I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Usage of term "Darwinism" ranks high on "Wingnut Index"

Daily Kos, one of the most visited blogs in America (now averaging around one million visits per day), says,

A decade ago, UC Riverside physicist John Baez developed the crackpot index to help when sorting letters sent to universities that promised to revolutionize science. His index (which was referenced in the Netroots Nation science panel by Ed Brayton) includes such items as 5 points for each mention of "Einstein," and 20 points for comparing yourself to Newton.

To bring the same sort of order to the missives that arrive at this site each day, here's the Daily Kos equivalent:
(only a sample of the index is shown for purposes of comparison):

The Wingnut Index

5 points
Each use of "Democrat Party."
Each use of "liberal elite."
Each declaration that kos readers should "leave America."

10 points
Each use of the phrase "hate site."
Each mention of Nazis, Commies, Reds, brownshirts or stormtroopers . . . .

15 points
Including "San Francisco" in letters that have nothing to do with San Francisco. . . .
Insisting that liberals "want America to lose." . . . .
Each alternate theory posed to replace evolution.
Each explanation for why global warming is a hoax.

20 points
Each use of "DemocRAT Party."
Each time the writer wishes the recipient would burn in hell . . .
Each use of the term "Darwinism."

50 point
Each serious, affirmative use of the term PUMA.
Sending a letter complaining about how kos is censoring you because you can't post thirty seconds after registering.
Sending a letter complaining about how kos is censoring you, when you've been booted by the community for 101 crappy comments.
Sending a letter complaining about how kos is censoring you, when you haven't bothered to register at the site.

100 points
Each use of the word "Bush" in association with "unrecognized genius."

If Darwinists don't like the terms "Darwinism" and "Darwinist," then they should cut the "I love Darwin" crap (T-shirts, coffee mugs, etc.), the "Friend of Darwin" certificate crap (these certificates were handed out at a reunion of the Dover plaintiffs team), the Darwin-Lincoln crap, etc..

Maybe there should be a "politically correct batshit wingnuttery index" index (Fatheaded Ed Brayton's trademark expressions are "for crying out loud" and "batshit wingnuttery") --

100 points:

Using the term "intelligent design creationism."

Saying that evolution is central to biology.

Saying that Judge Jones is a Bush-appointed conservative church-going Republican.

Saying that the "Wedge Strategy" shows that critics of evolution are trying to turn the USA into a Taliban-type theocracy.




Anonymous Jim said...

"Using the term "intelligent design creationism."

Saying that evolution is central to biology.

Saying that Judge Jones is a Bush-appointed conservative church-going Republican.

Saying that the "Wedge Strategy" shows that critics of evolution are trying to turn the USA into a Taliban-type theocracy.

So basically any accurate statement about the current reality of the evolution debate should be on your "politically correct batshit wingnuttery index."

Larry just admit you have no idea what you're talking about and stop embarrassing yourself.

Tuesday, July 29, 2008 8:21:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Despite the insanity manifested in Larry's views of this index, it only scores 20 (or 40, if you count "Darwinist" and "Darwinism" together, in any case), a mild score compared to the usual trash on this site.

Tuesday, July 29, 2008 9:23:00 AM  
Blogger Nada Platonico said...

Larry finally gets something right. Too bad he had to ruin it with his own list.

Tuesday, July 29, 2008 12:01:00 PM  
Blogger Jim Sherwood said...

The word "Darwinism" has been used by conventional "evolutionary biologists" for many decades, to describe their preferred theory of evolution. Anyone who reads Mayr or
even Dawkins, finds them using the term Darwinism in that sense. So the claim that Darwinism is used improperly by by ID theoreticians is either ignorant, or an outright lie.

I used to follow the liberal blog Daily Kos, but rarely do now after I found out that they banned one of their old columnists, John C. Landon (or "nemo"). Landon calls his politics Rad-Green and Ultra-Far-Left, and should fit in at Daily Kos: but he was banned simply for not believing in Darwinism. He rejects both Darwinism and ID, and his website is www. darwiniana.com

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 1:29:00 PM  
Blogger Jim Sherwood said...

John C. Landon is a leftish dude who reads Kant and Schopenhauer, and has published an anti-Darwinist book. I used to comment on his blog, but got tired of it because he's as anti-ID as he is anti-Darwinist. He was banned as a columnist at Daily Kos for not following the Official Darwinist Line. His blog is at www.darwiniana.com

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 1:49:00 PM  
Anonymous Journamalism said...

"Daily Kos, one of the most visited blogs in America"

This unfortunately is not cause for celebration. I wonder how many of those readers have any idea just how dishonest Markos Moulitsas is?

I'll probably get 1000 Kosian "wingnut points" for this post. Tough noogies.

