Unscrupulous ScienceBlogs bloggers getting their comeuppance

As I pointed out, ScienceBlogs is home to some of the worst arbitrary censors on the Internet, e.g., Fatheaded Ed Brayton and Sleazy PZ Myers. Now the New York Times has a scathing article attacking ScienceBlogs -- the article says,

Clearly I’ve been out of some loop for too long, but does everyone take for granted now that science sites are where graduate students, researchers, doctors and the “skeptical community” go not to interpret data or review experiments but to chip off one-liners, promote their books and jeer at smokers, fat people and churchgoers? And can anyone who still enjoys this class-inflected bloodsport tell me why it has to happen under the banner of science?

Hammering away at an ideology, substituting stridency for contemplation, pummeling its enemies in absentia: ScienceBlogs has become Fox News for the religion-baiting, peak-oil crowd. Though Myers and other science bloggers boast that they can be jerky in the service of anti-charlatanism, that’s not what’s bothersome about them. What’s bothersome is that the site is misleading. It’s not science by scientists, not even remotely; it’s science blogging by science bloggers. And science blogging, apparently, is a form of redundant and effortfully incendiary rhetoric that draws bad-faith moral authority from the word “science” and from occasional invocations of “peer-reviewed” thises and thats.

Under cover of intellectual rigor, the science bloggers — or many of the most visible ones, anyway — prosecute agendas so charged with bigotry that it doesn’t take a pun-happy French critic or a rapier-witted Cambridge atheist to call this whole ScienceBlogs enterprise what it is, or has become: class-war claptrap.

Fatheaded Ed's blog "Dispatches from the Culture Wars" is not even "science blogging" -- most of his posts are about political and social issues.

I am very proud that I am still first on Sleazy PZ's "Killfile Dungeon" list of banned commenters.

Other comments about the New York Times article are here and here.

READ MORE

Hypocritical Scienceblogs bloggers

Some Scienceblogs bloggers are all upset because of a new commercial Scienceblogs blog by Pepsico -- some have even quit Scienceblogs in protest [1] [2] . These bloggers feel that a commercial blog compromises the integrity of Scienceblogs. These bloggers are very hypocritical -- Scienceblogs has or has had some of the worst arbtirary censors in the blogosphere: Fatheaded Ed Brayton, Sleazy PZ Myers, Carl Zimmer, and Jason Rosenhouse.

READ MORE

Fatheaded Ed is name-dropping again

Fatheaded Ed Brayton has again familiarly referred to Eugenie Scott as "Genie" Scott. In a post titled "Congratulations, Genie Scott," he said,

My friend Genie Scott of the National Center for Science Education was awarded this week with the Public Welfare Medal from the National Academy of Sciences for "championing the teaching of evolution in the United States and for providing leadership to the National Center for Science Education."

And, of course, "Genie" Scott continues to get awards that she does not deserve. She is just a propagandist who claims that all criticisms of evolution are based on religion.

READ MORE

More about holocaust cartoon

A Dutch news article about the cartoon I described in this post says,

. . . the AEL [Arab European League] was told it did face prosecution unless it removes a cartoon featuring two men in suits discussing how to boost the number of people killed during the holocaust.

Obviously, the two men in the cartoon -- which is shown above -- were not exactly discussing "how to boost the number of people killed during the holocaust," but were specifically discussing boosting the number of holocaust victims who are classified as Jews. Also, another news article said,
.

The cartoon shows two apparently Jewish men standing near a pile of skeletons with a sign that says "Auswitch," presumably representing the largest Nazi concentration camp, Auschwitz.

One pokes a bone with a stick and says "I don't think they're Jews" and the other answers, "We have to get to the six million somehow."

Contrary to the above description of the cartoon, the men are not "apparently Jewish." News articles should be more careful about how they describe a cartoon, particularly a cartoon that is not pictured along with the news article.

