Well, my post on Friday about the destruction of habeas corpus in America has generated quite the reaction. At least four people have vowed never to read my blog again. A couple of people are arguing Republican vs. Democrat ideology (mind you, I never called out the Repubs for the bill, and many Dems voted for it). Some have called me an idiot, and — this is my favorite — one guy named Joe wrote
Me, I’ve had enough of Phil and his idiocy. this was supposed to be a science web site, if I wanted idiot commentary on things that have not been researched/understood i could open any op/ed page from any podunk newspaper in the world.
First, this website isn’t "supposed" to be anything, except my website. You’ll find a few pages here that are at best tangentially related to astronomy, and I tend to wander a bit in my essays when the mood strikes. Sometimes I write about non-astronomy things that are important to me, and the essential freedoms of our country — especially the ones being eroded away — definitely count under that category. Mind you as well, the political post is somewhat rare. I write about astronomy and science far, far more.
Second, I made it clear in my entry that I did in fact read the bill– I said I went to the Senate page to research it. I do understand what it’s about, and I do understand it’s unconstitutional, and I do understand it weakens or outright kills our obligations under the Geneva Conventions (or at least the third one– have you read, them, Joe? I have), and I do understand that the result of the bill is to undermine practically every legal document on habeas corpus dating back to the Magna Carta. I also understand this bill is a mid-term election stunt most foul. Even conservatives are saying that.
Folks– I am a human, a thinking human. I write nearly all the time about astronomy, but I have also had posts about gay-bashing, my new puppy, a naked woman (more on that tomorrow, too), cool pool shots, bad art, and James Randi’s birthday. I have had few or no complaints about me straying off-topic when I posted those, so it’s interesting that when politics is the topic a few people get huffy and leave.
I am not here to please everyone. This is a skeptical site, a critical-thinking site. I am absolutely 100% guaranteed to tick people off. No one likes having their pet fantasies shattered. Sometimes I’m polite about it, and sometimes — like when my country is at stake — I’m not.
If you disagree with me, fine. Stick around and argue it. I read the comments, and if I have the time and the motivation, I reply to them. If you want to leave, also fine. But do everyone a favor– if you want to leave, then just leave, please, sans dramatics. As a netizen for the past two decades, I have seen countless people exeunt forums, blogs, bulletin boards, and listservs in a flash of drama. It accomplishes nothing, except for serving the ego of the person leaving (and I’ve also noticed a fairly high level of recidivism too).
I’d rather have people stay, of course, but I won’t scrape to anyone else to keep them here, and I won’t change my style or my content to appease anyone. The best you can hope for is to change my mind– and as a scientist, skeptic, and rational man, that is something that I promise you can be done.
But not the way Joe did it, because despite of (and, perhaps, a wee bit because of) his statement, I will continue to post what’s on my mind.
Count on it.
October 2nd, 2006 at 1:19 pm
Phil, please keep posting whatever you fancy, I’ve enjoyed many of the non-astronomy posts. I have never met one person that I agree with on everything, and I don’t leave with my toys when disagreement arises.
October 2nd, 2006 at 1:32 pm
“I will continue to post what’s on my mind.
Count on it. ”
Thats one of the good news today.
Go on Phil.
October 2nd, 2006 at 1:35 pm
Ditto, Will. Well said. Why anybody would waste time and bandwidth with a post that basically says “Screw you guys, I’m going home!” is beyond me.
And Phil is dead on right, anyway. So there.
October 2nd, 2006 at 1:36 pm
Please, just keep doing what you are doing.
It seems that it is getting harder and harder to engage in discussion today without it denigrating into a right vs. wrong, black vs. white, with us or against us dichotomy. Free, frank and open discussion is something to be embraced. enjoyed and enjoined.
That all said, it is your website, so you can do what you want
October 2nd, 2006 at 1:38 pm
I suppose that’s the problem with the skeptical mindset. As Stephen Colbert has said, “Reality has a well-known liberal bias.” That makes it a little difficult to be non-partisan.
October 2nd, 2006 at 2:04 pm
Like many Republicans, Joe can’t separate his politics from the rest of his life. Like those morons who can’t listen to the Dixie Chicks anymore. I swear, liberals don’t have this problem. I can see movies, read books, read comics and enjoy other art by Right Wingers without any problem. I don’t punish people for their politics. It’s sad that Joe can’t enjoy a blog mostly about science and astronomy anymore because of one post that he disagreed with on politics. He’s a pussy. Glad he’s gone.
October 2nd, 2006 at 2:12 pm
Way to go, Phil! Your post made me go read the legislation, too. It is truly politics most foul. I’m especially worried for what this could mean for any of our troops who ever find themselves captive.
October 2nd, 2006 at 2:22 pm
Hear, hear!
October 2nd, 2006 at 2:37 pm
Agree with Katie, the implications for troops in the field is dire.
Please don’t stop thinking, questioning and posting, causing people to think about this sort of goverment action is essential.
Keep up the good work mate!
October 2nd, 2006 at 2:38 pm
I don’t see what all the fuss is over. Even if one disagrees with your posts, you can count on them to be intelligently written and factually accurate. Very rarely do people on the web add corrections when they’ve made an error, and even more rarely do they draw attention to those errors by saying, “hey, I originally said this, but its really that.” That, sir, is commendable, and regardless of a person’s politics or beliefs, they have to give you some respect for that.
October 2nd, 2006 at 2:42 pm
I agree, but I wonder what my attitude would be if you happened to be a right-wing astronomer who occasionally wrote essays telling us what a great guy (y)our president is?
Maybe that’s too much of a hypothetical. It could be that it’s now virtually impossible to be a good scientist and not vehemently dislike the anti-intellectualism of the current administration.
October 2nd, 2006 at 2:43 pm
Phil, I am disappointed in you.
Speaking your mind on any and every subject is all well and good.
Taking up blogspace to RESPOND to people criticising you for speaking your mind on any and every subject — why, that’s nearly as bad as debating and antiscientist!
October 2nd, 2006 at 2:47 pm
Bravo, Phil. I for one appreciate the occasional off-topic post; it makes your site a bit more personal, as opposed to a Big, Bad Astronomy Machine.
In fact, the fact that your site is primarily devoted to (what should be) a non-partisan subject gives you a bit of an edge when a big political issue like this comes up. Of course, if you do it too much, you’ll lose people who need to hear about this stuff the most.
October 2nd, 2006 at 2:48 pm
Actually, I find your political posts more entertaining than your astronomy posts.
I do like the astronomy part too of course, but posts with your opinions have more of your writing style, which is fantastic in my opinion.
October 2nd, 2006 at 2:51 pm
Well I apologize for clogging your blog on the matter but I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the finer points in critical thinking on these very important matters.
For example, Fox convinces people to believe distorted versions of events by using a false argument as the counterpoint then saying, “see, this proves we were right”. O’Reilly is very slick in how he does that and gives the false appearance of looking critically at the matter in question.