Do readers know that it is not proven that Barack Obama meets the Constitutional requirement for a President to be a "natural born American"? Kos decided to "remedy" the situation:

So Kos aka Moulitsas goes out and
(a birth certificate). One impressed commenter on the site asks Kos where he got it. He answers:
"I asked the campaign. This 'journamalism' [sic] thing actually works sometimes."

This activity evinces Kos's utter contempt for the USA, as well as for the very notion of having a Constitution.

It's reminiscent of Dan Rather's forgery of documents about President Bush.

!@#$% leftists!

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 2:37:00 PM  
Blogger Nada Platonico said...

Journamalism wrote (amazing enough, he seems barely literate), "Do readers know that it is not proven that Barack Obama meets the Constitutional requirement for a President to be a "natural born American"?"

See this snopes entry for a complete rebuttal: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp.

$#%!@$ morons!

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 6:14:00 PM  
Blogger William Wallace said...

'Using the term "intelligent design creationism."'

'Saying that evolution is central to biology.'

Yes, I do have to agree.

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 9:39:00 PM  
Anonymous Journamalism said...

See this snopes entry for a complete "rebuttal" (sic)

Your Snopes link says, "Since Barack Obama was born in Hawaii ..."

It is not proven that he was born in Hawaii. THAT was what the controversy was about. The point of my post was Kos's practice of "journamalism" to forge a birth certificate. This is Standard Operating Procedure for the Left. Kos thinks it is funny.

As for the other basis for Obama supposedly meeting the Constitutional elegibility standard, in fact he fails those criteria. (Snopes tries to weasel out by saying it doesn't like those rules.)

Obama doesn't much act like a U.S. citizen anyway. His current project in Congress is to make the beleaguered U.S. taxpayers pay $845 billion for global welfare.

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 11:42:00 PM  
Blogger nada platonic said...

Journamalism wrote, "It is not proven that he was born in Hawaii."

The report at the Atlas Shrugs is interesting, but has little support. See this site http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/ for more details.

Reasons why there are no legitimate concerns about Obama's birth certificate: there is nothing in the mainstream media. Nothing. That indicates something fishy about the claims of forgery. The media, while many outlets may support the Democrats more than Republicans, the media above all want a story and want consumers (be they readers or viewers). A story like this is huge. And not all the media outlets support the Dems (see Fox News, for example).

Also, the link above notes: "We e-mailed it [Obama's birth certificate] to the Hawaii Department of Health, which maintains such records, to ask if it was real.

“It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate,” spokesman Janice Okubo told us."

So, we have a spokesman for the state of Hawaii saying that it is legitimate.

But since they're thorough, they also "circled back to the Department of Health, [and] had a newsroom colleague bring in her own Hawaii birth certificate to see if it looks the same (it’s identical)."

So Obama's birth certificate is identical to that of someone else born in Hawaii.

They kept asking questions, and finally concluded: "If this document is forged, a U.S. senator and his presidential campaign have perpetrated a vast, long-term fraud. They have done it with conspiring officials at the Hawaii Department of Health, the Cook County (Ill.) Bureau of Vital Statistics, the Illinois Secretary of State’s office, the Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois and many other government agencies."

That's quite a conspiracy. Not even Larry is crazy enough to believe it (or maybe he is, I shouldn't speak before I get confirmation there).

Thursday, July 31, 2008 10:29:00 AM  
Anonymous Journamalism said...

"politifact.com" "truth-o-meter"

Wow! Not just one, but two Newspeak names! (Recall the "Ministry of Truth" from Orwell's 1984?)

Someone with a little humility, or honesty, would recognize that they might sometime make a mistake, that even if not their fault would nonetheless invalidate the presumptuous labels.

"That indicates something fishy about the claims of forgery."

Or, something fishy about the media.

I guess you never heard of forgeries before?

"Not one of these documents shows a Muhammed (or Mohammed) in Obama's name. They all read "Barack H. Obama" or "Barack Hussein Obama.""

Agreed -- there is no evidence AFAIK that Obama was ever named Mohammed. So what? This is a red herring. It deliberately obfuscates the fact that Barack, Hussein, and Obama are all Arabic names. BTW, it also conveniently misses the opportunity to make some much subtler and more interesting connections.

For some odd reason, even Muslim apostasy is supposed to be a capital offense(Islam is like the mafia -- you only leave feet first), Obama is quite popular with the radical Muslims. Maybe they know something we don't?

Friday, August 01, 2008 12:48:00 PM  
Anonymous Journamalism said...

First line, last paragraph:

"For some reason, even though ..."

(word omitted; sorry)

Friday, August 01, 2008 12:57:00 PM  
Blogger Nada Platonico said...

