C-shop – I don’t hate Sarah Palin, nor do I condemn her. I say she’s a hypocrite, but when it comes to condemnation…let me quote Obama: “That’s above my paygrade.” If you ask a member of the Church whether someone is saved or not, in every case we will tell you that we don’t know. Paul tells us that he may judge those within the Church, but he cannot judge those outside the Church.

    Don’t ever accuse me of hating anyone. I do not hate. That, sir, is only your ASSUMPTION. I might grow very angry, even enraged, out of control, even murderous if it concerned heinous crimes or dangers against my family…but ‘hate’? No. I do not hate. To me, true hate leads one to cause pain simply for the sake of causing pain.

    You could say there are a few I despise for what they have done…but even that wouldn’t include Palin. More than anything else I recognize her hypocrisy, the danger she presents to America, the Constitution, and freedom, and her own lack of self-awareness. She neither knows her own level of ignorance nor understands why there should be any concern by herself or others about her ignorance.

    That in and of itself, C-shop, should alarm you greatly.

  • zingzing

    ha! that was good stuff.

  • Jet,

    G-d didn’t need tools to fix the earth or the people on it Ruvy.

    You’re right, of course. But reading between the lines, what I see is that….

    you’re mad at G-d, and all these questions are just another way of shaking your fist at Him.

    This is good. If you shake your fist in rage at G-d, at least you do believe in Him – and my wife points out that at least you are getting that anger out, too.

    Just a thought from your friends in Samaria.

    Shabbat Shalom,
    Ruvy & Adina

  • Jet

    I haven’t been to sleep yet and it’s past 9AM here.

  • Jet

    Soooooo… what you’re admitting is that almighty god created something that was flawed… not perfect… needed repair?

    See the problem with your “Explanations” are that they wander off on other tangents hoping the reader won’t notice you’ve skirted the original and VERY BASIC issue.

    God can only creat perfect things, not flawed things…

    He is god isn’t he

    Did someone in central casting not pick the right one to play God.

    Charlton Heston wasn’t born yet?

  • Jet

    God didn’t need tools to fix the earth or the people on it Ruvy.

  • Jet

    Okay “dumb Jew” God created the world, he didn’t need to put anyone on a boat, he could’ve waved his mighty hand and divorced the earth of all that he dispised, saving all that was good,

    WITHOUT REQUIRING A HANDMADE BOAT, and the hassle of collecting everything two-by-two.

    And how did we know other men didn’t make their own boats and survived the flood?

    The proof is they didn’t need a damned boat, since god was watching over them.

    …or was that something that god couldn’t do?

  • Jet,

    If I remember right, you were a sculptor or an artist of a similar nature. If something doesn’t necessarily come out right, would you out of hand destroy it, or conserve what you could, and fix what needed to be fixed, using such tools as you deemed necessary?

  • Jet

    You just called yourself a dumb Jew, and you’re bitching about how everyone treats you?

  • Jet,

    Why later did He flood our planet to wipe out His (inconceivable considering he’s G-d) mistakes to start over, instead of just blowing it up Sodom and Gamorah style and starting over a 3rd? or 4th? time?

    You were a seminary student, Jet? You don’t know the answer to this? Even a dumb Jew who knows virtually nothing, like me, can tell you.

    Genesis 6:5 – “And G-d saw that the evil of man was great in the land and every product of his thoughts were only evil all day.”

    So He decided to rid the planet of people and their contamination, leaving fish to survive. Why destroy everything, in other words, when fish could evolve into something better? Or, if the idea that only the Middle East was to be destroyed (discussed above in comment #65), the surviving Children of Cain could possibly do a better job of it, in spite of the bad example Cain had set?

    Recreating an entire planet from nothing just might not have been in G-d’s plan.

  • bliffle

    An explanation of the double-slit experiment is in Wikipedia here

    As usual in so many scientific experiments, the results often modify the underlying theory, and often lead to variations on the original, suggesting that one be judicious in drawing conclusions based on experimental results.

  • Zedd


    I don’t think that most ministers of the gospel are con men. Most believe. There are multitudes however, of jerks. There are also a lot of nut cases who align themselves with a deity in order to claim the ultimate mandate. Which brings to mind the British monarch. They have basically said that they are cool because god said they are and you guys have to feed them and their progeny for all eternity. I haven’t seen your rants about them. Did I miss that piece?

    Faith comes from human beings understanding that there has to be a prime mover and that not everything is quantifiable; that reductionism doesn’t work. There are factors that cause a massive change in the progression or expected evolution of things that create the unimaginable. They see that to be the hand of a designer. Then there is the spiritual element that cant be quantifiable. When you experience it, you just know.

    Off course you don’t believe. But don’t knock it simply because you don’t get it. Live and let live.