And for example, the Bush administration has been using mild case examples describing the issues. Such examples don’t represent the entire picture. By not mentioning the entire description, it essentially colors one’s perception that what is being discussed is only the mild example. This administration is also very good at using this technique as evidenced by how many people used the administration’s description of torture and imprisonment without due process vs how many people used a description which reflected the reports of actual incidents in their discussion of the bill. To hear the administration tell it, we are only talking about “discomfort” and we’ve only included people actually captured in battle among these “enemy combatants”. The facts say otherwise.
These matters of critical thinking have nothing to do with Parties nor values except perhaps the value of honesty and truth. If people were more aware of these subtle means of persuasion, we might not even be discussing a serious blow to the Constitution and our way of life.
If you control information, you control people. Even if those people have access to other sources of information, you only need to convince them there is no need to look elsewhere for the truth.
Skeptics recognize arguments of false logic when discussing science. I wonder how many of them look for those same tricks of persuasion when listening to the news and to their political, (and dare I say it, religious), leaders. But even that would not be enough. We need the majority of people to recognize these tricks of persuasion. Such education would go a long way in restoring a democracy where decisions of our leaders actually reflected the will of the people.
October 2nd, 2006 at 2:51 pm
Yeah, geeze Phil, how dare you post your thoughts in your own blog. Next thing you know, there’ll be anarchy in the streets.
I’m actually rather impressed that:
a) You had that many asshats reading your blog previously
b) they hung in as long as they did, in that case
Very odd. And I agree with you about the bill. When I read that it had been passed, I felt truly ashamed to be an American for the first time in my life. And further ashamed of my own state, since both the Colorado senators voted for it.
I called the offices several times to leave my opinion, but I guess it didn’t matter. (At least my rep voted against that affront to humanity…)
October 2nd, 2006 at 2:56 pm
The idea that someone demands a personal website be of a specific topic is really bordering on outragous. Granted, the name of the site is “Bad Astronomy,” so people would come here expecting astronomy, but the fact is, this is Phil’s website, and he can do whatever he darn well pleases with it.
This is basically Phil’s way of telling us what he thinks about whatever is on him mind (which he stated in the post anyway). Now, being that he’s an astronomer, most of his stuff is going ot be about astronomy, but that doesn’t mean he’s allowed to think politics.
Keep on posting whatever you want to post, Phil. I’m still here… whatever that counts for.
October 2nd, 2006 at 3:00 pm
Let the babies try to get some real science from a blog that supports this bill. Good luck to them.
October 2nd, 2006 at 3:01 pm
Oh dear, forgot to add for those who have a hard time following how I connect dots in my own unique way:
The point I was making was there is a science side to politics beyond the science of specific issues like global warming. Critical skeptical scientific thinking and analysis belong in most aspects of our lives (we can leave them out of our love lives of course ;)). One shouldn’t leave critical thinking at the lab or office. Bring it home and apply it to the news and other information you are confronted with, not just to the latest stupid Discovery Channel program on ghosts or the Bermuda Triangle.
October 2nd, 2006 at 3:07 pm
THANK YOU, Phil!
(Do you know the song “You´ll never walk alone” which is a famous anthem throughout the european fooball stadiums? Keep to this song: WALK ON, AND YOU´LL NEVER WALK ALONE!)
October 2nd, 2006 at 3:16 pm
Good to know that you’re a human.
Now, tell me more about DISAGREE.
October 2nd, 2006 at 3:20 pm
Jingo Says:
“Agree with Katie, the implications for troops in the field is dire.”
You may be interested in this, Lanchester’s Law:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WhosCounting/story?id=97277&page=1
October 2nd, 2006 at 3:22 pm
It’s tough when folk who have their heads tucked safely up their ideology happen to come across different ideologies in places where they don’t expect them.
You keep doing what you’re doing Phil. Naysayers be darned.
October 2nd, 2006 at 3:41 pm
OK, this thing thought my last attempt to post this was spam (why???), so here we go again:
Right on, Phil! Your original post was right on the money. If you ask me, it’s Joe who needs to go do his research.
(You all have written your Congresscritters about this issue, haven’t you?)
October 2nd, 2006 at 3:44 pm
Phil
It is your website, write what you like! I’ll still read it. I enjoy the astronomy but also relish your take on other issues. I’m always amazed at the rants some people respond with though; you must have touched a nerve (proving at least that they still possess low-level brain function even if higher-level critical reasoning skills are faulty).
October 2nd, 2006 at 3:50 pm
I remember my first hatemail from someone who read my newsletter that I sent out about movies each week. I’d made some crack about George W. Bush, and he made all sorts of choice assumptions about me. Screw those guys, BA. No need for ‘em to leave angry. They just need to leave.
October 2nd, 2006 at 3:58 pm
There are plenty of right-wing astronomers, though I bet the numbers for astronomers are lower than for, say, space advocates (who historically tend to be more conservative).
October 2nd, 2006 at 4:02 pm
To be honest - I actually prefer your “non-hard science” blog entries over the pure science blogs. I think that your blogs on Republican “anti-science” (creationism, intelligent design, anti-global warming research, etc.) have been your finest hour and are the principal reason that I routinely check out your site.
If anything - I’d recommend more ‘political’ blogs over these next few weeks until the midterm elections. Hopefully you’ll be able to sway a few more voters to help save our country from the right-wing extremists that can loosely be called Republicans. Facists is closer to the truth lately.
October 2nd, 2006 at 4:06 pm
“Like many Republicans, Joe can’t separate his politics from the rest of his life. Like those morons who can’t listen to the Dixie Chicks anymore. I swear, liberals don’t have this problem.”
You know, comments like this make my blood boil more than what Phil had to say, and I disagreed with him. I’m Republican, proudly. I am not obligated to support artists that make statements that I disagree with. That’s the flip-side of freedom of speech. You can say what you want to, you’re only protected against the goverment coming after you for saying it. Frankly, I was never bothered by the Dixie Chicks kerfluffle, because I never bought any of their music before or since. I hate country music.
That all being said, I don’t boycott for political reasons. I watched “The West Wing” even though they routinly set up conservitive straw men to topple. I plan to watch Alec Baldwin in his new sitcom, unless it isn’t funny. Hell, I used to enjoy listening to Rosie O’Donnell’s stand up, but now she’s so shrill I’d rather spend three hours listening to Al Gore discuss the pro’s and con’s of canned peaches than listen to her. I would say something similar, BTW, about Ann Coulter and Bill O’Reilly, both have gone so over the top they often shoot themselves in the foot.
