Nature Endorses Obama

Myers goes off halfcocked, as usual. Better reference:
http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55137/

She was most likely referring to agricultural research on a fruit fly import from France to California that's destroying crops. Some of the money ultimately went to France, some went to California. It seems clear that Palin didn't know what she was referring to, just parroting something she was given. Deep inside is a real issue: whether senators should be replacing, or supplementing, peer reviewed research funding. I doubt Palin understands this though. The agricultural problem is important, but should a senator be deciding who gets the money? In this case the funds were given to an institution that apparently had some committee doling out the funds. Hopefully it was an expert committee, but this is entirely up to some politician's discretion. Polticians clearly should not be allocating research funds to individual proposals.

The above post does not link to the Nature endorsement which can be found at:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7217/full/4551149a.html

Now for more substantive remarks:
This endorsement concerns me greatly. As Nature is a scientific journal, it should stay above general politics like this. If Nature wants to write something supporting a specific policy based on scientific grounds that is one thing. But this risks making science dangerously politicized. With certain elements already attempting to politicize science and treat it as nothing more than another special-interest group this sort of thing simply gives them more ammunition and possibly furthers the problem. I'd prefer if Nature stayed out of this sort of thing.

Nature does a decent job of addressing these sorts of concerns. For example they say "On a range of topics, science included, Obama has surrounded himself with a wider and more able cadre of advisers than McCain. This is not a panacea. Some of the policies Obama supports — continued subsidies for corn ethanol, for example — seem misguided." But overall, they don't handle the basic issue that even if they are correct using this venue in this matter is a disturbing politicization of science.

Joshua Zelinsky said: ...But this risks making science dangerously politicized...

The anti-science crowd has no such scruples. Why should only one side be allowed to use political pressure to influence political decisions?

Mike said: Myers goes off halfcocked, as usual. Better reference: http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55137/ She was most likely referring to agricultural research on a fruit fly import from France to California that's destroying crops. Some of the money ultimately went to France, some went to California. It seems clear that Palin didn't know what she was referring to, just parroting something she was given. Deep inside is a real issue: whether senators should be replacing, or supplementing, peer reviewed research funding. I doubt Palin understands this though. The agricultural problem is important, but should a senator be deciding who gets the money? In this case the funds were given to an institution that apparently had some committee doling out the funds. Hopefully it was an expert committee, but this is entirely up to some politician's discretion. Polticians clearly should not be allocating research funds to individual proposals.

Joshua Zelinsky said: Because science has the most pull and the most push if there isn't a perception that science is part of some political agenda...

I want to reiterate that Burt is speaking as an individual and his post is not a statement from PT as a whole, which still maintains neutrality regarding candidates for US office.

Joshua,

Where is the logical or evidenciary connection between a science organization recognizing that one political party is decidedly anti-science, and politicizing science? You seem to just assert it is so.

To make my point, imagine if the only political parties in the US were the Democrats and the Natural Law party. Would it be a politicization of science for Nature to recognize the completely unscientific nature of the NL party? How?

The Republican party has been taken over by anti-science, anti-intellectual zealots, and the Stepford Candidate Palin is their leader. It's time we recognized this and stopped pretending this is politics as usual.

Science Avenger, the situation isn't analogous. I agree that the current party leadership does have some strong anti-science elements. And the base is full of anti-science junk. But a) not all Republicans fall into that category. For example, see for example y George Will or John Derbyshire. b) there are many anti-science Democrats as well. One needs only spend a few days at the Huffington Post to see all of the vaccine-autism woo there and both Obama and Clinton have made comments that strongly endorse such a connection. Meanwhile, the environmentalist end of the Democratic party has been terrible about paying attention to science except when it suits their interests (cf nuclear power for example). So the argument that there such a large disparity in that context isn't a good thing.

And it isn't like McCain's actual voting record on science is bad. In fact, his voting record on science issues has generally been very good.

Furthermore, if one believes that the Republican party has been hijacked by an anti-science agenda which do you think is going to be more effective at getting it unhijacked? Getting the base to understand that science isn't part of that evil, liberal North-East establishment, or reinforcing their perception that the scientists are those partisans who use every institution they have to pull for the Democratic candidate?

I'd probably feel closer to how you felt if the Republican ticket were say Huckabee and Palin, but that's not the sort of situation we are dealing with. We're not even in a situation where the national party has any explicit anti-science parts of its platform. If the party was explicitly YEC or explicitly skeptical of global warming that might also be a different situation. But we're not in any such situation. Yet. And we shouldn't take actions that will push us into being in such a situation.

Also, a quick note which I forgot to put in my previous post: Of the three scientists in Congress currently one of them, Vern Ehlers, is a Republican.

Joshua Zelinsky said: ... Furthermore, if one believes that the Republican party has been hijacked by an anti-science agenda which do you think is going to be more effective at getting it unhijacked? Getting the base to understand that science isn't part of that evil, liberal North-East establishment, or reinforcing their perception that the scientists are those partisans who use every institution they have to pull for the Democratic candidate? ...

Chuck, that isn't an accurate comparison. Obviously we should vote for the pro-science candidates. But let's be honest; Obama is almost certainly going to win at this point and most people who might be persuaded by what Nature said is going to vote for Obama anyways. So all this does is add ammunition to the claim that the scientists are biased. It isn't even really likely to help win the election at all.

Come on Josh, you are comparing molehills to mountains. What is the proportion of anti-evolution, anti-global warming Republicans to anti-vaccer Democrats? 1,000 to 1? The GOP is de facto anti-science regardless of what their official position is, and pretending there is any validity to that position, or that there is any comparison between the parties, is not going to help anything. There are a few scatterred pro-black racists among the Democrats too. Are we therefore to ignore the overwhelming number of racists and racist arguments among Republicans and pretend the Democrats have the same problem with racism?

The best way to fix the Republican party is to call it what it has become and as a result have them get hammerred in election after election due to losing support from independents. Our chances of changing the GOP bases mind about science is exactly zero. They will attribute any resistence to their faith-based ideas as a biased liberal conspiracy against them regardless of how it is presented. If we're on double secret probabtion anyway...

For full disclosure, I have voted Republican and libertarian for 20 years, and am voting Democratic this year precisely because of this idiocy. I have also spent many frustrating hours in discussion with family and friends who are loyal GOPers, and have experienced their faith-based, speculation-over-facts mentality. The ID epistemology has become the GOP epistemology, which makes this discussion here all the more relevant. What was the Palin lie-blitz but one long Gish Gallop?

Defeat is all they will understand, and they might not even understand that. It is very possible that the only way this gets fixed is to wait for the old GOPers to die off.

Unfortunately, this endorsement probably does very little. First, because endorsements generally do very little to influence voting and second, most folks of the critical thinking persuasion weren't likely to vote for McCain in the first place. At least I hope that's the case.

Pursuant to Reed's comments above, I've altered the language of my post to reflect that I was writing as an individual. (And I've actually included the link to which I refer. Sorry for the oversight.) I am so loath to politicize or religiize (to hamhandedly coin a word) PT that I try to avoid posting on the topics of politics or religion, even to the extent that posts obviously relevant and appropriate for PT are delayed or extensively considered. (With every religious post I write here, I run it past PZ for his take, who smiles, reminds me once again that he "doesn't do religion," pats me on the head, and sends me on my way.)

This one seemed a no-brainer to me and Joshua's comments above strike me as somewhat unexpected. The decision is clear in this election and, at least to the pro-evolution charter of this website, why on early wouldn't we go with the candidate who is pro-evolution? How could we alienate PT fans by doing so?

It was in ignorance of opinions like those of Josh that I wrote what I did, assuming (incorrectly) that there was not going to be a problem with assuming an endorsement of an endorsement from Nature was appropriate for PT. I apologize to those who expected more from PT and to those who did, in fact, prefer for PT posts to not make any political comments. And I apologize to PT contributors for the implication that they were involved in this decision. It was a post written by me and edited all within the span of an hour; no debate in our ranks took place over it at all because I didn't give them enough time to respond. This one was mine alone and I thank Reed for pointing that out in the comments until I returned home in time to check email and make the needed corrections.

BCH

NATURE may regret this. Besides, why would Obama be the best candidate for science. Does the mag think McCain supports creationism?

The best man is the one best qualified. I've never heard McCain support "creationism" or the teaching of "ID" in the public schools.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/12/mccain-creationism/

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/08/mccains-vp-want.html

http://atheism.about.com/od/johnmccainonreligion/tp/JohnMcCainReligionSecularism.htm

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/437661.aspx

Well, even though these come from not altogether "reliable" sources, there is enough here to warrant a concern. After all, electing McCain would be a 72-year-old heartbeat away from electing an avowed creationist, just like at least two of the most recent three GOP presidents.

McCain chose an anti-science nut as a running mate, which is bad enough, but he has also done nothing but belittle science in his campaign, and consistently appeal to the lowest common intellectual denominator in his ads and speeches. It is the most consistently low-brow campaign I have ever seen.

As for what would make Obama better for science, there is plenty of evidence in the way he expresses himself and thinks about problems, as compared to the winky winky no blinky bullshit we get from the GOP. Hell just compare vocabularies. This is my favorite bit of evidence. Whatever he may think privately, he understands that public conflicts must be resolved using public information. That's science.

Barbare Rainey said: NATURE may regret this. Besides, why would Obama be the best candidate for science. Does the mag think McCain supports creationism? The best man is the one best qualified. I've never heard McCain support "creationism" or the teaching of "ID" in the public schools.

my problem with this sort of discussion is the way republicans are being represented as a monolithic position. at this point, it looks like the natural pressure for the GOP is to separate in two directions, one of which is wildly anti-science, the other only occasionally anti-science when it suits them to support an industry like oil or tobacco. However, this split cannot happen because the voting system crucifies third parties. My sympathies are with the democrats, but my sympathies are more strongly with any system that allows politics to evolve. I've never understood why more people in the US don't complain about the voting system

"I’d probably feel closer to how you felt if the Republican ticket were say Huckabee and Palin, but that’s not the sort of situation we are dealing with."

Huckabee and Palin.
McCain and Palin.

Not identical. But close.

Linguist said: "I’d probably feel closer to how you felt if the Republican ticket were say Huckabee and Palin, but that’s not the sort of situation we are dealing with." Huckabee and Palin. McCain and Palin. Not identical. But close.

snaxalotl said: However, this split cannot happen because the voting system crucifies third parties. My sympathies are with the democrats, but my sympathies are more strongly with any system that allows politics to evolve. I've never understood why more people in the US don't complain about the voting system

Politics does not belong in hard science any more than religion does. Due to the passions inherent in church and polis both produce regular anathemas to truth and reason.

I have my own doubts about McCain's support for scientific research because when questioning earmarks and government spending he and Palin nearly always bring up funding for science and science education: bear DNA, planetariums, fruit fly research, etc. Out of all the earmarks made, McCain seems to believe that scientific ones are the best exemplar's of government waste. That worries me.

True, McCain could be just an unsupportative of science as Bush. But then again, he might just be trying to pick stuff that Joe the plummer wouldn't understand and hold it up for ridicule. Of course, if Joe the plummer is really smart enough to see through this facade, that strategy just might backfire.

I think that the time is ripe in this country for someone to stand up in support of good science. I just hope that at least one of the candidates will actually turn out to value science, rather than misrepresenting, avoiding or ignoring the issue.

Funny, but somehow "drill baby drill" doesn't seem to be a very sound policy from a science point of view.

Joshua Zelinsky said: Also, a quick note which I forgot to put in my previous post: Of the three scientists in Congress currently one of them, Vern Ehlers, is a Republican.

Barbare Rainey said: I've never heard McCain support "creationism" or the teaching of "ID" in the public schools.

Dear Joshua,

Thanks for your eloquent remarks, which emphasize that "...McCain's actual voting record.... on science issues has generally been very good.". Indeed he was the first important Republican leader who recognized the detrimental impact of global warming. In his answers to the "Call for a Science Debate" questions he has demonstrated a better understanding and comprehension of issues ranging from energy policy to global warming and space exploration than Obama, whose answers have tended to be too superficial.

As a registered Republican who is also a dedicated opponent of all forms of "scientific" creationism, I greatly appreciate these remarks:

"Furthermore, if one believes that the Republican party has been hijacked by an anti-science agenda which do you think is going to be more effective at getting it unhijacked? Getting the base to understand that science isn't part of that evil, liberal North-East establishment, or reinforcing their perception that the scientists are those partisans who use every institution they have to pull for the Democratic candidate?"

I would have chimed in earlier except that I have been busy editing photographs I had taken for my 30th high school reunion which was held last Saturday (Among those in attendance included a Scientific American editor and an EPA section chief who was my classmate from 6th grade through our high school senior year; I'll sheepishly admit that I had had a "romantic interest" in her back in junior high school.).

Regards,

John

Supposing you were tasked to present to the leaders of the United States and her nation-friends the challenge for committing resources to another large scientific project. For instance putting a man on the moon by the end of the decade, creating a fusion engine, or to commit resources to build something as complex as the Large Hadron Collider. Imagine conducting a presentation to either Obama and Senator Biden and their crew, or to Senator McCain and Governor Palin and their crew the idea that the West must begin committing resources to understand and then create computer systems mimicking biological cognition. Your job is to sell this idea to one of the administrations. Setting the West on this course for several decades may bear no fruit in the long run. Though simply setting public awareness that the West is committed to such an endeavor is sure to raise our national honor, and raise eyebrows from those people who presently hold the West in disdain.

I believe the Obama-Biden crew would hold back on monies for this project, that crowd wanting instead to spend money on God-awful social welfare projects. McCain and Governor Palin would want to get the computer cognition project in first gear as soon as possible, realizing that if a Russian or heaven forbid an Islamist were to write the first research paper spelling out the details of neuro-cortical biological cognition before someone in the West does so, than the West will be humiliated, trumped at its own game. We'll never recover from the humiliation. Time is of the essence, and the cat is already out of the bag.

There are still a few things the West needs to discover and invent before all humanity can cozy up and into, relaxing with universal socialism in every nation around the world. I also predict a McCain-Palin win by a fourteen point landslide.

Amy Soldier said: Supposing you were tasked to present to the leaders of the United States and her nation-friends the challenge for committing resources to another large scientific project. For instance putting a man on the moon by the end of the decade, creating a fusion engine, or to commit resources to build something as complex as the Large Hadron Collider. Imagine conducting a presentation to either Obama and Senator Biden and their crew, or to Senator McCain and Governor Palin and their crew the idea that the West must begin committing resources to understand and then create computer systems mimicking biological cognition. Your job is to sell this idea to one of the administrations. Setting the West on this course for several decades may bear no fruit in the long run. Though simply setting public awareness that the West is committed to such an endeavor is sure to raise our national honor, and raise eyebrows from those people who presently hold the West in disdain. I believe the Obama-Biden crew would hold back on monies for this project, that crowd wanting instead to spend money on God-awful social welfare projects. McCain and Governor Palin would want to get the computer cognition project in first gear as soon as possible, realizing that if a Russian or heaven forbid an Islamist were to write the first research paper spelling out the details of neuro-cortical biological cognition before someone in the West does so, than the West will be humiliated, trumped at its own game. We'll never recover from the humiliation. Time is of the essence, and the cat is already out of the bag. There are still a few things the West needs to discover and invent before all humanity can cozy up and into, relaxing with universal socialism in every nation around the world. I also predict a McCain-Palin win by a fourteen point landslide.

Amy Soldier said: I also predict a McCain-Palin win by a fourteen point landslide.

Dear Amy,

You do realise that only in the US could someone use the phrase "god-awful social welfare projects" of something like, say, universal health care, and keep a straight face? The rest of the world either has a reasonable social safety net paid for by taxes or wishes it did. Only in the US is there a substantial number who actually believe that it's a bad thing. That the (extremely modest) proposals of Senator Obama causes him to actually be labelled a socialist dumbfounds anyone from any of the other western democracies. In Europe, he'd be pretty far right. Here, he'd be maybe on the slightly more liberal edge of the Liberal (read "conservative") party. Only in the US would he be regarded as a "liberal" at all, and as for "socialist", oh dear, oh dear.

I find it almost comical when people suggest that a strongly religious person should not let their faith influence their political decisions. The nerve of us secular people to ask a devout religious person to set aside their beliefs on abortion and choose a candidate based on other points like taxes, heathcare, or the economy.

We must understand that these people do not separate themselves from their religion. We, the secular, are guilty all to often of underestimating religious commitment. Naively we ask why they can't they set aside their religion and think about the other subjects.

Maybe you're asking what this has to do with Nature, PT, and this post?

The religious will never separate themselves from politics. It is deeply ingrained into their perceptions of reality. Those of us who hold scientific pursuit, critical thinking, and healthy skepticism dear to our hearts are guilty of the very same thing.

How can we be asked to not apply these fundamentals to politics? To our decisions on platforms? To our decisions on candidates?

All too often it is we who zip our lips and try and be cordial and respect the system. We are all thinking it, but nobody's saying it. Because it's not nice to talk about religion and politics around the scientific dinner table.

There must be some Greek tragedy written about something like this.

I'm glad Nature said what they said. I'm glad Burt said what he said. I'm glad Reed said what he said. And we all know what PZ will say (if he hasn't already).

So, whether or not we agree with these people... I say, let them say it. Because it needs to be said.

Not talking about the elephant in the room, just makes that much more looming.

JM said: I find it almost comical when people suggest that a strongly religious person should not let their faith influence their political decisions. The nerve of us secular people to ask a devout religious person to set aside their beliefs on abortion and choose a candidate based on other points like taxes, heathcare, or the economy. We must understand that these people do not separate themselves from their religion. We, the secular, are guilty all to often of underestimating religious commitment. Naively we ask why they can't they set aside their religion and think about the other subjects.

Barbare Rainey said: I've never heard McCain support "creationism" or the teaching of "ID" in the public schools.

JM said: So, whether or not we agree with these people... I say, let them say it. Because it needs to be said. Not talking about the elephant in the room, just makes that much more looming.

Wheels said: In a secular government, however, policy must be based on something broader than sectarian religious beliefs. In fact, Barack Obama said as much in a speech that received considerable coverage a couple of years ago. "Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values."

Mike said: The new problem is reasserting the enlightenment principles of tolerance in this new age of personal mass communication. For the first time the entire human race, not just leaders and the media, has to accept the value of diversity, and learn how to work with it.

In my previous comment I pointed to abortion and gay marriage.

I should have pointed out the value and role of science which is in the same category, and much more pertinent to this community.

Nature's endorsement is unfortunate to those of us who are republican. Not because it goes against 'their candidate' but because it emphasizes that there is another battle being fought during this election. It's not just between democrat and republican. If it was, then Nature shouldn't even need to make an endorsement.

But they do. Because this election is about so much more. Let's be frank and say it. Good for them.

This is the beauty of “teach the controversy”, and why it is gaining more support than most of the participants in this forum are willing to admit. McCain can get away with stating he “believes in evolution” and at the same time say he wants to present “all scientific theories”, which is his stated, and consistent, position.

— Mike

You are talking about the same Governor Sarah Palin, an avowed Young Earth Creationist...

— Stanton

Burt, I don't think you owe any apology. Whether or not one thinks that Nature's move was a good thing it is clearly something that deserves to be noted at PT. And it is clearly the sort of issue that needs to be discussed by scientists and proponents of science. In that context, posting this was absolutely the right thing to do.

JM said:

Wheels said: In a secular government, however, policy must be based on something broader than sectarian religious beliefs. In fact, Barack Obama said as much in a speech that received considerable coverage a couple of years ago. "Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values."

Yes, this hits at the heart of the problem. The religious do not believe in "universal, rather than religion-specific values". This makes no sense to them. They have only religion-specific morals, values, and if you give it to them their way, laws too.

Amy Soldier said: Supposing you were tasked to present to the leaders of the United States and her nation-friends the challenge for committing resources to another large scientific project. For instance putting a man on the moon by the end of the decade, creating a fusion engine, or to commit resources to build something as complex as the Large Hadron Collider. Imagine conducting a presentation to either Obama and Senator Biden and their crew, or to Senator McCain and Governor Palin and their crew the idea that the West must begin committing resources to understand and then create computer systems mimicking biological cognition. Your job is to sell this idea to one of the administrations. Setting the West on this course for several decades may bear no fruit in the long run. Though simply setting public awareness that the West is committed to such an endeavor is sure to raise our national honor, and raise eyebrows from those people who presently hold the West in disdain. I believe the Obama-Biden crew would hold back on monies for this project, that crowd wanting instead to spend money on God-awful social welfare projects. McCain and Governor Palin would want to get the computer cognition project in first gear as soon as possible, realizing that if a Russian or heaven forbid an Islamist were to write the first research paper spelling out the details of neuro-cortical biological cognition before someone in the West does so, than the West will be humiliated, trumped at its own game. We'll never recover from the humiliation. Time is of the essence, and the cat is already out of the bag. There are still a few things the West needs to discover and invent before all humanity can cozy up and into, relaxing with universal socialism in every nation around the world. I also predict a McCain-Palin win by a fourteen point landslide.

JM said: The religious do not believe in "universal, rather than religion-specific values". This makes no sense to them. They have only religion-specific morals, values, and if you give it to them their way, laws too.

Wheels said: I think that's an unfair negative generalization. The problem is probably that most people haven't had to stop and think beyond their religious beliefs and values, especially if they grew up in an environment saturated with like-minded people.

Wheels said: The problem isn't that religious people are incapable of thinking outside of their box, the problem is that people in general don't, unless it's thrust upon them to do so.

Dear SLC,

Both Senator McCain and Governor Palin accept evolution as valid science. However, as a registered Republican, I strongly disagree with their support to "teach the controversy". If they're interested in keeping "Country First" with respect to evolution, I expect them to distance themselves from that position if they do win the election (If McCain wins, there is no way he will win by a fourteen point margin. The best analysis I have read from Dick Morris - whom I have met and is a fellow alumnus of our high school - in which he believes the undecided vote is going for McCain; there's nearly 10 percent undecided.).