The cartoon may be considered a caricature of my long-held contention that a "systematic" Jewish holocaust was impossible because the Nazis had no objective and reliable ways of identifying Jews and non-Jews. Yes, I think that the cartoon exaggerates (I have never contended that none of the Auschwitz victims were Jews) and is offensive to some people -- but cartoons exaggerate and offend for the purposes of attracting attention and/or making a point.

A BBC news article says,

It [the Arab European League] said the decision to prosecute illustrated bias against Muslims.
It said the same standards were not applied to the Dutch MP Geert Wilders, who made a film including cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

Last month prosecutors said they would not put the far-right MP on trial for distributing the controversial Danish cartoons, which caused a storm of protest after their publication in 2005.

However, he is still being investigated separately for inciting hatred against Muslims by making statements comparing Islam to Nazism.

Though there is selective prosecution and a double standard in regard to the Dutch prosecutors' treatment of the holocaust cartoon in comparison to the Mohammed cartoons, there is still some equal-opportunity infringement of freedom of expression here because Wilders is still being investigated separately for comparing Islam to Nazism.

The BBC article says,

But Dutch prosecutors said the AEL cartoon was "discriminatory" and "offensive to Jews as a group... because it offends Jews on the basis of their race and/or religion". . . .

"Their race and/or religion"? Judaism is a religion and never a race -- there are black Jews and blond-and-blue-eyed Jews. The notion that Jews are a race is regarded as offensive, as when the UN General Assembly passed a since-rescinded resolution classifying Zionism as "racism."

The prosecutors' distinction between the holocaust cartoon and the Mohammed cartoon is arbitrary and nitpicking. When you insult people's religion, you are insulting them.

The BBC article says,

. . . . The AEL says it does not deny the facts of the Holocaust but posted the cartoon as an "act of civil disobedience".

It said it had agreed to remove it from its site, but reversed that decision to protest over the failure to prosecute Geert Wilders.

"Double standards are being applied," it said in a statement.

To his credit, Ed Brayton has condemned the Dutch government's action against AEL.

I plan to send protests to the Dutch embassy and/or consulates. I will include a protest of the continued investigation of Geert Wilders' comparison of Islam to Nazism. General contact information is here -- there is a Dutch embassy in Washington DC and there are consulates in a few US cities. Some email addresses are here. To be fair, I plan to compliment the Dutch on an area where they are light years ahead of the USA: legal red-light districts.
.

READ MORE

Unscrupulous Ed Brayton won't let me reply directly to his potshots

That despicable dunghill Fatheaded Ed Brayton has some rotten nerve posting blog articles attacking this blog while denying me the opportunity to respond on his blog. Two such articles on his blog are here and here. And some lousy dunghills who submit comments to this blog accuse me of arbitrary censorship of comments while seeing nothing wrong with what Fatheaded Ed does.

I do want to reply to Ed's statement, "Believing something different from Jews makes one anti-Semitic?" No, I did not mean that these Cafeteria Christians are anti-Semitic just because their beliefs are different from those of Jews (particularly fundamentalist Jews). IMO what makes these Cafeteria Christians anti-Semitic is their dishonesty -- they claim that the Old Testament is one of the foundations of their faith, they often call their faith "Judeo-Christian," and they praise the Jews as their predecessors in the Judeo-Christian faith, and then they turn around and reject the Old Testament's creation story while accepting the New Testament's gospel as literal truth, even though the creation story makes much more sense than the gospel, as I pointed out in a previous post:
.

To be interpreted literally, both the creation story and the gospel require belief in the supernatural, but the bible's creation story is fairly straightforward whereas the gospel is full of illogic, inconsistencies, ambiguities, and unintelligibility. And the creation story is consistent with the idea of an all-powerful god (except for the fact that god had to rest after all that hard work of ordaining creation for six days) whereas the god of the gospel is a weak, limited god who must struggle against Satan for control of the world.