Frankly, some of the most sanctimonious people I’ve ever met are left-leaning skeptics and atheists. Anyone who doesn’t beleive them is a stupid moron who should be silenced immediately. We have seen the rise of speech code on college campuses that have been used to cudgel people with conservitive views. I have seen anyone with similar political leanings to mine called a “Nazi” so often that I have come to expect it. There was so much vanalism against “Bush” bumper stickers in my area that I didn’t put one on my car. I used to read “The Amazing Randi’s” weekly newsletter with great regularity, but his deeply condesending attitude toward anyone of faith, not just charletons who use faith to bilk or decieve, turned me off him. This doesn’t mean I’ve never met Christians who do the same, but it sure as hell not a disease unique to the right wing of American politics.
Mind you, I’m hardly a Bible-thumper. I’m tacitly Lutheran, go to church once in a great while, beleive wholly in Evolution (I used to debate against Creationism, and still find it stupid) and have a degree in Biology. I love science and work in medicine.
If you want to blame someone for the courseness of political debate in this country, it isn’t one parties fault. There is plenty of blame to go around.
October 2nd, 2006 at 4:42 pm
The majority of people are moderate whatevers. The wingnuts (left and right and other) are just really loud. I take issue with issues that have been labeled liberal and issues that have been labeled conservative or neo-conservative. My main thing is to come down on the side of the US Constitution and argue and fight to preserve the freedoms it gives us.
This LAW (because Bush will sign it) is wholly unconstitutional. It gives way too much power to the executive branch and sets up some seriously scary ways to silence political dissidents. I don’t see this as a liberal or conservative position. It’s libertarian if anything. I noticed that a lot of democrats voted for the bill as well, so this isn’t a partisan issue except for those who think anyone criticizing the administration is automatically partisan. There are plenty of Republicans who can’t stand the job the Bush admin has done.
If it were Clinton (and I have a LOT of issues with him) then we’d still be railing against this. If it were anyone, we’d all still be rightly worried about this bill!
Keep writing on pertinent issues! This isn’t a partisan issue!
October 2nd, 2006 at 5:11 pm
Don’t ever apologize, Phil. It is YOUR website.
As I always tell people who make similar complaints:
“No one is forcing you to read [insert website name here] . If you are so upset about what I have posted then stop reading [insert website name here]. I promise you’ll feel much better. Have a nice day.”
October 2nd, 2006 at 5:25 pm
Funny, I had gotten the impression that this blog was all about honesty and integrity and critical, rational thinking–with astronomy often (but not always) providing the raw material. So it seemed to me that the BA’s entry rueing the collapse of habeas corpus and due process fit in perfectly with his other entries. Odd how I could have been so mistaken.
October 2nd, 2006 at 5:45 pm
I think a little politics helps keep things interesting. It’s nice to argue the alternative view with intelligent people who have a shared interest, versus a dedicated political blog where everyone is at each others’ throats all the time.
October 2nd, 2006 at 5:47 pm
First I’ll offer a possible way to improve off topic posts paranthetically label them off topic, example Habeus Corpus (off topic). It might save people some time who are looking for astronomy topics. Not that I disagree with you, trampling on the constitution is always something we should be alarmed at. This Joe (et al.) don’t understand how they should be perceiving the world. Ones choice in what they read shouldn’t necessarily be things they agree with. I myself seek out writing that I am diametrically opposed to; mostly so I can pick holes in it. Of course if I can’t pick a hole in something I may be convinced or cede the point. That’s how we grow, it isn’t by staying in your ideologically cubby hole sort of like the 3 metaphorical monkeys see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. Instead of criticizing that you mentioned something on your blog Joe should have left a post illustrating why he thought you were wrong, or move on to another topic. Recently my local paper started publishing Anne Coultier, I was excited about that at first even though I knew I’d disagree with her. Then I realized she is boring but I still would be interested in reading ideas that I don’t espouse. Astronomy itself is a pretty big tent, conservatives and liberals alike can be captivated but we shouldn’t be afraid when one or the other expresses an idea.
October 2nd, 2006 at 6:01 pm
It seems that, at long last, the all too many scientists and engineers who read Ayn Rand as teenagers and never got over it are beginning to see the truth about the Right. (Maybe, in the end, we can be thankful for George Deutsch after all.) And websites and blogs like this have been an important part of the change.
(By the way, “You’ll Never Walk Alone” is very well known in America; it’s from “Carousel”, an 1945 American operetta, based on the play “Liliom”, by Ferenc Molnár.)
(Also, by the way, I’m a Christian, and a Christian by adult choice, not out of brand-name loyalty. And I tell you, if George W. Bush and his associates do not repent, they will freeze in the center of the ninth circle forever. I am sick unto death of their devil-worshiping blasphemies.)
October 2nd, 2006 at 6:15 pm
Life must me awfully stressful for those who can’t bear to read what they don’t agree with.
Keep publishing your thoughts on any topic that interests you Phil. It is always entertaining and hopefully can draw reasoned comments from all sides of every argument. Like Troy I enjoy well argued views that differ from mine. It forces me to re-evaluate my position and improves my understanding of the issue.
October 2nd, 2006 at 6:46 pm
Some semi-related commentary:
1. How dare you, as an educated American, have an opinion? Much less write about it?! Oh, wait….
2. Orac had a link to an article that may be of some relevance. http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/10/would_the_right_trust_president_clinton_1.php
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB115975391846979627-lMyQjAxMDE2NTA5MjcwNTIzWj.html
3. I neither agree nor disagree with that article in this forum. I would like to point out, though, that all those in government service (military and civilian) have a sworn duty to the Constitution.
I (like Phil, I think) believe that sticking to the rule of “above all, the Constitution” will never steer you too far wrong.
October 2nd, 2006 at 6:47 pm
People can say whatever they want to say. That is what makes us free. A good friend of mine kept telling me the truth will set you free. Freedom doesn’t equal fun or happiness… it just gives one a better sence of reality. Ignorance is bliss and the blissfull with continue to deny reality.
Education is education regardless of subject… and Phil you do a great job of it. Keep it up =)
October 2nd, 2006 at 6:52 pm
Actually, I was thinking of adding a “politics” category and then adding all the old entries to it. The problem is, people who read my blog through a feed then get all those old entries re-deleivered to them! It’s kind of a pain. I odn’t know of any way of preventing that, but I’ll look into it.
October 2nd, 2006 at 7:29 pm
Well said Phil. Just one quibble: I’m still dying to read your Serenity review you said you might post in the blog. I assume the science in that is perfect?
October 2nd, 2006 at 7:32 pm
Can I please steal this post at some point in the future? It would help me a lot.
October 2nd, 2006 at 7:33 pm
“I’m still dying to read your Serenity review you said you might post in the blog. I assume the science in that is perfect?”
Sorry to double post, but I’m fairly certain I heard noises in space during the movie. That’s a big no-no. (I still like the movie though)
October 2nd, 2006 at 7:34 pm
THANK YOU! For speaking your mind. For acting like a true patriot to this country and what it used to stand for (as opposed to this traitorous administration).
Here’s hoping you’re not one of those to soon disappear without any recourse from what used to be our laws.