Again, in his answers to the "Call for a Science Debate" questions, McCain has shown a much deeper understanding and appreciation of issues ranging from global warming, and energy policy to space exploration than has his opponent, the Messiah. I am confident that Chris Mooney will not need to write a sequel to his book if McCain is elected.

Sincerely yours,

John

John Kwok said: Both Senator McCain and Governor Palin accept evolution as valid science.

Again, in his answers to the "Call for a Science Debate" questions, McCain has shown a much deeper understanding and appreciation of issues ranging from global warming, and energy policy to space exploration than has his opponent, the Messiah.

I am confident that Chris Mooney will not need to write a sequel to his book if McCain is elected.

Hi Joshua,

Your points are well taken, however, the likes of Wall Street Journal commentator John Fund and Dick Morris, among others, have met with Palin and are quite impressed with her intelligence. Moreover, she has already demonstrated some competency with respect to energy policy. As for McCain's personal life expectancy, it should be noted that his mother is still spry and quite healthy at the ripe young age of 96 (This is in stark contrast with the Messiah's, since both of his parents died before they were fifty.).

Last, but not least, Palin said during an interview with Katie Couric that she accepts evolution, but also believes that some higher power - a Deity - was responsible for it (Incidentally that is not, at the face of it, a view that would be dissimilar from Francisco Ayala's, Francis Collins' or Ken Miller's.). Moreover she has yet to impose the teaching of "scientific creationism" in her state public schools, in stark contrast to LA governor Bobby Jindal - who concentrated in biology at our undergraduate alma mater, Brown University - who should know better.

Regards,

John

John Kwok said: Dear SLC, Both Senator McCain and Governor Palin accept evolution as valid science. However, as a registered Republican, I strongly disagree with their support to "teach the controversy". If they're interested in keeping "Country First" with respect to evolution, I expect them to distance themselves from that position if they do win the election (If McCain wins, there is no way he will win by a fourteen point margin. The best analysis I have read from Dick Morris - whom I have met and is a fellow alumnus of our high school - in which he believes the undecided vote is going for McCain; there's nearly 10 percent undecided.). Again, in his answers to the "Call for a Science Debate" questions, McCain has shown a much deeper understanding and appreciation of issues ranging from global warming, and energy policy to space exploration than has his opponent, the Messiah. I am confident that Chris Mooney will not need to write a sequel to his book if McCain is elected. Sincerely yours, John

John Kwok said: Hi Joshua, Your points are well taken, however, the likes of Wall Street Journal commentator John Fund and Dick Morris, among others, have met with Palin and are quite impressed with her intelligence. Moreover, she has already demonstrated some competency with respect to energy policy. As for McCain's personal life expectancy, it should be noted that his mother is still spry and quite healthy at the ripe young age of 96 (This is in stark contrast with the Messiah's, since both of his parents died before they were fifty.). Last, but not least, Palin said during an interview with Katie Couric that she accepts evolution, but also believes that some higher power - a Deity - was responsible for it (Incidentally that is not, at the face of it, a view that would be dissimilar from Francisco Ayala's, Francis Collins' or Ken Miller's.). Moreover she has yet to impose the teaching of "scientific creationism" in her state public schools, in stark contrast to LA governor Bobby Jindal - who concentrated in biology at our undergraduate alma mater, Brown University - who should know better. Regards, John

Dear SLC -

Dick Morris is widely acknowledged as one of our foremost political pundits. He deserves recognition too as one of our high school's most prominent alumni, especially in the realm of
politics (Others include former U. S. Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder, Watergate attorney Richard Ben Veniste, former White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum, U. S. District Attorney for the State of Oregon Karin Immergut (who was a classmate of mine in a now celebrated high school writing class taught by memoirist Frank McCourt), and Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod.). If you are interested in the fact that Morris is widely regarded for his work, then you wouldn't waste time bringing some unfortunate dirt from his past (As for Fund he is well respected for his Wall Street commentary.).

John

John Kwok said: Dear SLC - Dick Morris is widely acknowledged as one of our foremost political pundits. He deserves recognition too as one of our high school's most prominent alumni, especially in the realm of politics (Others include former U. S. Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder, Watergate attorney Richard Ben Veniste, former White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum, U. S. District Attorney for the State of Oregon Karin Immergut (who was a classmate of mine in a now celebrated high school writing class taught by memoirist Frank McCourt), and Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod.). If you are interested in the fact that Morris is widely regarded for his work, then you wouldn't waste time bringing some unfortunate dirt from his past (As for Fund he is well respected for his Wall Street commentary.). John

John Kwok said: Moreover she has yet to impose the teaching of "scientific creationism" in her state public schools, in stark contrast to LA governor Bobby Jindal ...

Both Senator McCain and Governor Palin accept evolution as valid science.

— John Kwok

By the way, neither Mr. Morris or Mr. Fund have the least knowledge or expertise in any scientific discipline.

— SLC

Frank, there's certainly evidence that Palin is a YEC. Munger's comments in particular are relevant. See for example:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/world/world/general/creationist-sarah-and-the-politics-of-extinction/1349284.aspx

(I'm a bit too lazy at the moment to track down in what publication Munger originally made the claim but I think it was TIME).

Joshua Zelinsky said: Frank, there's certainly evidence that Palin is a YEC. Munger's comments in particular are relevant. See for example: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/world/world/general/creationist-sarah-and-the-politics-of-extinction/1349284.aspx (I'm a bit too lazy at the moment to track down in what publication Munger originally made the claim but I think it was TIME).

Barbare Rainey said: I’ve never heard McCain support “creationism” or the teaching of “ID” in the public schools.

GvlGeologist, FCD said: It's astonishing to me that US papers are pussyfooting around information like this.

JM said:

Wheels said: I think that's an unfair negative generalization. The problem is probably that most people haven't had to stop and think beyond their religious beliefs and values, especially if they grew up in an environment saturated with like-minded people.

While this may be an unfair generalization of many of the 'religious moderates' in our nation, it is an accurate generalization of a very large and powerful population in our own country (and even more throughout the muslim world). Many people will not (or can not) comprehend a government that is not in line with their beliefs. And most of all, they believe it is wrong to try to. The the rest of us walk on egg shells trying not to offend their beliefs.

I completely agree with this, and I see Natures endorsement an example of such 'thrusting'. We need more thrusting, and less 'let's just stay out of politics', or 'let's not offend their beliefs'.

John Kwok said: Dear SLC - Dick Morris is widely acknowledged as one of our foremost political pundits.

Wheels said: Saying that this is specific to "a very large population" is not the same and shouldn't be treated the same as saying "the religious." You have not in any way defended your original statement, and I wouldn't even call this a clarification. You have merely shifted the goalposts. Some might call it back-pedaling. This is something that you should try to catch yourself doing in the future, and think about why you do it.

Barbare Rainey said: NATURE may regret this. Besides, why would Obama be the best candidate for science. Does the mag think McCain supports creationism? The best man is the one best qualified. I've never heard McCain support "creationism" or the teaching of "ID" in the public schools.

Frank, there’s certainly evidence that Palin is a YEC. Munger’s comments in particular are relevant. See for example: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/new[…]1349284.aspx

— Joshua Zelinsky

The next time they met, Palin had switched to the less strict Wasilla Bible Church. By now people were beginning to encourage her to run for governor. "I reminded her of the earlier conversation," Munger writes, "asking her if her views had changed. She was no longer 'necessarily' a Young Earth creationist, she told me.

Dear Mike,

Alas your comments about Jindal aren't correct:

"Just as Jindal didn't have to lift a finger, just go along with his state's senate...."

He campaigned for LA governor on a platform in which he espoused the teaching of Intelligent Design. Moreover, on a "Face the Nation" (or was it "Meet the Press") interview which aired a few weeks before he signed the Louisiana Academic Freedom bill - which was amply conceived and supported by the Seattle, WA-based Dishonesty Institute, he said that Intelligent Design was valid science and should be taught in his state's public schools (Apparently he hasn't read the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover decision.). Again, as a fellow former science concentrator from Brown University, Jindal should have known better.

As for Palin I'm not exactly sure what to believe with regards to purported claims that she is indeed a creationist. Her father collects fossils and is (or was) a science teacher.
The only instance I am aware of in which she supported "teach the controversy" was during an Alaska gubernatorial debate held two years ago.

John

Dear JLC and Science Avenger,

It's due to Dick Morris' excellent political campaigning that Bill Clinton was elected to two terms as President. How can he possibly be a "devious sack"? Indeed, I often read his columns and find them among the most insightful (I'm not stating this simply because he is a prominent alumnus of our high school; that's merely icing on the cake IMHO.).

If I'm going to trust the political acumen of a prominent alumnus from my high school, then I'll take Morris' and Thomas Sowell's (who incidentally flunked out since he found the curriculum too rigorous) any time over David Axelrod's.

John

John Kwok said: Dear JLC and Science Avenger, It's due to Dick Morris' excellent political campaigning that Bill Clinton was elected to two terms as President. How can he possibly be a "devious sack"? Indeed, I often read his columns and find them among the most insightful (I'm not stating this simply because he is a prominent alumnus of our high school; that's merely icing on the cake IMHO.). If I'm going to trust the political acumen of a prominent alumnus from my high school, then I'll take Morris' and Thomas Sowell's (who incidentally flunked out since he found the curriculum too rigorous) any time over David Axelrod's. John

Dear Frank J,

Since Morris is, like yours truly, an alumnus of America's foremost high school devoted to the sciences, mathematics and technology, I would expect him to support evolution as valid science. While I can't speak personally to that, I am keenly aware that he has a sound understanding of statistics (In fact, I would guess that his understanding is much better than David Axelrod's.).

John

John Kwok said: (Apparently [Jindal] hasn't read the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover decision)

Dear SLC,

It is a matter of record that Sowell is among our high school's most famous dropouts (Others include actor James Cagney (who left early to matriculate at Columbia University), jazz musician Thelonius Monk (He was a perfect A student in mathematics, but found playing jazz clubs to be far more lucrative) and Soviet/Russian media personality Vladimir Pozner (He left school when his parents moved back to the USSR.).

I don't associate with "scumbags". Unlike the Messiah I do choose my friends carefully (Let's see. His list of intriguing friends include the likes of Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, University of Illinois, Chicago professor William Ayers, Chicago attorney Bernadine Dohrn, Chicago minister Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Chicago real estate "developer" Anton Rezko.).

Respectfully yours,

John

Dear Frank J,

Since he bought "hook, line and sinker" proverbially speaking, the DI's "Academic Freedom Bill", I have no doubt that he trusts more the lies emanating from Luskin and my "pal" Bill Dembski and their fellow DI mendacious intellectual pornographers than the well-reasoned, persuasive logic written by a fellow conservative, Federal Judge John E. Jones at the close of the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial.

John

I don't entirely agree with Johsua Zelinsky that all science journals 'should stay above general politics.' One endorsement in 139 years does not, for me, taint their objectivity. But I do hope they don't make a habit of it. I see the issue more as a continuum of involvement rather than a binary choice.

Incidentally, I'd say the same things about religious groups and other special interest groups: the occasional endorsement isn't going to corrupt your religion (or cause), but being heavily involved in politics on an annual or ongoing basis, will.

John Kwok said: Dear SLC, It is a matter of record that Sowell is among our high school's most famous dropouts (Others include actor James Cagney (who left early to matriculate at Columbia University), jazz musician Thelonius Monk (He was a perfect A student in mathematics, but found playing jazz clubs to be far more lucrative) and Soviet/Russian media personality Vladimir Pozner (He left school when his parents moved back to the USSR.). I don't associate with "scumbags". Unlike the Messiah I do choose my friends carefully (Let's see. His list of intriguing friends include the likes of Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, University of Illinois, Chicago professor William Ayers, Chicago attorney Bernadine Dohrn, Chicago minister Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Chicago real estate "developer" Anton Rezko.). Respectfully yours, John

Frank J said: She admitted to being a YEC in 1997. The same year that I - a mid-career chemist no less - fell for "teach both sides".

That must be several years after 1997. Now the interesting question is what did she learn that made her no longer "necessarily" a YEC? Was it progressive OEC, or the hybrid old-earth-young-life positions? Or did she just learn the "don't ask, don't tell" strategy from the ID crowd? Or was she brought up to speed by a theistic evolutionist who showed her that creationism/ID is indeed nonsense, but was unable to convince her that that teaching it is unconstitutional?

Dear SLC,

Senator McCain was the only Republican I voted for consistently when I resided in AZ from 1985 through the Spring of 1996. Virtually all the rest were crooks, fools or scoundrels of an entirely different stripe (Indeed I was an active participant in the recall movement against Governor Evan Meacham.). He deserved my votes back then and he does deserve the votes of anyone who thinks the USA will become the USSA (United Socialist States of America) under the "wise" leadership of our DEAR LEADER THE MESSIAH.

I hate to disappoint you, but I am an alumnus of that other prominent New York City public specialized science high school, Stuyvesant, not Bronx Science (which has 7 distinguished alumni who are Nobel Prize laureates in physics, including Brown University professor of neurosciences and physics Leon Cooper.). Stuyvesant's distinguished alumni include these likely suspects as potential members of a Messiah administration: Eric Holder, formerly Deputy Attorney General of the United States and of course, David Axelrod, who is orchestrating the Messiah's felonious assault on American democracy as I write this (Indeed we still don't know whether the Messiah is a natural born US citizen.).

John

John, it probably doesn't help convince people of your argument if you are going to use highly debunked claims like the smears about Obama's citizenship. If there were any serious doubt about it you can be damn sure that both Clinton and McCain would have made a point about it.

JM Thanks for the lecture. ;) My original statement, was that it is naive of us secular types to assume that a devout religious person should consider voting about values that are not somehow wrapped around their religion. And I stand by it. I don’t back-peddle, and it doesn’t need to be clarified any further. If you don’t see this, I consider you to be one of the many who underestimate a fundamentally religious worldview, and therefore guilty of the aforementioned naivety.

John Kwok said: Dear SLC, Senator McCain was the only Republican I voted for consistently when I resided in AZ from 1985 through the Spring of 1996. Virtually all the rest were crooks, fools or scoundrels of an entirely different stripe (Indeed I was an active participant in the recall movement against Governor Evan Meacham.). He deserved my votes back then and he does deserve the votes of anyone who thinks the USA will become the USSA (United Socialist States of America) under the "wise" leadership of our DEAR LEADER THE MESSIAH. I hate to disappoint you, but I am an alumnus of that other prominent New York City public specialized science high school, Stuyvesant, not Bronx Science (which has 7 distinguished alumni who are Nobel Prize laureates in physics, including Brown University professor of neurosciences and physics Leon Cooper.). Stuyvesant's distinguished alumni include these likely suspects as potential members of a Messiah administration: Eric Holder, formerly Deputy Attorney General of the United States and of course, David Axelrod, who is orchestrating the Messiah's felonious assault on American democracy as I write this (Indeed we still don't know whether the Messiah is a natural born US citizen.). John

John Kwok -

It is obvious that nothing could shake your blind ideological commitment to the Republican party. I don't mean that to be insulting; it's just clear at this point that nothing conceivable could.

Although John McCain did not have an objectively anti-scientific record before this election, at least in my view, he chose a creationist ignoramous as a running mate, and did so with the open objective of increasing the enthusiasm of anti-science voters for his campaign. That makes him an anti-science candidate. Whether he "secretly believes in science" is irrelevant.

"Army Soldier" -

Your opposite-of-reality suggestion that a McCain administration would be more likely to fund scientific research than an Obama administration is probably a parody. If it isn't, it borders on delusional.

Everyone -

Of course, the choice is clear in this election even if we confine ourselves to a narrow, concrete view of who is the anti-science candidate, and reserve that label only for Sarah Palin, the candidate who explicitly and implicitly denies and disapproves of science and scientific research.

We can also observe, of course, that virtually all of the other capitalist democracies in the world have pursued a more "liberal", that is, a more regulated and cooperative, and less punitive, socioeconomic course than the US over the last thirty years. In the same time period, the US has sunk relatively, and recently, even absolutely, on measures of social well-being such as infant mortality, life expectancy, and probably, even per capita GDP (we'll soon know).

That is certainly not the result of a controlled experiment, and anyone can note how many confounding variables there are, but it is a valid objective observation.

We cannot say that "conservative movement" ideology social and economic policies are the reason or sole reason why well-being has declined for the majority of Americans, but we can note that their adoption has been contempraneous with such a decline, and that otherwise similar nations that did not adopt them, or adopted them less completely, did not experience such a decline.

I would suggest that, at this point, it borders on being unscientific, in the sense of denying objective evidence, to continue to unquestioningly support Republican socio-economic policies, even beyond those that are directly linked to funding for academic science or science teaching in public schools.

(An exception would be that small subset of self-described conservatives, which I know exists because I have known some, who actually wish for conditions that most Americans would be appalled by, such as widespread hunger at lower income levels or greatly expanded use of executions. For those who subjectively view such conditions as "better", data like infant mortality statistics may be irrelevant, but for most people, including the vast majority of conservatives, such data is a valid way of gauging the state of US society.)

John Kwok Blithered thusly:

Both Senator McCain and Governor Palin accept evolution as valid science.

Have either of them said that to their evangelical "base" of support?" If so, what was their response?

Palin has explicitly said she believes there are photos of human and dinosaur footprints side by side. This is not "accepting evolution as valid science." Furthermore, many evangelicals in the Palin camp reject science itself, so even if they accepted evolution as "valid science," they still don't value "valid science." Either way, Kwok's statement is a lie. He knows he can't defend or justify his party's position, so he has to make stuff up to hide from his shame.

And repeatedly calling Obama "the Messiah" further sinks his credibility. (Whose portrait are kids taught to revere at Jesus camps again?)

Teaching both sides is wrong but for much more subtle reasons than YECism. I understand why you would have some sympathy for her but it really doesn't help matters.

— Joshua Zelinsky

Raging Bee, do you have a citation for the claim that Palin said that there were pictures of human and dino footprints together? Also what year was it from?

Frank, yes in the case of Gore it was a clear indication that the man did not have much in the way of a spine. And it was one reason I didn't see much of a difference between him and Bush in 2000.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-palinreligion28-2008sep28,0,3643718.story?track=rss <--Here's what the LA Times says about it.

In case no one said this yet...

Of course Nature endorsed Obama. And the unnamed, unembodied, possibly deceased intelligent designer endorsed McCain (but really wanted Huckabee).

Dear SLC:

I am correct in accusing both the Messiah and his Svengali, fellow Stuy alum David Axelrod, of actively promoting a felonious assault on our democratic republic now. The Messiah has been aided and abetted by his "erstwhile" pals at ACORN as noted in ongoing FBI investigations into voter registration fraud in at least a dozen states (The same ACORN whose NYC chapter tried back in the mid 1990s to eliminate schools like Stuyvesant and Bronx Science, clamining that they were "racist" for not admitting enough Afro-American students. The same ACORN which supports the construction of an urban ecological disaster in New York City known as the downtown Brooklyn Atlantic Yards Project.).

The Messiah has called for the creation of his own civilian police corps answerable only to him, not to Congress. What's this? A potential American "Brown Shirts" movement? The Messiah is the only constitutional lawyer I know of who believes that the United States Constitution is a badly flawed document. These are but two mere examples out of many which suggest strongly to me that the Messiah is not a Democrat, but instead, a Marxist-Leninist pretending to be a democrat.

Respectfully yours,

John Kwok

P. S. If there are no valid issues regarding his birth certificate, then the Messiah should have released it. Rightly or wrongly, the longer he does a "song and dance" routine with regards to its potential press release, the easier it is for me and many others to believe that he's hiding something like the fact that he is not a "natural born United States citizen" as required by the U. S. Constitution for any prospective Presidential candidate.

Dear Raging Bee,

"Calypso Louie" Louis Farrakhan has proclaimed to his flock that his buddy Barack Hussein Obama is indeed the Messiah, not once, but several times, most recently last month. In fact in his recent proclaimation, he strongly advised fellow Americans to get used to the notion of Obama as the Messiah.

As for Palin, could you provide me WHERE she made such a risible claim. It's entirely possible that she was joking.

John

Hi all,

Noted Afro-American journalist Deroy Murdock makes a persuasive argument explaining why McCain is for more freedom, while the Messiah is for far far less:

http://unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=McCain+the+choice+for+freedom,+prosperity&articleId=2398f07b-1978-4808-b2e5-64d66cd927e3

For me the choice is clear. If you are truly in favor of academic and economic freedom, then vote for McCain. On the other hand, if you wish to see the United States of America transformed into the United Socialist States of America courtesy of Obama, Axelrod and the rest of their Marxist ilk, then vote for the Messiah.

Respectfully yours,

John

It's disheartening that you can't even use people's real names, unless you're name-dropping your old schoolmates.
It's almost as bad as all the "Marxist" crap.

Wheels said: It's disheartening that you can't even use people's real names, unless you're name-dropping your old schoolmates. It's almost as bad as all the "Marxist" crap.

John Kwok said: P. S. If there are no valid issues regarding his birth certificate, then the Messiah should have released it.

In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a natural-born citizen. But the image prompted more blog-based skepticism about the document's authenticity. And recently, author Jerome Corsi, whose book attacks Obama, said in a TV interview that the birth certificate the campaign has is "fake." We beg to differ. FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as "supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said. Update, Nov. 1: The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu.

Dear Wheels,

Barack Hussein Obama has consistently refused to release to the public a valid copy of his birth certificate (that one you cite is not a valid copy) or his sworn affadavit swearing his allegiance to the United States upon his return from living overseas for many years in Indonesia; both are required for him to be recognized as a "natural born United States citizen" eligible to run as a Presidential candidate. If neither is valid, and he wins the election, it would result in a constitutional crisis; a crisis resolvable only by Senator Joseph Biden's appointment as the President-Elect.

