At least they aren't eating babies...

Aw, come on, guys! I was just defending you!

Auditors criticize stem cell institute's spending

STUDY FINDS VAGUE POLICIES LED TO PRICEY MEALS AND AIRFARES

By Steve Johnson

Mercury News

State auditors Tuesday criticized California's $3 billion stem-cell institute for lax travel and entertainment rules that let its officials sometimes get chauffeured rental cars, pricey meals and first-class air fare.

The report by California State Auditor Elaine Howle also faulted the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine for using questionable data in justifying its salaries, which in some cases seemed excessive to the auditors.

In addition, the report said, the institute offered vague reasoning for its policies governing how much revenue and other benefits the state should receive from those who develop products from the institute's stem-cell grants.

Complete story here...

Slow day...

Hullo, gang. Haven't gotten anything interesting in the mail lately, so that's the reason behind the lack of posts.

But have you got some nutty propaganda for me? I'm always happy to have it! Comment anywhere with your goodies! Thanks!

In the News: Chimps Make and Use Weapons

Chimps using spears to hunt bushbabies

By NAFEESA SYEED, Associated Press Writer Fri Feb 23, 1:29 AM ET

DES MOINES, Iowa - Researchers have witnessed a chimpanzee skewering a lemur-like creature for supper, but it's unclear whether the spectacle was a bit of luck or an indication that chimps have a more advanced ability to hunt than was thought.

A team led by Iowa State University anthropology professor Jill Pruetz witnessed the spearing of a bushbaby in Fongoli, Senegal, during an observation of chimpanzees from March 2005 to July 2006. In a study being released Thursday in the online version of the journal Current Biology, Pruetz documents 22 cases of chimps using spear-like tools to hunt bushbabies — a small primate that lives in hollow branches or tree trunks.

"It's not uncommon to have chimps use tools. But to use them in the context of hunting" is nearly unheard of, she said.

Pruetz said the practice is most common among adolescent females, ages 10 to 13, which must compete against physically superior males.

"It's a way of accessing protein or meat that is a creative solution to this problem," she said.

Pruetz said the chimpanzees stripped leaves from tree branches and modified the tip with their incisors, "effectively making a point." Then the chimpanzees jabbed the tool into a cavity to snag a bushbaby.

Only once did researchers observe a chimpanzee extracting a bushbaby by using a spear, and that has some scientists questioning whether the chimp was actually hunting. Chimpanzees commonly use sticks to fish for food, such as termites, said Ian Gilby, a postdoctoral fellow who studies chimpanzee hunting at Harvard University.

"You frequently see chimps sticking sticks into holes or trees, so they can make the hole bigger so they can put their arm in," said Gilby, who hadn't read the study.

Gilby said he's seen this tactic used to get honey and small birds from holes in his work in Gombe, Tanzania.

"If it's clear they're making a point" on a branch tip, he said, then that "does appear to be slightly different from what we see at other sites."

David DeGusta, an assistant professor of anthropological sciences at Stanford University, lauded Pruetz's work because of the rarity of studying chimpanzees outside Gombe, where renowned researcher Jane Goodall did her work. It's hard to get animals accustomed to human presence and willing to carry on naturally, DeGusta said.

"The more populations that are studied, the more we learn about how their behavior can vary," said DeGusta, who also hadn't read the study.

Pruetz's study was funded by Iowa State University and the National Geographic Society.

Her Iowa State graduate students continue to observe other emerging patterns among chimpanzees in Senegal.

"In a million years I never would've predicted that I would've seen (hunting)," she said. "I'm going to plug along and see what unfolds."

courtesy of Yahoo! News

Stop the Madness!

The story you're about to read is not true.

Not yet anyway.

But if we allow the medical and scientific community to create human life just to destroy it - all in the name of "science" and "progress" - this story might not be fictional for long.

Then why are you sending this out at all, Life Legal Defense Fund? I mean, if I wanted science fiction, I'd join Scientology.

Yes, it's time for another wacky mailing from another wacky group! After that wonderful introduction that made me want to ignore it completely, the letter went on to describe a Utopia where every disease had a cure, people were healthier and living longer. Hm... a conservative mailing that was filling the reader with hope rather than fear? Something's not right here.

Luckily, the letter continues, narrating you along a tour through a research facility, into a secret back room with a vaulted door. Why is this room hidden, they ask?

Because stretching out before you in this dimly lit cavernous room are dozens upon dozens of tiny cribs. Maybe a hundred of them or more.

They're baby cribs! With newborn babies and infants in each one!

Some of the babies are crying. Some are trying to stand up and see what's going on around them. Meanwhile, others are being snatched out of their cribs and carried into a strange-looking operating room.

Theeeere's the fear mongering. Phew, I was getting worried. The poor wide eyed innocent fictional babies! Being grown in a lab! Where are they going?? Why, the "harvesting room," of course.

Stunned, you walk over to the glass window of the operating room and stare in horror as a 3-month-old baby girl gets strapped down on the table, and a sunken eyed surgeon starts to open her up with a scalpel.

No anesthesia is given to the innocent, defenseless infant. Her arms and legs are restrained on the table by leather straps, and the attendants shove a rag in her mouth to muffle her tiny screams.

This is because the desired organs, cells, and hormones that they're harvesting from this baby must be taken in their pristine state. Anesthesia would ruin the specimens, so none is given.

