Hot on the heels of the news that 2003 UB313, nicknamed Xena for a while, has gotten the official name "Eris", a neocon blog has already tried to distort this into an anti-liberal rant.
Yes, you read that correctly.
Amazingly, right-wing blogger Mike Janitch says that the renaming is a liberal sniping at the current world situation. After all, the name Eris means "strife" and "discord", right? And the discoverer of Eris, Mike Brown, is at Caltech– which is in California! GASP!
In his own (bizarrely alternate-Universe) words:
Come on! The only obvious thing is that he was taking a cheap shot at world affairs (and one can only assume at the USA). Why assume the anti-war vibe? Because of his own statements, coupled with the fact that he is from the California Institute of Technology.. located in far west Moonbat country.
Yes, one can only assume.
I thought for sure Janitch was satirizing over-the-top far-right foolishness ala Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin, but in fact he links to those two harpies in his blogroll, along with other neocon Koolaid-drinking ridiculousness, and perusing his blog and links really does indicate he’s serious. And shocker– he’s anti-evolution, too.
How do these types come up with such garbage? Mike Brown, who suggested the new name, said that the name Eris was appropriate because of all the strife and discord in the astronomical community over the redefinition of the term "planet".
Why bother fact-checking when you can make crap up?
Sheesh.
Maybe Karl Rove can use this in the November mid-terms. After all, the next thing you know, those far-left pinko astronomers might try to gerrymander Eris and Dysnomia! I’ll get started on that without delay.
Please, oh please, if someone can prove this guy is satirizing neocons, post it in the comments!
Update: I wrote a similar piece about this for The Huffington Post. Now there’s a conspiracy for you.
September 14th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
The mark of good satire is the inability to distinguish it from reality. In that case, why bother worrying?
I tried.
September 14th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
C’mon…you know as well as I do that he’s right. I mean, liberals bash the president for no good reason at all. We all know that Iraq was tied with 9/11 until the president said otherwise. And they had weapons of mass destruction, they just quickly disassymbled them before we got there instead of using them on our troops to make us look bad. Evolution is a lie, the Earth is flat, and Bush talks to Jesus. To say otherwise or to criticize your president and/or Neo-cons makes you a terrorist! You’re a closet ultra-liberal, aren’t you!? Remember: War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery and Ignorance is Strength!
Neo-cons have lead in their water. There’s no other explaination.
September 14th, 2006 at 12:50 pm
The astronomy/science community seems to have set him straight in the first 3 responses to his blog entry. Good work!
My question is, why does this guy assume if it had been a reference to current world discord it means he’s on the side being blamed for causing it? I detect a bit of guilty conscience paranoia there.
September 14th, 2006 at 12:53 pm
I’m seeing more and more political ramblings on this blog. I happen to be conservative and I find your rants as closed-minded as the people you attack. Please keep it to science.
September 14th, 2006 at 1:07 pm
El Guapo, while I also note that the BA is more political than he used to be, it isn’t closed-minded to call this recent rant moronic, it *is* moronic.
I’m all for people being conservative or liberal, but far-out conspiracy theories about the naming of dwarf planets is just nuts.
September 14th, 2006 at 1:08 pm
El Guapo, I’m a conservative too, but I’m ashamed of all of the anti-science going on among a vocal minority. For the most part, I think the BA is rather even handed and diplomatic considering some of the garbage that he’s reporting on (and like it or not it effects science, even if it is not science directly). If you think science is as important as I do, then it’s up to us to be the first to speak out against fellow conservatives when they start talking nonsense.
September 14th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
Boy, Caltech’s politics sure must have changed from when I was a student there. Back then, a commencement speaker could say “this is one of the only campuses where ‘PC’ still stands for Personal Computer”, and be right. The speaker was some famous guy, or maybe the father of some famous guy, I forget which…
September 14th, 2006 at 1:23 pm
Is this person for real? Talk about grasping at straws!
September 14th, 2006 at 1:35 pm
Your goofy lingo (”harpies” “neocon”) renders your own post a possible suspect for subversive satire. Are you sure you are not one of THEM?!
September 14th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
My opinion on Ann Coulter is on record.
September 14th, 2006 at 1:56 pm
Good old Caltech, hotbed of left-wing politics! I remember when I was a student there in the seventies. We were kind of concerned about some of President Nixon’s moves in the Vietnam war, so we got together in a kind of rally in front of the bookstore and … we wrote postcards!
Yeah, we did.