John

John Kwok said: Dear SLC: I am correct in accusing both the Messiah and his Svengali, fellow Stuy alum David Axelrod, of actively promoting a felonious assault on our democratic republic now. The Messiah has been aided and abetted by his "erstwhile" pals at ACORN as noted in ongoing FBI investigations into voter registration fraud in at least a dozen states (The same ACORN whose NYC chapter tried back in the mid 1990s to eliminate schools like Stuyvesant and Bronx Science, clamining that they were "racist" for not admitting enough Afro-American students. The same ACORN which supports the construction of an urban ecological disaster in New York City known as the downtown Brooklyn Atlantic Yards Project.). The Messiah has called for the creation of his own civilian police corps answerable only to him, not to Congress. What's this? A potential American "Brown Shirts" movement? The Messiah is the only constitutional lawyer I know of who believes that the United States Constitution is a badly flawed document. These are but two mere examples out of many which suggest strongly to me that the Messiah is not a Democrat, but instead, a Marxist-Leninist pretending to be a democrat. Respectfully yours, John Kwok P. S. If there are no valid issues regarding his birth certificate, then the Messiah should have released it. Rightly or wrongly, the longer he does a "song and dance" routine with regards to its potential press release, the easier it is for me and many others to believe that he's hiding something like the fact that he is not a "natural born United States citizen" as required by the U. S. Constitution for any prospective Presidential candidate.

Dear SLC:

I have ample respect for Ed Brayton, especially for his excellent work that established Panda's Thumb, but he is completely wrong with respect to ACORN. The FBI initiated its investigations after the Nevada Attorney General's office raided ACORN's Las Vegas office (A raid authorized by Democrats incidentally.). As for ACORN's past and present malevolent activities here in New York City, they are also amply documented. Indeed, I have crossed verbal swords with NYC ACORN leader Bertha Lewis, who insisted that current Stuyvesant High School students should tutor those students in ACORN-dominated neighborhoods seeking to pass the rigorous entrance exam to Stuyvesant, Bronx Science and their fellow New York City specialized public high schools. I told her that if they are really serious, then both the students and their parents should try to do a better job getting the education that will prepare them for Stuyvesant and Bronx Science, not by making impossible demands upon current students at my alma mater and Bronx Science who are interested in their own personal academic achievement.

When a politician like Barack Hussein Obama declares to an average citizen like "Joe the Plumber" that he is interested in raising taxes so he can "spread the wealth around", that's a perfect example of a Socialist speaking. The same is true with regards to his interest in giving us a "95% middle class tax cut", ignoring the fact that 40% do not pay any Federal taxes (Instead, they would be receiving "rebates", yet another instance of "spread the wealth around", right?). Mr. Obama is a Marxist-Leninist in his absurd observation that the U. S. Constitution ought to be revised substantially, and in his advocacy of a separate, independent police force distinct from the National Guard; in other words, a paramilitary force of the kinds used by the likes of Franco, Hitler, Hussein and Mussolini. He also shares with Marxist-Leninists the unfortunate tendency of trying to silence dissent, whether it is from the likes of "Joe the Plumber" to the NRA's television ads critical of his stance on the Second Amendment.

I hate to disappoint you, SLC, but much of the country must be
comprised of ample examples of a "lying piece of filth" since they have recognized - and have stated frequently whether it is online or on talk radio or some other venue - that the Messiah is a "skinny Hitler" who is not a Democrat, but rather, an unabashed Marxist-Leninist.

Respectfully yours,

John Kwok

John Kwok said: Dear Wheels, Barack Hussein Obama has consistently refused to release to the public a valid copy of his birth certificate (that one you cite is not a valid copy)...

... or his sworn affadavit swearing his allegiance to the United States upon his return from living overseas for many years in Indonesia...

And now you're not referring to him as "The Messiah," but constantly using his -full- name? I don't see you using the appellation John Sidney McCain III.

Dear John,
It's election day. Welcome to the USSA.
Hope you enjoy the next eight years as much as I've enjoyed the last.

John,

Though I can't count any graduates of my humble high school as particular luminaries, I can make the distinctive claim that the superintendent of my school system was one of the instigators of Kansas' brief incursion into creation in the classroom.

I live in Kansas, amongst the congregation so to speak. What I may lack in school smarts (in deference to your mighty education) I believe is more than compensated by knowing how to spot a creationist - one cannot live in this environment without gaining an acute insight into the warning signs.

Sarah Palin makes my create-o-meter peg off the scale. She is the literal embodiment of my old biology teacher, who assured me that evolution wasn't believed by anyone anymore. She is the parent of the child who told my son he couldn't vote for Obama in the school election because it was "against his religion." It is such a glaring beacon of danger, I literally wonder how any reasonable person can not help but to at least acknowledge it.

When you drink that Kool-Aid, John, you might try taking a sip of the brand that gives you the power to avoid emotional, inflammatory references to a United States Senator such as your chosen "Messiah". It belittles your intelligence and belies the nature of your favorite beverage of political refreshment.

Man, I'm going to be glad when tomorrow comes and this crap is over.

I'm going to be even more glad a couple of years from now, when (regardless of who wins) it becomes obvious that the extremists on the other side were wrong and the man elected did not cause the downfall of the American state as we know it, as they currently insist he will.

IMO nothing is as ridiculous as political hyperbole (except possibly creationism).

Man, I’m going to be glad when tomorrow comes

Dear Wheels:

I need no lesson from you as to how I refer to my former US Senator from the Great State of Arizona. If I choose to refer to him by his full name, then so be it. However, in stark contrast, the Messiah doesn't want people to know that his middle name is Hussein.

For the record McCain was born on what was then sovereign United States territory, the grandson of one of the greatest fighting admirals of World War II. In stark contrast, the Messiah's mother gave birth to her son within months after her marriage to her husband, a visiting exchange student from Kenya. Where she gave birth is still a matter that should be investigated IMHO. If the Messiah chose to release the records, then this would never have been an issue.

John Kwok

Dear Chuck,

If we do become the USSA, then I am hopeful that our military will honor their oaths to defend the U. S. Constitution by any means necessary, including a military coup d'etat against the Messiah.

John

Dear Scott S.,

If I took my "mighty education" seriously enough, I would be voting for the Messiah since he is a fellow Ivy Leaguer. However, while living amongst people who never heard of the Ivy League, Brown University or Stuyvesant High School for years, I soon realized that my "mighty education" didn't mean anything to them. It's the quality of the education which counts, not where you acquired it. In the Messiah's case, he has soaked up radical Marxist-Leninist views since his youth, with his "former" neighbors William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn as two of his most important mentors. He was so radicalized that he thought nothing of associating himself with these two unrepentant domestic terrorists.

I hope most of America will wake up by the day's end and realize that we should not associate ourselves with the likes of the Messiah or his Svengali, David Axelrod, who unfortunately is an alumnus of my prominent New York City public high school alma mater.

Respectfully yours,

John

John Kwok said: If the Messiah chose to release the records, then this would never have been an issue. John Kwok

John Kwok said: Dear Chuck, If we do become the USSA, then I am hopeful that our military will honor their oaths to defend the U. S. Constitution by any means necessary, including a military coup d'etat against the Messiah. John

I have no standing to prefer one candidate for the Presidency of the United States over another. It is no business of mine. I can only congratulate the people of the United States on their choice, and hope that their decent, honourable and historic attachment to habeas corpus, the right to a speedy trial, the right of freedom from arbitrary arrest, as well as to the Geneva conventions and other just international covenants, and many other rights and liberties, will now resume their previous course.

Dear SLC:

Should the Messiah act like a Marxist-Leninist once he assumes the Presidency, then I expect the military to do what it is necessary to honor their oaths to serve and to protect the US Constitution. If it means a military coup, then so be it.

John

To my fellow Panda's Thumb posters:

I salute the Messiah on his historic achievement, which all Americans should be proud of. However, I do not like or trust him.

Respectfully yours,

John Kwok

I'm still waiting for the evidence that he isnt a US citizen.

John Kwok said: Dear SLC: Should the Messiah act like a Marxist-Leninist once he assumes the Presidency, then I expect the military to do what it is necessary to honor their oaths to serve and to protect the US Constitution. If it means a military coup, then so be it. John

John Kwok said: Dear SLC: Should the Messiah act like a Marxist-Leninist once he assumes the Presidency, then I expect the military to do what it is necessary to honor their oaths to serve and to protect the US Constitution. If it means a military coup, then so be it. John

John Kwok said: Dear SLC: Should the Messiah act like a Marxist-Leninist once he assumes the Presidency, then I expect the military to do what it is necessary to honor their oaths to serve and to protect the US Constitution. If it means a military coup, then so be it. John

So we can imagine the blatant disregard for our Constitution, but what other threats does an Obama administration pose? We have been clearly warned by his running mate, Joe Biden, that America will suffer some form of attack within the first 6 months of Obama’s administration. However, unlike Joe, I do not believe this “attack” will be a test of Obama’s mettle. Rather, I perceive it will be a planned effort by those with whom Obama truly sympathizes to take down the America that is threat to tyranny. What nobody seems to be discussing is the fact that if such an attack takes place, what about Martial Law? What happens to expand executive power when a state of civil disorder is declared?

— Dunbar

John Kwok said: Dear Wheels, Barack Hussein Obama has consistently refused to release to the public a valid copy of his birth certificate (that one you cite is not a valid copy) or his sworn affadavit swearing his allegiance to the United States upon his return from living overseas for many years in Indonesia; both are required for him to be recognized as a "natural born United States citizen" eligible to run as a Presidential candidate. If neither is valid, and he wins the election, it would result in a constitutional crisis; a crisis resolvable only by Senator Joseph Biden's appointment as the President-Elect. John

Wheels said: I'm still waiting for the evidence that he isnt a US citizen.

John Kwok said: To my fellow Panda's Thumb posters: I salute the Messiah on his historic achievement, which all Americans should be proud of. However, I do not like or trust him. Respectfully yours, John Kwok

PvM said: What surprises me is the extent of which your dislike seems to have affected your judgment. Surely the birth certificate issue has since long been rejected...

Dear Chuck, SLC and anyone else,

Okay, I guess I didn't make myself clear enough. If the Messiah tries to govern as a Communist dictator, then I expect the military to carry out its oath to serve and to protect the Constitution by removing him from office. Clear enough?

I also believe that once the Messiah's administration is in full swing, there will be many people who will feel nostalgic towards Bush's and even Nixon's.

Last, but not least, I agree with this astute observation of SLC's:

"Folks, the election is over. Time to get back to more important things like the reelection of the wingnuts to the Texas board of education and what to do about the science standards in that state."

I just want to remind SLC that he/she decided to pour some unnecessary rhetorical gasoline after that excellent observation, since I did note earlier today:

"I salute the Messiah on his historic achievement, which all Americans should be proud of. However, I do not like or trust him."

I strongly advise all to move onward and end this thread now.

Respectfully yours,

John Kwok

Why can't you back up anything you say, you bigoted intellectual coward?

John Kwok said: Dear Scott S., If I took my "mighty education" seriously enough, I would be voting for the Messiah since he is a fellow Ivy Leaguer. However, while living amongst people who never heard of the Ivy League, Brown University or Stuyvesant High School for years, I soon realized that my "mighty education" didn't mean anything to them. It's the quality of the education which counts, not where you acquired it. In the Messiah's case, he has soaked up radical Marxist-Leninist views since his youth, with his "former" neighbors William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn as two of his most important mentors. He was so radicalized that he thought nothing of associating himself with these two unrepentant domestic terrorists. I hope most of America will wake up by the day's end and realize that we should not associate ourselves with the likes of the Messiah or his Svengali, David Axelrod, who unfortunately is an alumnus of my prominent New York City public high school alma mater. Respectfully yours, John

John Kwok said: Okay, I guess I didn't make myself clear enough. If the Messiah tries to govern as a Communist dictator, then I expect the military to carry out its oath to serve and to protect the Constitution by removing him from office. Clear enough?

John Kwok has obviously been watching too much Fox News and listening to too much Rush Limbaugh. Of course, there were ample signs he was a total tool, even before he started talking about his priapistic hard-on for the authoritarian right's obvious lies and its endless, disgusting culture war. Kwok hearts science, yet also hearts those who hate it most. Does not compute.

John Kwok said: If the Messiah tries to govern as a Communist dictator, then I expect the military to carry out its oath to serve and to protect the Constitution by removing him from office.

As I understand the matter, if the President of the United States should attempt to govern in a manner that is not in accordance with the Constitution, or performs any act whatsoever that could be construed as a "high crime or misdemeanor" (which would seem to cover anything Mr Kwok could call an attempt to "govern like a Communist dictator"), then it is in the first place the duty of the Supreme Court to rule his acts unconstitutional and without force, and in the second place the duty of the Legislature to legislate to prevent them and to impeach. Absent those proceedings, Senator and now President-elect Obama is constitutionally entitled to pursue any policies he deems fit once he is sworn in on January 20, and it is the duty of the United States military to obey the lawful orders of its duly elected Commander-in-chief. I am as certain as I can be from here that it would do its duty. That is, it really would honour its oaths to the Constitution.

In Australia, I believe that any person who attempted to incite serving military personnel to mutiny and rebellion against lawful civilian authority would technically be guilty of treason, although it would have to go very far before the courts would intervene, our reverence for free speech being much the same as America's. Still, I would urge Mr Kwok to consider what he is saying.

the american chemical society also endorsed obama

but at this point who cares ;)

ben said: John Kwok has obviously been watching too much Fox News and listening to too much Rush Limbaugh. Of course, there were ample signs he was a total tool, even before he started talking about his priapistic hard-on for the authoritarian right's obvious lies and its endless, disgusting culture war. Kwok hearts science, yet also hearts those who hate it most. Does not compute.

Dear Richard and Dave,

I have very good reasons to dislike Bush. One of my cousins is former U. S. Army chaplain James Yee, who was the Muslim chaplain falsely accused of treason a few years ago. Need I say more?

I've raised the specter of a possible military removal of the Messiah since he has espoused the creation of a brand new civilian defense force that would be as well-funded as the military. While I would prefer going through legal means (e. g. impeachment and conviction which would lead to his removal from office), it might not be possible if the Messiah gets his wish to have his own "Republican Guards".

Unless you really have anything that is meaningful to say, then I suggest we end this thread now. It has out-lived its usefulness IMHO.

John

Has everyone seen the reports that Obama may tap RFK Jr. for either sec interior or sec EPA? This does seriously undermine the arguments that Obama would be pro-science.

(And John, you really aren't helping matters by taking a comment Obama made about having civilian to help people and turning that into a claim that he wants his own personal military force. It correctly comes across as just nutty).

Dear Joshua,

We don't need a separate civilian corps of any kind, period. For the Messiah to say that we need one and that it should be as well-funded as the military really ought to raise people's eyebrows. I've reluctantly concluded that this is all too reminiscient of the Brown Shirts and Republican Guards. So you're mistaken to infer that mine is a "nutty" remark.

John

P. S. There is nothing that suggests to me in either his answers to Nature's questions or to those from Call for a Science Debate that Obama really understands science and technology well. He doesn't. Why? He's a leftist-leaning constitutional lawyer whose roots are in radical community organizing. He hasn't tried - unlike, for example, John McCain with respect to global warming - to devote himself towards some aspect of science and technology. Don't bet on real change with respect to science and technology from him. If you do, then you are merely deceiving yourself.

John, we are getting further and further afield of what this thread should be about but I'm curious as to whether you consider the Peace Corps to be in the same category. What Obama proposed seems quite similar. He has never claimed that anyone would be armed or anything like that. So yes, claiming that an unarmed civilian agency to help people is similar to Brown Shirts is nutty.

...to say nothing of the fact that calling President-Elect Obama "The Messiah" - something that I've only ever heard right wingers, and not the saner among them, do - is a textbook example of "poisoning the well".

...to say nothing of the fact that calling President-Elect Obama "a socialist" implies one has never, ever, met, let alone discussed with, a socialist.

John, why don't you agree with Senator McCain's gracious concession speech?

Aureola Nominee, FCD said: ...to say nothing of the fact that calling President-Elect Obama "The Messiah" - something that I've only ever heard right wingers, and not the saner among them, do - is a textbook example of "poisoning the well". ...to say nothing of the fact that calling President-Elect Obama "a socialist" implies one has never, ever, met, let alone discussed with, a socialist.

Dear Joshua,

I don't regard either the Peace Corps or its American equivalent, AmeriCorps, as entities which are even remotely comparable to what Obama has proposed (Moreover I think both are quite worthwhile.). But again, yours and other eyebrows should be raised when he has called for a creation of an "Obama Youth Corps" which will be as well-funded as the military. Why for heaven's sake do we need such an entity? It really should raise a red flag in your eyes as well as mine. I have to conclude that the only reason why he wants such a brand-new organization funded at military levels is for the nefarious reason I have supplied; the creation of his own "Republican Guard" or "Brown Shirts". Why would he want to create such an organization - at the risk of further jeopardizing our own precarious economy - unless it will help reinforce his ongoing cult of personality?

Believe me I'm not losing my mind. But you should wonder whether his reasons for proposing this organization are really as innocuous as you contend.

Respectfully yours,

John

Dear John,

I'm afraid there's more than one way to be inaccurate.

Farrakhan has said, "Sen. Obama is not the Messiah for sure, but anytime, he gives you a sign of uniting races, ethnic groups, ideologies, religions and makes people feel a sense of oneness, that’s not necessarily Satan’s work, that is I believe the work of God."
Do you need someone to highlight in bold the pertinent words, or can you notice the inaccuracy of your attribution?

As to the second part of your post, you haven't made even a token effort to show any inaccuracy on my part. Obama is not only not a socialist - indeed, since he does not walk like a socialist and does not quack like a socialist, your very words show he isn't - nor a Marxist-Leninist - as even a cursory study of political theory would have shown you; he is a rather centrist politician, advocating bland correctives to the rampant market lawlessness that the Bush maladministration has brought about.

The fact that you regard market regulation - something that conservatives of old considered essential to liberty - as an attack upon your freedoms shows how far to the right the political discourse has shifted over the past decades. Sorry John, according to your ideologically slanted perception, Mussolini himself would have to be classified as Communist. That may be good for a relaxing laugh, if you weren't so frighteningly serious in your slanderous delusion.

I suggest you stop using such divisive rhetorical tools ("the Messiah", "the Brown Shirts", the "Republican Guards", the "military coup", ad nauseam) and return to a more serene civic discussion.

Dear Aureola:

I will continue referring to Obama as the Messiah, until and unless he demonstrates that he truly respects democratic principles. He hasn't convinced me of that. Maybe you forgot that just last month Louis Farrakhan told his audience that Obama is the Messiah and that folks better get use to the idea.

When Obama ceases to advocate for an "Obama Youth Corps" then I will stop making comparisons of it to the Brown Shirts, Maoist Red Guards or the Republican Guard. Deal?

Respectfully yours,

John

Dear Aureola:

I haven't read all of the Messiah's "profound remarks" but more than enough to realize that he is indeed a radical socialist. If he demonstrates his sincere commitment to democratic principles, then I will cease thinking of him as a Marxist - Leninist. But it's up to him, not yours truly.

Respectfully yours,

John

John Kwok said: Dear Aureola: I will continue referring to Obama as the Messiah, until and unless he demonstrates that he truly respects democratic principles. He hasn't convinced me of that. Maybe you forgot that just last month Louis Farrakhan told his audience that Obama is the Messiah and that folks better get use to the idea. When Obama ceases to advocate for an "Obama Youth Corps" then I will stop making comparisons of it to the Brown Shirts, Maoist Red Guards or the Republican Guard. Deal? Respectfully yours, John

Dear John,

your continued reference to President-Elect Obama as "the Messiah" is your right. It is also a textbook demonstration of the "poisoning the well" debating fallacy, as I already said. If you are happy with such a blatant demonstration of your prejudice, who am I to complain?

As well, you can continue to argue that a centrist politician who would barely make the cut for the left wing of the German CDU or the French RPR - certainly nothing even remotely resembling a Socialist, let alone a Communist, party, is a Marxist-Leninist (do you have even a faint idea what those words mean, or do you simply use them as synonymous with "bad, bad people"?).

I haven't forgotten anything; I have quoted Louis Farrakhan's own words that show your misquote to be at best a quote mine. They are printed black on white on Farrakhan's own publication. I repeat, do you need someone to highlight the passage where Farrakhan says exactly the opposite of what you claim?

And of course you can compare any peaceful organization of young people to a paramilitary corps for the violent suppression of dissent, be it a Youth Corps, a Peace Corps, or the Boy Scouts of America; and anyone else can point out that these, too, are paranoid delusions, founded on no evidence.

So, to sum up: poisoning the well, pulling stuff out of this air, quote mining, and no evidence all around.

You've been fighting Creationists for too long, John; you've got their techniques down pat.

Mr Kwok, I have not read any remark, heard of any policy, nor observed any act by Senator Obama that would lead me to believe that he is a socialist, let alone a Marxist-Leninist. Would you care to cite your sources?

Dave Luckett said: Mr Kwok, I have not read any remark, heard of any policy, nor observed any act by Senator Obama that would lead me to believe that he is a socialist, let alone a Marxist-Leninist. Would you care to cite your sources?

Dear Dave,

In "Dreams of My Father", Obama refers to his teenage Hawaiian mentor, who has been unearthed as a key Hawaiian figure in the Communist Party USA. In the same book, he also notes that he "chose his friends carefully" at Columbia University, associating with radical Socialists often of the Marxist-Leninist stripe.

Several writers, such as for example, British expatriate journalist Mark Steyn, have observed that in a gathering of European Socialist leaders, Obama would be the most leftist-leaning, even more so than, for example, German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Ours is not a democratic socialist nation, period. However, it may be if Obama decides to govern as a democratic socialist with pronounced Marxist - Leninist leanings. So I have every legitimate reason to be concerned about potential loss of our liberties.

Last, but not least, I strongly resent Obama's claim in his victory speech that ours did not become a great nation until his election. We were a great nation before Obama, his wife and I were born. We were a great nation while all three of us attended high school and college. We were a great nation when Dubya was elected (It may seem ironic for me to observe this in light of what his first secretary of defense - Rumsfeld - did to my cousin Jim, but I still stand behind this remark.). We were a great nation on November 3, 2008. And we will still be a great nation at the close of the Obama Regime.

Respectfully yours,

John Kwok

Dear Aureola,

I've come up with a new nickname for the Messiah: Sauron. I'll let you mull over its literary reference.