It is true that many Jews -- particularly non-orthodox Jews -- also deny that the creation story is the literal truth, but at least they don't look inconsistent by accepting the far less credible gospel at the same time.

Also, the Catholic Church went so far as to exclude anti-evolutionists from a recent Vatican-sponsored conference on evolution. And the Catholic Church's celibacy requirement for priests also represents a rejection of the Old Testament -- Genesis 2:24 says, "therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother, and cleave unto his wife," with no exception given for Catholic priests.
.

READ MORE

Fatheaded Ed gets "Friend of Darwin" Award

Fatheaded Ed Brayton announced that he received the National Center for Science Education's infamous "Friend of Darwin" award from Wesley "Ding" Elsberry. And Fatheaded Ed was actually proud to receive the award.

READ MORE

Darwinists are obsessed with Kitzmiller v. Dover

There is no better illustration of Darwinists' obsession with the Ktizmiller v. Dover case than Fatheaded Ed Brayton's article titled "Rick Warren's Bill Buckingham Moment." With so many other liars to choose from, why did Fatheaded Ed choose Bill Buckingham?

BTW, Bill Buckingham is a hero to me -- here is part of his testimony in the Dover trial. The Dover defendants should never have been asked for the source of the funds to purchase the copies of the book "Of Pandas and People" -- the donors were entitled to anonymity. [1]

READ MORE

Fatheaded Ed condemns ID'ers for differing in opinion

According to Fatheaded Ed Brayton, if proponents of Intelligent Design don't all think alike, then they are all a bunch of hypocrites. Fatheaded Ed wrote on his blog,

One of the things we hear constantly from the ID crowd is their silly claim that they don't want ID taught in public schools, only the "arguments for and against evolution" taught (silly, of course, because ID is nothing but a list of arguments against evolution). In fact, they feign much outrage whenever we say that they want ID taught in science classrooms. Problem is, they keep letting the cat out of the bag. Like this statement from a recent book:

If future courts recognize the many flaws in the Kitzmiller ruling, it may fare better in the courts and the classrooms. Such a scenario, balancing design and chance rationales for the origins of the universe and life, should be proposed in school boards, taught in public school classrooms, and presented in legislation. For legislators or teachers who are truly not seeking to get the "Bible back into school" but simply want fair representation of all competing scientific theories to be presented to students, intelligent design offers a real possibility to achieve that goal.

This is from an essay called Darwinism and the Law, written by H. Wayne House, a graduate of Pat Robertson's law school, in a book called Intelligent Design 101: Leading Experts Explain the Key Issues.

And it was gullible activist judge "Jackass" Jones whose Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling made Intelligent Design a dirty word. And Judge Jones said in a Dickinson College commencement speech that his Dover decision was based on his cockamamie notion that the Founders based the establishment clause upon a belief that organized religions are not "true" religions.

It's no wonder that Fatheaded Ed arbitrarily censors visitors' comments on his blog.

READ MORE

Yes, Virginia, Fatheaded Ed Brayton is a demagogic stereotyping bigot

The Texas Citizens for Science website has the following announcement:

NEW! 2008 July 13 -- Science Education in Texas: Keeping It Religion-Free. Speakers to Highlight Dangers of Creationism Encroaching into the Public Schools.
The event is at 6:30 p.m., Wednesday evening, July 16, UT Austin Campus, Burdine Hall, Room 108.
Admission is free, and free parking is available at C Lot after 5:45 p.m. and in the LBJ Lot anytime.

Science education in Texas is under attack as never before, as evidenced by the recent ouster of State Director of Science Education Christine Castillo Comer for the offense of promoting science education. Now, as Comer pursues her lawsuit for wrongful termination, the Center for Inquiry-Austin, Texas Citizens for Science, and University of Texas Section of Integrative Biology invite the public to a forum on the fight to keep evolution at the forefront in science education.

One of the speakers was Fatheaded Ed Brayton:
.

