CoalitionForFreeThought

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Re: Guns from America fuel Jamaica’s gang wars
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:06:33 -0400
From: Flash Gordon <”Flash “@Planet.Mongo.gov>
Organization: TBM Newsfeeds
Newsgroups: misc.survivalism,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.guns,alt.religion.christian

>> HH&C wrote:

>>> On Jun 28, 12:32 pm, “RD (The Sandman)” <rdsandman(spamlock)
>>>> At the time, the legal advice was that it wasn’t illegal.  Immoral
>>>> is in
>>>> the eyes of the beholder.  What you consider immoral, I may not and
>>>> vice
>>>> versa.

> “BamaBrian” <claypoolbrian@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:h2am2g$avl$2@news.eternal-september.org…

________________________________________________
>>> Allowing another terrorist event is moral?  Apparently Smudge thinks
>>> so.
________________________________________________
>> Maybe we should just start grabbing innocent-appearing citizens off
>> the streets at random and torture them, just to find out what secrets
>> they may know.

*You do*, it’s called seatbelt laws where you stop someone for safety  -
while the same police departments tell you that statically the most
dangerous part of driving is leaving and entering traffic.

Then Police try to intimidate you into allowing a search of the car.
They attempt to goat you into doing something wrong like being obstinate
so they can cuff you and then bully you into confessing to anything they
can trick you into saying.  And when all else fails they fabricate
reasons for tickets to get you aggravated and cause you pain. That is a
roving, random, torture session to get secrets.

>> Of course, we may have to seize ten, just to learn something useful
>> from one, but you can’t make an omelet without killing a few innocents…

They seize dozens before they get one with drugs, or that one who will
take a swing at an abrasive and abusive cop….  The police know how to
manipulate a situation for their desired purpose of getting you in
handcuffs and having total control of you so they can question you
illegally.  They’ll play you like a cheap guitar, and break you up
without hesitation.

The old *To Serve and Protect* is long gone, they are jack booted storm
troopers that will invade all your individual privacy.

FrontPage Magazine - Anti-Savage Nation

Although the new blacklist is intended to inspire confidence in the Home Office’s ability to counter the threat of extremist violence, it actually suggests the opposite conclusion. Not only does this list skirt the pressing threat of domestic Islamic extremism, but to the extent that it punishes the holders of certain opinions, it actually encourages Islamists who see free speech as one of the many expendable features of the democratic society they oppose. Still, give the strategically misdirected authorities credit. They may have done little to make Britons safer, but at least they’ve prevented Michael Savage from taking his next vacation in London.

Lifsabsurd wrote:

Scrubbing the Internet clean.  Reminds one of Orwell’s book, 1984.

Down The Rabbit Hole Alice

You know I was noticing that Liberals were asking for URL’s to where I found stuff that was negative on Obama and that when I saw them doing this, I later found that the Page I sited was missing…..  I think it is a process that has already started and it’s being done by those like the Chinese that force GooGle to scrub the Google web of anti Chinese sites that they allow access to in China.

I think the Socialist and Liberals are doing some of this for political reasons, I’m sure there are others running around suing and threatening and like ACORN did, bullying sites to remove content.  I have seen plenty of YouTube videos that disappeared.

It’s a brave new world of indoctrination out there and Obama seems to be a whiz at it.

When I first met Barack Obama, he was giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the livingroom of those two legends-in-their-own-minds, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. They were launching him–introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread.

I originally read about this post at a Politico piece about the Ayers-Obama relationship in February 2008. That post identified the name of the blog, and Maria Warren as the author. But Politico did not link Warren’s post; I found it and linked it based on the evidence provided by Politico. Yesterday I sent the link to the L.A. Times as part of a request for a correction of the error in their editorial.

As far as I know, I was the first blogger to directly link Warren’s blog entry — and I did so last Thursday.

Now it’s Monday, and this blog entry — which had been around since January 27, 2005 — is suddenly gone. (H/t Jim Treacher.)

Down The Rabbit Hole Alice

Statements made in the media can surreptitiously plant distortions in the minds of millions. Learning to recognize two commonly used fallacies can help you separate fact from fictionBy Yvonne Raley and Robert Talisse

In 2003 nearly half of all Americans falsely assumed that the U.S. government had found solid evidence for a link between Iraq and al Qaeda. What is more, almost a quarter of us believed that investigators had all but confirmed the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, according to a 2003 report by the University of Maryland’s Program on International Policy Attitudes and Knowledge Networks, a polling and market research firm. How did the true situation in Iraq become so grossly distorted in American minds?