Respectfully yours,

John

Dear John,

Your British expatriate friend must have troubles with accuracy as big as yours; Angela Merkel is the leader of CDU, the German Christian-Democratic Union, NOT a Socialist or left-leaning party. I agree with you that Obama would be slightly to the left of her; I bet he would also be slightly to the left of Mr. Berlusconi. He would be, however, FAR to the right of Socialists such as Mr. Zapatero and slightly to the right of Labourists such as Mr. Brown. No amount of hand-waving can shoehorn President-Elect Obama into a mold he does not fit. Oh, and smear by association is another logical fallacy.

Second, once again you misquote, this time President-Elect Obama himself. Maybe you should double-check your notes on his victory speech, because he didn't "claim in his victory speech that ours did not become a great nation until his election". Here is the full text of his victory speech: please read it and point out for me where those words - or even that concept - are hidden.

http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/04/obama-victory-speech/

It took me some 30 seconds to google.

It's becoming harder and harder to believe that yours are honest mistakes; I sincerely hope that these factual errors of yours, fueled indubitably by a deep-seated ideological prejudice, will be corrected.

If not, well, we all know what people call those who don't admit error even when confronted with indisputable evidence.

Dear Aureola,

I know Merkel doesn't have any socialist leanings, period, but is actually the leader of the German Christian Democrats. I was wondering whether you knew that. So good for you that you picked up on this deliberate error of mine.

The Messiah is demonstrating just how naive he is by considering RFK Jr. for the post of EPA chief (I shudder to think of my elementary school, junior high and high school classmate - who is now a senior EPA administrator based on the West Coast - reporting directly to him.). But hey, RFK Jr. is a great lawyer who loves the environment, so it must be okay for the Messiah, right (MEMO TO OBAMA: I'd reconsider since RFK Jr. is active in the risible anti-vaccination movement that is just as much an example of anti-scientific nonsense as ID and other flavors to creationism.)?

Last, but not least, you get to pick. Should I refer to Obama as the Messiah or as Sauron in future PT postings? The choice is yours.

Respectfully yours,

John

Dear John,

are you trying to pull a Poe? Because you sure sounded very serious in accusing President-Elect Obama of Socialist leanings by comparing him to Chancellor Merkel, a right-wing politician.

Frankly, I think your error wasn't deliberate at all, but rather the result of your confirmation bias. But good for you that you at least admit you were mistaken.

Now, instead of trying to change the subject to RFK, Jr., why don't you try to explain away another (deliberate?) mistake, i.e. the one about President-Elect Obama saying something in his victory speech that he never even came close to suggesting?

Oh, no, my bad; first you should try to explain away yet another (deliberate?) mistake, i.e. saying Louis Farrakhan said something when he is on record as saying the exact opposite.

Take your time; I'm patient. But don't expect me to stop asking the same questions as long as necessary; I've battled creationists too, you know, and watched them squirm by using exactly this approach.

You should be better than that. Despite your over-reliance on name-dropping, you have shown you can be a witty, rational debater. Alas, you aren't displaying those good qualities in this specific instance, but spes ultima dea.

John Kwok said: Last, but not least, you get to pick. Should I refer to Obama as the Messiah or as Sauron in future PT postings? The choice is yours.

He thinks Obama is the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but he's too shy to admit it.

Where is the evidence that Obama isn't a citizen?

If you aren't going to support the claim, the least you can do is retract it.

Dear Aureola,

Just using my typical Frank McCourtesque sardonic humor. I almost wrote British Prime Minister Gordon Brown in lieu of Angela Merkel, but decided to throw you for a loop.

I didn't hear all of the Messiah's speech - I fell asleep before he spoke - but I did hear that sound bite of his in which he was more suggesting that his election meant that America was finally a great nation.

Maybe you ought to be concerned about his potential EPA chief pick of Kennedy since that speaks volumes with regards to his understanding of science. It would be akin to appointing Michael Behe as head of the FDA.

So should I refer to the Messiah as the Messiah in the future, or should I call him Sauron henceforth?

John

Dear Wheels:

When Phillip Berg withdraws his latest lawsuit or when the Messiah releases his birth certificate (one that can be vouched as genuine), whichever comes first.

John

chuck said: He thinks Obama is the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but he's too shy to admit it.

John Kwok said: Dear chuck (and Science Avenger): I've sarcastically wondered whether Obama is a Romulan. He certainly acts like one. John

Dear John,

Sorry, I don't believe you. I think it far more likely that you were simply repeating talking points glimpsed on some extreme right-wing website, the only places where Angela Merkel might be thought of as "Socialist" and Barack Obama as "Communist". And when called on it, you fabricated this pathetic "I was being funny" misdirection.

I'm eagerly awaiting you to quote the exact words used by President-Elect Obama that said (or even implied) that the United States had only become great because he had been elected.

Spoiler alert: there were NO such words, so no, you didn't hear those words; at best you merely imagined them, at worst yoiu invented them out of whole cloth.

Retract your libelous claim, or support it by quoting (with references, please) Obama's words that say what you claim he said.
I've even facilitated your search by giving you a direct link to the full text of the speech.

As to your constant innuendo about using "the Messiah", previously I merely quoted Farrakhan's own words, but gave no direct link for any honest lurker to verify them, so let me correct that by putting it here:

http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_4427.shtml

Aren't you ashamed of resorting to demonstrable falsehoods to smear President-Elect Obama? Don't you think you can disagree with his platform, or with the majority of Americans who voted for him, without inventing black-helicopter conspiracies?

So should I refer to the Messiah as the Messiah in the future, or should I call him Sauron henceforth?

I have no right whatsoever to weigh into a debate about the character, policies, or opinions of the President-elect of the United States. The President is elected by the voters of the United States, a process in which I have no part, nor desire one. On the other hand, I am completely neutral on the question, and as a historian, I am interested in historical fact.

I have to say that I found little in the nature of fact in Mr Kwok's accusations. The person he calls Obama's 'mentor' in Hawaii was Frank Marshall Davis, who was certainly a communist and agitator. Obama mentions him in his book "Dreams from my Father" (not "of my father"), a self-disclosure without which we would have no knowledge of the association. In the 'fifties, Joe McCarthy would have denounced Davis, and the FBI watched him for many years without finding anything more objectionable than that he had radical opinions. By the 70's Davis was in his own eighth decade, and a relic of a bygone age. The young Obama - he was eighteen when he left Hawaii - seems to have admired Davis's streetwise discourse, and he listened to his poetry, but there is no evidence whatsoever that Obama imbibed Marxist-Leninist thought from him. If this is to be taken as evidence that Obama is now a communist, then I am one myself, for I was friendly with radicals of similar stripe in my own youth. We were all young once, but we all grow up.

Mr Kwok has already admitted that in a company of genuine social democrats Obama would be well to the conservative side; that being slightly left of Merkel would hardly take him into, say, the British Labour Party. I would add that Steyn, while an incisive commentator and something of a gadfly, is an extreme Europhobe and far to the right of any current western European mainstream party, a position he very obviously resents. I find his description interesting without giving it much credence. Anyway, no statement of how far left or right a person's politics may be has much useful content without going into the tedious details of what specific policies they would advocate, issue by issue.

I gave myself the pleasure of listening again to Obama's speech in acceptance of his election as President, and found nothing in it that would correspond with Mr Kwok's description. (Incidentally, I congratulate Americans on electing a man who, whatever his policies may be, is a great orator, on a level with Martin Luther King, John F Kennedy and Winston Churchill.) On the contrary, Obama referred many times, with clear knowledge and obvious admiration, to the inspiring history of the United States, its long, hard upward journey towards the realisation in truth and action of its founders' great and noble ideals. He quoted Lincoln twice, both times with passion and sincerity. He said that he would "renew this nation's promise", not initiate it; that "America's beacon still burns as bright", not that it burns for the first time, and not that it burns brighter; and that this would be a "new dawn", not a first one. He referred approvingly to the founding ideals of the Republican party. To hear in this an intimation that his election made America great, or that it was not great before, requires nothing less than rancorous ill-will.

The policies the government of the United States are a matter for the people of the United States, and nobody else. They, in their wisdom, have lawfully elected a government, and it is the duty of a loyal citizen to grant that lawfully elected government legitimacy, no matter how opposed to its policies he or she might be. The remedy is to persuade fellow-citizens that the policies are wrong. It is emphatically not to canvass, far less advocate, a military coup. That way lies far worse abuses and evils than any that it seeks to redress.

Dave Luckett said: I have no right whatsoever to weigh into a debate about the character, policies, or opinions of the President-elect of the United States. The President is elected by the voters of the United States, a process in which I have no part, nor desire one. On the other hand, I am completely neutral on the question, and as a historian, I am interested in historical fact. .... The policies the government of the United States are a matter for the people of the United States, and nobody else. They, in their wisdom, have lawfully elected a government, and it is the duty of a loyal citizen to grant that lawfully elected government legitimacy, no matter how opposed to its policies he or she might be. The remedy is to persuade fellow-citizens that the policies are wrong. It is emphatically not to canvass, far less advocate, a military coup. That way lies far worse abuses and evils than any that it seeks to redress.

John Kwok said: Dear Wheels: When Phillip Berg withdraws his latest lawsuit or when the Messiah releases his birth certificate (one that can be vouched as genuine), whichever comes first. John

Dear Aureola,

The last time I checked, liberals were operating at warp speed to smear then President-Elect Bush. It never stopped except briefly in the immediate aftermath of 9/11/01. Since I'm not a Christian and don't believe in "turn the other cheek", I thought it best to give you and other Obamamaniacs a dose of your own medicine (Especially when it has been well-researched and published, not only in the National Review, but in the Wall Street Journal and other comparable publications.).

Hate to disappoint you, but I don't have time to regurgitate "right wing talking points". Have a lot more on my plate than to quote every conservative who is blogging online. Moreover I even make a point of reading DailyKos from time to time, even though I regard much of it as risible junk of the kind I have seen from the Dishonesty Institute's website and my "buddy" Bill Dembski's Uncommon Dissent website.

You still haven't answered my question. Should I refer to Obama in the future either as the Messiah or as Sauron (Those are your only two choices, period.)? Please explain why you opted for either one.

Respectfully yours,

John

Dear Mr. Luckett:

I have not admitted this:

"Mr Kwok has already admitted that in a company of genuine social democrats Obama would be well to the conservative side; that being slightly left of Merkel would hardly take him into, say, the British Labour Party."

Instead, I have insinuated that Obama would be the most leftist-leaning of Europe's and North America's most important leaders, even when you take into account the likes of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown (In stark contrast, German Chancellor Angela Merkel would be among its most conservative.).

As for Mr. Obama's radical "mentors" you have neglected to mention the likes of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Professor William Ayers, attorney Bernadine Dohrn, and, quite possibly, both Louis Farrakhan and Professor Rashid Khalidi. If I had meant to imply that Mr. Davis was Obama's primary "mentor", then I apologize for leading you astray. I also strongly advise you to read the existing evidence which definitely ties Obama to the likes of these "mentors" of him. Once you read them, then you ought to realize that my comments have been based on fact, not fiction.

While I have to admire grudingly just how well fellow Stuyvesant High School alumnus David Axelrod ran Obama's campaign for the Presidency, and do salute Obama for his historic achievement, it doesn't mean that I must put aside my grave doubts about his experience and capabilities to be the next President of the United States. Instead of "Hope" and "Change", Obama seems more interested in resurrecting elements of both the Carter and Clinton administrations. Only time will tell whether his inclinations are wise; but frankly, I am not very, very optimistic.

Respectfully yours,

John Kwok

Describe for me in your own words the connection between Bill Ayers and Barack Obama.
I'll let you take a break from building your case against his citizenship so that you can address this.

Wheels said: Describe for me in your own words the connection between Bill Ayers and Barack Obama. I'll let you take a break from building your case against his citizenship so that you can address this.

Dear John,

I already told you I wouldn't allow myself to be misdirected by your (rather goofy) attempts to lay smokescreens of logical fallacies to hide your inability to present any evidence whatsoever.

So, back to your "mistakes":

1) I gave you a link to Louis Farrakhan's own publication, quoting Louis Farrakhan's own words, which say exactly the opposite of what you claimed. Please explain why people should not therefore consider your contention a lie.

2) I gave you a link to the text of President-Elect Obama's victory speech, which does not include either words or ideas corresponding to your claims. Please explain why people should not therefore consider your contention a lie.

Until you do so, and especially as long as you keep up your efforts to change the subject and evade these two questions, I will provisionally consider your claims as refuted, and therefore dismiss anything else you have to say as, at the very least, highly suspect.

And if you still harbor any hope that I might be goaded into your silly false dichotomy of insults, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but your attempts to lower the level of discourse will not benefit from my assistance, however involuntary.

I am not willing to debate with Mr Kwok whether Senator Obama is in European terms a leftist. Perhaps he might be, although I think not. I certainly do think that the signal policies of a European social-welfare state, such as universal health care at the direct charge of the taxpayer, the redistributive use of taxation, much reduced military spending, abolition of capital punishment, acceptance of an official status for trades unions, and a much less laissez-faire approach to markets or economics generally, are unlikely to fly in the US, and it follows from this that President Obama's proposals would have to be far more modest. To this extent, President Obama's personal opinions or wishes are really rather irrelevant.

I am very relieved to hear Mr Kwok concede that Senator Obama's policies as President might well be wise no matter what influences Mr Kwok believes might have shaped them, and that only time will tell if they are not.

I would be even more relieved to hear Mr Kwok affirm that whatever policies the new administration might pursue, its legitimacy confers on it the right to enact such policies as seem best to it, subject always to the Constitution, the law, the support of the Legislature and Judiciary, and ultimately, the will of the people as expressed at the ballot box, but not subject to any other consideration whatsoever, including whether the military might or might not approve of them.

Dear Dave Luckett:

Historically the United States of America has not been a country ruled by a Democratic Socialist. While this may change when Obama assumes the presidency, I have read elsewhere that those who are likely being considered for Cabinet positions have far more centrist views than what Obama has demonstrated in the past. If this is indeed the case, then there may be some grounds for optimism with regards to an Obama presidency, and especially, some concrete proof that Obama does intend to govern in a bipartisan manner. Regrettably, I still have every right to express my skepticism in light of Mr. Obama's past radical socialist alliances and friendships.

If you have read carefully my prior posts regarding a plausible military role in a potential coup d'etat, you should have reminded yourself that I have advocated such a role if and only if Obama choses to govern as though he is a Marxist - Leninist. I think I have made this point not once, but several times.

Respectfully submitted,

John Kwok

Dear Aureola,

I heard a radio clip on a credible, nationally-syndicated radio talk show and saw something at YouTube from Farrakhan in which he uttered his "Messiah" remark as recently as several weeks ago.

Mr. Obama's speech left a bitter taste in my mouth, judging from the excerpts I heard and read. I have every right to make the conclusions that I did.

I haven't ignored your comments. It's simply a shame you seem incapable of reading comprehension. But wait, I suppose you didn't graduate from an elite New York City public school like my alma mater, Bronx Science, Hunter College High School or Brooklyn Tech. That may go a long way in explaining your inane ignorant commentary.

Respectfully yours,

John Kwok

P. S. In light of your remarks, does it mean that you wish for me to refer to Obama as Sauron in the future? Please advise (Remember, it is either the Messiah or Sauron. No other choice is possible.).

Dave Luckett said: I am very relieved to hear Mr Kwok concede that Senator Obama's policies as President might well be wise no matter what influences Mr Kwok believes might have shaped them, and that only time will tell if they are not.

Dear Mr. Kwok,

You are one silly man and more than a little paranoid.

gregwrld

John Kwok Dear Wheels: Gladly:

Wheels said: Describe for me in your own words the connection between Bill Ayers and Barack Obama.

I’ll let you take a break from building your case against his citizenship so that you can address this. It is not nearly as innocuous as people contend. It is claimed that Ayers and Obama first met during a political fundraiser held in Ayers’ (and Dohrn’s) living room for Obama’s Illinois State Senate campaign back in 1995. However, it was also around the same time that Obama was “writing” “Dreams from my Father” (A reporter who has analyzed scientifically - via a computer program - both Obama’s prose and that of Ayers has concluded that Ayers actually was the ghostwriter for this book.).

But it is entirely possible that they met first back in the early 1980s when Obama was a community organizer in Harlem and Ayers was working on his Ph. D. in education from Columbia.

During the early to mid 1990s, Obama served as the chairperson of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge fund and on the board of directors of the Woods Fund; serving on the boards of both organizations was none other than William Ayers (It has been claimed that Ayers might have been responsible for Obama’s hiring at the Annenberg nonprofit organization, but I have yet to come across any really credible report.).

The Obama Campaign has conceded that Obama was in e-mail contact with Ayers as late as 2005; more than four years after Ayers’ controversial remarks in the New York Times - published at the time of the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks - in which he expressed his dismay that he did not do enough bombing against Federal buildings and other installations.

Obama has also grudgingly admitted that he contributed a favorable blurb to one of Ayers’ books published in 2002 or 2003.

Having known Ayers’ past history, I am still stunned that Obama apparently wasn’t just a casual “neighbor” but had instead a strong, long-standing relationship with him.

John Kwok said: Dear Aureola, The last time I checked, liberals were operating at warp speed to smear then President-Elect Bush. It never stopped except briefly in the immediate aftermath of 9/11/01.

John Kwok said: Dear Dave Luckett: Historically the United States of America has not been a country ruled by a Democratic Socialist. While this may change when Obama assumes the presidency, I have read elsewhere that those who are likely being considered for Cabinet positions have far more centrist views than what Obama has demonstrated in the past. If this is indeed the case, then there may be some grounds for optimism with regards to an Obama presidency, and especially, some concrete proof that Obama does intend to govern in a bipartisan manner. Regrettably, I still have every right to express my skepticism in light of Mr. Obama's past radical socialist alliances and friendships. If you have read carefully my prior posts regarding a plausible military role in a potential coup d'etat, you should have reminded yourself that I have advocated such a role if and only if Obama choses to govern as though he is a Marxist - Leninist. I think I have made this point not once, but several times. Respectfully submitted, John Kwok

John Kwok said: Dear Wheels: Gladly:

Wheels said: Describe for me in your own words the connection between Bill Ayers and Barack Obama. I'll let you take a break from building your case against his citizenship so that you can address this.

It is not nearly as innocuous as people contend. ...

Dear PvM:

PvM said:

"It was Bush who was operating at warp speed to smear himself and the country he represented. He had all opportunity to make a difference, especially after 9/11 and he wasted it all and for what?"

I think the record will show that Bush was attacked as soon as he "stole" the 2000 election. This doesn't mean that I condone him for his behavior, especially post 9/11 (On a personal note, as I've indicated beforehand, I have a very good reason to dislike him.).

John

John Kwok said: Dear PvM: PvM said: "It was Bush who was operating at warp speed to smear himself and the country he represented. He had all opportunity to make a difference, especially after 9/11 and he wasted it all and for what?" I think the record will show that Bush was attacked as soon as he "stole" the 2000 election. This doesn't mean that I condone him for his behavior, especially post 9/11 (On a personal note, as I've indicated beforehand, I have a very good reason to dislike him.). John

Dear PvM:

The alledged hearsay has been documented in books and articles written by the likes of Stanley Kurtz and David Freddoso; these were researched independently by the authors.

When Obama can say "spread the wealth around", that isn't the comment of someone who is a capitalist with libertarian leanings, but a socialist. His past alliances with the likes of Ayers, etc. demonstrate his interest in and tendency to support socialist beliefs.

John

Dear PvM:

If you suggest Obama has been "smeared", then I strongly beg to differ. The liberal-leaning mainstream media all but annointed him as President - Elect with performing sufficient background checks. Isn't it ironic that we know more about "Joe the Plumber" and Governor Sarah Palin now than we do with regards to Obama's past alliance and friendship with William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn; a relationship which most likely did not start with the 1995 fundraiser held in Ayers and Dohrn's living room.

John

P. S. I think I know what "smeared" is for two reasons. First, a McCourt creative writing classmate had her sex life "smeared" by the press more than a decade ago when she was one of the two female attorneys who deposed Monica Lewinsky. Second, there is the case of my cousin James Yee.

Dear PvM:

If social democracy is so good, then why are countries such as Ireland, the United Kingdom, and especially, France, lately more committed to free market principles and practices now? Could it be that they have found social democracy to be more than a bit distasteful?

I strongly reject any absurd idea like yours which contends that the USA should adopt a more social democratic model. So would other devout opponents of creationism who espouse conservative principles, such as biologist Paul Gross, National Review commentator John Derbyshire and others.

Respectfully yours,

John Kwok

John Kwok said: Dear PvM: The alledged hearsay has been documented in books and articles written by the likes of Stanley Kurtz and David Freddoso; these were researched independently by the authors. When Obama can say "spread the wealth around", that isn't the comment of someone who is a capitalist with libertarian leanings, but a socialist. His past alliances with the likes of Ayers, etc. demonstrate his interest in and tendency to support socialist beliefs. John

John Kwok said: Dear PvM: If social democracy is so good, then why are countries such as Ireland, the United Kingdom, and especially, France, lately more committed to free market principles and practices now? Could it be that they have found social democracy to be more than a bit distasteful? I strongly reject any absurd idea like yours which contends that the USA should adopt a more social democratic model. So would other devout opponents of creationism who espouse conservative principles, such as biologist Paul Gross, National Review commentator John Derbyshire and others. Respectfully yours, John Kwok

Dear John,

I'm glad you finally dropped any pretension to even have any evidence to offer to counter the evidence I actually provided you with.

I never denied your right to think whatever you want of President-Elect Obama's victory speech, but that was never the point. You claimed (incorrectly, as it turned out) that said victory speech included a very specific point, and I have shown conclusively (by providing the full text of the speech) that no such point appeared anywhere in it.

Sorry, John, but my reading comprehension has nothing wrong; I understand perfectly both what you write and the underlying logical fallacies (I've documented now half a dozen, including four I explicitly named and at least two I simply left as an exercise to the interested reader).