Ed Brayton -- Yes Virginia, It Really Is All About Religion.

Brayton, founder and president of Michigan Citizens for Science, is the voice behind the popular blogs Dispatches from the Culture Wars and The Panda's Thumb. He will show, despite claims to the contrary by proponents, the solely religious nature of the Intelligent Design movement.

That is the most unscrupulous kind of stereotyping. That's like charging that Darwinism is solely about atheism or anti-religion, charges that to my knowledge no one has seriously made. That the organizers of the event would include a speech with such a theme speaks volumes about where they are coming from. Actually, IMO Ed's speech was ironically a good thing because it must have done some damage to the credibility of the whole event and the organizers.

Also, Ed is not the voice behind Panda's Thumb -- he is one of about 30 co-bloggers on Panda's Thumb and he practically never posts articles there. When he does post on Panda's Thumb, it is usually just to refer readers to specific articles on his personal blog, Dispatches from the Culture Wars.
.

READ MORE

Fatheaded Ed's shameless demagoguery

In a post titled "Dover and the ACLU slur," unscrupulous BVD-clad blogger Fatheaded Ed Brayton said,

I just finished reading The Devil in Dover by Lauri Lebo (if you only read one book about the Dover trial, this is the one to read -- it's absolutely brilliant in every respect) and she discusses the background of Vic Walczak.

As for the demagogic The Devil in Dover being the only book about the Kitzmiller v. Dover case that is a "must read," they were saying the same thing about Monkey Girl last year, and Monkey Girl has completely fizzled on Amazon.com -- there has been very little discussion of the book there in the customer review section.

Fatheaded Ed continues,
.

Vic is the legal director of the ACLU of Pittsburgh and was one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs in the Dover trial. And his entire life puts the lie to this idiotic slur that the ACLU are communists.

In all the criticisms I have read of the Dover decision, not one charged that the ACLU, the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs' attorneys, Judge Jones, and other supporters of the plaintiffs are a bunch of godless commies. The title of your post is "Dover and the ACLU slur." So what connection does this ACLU slur have to the Dover case?

Before going to law school, Walczak went to Poland to give aid Lech Walesa and the Solidarity movement. He documented police brutality, wiretapping and other human rights violations as he dodged the secret police. . . . When he returned to the US, he knew that he had to become a human rights attorney.

The communist slur was idiotic from the start, of course. What, after all, is the (entirely accurate) critique of communist governments? That they operate in secret, invade their citizens' lives with spying and wiretapping, practice arbitrary imprisonment, make dissent illegal, destroy due process and generally terrorize the people with a brutal law enforcement system . . . ..

What are the very things that the ACLU spends nearly all their time and effort fighting against? Each and every one of those practices.

Wrong, Ed. The ACLU spends a lot of time fighting things like (1) the teaching or even the mere mention of criticisms of the badly flawed theory of evolution in the public schools and (2) a tiny cross in the Los Angeles County seal.

OK, Ed, let's see if I understand this correctly. After seeing gross human rights abuses in Poland, Walczak knew when he returned to the US that he wanted to be a human rights attorney. And since he chose to give pro bono representation to the Dover plaintiffs, then the Dover school board was like those communist thugs who spied and wiretapped, arbitrarily imprisoned people, practiced police brutality, etc.. Right? Got it.
.

READ MORE

Fatheaded Ed is a certified megalomaniac

A new post by BVD-clad blogger Fatheaded Ed Brayton says in its entirety,

It looks as though my battle against the Bush administration over their denial of my FOIA request is going to go to federal court. Public Citizen has offered to represent me and the attorney I've been working with has concluded that we've got a case. She's drafting a complaint and we should be filing in federal court in Grand Rapids soon. Stay tuned.

A commenter asked what the FOIA request was about and another commenter named "Abby" responded by linking to Ed's previous articles about the subject. Ed then wrote,
.