Hmmmkay. So... a fictional futuristic research facility of sunken eyed doctors with leather strap tables cutting babies open while the are still alive shoves a rag into their mouths to muffle the screams? No metal spiked gags were available?

When a human today willingly gives up a kidney for donation, that person is indeed put under anaesthesia. Pigs have been used in organ transplant research, their organs removed when the pig is still alive, then the animal is euthanized. I wasn't able to find much information on how these animals are taken care of in the US, but there is a European act that requires animals being experimented on in cases such as xenotransplantation to be under anaesthesia.

But fictional babies? Carve 'em up alive.

What's the point of story time? After the narrator explains how you run outside to puke in the bushes, it becomes clear: Proposition 71 in California and it's support of funding (I'm sure you saw this coming,) stem cell research.

And besides, we were told, one day we might benefit from this "research"!

"Think about it... No more cancer, Alzheimer's, heart disease or osteoporosis! If you let us kill these little babies, YOU can virtually live forever!"

They didn't quite put it that bluntly, but that's the basic sales pitch.

I'm sure they didn't put it that bluntly, LLDF. Seeing as that isn't what stem cell research is. I could fill pages upon pages with how embryonic research has nothing to do with killing babies. Here's the short version:

When a mommy and a daddy love each other very much, sometimes they want to have a baby. But sometimes a baby won't stay in the mommy's tummy. So Mommy and Daddy go to a fertility clinic to donate spermies and eggies to make a baby. Now, Mommy wants only one baby in her tummy, so all those other spermies and eggies they made get thrown away. Embryonic stem cell research takes those leftovers and studies them to find cures for diabetes, cancer, cardiovascular disease, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, autoimmune disease, burn victims, blood diseases, leukemia, and spinal injuries.

If I lay an egg in a petrie dish and some man spooges in it, that's not a baby. It could be a cure for a terrible disease. These people want us to throw that away.

P.P.S. One more thing, it's important...

In modern day Germany, human cloning and bizarre scientific research on living things is absolutely forbidden - because of what Germany went through when the Nazi Party was in power. The German people do not want to relive that nightmare.

Honestly, we should start a drinking game whenever these letters mention Nazi, Reagan, or 9-11. What are the facts on this one? Germany voted to fund embryonic stem cell research that used cells removed from human embryos left over from fertility treatment. They do have a ton of restrictions on this research, yes, but they do in fact allow research that doesn't destroy human embryos.

Growing babies for "harvesting" is pointless. That isn't going to happen. EVER. The blastocysts that are used in this research is all that is needed. They'll grow cells out of the blastocysts, not entire people. They're getting closer to genetically altering pigs to fulfill the desperate need for organs.

This is all just another fear tactic, kids. Complete science fiction. They even tell you that at the start.

Now go donate blood.

An Open Letter

Dear Women of the Susan B. Anthony List,

I'll start out saying that I am an enthusiastic and vocal supporter of choice for women when it comes to abortion, so if you don't want to read the rest of this, I'll understand.

I also understand where you stand on a difficult issue. Abortion is the destruction of potential life, after all. Phrase it however you want to, the hard truth is that an abortion is the destruction of what could become a cuddly, innocent baby. No rational, sane person wants to kill babies. Abortion doctors are not wringing their blood soaked hands and cackling with glee at the money they make.

We all want to live in a world where every child born is wanted, loved, and cared for. Everybody is "pro-life." The debate comes down to whether or not someone thinks a woman has the right to choose whether or not she can abort a pregnancy. I do. You don't. And I respect your right to choose your stance on the matter.

Your organization is named for Susan B. Anthony, the most recognisable name not only in the suffrage movement, but also in the history of feminism. She was aggressive and vocal in a time when women rarely left the home. She was a supporter of the temperance movement as well as an opponent of slavery.

There is one article on abortion that is attributed to Anthony. It appeared in her publication The Revolution on July 8, 1869. I've not been able to locate the entire article anywhere, only choice snippets on anti-choice websites. The following is the largest quote I was able to find, found in a legal document filed by Feminists for Life.

Much as I deplore the horrible crime of child-murder, earnestly as I desire its suppression, I cannot believe . . . that such a law [prohibiting abortion] would have the desired effect. It seems to me to be only mowing off the top of the noxious weed, while the root remains. We want prevention, not merely punishment. We must reach the root of the evil, and destroy it.

To my certain knowledge this crime is not confined to those whose love of ease, amusement and fashionable life leads them to desire immunity from the cares of children: but is practiced by those whose inmost souls revolt from the dreadful deed, and in whose hearts the maternal feeling is pure and undying. What, then has driven these women to the desperation necessary to force them to commit such a deed? This question being answered, I believe, we shall have such an insight into the matter as to be able to talk more clearly of a remedy.

Notice I said this article was attributed to Anthony. Apparently, it was only signed "-A." While it did appear in a publication run by the infamous feminist, there's little proof that she penned it herself.

Earlier I said that anti-choice website picked out specific bits to show as evidence that Anthony was against abortion. The most common one is, unsurprisingly, "the horrible crime of child-murder."