September 14th, 2006 at 2:01 pm
Oh lord . . . bed republicans, bad. Maybe I’ll just give up on voting altogether, choices are bad and worse. =(
September 14th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
Science and politics are unfortunately intertwined. If the ‘liberals’ were supressing science they’d get the same treatment on this blog as the neocons. Taking a political position when it comes to science is necessary unless you’re consigning yourself to the vacuum of the Ivory Tower.
If the Libertarians had their way we would’t be having these posts! Any political bashing done here is usually at the intersection of science and politics. It is therefore perfectly valid IF this site were El Guapo’s, but it isn’t. BA can blog about whatever he feels like… sheesh. ElGuapo, BA’s comments were totally on target! If you think that there is no parnoid-type movement called neoconservativsm then you need to get out of your Ivory Tower and look at the war on science. It is being waged by those who fit the description of Neoconservatism. In fact there is a good reason to make a delineation between neocon and conservative. Neocons exist and are just as cariacaturish as Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity. I’m sure there are a number of uber-Liberals who fit the bill in the opposite direction, but you never see them in the media… wonder why? Isn’t the media controlled by liberals?
Anyway, even if BA had said that he would stick to some sort of theme in this blog (which he didn’t) the criticism of this administration’s suppression of science (well documented) and this silly movement by the likes of Ann Coulter and others is perfectly valid! It is just that you don’t usually hear Bill Maher talking about the Evolution Conspiracy… if he does, you’ll hear about it here as well as nutjobs like Coulter and Hannity.
So there…
September 14th, 2006 at 2:08 pm
You’d think the neo-cons would have enough real enemies to attack…
September 14th, 2006 at 2:10 pm
Sorry, I meant to say:
ou’d think the neo-cons would have MADE enough real enemies to attack…
September 14th, 2006 at 2:23 pm
It is a bit political to be lumping all neocons together under the “dumb” banner with all their dumb, anti-science statements and positions. On the other hand, they are the ones putting out the dumb anti-science statements and actions, so it really is fair to lump them all together under the common cause of those actions and statements, their common philosophy.
Yes, liberals can be morons, too. But they’re not the ones currently shunning science.
Mike Janitch is either parodying the position to the extreme, or he is so dense he can’t accept the refutation when it is directly cited. Mike Brown’s own website is the source of the comment, and in it, Mike explicitly states that the strife and dischord are over the definition of a planet, which affected Eris as well as Pluto. And Pluto’s status stirred up a lot of attention and dischord – not only within the astronomical community, but the public at large. If Mike Brown intended it as a reference to Iraq, it would be pretty silly for him to do so without letting anyone know it. “Stealth Protest” – you, too, can picket in secret, boycott when no one is looking, and refuse to draw attention to the problems you’ve uncovered.
September 14th, 2006 at 2:36 pm
When is there ever not “strife” and “discord” in the world? It just usually doesn’t overtly affect the american people so they usually don’t care. The ultimate decision was made by the international astronomical union.
September 14th, 2006 at 4:03 pm
Must. . . resist. . . temptation. . . .
Cannot. . . make. . . snarky. . . comment. . . about. . . spelling. . . errors. . . .
[Right hand reaches out Dr. Strangelove-style and tries to type snarky message about general illiteracy. Left hand grabs it and tries to hold it back.]
September 14th, 2006 at 4:10 pm
Phil,
I just have to say I salute you in your quest in exposing the betrayers of America’s freedom of thought and scientific integrity.
The very few conservatives I know including one Republican who does not call himself “rightwing” have told me they’ve come to realize that the current administration does not hold at all to mainstream ideals, (which are more open to an amiable and progressive balance of liberal and conservative concepts.) Liberal and conservative are after all only subjective labels and should overlap as outlooks in most people’s politics.
The current administration is actually very radical, catering to a weird and narrow fundamentalist base plus some support from major corporations, and has co-opted the Republican Party while simultaneously vilifying any and all criticism or opposition. The sooner the NeoCons are out of office the better, but their terrifying legacy may continue to haunt us for a very long time.
September 14th, 2006 at 4:40 pm
So, Mike, what would you suggest then?
September 14th, 2006 at 4:55 pm
I’m a conservative, too, but I don’t hold anti-evolution views or anything. In fact I’m pretty moderate on social affairs. I don’t like the more politically-oriented posts here, but BA [i]is[/i] entitled to his own opinions.
September 14th, 2006 at 4:56 pm
mike wrote:
“Only liberals in denial would NOT see the connection… and that is what the science community tends to be made up of… sorry, but these are the facts.”