I'm always happy to reduce the amount of my ignorance, but in this case you have displayed ignorance far exceeding my own (for instance, by mistakenly attributing leftist leaning to Ms. Angela Merkel, the right-wing German chancellor, and subsequently hiding behind the childish "I meant to do that!" defense).

Where I graduated is, of course, utterly irrelevant to the fact that you are making unsupported claims even after being called on them and contradicted by actual evidence. If I were an official from your old high school I would be frankly ashamed by your displayed lack of critical skills.

Now stop trying to misdirect me (you won't succeed, rest assured), and address the evidence if you can. Why did you claim Mr. Farrakhan said something when he wrote, black on white, the opposite? Why did you claim President-Elect Obama said something when he's on record never saying anything even remotely resembling it? If you were honestly mistaken, why don't you retract? If you were lying on two such easily checked facts, why should we believe you in anything else you claim without evidence?

In conclusion, you've squandered your credibility, John. That's a real pity, for someone supposedly devoted to science and rationality.

John Kwok said: Dear PvM: If you suggest Obama has been "smeared", then I strongly beg to differ. The liberal-leaning mainstream media all but annointed him as President - Elect with performing sufficient background checks. Isn't it ironic that we know more about "Joe the Plumber" and Governor Sarah Palin now than we do with regards to Obama's past alliance and friendship with William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn; a relationship which most likely did not start with the 1995 fundraiser held in Ayers and Dohrn's living room. John P. S. I think I know what "smeared" is for two reasons. First, a McCourt creative writing classmate had her sex life "smeared" by the press more than a decade ago when she was one of the two female attorneys who deposed Monica Lewinsky. Second, there is the case of my cousin James Yee.

Dear PvM:

If social democracy is so good, why is Ireland stepping away from it? Why is Nicholas Sarkozy trying to inject more free market principles into France's social democratic state? To put it bluntly, I don't think we need to repeat Europe's lessening interest in social democracy. Instead, maybe we might follow Michael Shermer's suggestion that being a good supporter of evolution is mutually inclusive with free market capitalism, especially since Darwin himself was influenced by Adam Smith when thinking of the theory of evolution via natural selection.

John

Dear PvM:

Don't be such a sanctimonious hypocrite. I would have to question McCain's political beliefs strongly if I discovered that he was pals with an unrepentant abortion clinic bomber or had a friend involved with either the KKK or Aryan Nations (In my case I abhor Pat Buchanan simply because of his longstanding interest in Holocaust Denialism and his support of Nazi war criminals.). Asking questions about Obama's ties to Ayers and Dohrn are legitimate and should have been pursued aggressively by the media.

John

Dear Aureola,

Again, should I refer to Obama as the Messiah or as Sauron? Am waiting for an answer.

I will not reply to your other comments because I have already.

John

Dear John:

Since you've done nothing of the kind, and any reader can verify that, I'll take your latest post as a concession.

Have a nice life.

John Kwok said: If you have read carefully my prior posts regarding a plausible military role in a potential coup d'etat, you should have reminded yourself that I have advocated such a role if and only if Obama choses to govern as though he is a Marxist - Leninist. I think I have made this point not once, but several times.

John Kwok said: Dear Chuck, SLC and anyone else, Okay, I guess I didn't make myself clear enough. If the Messiah tries to govern as a Communist dictator, then I expect the military to carry out its oath to serve and to protect the Constitution by removing him from office. Clear enough? I also believe that once the Messiah's administration is in full swing, there will be many people who will feel nostalgic towards Bush's and even Nixon's. Last, but not least, I agree with this astute observation of SLC's: "Folks, the election is over. Time to get back to more important things like the reelection of the wingnuts to the Texas board of education and what to do about the science standards in that state." I just want to remind SLC that he/she decided to pour some unnecessary rhetorical gasoline after that excellent observation, since I did note earlier today: "I salute the Messiah on his historic achievement, which all Americans should be proud of. However, I do not like or trust him." I strongly advise all to move onward and end this thread now. Respectfully yours, John Kwok

John Kwok said: If you have read carefully my prior posts regarding a plausible military role in a potential coup d'etat, you should have reminded yourself that I have advocated such a role if and only if Obama choses to govern as though he is a Marxist - Leninist. I think I have made this point not once, but several times.

John Kwok said: Dear PvM: If social democracy is so good, why is Ireland stepping away from it? Why is Nicholas Sarkozy trying to inject more free market principles into France's social democratic state? To put it bluntly, I don't think we need to repeat Europe's lessening interest in social democracy. Instead, maybe we might follow Michael Shermer's suggestion that being a good supporter of evolution is mutually inclusive with free market capitalism, especially since Darwin himself was influenced by Adam Smith when thinking of the theory of evolution via natural selection. John

In a letter to the editor in the Chicago Tribune, Ayers wrote, "I condemn all forms of terrorism — individual, group and official". He also condemned the September 11 terrorist attacks in that letter. "Today we are witnessing crimes against humanity on our own shores on an unthinkable scale, and I fear that we may soon see more innocent people in other parts of the world dying in response."

John Kwok said: Dear PvM: Don't be such a sanctimonious hypocrite. I would have to question McCain's political beliefs strongly if I discovered that he was pals with an unrepentant abortion clinic bomber or had a friend involved with either the KKK or Aryan Nations (In my case I abhor Pat Buchanan simply because of his longstanding interest in Holocaust Denialism and his support of Nazi war criminals.). Asking questions about Obama's ties to Ayers and Dohrn are legitimate and should have been pursued aggressively by the media. John

The first few pages of David Freddoso's book, The Case Against Barack Obama, are marked by false and misleading assertions about Sen. Barack Obama, accompanied by dubious citations. A Media Matters review of the endnotes reveals that the rest of the book is little different from these first few pages, as throughout the book, Freddoso misrepresents or distorts his sources and even makes assertions that are actually refuted by sources he cites.

What if Barack Obama’s most important radical connection has been hiding in plain sight all along? Obama has had an intimate and long-term association with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn), the largest radical group in America.

John Kwok said: Dear PvM: The alledged hearsay has been documented in books and articles written by the likes of Stanley Kurtz and David Freddoso; these were researched independently by the authors. When Obama can say "spread the wealth around", that isn't the comment of someone who is a capitalist with libertarian leanings, but a socialist. His past alliances with the likes of Ayers, etc. demonstrate his interest in and tendency to support socialist beliefs. John

John Kwok said: So should I refer to the Messiah as the Messiah in the future, or should I call him Sauron henceforth? John

PvM said: Why not president elect? Why the silly name calling?

John Kwok said: So should I refer to the Messiah as the Messiah in the future, or should I call him Sauron henceforth? John

"Only time will tell whether his (Obama's) inclinations are wise; but frankly, I am not very, very optimistic."

I quote your words in full and in context, Mr Kwok, to demonstrate that you have in fact said that it is possible that Obama's policies will be wise. Your optimism or lack of it is irrelevant to that point.

My further point is that even if you, or the military, or anybody else, does not consider them wise, they and you have no right to deny his administration legitimacy, provided of course that it acts within the Constitution and the law. If Obama acts unconstitutionally or illegally, there are as I understand it effective constitutional and legal remedies available. To canvass the possibilities of a military coup is to promote unconstitutional and illegal means.

As to "governing like a communist dictator", what do you say to an American administration that ignored habeas corpus and the right to a speedy trial, kidnapped people overseas and held them incommunicado for years without trial or charge, ignored or denied the Geneva conventions, practised torture by executive order, and placed executive notes on legislation indicating that it would refuse the laws force? I would say that these acts more closely approximate the methods of dictators, communist or other, than anything Obama has yet done, or in my opinion might do, but I did not hear you canvassing the possibility of a military coup to prevent them when the current administration did them.

I have no input into the acts of an American administration, as you do, but I can say that the rest of the democracies looked on appalled and unbelieving as the American government overturned its venerable and historic adherence to justice, due process, human rights and the rule of law. In foreign affairs, if President-elect Obama has one task that comes before all others, it is to restore confidence that those values have returned to America.

This could be instructional.

Mr. Kwok is exemplifying exactly the sort of mentality that helped put Bush into a second term: he has bought into the fear-mongering lies spread by partisan smears, smears intended to influence votes but which inevitably work deeper into the public psyche.* Why do people buy into these shady misrepresentations? In arguing to support this year's smear efforts, Mr. Kwok was demonstrated behavior remarkably similar to an ID Apologist denying the validity of evolution. The structure of his objections and his tactics are virtually identical to those of the Discovery Institutes's, or AiG's.

* Not only is the dishonesty of lying by itself bad enough, but it's incredibly irresponsible when used to manipulate the people that elect national or global leaders. The last thing a rational person should wish for is a voter base that's passionately divorced from reality.

I'm mostly a lurker here at PT, and I've gotten a feel for several of the regular posters, including Mr. Kwok.
On several threads, his stated disdain for creationism and ID has been in full view (as well as an irritating penchant
for name-dropping and apparent self-infatuation over phrases like "mendacious intellectual pornography" and the "Discovery Institute
ID borg collective") and occasionally, his status as a republican.

I wanted to check in to see what he thought of his party's resounding defeat on the 4th, and sure enough his head is exploding in
an appropriately spectacular manner! Good grief, he has drunk the party kool-aid on the 44th president, hasn't he?

Keep drinking that Kool-aid, Mr. Kwok. It's going to keep your party wandering in the wilderness for a long, long time.

Wheels wrote- "This could be instructional.

Mr. Kwok is exemplifying exactly the sort of mentality that helped put Bush into a second term: he has bought into the fear-mongering lies spread by partisan smears, smears intended to influence votes but which inevitably work deeper into the public psyche.* Why do people buy into these shady misrepresentations? In arguing to support this year’s smear efforts, Mr. Kwok was demonstrated behavior remarkably similar to an ID Apologist denying the validity of evolution. The structure of his objections and his tactics are virtually identical to those of the Discovery Institutes’s, or AiG’s."

You've hit on something I've been thinking about for a while, and I think you can trace it back to the republican party linking arms with
the moral majority back in the late 70's. The delusional authoritarianism of the fundie zealots found a perfect echo chamber with the
neo-cons. They both start from the platform "reality is what I say it is". The fundie denial of science matches up perfectly with the
reality denial of neo-con trickle down economics. And for both groups, it's all about the money.

What is Rush Limbaugh but James Dobson, with some of the god scrubbed off to make the hate palatable to the more secular of the republicans?

God bless you* Aureola Nominee!

John Kook has really jumped the tracks on this thread. I don't particularly care for the acrimony that characterizes modern American politics. John Kook has been so massively offensive, petty, and trollish on this thread that I am glad to have observed the righteous smack down that you (and others) administered.

P.S. Even tough I thought McCain ran a content lite campaign fueled primarily by the tried and true FUD, I was overjoyed to hear his appeal to bipartisanship in his concession speech.

*Or equivalent secular thanks. The opinions expressed in this post are those of the poster only, and may not reflect the opinions of God, her angels, or any of her affiliates. Blessings void where prohibited.

The concluding sentence of the Barack Obama article on Conservapedia:

" If states are no longer regarded as a valid authority on citizenship of those born within them then no one is eligible for President because no one can prove that they are natural born citizens. "

Granted, Conservapedia argues that Barack Obama is a Muslim who will lead a armed revolution and then release nuclear weapons to his terrorist friends, but at least they wouldn't argue he is not a citizen.

Larry Boy said: The concluding sentence of the Barack Obama article on Conservapedia: " If states are no longer regarded as a valid authority on citizenship of those born within them then no one is eligible for President because no one can prove that they are natural born citizens. " Granted, Conservapedia argues that Barack Obama is a Muslim who will lead a armed revolution and then release nuclear weapons to his terrorist friends, but at least they wouldn't argue he is not a citizen.

PvM said: I am not sure what more some want? Obama's campaign has shown a valid Hawaiian birth certificate, which was verified by third parties as well as the state of Hawaii as being genuine. Is this an example of guilty till proven innocent?

Larry Boy said: The concluding sentence of the Barack Obama article on Conservapedia: " If states are no longer regarded as a valid authority on citizenship of those born within them then no one is eligible for President because no one can prove that they are natural born citizens. " Granted, Conservapedia argues that Barack Obama is a Muslim who will lead a armed revolution and then release nuclear weapons to his terrorist friends, but at least they wouldn't argue he is not a citizen.

Which is a thoroughly un-American sentiment, at least insofar as our system of justice is concerned.

As I pointed out earlier.

(Funny, I too got the urge to look up Obama's entry on the old Crock-o'-pedia the other night, and noted that even they allowed for him to be a citizen, even if he is a pinko subversive terrorist Muslim citizen. Also it's weird how have dual-citizenship as a child is supposed to automatically make somebody a poor choice for president.)

PvM said: So what would you consider 'governing as a communist dictator'? And you do realize that there is quite a difference between marxism, communism and socialism or social democracies? I am not sure why you call him 'Messiah', you do realize that he has a name?

John Kwok said: Dear Chuck, SLC and anyone else, Okay, I guess I didn't make myself clear enough. If the Messiah tries to govern as a Communist dictator, then I expect the military to carry out its oath to serve and to protect the Constitution by removing him from office. Clear enough? John Kwok

Dear Aureola,

Had some other, far more pressing, matters to contend with, but decided now to jump back into the fray. While Mr. Obama is unfortunately the President-Elect, it doesn't mean that I have to acknowledge him as such. Henceforth, I suppose I'll refer to him as Sauron, until - or unless - he decides to govern as a centrist in the mode of say, for example, late first term Bill Clinton.

With regards to the comments uttered by PvM and others, I think I need to remind them that our nation's predominant economic philosophy has been free market capitalism coupled with a strong sense of libertarian values. Why should we adopt democratic socialist policies which have failed in Western Europe? Perhaps if we tried to emulate more a free market perspective, as for example, the Irish have done, then ours might be an economy that could recover faster and more easily from the current recession. I strongly urge other supporters of evolution and sound mainstream science to reconsider their keen interest in democratic socialist and Marxist economic and political thought, returning instead to views espoused by the likes of Charles Darwin himself and emphasized most recently by Michael Shermer in one of his latest books.

Respectfully yours,

John Kwok

Dear John,

I think the shreds of your credibility have already been landfilled by now. Oh, by the way:

1) Why did you claim Mr. Farrakhan said something when he wrote, black on white, the opposite?

2) Why did you claim President-Elect Obama said something when he’s on record never saying anything even remotely resembling it?

Have a nice life.

Dear Aureola,

Last summer the Messiah did proclaim his interest in a civilian defense force that would be as well funded as the military. What was his rationale? You can look elsewhere online and see him utter that remark. As for Farrakhan, I stand behind what I said with regards to him telling his followers to consider Obama as the Messiah.

You have a nice life too, my dear. In your honor, I will refer to the Messiah as Sauron the Deceiver.

John

Is it too early to coin the phrase "Obama Derangement Syndrome" yet?

Last, but not least, I strongly resent Obama’s claim in his victory speech that ours did not become a great nation until his election.

First, Louis Farrakhan has been among those in the Left who have referred to Obama as “The Messiah”, most recently addressing his flock last month.

Sen. Obama is not the Messiah for sure, but anytime, he gives you a sign of uniting races, ethnic groups, ideologies, religions and makes people feel a sense of oneness, that’s not necessarily Satan’s work, that is I believe the work of God.

...a radio clip on a credible, nationally-syndicated radio talk show and saw something at YouTube from Farrakhan in which he uttered his “Messiah” remark as recently as several weeks ago.

Dear John Kwok,

Why is Obama's citizenship suspect?

Sincerely,
Wheels.

nj said: Is it too early to coin the phrase "Obama Derangement Syndrome" yet?

John Kwok said: Dear Aureola, Last summer the Messiah did proclaim his interest in a civilian defense force that would be as well funded as the military. What was his rationale? You can look elsewhere online and see him utter that remark. As for Farrakhan, I stand behind what I said with regards to him telling his followers to consider Obama as the Messiah. You have a nice life too, my dear. In your honor, I will refer to the Messiah as Sauron the Deceiver. John

John Kwok said: With regards to the comments uttered by PvM and others, I think I need to remind them that our nation's predominant economic philosophy has been free market capitalism coupled with a strong sense of libertarian values. Why should we adopt democratic socialist policies which have failed in Western Europe? Perhaps if we tried to emulate more a free market perspective, as for example, the Irish have done, then ours might be an economy that could recover faster and more easily from the current recession. I strongly urge other supporters of evolution and sound mainstream science to reconsider their keen interest in democratic socialist and Marxist economic and political thought, returning instead to views espoused by the likes of Charles Darwin himself and emphasized most recently by Michael Shermer in one of his latest books. Respectfully yours, John Kwok

Dear PvM:

I suggest you should read Michael Shermer's "The Mind of the Market", which is available for purchase at Amazon.com:

http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Market-Biology-Psychology-Economic/dp/0805089160/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226856192&sr=8-2

His is the most cogently argued statement demonstrating how free market capitalism and Darwinian evolutionary theory are far more consistent with each other than, for example, either Marxism or Socialism. It is also the best "argument" I've come across urging fellow conservatives to accept evolution's scientific validity strictly from a free market economic perspective. An argument that makes sound historical as well as economic sense, given the fact that Darwin himself admitted that he was influenced too by Adam Smith's writing in the latter's "The Wealth of Nations", as well as being influenced more strongly by Malthus's work in his early writings that foreshadowed his conception of the Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection.

Maybe you should criticize Shermer too for writing his well-reasoned polemic. But for myself, I think my espousal of free market capitalism and evolutionary theory makes far more intellectual sense than any attempt to tie Darwin's work with radical Marxist-Leninist thought or, quite frankly, any version of Socialism period, with the possible exception of course of either Kin or Group Selection.

Last, but not least, I am quite certain that Dembski would never make the absurd claim that I am "abusing evolution for political purposes".

Respectfully yours,

John Kwok

Dear PvM:

If free market capitalism has "failed', then why is it flourishing in Europe, East Asia and South Asia (India), where a broad range of governments, from liberal socialist democracies to communist dictatorships, have embraced free market principles? Why is Ireland celebrated as the "Celtic Tiger" for its enthusiastic embrace of free market principles that have transformed Frank McCourt's impoverished Limerick into a 21st Century city that is the center for Dell Computer's European operations?

Our current economic difficulties are due to misbegotten Republican - and especially Democratic - leadership and oversight with respect to both the housing and financial markets. They do not represent fundamental flaws in free market capitalism (which I can state with utmost confidence in light of the free market's economic success in countries as culturally distinct as Ireland, India, and Taiwan).

What is "sad" seems to be your doctrinaire espousal of Socialist principles. Hopefully your hero Obama has much better sense than adhering closely to his Socialist roots. Otherwise we may have in Obama, the 21st Century equivalent of Hoover.

Respectfully submitted,

John Kwok

Natural selection ceaselessly works to increase the inclusive fitness of organisms almost as if it were an agent with a purpose. It isn't a mind, however; and still less a God. Human beings are not obligated to make greater inclusive fitness the governing principle of their private morality. Similarly, the workings of markets make the economy appear purposive; but that is likewise an illusion and; in any case, the "purpose" isn't ours. Natural selection is perfectly content to turn self-respecting predators into tiny parasites that spend their entire lives in the kidney of an octopus. Depending on conditions, the free market can make people rich or vacuum up the last few codfish in the ocean or create enormous third world slums. Being for or against natural selection or the market is like celebrating or protesting the atomic number of Bismuth. It is certainly prudent to recognize and, when possible, exploit evolutionary or economic mechanisms for the betterment of the human condition; but Social Darwinism and the worship of the free market are simply errors in reasoning when they aren't simply ways of rooting for the thugs.

Dearest Sir Kowk, John,

It has been many dark and lonely ages since our last communique. The days tarry on and I begin to fear... I fear that we have grown apart in spirit as well as in spatial orientation. This lamprey of horror will not detach itself from my spirit, for I have no weapons with which to defend myself from its attacks!

If this letter finds you in sound health, I urge you most stridently to send reply. I shall await, besieged by unspeakable terror and the gnawing spectre of worry, until such time as your mercy is cast like a ray of sun into the well of my despair.

Concernedly,
-Wheels.

P.S. Send me something nice.

Wheels said: This lamprey of horror will not detach itself from my spirit, for I have no weapons with which to defend myself from its attacks!

John Kwok said: Dear PvM: If free market capitalism has "failed', then why is it flourishing in Europe, East Asia and South Asia (India), where a broad range of governments, from liberal socialist democracies to communist dictatorships, have embraced free market principles? Why is Ireland celebrated as the "Celtic Tiger" for its enthusiastic embrace of free market principles that have transformed Frank McCourt's impoverished Limerick into a 21st Century city that is the center for Dell Computer's European operations?

Our current economic difficulties are due to misbegotten Republican - and especially Democratic - leadership and oversight with respect to both the housing and financial markets. They do not represent fundamental flaws in free market capitalism (which I can state with utmost confidence in light of the free market's economic success in countries as culturally distinct as Ireland, India, and Taiwan).

What is "sad" seems to be your doctrinaire espousal of Socialist principles. Hopefully your hero Obama has much better sense than adhering closely to his Socialist roots. Otherwise we may have in Obama, the 21st Century equivalent of Hoover. Respectfully submitted, John Kwok

John Kwok said: Dear PvM: I suggest you should read Michael Shermer's "The Mind of the Market", which is available for purchase at Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Market-Biology-Psychology-Economic/dp/0805089160/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226856192&sr=8-2 His is the most cogently argued statement demonstrating how free market capitalism and Darwinian evolutionary theory are far more consistent with each other than, for example, either Marxism or Socialism.

It is also the best "argument" I've come across urging fellow conservatives to accept evolution's scientific validity strictly from a free market economic perspective.

An argument that makes sound historical as well as economic sense, given the fact that Darwin himself admitted that he was influenced too by Adam Smith's writing in the latter's "The Wealth of Nations", as well as being influenced more strongly by Malthus's work in his early writings that foreshadowed his conception of the Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection.

Maybe you should criticize Shermer too for writing his well-reasoned polemic. But for myself, I think my espousal of free market capitalism and evolutionary theory makes far more intellectual sense than any attempt to tie Darwin's work with radical Marxist-Leninist thought or, quite frankly, any version of Socialism period, with the possible exception of course of either Kin or Group Selection.