However, the rest of the article (what we have of it, anyways) goes on to state that a law prohibiting abortion would not have the "desired effect." The writer expresses the need to prevent unwanted pregnancies. The "root of evil" is, in the writer's view, the man who knocked her up, the society that doesn't educate her on preventative measures, and the government who doesn't help her before, during, or after pregnancy.

The writer also points out that good, loving, caring women who have abortions do so because they feel they have no alternatives.

Boy, I wish I could find the rest of this article. I love feminist writings from the Victorian Era and prior. Ever read the Yellow Wallpaper? It's a short story by Charlotte Perkins Gilman about how a woman's husband has her committed when she suffers from postpartum depression. Back in the day, there was little to no helpful pre- and post-natal care for women... Oh, now I'm going off on a tangent, sorry. Think you can make the rest of Anthony's article available somehow?

Sounds to me like Susan B. Anthony would have been a supporter of Planned Parenthood had she lived to see it's inception. We can compare the words attributed to her to PP's own mission statement:

It is the policy of Planned Parenthood Federation of America to assure that all individuals have the freedom to make reproductive decisions. In order to enable the individual to make and implement a responsible decision, there should be access to information and services related to sexuality, reproduction, methods of contraception, fertility control, and parenthood. Furthermore, Planned Parenthood asserts that both parenthood and nonparenthood are valid personal decisions.

Ladies of Susan B. Anthony List, you have a five point mission statement of your own. Here's my idea, tell me what you think. Amend your mission statement to actually adhere to what you claim are your namesake's beliefs. Let's go down your list.

Rather than #1, "Train pro-life and political activists to run successful grassroots and political campaigns," why not train young women how to prevent unwanted pregnancies and how to raise and care for the kids they decide to keep.

Instead of your #2, "Advocate the passage of pro-life legislation in Congress," let's try advocating the passage of legislation in Congress that will provide better health care for women and children and easier access to pregnancy prevention information and birth control.

#3 sounds great, I love it. "Work to dispel the myths about abortion and women's perspectives on it through our comprehensive media and radio outreach programs." Only the myths you list on your site you don't bother to dispel at all. I think that is would be great to dispel all myths regarding not only abortion but also pregnancy in general, backed up with facts, statistics, and medical research. That's an easy one.

On to fixing #4, "Educate voters about important pro-life issues so that they can make educated decisions in the voting booth." Instead of that, let's educate women on number 1. I guess we can combine these, right? Educating women and men on prevention, like Susie B. said. Get it at the root.

#5 needs the most work: "Elect more pro-life women in Congress through our associated Susan B. Anthony List Candidate Fund." Now this just sounds like conservative propaganda, and I know an organization named after Susan B. Anthony has to be better than that. Howsabout "Elect more women in Congress who support women's rights and encourage the prevention of unwanted pregnancy, health care, parental support, etc." You see where I'm going with that, your people can make it sound better.

Abortion is a difficult thing for someone to go through. In a perfect world, there would not be a need for them. We don't live in that perfect world, so we have to do what we can. We have to educate and then trust women to do what is right for themselves and their families.

BSV
Conservative Fudge

I was a Terrorist Bride!

I'm going to warn you right now, the letter I got today is incredibly offensive to Muslims.

My estranged husband is determined to strap explosives on my boys an [sic] turn them into suicide bombers! And now, a Memphis judge is threatening to give him custody! Please, drop whatever you're doing and read my story enclosed...

That was on the outside of an envelope from Rosine Collin, the estranged wife of Dr. Maher Ghawji. The letter was also apparently funded by Judicial Watch, so you know where to send your hate mail.

Ms. Collin went on to tell her tale; how she met Dr. Ghawji, fell in love, had two kids. But then her husband's true nature began to emerge. He was, in fact, a terrorist!

In fact, Ghawji has said the day's coming when 5,000 suicide bombers blow themselves up in different cities -- and Americans aren't able to do a thing to stop them!

No only was he a Muslim the letter said, but he belonged to the more evil sect called "Wahabi Muslims." Click the link and you'll see that Wahhabis (another dropped H!) don't call themselves Wahhabis. The currently preferred term is "Salafism." This view of Islam is much like modern fundamental Christians, and is much more puritanical. How is that evil? Quoth the Wiki:

Hassan al-Banna, the Egyptian founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, is said to have been influenced by the Wahhabis, but was a known Sufi. The Muslim Brotherhood also claimed to be purifying and restoring original Islam, but its goal wasn't to call to Tawheed (true Islamic Monotheism), but rather to amass Muslims of different beliefs into its group. When the Muslim Brotherhood was banned in various Middle Eastern countries, Saudi Arabia gave refuge to Brotherhood exiles, who in turn influenced modern-day terrorists such as Osama bin Laden. This proved to be a horrible mistake later on, though, and Salafis in Saudi Arabia now reject the Muslim Brotherhood. Most Wahhabis, or Salafis, rejected what they call Qutbism, as a deviation from true Salafism.

Aah, Osama bin Laden. While I won't pretend to know much about the various branches of Muslim, I'll add the opinion that not all Salafis are as bad as Osama. That's like saying all Fundamental Christians are as gay as Ted Haggard.

In fact, several hours before the planes flew into the World Trade Center and Pentagon I provided the FBI with evidence my husband knew that the attacks were going to take place.

You'd think we all would have heard something about this.