You’re kidding, right? I would say that you have to be pretty paranoid to make the connection you’re making.
The “strife” in the astronomical community over how to define planets has been going on for an awfully long time, mike. It didn’t start when the vote took place. And as Mike Brown has already explained, the “lawless” name is a Xena reference.
By the way, what’s your explanation for the choice of names for Mars and Pluto? Presumably also chosen by scientists who obviously must have been eeevil libruls too (because those are the facts, apparently), and therefore must have been chosen for some political reason or another.
September 14th, 2006 at 5:09 pm
Bad weasel! No egg!
Examples?
But it apparently does take a rocket scientist to see that a tone of arrogant and unfocused certainty, coupled with a barrage of paranoid accusations followed immediately by a conclusion, do not fall under “questioning motives,” they fall under “a frothy-mouthed rant.”
As a side note, the speed of light is trivial in my experience. Nothing exceeds the speed with which wingnuts leap from “it’s possible” to absolute certainty and back, as suits their convenience.
Wrong. These are your opinions (this is a fact). They do not follow logically from the suspect factual evidence you have provided (I am uncertain as to whether this statement better classifies as fact or opinion). Your comments suggest that you are about fourteen donuts short of a baker’s dozen (this is my opinion).
Exactly! And of course, they just decided to vote on it out of the blue, with no debate, formal or otherwise, beforehand. No public statements, no academic squabbling, nothing of the sort. No one in the public or the field had a clue there was any confusion over the definition of a planet prior to this. And it certainly wouldn’t make more sense to name something after a controversy prior to the vote that largely abated it.
Give me a break…
September 14th, 2006 at 5:21 pm
Mike deleted all trace of me from his site. I feel good.
September 14th, 2006 at 5:59 pm
The neo-cons are just sore that those “astronomer types” didn’t name UB313 after Reagan!
September 14th, 2006 at 6:47 pm
Obviously “Mars” was named by those dang antiwar liberals too. How dare they protest the War on Terror by naming a planet for the god of war!
September 14th, 2006 at 7:04 pm
Well, the Huffington Post blog entry has already been trolled. Makes me a little sad about the whole Internet thing. . . time to go watch Futurama!
September 14th, 2006 at 9:06 pm
Wasn’t last night, when they released the new names, um, September 13th?
And remind me, what does the “I” in “IAU” stand for?
I’m just asking, as a moon bat myself y’know. I live in California.
And what happened to Mike’s posts here? They appear to be gone. That’s interesting too.
September 15th, 2006 at 1:00 am
When one considers the mind-boggling amount of money that the “neo-con military complex” has made from aerospace contracts and technology adapted for military purposes, you’d think that the wingnuts would be ALL OVER science and tech.
Instead, they seem to spend the Fox News commercial breaks exploiting their own masochistic streaks – trolling on science blogs in which the majority of participants righteously mock and dismiss them.
I mean – seriously – boys, if you enjoy being made fun of and dismissed, there’s other ways to go about this sort of thing – and it usually involves a sneering woman in high heels.
We know that while the red state senators court the religious right in their television ads, they will gleefully bend over backwards to grab some of that high falutin’ NASA stuff for their OWN state.
These cult-like fanatics don’t seem to realize: if it were not for science, the USA would be a third-world country. The Middle East used to be a shining light in scientific discoveries – especially astronomy – and culture many years ago. Then came war and religious zealotry. The religious nuts stopped (well…killed) the scientists and intellectuals and artists – look where it got them.
I’m guessing ‘Mike’ won’t get the irony.
September 15th, 2006 at 4:44 am
“Please, oh please, if someone can prove this guy is satirizing neocons, post it in the comments!”
Like all neocons, he self-satirizes every time he says anything.
September 15th, 2006 at 4:50 am
“it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that there could be a connection.”
Right, even an idiot can see that there could be a connection — i.e., that a connection is not metaphysically impossible. But only an idiot would claim that there is a connection.
September 15th, 2006 at 6:57 am
Some people like to see some sort of conspiracy in every coincidence. And of course they come off looking stupid, espcially when they can’t admit they are wrong.
Now here’s a coincidence that must be part of a conspiracy.
The construction of the Pentagon was started on 9/11 1941, then sixty years later, to the day, it was attacked. It has to be some Ultra-Secret Illuminati plot.
September 15th, 2006 at 7:31 am
I suppose you could say that everyone has an El Guapo. For some, shyness may be an El Guapo. For others, lack of education may be an El Guapo. But for us, El Guapo is a neo-con with Cheeto stained fingers!