  • Jet,

    You assert that there was a supernova here prior to the sun, and suggest that the proof is found in the gold wedding bands my wife and I wear. I’m not inclined to argue, being somewhat less educated in cosmology than you are. But I’ve never seen this assertion before, and would like to ask a friend of mine who is an amateur astronomer.

    He could search the literature faster than I possibly could, or ask friends of his.

    What I did say is that there may be other events that occurred that caused this kind of disturbance in the solar system that would create heavy elements. There may be more than one way to skin a cat.

    Of course, if you are right, you have the basis for one kick-ass article on cosmology.

  • Jet

    Ruvy, trust me I already know that you give people headaches without even answering their questions.

    It’s been a given for some time.

  • Jet

    Ruvy, the sun uses helium to make other elements by smashing them together using gravity. Heavy metals need either a very massive star, or the intense gravity well of a collapsing star just before it explodes in a supernova.

    Our sun is too small and once it does die in about 5 billion years, it’ll probably throw off its extra mass and rather than explode, it’ll expand and then contract into a dwarf star and eventually fizzle.

  • Jet, come to this posting with a clear mind a strong cup of coffee, not to mention a magnifying glass. You’ll need all three. And don’t tell me to provide the Cliff Notes version, either. This IS the Cliff Notes version.

    My understanding of cosmology, chemistry or geology is not good enough to debate your assertions about a supernova being a prior tenant in this region of the galaxy. Let it simply stand that a supernova is not the only possibility for the production of heavy elements in the solar system. There may have been other disturbing factors. Absent evidence of a supernova, the assertion of one in the neighborhood is tenuous.

    Therefore assumptions that are built upon that assertion, i.e. – God destroyed the previous star in favor of the one we have now, because the one we have now would hold and support life better – are equally tenuous.

    But that is not the real question you are tossing out, is it?

    We do not know the actual events that occurred with respect to the Flood. A careful reading of the Hebrew can indicate that the Flood was only in the Middle East, and could have been coincident with the overflow of the Atlantic into the Mediterranean when the last ice age finally came to an end. There are enough Flood “myths” world wide to indicate that one did occur, but the devil is always in the details.

    Then there is the matter of the tevá, the ark. Its measurements in the standard cubits that we believe to have been in use do not make sense. One would need a far larger boat to accomplish the purpose sought, even only for animals in the Middle East (the largest of which would have been camels [2], horses [2], cave bears [2] and lions [2]). There are other problems with the amót (cubits) in the story of the Flood, but I don’t want to give you a headache – yet.

    Then there is the issue of the destruction of S’dóm and Amorá (Sodom and Gomorrah). The ground near the Dead Sea was high in radioactivity even before the Dimona nuclear plant was built. Why?

    Events occurred around the Dead Sea which are not clear, and which indicate a far more careful reading of the texts (not the so-called Higher Criticism garbage) is required, along with a very careful look at the original stories other than the Torah of events in the region. For this, you need to look at the stories of the Sumerians.

    Jet, you speculate into G-d’s motives without a clear mirror of the events described in the Torah. Speculating with a clear mirror is bad enough (something you criticize me of), but with an unclear mirror? Let me illustrate just looking at a few lines in the Torah itself.

    Genesis 1:1 With Wisdom G-d created the heavens and the earth.

    This is a general statement, giving a basic background into how G-d accomplished the ex-nihilo task of creating the universe. The translation “in the beginning” is just plain wrong – the word b’reshít is not a grammatical fit in Hebrew and ought to be b’rishoná. The term Wisdom is drawn from one of the very few other places where reshít occurs in the Bible, and how it is translated and understood – Wisdom or Prime Cause.

    Genesis 1:2 v’ha’áretz hayitá tóhu v’bóhu v’Hóshekh ‘al p’nei ha’t’húm v’rúaH elohí-m m’raHéfet ‘al p’nei ha’máyim

    I go to the Hebrew here because many translations can be pulled out of these words. In normal use, ha’áretz means “the land”. But there is no land yet! So to translate this as “and the land” is a mistranslation.

    tóhu v’bóhu is generally used in Hebrew to indicate Chaos, complete and absolute disorder in things. (the other term commonly used, balagán, is from Russian, and just means a ballsup, terribly common among a disorganized people like Israelis). Could tóhu v’bóhu mean the absolute disorder of electrons jumping around like madmen just seconds after the Big Bang? This seems to be the most promising way to look at all of this.

    Finally, we get “and the Divine Spirit (or a Divine Wind) hovered above the surface of the waters”, which is the basic translation of v’rúaH elohí-m m’raHéfet ‘al p’nei ha’máyim. Water? That’s hydrogen and oxygen. You don’t get to oxygen on the periodic table until you get to helium. It’s heavier. Whatever this actually means, water formed billions of years after the chaos immediately following the Big Bang! So, in one single sentence, the Torah has spanned bilions of years. Mind you, this is within the sentence itself.