Google turned up this and this article from a Conservative news source. WorldNetDaily has pictures of Hilary Clinton labelled a communist and Anti-Choice t-shirts right there next to the news, so naturally I tried to find other news sources about this story. I mean, obviously the liberal media would be all over this story, what with her alerting the FBI hours before 9-11!

I did manage to dig up this information from LawFuel, which outlines how poorly the judge handled the divorce proceedings and refused to allow Ms. Collins legal representation. Then there's this article at Yahoo! which also says that the judge mishandled the case. Aside from other articles citing WorldNetDaily, that's about all I could turn up.

Even Judicial Watch's site turned up absolutely nothing.

Okay. Let's assume for a moment that her husband does have terrorist ties and while the FBI and American government know about this he is somehow free to walk among us and isn't being held for questioning in Guantanamo. If her husband is as violent as horrible as she says, then the kids should absolutely go to their mother. No question. Assuming all that is true... is that any excuse for this vitriol?

Islam is not a peaceful religion. It wants nothing more than to subjugate the entire earth and will stop at nothing to succeed in doing so.

Yow. You had me from the Not Without My Daughter plot line.

It's time our government realized the true enemy is not just "Islamic Fascists" -- it is Islam itself. And the danger is not abroad, it is here.

The letter listed a number or organizations I should apparently send money to: Judicial Watch, of course, along with TruthforMuslims.com and The Children of Terrorism Rescue Fund.

Now, Truth for Muslims apparently seeks to convert all Muslims to Christianity in the usual nice, kind, loving Christian way:

We at Truth For Muslims are committed to bringing the gospel of Jesus Christ to Muslims in America. Our workers and supporters include Christian workers who have lived in Muslim countries, former Muslims who are now followers of Jesus Christ, Bible believing churches and groups, and a host of volunteers and supporters who are committed to helping Muslims who are seeking the truth to understand the gospel of Jesus Christ.

If you are a Muslim and feel that you would like to learn more about Jesus Christ, we encourage you to get a Bible or New Testament and begin your personal quest for understanding the life and teachings of Jesus Christ by reading and learning for yourself.

Well, there's nothing wrong with that. A passive yet open dialog about Jesus Christ. While Truth for Muslims does mention Rosine and offers to mail her your letter upon request, they rather smartly spare the Anti-Islam nastiness that's actually in her letter.

The Children of Terrorism Rescue Fund appears to be nothing more than a web page that asks for money. That was all I could find.

Now, if the father in this divorce case is in fact abusive, dangerous, and a criminal then there is no question about who the kids should live with. That should be enough. Introducing the idea that Muslims evil and unfit for parenting because of their faith is wrong. Saying that every last one of them living in America is dangerous and has ties to terrorism? More wrong.

We all know how fucked up and dangerous it can be in the Middle East. I'd say it's the best parents who immigrate to America to get their kids out of that environment. Then to get here to face THIS kind of attitude towards them? Ugh.

Then again, we're doing such a great job bringing American democracy to them...

Short Takes: The Gay Cure

I view sexual preference like I view any other preference. I like the color green more than the color red, for instance. It's my color preference. I like dark chocolate and not white chocolate. It's my chocolate preference.

Am I ever going to stop liking dark chocolate? Sadly for my ever-widening ass, no, not any time soon.

I can't be cured of my color and chocolate preference. Whatever caused my preferences, be it from birth or from environment and upbringing, these preferences are who I am.

And I'll probably always like boys. Sendhil Ramamurthy in particular. Damn, he's pretty. Look, look at him. I don't care if you like girls, he's pretty. Enjoy that pic of him. I should post him every day.

My point, and I do have one, is that you can't cure your sexual preference. I can't stop thinking that Sendhil is foxy. What you can do is ignore it, suppress it, and deny it. But it will always be there. It's who you are.

With that in mind, Ted Haggard is not cured. His "dark side" is the same as mine: the love of penises. The fact that he has one too really should't matter in the least. He lied to his followers, telling them that God hates Fags. Now that he's "cured" his church is giving him $130,000.

There's still debate over whether or not the Christian God hates homosexuals. But we all know He hates hypocrites.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. -Matthew 23:27-28

The Chisum Memo

My friend just sent me a memo dated February 9th, 2007, penned by Republican Representative Warren Chisum of Texas (SHOCKER!) that outlines how "evolution science" has a religious agenda and is therefore illegal in the public school system. I kid you not.

It's the obvious next step in the argument for Intelligent Design: accuse evolution of being exactly what ID is accused of being. At this rate, the only thing our kids are going to learn in school is how to poke rocks around with sticks.

After all, our Arabic numerals were based on Buddhist inscriptions. Many theories in mathematics came from those who followed Egyptian and Greek mythology. History has a lot to do with religion, obviously, and I can think of a a few books we read in English class that made mention of God, or were at least written by Christians, Jews, Atheists, and everything in between.

Of course, there's a difference between public schools exposing kids to different religions and telling them which religion is right. We need to trust our kids to take it all in and form their own views, thoughts, and opinions. It's the parents' jobs to set the moral, religious, and ethical compass. That heavy responsibility belongs to no one else but you, Mom and/or Dad.

I'm tempted to go off on a tangent here about censorship to "protect the children!" But we'll stay on task. Getting back to the memo...