Sorry, I just assumed -- wrongly, obviously -- that all my readers would recall the situation. Not a smart assumption unless I want to never have new readers, eh? Abby is correct, it's a battle over a settlement the administration signed with the EU, Canada and Japan over a WTO dispute regarding our online gambling laws.

You assumed that all of your readers would recall the situation? Your most recent previous article about the situation is dated March 13. Ed, you could have informed readers about the purpose of the FOIA request without even going to the trouble of writing text -- all you needed to do was just link to your previous articles.

In another recent incident, Ed was very indignant about some commenters having the temerity to ask him for his source of information.

Fatheaded Ed should be institutionalized as a board-certified megalomaniac. He thinks that the whole world trusts him completely and hangs on his every word.

A Merriam-Webster online dictionary definition of "megalomaniac":

2 : a delusional mental disorder that is marked by infantile feelings of personal omnipotence and grandeur

.

READ MORE

Fatheaded Ed Brayton's untrustworthiness

In a comment under my recent post "Fatheaded Ed Publishes Probable Hoax," W. Kevin Vicklund said,

And once again, Larry stars as the Boy Who Cried "Wolf!". Seeing as every time you have accused Ed of making stuff up you have been proven wrong, why would you expect anyone to believe you if it ever did happen?

It actually did happen in Ed's following statements about whether the Dover School Board could have mooted the Kitzmiller v. Dover case by repealing the ID policy prior to judgment:
.

Board president Reinking noted that legal counsel advised the board that the trial is over and can not change the outcome of any vote.

This is the same position, by the way, that was taken by everyone involved in the case, including the attorneys for both sides. It's the same position taken by the Judge in the case. It's the same position taken by every legal scholar who addressed the issue. There was virtually no chance that the case would be mooted.

For starters, Ed's first statement above is improperly worded -- it should read that the outcome of a vote (on whether to repeal the ID policy) could not change the outcome of the trial, not vice-versa.

Fatheaded Ed's above statements are thoroughly contradicted by a newspaper article. In the newspaper article, only the Dover defendants' lead attorney said that repealing the ID policy immediately could not moot the case, and he was biased because he wanted the case to be appealed, which the new school board was unwilling to do. The newspaper article reported that the plaintiffs' attorneys declined to comment and that the judge only said that the school board election results would not affect his decision (though that statement improperly gave legal advice by implying that his decision would not be affected by repeal of the ID policy, the only way in which the election could have affected his decision). The article reported than an attorney hired by a former board member wrote a report advising the new board that repealing the ID policy immediately might moot the case. Aside from this newspaper article, other attorneys opined that immediate repeal of the ID policy might have mooted the case.

On his blog post about the Ono suit's temporary restraining order, Fatheaded Ed was very indignant about people questioning his credibility:

Apparently I'm not a "reputable person." When a journalist writes a story for a newspaper, they merely cite a document rather than provide links to it. So even if I had cited a newspaper report that didn't show the entire original document, would that really make a difference? Only if you have the presumption that I'm not credible when I report about a document I've seen but a newspaper reporter is. And if you have that presumption of me, I think a little irritation is more than warranted.

Ed, I have that presumption of you. You are not like a newspaper reporter. Newspaper reporters are accountable -- you are not. You are just a BVD-clad blogger -- and an unscrupulous one at that.

With Fatheaded Ed's arbitrary censorship of comments and commenters, Ed's blogs cannot even be self-correcting as to objective facts, let alone present a variety of views.

Ed is the poster child of unscrupulous BVD-clad bloggers -- he wants privileges without responsibilities.

Now the first comment is going to be from Voice in the Urbanness, who will claim that I misinterpreted the newspaper article.
.

READ MORE

Fatheaded Ed publishes probable hoax

Correction: a temporary restraining order, which is a kind of injunction, was issued in the case. However, commenters on Fatheaded Ed's blog gave him a lot of hell for being very slow about identifying his source.