Last, but not least, I am quite certain that Dembski would never make the absurd claim that I am "abusing evolution for political purposes". Respectfully yours, John Kwok

That Kwok is abusing evolution for his political purposes makes him not much different from such ID proponents as Dembski.

To argue political issues effectively, you must be specific about your theories, because only then can you collect data in anything even remotely resembling a falsifiable way. General talk of capitalism and socialism leaves far too much room for skillful rhetoriticians to maneuver. In the end, if we are to stay true to scientific principles, we must ask: where is the data?

Where, for example, is the data that shows the superiority of America's free market health care system relative to Europe's more socialist systems. I've seen the WHO rankings, and our dismal showing there. All I've seen Republicans offer in response is idle speculation as to how our clearly superior system could still produce inferior results. That simply won't do.

Investigations into other issues yields similar results. They talk a lot about caring more about the facts than do Democrats, but they rarely get around to doing so. Frequently they instead rely on speculation masquerading as facts, as in "the media is biased because if my guy had done what his opponent did, you bad old MSM would have treated him worse". It's every bit the facade ID is.

I very much second the requirement that terms like "socialism" or "liberalism" or "social democracy" or "free market capitalism" should be carefully defined before further discussion proceeds. I have the very strong feeling that they mean different things to Americans than what they mean outside America. The same for "Marxism" and "Leninism". I think I know what those terms mean, but I wonder what Mr Kwok thinks they mean.

Dave Luckett said: I very much second the requirement that terms like "socialism" or "liberalism" or "social democracy" or "free market capitalism" should be carefully defined before further discussion proceeds. I have the very strong feeling that they mean different things to Americans than what they mean outside America. The same for "Marxism" and "Leninism". I think I know what those terms mean, but I wonder what Mr Kwok thinks they mean.

Dear neo-anti-luddite,

There's a great deal of difference between democratic socialist and Marxist-Leninist thought, and even I, a political amateur, am cognizant of that. Nor do I think automatically that one should equate socialism as "bad" while capitalism as "good". However I find it fascinating that while you and others here are debating the merits and terminology of what socialist and Marxist-Leninist thought are
(or are not), you are all ignoring the historic fact that Western European countries are moving away from a social democratic economic model, while we, here in the United States, have elected recently a president who is by past political inclination, a Socialist, in his political philosophy (However, in fairness to him, he seems to be making cabinet appointments who are more centrist in their views than his; if he decides to govern as a centrist, then I will be relieved.).

Respectfully yours,

John

Why is Obama's citizenship suspect?

This is like following around that guy who claims there's an "entropy barrier" to speciation.

Wheels said: Why is Obama's citizenship suspect? This is like following around that guy who claims there's an "entropy barrier" to speciation.

I'm asking you because, despite the various sources I had posted, you remained insistent on the subject.
So, you can answer my question instead if misdirecting me.

Dear John:

we still haven't been regaled with your considerate opinions on what a Marxist-Leninist (or, now, a Socialist) is, and how come you label President-Elect Obama, who sounds nothing like a Socialist to anyone who's familiar with Socialist theories and doctrines, as one.

By the way, why did you lie, repeatedly, about the words of both Mr. Farrakhan (about President-Elect Obama being "the Messiah") and President-Elect Obama himself (about the United States only becoming "great" upon his election)?

IOW, if you don't have evidence to support your own mindless chatter, pass the buck.

In case you missed the memo, Mr. Kwok, Barack Obama is a citizen of the United States. Rest assured he could not have begun the process of becoming elected if he were not. Your fevered dreams of the dropping of the "citizenship" bombshell and subsequent removal from office are simply that. I have read this entire thread and I, for one, am saddened to see such drivel emanate from one who, otherwise, seems to be a fairly cognizant being. If you intend to expound your views, it would be appreciated if you applied the same rigorous standard to your political thought as you do your scientific work. Certainly you are free to express dissension, but please do so in a manner expected of a man educated beyond the fourth grade of grammar school.

Dear Wheels:

The best source is Mr. Berg, formerly Deputy Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania, so I suggest you direct your questions to him.

John

Dear Aureola Nominee:

A Marxist - Leninist, or in other words, a Communist, is someone who subscribes to the establishment of a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", in which both the means of production and their products would be owned jointly by the community. In practice this means a harsh totalitarian dictatorship by a ruling party that professes to be "Socialist", and one that has taken power via force of arms. In stark contrast, a Democratic Socialist believes that one can have Socialist principles (e. g. such as "spreading the wealth around" to those "less fortunate" than the "privileged classes") enacted via democratic means.

Judging by Mr. Obama's past statements and prior political mentorship, I would describe him as a Socialist. However, he seems interested in governing by a more centrist orientation, in light of his recent cabinet picks, including, for example, former Deputy Attorney General of the United States Eric Holder - who is, like Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod, a fellow alumnus of our high school - for the position of Attorney General of the United States.

While you seem fixated with my definitions, will you now consider my accurate observation regarding Western Europe's retreat from purely Democratic Socialist principles to those which are far more consistent with free market capitalism? I look forward to reading a most enlightening answer.

Respectfully yours,

John Kwok

P. S. Would you describe "Hope and Change" as something tantamount to a third Clinton administration? Judging by Obama's Cabinet picks, this is what we are getting.

Ladies and gentlemen, that's the end of a record 15 post streak (on this thread anyway) by Mr. Kwok without mentioning his high school.

The next streak starts now. Place your bets.

Science Avenger said: Ladies and gentlemen, that's the end of a record 15 post streak (on this thread anyway) by Mr. Kwok without mentioning his high school. The next streak starts now. Place your bets.

Dear John,

I'm glad you finally managed to put together definitions (approximate and certainly not rigorous, but I suppose that's the best one can hope for) for what a Marxist-Leninist and a Socialist are.

Let me just inform you that, contrary to your definition, Marxist-Leninist does NOT equate with Communist; while all Marxist-Leninists are Communists, not all Communists are Marxist-Leninists.

Also for your information, Europe is NOT moving away from Socialist principles; less ideology and more attention to actual political positions might let you find out that not one of the parties in power - be they openly left-wing like Spain's PSOE, mildly left-of-center like Britain's Labour, mildly right-of-center like Germany's CDU or openly right-wing like Italy's PDL - actually advocate abandoning such Socialist ideas as strongly progressive income taxation or universal health care coverage. The fact is, dear John, that such principles have become ingrained in the European political discourse, and trying to dismantle them can spell political death for a ruling party.

But enough chit-chat, lest we get sidetracked. I have two questions for you, John:

1) Why did you claim that Louis Farrakhan had called President-Elect Obama "the Messiah" when Farrakhan is on record, black on white, stating unambiguously that he DOESN'T claim that Obama is the Messiah?

2) Why did you claim that President-Elect Obama, in his victory speech, had said that the United States had only become great because he had won the election, when President-Elect Obama is on record, black on white, as having said no such thing?

I can understand that answering these two questions might be painful for you, John; admitting error can be very hard, especially when one is as fanatically convinced of his own righteousness as you appear.

However, the fact that you might realize that your claims are groundless would merely be the icing on the cake. These questions, as anyone having battled creationists knows, are primarily for the benefit of lurkers.

Don't think for a second that your dodges and distractions have not been duly noted.

John Kwok said: Dear Wheels: The best source is Mr. Berg, formerly Deputy Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania, so I suggest you direct your questions to him. John

Let us not become the prisoners of words, but nevertheless a quibble. Redistributive taxation, such as strongly progressive income tax, inheritance taxes, death duties, luxury taxes and the like, are not socialist measures in themselves, any more than are programs designed to alleviate poverty or enhance opportunity for the poor.

These measures are meant to prevent, or at least to discourage, the emergence of a class that passes its wealth to descendents and a class that remains locked in poverty. Differential wealth is inevitable, but those who inherit wealth are by definition privileged and those locked in poverty are by definition disempowered. Neither group has much interest in democracy, or reason to support it; the existence of either or both is a threat to social cohesion. Democracies are therefore best served by discouraging both.

But although this might be reasonably described as "social democracy", it is not socialism, which is simply the idea that all means of production should be owned in common and their products and profits distributed evenly according to need.

The EC States, therefore, might be described as social democracies, but none is actually a socialism. I agree that socialism as such is now not actually advocated by any major political party in the EC, although it was once considered as a desirable ideal by some of them, but equally, none is dismantling, say, its health and medical benefits programs, or its welfare.

What defines European politics is the particular mix of environmentalism, degree of social democracy, regionalism, immigration policy, Eurocentrism or the converse, and so on, that applies in each case. The European political parties that would advocate dismantling welfare or the abolition of redistributive taxation or deregulation of labour conditions or laissez-faire economics and so on are all to be found on the extreme right.

Dear Aureola Nominee,

A few weeks ago the opening segment of "CBS Sunday Morning" was devoted to France's innovative healthcare system, which both French politicians and doctors admit is financially ruining the country. If I'm not mistaken, at least one of those interviewed did admit that universal healthcare coverage may be a mistake.

I'm not sure which planet you grew up on, but Marxist-Leninist thought IS Communism.

As for your inane accusations regarding my ability to "dodge", you have yet to admit that Charles Darwin was a committed capitalist (even though he himself was well aware of some of its worst features), and ignored apparently, Karl Marx's efforts at claiming him as an intellectual inspiration for Marx's writings on Socialism.

Hope yours is a good life.

Live Long and Prosper (as a member of whatever inane Borg Collective you inhabit),

John

Dear Dave,

Thanks for your enlightening post, but I beg to differ. Any form of redistributive taxation is Socialist in its orientation. As for your description of Western European democracies, I concur completely, but will observe again that they are moving away from a social democratic model to one that more openly embraces free markets.

Appreciatively yours,

John

John Kwok said: Dear Science Avenger: Thanks for your rather inane remarks of yours... Whether you like it or not, the facts are that both David Axelrod and Eric Holder are prominent alumni of our high school alma mater.

Dear John,

it's quite strange then, isn't it, that there were Communist movements long before Vladimir Ilich "Lenin" was born.

After reading this (unwitting) admission of your historical and political ignorance, I don't think I need to point out that your cherry-picking your data ("If I’m not mistaken, at least one of those interviewed did admit that universal healthcare coverage may be a mistake") can't rescue your claim that "Europe is moving away from Socialist principles". Take two pills and call me in the morning when European countries cancel universal coverage.

Finally, as to your dodges: I've repeated those two questions, in response to your unsupported claims, many times already. You have tried every trick in the creationist book to avoid addressing them in the only honest way, i.e. by either supporting them or retracting them.

Your credibility is shot, John. This new handwave of yours, about Darwin being or not being a Socialist, is a complete non sequitur, having no relation whatsoever with either your - indeed inane, false, and mean-spirited to boot - claims concerning President-Elect Obama or my denunciation of said claims. I didn't charge in this thread calling people names; you did. I didn't fire off treasonous suggestions of military coups; you did. I didn't imply that the Chancellor of Germany was a leftist; you did. So it's up to you to do the right thing, admit you were too prejudiced to know what you were saying, apologize and retract. But we all know you won't.

Dear Science Avenger:

I have never met either Axelrod or Holder, nor do I see myself having such an opportunity any time in the future. Just for the record, however, I have noted that they are prominent alumni of my high school (And speaking of which, if more American high schools followed the lead of my alma mater by banning the teaching of ID creationism, then the overall quality of American science education would improve substantially.).

If anyone is a real "loser", then it must be you, since you are so obsessed with my own "deficiencies" that you feel important enough to comment on them. It's really a shame I haven't seen your harsh rhetoric lately aimed at the likes of Dembski, Luskin, Wells, Ham, Hovind, etc. etc.

I suggest you take aim at more appropriate targets, or else you're no better than the disingenous mendacious intellectual pornographers lurking at the Dishonesty Institute and AiG.

John Kwok

Hey John, why don't you answer my question?

And after watching this sort of thing go on for weeks, I have to agree that you are acting ridiculously. Not only in regards to my specific inquiries, but also in using non-sequiturs like, "Darwin wasn't a Socialist!" Darwin wasn't a lot of things, but such an appeal to an inappropriate authority is merely a waste of time and an embarrassment. You're bringing these criticisms and unfavorable comparisons on yourself. Perhaps the only response from your fellow posters that you haven't warranted is any more of our further attention.

Dear Science Avenger:

For someone who claims to be a "Science Avenger", you have more the temerity of a "Science Wimp" than an actual avenger.

I have yet to see anything remotely resembling what I wrote earlier today at another Panda's Thumb thread on the reality of macroevolution:

"What is most remarkable about the fossil record, especially of marine invertebrates, is that one can investigate both the collapse and recovery of marine ecosystems during mass extinctions, not just once, but at least seven or eight times in the past 600 million years of earth history. These are merely just a few of the many examples which show how macroevolution is occurring (Unless of course you’re some kind of creationist - ID or otherwise - who still subscribes to the illusion of a “Cambrian Explosion”, etc.)."

Either I am a good BS artist, or I actually know what I am talking about with respect to the marine invertebrate fossil record. May I suggest you try to emphasize your "scientific knowledge" instead of lurking around like another IDiot or creo moron interested in "scoring" a point or two against yours truly.

Respectfully yours,

John Kwok

P. S. Aureola Nominee, I strongly advise you to follow this same advice too.

Hi Wheels,

See my latest post to Science Avenger. As for "answering" your question, didn't I do that a few weeks ago? In the future, I suggest you contact Mr. Berg directly.

Respectfully yours,

John Kwok

Dear John,

I disagree: you aren't a good BS artist, you are a poor BS artist. You've been called out by several different people on several different issues, have been caught displaying an abysmal level of historical, political AND constitutional knowledge, have consistently refused to either support your claims or retract them, have dropped names like they had the slightest relevance to your arguments, have acted like a catalog of logical fallacies, and in short have revealed yourself for a pitiful ideologue.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day; apparently your only redeeming (?) feature is that you despise creationists as much as the rest of us do. As to your critical skills, however, you've made it amply obvious that they are low to non-existent.

By now, I don't expect you to engage the arguments, like any honest fellow would do. And I'm afraid that intellectually dishonest "defenders of science" like yourself are no better than intellectually dishonest "attackers of science". The end does not justify the means, I'm afraid.

Dear Aureola:

I have undergraduate and graduate degrees in geology and biology. I also have an undergraduate degree in history. I am not a student of political science, but rather, an amateur and freely admit that.

What qualifications do you have to comment credibly on the so-called "creation vs. evolution" debate? Just like Science Avenger, you do a great job "talking" but it's merely empty rhetoric.

Respectfully yours,

John Kwok

P. S. To whomever is moderating this thread: It has out-lived its usefulness, especially since Obama is now President - Elect. Please terminate it ASAP.

John Kwok said: Hi Wheels, See my latest post to Science Avenger.

As for "answering" your question, didn't I do that a few weeks ago?

In the future, I suggest you contact Mr. Berg directly. Respectfully yours, John Kwok

Dear John:

see what I mean? You keep layering logical fallacies one on top of the other. I didn't ask you for your qualifications, I showed that you were wrong in your claims. You cannot deflect my arguments by attacking my qualifications (shall I mention that this is the classic definition of an argumentum ad hominem?)

My qualifications for commenting credibly on any subject are the same as anybody else's; not making a fool of myself by repeating known lies even after being called on them. This, by the way, is why you aren't qualified, regardless of academic accomplishments.

And since my undergraduate degree was in History as well, let me state unequivocally that you should ask for your money back, since your education seems to have been pitifully subpar.

Why is it that the average American Republican holds all those who disagree with him or her, especially his or her own countrymen, to be subhuman and monstrous? I mean, all of the Republican pundits and shock-jocks always bandy the term "liberal" about in the exact same contemptuously derogatory manner Nazi officials used to bandy the term jude about.

Am I to assume that Republicans think that only Republicans are true Americans, or do they think that only Republicans are actual humans?

Stanton said: Why is it that the average American Republican holds all those who disagree with him or her, especially his or her own countrymen, to be subhuman and monstrous?

Stanton said: Why is it that the average American Republican holds all those who disagree with him or her, especially his or her own countrymen, to be subhuman and monstrous? I mean, all of the Republican pundits and shock-jocks always bandy the term "liberal" about in the exact same contemptuously derogatory manner Nazi officials used to bandy the term jude about. Am I to assume that Republicans think that only Republicans are true Americans, or do they think that only Republicans are actual humans?

iml8 said:

Stanton said: Why is it that the average American Republican holds all those who disagree with him or her, especially his or her own countrymen, to be subhuman and monstrous?

From an Independent point of view, much the same could be said of equally zealous Democrats. The answer is simple: "People are like that." White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

Aureola Nominee, FCD said: Dear John: see what I mean? You keep layering logical fallacies one on top of the other. I didn't ask you for your qualifications, I showed that you were wrong in your claims. You cannot deflect my arguments by attacking my qualifications (shall I mention that this is the classic definition of an argumentum ad hominem?) My qualifications for commenting credibly on any subject are the same as anybody else's; not making a fool of myself by repeating known lies even after being called on them. This, by the way, is why you aren't qualified, regardless of academic accomplishments. And since my undergraduate degree was in History as well, let me state unequivocally that you should ask for your money back, since your education seems to have been pitifully subpar.

John Kwok said: Dear Stanton, I may be a registered Republican, but I wouldn't regard those who disagree with me as being "subhuman and monstrous":

Dear John,

sorry, your constant baiting is what's really inane.

My credentials are completely immaterial; your intellectual dishonesty, on the other hand, is what's been discussed here, and very well established too.

Your "astute" comments on paleontology and biology may well be factually correct; your "astute" lies and smears about President-Elect Obama, on the other hand, aren't. It's as simple as that.

This isn't about me, John; it's about your lies, exposed again and again, and your truly pathetic attempts to avoid addressing them.

By the way, you can pile ad hominems a mile high; they won't magically become valid arguments, they will remain fallacies.

As to the association to the DI, it's you who relish in listing supposed qualifications, precisely like them. It's you who've been caught lying and making stuff up, precisely like them. It's you who are a mendacious intellectual pornographer, and project like crazy, precisely like them.

Have a nice life, and for the future try to avoid telling easily exposed lies. Stick to biology, and leave history and politics alone; in these fields, you indeed are nothing but a poor BS artist.

John Kwok said:I presume that Wheels, Science Avenger, and Aureola must presume that I am both "monstrous and subhuman" since I'm a Republican.

Dear John:

why should I consider you "monstrous and subhuman"? You're an ideologue, blinded by your ideology like all ideologues, and a liar, but both these characteristics are shared by uncomfortably high numbers of human beings, both on the right and on the left, and this makes them neither monstrous nor subhuman.

Don't project, please; it's very bad form.

"Marxist-Leninist thought IS Communism."

With respect, it is not. Marx thought communism - the common ownership of all property - was the natural outcome of the class war that he thought was coming. "Marxism" refers to his analysis of society and history, and its underlying principles - that the population of industrial societies could be meaningfully classified in terms of economic activity into capitalists, bougeoisie and proletariat; that the interests of the proletariat were inalterably opposed to those of the other classes; that the inevitable result was class warfare, in which the proletariat, being the only productive and by far the most numerous class, would destroy the others and thus acquire common ownership of the means of production. This is socialism, out of which a perfect communism would naturally arise.

Marx's thought, therefore, was not mainly concerned with the ideal of communism, which, as has been pointed out, existed long before him, but with the process of achieving it. Communism has even less to do with Lenin. His contribution was to specify the exact mechanism by which the war would be won. He was far more a pragmatist than a socialist, as his New Economic Policies demonstrate. He was glad to seize the means of production, but he certainly did not follow socialist principles, and allow their workers to run them. They were under the centralised direction of the Party - in effect, under his control. The question of their ownership was therefore moot.

He died not long after, but it is very doubtful that if he had survived he would have gone any further towards socialism than he did; and his successors had no intention of doing more, no matter with what bombast or window-dressing they attempted to disguise their contemptible tyranny. What they called a socialist state was no such thing. It was a miserable fraud, and of course one of the greatest disasters ever to overtake humanity.

There has never been communism or real socialism in an industrial state, and there most likely never will be. But Marxism-Leninism did exist as a historical fact, and it produced a state that became an empire before it imploded. Marxism-Leninism is therefore not communism.

"Any form of redistributive taxation is Socialist in its orientation."

With respect, it is not. Both wealth and poverty are to some extent hereditary. Over generations, they tend to produce over- and under-classes. To state the obvious, both an entrenched aristocracy and an embittered industrial peonage (or indigent class) are dangers to democracy. It is therefore in the interests of democracy that neither arise, or at least that they be minimised as much as possible. A government that uses redistributive taxation need only be using for that end, and it might (and probably will) have nothing to do with socialism at all. Such a government need only be concerned to preserve democracy, and nothing more. Redistributive taxation is therefore not necessarily socialist in any respect.

Dear Stanton,

I referred to Obama as "Sauron" merely to needle Aureola, though she doesn't need much prompting obviously. In fairness to him, I am starting to like more and more his cabinet picks, of which the two best have been Holder for Justice and Napolitano for Homeland Security (She's been the best governor AZ has had for decades.).

John

Dave,

Have to disagree respectively with you here. Marxist - Leninist thought is exactly what Lenin, Stalin and their intellectual descendants have promoted; in other words, Communism. Marxism by itself IS NOT Marxist - Leninist in its orientation, so my apologies if you thought that is what I meant. As for redistributive taxation to "spread the wealth around", then it is Socialist; your definition of Socialism is not the same as mine, which I have acquired via extensive reading for years.

John

Aureola Nominee, FCD said: You're an ideologue, blinded by your ideology like all ideologues, and a liar, but both these characteristics are shared by uncomfortably high numbers of human beings, both on the right and on the left, and this makes them neither monstrous nor subhuman.

Now he's back to ignoring me.
I guess this is what it feels like asking an IDist to give us peer-reviewed studies supporting ID.