Many people have attributed such misconceptions to a politically motivated disinformation campaign to engender support for the armed struggle in Iraq. We do not think the deceptions were premeditated, however. Instead they are most likely the result of common types of reasoning errors, which appear frequently in discussions in the news media and which can easily fool an unsuspecting public.

News shows often have an implicit bias that may motivate the portrayal of facts and opinions in misleading ways, even if the information presented is largely accurate. Nevertheless, by becoming familiar with how spokespeople can create false impressions, media consumers can learn to ignore certain claims and thereby avoid getting duped. We have detected two general types of fallacies—one of them well known and the other newly identified—that have permeated discussion of the Iraq War and that are generally ubiquitous in political debates and other discourse.

Spinning Straw into Fool’s Gold
One common method of spinning information is the so-called straw man argument. In this tactic, a person summarizes the opposition’s position inaccurately so as to weaken it and then refutes that inaccurate rendition. In a November 2005 speech, for example, President George W. Bush responded to questions about pulling troops out of Iraq by saying, “We’ve heard some people say, pull them out right now. That’s a huge mistake. It’d be a terrible mistake. It sends a bad message to our troops, and it sends a bad message to our enemy, and it sends a bad message to the Iraqis.” The statement that unnamed “people” are advocating a troop withdrawal from Iraq “right now” is a straw man, because it exaggerates the opposing viewpoint. Not even the most stalwart Bush adversaries backed an immediate troop withdrawal. Most proposed that the soldiers be sent home over several months, a more reasonable and persuasive plan that Bush undercut with his straw man.

The straw man is used in countless other contexts as well. In his acceptance speech at the 1996 Democratic Convention, for instance, Bill Clinton opined: “… with all respect [to Bob Dole], we do not need to build a bridge to the past. We need to build a bridge to the future.” Dole did discuss restoring the values of an earlier America, but Clinton falsely implied that Dole was only looking backward (whereas Clinton was looking forward). People may use a straw man to discredit theories to which they do not subscribe. Characterizing evolution, for example, as “all random chance” is a straw man argument; it misrepresents a complex theory that only partly rests on the randomness of mutations that may lead to better chances of survival.

Recently, in a 2006 paper co-authored with Scott F. Aikin, one of us (Talisse) documented a twist on the straw man tactic. In what Talisse dubs a weak man argument, a person sets up the opposition’s weakest (or one of its weakest) arguments or proponents for attack, as opposed to misstating a rival’s position as the straw man argument does. In a July 2007 edition of Talking Points, Bill O’Reilly took on a claim by the New York Times that we had lost the war in Iraq by saying that “the New York Times declared defeat in Iraq Sunday on its editorial page, and there’s no question the antiwar movement has momentum.” (The editorial actually said that “some opponents of the Iraq war are toying with the idea of American defeat,” but let us assume that O’Reilly’s characterization was correct.)

O’Reilly then offered a weak man explanation for the purported defeat: “The truth is the Iraqi government and many of its citizens are simply not doing enough to defeat the terrorists and corruption. The U.S.A. can’t control that country. No nation could…. Unfortunately, the Iraqi failure to help themselves has come true.” Although Iraq’s failure to aid in fighting terrorism and corruption could be why we are losing the war, the troubles in Iraq could also stem from a host of logistical reasons, some of which may shed a negative light on the current administration. O’Reilly, however, kept any discussion of these reasons offstage, suppressing the various other possible—and possibly more likely—reasons for “defeat” in Iraq. Meanwhile his claims that the “U.S.A. can’t control that country” and that “no nation could” deflected blame from the U.S. government.

Weak man arguments are pervasive. In a 2005 editorial in Denver’s Rocky Mountain News, conservative writer and activist David Horowitz picked on ethnic studies scholar Ward Churchill, formerly at the University of Colorado at Boulder, whose views he described as “hateful and ignorant.” Horowitz then went on to claim that Churchill’s radical “hate America” convictions “represent” those of a “substantial seg­ment of the academic community.” Thus, he used the example of Churchill (the weak man) to argue that “tenured radicals” have made universities into leftist political institutions and subverted the academic enterprise, thereby failing to acknowledge the presence of more highly regarded and politically mainstream scholars in academia.

Trolling for Truth
Weak man tactics are harder to detect than those of the straw man variety. Because straw man arguments are closely related to an opponent’s true position, a clever listener might be able to spot the truth amid the hyperbole, understatement or other corrupted version of that view. A weak man argument, however, is more opaque because it contains a grain of truth and often bears little similarity to the stronger arguments that should also be presented. Therefore, a listener has to know a lot more about the situation to imagine the information that a speaker or writer has cleverly disregarded.