October 2nd, 2006 at 7:38 pm
Phil,
Actually, I had only become aware of the bads news through your blog (which I read regularly). I gotta read the newspaper more often…or, wait, did it *even* make the newspapers? :-/
So, speak your mind, shout from the rooftop, inform us of the injustice of it all, *please*.
Thank you.
October 2nd, 2006 at 8:45 pm
“I will continue to post what’s on my mind.
Count on it. ”
GOOD!
October 2nd, 2006 at 9:04 pm
Well, you’ve piqued my interest, I’ll be coming back to see what you have to say. And it has nothing to do with naked women. Really.
October 2nd, 2006 at 10:01 pm
“You’ll Never Walk Alone” was also sung by the shipboard computer in HHG2TG, id I recall correctly. Well suited for an astronomy blog.
Phil, just keep kicking unreason where it hurts and you’ll always have fans and supporters.
October 2nd, 2006 at 11:25 pm
[…] Phil Plait got just a little hot under the collar after a few people attacked his rant irritated but rational response to the rape of the constitution last week. […]
October 2nd, 2006 at 11:39 pm
Phil, your blog is the first thing I read every morning. It’s interesting and funny. Thanks and please don’t stop.
October 3rd, 2006 at 1:02 am
My best friend/brother-in-law is convinced that aliens have visited Earth, and at least two of my workmates (I’m a physics teacher, they are social scientists) think that “NASA mooned the world”. We all have wonderful discussions, and I am happy to say that I still have a best friend and I still enjoy my lunchtimes at work.
Phil, bloody good on you for your posts, I point my students to it whenever I can. Your links are always interesting and pertinent and I love reading your posts and movie reviews. Keep it up!
Personally, I don’t really care about politics, as long as someone competent is running my country (which happens to be New Zealand). I certainly don’t know the difference between a Republican and a Democrat, although I have heard the terms on “The West Wing” and “Commander in Chief”. You keep posting your views, whatever the heck they are, and you can be damn sure that I’ll keep reading them, along with a lot of other people. We love you and your work.
Cheers.
October 3rd, 2006 at 3:01 am
Dear Phil,
In the interest of balance, can you point us to the blog of a neo-aztec astronomer who lines up human sacrifices and cuts the hearts out of infidels in between star measurements?
October 3rd, 2006 at 4:29 am
I,m way at the end of this blog special…but perhaps I could add further US Constitutional violations by the US Congress and US Senate. Go to their websites and check out the House Resolution # 1038 and # 2679:
“provides that attorney’s who successfully challenge government actions violating the First Amendment Establishment clause shall not be entitled to the recovery of attorney’s fees. This bill has only one purpose to prevent suits challenging unconstitutional government actions advancing religion.”
Article can be read in: http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/10/01/the-theocracy-moves-ahead/
Read and weep.
Be Patriotic and Vote November 7th!
October 3rd, 2006 at 5:09 am
I always find it bizarre that whenever you post something on politics messing around with science that it turns into a flame war of ‘lefties’ vs ‘righties’. In a perfect world, science should be the least political thing possible and whenever you post something in regards to science being messed around with by the current establishment, it upsets a load of, well, cry-babies. Of course, I’ll be accused of being a darn ‘liberal leftie’ which is just stupid. I’m not American. If anyone in the uk were to call me ‘liberal’ I’d say “Don’t be stupid. I don’t vote liberal.”. When you point out quite rightly that something bad is going on, the cry-babies all miss the point that you would do the same thing whether it’s ‘left’ or ‘right’ in power. Both sides are capable of bad politics and bad science policies. It just happens to be the conservatives this time. So, keep at it. Anyone who has a problem, tuff nuggies.
October 3rd, 2006 at 5:31 am
Too bad the Republic inevitably devolves toward chaos. As with Rome, we come full circle to dictatorship. Congratulations, Phil. You will continue doing your best to stop the fall but I fear the revolution will not come until theocratic excesses have us back at the Inquisition. Meanwhile, I’ll be polishing my weapons and preparing to go underground,,,
Gary 7
October 3rd, 2006 at 5:34 am
Way to go Phil! You tell ‘em what owning a website is all about
Whining “Wahh I’m never coming back!” is always so pathetic.
There’s always the rest of the internet for you.
October 3rd, 2006 at 5:44 am
Welcome to my world. I regularly get email from people telling me they aren’t going to support evolution and are going to vote for GW Bush because I’m such a jerk.
People who are so fickle and hold the evidence in such low esteem that disliking one individual drives them away from it probably aren’t to be trusted in the first place.
October 3rd, 2006 at 6:17 am
Keep on blogging. I’m with you. This administration has a hostile attitude toward science, indeed against rational thinking of any kind. Keeping the populace ignorant is their strategy for keeping them docile while they raid the treasury for their campaign contributors and attempt to hold permanent political power. Every voice against them needs to be heard and heard loudly.
I salute you.
October 3rd, 2006 at 6:55 am
First, thanks for writing this blog in the first place.I’m especially glad to see someone challenge Richard C. Hoagland.However, I’m writing because of your statements about habeas corpus.As someone else pointed out Abraham Lincoln also suspended habeas.He then imprisoned thousands without trial or charges,closed newpapers,defied the supreme court,sent troops to diperse the Maryland legislature so it could not vote to secede from the union,imposed an income tax-which much later was discovered to be unconstitutional-and issued the Emancipation Proclaimation-which many also said was unconstitutional.When challenged he replied-and I’m paraphrasing-that these were war measures and to suggest that they would continue postwar was like suggesting a sick man would continue to take a remedy for an illness once that illness had passed.I congratulate you on reading the entire bill but I respectfully note that others including myself and many judges have a different opinion about the constutionality of this measure and its ultimate effects.Now since you are apparantly a lawyer as well as an astronomer I would appreciate reading your skeptical assessment of the constutionality of campus speech codes,government property seizures for private purposes,and of course the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law and its considerable restriction of free speech everywhere.As a conservative Republican I believe these are far more serious threats to our Constitutional liberties than a law passed by congress,signed by the president, all in response to a 5-4 supreme court decision and intended to bring the law into compliance with that decision.Now obviously this is your blog and you could just tell me to frak off but I hope you won’t-because then I’d feel obligated to listen to Mr. Hoagland without laughing at his preposterous nonsense.
October 3rd, 2006 at 7:21 am
Xennady - You forgot 2 things:
1) The ALF has coerced a UCLA medical researcher, Dario Ringach, to stop performing research on animals.
2) Suspending Habeas Corpus is in the Constitution!
Everything else you said was spot on.