John Kwok said: Dear Stanton, I referred to Obama as "Sauron" merely to needle Aureola, though she doesn't need much prompting obviously. In fairness to him, I am starting to like more and more his cabinet picks, of which the two best have been Holder for Justice and Napolitano for Homeland Security (She's been the best governor AZ has had for decades.). John

Dear Stanton,

When Obama's own supporters refer to him as "the Messiah" and you see the still widespread existence of a "cult of personality" (e. g. t-shirts and buttons with his image), then you have to wonder about the collective sanity of his supporters. I'll refer to as "the Messiah" when it suits my purposes. Ditto for President - Elect Obama, President Obama, etc.

John

Wheels said: Now he's back to ignoring me. I guess this is what it feels like asking an IDist to give us peer-reviewed studies supporting ID.

All I wanted you to do was answer my simple request. It's not inane that I should expect an answer from you. I'd already addressed your previous assertions and show then to be specious and untrue, so I want to know why you held out on that position in the face of the evidence. I've been asking you that same question repeatedly but you keep dodging or shirking the responsibility to answer. If you're going to make a charge against the citizenship of the President-Elect, you had better be able to back it up. Of the two of us, which one do you think is behaving more similarly to an anti-evolutionist here?

John Kwok said: Dear Stanton, When Obama's own supporters refer to him as "the Messiah" and you see the still widespread existence of a "cult of personality" (e. g. t-shirts and buttons with his image), then you have to wonder about the collective sanity of his supporters. I'll refer to as "the Messiah" when it suits my purposes. Ditto for President - Elect Obama, President Obama, etc. John

Dear John:

you are an ideologue because you allow your ideological preconceptions to overcome evidence (evidence which I supplied and you never addressed), and you are a liar because when I supplied said evidence you neither addressed it nor retracted your claims.

As to why you may have voted for one or more Democratic candidates, beats me, but it is perfectly irrelevant: in THIS case you've made and repeated false claims, based not on evidence but on caricatures of evidence, and that is more than enough to show you for an ideologue and a liar.

Your contention that if you were an ideologue you wouldn't be able to do such things is just a strawman, even before considering the fact that, having been shown to be very much willing to lie, you've lost the right for your claims to be taken at face value.

Sorry, John; it's too late for that. You walked in this of your own free will, by lying unashamedly and making stuff up in order to pretend that your lies hadn't been exposed. Nobody here provoked you; you have only yourself to blame.

John Kwok said: Dear Stanton, When Obama's own supporters refer to him as "the Messiah" and you see the still widespread existence of a "cult of personality" (e. g. t-shirts and buttons with his image), then you have to wonder about the collective sanity of his supporters. I'll refer to as "the Messiah" when it suits my purposes. Ditto for President - Elect Obama, President Obama, etc. John

John Kwok said: Dave, Have to disagree respectively with you here. Marxist - Leninist thought is exactly what Lenin, Stalin and their intellectual descendants have promoted; in other words, Communism. Marxism by itself IS NOT Marxist - Leninist in its orientation, so my apologies if you thought that is what I meant. As for redistributive taxation to "spread the wealth around", then it is Socialist; your definition of Socialism is not the same as mine, which I have acquired via extensive reading for years. John

Mr Kwok -

We agree that Marxism is not Marxism-Leninism. It's a distinction I'm perfectly happy to accept, despite not being certain of what you mean by "orientation". But if Marxism was not Marxism-Leninism, neither was Marxism-Leninism "oriented" towards communism. Lenin, Stalin et al never produced or practised communism or socialism. Arguably in Lenin's case and certainly in Stalin's, they never had the slightest intention of doing so. To them "socialism" was probably nothing more than a convenient shibboleth, a series of empty slogans. At most it was an unattainable ideal, divorced from the real world and of no practical application to the day-to-day operation of the personal power that they craved, acquired and used to create one of the most violent and brutal dictatorships ever to assault humanity.

I cannot imagine what definition of socialism you are using. Unless it contains, and is largely limited to, the idea that all means of production should be held in common, it certainly doesn't mean anything that would mean socialism to me, or to anyone I've ever read on the subject.

Wheels said: All I wanted you to do was answer my simple request. It's not inane that I should expect an answer from you. I'd already addressed your previous assertions and show then to be specious and untrue, so I want to know why you held out on that position in the face of the evidence. I've been asking you that same question repeatedly but you keep dodging or shirking the responsibility to answer. If you're going to make a charge against the citizenship of the President-Elect, you had better be able to back it up. Of the two of us, which one do you think is behaving more similarly to an anti-evolutionist here?

Stanton said: a) It was repeatedly pointed out to you, with no apparent avail that Louis Farrakhan said "(Obama) is not the Messiah." b) Why is it insanity that the President Elect has a huge fan club? Every President Elect has a big fan club. Plus, I don't recall hearing anyone at the Democratic Convention booing Obama for directly inferring that Senator McCain was a good family man, or hearing about Obama having to futilely correct someone referring to McCain as an untrustworthy foreigner. c) And I'm somewhat serious whenever I ask you, "Do you honestly fear for your life and the lives of your family, and friends because Obama has been elected?"

John Kwok said: Dear Stanton, When Obama's own supporters refer to him as "the Messiah" and you see the still widespread existence of a "cult of personality" (e. g. t-shirts and buttons with his image), then you have to wonder about the collective sanity of his supporters. I'll refer to as "the Messiah" when it suits my purposes. Ditto for President - Elect Obama, President Obama, etc. John

Dear Dave -

I am not by training a political scientist nor even pretend to be one. But I still insist that Marxist - Leninist thought is STILL Communism, judging by its dire results. What Lenin, Stalin, Mao and others of their ilk have produced are rigid totalitarian dictatorships which profess to be "class-less Socialist dictatorships of the proletariat".

Respectfully yours,

John Kwok

John Kwok said: b) Not every President-Elect has had a "fan club" of the kind which Obama has now; hence this very "cult of personality" is one I find rather troublesome (So finally have some reporters in the liberal media too, such as the reporter who made the same observation about a "cult of personality" on the PBS "Charlie Rose" program on Election Night.

c) The only member of my family who would have to "worry" would be my cousin James Yee, since Obama refused to meet with him during the Democratic National Convention (Jim was a delegate from the State of Washington.).

Dear Stanton,

Both the FBI and the Secret Service investigated the "claim" that someone shouted "Kill Obama" at a Palin rally in Pennsylvania, and DID NOT FIND any proof, period. I recommend discarding this inane claim of yours ASAP.

I presume Obama didn't want to meet with former U. S. Army chaplain James Yee in light of Yee's ties to radical Muslim-American organizations like CAIR. Nor did he want anyone to think (erroneously) that he was a prominent Muslim-American meeting with another.

I just think it's ridiculous that many people have embraced - and are still embracing - a "cult of personality" with respect to Obama as though he is indeed THE MESSIAH; especially when Obama is offering what is tantamount to a third Clinton administration with respect to his Cabinet picks so far (I think he's erred in picking my junior US Senator for State when there's a better candidate available; former UN Ambassador Richard Holbrooke. But that's my only major sign of disapproval with his Cabinet choices.). Again, as I have stated earlier, so do some members of the liberal media, like the journalist who made this very point during the Election Night edition of the PBS "Charlie Rose" program.

Respectfully yours,

John

John Kwok said: Dear Stanton: Have to disagree strongly with each and every one of your points:

Stanton said: a) It was repeatedly pointed out to you, with no apparent avail that Louis Farrakhan said "(Obama) is not the Messiah." b) Why is it insanity that the President Elect has a huge fan club? Every President Elect has a big fan club. Plus, I don't recall hearing anyone at the Democratic Convention booing Obama for directly inferring that Senator McCain was a good family man, or hearing about Obama having to futilely correct someone referring to McCain as an untrustworthy foreigner. c) And I'm somewhat serious whenever I ask you, "Do you honestly fear for your life and the lives of your family, and friends because Obama has been elected?"

John Kwok said: Dear Stanton, When Obama's own supporters refer to him as "the Messiah" and you see the still widespread existence of a "cult of personality" (e. g. t-shirts and buttons with his image), then you have to wonder about the collective sanity of his supporters. I'll refer to as "the Messiah" when it suits my purposes. Ditto for President - Elect Obama, President Obama, etc. John

I will address only points b and c now: b) Not every President-Elect has had a "fan club" of the kind which Obama has now; hence this very "cult of personality" is one I find rather troublesome (So finally have some reporters in the liberal media too, such as the reporter who made the same observation about a "cult of personality" on the PBS "Charlie Rose" program on Election Night. c) The only member of my family who would have to "worry" would be my cousin James Yee, since Obama refused to meet with him during the Democratic National Convention (Jim was a delegate from the State of Washington.). Otherwise, as one of the 55 million who did not vote for Obama, I still have some reservations regarding how he would govern as President, though his Cabinet appointments suggest to me that maybe, just maybe, my grave concerns have been overstated to say the least. Respectfully yours, John Kwok

Dear Rilke -

I have friends who supported Obama and thought of him as "The Messiah". So have some of his more "prominent" supporters too.

Unless you have something else worth saying - and I really don't see how additional inane remarks of yours would be "worth saying" - then I bid you good riddance.

Respectfully submitted,

John

First it was Louis Farrakhan; then it was a "reliable, nationally-syndicated radio talk show" and "some clip on YouTube"; now it's "friends who supported Obama and thought of him as the Messiah"... no substance, no evidence, only a childish refusal to acknowledge error.

It's sad - but I suppose unavoidable - that from time to time someone who appeared to defend science turns up to be as willing to deploy logical fallacies and outright lies as the worst creationist. Mr. Kwok wasn't the first and won't be the last.

John Kwok said: Dear Wheels: Sorry, but this isn't your aim here:

Wheels said: All I wanted you to do was answer my simple request. It's not inane that I should expect an answer from you. I'd already addressed your previous assertions and show then to be specious and untrue, so I want to know why you held out on that position in the face of the evidence. I've been asking you that same question repeatedly but you keep dodging or shirking the responsibility to answer. If you're going to make a charge against the citizenship of the President-Elect, you had better be able to back it up. Of the two of us, which one do you think is behaving more similarly to an anti-evolutionist here?

You were - and I think still are - interested in trying to "score" points against me.

If you want advice on legal matters...

... then please contact Philip Berg directly. I'm not an attorney, so I'm not going to comment directly on the merits of his suit(s)...

...except to note that if I was President-Elect Obama, then I'd issue a notarized copy of the birth certificate in question, merely to silence Berg and his staunch supporters...

(of which I AM NOT one).

"Marxist - Leninist thought is STILL Communism, judging by its dire results."

I can hardly believe that you actually mean this, and must allow at least the possibility that this is simply an error of expression. You cannot seriously mean to say that Marxist-Leninist thought is communist because it had dire results? That would mean that you have defined "communism" simply as "evil" and know no more. I can hardly believe that someone of your intelligence could do this.

"What Lenin, Stalin, Mao and others of their ilk have produced are rigid totalitarian dictatorships which profess to be “class-less Socialist dictatorships of the proletariat”".

Yes, I am aware of what they produced, and we agree on that. But what they produced was not socialism, far less communism. What they chose to call it is entirely irrelevant, for it had no correspondence to reality. But we, with the benefit of history, should be able to call their governments what they really were, and still are, in some places: brutal, conscienceless dictatorships, ruled by terror, famine and selective hardship, having nothing to do with socialism or communism.

Dictatorship is the default condition of wider human society, I'm afraid. (Wider that is, than what is covered by warlordry and feudalism.) Unless there are powerful and durable mechanisms in place to prevent it, it will arise. The most important of those mechanisms is the devolution of real political power to the whole of the people, the system called democracy. But democracy must be real, not the slogan that "socialism" became in the mouths of the dictators. It must actually be true that power is widely and as evenly spread among the people as possible.

Wealth is power. Inherited wealth is power entrenched. Conversely, poverty is powerlessness, and generational poverty breeds despair. If democracy is to survive, it cannot allow these to arise, for between them they will surely destroy it.

Hence, differential and progressive taxation, wealth taxes, inheritance taxes and the like, and the corresponding health, education, employment, welfare and training programs that make opportunity available to the poor. If you think this constitutes socialism, Mr Kwok, you are grievously, hideously mistaken. I implore whatever powers there be, for the benefit of mankind, that your countrymen are not so deceived.

John Kwok said: Dear Rilke - I have friends who supported Obama and thought of him as "The Messiah". So have some of his more "prominent" supporters too. Unless you have something else worth saying - and I really don't see how additional inane remarks of yours would be "worth saying" - then I bid you good riddance. Respectfully submitted, John

John Kwok said: I just think it's ridiculous that many people have embraced - and are still embracing - a "cult of personality" with respect to Obama as though he is indeed THE MESSIAH; especially when Obama is offering what is tantamount to a third Clinton administration with respect to his Cabinet picks so far (I think he's erred in picking my junior US Senator for State when there's a better candidate available; former UN Ambassador Richard Holbrooke. But that's my only major sign of disapproval with his Cabinet choices.). Again, as I have stated earlier, so do some members of the liberal media, like the journalist who made this very point during the Election Night edition of the PBS "Charlie Rose" program.

John Kwok said: Dear Dave - I am not by training a political scientist nor even pretend to be one. But I still insist that Marxist - Leninist thought is STILL Communism, judging by its dire results. What Lenin, Stalin, Mao and others of their ilk have produced are rigid totalitarian dictatorships which profess to be "class-less Socialist dictatorships of the proletariat". Respectfully yours, John Kwok

Rilke's Granddaughter said: John, why do you continue to refuse to address point one? As I indicated, to claim that Obama's "followers" have called him the messiah is a lie. It has been shown to you that you were completely wrong on this point, yet you refuse to acknowledge or address your error in any way. You simply repeat your assertions - assertions that have been completely demolished.

Dear Wheels:

The only reasons why Berg's claims may have merit are as follows:

1) Obama has yet to produce a notarized copy of his birth certificate showing that he was born in Hawaii.

2) He would have had to sign an affidavit affirming his loyalty to the United States once he returned from living overseas in Indonesia.

I believe I have discussed this at some length a few weeks ago and you REFUSED TO LISTEN to my arguments. Again, I strongly advise you TO CONTACT DIRECTLY Mr. Berg if you wish to have a better understanding regarding his arguments (Since Mr. Berg was a Deputy Attorney General for the State of Pennsylvania and a loyal Clinton supporter, I can't dismiss him as some kind of crackpot. However, this doesn't mean that I support his efforts as I have noted previously.).

Respectfully yours,

John Kwok

Dear PvM:

It's refreshing to see that you are as bad a speller and master of grammar as a certain former high school teacher of mine who is now a bestselling memoirist. But to be perfectly frank, I AM NOT CONFUSING policy with those people that Obama has nominated to be part of his cabinet. However, I will have to give him credit for stating that he will listen carefully to what his cabinet members are proposing - and act upon their recommendations - before proceeding.

I'm not going to continue debating Luckett about what is and isn't Communism. But I will debate Stanton if he continues to believe erroneously that someone did shout "Kill Obama" at a Palin rally or that Obama might consider assassinating my cousin James Yee.

Respectfully yours,

John Kwok

To Burt Humburg (or whomever else is moderating this thread):

In light of the fact that Obama is now President - Elect of the United States, then this thread outlived its usefulness weeks ago. Regrettably given the ample instances of inane commentary posted herein, I think it is incumbent upon you to terminate this thread immediately.

Respectfully yours,

John Kwok

John Kwok said: Dear Wheels: The only reasons why Berg's claims may have merit are as follows: 1) Obama has yet to produce a notarized copy of his birth certificate showing that he was born in Hawaii. 2) He would have had to sign an affidavit affirming his loyalty to the United States once he returned from living overseas in Indonesia.

I believe I have discussed this at some length a few weeks ago and you REFUSED TO LISTEN to my arguments.

Wheels said:

John Kwok said: Dear Wheels, Barack Hussein Obama has consistently refused to release to the public a valid copy of his birth certificate (that one you cite is not a valid copy)...

Yes it is. How isn't it? There is also the other corroborating accounts and documents. The Burden of Proof is on you to demonstrate that Obama is not a natural-born citizen if you're going to allege it.

... or his sworn affadavit swearing his allegiance to the United States upon his return from living overseas for many years in Indonesia...

Doesn't need to do that. He was born on American soil, by an American citizen (his mother) no less. For your information, he was born in an official US state, whereas John McCain was only born in a US territory. McCain's claim to citizenship should technically be more questionable than Obama's. He has never renounced his US citizenship nor sworn an oath to citizenship to any other nation. Just because he lived for several years in another country doesn't mean he has to do anything to retain or regain his citizenship. He is a natural born US citizen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law#Acquisition_of_citizenship The information you are using to make this argument is false. Please demonstrate more rationality and critical thinking than the anti-evolutionist mindset. I have to say that I'm severely disappointed in your display here.

Again, I strongly advise you TO CONTACT DIRECTLY Mr. Berg if you wish to have a better understanding regarding his arguments...

John Kwok said: Dear Stanton, Both the FBI and the Secret Service investigated the "claim" that someone shouted "Kill Obama" at a Palin rally in Pennsylvania, and DID NOT FIND any proof, period. I recommend discarding this inane claim of yours ASAP.

John Kwok said: To Burt Humburg (or whomever else is moderating this thread): In light of the fact that Obama is now President - Elect of the United States, then this thread outlived its usefulness weeks ago. Regrettably given the ample instances of inane commentary posted herein, I think it is incumbent upon you to terminate this thread immediately. Respectfully yours, John Kwok

John Kwok said: Dear PvM: It's refreshing to see that you are as bad a speller and master of grammar as a certain former high school teacher of mine who is now a bestselling memoirist. But to be perfectly frank, I AM NOT CONFUSING policy with those people that Obama has nominated to be part of his cabinet. However, I will have to give him credit for stating that he will listen carefully to what his cabinet members are proposing - and act upon their recommendations - before proceeding. I'm not going to continue debating Luckett about what is and isn't Communism. But I will debate Stanton if he continues to believe erroneously that someone did shout "Kill Obama" at a Palin rally or that Obama might consider assassinating my cousin James Yee. Respectfully yours, John Kwok

John Kwok said: Dear Wheels: The only reasons why Berg's claims may have merit are as follows: 1) Obama has yet to produce a notarized copy of his birth certificate showing that he was born in Hawaii.

2) He would have had to sign an affidavit affirming his loyalty to the United States once he returned from living overseas in Indonesia.

I believe I have discussed this at some length a few weeks ago and you REFUSED TO LISTEN to my arguments. Again, I strongly advise you TO CONTACT DIRECTLY Mr. Berg if you wish to have a better understanding regarding his arguments (Since Mr. Berg was a Deputy Attorney General for the State of Pennsylvania and a loyal Clinton supporter, I can't dismiss him as some kind of crackpot. However, this doesn't mean that I support his efforts as I have noted previously.). Respectfully yours, John Kwok

It's perhaps time for Kwok to abandon his claims, a step he seems to be somewhat reluctant to take, even though he seems even more reluctant to support his claims.
Obama won and the country can look forward to a presidency which will pay more attention to the well being of the United States of America.

Aureola Nominee said: First it was Louis Farrakhan; then it was a "reliable, nationally-syndicated radio talk show" and "some clip on YouTube"; now it's "friends who supported Obama and thought of him as the Messiah"... no substance, no evidence, only a childish refusal to acknowledge error. It's sad - but I suppose unavoidable - that from time to time someone who appeared to defend science turns up to be as willing to deploy logical fallacies and outright lies as the worst creationist. Mr. Kwok wasn't the first and won't be the last.

Dear PvM:

No, I am NOT SUPPORTING Berg's claims. I am merely reporting what he has demanded from both the Obama Campaign and the Democratic National Committee in his law suits. Again, if you have serious problems with that, I REALLY RECOMMEND taking them up with former Deputy Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania Philip Berg, not with yours truly.

Your rather inane remarks merely demonstrate just how much this thread has outlived its usefulness. But, however, on second thought, I have no doubt that you and the others who still wish to press on are merely providing our "friends" at Uncommon Dissent with ample bouts of amusement.

Respectfully yours,

John Kwok

Dear anon:

You're full of S**t and you know it. What this thread has "revealed" is that I have decided to change my mind about Obama, in light of his post-election interest in governing as a centrist and his ability to make much better Cabinet picks than former President Bill Clinton did during his first administration. While I won't call myself an Obama supporter, I am willing to take a wait and see approach before I decide to criticize him for his policies once he assumes the Presidency.

Hope you enjoy your membership in the Obama Borg Collective as yet another leftist fool incapable of reasoning well.

Respectfully submitted,

John Kwok

John Kwok said: Dear PvM: No, I am NOT SUPPORTING Berg's claims. I am merely reporting what he has demanded from both the Obama Campaign and the Democratic National Committee in his law suits. Again, if you have serious problems with that, I REALLY RECOMMEND taking them up with former Deputy Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania Philip Berg, not with yours truly.

Your rather inane remarks merely demonstrate just how much this thread has outlived its usefulness. But, however, on second thought, I have no doubt that you and the others who still wish to press on are merely providing our "friends" at Uncommon Dissent with ample bouts of amusement. Respectfully yours, John Kwok

John Kwok said: Hope you enjoy your membership in the Obama Borg Collective as yet another leftist fool incapable of reasoning well.

PvM said:

John Kwok said: Hope you enjoy your membership in the Obama Borg Collective as yet another leftist fool incapable of reasoning well.

Now that's ironic in light of Kwok's past 'arguments' about Obama...

P. S. I meant to say that if you want to keep those Uncommon Dissent IDiots "entertained" by more bouts of unintentional laughter, then by all means, please continuing posting. Otherwise, I think enough is enough.

Dear John:

they must indeed be laughing their asses off, seeing as you have exposed yourself as a person who applies EXACTLY THEIR BRAND of mendacious intellectual pornography when this suits your prejudice.

I've got news for you: these methods are ALWAYS wrong, not just when you disagree with them.

And no, until you take our the beam in your own eye you have no right to discuss the mote in anybody else's.

...take out the beam...

John Kwowk Stuyvesant’s distinguished alumni include these likely suspects as potential members of a Messiah administration: Eric Holder, formerly Deputy Attorney General of the United States and of course, David Axelrod, who is orchestrating the Messiah’s felonious assault on American democracy as I write this (Indeed we still don’t know whether the Messiah is a natural born US citizen.).