    Genesis 1:3 And G-d said ‘let there be light’, and there was light.

    This event could (according to Kabbalists, m’kubalím) have occurred as long as 30 billion years ago, before the Big Bang itself, 15 billion years later. On the other hand, not all scholars agree with this. The Kabbalistic interpretation I suggest is counter-intuitive to the seeming natural order of events, one after another, and could also refer to the creation of photons (which presumably would have been a near immediate result of the Big Bang).

    This is just the first three lines of the Torah stripped of all the Bible thumping lieralism that “people who can draw their moral lessons in no other way” use. Do you wonder why Maimonides, the greatest Jewish rabbi who ever lived, called the Creation “a story cloaked in parables”?

    Now, you have my permission to have a headache from all this. And I haven’t even attempted to answer you!

  • Baronius: my two lines words in #53 are everything I would care to say on the subject. Who needs an article in any section of this site to say that?

    You clearly are happy to wallow in your mystical obscurantism but I much prefer to bathe in the light of knowledge.

    Clavos: Trust me, having read every single one of your comments here, I know you pretty well. Grumpy old man is your preferred style of expression…

  • Jet

    Ruvy, your logic gets more and more twisted, it’s like blaming car accidents on Chistians because the vast majority of people who are involved in them are christian.

    the vast majority of bank robbers are probably christian too, but that’s no excuse to blame them…

  • Jet

    Ruvy, there is one irrefutable fact. Our star is too small to have produced heavy metals like lead, Iron and gold etc. when it formed. The resulting debris cloud that formed the planets wouldn’t have them either. The only way they could’ve been present when earth was formed was by the supernova explosion of a star that held this real estate where we live now billions of years ago.

    Only then could the heavy metals such as iron could’ve formed in the intense gravity of the collapse of the previous star.

    So let’s say God destroyed the previous star in favor of the one we had now, because the one we have now would hold and support life better.

    Why later did he flood our planet to wipe out his “inconceivable considering he’s god) mistakes to start over, instead of just blowing it up Sodom and Gamorah style and starting over a 3rd? or 4th? time?

  • Glenn,

    Having read your various posts on the matter here, I’m not going to argue religion with you. Suffice it to to say that you are a believer, and man enough to admit when you are wrong; a trait I’ve not seen in certain non-believers whose names need not be mentioned here.

    Like you, I believe in G-d, and like you I believe that science and religion work convergently, rather than in opposition to each other.

    I frankly do not think you can use science to prove G-d’s existence. The limitations that we have as humans, the blinkers we all have, prevent that.

    But, I would also suggest to you that you can prove the concept of “free will” on a molecular level.

    The book, “The Truth of the Bible Code”, also known as “Cracking the Bible Code”, by Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, deals with this, explaining the behavior of molecules, and how they do not act in a fashion that would indicate “predestination”.

    In recommending this book to you, I’m not pushing the beliefs that I have respecting equal letter skip messages encoded in the Torah. That is an entirely separate issue. Although that is the main topic of the book, it has a rich series of appendices that give a very different view of the convergence of religion and science from the kind usually seen. The last chapter or penultimate chapter of Dr. Satinover’s book deals with the molecular behavior I described. This book is not the easiest read, but the appendices alone make it well worth buying.

    I leave which Christian you choose to condemn – or not condemn – to you. This is your bailiwick, not mine. I had hoped that Sarah Palin, even though many of her beliefs are anti-thetical to mine, was a person who could be made to understand my political message with respect to Israel, or more precisely the political message that those with whom I agree carry. But she proved an inept campaigner, and incapable of combatting Mr. Obama. And truly, the race was between her and Mr. Obama, even though McCain topped the Republican ticket.

    And that race is over.

    Now we all get to live – or die – with the consequences.

  • Cannonshop

    Apologies, guys, I’m a bit wiped out and probably not thinking, or posting clearly tonight. I’m off to bed.

  • Jet

    There’s a coherent sentence in there somewhere, you just have to look for it.

  • Jet

    Cannon, it’s not that fundies can’t separate God from State, it’s that they didn’t know that there was a difference, and are fighting to keep the heathens from taking away the fact that state and church are one entity.

  • Cannonshop

    #39 Put gently, Glenn…

    Bullshit. You claim it’s because you hate “Hypocrisy”, but the truth is, you hate Sarah Palin, and you’ve hated her since she was first revealed as McCain’s number-two. If you hated “Religious Hypocrisy” where’s the venom for Joe “Devout Catholic-except when it’s not convenient” Biden? I Get that she’s not your brand of christian, Glenn. Perhaps if I were entrapped and enraptured with belief in the one, specific, all-powerful imaginary friend I could have more sympathy for views relating to percieved heresies, but you’re flaying the wrong fish-unless god’s willing to step in with a signed affidavit supporting your view on what is, and isn’t christian, (which, come to think of it, might be questionable in itself-supposedly Hell got all the Lawyers…) You’re basically trying to rend someone you don’t even know for saying something in a soundbite you don’t happen to think is “christian” because it’s in support of a war you, Glenn, oppose.