September 15th, 2006 at 8:35 am
nice reset with the Three Amigos
September 15th, 2006 at 9:04 am
I don’t know about El Gaupo, since espanol is not my bag, but I have it on good advice that LA CA (Los Angeles California) means The Cause, ie, a prime source of everything.
Guess that must mean that God lives in Los Angeles,,,
Dang, that kinda blows the skirts off the neocons. Maybe they’re just jealous He dosen’t vote Republican,,,
True satire is, ultimately, hilarious. Unfortunately, Mike Janitch is not at all amusing. The neocons are uptight, outta sight and about as funny as George Bush with a gun and army uniform,,,ie, an oxymoron if ever there was one. That guy really exemplifies Orwellian double talk.
Rob: lead in their water? Well, I guess that’s why they don’t have lead in their pencils,,,
Have you ever noticed that those guys with the lowest testerone levels tend to have the biggest mouths?
Real men think,,,just look at all the over sexed astronomers and other scientists in the world,,,
So there!!!
GAry 7
September 15th, 2006 at 9:30 am
this isn’t very scientific, but for historical clarity’s sake, can we drop the “neocon” moniker, and just call them what they actually are:
neoFASCISTS.
from the American Heritage Dictionary online:
SYLLABICATION: fas·cism
PRONUNCIATION: fshzm
NOUN: 1. often Fascism a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government. 2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.
(emphasis added)
sound familiar to anyone? check out the Project for a New American Century, read for yourself. These people are Fascists, no less. They’ll claim “well, you’re allowed to say what you want, so we’re not fascist”, while working day and night to come up with the legal excuses to deny everyone the right to say what they want!
to give these folk any benefit of any doubt is a symbol of weakness to them.
just sayin, y’all.
Free thought and the GOP are like oil and water…pun intended.
September 15th, 2006 at 9:54 am
I would expect the name Eris to be one he’d be pleased with. After all, these are the end times arent they? With the end of the world so near the name Eris makes perfect sense. Those bombs exploding in the middle-east are just the sound of Jesus’s foot steps as he gets closer arent they?
And so there’s no confusion, that’s satire.
September 15th, 2006 at 10:52 am
Uuuummm, facists. Good to the last hanging,,,
GAry 7
September 15th, 2006 at 11:01 am
Interestingly my guilty conscience paranoia was sure El Guapo was referring to my comment when he said,
“I’m seeing more and more political ramblings on this blog. I happen to be conservative and I find your rants as closed-minded as the people you attack. Please keep it to science.”
It seems everyone else saw it referring to the Blog entry.
For the record, (if you’ll excuse the stereotyping), it seems the right has its share of anti-science in the areas of global warming, the Rapture, and the current political propaganda machine trying to fool the public into believing ‘War is Peace’ and the Clean Air Act actually has to do with decreasing air pollution. The left, on the other hand, has plenty of anti-science in the form of conspiracy theories about 9/11 and the Moon landing, quack cures, and magical thinking about ghosts, UFOs, astrology and fortune telling. (No need to point out the famous astrologer to a certain Republican White House, I said there was some fudging here.)
There’s enough anti-science on both sides of the aisle to go around. It would be great if the skeptical science community quit worrying about whose ’side’ was being attacked and focused more on critical evidence based thinking. We all might learn more about the subtle influences our beliefs and values have on our not yet perfectly objective conclusions, science or otherwise.
September 15th, 2006 at 11:41 am
I’m not sure that “neo-anything” is an appropriate appellation for this bird. The urge to see an evil conspiracy behind everything including the arrangment of raisins in your Raisin Bran is an old tradition in the USA.
Richard Hofstadter’s “The Paranoid Style in American Politics” was published over forty years ago; Hofstadter found plenty of examples of just this sort of “thinking” in the ’50s and ’60s, traced the same tendencies back through the populist and nativist movements of the 19th century and cited other work which found similar worldviews going back to millennialists in medieval and Renassiance Europe.
“Neo” means “new”, and there isn’t anything at all new about the paranoid conspiracist mode of thought.
September 15th, 2006 at 1:07 pm
They’re just mad because the new sub-planet wasn’t named Sun Wu-Kung in honor of Fearless Leader.
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/s/sun_wu-kung.html
But Handsome Monkey King was mischievous, and was finally expelled for showing off.
September 15th, 2006 at 1:39 pm
It seems Mike Janitch is no restricting access to his blog entry on this subject. Thats sort of odd. How can he get his message out about the political overtones in this matter if no one can read the message?