John Kwowk P. S. If there are no valid issues regarding his birth certificate, then the Messiah should have released it. Rightly or wrongly, the longer he does a “song and dance” routine with regards to its potential press release, the easier it is for me and many others to believe that he’s hiding something like the fact that he is not a “natural born United States citizen” as required by the U. S. Constitution for any prospective Presidential candidate.

John Kwok said: Dear PvM: No, I am NOT SUPPORTING Berg's claims. I am merely reporting what he has demanded from both the Obama Campaign and the Democratic National Committee in his law suits. Again, if you have serious problems with that, I REALLY RECOMMEND taking them up with former Deputy Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania Philip Berg, not with yours truly.

John Kwok said: Barack Hussein Obama has consistently refused to release to the public a valid copy of his birth certificate (that one you cite is not a valid copy)....

John Kwok said: In stark contrast, the Messiah’s mother gave birth to her son within months after her marriage to her husband, a visiting exchange student from Kenya. Where she gave birth is still a matter that should be investigated IMHO. If the Messiah chose to release the records, then this would never have been an issue.

John Kwok said: Stuyvesant’s distinguished alumni include these likely suspects as potential members of a Messiah administration: Eric Holder, formerly Deputy Attorney General of the United States and of course, David Axelrod, who is orchestrating the Messiah’s felonious assault on American democracy as I write this (Indeed we still don’t know whether the Messiah is a natural born US citizen.).

Dear neo-anti-luddite:

Believe me, I'm not "dancing in the aisles" now nor was I at the beginning of this month trying to promote Berg's legal claims. For me to suggest that Obama ought to issue a notarized copy of both his birth certificate and sworn affidavit attesting to his loyalty upon his return to the USA from Indonesia is to state the obvious. If Obama and his staff wish to end once and for all these allegations, then I think it's in their interest to release notarized copies of both documents.

You are quite simply grasping at straws trying to act inanely for the benefit of the Dishonesty Institute and other mendacious intellectual pornographers advocating creationism, looking forward to more risible commentary from you and others in this thread.

Wish I could wish you a Happy Thanksgiving, but I'm not that charitable.

John Kwok

Dear Wheels:

See my last comment to Neo-Anti-Luddite. If I was David Axelrod, then I'd advise Obama to release notarized copies of both documents now merely to shut up the likes of Philip Berg and others who have filed suit.

I AM ASSUMING that Obama is a natural-born United States citizen merely because of his excellent judgement so far with respect to virtually all of his cabinet picks. Don't get me started please if I am mistaken.....

Again ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. If you wish to provide more amusing fodder for the likes of Dembski, O'Leary, Springer, Luskin and others at both Uncommon Dissent and the Dishonesty Institute, then please continue writing your inane commentaries. Otherwise, please go get yourself a life and try enjoying Thanksgiving.

John Kwok

John Kwok said: If you want to keep Denyse O'Leary, Bill Dembski, DaveScot Springer and the rest of their pathetic band of mendacious intellectual pornographers over at Uncommon Dissent, then by all means, please continue posting more and more inane comments trying to "interpret" what I have said. As for me, I intend to have a most enjoyable Thanksgiving. Until then, I hope you, too, will enjoy your membership in the Obama Borg Collective.

John Kwok said: P. S. I meant to say that if you want to keep those Uncommon Dissent IDiots "entertained" by more bouts of unintentional laughter, then by all means, please continuing posting. Otherwise, I think enough is enough.

John Kwok said: I AM ASSUMING that Obama is a natural-born United States citizen merely because of his excellent judgement so far with respect to virtually all of his cabinet picks. Don't get me started please if I am mistaken.....

John Kwok said: Again ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. If you wish to provide more amusing fodder for the likes of Dembski, O'Leary, Springer, Luskin and others at both Uncommon Dissent and the Dishonesty Institute, then please continue writing your inane commentaries. Otherwise, please go get yourself a life and try enjoying Thanksgiving. John Kwok

Dear PvM:

It might surprise you to learn that I care less about my reputation being smeared by the likes of you, Wheels, etc. than what those over at the Dishonesty Institute and Uncommon Dissent must be thinking about your reputation. If you wish to continue acting like an inane fool, then you're merely providing them with ample fodder.

If anyone is providing "entertainment" to IDiots and other creos, then it isn't me.

Wish I could wish you a Happy Thanksgiving, but I'm not too charitable now.

John Kwok

John Kwok said: You are quite simply grasping at straws...

Dear Aureola Nominee:

Please complain to "the Messiah" then for not acting like the radical Socialist that I thought he would be. I find it quite reassuring that he's more committed to taking a centrist approach, especially in light of his recent Cabinet picks.

What I just wrote in reply to PvM also applies to you. If you continue posting inane remarks at this thread, then you'll come across as looking quite foolish to the likes of the Dishonesty Institue's pathetic band of mendacious intellectual pornographers and their IDiot Borg drones posting at Dembski's Uncommon Dissent website.

John Kwok

Dear John:

no, President-Elect Obama has nothing to do with your lies about him. You thought he was a radical Socialist because you were ignorant, you believed and repeated long-debunked lies about him and others, and you chose to smear him and anyone standing up for truth.

And again, it is you who've committed countless logical fallacies, thus providing not just entertainment but rhetorical ammunition to the enemies of science. Other people on this thread, on the contrary, have shown the intellectual integrity you lack, and applied the same degree of rigor to your unsupported claims about President-Elect Obama as to the creationists' unsupported claim about biology.

The problem is not that they are creationists, exactly like the problem is not that you are a right-wing Republican; the problem is that both they and you refuse to admit error after being patiently corrected, after being not-so-patiently but still politely corrected, and even after having their and your faces repeatedly rubbed in evidence.

As they say, "quit while you are behind", John. You can't rescue your credibility, but you can stop digging your hole.

John Kwok said: Dear Wheels: See my last comment to Neo-Anti-Luddite. If I was David Axelrod, then I'd advise Obama to release notarized copies of both documents now merely to shut up the likes of Philip Berg and others who have filed suit.

I AM ASSUMING that Obama is a natural-born United States citizen merely because of his excellent judgement so far with respect to virtually all of his cabinet picks.

Again ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. If you wish to provide more amusing fodder for the likes of Dembski, O'Leary, Springer, Luskin and others at both Uncommon Dissent and the Dishonesty Institute, then please continue writing your inane commentaries. Otherwise, please go get yourself a life and try enjoying Thanksgiving.

John Kwok said: Dear PvM: It might surprise you to learn that I care less about my reputation being smeared by the likes of you, Wheels, etc. than what those over at the Dishonesty Institute and Uncommon Dissent must be thinking about your reputation. If you wish to continue acting like an inane fool, then you're merely providing them with ample fodder. If anyone is providing "entertainment" to IDiots and other creos, then it isn't me. Wish I could wish you a Happy Thanksgiving, but I'm not too charitable now. John Kwok

John Kwok said: Please complain to "the Messiah" then for not acting like the radical Socialist that I thought he would be. I find it quite reassuring that he's more committed to taking a centrist approach, especially in light of his recent Cabinet picks.

Dear PvM:

With regards to his past political inclinations, as noted in his memoir "Dreams", Obama IS a radical socialist. However, I was delighted to hear that he sought out conservatives when he was Editor - in - Chief of the Harvard Law Review, recognizing that theirs were valid opinions which he had to consider. I should also note that Obama must recognize that ours is still a centrist - slightly righward - nation, in light of the fact that he's picked centrists to serve in his administration (A fact that is being criticized at such radical liberal websites as DailyKos.). For these reasons alone I am willing to suspend my criticism of Obama, until and unless, he decides to proceed with some of his Socialist agenda that he had expressed on the campaign trail. Are you therefore willing to suspend your increasingly inane criticism of me? If you're not, then I wish you well in assuming room temperature soon.

John Kwok

Dear PvM:

I call your responses "inane" simply because they are not worthy of comment. It's too bad that you are as dogmatic as a Dishonesty Institute IDiot unwilling to concede that perhaps I have changed my mind regarding Obama's intentions as President of the United States? When you do come to your senses, then maybe you'll stop posting more inane commentary.

As for my reputation being "smeared", I obviously don't care about it, or else you'd read me protesting vehemently. If anyone's reputation is being "smeared", I am more inclined to think that it is yours given your risible remarks which are so rich in their breathtaking inanity.

John Kwok

called for the creation of his own civilian police corps answerable only to him, not to Congress.

“Calypso Louie” Louis Farrakhan has proclaimed to his flock that his buddy Barack Hussein Obama is indeed the Messiah, not once, but several times, most recently last month. In fact in his recent proclaimation, he strongly advised fellow Americans to get used to the notion of Obama as the Messiah.

Barack Hussein Obama has consistently refused to release to the public a valid copy of his birth certificate (that one you cite is not a valid copy) [...]

Barack Obama is a Marxist-Leninist

in his victory speech that ours did not become a great nation until his election.

A year ago I concluded that John Kwok is nothing like as smart as he thinks he is and of questionable honesty, and that his comments were seldom worthwhile reading. The exchanges I have seen here have strongly reinforced that view.

Richard Simons said: A year ago I concluded that John Kwok is nothing like as smart as he thinks he is and of questionable honesty, and that his comments were seldom worthwhile reading. The exchanges I have seen here have strongly reinforced that view.

Dear John:

Your constant "la la la I can't hear you" routine concerning your getting caught with your hands in the metaphorical cookie jar is on a par with Dr. Behe's similar dismissal of other inconvenient truths at Dover, and the breathtaking inanity is therefore all yours.

You had a very simple way of shutting me up: presenting evidence for your claims. Instead, you chose to dodge and avoid addressing the issues (that you had raised in the first place), seeking illusory refuge in snark, non sequiturs, ad hominems, and other assorted fallacies.

Did President-Elect Obama say, in his victory speech, that "ours did not become a great nation until his election"? Yes or no?

Only an intellectually dishonest coward like you would dodge this simple question, especially since the full text of President-Elect Obama's victory speech has been linked from this thread.

Until you admit that your claims against President-Elect Obama were baseless, the only logical conclusion is that you are a liar. No amount of handwaving rhetoric can change that established fact.

Dear Aureola:

If the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, can come away, after a meeting with Obama, quite satisfied that Obama will listen carefully to military advice (as noted below), then I am satisfied in revising upward my opinion of "the Messiah":

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27977381/

Maybe you should cease and desist from making any more attacks upon me. But wait, on second thought, could you possibly be the same delusional "Mindy" I've had to contend with over at Amazon. Why do I think this? Your inane commentary is written in a style that is most reminiscent of hers.

Since you are as delusional as "Mindless Mindy Monostat", then I wish you well in enjoying your membership in whichever Borg Collective you are so obviously a member of.

Live Long and Prosper (as a delusional member of the Obama Borg Collective),

John Kwok

Dear John:

The opinions of a confirmed liar such as yourself carry no weight at all.

You may think that, by avoiding dealing with the known falsehoods you've spewed and adding more falsehoods about me, somehow you'll salvage your reputation; rest assured it doesn't work this way.

I don't care whether you now wish to become President-Elect Obama's best buddy; the point is - and has always been - that you've made false claims, have been called on them, and have studiously avoided either supporting them or retracting them.

Therefore, you are an intellectually dishonest coward. I despise intellectually dishonest cowards, and that is one of my reasons for opposing creationists. You've simply showed that you are no better than them.

Go on, John, keep squirming. Did President-Elect Obama say, in his victory speech, that “ours did not become a great nation until his election”? Yes or no?

Dear Aureola:

Much to their credit, PvM and Wheels have given up attacking me. May I suggest the same course of action too? Otherwise, you are merely confirming my hunch that you are actually a fundamentalist Protestant Christian, "Mindless Mindy Monostat", pretending to be a stalwart liberal supporter of "the Messiah".

John Kwok

Aureola Nominee, FCD said: Dear John: The opinions of a confirmed liar such as yourself carry no weight at all.

Dear John:

I can accept that you've changed your mind. I cannot accept that you made false claims and never owned up to them. Simple, really.

Tell me, John: why is it so difficult for you to say, for instance, "You were right, President-Elect Obama never said what I claimed he said"?

Why? We have ALL been wrong in our lives; intellectually honest people admit it, correct their mistakes, and life goes on.

You have chosen a different path; a song and dance of deception, that any lurker can see on this thread. You still refuse to admit that your claims were false. That's why I call you a confirmed liar.

John Kwok said: Dear Aureola: Much to their credit, PvM and Wheels have given up attacking me.

John Kwok said: Dear Aureola: Much to their credit, PvM and Wheels have given up attacking me. May I suggest the same course of action too? Otherwise, you are merely confirming my hunch that you are actually a fundamentalist Protestant Christian, "Mindless Mindy Monostat", pretending to be a stalwart liberal supporter of "the Messiah". John Kwok

John Kwok said: Dear Aureola: If the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, can come away, after a meeting with Obama, quite satisfied that Obama will listen carefully to military advice (as noted below), then I am satisfied in revising upward my opinion of "the Messiah":

John Kwok said: Dear PvM: With regards to his past political inclinations, as noted in his memoir "Dreams", Obama IS a radical socialist. However, I was delighted to hear that he sought out conservatives when he was Editor - in - Chief of the Harvard Law Review, recognizing that theirs were valid opinions which he had to consider. I should also note that Obama must recognize that ours is still a centrist - slightly righward - nation, in light of the fact that he's picked centrists to serve in his administration (A fact that is being criticized at such radical liberal websites as DailyKos.). For these reasons alone I am willing to suspend my criticism of Obama, until and unless, he decides to proceed with some of his Socialist agenda that he had expressed on the campaign trail. Are you therefore willing to suspend your increasingly inane criticism of me? If you're not, then I wish you well in assuming room temperature soon. John Kwok

John Kwok said: Thanks for your enlightening post, but I beg to differ. Any form of redistributive taxation is Socialist in its orientation.

John Kwok said: Dear Stanton, I referred to Obama as “Sauron” merely to needle Aureola, though she doesn’t need much prompting obviously.

John Kwok said: To whomever is moderating this thread: It has out-lived its usefulness, especially since Obama is now President - Elect. Please terminate it ASAP.

John Kwok said: Wish I could wish you a Happy Thanksgiving, but I’m not that charitable.

Dear PvM:

Let's look at the record, shall we:

1) In "Dreams of My Father", Obama notes that his primary influence as an adolescent growing up in Hawaii was someone who has been identified as an important leader of the Hawaiian branch of the Communist Party USA.

2) Also in "Dreams of My Father", Obama admits to associating himself with fellow radicals as a Columbia University undergraduate.

3) One of Obama's first jobs in Chicago was to train ACORN's staff (ACORN is a radical Socialist-leaning community organization).

That's just the tip of the iceberg which has led me and many others here in the USA to conclude that Obama is a Socialist. However, I will note that while he has Socialist leanings, he has learned to become quite pragmatic with regards to picking his cabinet and listening to those who disagree with him. Not only has he done a better job than Clinton did in assembling his first cabinet, I strongly doubt whether McCain could have - if he had been elected - picked as strong a cabinet as Obama has been assembling.

You, Aureola and Wheels are wasting your time - as well as mine - trying to "dissect" what I have said. I am ready to move on and to suspend my criticisms of "the Messiah". Are you ready to move on and to suspend your criticisms of me, especially when there are more important issues in the so-called "creation vs. evolution" debate to contend with, as the latest PT discussion threads are indicating?

Respecfully yours,

John Kwok

Dear neo-anti-luddite,

Am glad you are having such a grand time. I wish you well in assuming room temperature soon.

Respectfully yours,

John Kwok

John Kwok said: Dear neo-anti-luddite, Am glad you are having such a grand time. I wish you well in assuming room temperature soon. Respectfully yours, John Kwok

Dear John:

You keep misunderstanding - or more likely misstating - the issue.

The issue is that you've advanced several claims that were demonstrably false, people gave you links and evidence enough to prove they were false, and you kept making the same claims.

This means you are a liar, regardless of whether you "change your mind about Obama" or not.

Keep squirming, John. Did President-Elect Obama say, in his victory speech, that “ours did not become a great nation until his election”? Yes or no?

John Kwok said: Dear PvM: Let's look at the record, shall we: 1) In "Dreams of My Father", Obama notes that his primary influence as an adolescent growing up in Hawaii was someone who has been identified as an important leader of the Hawaiian branch of the Communist Party USA. 2) Also in "Dreams of My Father", Obama admits to associating himself with fellow radicals as a Columbia University undergraduate. 3) One of Obama's first jobs in Chicago was to train ACORN's staff (ACORN is a radical Socialist-leaning community organization). That's just the tip of the iceberg which has led me and many others here in the USA to conclude that Obama is a Socialist. However, I will note that while he has Socialist leanings, he has learned to become quite pragmatic with regards to picking his cabinet and listening to those who disagree with him. Not only has he done a better job than Clinton did in assembling his first cabinet, I strongly doubt whether McCain could have - if he had been elected - picked as strong a cabinet as Obama has been assembling. You, Aureola and Wheels are wasting your time - as well as mine - trying to "dissect" what I have said. I am ready to move on and to suspend my criticisms of "the Messiah". Are you ready to move on and to suspend your criticisms of me, especially when there are more important issues in the so-called "creation vs. evolution" debate to contend with, as the latest PT discussion threads are indicating? Respecfully yours, John Kwok

ACORN is the nation’s largest grassroots community organization of low- and moderate-income people with over 400,000 member families organized into more than 1,200 neighborhood chapters in 110 cities across the country. Since 1970, ACORN has been building community organizations that are committed to social and economic justice, and won victories on thousands of issues of concern to our members, through direct action, negotiation, legislative advocacy and voter participation. ACORN helps those who have historically been locked out become powerful players in our democratic system.

In his best selling memoir ‘Dreams of my Father', the author speaks warmly of an older black poet, he identifies simply as "Frank" as being a decisive influence in helping him to find his present identity as an African-American...."

There was one exception, a poet named Frank who lived in a dilapidated house in a run-down section of Waikiki. He had enjoyed some modest notoriety once, was a contemporary of Richard Wright and Langston Hughes during his years in Chicago-Gramps once showed me some of his work anthologized in a book of black poetry. But by the time I met Frank he must have been pushing eighty, with a big, dewlapped face and an ill-kempt gray Afro that made him look like an old, shaggy-maned lion. He would read us his poetry whenever we stopped by his house, sharing whiskey with Gramps out of an emptied jelly jar. As the night wore on, the two of them would solicit my help in composing dirty limericks. Eventually, the conversation would turn to laments about women.

John Kwok said: Dear PvM: Let's look at the record, shall we: 1) In "Dreams of My Father", Obama notes that his primary influence as an adolescent growing up in Hawaii was someone who has been identified as an important leader of the Hawaiian branch of the Communist Party USA. 2) Also in "Dreams of My Father", Obama admits to associating himself with fellow radicals as a Columbia University undergraduate. 3) One of Obama's first jobs in Chicago was to train ACORN's staff (ACORN is a radical Socialist-leaning community organization).

This is truly fascinating. I watched this happen with a friend, coincidentally enough named Jon (no "h"), who made the mistake of spouting a bunch of GOP propoganda similar to what the Kwokster is spouting amongst a group of actuaries and scientists. His tactics were very similar as well: constantly trying to change the subject, end the discussion, and of course all the baseless half-arguments and guilt-by-association desperation reaches we came to know and love over the course of the election.

Most revealing to me was the brick wall I ran into when I insisted, in an email exchange, that he restrict the discussion to one point: his assertion, so common amongst the GOP propoganda machine, that Obama had done nothing other than run for office and write books.

When I showed him the somewhat impressive list of Obama's legislative achievements and agendas, his tactic, just like Mr. Kwok, was to keep repeating his innuendos and GOP talking points and to refuse to address the issue at all. The notion that his trusted sources might be completely full of shit was never entertained.

I told him, like I'll tell John Kwok, and any other person out there who reads partisan GOP websites and watches Fox: you are being systematically lied to, in the hopes that you will be too lazy to research the issues yourself. How else could the lie that Obama hadn't done anything persist for so long when 5 minutes with Google refuted it in spades?

No doubt this will fall on deaf ears too. I might as well tell a Biblical fundamentalist that the Bible is just a book, and his minister just a man.

Tomatoes are deadly. The juice of a single tomato is enough to kill a man ten times over. This is common knowledge (I'm sure I saw it on YouTube once; Google it). The FDA refuses to document that tomatoes are not deadly. If the act of eating a tomato is not fatal, why wouldn't the FDA simply offer documented proof? Tomatoes have been found growing in gardens alongside noxious weeds and toadstools - if that isn't proof of my contention, I don't know what is.

Hmmm....after observing a famous fellow alumnus of my high school eat a salad containing slices of tomato with (so far) no ill effect, I've decided to consider thinking better of tomatoes. Though I reserve the right to stand by my previous well-supported assertion, and expect all to respect it, isn't that enough? After all, it was nothing as stupid as creationism - no, this was well-documented fact.

BTW, "assume room temperature" is obviously parlance for death; it is, in fact used exclusively by Rush Limbaugh to refer to death, which is a rather telling fact in itself. What troubles me most about this whole thread is that if one should happen to spot a fallacy with John's logic or point out that he is sadly misinformed, if not wholly ignorant, he wishes death upon that person. I get around on the net, and, in my expereince, it is a very rare thing to see this wish bandied about in even a jocular fashion. It's downright creepy to see it here.

Tomatoes are deadly. The juice of a single tomato is enough to kill a man ten times over.

I know this is old, but since the link was posted at the Intersection...Wow.

I knew Kwok was off his Kwackers, but, seriously? Even after the ayers/et al bit was debunked pages ago, he decided to go back to it like a broken record. I also am amazed how such a humble person either knows or is related to so many famous people. I wonder if we can find emails and ask them about that?

Al Bundy is alive and well and posting at the Intersection (at Discoverblogs), be sure to tip your waitresses!

Great post I must say.. Simple but yet entertaining and engaging.. Keep up the good work!