October 3rd, 2006 at 7:40 am
I’ve always found it humorous when people attempt to assert what somebody else’s personal website is or is not supposed to be. I’ve seen it happen a number of times, and it always confuses me as to why they even bother raising a stink about it in the first place. Perhaps they really don’t know much about what’s constitutional after all, if they think you don’t have the freedom to say what you want on your own blog. This isn’t entirely related to the matter at hand, but it seems to me that it is a shameful trend for many people in this country to often fail to realize that if they don’t like something on the internet, on TV, in movies, books, or video games, they can simply stop looking at it, and watch or read something else. The drama is unnecessary and rarely has a real purpose. Besides, the ultimate responsibility belongs to them to monitor such things for themselves and their children, and not to those who create or display the material. This is a topic about which I enjoy ranting. Whether it’s pure astronomy, or whether it’s political leanings or risqué BA photos, keep posting what you will, Phil.
“Be who you are and say what you feel, ’cause people who mind don’t matter, and people who matter don’t mind.” - Theodor Seuss Geisel
October 3rd, 2006 at 8:27 am
The Bad Astronomer
Said:
-There are plenty of right-wing astronomers, though I bet the numbers for astronomers are lower than for, say, space advocates (who historically tend to be more conservative). -
Not surprising when you think about the way the Dems tried to shoot down the space commecialisation(ammendments) bill. I never understood untill then how ANYONE could vote republican, but if you are a one or two issue voter, and you see someone carrying on like that about your pet peeve…
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:06 am
Phil,
Post away–what’s a blog without opinions? I don’t agree that liberals are any more “reality based” than conservatives, and I think generalizing viewpoints on whether a person is one of two parties (think of it–two parties to represent 300 million people! Egad!) isn’t very precise. However, there are some serious problems with the way the government handles science and other matters, and I think it’s perfectly appropriate to gripe about those things. Just for the record, plenty of so-called right wingers have big problems with Creationism, anti-science/technology policies, torture, war, etc. Each party is an enormous tent, containing pretty much any viewpoint that you care to name.
In the end, I come to this site for the science and for the skepticism. To the extent that those things remain the focus–even when you venture into politics–I’ll keep reading. Rand Simberg does a similar thing from a more conservative (or maybe libertarian is the better label) perspective, but I’d imagine that on science and skepticism issues, you’d be pretty closely aligned. People have a variety of reasons for their political leanings, but I can always respect rationality, logic, and the scientific method regardless of religion or creed
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:31 am
I say Bad Astronomer for President!!
But seriously, it saddens me to think how many people keep missing the point that it’s our differences that make our country strong. It’s the BA’s freedom to make his posting what makes this country great. Instead of jumping down the other guy’s throat, try listening to other side.
My best friend since childhood voted for Bush, and he has his reasons. I let him explain his reasons, and I understand his point of view now. I still disagree with him, but at least I understand.
Learning in general is always important. Learning is what I do when I read this blog. Learning is what I did when I read this post. Thank you BA.
-j
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:27 am
I’d say good riddance Joe, except that I always hate to see this sort of thing. I’d much prefer someone stick around to argue their point, and either get others to see their side, or be willing to admit that there’s something to others’ point of view. I’d like him to stick around and lend his voice.
I wish so many people didn’t snatch up their marbles and go home when something appears that they don’t like. There’s nothing to be gained by further separation of viewpoints.
In any case, this is your site, Phil. While people expect a certain theme (bad astronomy, according to the domain name), they also should expect personal views… particularly when issues occur during the same administration which would suppress science.
October 3rd, 2006 at 12:30 pm
I have been trying to understand the Libertarian contingent of the skeptical crowd for a few years. I had always thought that skeptics were all bleeding heart liberals, because I am one. Shrug. They’ve just never fully explained the uneven playing field — some people are born with fewer resources to call upon; depression and other chronic disease does not IMHO constitute second class citizenship, but without a hand up, people who have these maladies can’t compete even if they have a lot to offer.
I’m with Chet on the issue of attorney’s not being able to recover costs in certain kinds of lawsuits. See also
http://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/26694prs20060907.html
Finally, I thought this whole issue of the Republican attitude toward science was pretty well laid out in Chris Mooney’s book, The Republican War on Science. If the population is dumbed down enough, they make pretty easy targets when the ideologues are selling their programs.
Dr. Plait, you make us smarter. If you draw attention to an issue we may have missed, it doesn’t matter if it’s astronomy or something else, you are teaching. Do continue.
October 3rd, 2006 at 12:54 pm
Wether you agree with Phil or not, his name is on the website. I may not agree with everything he says, but he get me thinking on why I disagree, that is why I come here evey day, and will continue to do so.
October 3rd, 2006 at 1:01 pm
Eirik Says:“If you want to blame someone for the courseness of political debate in this country, it isn’t one parties fault. There is plenty of blame to go around.
Actually, I place more blame in the apathy of too many Americans, and in the failure of too many Americans to actually look further than the talking points and slogans they are fed large quantities of every day.
Beyond that, in this case, I point out that one of those talking points is to claim, ‘the other guys’ are as bad, or are the same, or are as corrupt and so on. No, in this case, ‘the other guys’ and more and more Republicans as well, (thankfully and finally), are not the same. That particular talking point serves to dampen the significance of the current situation.
I replied to Xannady and John in the original blog entry on this to keep this entry from becoming an extension of that one.
I think the fact the original blog entry has >150 replies and this one has >65 says a lot for the value of speaking up on this topic.
October 3rd, 2006 at 1:39 pm
The Bad Astronomer Says: There are plenty of right-wing astronomers..
And, there are plenty of definitions for “right wing”. If one sticks too closely to the image one believes a right wing person is and doesn’t pay enough attention to the thing represented by the label, the result is support of the current Republican administration in spite of how close or far that administration is to the individual’s image.
I see nothing in ‘right wing’ or ‘conservative’ that requires one follow religion blindly over science. I see nothing in ‘right wing’ that requires one support suspension of Constitutional rights, or supports blind allegiance to the President if it becomes apparent the actions taken by that President increase the risk of terrorism rather than decrease it.
By the same token, there is nothing in the term ‘left wing’ or ‘liberal’ that says one will never support suspension of some Constitutional rights in times of war, nor do the labels say religion may never be followed.
If people focus only on the images, and not on the underlying basis, then we remain more susceptible to manipulation. I imagine conservatives bristle when they hear liberals attach stereotypes to the conservative label the same way I bristle when conservatives claim all sorts of nonsense about their image of what a liberal person believes or does.
A am not for abortion, I am for deceasing the numbers of abortions by more effective means that just making it illegal. I’m not for giving in to terrorism. I’m for fighting it with more effective means based on scientific principles rather than emotions. I’m not for taxing and spending any more than conservatives are for borrowing and spending. Health care costs all of us less when it is available to all. When it isn’t, we still pay for it when our health insurance premiums and taxes cover the uninsured’s health care in the emergency departments and un-reimbursed hospital care. Labor unions mean more wages for workers which translates into more money to buy the products and more income for corporations. If those on the corporate side of the equation would look a little past some of the short term gains, then liberals and conservatives might not be so far apart in this area either.