A post on the blog of unscrupulous BVD-clad blogger Fatheaded Ed Brayton says,

A federal judge in New York has issued an injunction against any further distribution of Expelled in a lawsuit filed by Yoko Ono over the use of John Lennon's Imagine in the film without permission. The movie can continue to be shown, but no new prints can be sent out and they cannot distribute DVDs of the movie at least until they hold a hearing on a further injunction on May 19.

So far, no one has been able to verify the story. Ed and a commenter sent others on a wild goose chase trying to find verification. If it does turn out that this is a hoax, Ed will probably delete the post. I wish I could save the post as proof, but the webpage-saver program I tried didn't work for me. I hope that enough readers here see Ed's post before he deletes it.

Ron Steinman wrote,
.

There is a growing and disturbing movement in the media for a new freedom that promotes the idea that whoever covers news, and believes they are journalists without credentials, can and should be their own editor, writing and saying what he pleases in his self-created Web log [and also arbitrarily censoring comments from those who disagree with him]. Everywhere I turn, those who call themselves serious journalists, some even using that grand and old fashioned phrase, the press, are assaulting us with the virtues of this new-found freedom. Thus, blog, the shortened version, is now the latest gobbledygook noun in the English language. Lewis Carroll would be proud.
. . . .A major problem is bloggers who run items with no sources. When they cite sources, they are so tenuous as to make you pass Go and return the $200. When caught, the blog will sometimes print retractions quickly [a BVD-clad blogger is likely to just delete the comment that pointed out the error]. The problem is that the readers have become so undiscerning it makes no difference [Fatheaded Ed's fans are a good example]. As quickly as an item is found wrong and as quickly as the blog runs a correction, another rises to take its place. Accuracy has no place on many blogs. (bracketed comments are mine)

.

READ MORE

Big blooper by Fatheaded Ed

This one is precious. Try to catch it before it goes away. Fatheaded Ed said,

You come into my home and say something vile about my mother and I'm throwing you out on my ass.

LOL

READ MORE

Fatheaded Ed again contradicts Judge Jones' "true religion" speech

Fatheaded Ed Brayton said,

Steven Waldman, editor-in-chief of Beliefnet, has a new book out called "FOUNDING FAITH: Providence, Politics and the Birth of Religious Freedom in America". I haven't read the book yet, though I hope to do so and to write a review of it, but he has two essays at the TPMCafe that seem quite reasonable to me. He seems to stake out much the same territory that Jon Rowe and I (and many others, of course) have for the last few years, arguing that the key founders do not fit easily into the simple categories of deist or Christian. (emphasis added)

Judge Jones said in his Dickinson College commencement speech,
.

. . . .this much is very clear. The Founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry. At bottom then, this core set of beliefs led the Founders, who constantly engaged and questioned things, to secure their idea of religious freedom by barring any alliance between church and state.

"This much is very clear," my eye.

Fatheaded Ed Brayton has never repudiated Judge "I am not an activist judge" Jones' "true religion" speech.
.

READ MORE

Fatheaded Ed is up to no good again

Fatheaded Ed Brayton says,

I'm hearing from sources in Florida that there is a movement going on behind the scenes to "compromise" on the new science standards by adding the phrase "theory of" anywhere the word "evolution" is mentioned. Apparently there is support among those with a vote for doing so. Since evolution is, of course, a theory, this seems perfectly reasonable, but we all know why this is going on: because to the average person 'theory' means "wild guess" and thus it will quell some of the controversy.

If this is done, however, we should insist that the same thing be added to the science standards in reference to every other scientific theory and that all of them begin with an accurate scientific definition of theory. This is just another dishonest game being played by the anti-evolution crowd and it needs to be stopped.

Ed, the proposed "compromise" already includes adding "scientific theory" to every other scientific theory in the proposed science standards. Of course, this needs to be done in only a few key places, not everywhere the theories are mentioned.