    And people tell me Fundies can’t separate god from State…

  • Clavos


    How would you know?

  • Baronius

    Chris – Yeah, I’ve got a pretty good idea of what your article would be. You make that same argument a lot. It just doesn’t really belong in the Politics section.

  • Glenn, that wasn’t a remotely coherent explanation of either science or your belief in the existence of a deity. Please ignore the muppets who can’t actually hold an online conversation and have another go…

  • Baronius, here’s your article: There are no gods, despite the efforts of a bunch of manipulative con men to take advantage of a bunch of well intentioned but vulnerable to superstition people.

    Suss, I think you should stick to writing about American Rugby.

    Clavos, you think? Occasionally.

  • Lee Richards


    It seems contradictory to claim that God predetermines(that is foreordains)”everything in every reality” but that you can, by your choice and force of effort, choose the reality that you want. How do you and God work that out?

    And, if the theory of MWI as you have stated it, turns out by observation and experimentation to be demostrably factual, wouldn’t it work just as well or maybe better with a natural rather a supernatural explanation?

  • Clavos

    That WAS funny, Suss!

  • *chuckle*

    Many’s the time I saw some nut-job fundamentalist trying to use science to ‘prove’ God, and I’d always laugh about it.

    Now I’M in the same position…so I’d better learn to laugh at myself, huh? That should teach me a lesson about mocking others….

    For all the naysayers, I challenge you to disprove MWI…and if you can’t, then all of existence on every reality is predetermined. Google it, do the research, and think objectively for yourselves.

    It’s not as if I trust my eternal soul to Stephen Hawking – I certainly don’t! I have faith for my own reasons – and Christopher asked me to (in so many words) ‘prove’ God exists. I couldn’t prove He exists…but I presented what may very well be His footprints….

    Prove MWI wrong, and then let’s talk.

  • Baronius

    Matthew, hilarious. I actually “LOL”-ed.

  • Rose already has completed such an article. Much like his opinion of God, the article doesn’t exist.

  • Baronius

    Christopher, why don’t you write an article on religion and post it in the Culture section?

  • Rose

    I think were GC is going with this (and quantum physics) is that how the quantum packets of light behave appears to be predicated upon whether they are observed or not. When observed light behaved as descrete particles. Take away the observation and the light flowed like water, and ceased behaving as matter.

    The conclusion that is being arrived at is that the fundimental building block of the universe isn’t matter but consciousness. And so everything has conciousness but in varying degrees of complexity. And matter cannot exist without consciousness. Ergo, god… or some such creating force.

  • Glenn, where did you see that description of the double-slit experiment? Or have you tried it yourself?

    The double-slit experiment that I’m aware of creates not four bands of light, but an alternating pattern of light and dark bands, and is the classic demonstration of the wave nature of light.

    Furthermore, if the photons change to every possible state, logically in this experiment we would not see only four bands of light, but rather a diffuse glow.

    (I’m rather hoping Duane will tootle along at some point to contribute his usual commonsense scientific assessment to the discussion.)

  • Lee Richards

    “And predetermination by a higher power has long been the province of God.”

    Glenn, with this statement, you move from the science of theoretical physics to the untestable realm of metaphysics.

    You don’t believe in your religion because of light particles. Better to just express your faith and address your doubts.

  • Glenn, so basically your belief in the existence of gods is based on a theoretical statistical possibility? Convincing stuff, sign me up!

  • Chris #39 –

    You asked – so please be patient.

    I really try to base my beliefs on fact, rather than base facts on my belief. I’ve been a member of the Church since the early 90’s, and I’ll spare you the doctrine that keeps me strong therein (unless you ask for it, in which I’ll happily help you find it).

    But one of my major goals in life is to be a published writer (just like a million other nobodies, I know). Last year I was perusing some of the most recent quantum physics research and I found something very interesting.

    Before you read any further, go get some coffee. You’ll need it.

    Ever hear of the double-slit experiment? You probably have, but if you haven’t I’ll explain. That’s the one where a light is shone through a slit, and then through another two slits. The light that comes out of the two slits should be only two bars of light…but there are four bars of light that shine through.

    That’s one of the major proofs espoused by those who support something called the “Many Worlds Interpretation”, or MWI for short. Before you dismiss this out of hand, be aware that Stephen Hawking also supports this theory.

    MWI holds that when a quantum particle changes state, it changes not just to one other state…but to every other possible state, thus explaining the double-slit experiment above. We can see the results of one new state of the particle, but every other state is each in its own new reality. In other words, every time a quantum particle changes state, it changes state in to every other possible state, and a new reality branches from each of those states…and this would hold true for every quantum particle in this universe and every other reality which obeys the laws of quantum physics

    Which would mean that not only would a new reality be created in every quantum moment for every new quantum state for every quantum particle in the universe…and for every possible combination of possible quantum states for every quantum particle in the universe.