My point is we can stop identifying with these images and groups (which BTW our leaders exploit for their personal gain) and we can start looking at the fact we agree on a lot of the same goals, we may just differ on the best ways to get there.
That still leaves a lot of conflict over religion which isn’t resolved as easily as looking past the images. But I won’t get into that here. In the case of this bill, getting past the images will in itself help immensely.
October 3rd, 2006 at 1:41 pm
I am, not A am…must compulsively tell you that….
October 3rd, 2006 at 7:49 pm
Hello skeptigirl-I saw that you mentioned me so I feel entitled to leave a reply.I hope I won’t offend you if I note that I saw nothing that pre-emptively refuted me in your previous entry on this thread.I reject your assessment of why people do not agree with you-i. e. they are “fed” slogans and skillfully manipulated by people like Bill O’Reilly.I listed several examples of real historical and current restrictions on civil liberties.You made no specific response.Well,OK.But then you went on to list several left-wing beliefs that are not supported by my experience nor, I beleive, the experience of the world at large.You mentioned abortion.I suggest that making it illegal would reduce of abortions such as the extensive campaign to impose draconian penalties on drunk drivers has resulted in fewer drunk driving deaths in the last two decades.On health care I note that the cost of lazik eye surgery has collapsed in the last few years-and it isn’t covered by insurance nor paid for by the government.How do skeptical leftists explain this phenomena? I suggest a rational evaluation of the evidence suggests that government involvement in health results in increasing costs-and many more people who cannot afford health care.As a former member of the US steelworkers union I dispute every word of your comments about unions.The major US steel companies went so far in giving generous wages and benefits that they have now ceased to exist-except US Steel which was notoriously hostile in their dealings with the union.Well,you get the idea,right? I’m no longer surprised that people belief such weird things as leftists do but I still wonder why.I finally concluded that opinions of people are a function of the information they receive.Well duh-but I note that you singled out Fox news for specific mention.Bill O’Reilly has something like only two million viewers.Why are they such a threat? You leftists react to Fox like a creationist reacts to a dinsaur bone-with fear and hostility.Could it be that leftist dogma-like creationism-cannot handle a sceptical evaluation or it will collapse? And that the fear and loathing have the same root cause-fear of blasphemy? I further suggest that campus speech codes,restrictions on political advertizing in the McCain-Feingold law,the practice of banning rightwing commenters on leftist sites,and of course leftist loathing of Fox news-all spring from this same source.Well,I see that I’ve gone on for too long-so I’ll stop.Thanks for reading…
October 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Phil, keep moving in the direction you’re going! This is your place, and I’m glad to be along for the trip — no matter where it goes.
October 3rd, 2006 at 9:12 pm
‘Atta boy Phil! Dont give in to peer pressure!
This is YOUR site, YOUR blog. Do whatever the hell you want with it. If other people have negative opinions on the site, good for them. Thats why this is a free nation. Which is exactly why you dont have to change a thing.
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:50 pm
Oh my goodness, where to start with the claptrap propounded by Xennady? Let me just try two of the many inaccuracies in his posting: union influence on corporation behavior and governmental involvement in health care. Unions, as they evolved in the U.S., eliminated child labor, low pay, long hours, worker’s inability to dispute company regulations, working conditions regarding safety (except in certain occupations, like mining - where government failed, and not the laws), firings without cause, no retirement benefits for years of service to the company, no health benefits, no sick leave, and so on. The rise of unionism in the U.S. was met with unyeilding and almost complete opposition from management with very little exceptions, an opposition which continues to this day. Management is NOT known to be sympathetic to anything which subtracts from its bottom line; and most management isn’t in the ranks of the progressive, or “leftist” ideology, since the American version of capitalism clearly eliminiates any possible relationship to altruislm (Dale Carnegy, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet included).
Steel (and now U.S. automobile manufacturing) is an example of a business which died in the U.S. NOT as a result of the unions, but because the industry didn’t have the foresight to modernize and government didn’t intervene. The steelworkers union (as have the auto workers union since) made concessions to the steel companies when it was appearant that if they didn’t the companies would fold. It was too little too late. The Japanese steel industry, the the European steel industry, the newly emerging Chinese steel industry - all became more competitive than the U.S. by producing steel more cheaply (at the expense of good wages, health and retirement benefits, working conditions, and increasingly environmental concerns, etc.), and by modernization (in the case of the Japanese and Europeans). The U.S. government did very little to attempt to offset the cheaper foreign steel by making that steel more competitive with the U.S. product through tariffs, quotas, and especially by NOT putting laws into effect which prohibited the U.S. steel corporations from increasingly outsourcing jobs to countries which had non-existent labor, environmental or workers rights laws and by letting them collect the revenue virtually without taxation. American automobile makers are in the same boat. For years they resisted every attempt to reduce high gas mileages, increase the safety of their products, make their product more earth-friendly, and include the innovations which drew and continue to draw customers to the foreigns brands. And these other brands, even though they now manufacture their products in the U.S., are still largely non-union. U.S. automakers were successful at quashing U.S. efforts at change: the smaller car marketed by H. J. Kaiser which died an ignoble death (due in no small part due to industry scoffing), was followed by only a few years with the introduction of the first Japanese compacts, and this at a time when gasoline was still relatively inexpensive. Gasoline, or rather its growing scarcity, coupled with the gas-guzzling U.S. product, is another example of why the U.S. automotive industry (in colllusion with compliant congresses) is now the bane of the two largest U.S. automakers. and it isn’t the lousy union contracts which caused the problem the automakers now find themselves in; it is the continued opposition by govenrment (and management) to universal health care and decent pensions (which could be supported by labor, industry AND government) which is at fault…
Government involvement in health, such as it is, has been a godsend (or rather a sciencesend): the elimination of polio, the eradication of smallpox, the development of a vaccination for measles, the development of penicillin, the safety of drugs (excluding the last six years of the Bush administration, a decidedly NOT liberal body legislators), the public health departments in countless cities and counties throughout the U.S. (and the taxpayers which support them), the growing successes in the fight against HIV-AIDS (which support was notably lacking with that champion of the Conservatives, R. Reagan) which have made medical care available to nearly everyone who still has no health insurance, the U.S.D.A. - again, with the notable exception of this administration, and so on and on. Progressive, or leftist, political philosophy, while it sometimes went astray in this country (some of the left’s support of the Communist Party, for example, which mostly evaporated when Stalin’s cruelty became evident), was mostly responsible for the social changes which happened in this country. The right still uses the term “socialism” as an epithet, especially when the AMA feels threatened about its lock on medical legislation in this country. So knock off the B.S., Xennedy. Liberal, Progressive ideals have had a much greater effect on the populations of the last ninety decades than has anything proposed by the conservative right. Except for this criminal aberration of the current administration, and that effect has been all bad for the country.