Indisputable evidence--long hidden but now available to everyone-- demonstrates conclusively that so-called "secular evolution science" is the Big-Bang 15-billion-year alternate "creation scenario" of the Pharisee Religion.

Holy Hell! Indisputable evidence! Well, shit, I love indisputable evidence! And it's conclusive, too! Hot damn!

This scenario is derived concept-for-concept from Rabbinic writings in the mystic "holy book" Kabbala dating back at least two millenia.

Whoa. Holy book is in quotations. That denotes sarcasm. So this so called book of "holiness" is not to be believed at all! Neat.

The memo goes on to provide three links to this conclusive proof which, strangely enough, all come from one website. Hm. Well, since this is conclusive proof, I'm certain that these links will also cite sources and further proof to back up the claims. It's conclusive and indisputable, after all. Let's take a look see.

This first link gives the purpose of the Bill in a generic form useful to other Legislators and BOE members:

http://www.fixedearth.com/HB%20179%20PART%20I%20MODEL.htm

The second link provides the court cases and Kabbala-related evidence to support the Bill:

http://www.fixedearth.com/HB%20179%20PART%20II%20ATT.EVIDENCE.htm

This third link is optional. It is included to supply more evidence for those who want it.

http://www.fixedearth.com/HB%20179%20PART%20III%20ADDENDUM

Just for shits and giggles, let's pretend Kabbalah's (wth an H) teachings aren't rejected by most Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Jewish circles.

Link #1 pretty much just spells out what the memo does. Evolution is not at all secular, and we have indisputable proof. Marvy. Moving along to this proof.

Link #2, aka, the Evidence, has all sorts of pretty colors. Section 2 on this page lists all the various times that creation was ruled inappropriate to be taught in a public school. Section 3 pretty much says, "Now we're going to show you proof." Okay, get on with it.

Finally in Section 4, we get to the meat.

“Nechunya ben HaKana, a 1^st century Kabbalist asserted that if you know how to use the 42 letter name for God you could decipher a lengthy time between the creation of the universe and man. He estimated the age of the Universe at 15.3 billion years, some 2000 years ago, the very age modern astrophysics have just arrived at….”

Thankfully, they have provided a source for this. It is a Harvard scholar of world religions? Perhaps a Doctor in Jewish Mysticism? Well, we'll never know. As you can see by clicking, the link goes no where. Googling "Nechunya ben HaKana" and "creation of universe" turned up only this statement made by this website and nothing more. Can anyone else verify this claim?


That's all assuming that our man HaKana's deciphering is right. Which... well.. it's not. While the estimates are anywhere between 10 and 20 billion years, the general consensus is 13.7 billion years, give or take 20 million. Sorry, Nechunya.


Moving on...

“I show in my book (The Heavenly Time Machine: The First Six Days) procedures and commentary that lead to a universe age of between 14 and 16 billion years, depending on which procedure one chooses to follow. Some of these numbers can be traced back to the first century almost 2000 years ago. There is a deeply hidden knowledge in the Torah that yields these numbers….”

I don't have this book, sadly. The estimates here are a bit closer. Luckily, the web page provides a link to the essay this is quoted from! But don't bother clicking. Another mysteriously missing nugget of evidence. On the bright side, peez.com is for sale.


Luckily, I'm not a complete idiot. A bit of Googling uncovered a glaring typo in the provided link! It's not peez.com! It's pcez.com! The funny thing about this site is it doesn't pull evidence from any Kabbalic text. It pulls evidence from the beginning of Hebrew Bible. Also known as the Christian Bible's Genesis and Old Testament.


The quote above is cut off. But actually reading the whole article points out that many Jewish scholars interpreted the creation of the universe in the Torah, aka Genesis, in many different ways.

I show in my book procedures and commentary that lead to a universe age of between 14 and 16 billion years, depending on which procedure one chooses to follow. Some of these number can be traced back to the first century, almost two thousand years ago. There is a deeply hidden knowledge in the Torah that yields these numbers. But the truth is that I do not really understand it, and all I can do is report what others have done. I noted before why ordinary people, like this writer, are not privy to this knowledge. Here is one example, connected to the 974 generations that I mention earlier.

So some scholars came to this figure, others did not. The old "monkeys at typewriters" line of thinking. Engelson even closes his essay with:

How old is the universe? I do not know, precisely, and neither does anybody else. Except perhaps the "wise kabbalists" that Nachmanides refers to. But they and the angels, who know the deepest secrets of Torah, are not telling.

Nachanides? Kabbalah? Aha! Is this the evidence we're looking for? Not exactly. Earlier in the essay:

Here is how 13th century Kabbalist and Torah commentator, Nachmanides explains it. "Know that the term 'day' as used in the story of creation was, in the case of the creation of heaven and earth, a real day, composed of hours and seconds, and there were six days like the six days of the workweek, as is the plain meaning of the verse. " He then goes into a kabbalistic explanation involving sayings and emanations, known as sefiroth, because "Emanations issuing from the Most High are called 'days,' for every Divine Saying which evoked an existence is called 'day.'" But he can not tell us very much because these matters involve secrets. And even that which he tells us is shrouded in mystery and "I do hereby firmly make known to him [the reader] that my words will not be comprehended nor known at all by any reasoning or contemplation, excepting from the mouth of a wise Kabbalist."