    Hey – I’m NOT making this stuff up, mind you!

    To put it in simpler terms, the explosion of new realities in every single moment of quantum time under MWI would be to the Big Bang as the Big Bang is to a single electron.

    You can visualize it like this: the trunk of a tree is the original reality. Each time a quantum particle changes state, a number of branches begin, this number of branches equal to the number of possible states…and a new set of branches comes from each branch, each discrete moment in quantum time.

    It’s possible for us to know what is in the past. Quantum particles can be entangled across time, so we can theoretically access information from further down the trunk of the tree of reality…but if we accessed information from quantum particles entangled with particles from a future branch, we could never know if that branch is the one where we – you and I – would recognize as ‘our reality’.

    If MWI is right, then it is almost certain that in some reality, you ARE the world’s dictator-for-life, and in another one you’re a beggar, and in another one you’re…well, use your imagination, for the possibilities really are infinity minus one (but of course there is NO guarantee that any of those possibilities actually exist).

    Okay – follow me so far?

    Now what could all this possibly have to do with religion? Easy. If every quantum particle MUST change state into EVERY possible new state, then the process is PREDETERMINED in every sense of the word…and that would mean that everything in every reality is predetermined.

    And predetermination by a higher power has long been the province of God.

    Take two aspirin and reply in the morning.

    P.S. Before you get the notion that since all is predetermined, that we no longer have a choice in our actions, I mulled over that one too for some time…and came to realize that while “I” will end up on every possible branch downstream from “me” on the tree of realities, I can, by choice and force of effort, can choose which downstream branch that I wind up on.

    Hey – you asked for it. Careful what you ask for….

  • Lee Richards

    Re #36:

    Dave, Why don’t you tell us precisely what she does believe about God and his will for her and the world, including her beliefs about the Almighty’s views on science, education, human freedom, and constitutional government?

    Every self-centered utterance she makes(those that are half-way coherent anyway) indicates a mind preoccupied with being on a mission from God.

  • Clavos


  • Go on then, as talking seriously about Palin is about as worthwhile as watching a tree grow, albeit less pleasant, I’ll bite.

    This is meant as a fairly serious question rather than simply taking a cheap shot. I could understand somebody being an admirer of Jesus Christ (setting aside any questions as to his actual existence or not) but don’t get why any genuinely intelligent or even mildly curious person could actually believe in the existence of gods?

  • C-shop and Dave –

    Why do I find Palin’s quote offensive, and why do I feel justified? Easy. I take my Christianity quite seriously.

    IMO, a REAL Christian would NEVER make such a statement unless that is precisely what that Christian believed. A Christian doesn’t make off-the-cuff throwaway remarks concerning what is and what is not God’s will. A Christian has reverent fear of God and everything that has to do with God.

    Every time one invokes the Name of God or claims what is or is not His will, one had better be completely sober and solemnly serious about it.

    That, sirs, is why I feel no compunction about exposing what I strongly feel to be hypocrisy on Palin’s part…and on the part of everyone who has ever made such statements in a manner unworthy unto our Almighty God.

    Both of you are probably feeling a cynical bile rising right now. If you want to turn this into a religious discussion I’m happy to do so, for I’m stronger on religion than on any other subject. I think it’s best, though, to keep our focus on politics, on the purpose of this section of BC.

  • Cannonshop

    #36 Dave, taking people out of context is a time-honoured tradition in Politics, just like invoking god is a time-honoured tradition in war.

    The belt buckle motto of the german army after Bismark was “Gott Mit Uns”, an invocation to the almighty imaginary friend most people believe in. Telling soldiers “God is with you”, that “You are doing the Lord’s work”, and “God is on our side” are cliches (in various languages) likely going back to the first time a group of man-apes took on another group of man-apes with rocks and sticks over a watering hole.

    Read some of Roosevelt’s speeches during the Second World War, or the speeches given by Wilson in the first, or the rhetoric of the Spanish-American war, War between the States, war with Mexico, war for Texan Independence, 1812, or the Revolution. God is always invoked by both sides. EVERY TIME.

    What I find humourous, is that Glenn and his friends manage to find this offensive, rather than simply banal.

  • THIS is from the same one who told students that our forces in Iraq are there ‘on a task from God’.

    Glenn, that’s a blatant misrepresentation of what she said, and you ought to know better.


  • Lisa Solod Warren

    Yours was not sarcasm. It was gentle joshing. As I pointed out.

  • Clavos

    “Don’t recognize blasphemous sarcasm anymore?

    Right back atcha, Warren.