October 4th, 2006 at 2:09 am
Xennady, my reply to your post is under the other blog entry in case you missed it. And I did not mention abortions and unions etc to get into a discussion about the means, I mentioned them to note conservatives and liberals often desire the same ends. This is not the place to discuss different opinions on the means to those ends.
As to people being manipulated, I described O’Reilly’s tactics. The people who did buy his argument bought the straw. It has nothing to do with agreeing with me. I think that was clear in what I wrote. Perhaps you haven’t seen the original entry on that matter.
All the examples of past infringements of our liberties do not change my assessment of the current one. But under the other blog entry, I did post what the Supreme Court ruled on the example re Lincoln and the Civil War.
How do I as a skeptic and a liberal explain the decreased cost of laser eye surgery? That’s out there in left field. Pretty hard to address all your unrelated arguments but I’ll be brief on this one. What does the cost of any single procedure coming down with competition have to do with national health insurance or health coverage? And what does the cost of a single procedure matter anyway? What matters is the total cost and the total outcome. Several studies have shown the US pays more and gets less in health care than a number of other countries with national health insurance.
There are a number of procedures in health care that really rake in the bucks. Eye acuity surgery is one of those. So are some of the face lifts and liposuctions. Lots of doctors want to get in on the gravy train. I recommend you don’t pick the cheapest guy, pick the one with the most experience and highest standard of practice.
Whether private health care is more efficient than when the government is involved doesn’t address the problem of the uninsured showing up in emergency departments. Those who pay for health care currently pay for the uninsured’s health care in the payer’s insurance premiums or out of pocket expense. Either the hospital has to turn those who can’t pay away (currently illegal if they are seeking emergency care) or the hospital has to charge those who do pay enough to cover the costs of those who don’t. So market efficiency has nothing to do with the issue I spoke of.
The rest of your comments make you appear a bit uninformed. Come on over to the Skeptic Friends Network forum and I’ll be happy to discuss them with you. I post at the JREF forum also but it is so big I may not see your posts. And the BA’s forum here doesn’t allow political discussions. I won’t post more on those off topic issues here. It bores people.
October 4th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
Golly Phil I’m honored that you used my note to you about stopping reading you stuff. But after I read your book (which I loved and still use with my students ) I looked up your web page for more. On the page Who is the Bad Astronomer? you state:
¨Finally, am I really a bad astronomer? I don’t think so! I would say I am an average one. But on these web pages, I’m discussing astronomy that is bad. Hence the name.¨ (highlights are mine)
But now its:
¨First, this website isn’t “supposed” to be anything, except my website. You’ll find a few pages here that are at best tangentially related to astronomy, and I tend to wander a bit in my essays when the mood strikes.¨
That is not what I was looking for, and not what you said If you want to take up other topics, it’s your choice. as it is mine to not go to your web page since it does not fulfill the objective you originally promised and to complain about being misled. But its your ball kid, so you get to name the game.
As to the Bill. I do not believe we owe any alien unlawful enemy combatant the protections of our Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is for US citizens. If the rest of the world wants the same go out and get it. For the life of me I can’t find where this Bill would come into play for a US citizen as it applies only to enemy combatants. Perhaps I’m missing something. The bill does appear to give those detained a hearing which is more than they would give any of our troops you say you are worried about.
These are difficult times and the world has changed since 9/11. We can take the high road and play by a set of rules while the other side kills thousands of civilians, denies even the most basic rights to females in their control, and cuts off reporter’s heads. You express a concern for our troops. You’re not military as far as I can find on your bio, are you?
But try to understand this. The people we are fighting do not have any respect for the proper rules of war and if in order to defeat them we have to bend, break or just ignore the rules so be it. These are the people you want to play fair with? You think they have read the Geneva Conventions and if they have would abide by them? ( yes, Phil I’ve read them and went back and looked at them again).Times change, the rules change. If we have to toss aside these rules due to the unconventional nature of this war so be it. The only objective we have is to put an end to this by military, economic and diplomatic means as quickly as possible. The sooner it ends the sooner all the killing stops. In this case the end does justify the means. We are dealing with people who have no concept of civilized behavior and do not need to waste time being polite.
Yes, I have quit reading your web page. A friend of mine called my attention to your special attention to my reply and after I read your comments I did realize one thing.
I do owe you an apology for the idiocy comment, bad day I guess, and this war is somewhat of a personal sore spot for me. Again, I’m sorry. Uncalled for behavior, even if you and the ACLU are wrong on this point. What I should have said is :
Hell, this isn’t what it said it was and gone on my way. But it pisses me off when somebody uses their notoriety in one filed to get up on a soap box about things that are not their field of expertise and it pisses me off even more so when somebody promises something and doesn’t deliver or says That’s what I said but what I really meant was…
PS Go write another book. That you are good at. And I’ll refrain from insulting intelligent young men for being too damned liberal. Hell, I worked and voted for McGovern, if I can forgive myself for that I can surely try to understand you.
Have a good one.
October 4th, 2006 at 1:31 pm
“The people we are fighting do not have any respect for the proper rules of war and if in order to defeat them we have to bend, break or just ignore the rules so be it.”
-Joe.
“When you become like your enemy, your enemy has won.”
-Sun Tzu, The Art of War
(ps - apologies of this appears twice - got spam error message:-( )
October 4th, 2006 at 8:21 pm
“When you become like your enemy, your enemy has won.â€
-Sun Tzu, The Art of War”
Well that is amaizing!
The very idea that American servicemen and women are anything like the people they fight ,or the current administration is anything like the enemy the world faces in the Islamofacist.
Wow! please tell me about the beheading, the roadside bombs designed to kill and maime the maximum amount of civillians regardless who they are and what they believe that the American and allied soldiers are doing.
The Geneva convention says nothing about terrorists at all they are not accorded any rights period.
As far as I am concerned Habeus Corpus has nothing to do with non citizens period.
Please show or link to the part of the US constetution that says otherwise,
of course.
October 4th, 2006 at 8:47 pm
Joe says: Hell, this isn’t what it said it was and gone on my way. But it pisses me off when somebody uses their notoriety in one filed to get up on a soap box about things that are not their field of expertise and it pisses me off even more so when somebody promises something and doesn’t deliver or says That’s what I said but what I really meant was…
And here you are on that same soap box and it isn’t even yours. Perhaps you failed to notice.
As to your perspective that they’re all bad and we’re all good, it lacks one important dimension and the rationale you conclude from it leaves out one important fact.
The missing dimension, they and we are only a fraction of the people involved. If you think the USA rules the world, then don’t be surprised when in the process of violating the sovereignty of our allies’ countries they call such a position into question. Don’t be surprised when our allies don’t come to our aide. Don’t be surprised when the incredibly egocentric position as you describe it leads to many many more joining the forces that oppose us. Just as we would oppose any other country that held that attitude toward us.