In the old days before Madonna and red string bracelets, Kabbalah was reserved for only the chosen Rabbis who studied the Torah with the intent of figuring out life's secrets. So this essay is far from evidence. Even Christians can interpret the same exact writings in different ways to come up with an age of the universe.

“…Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan quotes R Yitzchak of Akko (a student of Ramban, late medieval) who concludes from the Zohar that the first creation was 15.8 billion years ago—the age astronomers and physicists seem to be converging on, given multiple ways of measuring the age….”

For the sake of expediency, again, lets assume the Rabbi of Akko came up with this figure. It's still wrong. This evidence comes from a FAQ about Jewish culture. Scroll down to question 12.3 which asks "Does modern science (e.g., "big bang" theory, evolution, the age of the world) contradict traditional readings of the Torah?" It's a question all people of faith should be asking themselves.

And how does this collection of Jewish scholars and rabbis answer this question?

Probably, but science is getting better all the time and one can expect agreement eventually...

Seriously, there are numerous neo-traditional readings that put new interpretations on various commentaries and are allegedly compatible with Orthodoxy.

Judaism has a long tradition of not interpreting the creation narrative of Genesis 1 literally. Rambam [Maimonides], for example, warns at the beginning of his [5]Mishneh Torah that the literal reading of the opening of Bereshis [Genesis] is for the masses. [The non-literal reading he had in mind was metaphysical, not scientific. See [6]The Guide for the Perplexed.] Both literalism and non-literalism have a long history, yielding a variety of resolutions of the problem of creation and science.

Once again the answer is "it depends on who you ask," not "OMFG WE INVENTED EVOLUTION TO RUIN X-IANITY AND AMERICA LOLZ!!1!" No conclusive evidence here, either. This is looking bleak. And increasingly anti-Semitic.

“Let’s look at the development of time, day by day, based on the expansion factor [1 million times 1 million from start till now]. The calculations come out to be as follows:

• The first Biblical day lasted 24 hours…But…from our perspective it was 8 billion years.

• The second day of 24 hours…was 4 billion years.
• The third day of 24 hours…was two billion years.
• The fourth day of 24 hours…was 1 billion years.
• The fifth day of 24 hours…was ½ billion years.
• The sixth day of 24 hours…was ¼ billion years.

Then you add it up [Kabbalist physicist Schroeder continues] and you get 15 ¾ billion years…the same as modern cosmology allows….”

Once again, the magical and wrong number of 15. And even then, it says right there "from our perspective." Still no evidence. Once more, this "perspective" can be achieved with Christian text as well. A way of interpreting religion to fit with science. While they don't provide the source, it's clear that this is a modern scholar who didn't invent evolution. Dr. Schroeder had both the Torah and evolution in front of him when he came up with his theories. Further evidence that this is NOT evidence of evolution being invented by Kabbalists.

Let's skip ahead a bit. This "conclusive evidence" is getting us no where.

It is now known that the Kabbala, the most holy book the Religion of the Pharisees, is the source of all the concepts which make up today’s Big Bang "Origins Scenario", and it is that Scenario which provides the billions of years required by the “theory of evolution” which the Courts have heretofore viewed as “secular evolution science”.

Glossing over the fact that no, no there is no evidence that "Kabbala" is the source of evolution, let's just tackle that first chunk, "Kabbala, the most holy book in the Religion of the Pharisees."

Once more. Quoth the Wiki: "Kabbalah esoterically interprets the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) and classical Jewish texts (halakha and aggadah) and practices (mitzvot), as expressing a mystical doctrine concerning God's simultaneous immanence and transcendence."

There is no book "Kabbala" or Kabbalah. Let's assume they meant the Torah. Another typo. Kabbalah is studying the Torah for hidden meaning, right? Right, let's assume they meant the Torah.

Now, the Christian view of the Pharisees isn't a very positive one.

"But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in." (Matthew 23:13 RSV).

And then the Pharisees got Jesus killed. Yeah, the Christians don't like the Pharisees too much.

But wait! We already established there isn't any Holy Book called the Kabbala. No, it's the Torah. And sure, the Pharisees followed the Torah along with what was called the Oral Torah. The Pharisees eventually becamed the Rabbinic Jews whose views and philosophies are still practiced today by orthodox and conservative Jews.

So... basically what we're getting as is that evolution is all a sham invented by the Jews.

Link #3 gets only more disturbing.

What kind of “Jewish physics” is it that has garnered 26% of all the Nobel Prizes awarded to all the Physicists in the world when the total Jewish population is only ¼ of 1 percent of the world’s population? That means that a Jewish physicist is 104 times as likely to win a Nobel Prize in Physics as any other physicist. When other prestigious international awards in physics are counted in (e.g.,the Wolf Prize; the Max Planck Medaille; the Dirac Medal; the Dannie Heineman Prize; the Enrico Fermi award; the Atoms for Peace Award) the percentage of Jewish physicists who win is over 43%. This makes a Jewish physicist 172 times as likely to win as any other physicist. Interesting, isn’t it?

Jesus. That's really scary. No, not the part about the Jews taking over "science," but the fact that someone believes that the Jews are taking over science. I don't even know if the math is right here, anyone want to tackle that?