As for giving the scientific definition of the term "theory" everywhere that the term is used, do legal documents give the legal definitions of terms everywhere that the legal usage differs from the common usage? For example, what about the term "process serving"? No, Ed, in a legal document, it does not mean a serving of process cheese. In legal documents, sometimes the meaning of a word must be determined from the context, e.g., here are legal definitions given for "demise": 1) v. an old-fashioned expression meaning to lease or transfer (convey) real property for years or life, but not beyond that. 2) n. the deed that conveys real property only for years or life. 3) n. death. 4) n. failure. Should a definition of "niggardly" be given every time the word is used? Remember that one? And what about defining usage of the word "chink" when saying that other pro golfers need to find the chink in Tiger Woods' armor? You should remember that one -- it was on your own blog. And you didn't remove that stupid comment even though you kicked me off your blog permanently because your preconceived notion disagreed with my literal interpretation of a federal court rule.
.

READ MORE

Fatheaded Ed Brayton the phony sports pundit

BVD-clad blogger Fatheaded Ed Brayton posted a long review of current college basketball. It is obvious that Ed did not write all that stuff -- one would have to be a full-time sports analyst to write such a detailed review. Fatheaded Ed just copied all that stuff or most of it from somewhere else and pasted it. What a plagiarist. And a lot of his writings are just plain stupid, e.g.,
.

Most overrated team so far: my Duke Blue Devils. They're 17-1 and ranked #3 (and about to move up to #2 because of a Kansas loss). There's no way they're that good. This is a good team that plays very hard, which can make them look like a great team at times, but in the end their lack of an inside player will be their undoing in the tournament.

They're deep and they're fun to watch, but I just don't see them hanging with the big boys.

Imagine -- they are 17-1, ranked #3 and moving up to #2, and "they're deep and fun to watch," but they lack an "inside player" and Ed just doesn't "see them hanging with the big boys." They are the big boys, you stupid fathead. What an idiot. If Ed did not write that stuff himself, it was written by a super-dumb sportswriter. Sheeeesh.

Blogging about sports is one of the ways Ed attracts readers to his blog.
.

READ MORE

Fatheaded Ed Brayton the hypocrite

Unscrupulous BVD-clad blogger Fatheaded Ed Brayton says on his blog,

. . .silencing those whose views enrage us is really just a poor means of assuaging our own insecurities.

Fatheaded Ed does not really believe in free speech -- otherwise he would not have permanently banned me from commenting on his blog.

The zeal to censor, while understandable on an emotional level, is primarily a reflection of our lack of confidence in the power of reason to persuade and to separate the true from the false.

Exactly!
.

READ MORE

How about a "BVD Patrol" badge for Fatheaded Ed et al.?

BTW, it was a major newspaper and not BVD-clad bloggers that exposed the Chris Comer ouster scandal by requesting pertinent documents by means of the Freedom of Information Act. So maybe there is some use for the traditional media after all.

READ MORE

Fatheaded Ed ridicules Discovery Institute's solicitation of donations

Fatheaded Ed Brayton has ridiculed the Discovery Institute for making an alleged "exaggeration" in soliciting donations. Ed, do you really think that your favorite organizations -- e.g., the National Center for Science Education, the ACLU, and the Americans United for Separation of Church and State -- do not do that sort of thing?

Here is the DI statement that Ed found fault with:

As a regular Evolution News & Views visitor, you have been continually informed of the ways in which leading Darwinists have unleashed an unprecedented wave of persecution, propaganda, and paranoia in an effort to strangle an idea that they insist is already dead.

Ed commented,

Is Rob Crowther really stupid enough to complain about paranoia in the same sentence he alleges an "unprecedented wave of persecution"? Apparently so.

Ed, Crowther was talking about the paranoia of the Darwinists and the persecution of the anti-Darwinists, so there is no self-contradiction here.

READ MORE