Which brings me to the important fact you left out of your version. Regardless of how self righteous you feel about your position, and how justified you feel, that doesn’t equate to your position actually being effective. Great, you feel justified, while even more people join the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
Watching Frontline last night, I saw Bush express your very attitude and make public demands in Pakistan that Musharif should do more. Bush acted like an ignorant bully. His lack of common diplomacy only served to push Pakistan one step closer toward destabilization.
You may feel justified but all the while WWIII looms ever larger. Doesn’t it make more sense to be smarter than to be tougher? Or do you not think humans are really at the top of the food chain with brains over brawn taking the clear advantage?
October 5th, 2006 at 4:12 am
Phil, just wanted to join the chorus of thanks, but for a very specific reason: up here in Canadia, it has seemed via media and friends in the south that discourse has become more and more muddled, truth more obscured, reason more constantly discarded. Talking about what’s really going on–and doing it from the point of view of someone who has devoted himself to skeptical, rational thinking–is precisely what’s needed to combat this chaos of “YES THEY DID NO THEY DIDN’T facts out the window” kind of environment I’ve observed. I say this without taking sides, although obviously I have my own ideas about what’s right and wrong. But much like everything else, when we put our own crap aside, and look at a thing with as much reason and as little bias as we can muster, that’s when solutions and consensus can begin. Keep it up. This is not only COMPLETELY relevant to science of all kinds, astronomy included, it’s relevant to rational thinkers and skeptics everywhere. I don’t see it as cross purposes with anything your site has ever been about.
October 5th, 2006 at 7:33 pm
Phil, keep it up.
We need science, of course, and we need to explore the universe, far and near.
We also need to remember why we erect, curious, brilliant, violent, hateful, loving, murderous, generous apes have worked so very hard for so very long to understand our only world.
It’s all we have.
If USA, the nation that used to call itself the beacon of reason, justice and compassion, falls to Fascism and degenerates to the level of the indisciminate mass-murderers we claim to despise, all of the people of Earth will face truly horrible times. USA is still, despite the terrible damage done to it by years of Bush madness, the best hope humanity has to survive.
October 13th, 2006 at 1:13 pm
Well said Phil.
Joe & other right-wingers if you think bombing peopel and invading nations and all this isn’t evil .. but Janet Jackson showing part of a mammary gland for half-a second gets you frothing at the mouth then I suggest you take a long hard look at things and try to recall a few words the Bible (among other sources) says like : Do unto others
Do Unto The Iraqis as ye’d be done by .. Imagine Iraq has invaded America, toppled Bush, bombed the living daylights out of New York or Bible Belt whereever you live ..
Do unto the Palestrineans .. Imagine if someone else had turned you into second class citizens in your own land, killed half your family then blown up your house because another family member or friend chose tofight back even at the cost of their own life..
Much as Americans wish to believ it tehsepeople aren’t mindless, stereotypical fanatical barbarians doing what theydo because they want todestory The good of US of A.
They’re doing unto you over what yopu’ve being doing unto them and te sooner you realise that & change course the better. Stop supporting the murder, torture and oppression of so many in the Muslim world for once and you just see if that doesn’t make a huge difference!
10 quotes & their sources to consider for whatever its worth :
1) ” ..the United States is neither omnipotent nor omniscient. We [the USA] are only 6% of the World’s population - we cannot impose our will upon the other 94% of mankind.”
- John F. Kennedy. (Quoted by Phillip Adams, Page 11, ‘Weekend Australian’ magazine. Dec. 13-14, 2003.)
2) Quote from President Eisenhower (quoted in ’The Guardian weekly’, 2005 Jan 28th – Feb. 3rd .) : “We cannot consider that the armed invasion and occupation of another country are peaceful or proper means to achieve justice and conformity with international law.â€
3) ‘Since it is impossible to coerce thought, the way to social harmony is to discuss conflict and pursue truth; the more people speak their minds freely, the more they are likely to be loyal citizens.’
– Jewish Dutch 17th C philosopher, B. Spinoza.
4) “.. the very best defense against terrorism would be the example of the world’s strongest nation leading the world in the moral battle against poverty, disease, intolerance, and oppression.â€
- Jim Wallis, head of the ‘Sojourner’s’ Christian Anti-War movement.
5) “When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist.” - Dom Helder Camara
6) “Wherever our armies have marched, wherever they have encamped, every species of barbarity has been executed. We planted an irrevocable hatred wherever we went, which neither time nor measure will be able to eradicate.”
- Col. Charles Stuart during the American War of Independence, 1778.
7) “There is one safeguard known generally to the wise, which is an advantage and security to all, but especially to democracies against despots - suspicion.”
“Protest : the alternative to complicity”
- Demosthenes, Phillipics-2. [Collins Concise Dictionary of Quotations, P.108.]
Senator Bob Brown, quoted in ‘The Age’, 2004 May 15th.
9) The Earth should not be cut up into hundreds of different sections, each inhabited by a self-defined segment of humanity that considers its own welfare and its own “national security†to be paramount above all other considerations. … I am not a Zionist, then, because I don’t believe in nations … There are no nations! There is only humanity. And if we don’t come to understand that right soon, there will be no nations, because there will be no humanity.â€
- Isaac Asimov, Pages 419-421, ‘ I Asimov : A memoir’ chapter 7 ‘anti-Semitism’, Bantam Books , 1995.
& 10) “True peace is not merely the absence of tension, it is the presence of justice.”
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
October 15th, 2006 at 1:00 pm
May be off topic but I love the quotes, mung.
November 2nd, 2006 at 11:51 am
I must say that if more people were willing to speak their minds on science, logic and good will as you do Phil we would be in a better world.
I hear all the time from people here “down south” that complain about the US because of people such as that “Joe”, that type of guy and President Bush are the present examples of the US politics
What I do when that happens is to demonstrate ( look for science here ) that there is people in the US such as you that look “trought the smoke” to see what can come from such a bill that goes against the basic rights of the people and against international laws ( such as the Geneva convention).
A question to ask to anyone that supports that bill, if the US decided that doesn’t have to respect the Geneva convention. Do any enemy have the same right ?
When I as what we see when such a bill passes I remember my childhood, you see I was borned in Argentina, my family was one of the many that had to leave the country because the military regime in power at that time considered that anything could be valid to “bring peace and security”.
Personal liberties were suspended, special courts and secret courts created, laws about special “jailing” created.
Does it seem bad ? I would ask Joe something, would he agree in being the guy that goes to Jail, or the US G.I. that has go throught interrogation after capture.
I always enjoyed your site because of the science involved, please, keep the GREAT work.
Best regards
Christian Maciel
Sao Paulo, Brasil
November 2nd, 2006 at 11:54 am
I would like to say Phill that if the world had more people willing to speak out their mind like you we would be in a better world.
My first son is going to be borned in two months, you can be sure that you will be one of the examples when he grows up.
Best regards
Christian Maciel
Sao Paulo, Brazil