What's interesting to me is that Jews are more often able to fit their faith into science than Christians are. Throughout history, Jewish people have been able to look beyond their Holy Book while, as all this "evidence" shows, Christians, historically, have not. Early Jewish scholars were able to view beautiful old language as metaphors, studied beyond the black and white text to discover much more about this world than what was just in the pages of an old book.

The evidence for evolution has always been here. It didn't pop up all of a sudden when Darwin started looking at it. These scholars didn't see the evidence for evolution, blame it on devils and ignore it completely. These scholars saw it and fit it into what they knew: religion.

Katherine Harris is Wrong, Pt. 1

“We have to have the faithful in government and over time, that lie we have been told, the separation of church and state, people have internalized, thinking that they needed to avoid politics and that is so wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers. And if we are the ones not actively involved in electing those godly men and women and if people aren’t involved in helping godly men in getting elected than we’re going to have a nation of secular laws. That’s not what our founding fathers intended and that’s certainly isn’t what God intended. … we need to take back this country. … And if we don’t get involved as Christians then how could we possibly take this back? …If you are not electing Christians, tried and true, under public scrutiny and pressure, if you’re not electing Christians then in essence you are going to legislate sin. They can legislate sin. They can say that abortion is alright. They can vote to sustain gay marriage. And that will take western civilization, indeed other nations because people look to our country as one nation as under God and whenever we legislate sin and we say abortion is permissible and we say gay unions are permissible, then average citizens who are not Christians, because they don’t know better, we are leading them astray and it’s wrong.”

You remember Katherine Harris, right? Those words are hers, fom The Florida Baptist Witness, first published August 24, 2006. We know she lost the Florida Senate bid in 2006, and that even Republicans were distancing themselves from her when it came down to the wire.

We'll be coming back to her to debunk more of bullshit. For now, let's just tackle this single, insane rant. Why bother? She lost the election after all. The fact remains that there are people who believe her, and voted for her. So if ever you need to argue with people who share her view, I'm going to give you some ammo.

Let's go through some of the nuggets I've put in bold.

...that lie we have been told, the separation of church and state... -Katherine Harris, 2006

This is a common one from conservative Christians with a political agenda. So what, exactly, is this term? We've all heard it, but what does it mean? Where does it come from?

The concept of separation of church and state is outlined somewhat vaguely in the first amendment of the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Like any other old-timey documents, (the Bible for example,) this is open to interpretation. Respecting can have a few meanings. It's very carefully worded. It could mean that Congress can make no law in regards to the establishment of a religion. Or maybe Congress can make no law preferring a single religion over another.

The next part is easy, the government can't tell you that you can't practice your religion. If you want to dress up as a pirate and worship a Flying Spaghetti Monster, it's your right and you have the freedom to do so. Other people might not like it and try to stop you, but the government cannot.

Now with any great writings, this one went through a few drafts first. It's true! After all, even the Bible has been edited over time, but that's something we'll tackle later. Here are some highlights of the earlier drafts of the Bill of Rights, starting with James Madison's original proposal:

“The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.”

The language was altered in the House to read:

“Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience.”

In the Senate, the section adopted read:

“Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion, . . .”

This is some fascinating stuff, and there's even more information out there. I highly recommend reading it all. Here's a bit more from Cornell's Annotated Constitution.

It was in the conference committee of the two bodies, chaired by Madison, that the present language was written with its somewhat more indefinite “respecting” phraseology.4 Debate in Congress lends little assistance in interpreting the religion clauses; Madison’s position, as well as that of Jefferson who influenced him, is fairly clear,5 but the intent, insofar as there was one, of the others in Congress who voted for the language and those in the States who voted to ratify is subject to speculation.

So the intent of our founding fathers is pretty clear. In fact, it was Jefferson himself who coined the phrase "separation of church and state."

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

So that debunks another of Harris' quotes, "That’s not what our founding fathers intended and that’s certainly isn’t what God intended." It's exactly what our founding fathers intended.

I love researching the religious views of Jefferson, Madison, Franklin and the gang. I could go on forever about what exactly they thought of Christianity, but there's lots out there for you to read yourself. Another fun point you should keep and use if this debate ever pops up? Any American governmental document, money, or pledge that makes mention of God does not mention Christ.

Scouting Legal Defense Fund "Poll"

This little gem came in the mail yesterday. It's from an organization called the Scouting Legal Defense Fund, whose parent organization is actually the American Civil Rights Union. That's right, the ACRU. Very tricksy. Just one letter away from their nemesis, the American Civil Liberties Union, or ACLU. In this case, they're fired up about homosexuals in the Boy Scouts.

Back in 2000, the Supreme Court decided that in the case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale, the Boy Scouts, as a private, not-for-profit organization, can in fact discriminate against homosexuals. While this policy of hate and exclusion is undeniably wrong and despicable, the Boy Scouts, as a private organization, have the freedom to discriminate. It's not fair or just, but it's freedom. That I grudgingly have to accept. The old "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend your right to say it" adage. Sort of like the KKK and the Nazi party. Well, not just like, but you get my drift about the freedoms of private organizations.

Case closed, right? Wrong. Fast forward seven years, when this is received in the mail. Play close attention to the wording.