September 15th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
It’s that Stealth Protest thing again. Protest in Secret! Don’t let anyone know about your ranting and raving.
September 15th, 2006 at 3:39 pm
I am agreeing completely with skeptigirl here. Conservatives do not have a monopoly on stupidity, nor do liberals. Both sides have their own particular group of embarassing wackos. It doesn’t really matter which side is being wacko, does it? What matter is, what does the scientific community do about it? It is easy to mock people like this, but I’m not sure that’s such a useful response. Especially when some fraction of the people in charge actually listen to wackos like this. If we mock them, then we are cutting ourselves out of the loop entirely. And that can’t be good.
September 15th, 2006 at 4:14 pm
I betting someone will attack skeptigirl within the next few post even though she probably had the best comment out of all the ones posted. If you look for the negative in the world you will find it. But there is a equal amount of posistive in the world too.
September 15th, 2006 at 4:41 pm
[...] Update: Tom (the friendly and very smart skeptic) makes an interesting catch: I thought for sure Janitch was satirizing over-the-top far-right foolishness ala Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin, but in fact he links to those two harpies in his blogroll, along with other neocon Koolaid-drinking ridiculousness, and perusing his blog and links really does indicate he’s serious. And shocker– he’s anti-evolution, too. [...]
September 16th, 2006 at 12:20 am
This is certainly true, but I disagree with the implication you are making that both sides are equivalent. Only one side is currently trying to implement policy based on its anti-science (indeed, only one side has the power to do so).
At all times we should be focusing our attacks on whichever side has the most damaging anti-science position. For the time being, that is the Right. If the Left takes control and starts pushing, say, the teaching of astrology in schools, I’ll be ready to jump all over them. But that seems like a remote possibility at the moment.
September 16th, 2006 at 5:35 pm
I would have expected someone opposed to pseudoscience to avoid using the term “neoconservative”, a pejorative label often used by people who are into conspiracy theories.
September 16th, 2006 at 10:41 pm
I think Grover Nordquist himself would have beamed like a proud parent if you’d called him a neo-conservative a few years back. The term has only become pejorative because the policies have proven so bad. I think the term ‘neo-conservative’ is out there to take ownership or blame as much as is the word ‘liberal’. There is no element of conspiracy about it. Andjam’s argument is straw.
September 18th, 2006 at 2:43 pm
I think that “liberal” and “conservative” are two of the most abused words in the English language. They mean so many different things to different people, half the time they’re oxymorons. They’re placeholder labels for a collection of ideas that don’t necessarily have a systematic connection, but are lumped together through complicated relationships.
Wikipedia has an interesting article on Neoconservativism. It is, however, a very controversial article, so keep that in mind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States)
According to the article, there is some justification to Andjam’s remark about the pejorative use of the label:
However, I also found this site:
http://www.neoconservative.net/about_neoconservatism.htm
So there certainly are people self-identifying as “Neo-Conservative” and defining that as a set of political views.
September 18th, 2006 at 3:31 pm
Adam Says:
…skeptigirl….probably had the best comment out of all the ones posted.
Wow is that flattering. Thank you.
Davis Says:
[re: There’s enough anti-science on both sides of the aisle to go around.]
This is certainly true, but I disagree with the implication you are making that both sides are equivalent. Only one side is currently trying to implement policy based on its anti-science (indeed, only one side has the power to do so)….At all times we should be focusing our attacks on whichever side has the most damaging anti-science position….
You’re preaching to the choir as far as the current political power connected to the assault on science. But don’t forget there are people forgoing vaccines which has resulted in an resurgence of polio, the claim HIV doesn’t cause AIDS was made publicly by the President of a country and by a Nobel Prize winner, and the mass media reporting on a cartoon or comment by the Pope can start worldwide riots.
While it is my belief the right wing in the USA would not believe what they believe were they to attain media and science literacy and combine those with critical thinking skills, it doesn’t negate the fact one must start by teaching the tools to determine the facts, not the facts themselves. We are competing with an anti-science movement that has become expert in the one field of science we have not. That is the science of persuasion.
It is so incredibly frustrating to see all the slick arguments and tactics used by the very groups you cite as most dangerous. They don’t miss a trick, and it works. All the while, the skeptical science community carefully presents the verifiable evidence, uses the scientific process and uses valid logic arguments to make the case for an evidence based world, but large numbers of people can’t recognize that reality. They are easily fooled by the tactics of the science of persuasion.