  • Lisa Solod Warren

    Oh, dear, Clav. Don’t recognize blasphemous sarcasm anymore? And I had such high hopes for you, I did. I certainly recognize joshing, as my old Dad used to call it, I do!

  • Clavos

    I thought only little girls had lunches/teas/conversations with their imaginary friends, Lisa?

    My little niece used to have some very colorful imaginary friends, but being the progeny of an atheist family, none were gods.

    Now that she’s ten and a “young lady,” (her words) she’s moved on to real people.

  • Lee – isn’t it obvious? They’ll have a conference call with Palin’s African witch doctor, Huckabee’s anti-anything-but-straightenizer robot, and a polymarital Mormon bishop.

  • Lee Richards

    RE #27:

    It’ll be fascinating to see if God tells Palin, Huckabee, and Romney all the same thing or if they’ll be getting different messages.

  • Zedd


    It’s rather creepy when all of the mean ideas that are articulated by this party are streamed out all at once.

    I find it interesting that the most staunch Republicans on this site don’t recognize them. That that is what is being said in those rah rah speeches that they say speak to the REAL America. Scary.

  • Lisa Solod Warren

    I wonder that G-d has time for all that nonsense. I mean, when She and I were having lunch the other day, She was so busy texting and and taking calls She could hardly finish her meal. I, frankly, heard nothing during the whole conversation about Sarah Palin, although we didn’t discuss her specifically. I was trying to get Her to talk about Afghanistan and commit to a position on Palestine. And we never did get around to what Her final thoughts were on the latest re the bailout.

  • If Palin runs in ’12, then it’s because GOD will have “shown her the way”.

    At least that’s her belief.

    THIS is from the same one who told students that our forces in Iraq are there ‘on a task from God’.

    Y’know, I’m STRONGLY Christian…and if God decides someone’s gonna do something, then that someone will be successful…which obviates the error in Palin’s belief, and in Bush’s belief that ‘God told him’ to invade Iraq.

    Yet another example of religion being used as an excuse for power….

  • C-shop – “Even “Troopergate” turned out to be a red-herring: she was cleared of all wrongdoing on november 3rd.” IIRC, there were TWO committees investigating Palin. One was a bipartisan Alaskan congressional committee, and the other was directed by Palin to investigate herself.

    Guess which one FOUND wrongdoing on her part (the very day she declared she’d been found innocent by that panel), and which one found her completely blameless?

    As with all my claims, I’ll provide references on demand…and apologize profusely and hang my head in shame if I can’t back up what I say.

  • Winston,

    Re-read what Clavos wrote in comment #2.

    As for Sarah Palin, she reminds me of a friend I made in law school many years ago. She’s a good and decent lady, and on a personl level, I liked what I saw. On her own turf, she knows what she is doing. Beyond that turf, well….

    But, scum that Obama might be, he can run rings around Sister Sarah intellectually. At this point, she’s better off being a kick-ass governor than attempting to step onto your national stage to be made a fool of by her own lack of knowledge.

  • Irene Wagner

    jamminsue, no, for sheer waste–sheer waste of time that is–consider CONSIDERING and debating the relative evils of Communism and Christianity. I once participated in such a BC discussion, which, at 666 comments, threatened to topple over and crush us all.

    There are decent people who are atheists and some decent socialists and Communists motivated by misguided altruism. There are decent evangelical Christians (now, who WERE those folks who spearheaded the abolitionist movement?) and decent Catholics who shelter the poor and neglected, and also those who have given themselves to efforts to put the United States government in charge of sanctifying the marriage bed which God has already pronounced holy.

    I’m optimistic that there are a few from each camp who have the grace to accept and give help that will serve to smooth out a little of the rough edges. It’s just my opinion, that purpose is best served by gentle humor.

    I’m all for satire, but I see it as more effective for exposing the errors of out and out rotters, individuals, rather than entire classes of people.

    Winston, you’ve written so many great articles in the past that I really can’t say that this one was my favorite.

  • Lee Richards


    Atheism isn’t a belief system that can be spread or imposed by anyone’s efforts.

    It is a reasoned LACK of belief, and NOT systematic at all. How do you convert others with that?

    Atheists’ conclusions are reached by using available evidence and logic, not by faith, beliefs or force–Stalin’s or anyone elses. Their conclusions can be altered by additional facts, but not by the spread of pro or con political opinions or religious dogma.

  • Cannonshop

    Palin’s been poisoned as a serious candidate on the national stage. Never mind that she didn’t ban any books, vetoed a law banning gay marraiges and rights to gay couples, cut out un-necessary (luxury) spending in the Governor’s office, and put corrupt officials out of office or in jail, what everyone obsesses on is that she’s got the wrong religion, and took the hundered-fifty-grand the GOP offered her for a clothing budget, and clothed her family. Even “Troopergate” turned out to be a red-herring: she was cleared of all wrongdoing on november 3rd.