Boy Scouts of America
v.
American Civil Liberties Union

Nationwide Poll conducted by the Scouting Legal Defense Fund

DIRECTIONS: Please carefully consider each of the following questions on the Boy Scouts v. ACLU National Poll and mark your answers accordingly. Be sure to complete both sections of your Poll Ballot , including the Reply and contribution decision. Please do not delay your response. Your answers are needed at once so as not to delay the final Poll tabulation. A pre-addressed envelope is enclosed to speed the return of your Poll Ballot.

Part I: Poll Ballot

Question 1. Extremist ACLU lawyers claim that the Boy Scouts are biased against homosexuals. But the Constitution guarantees the right to "freedom of association." In your view, does this mean the Boy Scouts have the right to reject avowed homosexual Scout Masters?

___Yes ___No ___Unsure

Let's start at the top. The claim that the BSA is biased against homosexuals. Bias is an unfair act or policy stemming from prejudice.

According to BSAlegal.org, "Boy Scouts of America believes that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the obligations in the Scout Oath and Law to be morally straight and clean in thought, word, and deed. Scouting’s moral position with respect to homosexual conduct accords with the moral positions of many millions of Americans and with religious denominations to which a majority of Americans belong. Because of these views concerning the morality of homosexual conduct, Boy Scouts of America believes that a known or avowed homosexual is not an appropriate role model of the Scout Oath and Law for adolescent boys."

So, yes. Because of the prejudice that all gays are immoral and dirty in thought, word and deed, yes, the BSA is biased. Other article I found disgustingly assumes that being a homosexual male is the same as being a pedophile.

But notice they don't ask that. They ask if the BSA have a right to the freedom of association. They do. Supreme Court said so. Here, as a liberal, I'm forced to check yes.

Question 2. Would accepting homosexual Scout Masters damage the Boy Scouts' mission to instill values and morality in school age children?

___Yes ___No ___Unsure

Well, since this is a conservative Christian mailing going out to conservative Christians, this one is a gimme. The answer to this one depends on your personal views of values and morality. I'd personally rather leave my kids with an "avowed" gay man than a Catholic priest, but hey, that's just me.

Question 3. In your opinion is the ACLU campaign to force homosexual Scout Masters on the Boy Scouts really just an attempt to crush and destroy the entire Boy Scout Organization?

___Yes ___No ___Unsure

Wow. Just... wow. Forcing homosexuals on young boys. Nicely worded. Great image, too, thanks.

The latest action (that I could find) from the ACLU and the BSA's discrimination stems from the BSA not admitting atheists. The ACLU successfully brought an end to local governmental funding for troops. This is not about forcing anything on any private organization. The BSA can do whatever they want, the Supreme Court decided that. But a private organization that exercises policies that would not be accepted in a public one should not receive public funding.

BSA wants public funding, they should go public and let in all the gays, girls, and atheists. Somehow doubt that's going to happen. This one gets a NO.

Question 4. Former Ronald Reagan's Attorney General, Ed Meese, once called the ACLU "the criminal's lobby." Do you think the ACLU is qualified to pass judgment on the Boy Scouts of America?

___Yes ___No ___Unsure

The obligatory Reagan reference. We'll be seeing it again in the future. Conservative Christians love them some Reagan. And of course, this reference has absolutely nothing to do with the question they ask.

Is the ACLU qualified to pass judgment? No. But that isn't what they do! The courts pass judgment! Not the ACLU! The ACLU simply helps those who have been wronged when it comes to civil liberties! Argh! One more.

Question 5. Should the Boy Scouts fight against the ACLU and others that with to destroy the morals, ethics and values that have been the bedrock of the Scouts for almost 100 years?

___Yes ___No ___Unsure

And now we're back to the ol' "Gays destroying America!" bit. God hates fags, yeah, we've heard it all before.

We don't want to see the BSA destroyed. Nobody wants that. I love their popcorn. I love that they get boys active, making friends, volunteering, camping, that's all great stuff. But only allowing those considered worthy enough to take part in such a great organization? That's wrong.

So, getting back to the point. Gays in the BSA was settled back in 2000. Why am I getting this in the mail now, in 2007?

The answer would be in part two of the poll: donations to the cause.

The current political climate and increasing hatred and intolerance towards the gay community makes it great timing for getting some cash. Remember not too long ago when gay was still kind of cool? Will and Grace, Queer Eye, the Metrosexual movement? That passed. It's over. Now the cool thing is hating gays, and this "poll" is taking advantage of the fact. Most people will have completely forgotten the Supreme Court Decision by now, and assume this is new news. It's not.

It's propaganda. It wants to get you fearful, angry, and fired up. And it's full of complete and utter bullshit.

The Power of Misinformation

To the typical liberal (or even the typical moderate,) many claims made by the Right can be, well, bonkers.

From "fags are all child molesters," to "Planned Parenthood loves to kill babies," and let's not forget "The ACLU is destroying freedom," it can be mindboggling. None of these things are true. The typical, sane, rational person knows that.

Yet the craziest conservatives continue to pump this misinformation out there. The person who would actually believe these things won't give their "facts" a second look or a moment of research to uncover the truth.

I'm going to. I have access to a crazy number of mailings, pamphlets, polls, and propaganda from conservative groups, and I think it's time share their tactics with you all. The misinformation, the carefully phrased words, the fear, the bigotry, and the flat out lies they use is not only appalling, it must somehow be effective. They keep doing it.

So let's make it very clear how wrong wrong wrong it is. Welcome to my blog. You might want to wear galoshes.