What I have noticed is the skeptical science community doesn’t necessarily recognize all the persuasion tactics themselves. We know all the fallacies, we know what part of the anti-science message is slick and why. We know how to tell the difference between good science and junk science. But I don’t know that the skeptical science community always recognizes in an Intelligent Design debate, the IDers use the tactic of changing the argument to “science should include alternate theories” instead of, “ID is not supported by the evidence”. The science debaters have often been unable to turn this shifted question back to the real issue.
There are other examples but getting back to the point here, if we focused on the core problem, teaching people science and media literacy, we’d have 90% of the junk science problem solved. No need to repeat over and over the evidence for global warming if you’ve taught people media literacy like how to recognize when a monopoly corporate controlled media is filtering those people’s main source of information and taught them where to look for the unfiltered version. No need to repeat time and time again why radioisotope dating methods are valid if you’ve taught people science literacy of how to verify the validity of a measure and how to evaluate whether a measure chosen for research actually measures what the researchers claim.
Of course, teaching media and science literacy is a lofty goal. I couldn’t even get my son’s grade school interested in showing a wonderful video to his class that exposed advertising gimmicks aimed at kids. But those in the skeptical science community should be able to unite in our desire to recognize when we are being falsely persuaded, to not be so smug as to think because we know all about logic and the scientific process that we know all about the science of persuasion, we should be united in our desire to teach the same to others, and, we should be able to address issues of media and science literacy and of nonsensical conspiracy theories or other false beliefs without constantly worrying that “our side” being attacked.
September 19th, 2006 at 8:06 am
Sorry, Bad Astronomer, but I visit your site for astronomy news and information. I get my fill of partisan politics elsewhere.
You’re in danger of losing a daily reader over posts like this.
September 19th, 2006 at 9:55 am
If protecting your moron creationist friends from ridicule because they agree with your politically is a priority for you, well, don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
September 19th, 2006 at 12:37 pm
That’s quite a few assumptions you’re packing into that reply, and they are all wrong.
Science shouldn’t be about bashing someone for “neocon Koolaid-drinking ridiculousness.” I simply had hoped the Bad Astronomer would be above such trite and tiresome political demagoguery.
I’ll head over to democraticunderground.com or freerepublic.com for my fill of outer-fringe divisive politics.
September 19th, 2006 at 12:58 pm
Did you check this guy’s sitemeter? He got like 5 hits a day until you linked him, after which he got 2,600 of his 3,200 total visits. He’s not an indicator of anything.
September 19th, 2006 at 1:47 pm
In fact, the more I think about it, the more ticked off I get. Phil, you exposed this kid here, and then at your bully pulpit at the Huffpo, to widespread ridicule. Why? He’s an obscure blogger who was probably read by a few friends and family, yet you picked him out of the ether to show off your own pretentious superiority complex. You acted like a bully, and so did those who marched over there in lockstep to ridicule him in his comments. What did you accomplish, embarrass him in front of his mom? “Oh, Mikey, those big bad evolutionists are being awfully mean to you!”
“Right wing blogger.” He’s a kid with a website! Next time pick on someone your own size. Or maybe go trolling through Myspace to make fun of someone there, too.
http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=s26dankass&r=12
September 20th, 2006 at 1:58 am
“I get my fill of partisan politics elsewhere.”
“Science shouldn’t be about bashing someone for “neocon Koolaid-drinking ridiculousness.†I simply had hoped the Bad Astronomer would be above such trite and tiresome political demagoguery.”
And then there is John’s post, (see above).
That’s what you get, Phil, for writing the ‘Rove’ word.
Apparently it’s OK for Phil to write about the Moon Landing Hoax believers. But it isn’t OK to comment on some lesser conspiracy belief that astronomers are sneaking secret political comments into the choice of a name for a planetary body. Darn “liberal” scientists! Just like the liberal media.
I would hope a scientist who considers him or herself a ‘conservative’ would be equally concerned about assumptions by other conservatives that the astronomical science community are a bunch of ‘liberals’. There are much bigger implications here than the fact a blogger wrote a silly hypothesis. Rather, that blogger represents a bigger picture.
The fact the scientific community is being labeled ‘liberals’ by some of the right wing extremists is not an accident. The label carries the implication that science itself is partisan politics. It isn’t that this blogger thought of this, or intended to make a statement. Rather, it follows the same attacks made against evolution and global warming.