    Finally, she’s associated with McCain’s failure, and former McCain staffers are trying to lay the blame for that failure on her-and why not? it’s not like she’s got big-money-backers who’ll be offended, after all, she’s a one term governor of a tiny in population state, cut off from the real centres of American power in Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York.

  • jamminsue

    For sheer waste consider the Crusades – they for the most part were due to religious zeal. Consider the side effects – the Plauge, political unrest and so on. Those kinds of side effects have to be considered part of the whole.

    Further, Marxism should be considered a fanatical belief system, as the actions and motivations were much the same, and it was treated the same during it’s height of power.

    So, religious persecution has done more than secular.

  • Baronius:

    Obama hasn’t even been inaugurated yet and some people have already decided that his presidency is a failure and are discussing his replacement.

    Introducing Gestational Tundra Barbie as a possible candidate to steer the country back on the right track following Vivienne Jolie-Pitt’s disastrous 2045-49 administration seems almost as reasonable.

  • Vicki Cassady

    I’m on board with Sarah Palin for 2012. My comment is that I feel people are going to have a hard time with the Primary because, Romney, Huckabee, Gingrich, Jindal are all well liked and extemely knowledgeable and if will be very hard for people to decide who to vote for.
    By 2012, everyone is going to be praying for a change and we hope to get corruption out of the White House. I’m really worried for all of us for the next 4 years.

  • Baronius

    Dread – The fetus has comparable national experience to Obama and Palin.

  • Baronius

    Lee – Stalin was deliberately spreading atheism, as well as exploiting his opportunity to kill those he didn’t like. Actually, you could say the same thing about the Crusades – they were as much about pillage as about religion. Bottom line, people are scum.

  • I hear that Bristol Palin’s fetus is already being touted as a potential GOP presidential nominee in 2048.

  • Lee Richards

    If the GOP is serious in 2012, Palin’s chances of being nominated are 10 to 1 against. If they just want to offer up a warm sacrifice, the odds against her getting nominated would be maybe 5 to 1.

    If she were nominated, she would lose by such a margin, she would set the party back another 5 years. Winking and tossing red meat to admirers isn’t party leadership and wearing clothes well and reading speeches is not a comprehensive political philosophy.

    Her fans’ puppy love aside, she divides Republicans as much as she unites Democrats.

    *** #8

    Hitler’s, Stalin’s, etc. crimes were not done in the name of spreading atheism. Christianity’s and other religions’ crimes were and are done in the name of their faith and gods. And Hitler was not a “far left dictator” as you imply.

  • Oh, it was good, don’t get me wrong. It’s just that now that Palin has become the patron saint of all things wrong with the GOP, those folks are particularly “sensitive” and having been on the other end of things in 2004, I guess I am trying hard to dig deep and find some compassion for these misguided and depressed folks.

    Overall, it wasn’t any more mean-spirited than the Governor herself.

  • Winston, I thought it worked as a satire, but those who didn’t find it funny may have found it striking to close to home. It’s completely different than the link Clavos gives, so there’s nothing to learn there other than it’s funny when it’s about “them” and not “us.”

  • Dave (#3) and Dawn (#11 ) – I read back through my piece to see if I was truly “mean-spirited.” I don’t normally think of myself that way, but I know that attempts at humor can lead one astray – going for the laugh at the expense of truth or sensitivity to the feelings of others. The only really mean-spirited moment I could find was the first paragraph of the second page. I would be interested to know what else in the piece anyone found to be mean-spirited.

    Satire, at least as I define it, takes things to the extreme to extrapolate humor from an otherwise tragic or dangerous situation. My concern, as I was writing this piece, was that it was difficult to exaggerate some of the bitter divisiveness that we witnessed in the recently concluded election cycle.

    Glenn’s (#5) second paragraph sums up pretty well the opinion that led me to write this piece. Palin has demonstrated an extremely well developed ability to unite the evangelicals within the Republican party and to divide the party by driving more moderate members and independents into the arms of the Democrats. That is our best hope for keeping the Social Darwinists who masquerade as Compassionate Conservatives from regaining control of our government any time soon.

    I’m not quite as confident as Glenn that she will lose. If she can avoid getting back in the ring with Katie Couric, or spends the next two or three years cramming for the test, developing at least a superficial knowledge of Supreme Court rulings or memorizing the names of a few newspapers or magazines, she could do better that I would like to think possible.

    I have a lot of faith in our country’s ability to survive bad leadership. I think that good presidents are extremely rare and our politicians, as a general rule, are a very unimpressive group. On the other hand, I would be truly distressed to find our plutocracy (bad as it is) replaced by a theocracy.

    As noted in the comments above, a lot of harm has been done in the name of religion. It is equally true (as noted above) that numerous examples of man’s inhumanity to man can be cited where religion does not play a role. Competition for resources and the lure of raw, naked power over others often provide the motive. The combination of charisma and psychosis in a single individual is often a formula for disaster. We should also acknowledge that a great deal of good has been done by people who were (and are) inspired by religious belief.