Journamalism wrote, "I guess you never heard of forgeries before?"

I did, that's why I wrote what I wrote. I am not going to spend (read: waste) my time reading about the alleged forgery; the arguments seem solid and the claims straight-forward; and I have no way to challenge them on that level.

What made me think was 'why is there nothing in the mainstream media?' 'Why is there nothing on Obama's anti-rumor site?' These issues made me think.

Commenters questioned the claim over at Atlas Shrugs and stopped discussing the piece only three days after it was posted (that's almost ten days ago). I managed to find two sites that questioned the claim, one had only a statement from Obama's camp that it was his valid birth certificate (not strong enough to defend against claims of forgery, I accept). Another site (link above, also on my post at my blog, anarchysoundsgoodtome.blogspot.com) provided several justifications: one, a statement from a spokesman for the state of Hawaii who said that it is a legitimate birth certificate (read: not a forgery) and it is identical to the birth certificate of someone from Hawaii in their office. I have no way of neither validating or questioning these claims (unfortunately), but I can see that it would be a waste of time to pursue them further. Why? Because the conspiracy regarding a f##@$ing birth certificate would entail the cooperation of numerous government agency (the web site mentions 4 by name), including the corruption of the birth certificate of someone known by one (random) person who questioned the claim. That's a far-reaching conspiracy. And the cherry on top: there's absolutely no media coverage -- not even the WorldNutDaily piece mentioned a forged birth certificate, and it's one of the craziest news sites out there.

Friday, August 01, 2008 2:29:00 PM  
Anonymous 'Journamalism said...

"Because the conspiracy regarding a f##@$ing birth certificate would entail the cooperation of numerous government agenc(ies)"

No, it does not need the cooperation of even one. I can see that you did not read the AS article; it supplies the context. You need to apply Occam's Razor here. (A) Forgeries exist in many contexts; (B) This is a forgery even if Obama was born in HI; (C) Who made it (Kos, the Obama campaign, someone else)? -- probably Kos IMO; (D) Why?

"WorldNutDaily" "one of the craziest news sites"

I agree that WND occasionally loses it, and I'm embarrassed for them when they do. However, they are mostly right and (even when defying conventional wisdom) have numerous scoops to their credit. (Perhaps that's the definition of a "scoop".) You're not absolved of the need to bring your brain to the forum.

Friday, August 01, 2008 3:31:00 PM  
Blogger Nada Platonico said...

Journamalism wrote, "No, it does not need the cooperation of even one"

Yes you do, because while forgeries exist, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that this is not a forgery. See this website for a thorough rebuttal of the claims on Atlas Shrugs: http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5626.

AJStrata notes, "BTW, my analysis was backed up when someone compared another HI birth certificate from a Ms Patricia Decostas"


"But more than that, numerous people have called the state of Hawaii who initially claimed the document was legit, and that they did provide a new copy to Obama on the date noted on the back. Now they cannot claim 100% confidence of the images which, as Opendna quite easily demonstrated, can be manipulated. But if the state says they issued a new copy last summer, and the Kos and BHO images bear that out, where is the forgery?"

If another person from Hawaii has an identical birth certificate -- one that shows the same features of "manipulation" as those noted by the "expert" on Atlas Shrugs of Obama's birth certificate -- then the conspiracy does run pretty deep and needs the cooperation of several officials and complicity by several government agencies that would have (or have had access to) these allegedly forged birth certificate in the past (or in the present). Considering, state officials in Hawaii said that it was a document issued by them (one that, they certainly accept, could have been altered) -- but not noticing a few details that are plainly evident, I have no reason to believe that this is nothing more than rumor mongering worthy of a snopes article.

What is more probable, applying Occham's Razor? That Obama has been using a forged birth certificate for many years (perhaps as long as twenty or more years ago), one that no one has questioned in that time, and one that even official Hawaiian spokesmen admit is an official document or that this is simply a bunch of garbage made up by people who apparently don't want Obama to be president or simply are too stupid and therefore waste their time on this? And furthermore, that any impropriety here has yet to make national news coverage -- where it would be a hot topic and could completely change the election?

I am not saying that a forgery is unlikely -- but note that I saw nothing indicating religion on the birth certificate. I can't see what there would be to hide (assuming he was born in Hawaii, which is the main reason why this is an appropriate topic). Since Hawaii confirms that they issued such a document, it seems that Obama was born in Hawaii and since he was born in 1961, it was a state and there is no doubt that he is a natural-born citizen. If more evidence comes forward, I will reconsider this position. But nothing at the present moment suggests that I have any need to do so.

One bit of advice: lay off the weed. It foments paranoia.

Friday, August 01, 2008 4:37:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home