If you can’t make the scientific case for evolution and against global warming, then attack science itself. Of course when you do that with evolution and global warming, you can’t take it back when it spills over into other areas of science. If evolutionists are a bunch of liberals conspiring to keep the legitimate science of the Bible out of the scientific mainstream, and global warming concluding scientists are a bunch of liberals who don’t like big business, it follows astronomers must also be a bunch of liberals who would name a planetary body something that reflected their liberal political beliefs.
I would think an astronomer with conservative political leanings would be as concerned as a liberal astronomer that anyone, right or left was dismissing science by such assumptions as this blogger made. I certainly am bothered when the same is done by the people who claim the government (IE corporations and conservatives) control the science behind medicine and food production among other things. They dismiss the science itself as well.
September 20th, 2006 at 7:17 am
My complaint is apolitical. I don’t think anyone, right or left, scientist or layman, should be concerned what is written by one obscure blogger with a readership in the single digits. This isn’t the moon hoax, or creationism, or 9/11 truthers, i.e., conspiracy movements with followings. This is one guy’s private conspiracy. To elevate him to national prominence (well, in blogospheric terms) in order to expose him to ridicule is silly. To try to hold him up as a representative example is even sillier. To waste time being concerned about every single fringe opinion out there is to go crazy!
September 20th, 2006 at 11:20 am
As a conservative trained in science, I have become very disheartened by the use of science for political advantage on both sides. As anyone who has studied the history of their calling knows, the one thing that we can be sure of is that when we are certain we are right about structure and operation of the universe, we soon find out that we were wrong. A healthy debate about the analysis of our observations is basic to the persuit of truth. The key here is the use of the term pursuit. Anyone who claims to have monopoly on the truth is a fool.
September 20th, 2006 at 3:46 pm
John said:
>“Right wing blogger.†He’s a kid with a website! Next time pick on someone your own size. Or maybe go trolling through Myspace to make fun of someone there, too.
1. What is his age? Can’t find any description on his site. He looks to be in mid twenties. “Kid with a website” seems a bit misleading. He’s an adult with a website. So there.
2. Welcome to the World Wide Web, where you, too, can start your own blog and show the world how big an idiot you are, instead of just limiting it to your friends and family. The whole point of a blog is to talk to the world, don’t be surprised if the world talks back.
>My complaint is apolitical. I don’t think anyone, right or left, scientist or layman, should be concerned what is written by one obscure blogger with a readership in the single digits. This isn’t the moon hoax, or creationism, or 9/11 truthers, i.e., conspiracy movements with followings. This is one guy’s private conspiracy. To elevate him to national prominence (well, in blogospheric terms) in order to expose him to ridicule is silly. To try to hold him up as a representative example is even sillier. To waste time being concerned about every single fringe opinion out there is to go crazy!
Okay, there’s some validity to that point. This guy is a nobody on the WWW. “Right-wing blogger” seems to convey an air of authority to him that he doesn’t appear to actually warrant. He is not any type of political or organizational leader, he’s just a guy spouting off his own ideas. He doesn’t speak for Conservatives everywhere, doesn’t have much in the way of influence over any sizable group of people, so what does it hurt to let him blather away on his street corner?
There is some legitimacy to trying to respond to him, to help explain things. He doesn’t appear to be listening. On the other hand, drowning him in insults is not a particularly useful way to get him to listen.
September 21st, 2006 at 1:58 am
test
September 21st, 2006 at 2:02 am
John said: “This is one guy’s private conspiracy. To elevate him to national prominence (well, in blogospheric terms) in order to expose him to ridicule is silly. To try to hold him up as a representative example is even sillier. To waste time being concerned about every single fringe opinion out there is to go crazy!”
Were this the case, then you might have a point. However, by this assessment, you conclude there is not an association forming in a number of people’s minds that the image of science is one of liberal politics. I think that image is forming in a lot of people’s minds because there are a number of people actively seeking to
make it form.
DJ comments: “I have become very disheartened by the use of science for political advantage on both sides.”
Yet the skeptical scientific community of which Dr Plait is a member, has remained focused on staying true to the scientific process. While many scientists have political opinions to express, and everyone is subject to some observer bias, the vast majority of skeptical scientists are not out there trying to find the facts to fit the desired results.
comments continued below
September 21st, 2006 at 2:08 am
comments continued from above
The problem is not that people seek political advantages, the problem is that a number of people have taken an aggressive approach to discredit science itself. I’ll repeat what I said earlier, when some have not found the scientific evidence to support what they want supported, some have choosen to discredit the scientific process instead.
comments continued below
September 21st, 2006 at 2:09 am
comments continued from above
Every scientists who distorts research outcomes does not attack the credibility of the scientific process. Everyone is not out there referring to science as a liberal and therefore negative entity. But certain people are. They have not been able to find the scientific evidence they want to find, so they make claims such as, science is just someone else’s religion. Others make statements suggesting everyone is distorting the evidence therefore science is really unable to resolve a question like, “Are humans impacting the global climate?”