    I have a deep and abiding disgust for the scorched earth type of campaigning that has come to dominate election cycles in our country. I have a great hunger for sincere, well-intentioned discussion and debate about the best courses of action for us to take in addressing the problems we face as a nation.

    I enjoy making people laugh. This piece was only my second attempt at doing so in writing. (A very difficult undertaking in my opinion.) While things can get a bit nasty at times here in the blogosphere, there are also moments when the discussion is positive and enlightening. I appreciate the fact that at least a couple of the comments above indicated that I had amused the reader. I hope that I did not go too far in contributing to nastiness in my attempt at humor.

  • I thought Winston’s article had some very funny moments, clever at times. But as he/she wound it down, it became a too mean.

    The best way to show the right how mean-spirited and vicious they are is to be less so. They call it liberalism, I call it compassion.

    Other than that, it was pretty good. As was said by the zingster, Palin is a cutup in her own right, so you don’t want to overdo it.

  • Doug Hunter

    Well now, I don’t think someone being killed cares whether it’s because of better available technology or sheer malevolence. I was only speaking in terms defined by objective reality, you’re now talking in beliefs where no amount of ‘logic’ can prevail. You believe religion is inherently evil because of x, y, and z but there is no control group, no way of knowing what world we would live in without it. Religion, much like government, seems to be simply a reflection of a culture and I see them being ‘bad’ in the same way.

    In any case, religion is dying. Science wounded it and government is all too eager to reabsorb it’s ‘evil’ twin.

  • Clavos


    Granted that the modern day numbers of the dead are greater than those in previous centuries, but that’s merely a function of technology and communications advances, especially in the twentieth century.

    For sheer malevolence, nothing beats killing and laying waste in the name of god. Religion-sponsored killing has endured for centuries (The various Catholic Inquisitions alone lasted from the twelfth through the beginning of the 19th centuries), and some specific events have lasted centuries, while the ogres you mention were relatively short-lived, even though more efficient, thanks to technology.

    And much religion-sponsored killing endures even today.

    Imagine how pervasive and enduring it would be if there really were a god spurring religionists on.

  • Doug Hunter

    Not really Clav. Most of the greatest horrors have been perpetrated by the very tiny minority of atheist far left dictators: Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. Hitler was questionably atheist and the leader of the National Socialists. That covers 4 or 5 of the greates genocides of all times and by far the largest in numbers.

    Everyone has a belief system, some come from a big man in the sky, others believe they somehow logically divined the truth from with in themselves. In both cases, people believe what society has told them, religious and secular values and what is ‘right’ has changed over time often leaving death and destruction in it’s wake.

    The problem is not the source of the belief system or, in most cases, even what is believed it is the degree of fanaticism and the faith someone has in their beliefs. I do see self righteousness and blind faith in ‘rightness’ among some in the church, but I also see it in many posters on this site both right and left.

    Unfortunately, fanatics and the self delusional tend to be more aggressive, more driven, and more purposeful than those of us that know we don’t have all the answers. In a debate the wise moderates realize that there are indeed two ways of looking at it, and perhaps, waver in their position. The fanatic assumes that anyone who disagrees is simply evil or driven by negative forces (racism, ‘the devil’, power, greed, jealousy, etc) and continues unabated in their preaching.

  • Clavos

    I guess there are some others who don’t understand the danger inherent in religious extremism

    I understand the danger inherent in the practice of ALL religions. Most of the horrors perpetrated on humans throughout history have been at the hands of clerics of mainstream religions such as Roman Catholicism and Islam.

  • zingzing

    with palin and paint.

  • Winston – Unlike the others, I liked your article. I guess there are some others who don’t understand the danger inherent in religious extremism (which includes Ms. Palin’s apparent beliefs).

    Personally, I’m pretty sure she’ll run for president in ’12, if her spite for anyone who challenges her authority is any indication. I for one HOPE she does…because there is NO WAY that she’ll win, and all she will do is split the Republicans further into two camps – one of the hard right extremists, and the other of moderate Republicans who will see her for the danger that she truly is.

  • zingzing

    palin’s pretty damn funny all by her damn self. of course, at this point, she’s political poison, so it would take some doing for al’s (admittedly silly) wish to come true.

  • Winston’s article might be amusing if it were less meanspirited and stuck to amusing truths instead of divisive deceptions.


  • Clavos


    Check this article out and learn how to do political humor.

  • “Channeling hatred” my ass. Palin ain’t a hater, and being a conservative Christian doesn’t automatically make her one. Very obviously, the hatin’ is coming from the opposition, and directed AT her, not from her.

    I for one would be HAPPY to see Palin run for president in her own rite.

    Sarah Palin RULEZ!!!