Those tactics call into question the validity and reliability of the scientific process. It is a subtle attack, it goes unnoticed. Then it surfaces as a belief science is just one set of beliefs among many, not qualitatively different. It surfaces as a belief scientists are predominantly liberals so all of science can be expected to favor liberal ideas rather than expecting the scientific process to favor the evidence. Or it surfaces as a belief all research outcomes are politically biased if they involve a political issue therefore one cannot use the scientific process to resolve a question with political implications.
None of those beliefs accurately reflect true science and the majority of the skeptical scientific community. All of those beliefs are spreading. The bogger in this case is reflecting a wider and growing opinion and it does need to be addressed, even if it is merely pointing out a single straw in a camel’s load.
September 21st, 2006 at 2:12 am
I apologize for the split comments but it was the only way the web site would accept the post. And it did not allow me to insert one of the paragraphs.
September 22nd, 2006 at 8:37 am
Shock, horror, conspiracy!
The original Xena was a lesbian icon! The moon, Gabrielle, was named after her adventuring (and bed-related?) partner!
Clearly Mike Brown was a gay activist!
Renaming it Eris wa s adeliberate move of the intoler~rany Bible-Bashing bigoted rRightwing to rob us of a lebian planet! Stripping Pluto of aits planetary status was just another part of this anti-gay conspiracy .. After all keeping plutio would have meant adding a planet -moon pairing representing gaymarriage and implying that’s alright! (Oh no I said stripping Net nanny will now bar this site! My comments will be blocked!
We’ll all be censored!)
Get some perspective here puh-leeze!
Personally, I blame it all on the Puritan(~ical) Fathers – a more sexually repressed, narrow-minded bunch of fundamentalists, and a worse choice of people to found a nation on you couldn’t find.
(You know I’m actually quite serious about that last point – A nation that froths at the mouth when Janet Jackson inadvertantly exposed _part_ of one breast but shrugged its shoulders at a hereditary “President” + lying his nation into a needless and utterly counter-productive war is a very messed-up nation with a very bad “childhood” indeed.)
September 22nd, 2006 at 8:47 am
Sigh.
Spelling errors.
BA : the one web change I’d like to see here more than anything else is giving us the ability to edit these posts!
For the record & in case anyone hasn’t picked it – my “Xena = gay activist conspiracy theory” was indeed intended as tongue in cheek.
If you look hard enough and warp your thinking badly enough you can come up with almost any rubbish about why people name things as they do.
The post above was meant to illustrate that and poke fun at the Right-Wingers take on a “liberal” scientists conspiracy by taking tehsame idea sand showing a totally different way of looking at it. Sadly, now I think about it; those easily led are all too likely to take it seriously.
Sigh.
September 22nd, 2006 at 9:53 am
FWIW, I did not check out Mike Janitch’s web stats before posting. While it’s interesting, it’s not that material an argument. The fact is, he has that opinion, and his brand of nonsense isn’t any different form that of people who do have a loud voice, like Coulter and Malkin. I generally don’t waste my time with smaller issues in pseudo or antiscience because I don’t have the time to waste– there are millions more out there, and only so many minutes in the day. But this one was too funny and ridiculous not to point out.
June 14th, 2007 at 10:49 am
[...] long it takes the moon to orbit Eris, the mass of Eris can be found. Mike Brown from Caltech (that evul librul who discovered Eris), and his grad student Emily Schaller, determined Eris to have a mass of 1.66 x [...]
November 9th, 2007 at 4:55 am
Well the thing i heard bout this planet eris thing was it had 3 different names first planet x then nibiru then next thing is eris man.. why don’t they give it a stable name other planets got their stabled names first time people saw it so im thinkin just thinkin what if they coudn’t give it a permanet name why? cause it just popped out of nowhere and basically it’s not a planet of this solar system doesn’t that tell you something? meanin it could come close to earth hit or pass earth and some people say it would cause a pole shiftif it passes earth.. I dunno what that means but they say if that happens 90% people could possibly die this are the thing i just read in the net well just keepin an open mind here hope it doesn’t happen and wish there really ain’t no conspiracy goin on..