Nevertheless, an astute consumer of the news can catch many straw man and weak man fallacies by knowing how they work. Another strategy is to always consider a speaker’s or writer’s motivation or agenda and be especially alert for skewed statements of fact in editorials, television opinion shows, and the like. It is also wise to obtain news from more balanced news sources. An alternative approach is to try to construct, in your own mind, the best argument against what you have heard before accepting it as true. Or simply ask yourself: Why should I not believe this?

By LAURA CLARK - More by this author » Last updated at 20:17pm on 31st January 2008

New study: Patriotism lessons could be introduced to foster nation pride but teachers think it could exclude non-British pupils
“Moral failings” in Britain’s past mean pupils should not be taught patriotism, teachers said in a survey.

Nearly 90 per cent opposed plans for history and citizenship lessons aimed at fostering national identity and pride.

One of the 47 London teachers questioned said the lessons might encourage “BNP-”type thinking”. Another said the idea “reeked of the old British empire”.

In a report based on its findings, the Institute of Education said Britain’s “morally ambiguous” history suggested patriotism should be covered as a “controversial issue” only.

The Left-leaning institute polled 47 teachers and 299 students at secondary schools in the capital.

Three-quarters of the staff said they felt obliged to alert their pupils to the dangers of patriotic sentiments.

“Praising patriotism excludes non-British pupils,” said one.

“Patriotism about being British in my experience tends to be a white preserve so divides groups along racial lines, when what we aim to do is bring pupils to an understanding of what makes us all the same.”

Another said: “It can be quite divisive. There is a propensity for that sort of BNP-type thinking to come through.”

A third said: “Left to my own devices I wouldn’t dream of covering it really, explicitly. To me it sort of reeks of the old British empire.”

Despite these remarks, more than half the teachers and students in the survey agreed that it was a good thing for citizens to be patriotic.

Michael Hand, the report’s author, said: “Gordon Brown and David Cameron have both called for a history curriculum that fosters attachment and loyalty to Britain.

“But the case for promoting patriotism in schools is weak.

“Patriotism is love of one’s country, but are countries really appropriate objects of love? Loving things can be bad for us, for example when the things we love are morally corrupt.

“Since all national histories are at best morally ambiguous, it’s an open question whether citizens should love their countries.”

Revamped citizenship lessons being introduced later this year will require secondary pupils to learn about British values such as tolerance and free speech.

They will have to study national identity “through the prism of history”, including the legacy of empire.

There was an outcry last year when Winston Churchill was dropped from a list of figures which needed to be covered in history, although the Second World War remains compulsory.

Chris McGovern, director of the History Curriculum Association pressure group, said: “We are actually causing children to be unpatriotic by skewing the curriculum towards making children feel guilty about their history.”

By Graeme Paton and Liz Lightfoot
Last Updated: 2:11am BST 18/07/2007Poor history lessons are fueling political and social divisions between England and Scotland, a new study claims.

Failure to teach children the origins of the Act of Union - which laid the foundations of the UK - has created “misunderstanding and resentment” between the nations. British history is being reduced to courses about England with little mention of Ireland, Scotland or Wales beyond war between the countries, according to the report.
advertisement
Click to learn more…

The shared history of the different nations is ignored because of the focus on conflict. “History shows a lot of peaceful contact, which is not reflected in the curriculum and it feeds stereotypes and suspicions,” said Sean Lang, a research fellow at Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, who led the inquiry, commissioned by the Conservatives.

The report, which will be considered by the shadow cabinet as part of its policy review, says the Government’s plan to teach “Britishness” by focusing on British history in citizenship lessons will fail because it is taught by staff who lack expertise. It calls for citizenship to be abolished and history made compulsory to age 16.

History is rated by Ofsted, the schools watchdog, as one of the best-taught lessons in the curriculum. But more than two thirds of pupils drop the subject at age 14 and the situation is getting worse as some schools move away from history towards citizenship.

The report, compiled by the History Practitioners’ Advisory Team, a panel of teachers and lecturers, says schools ignore key dates, such as the 1707 Act of Union.

This Essay Breaks the LawArticle Tools Sponsored By
By MICHAEL CRICHTON
Published: March 19, 2006• The Earth revolves around the Sun.• The speed of light is a constant.

• Apples fall to earth because of gravity.

• Elevated blood sugar is linked to diabetes.

• Elevated uric acid is linked to gout.

• Elevated homocysteine is linked to heart disease.

• Elevated homocysteine is linked to B-12 deficiency, so doctors should test homocysteine levels to see whether the patient needs vitamins.

ACTUALLY, I can’t make that last statement. A corporation has patented that fact, and demands a royalty for its use. Anyone who makes the fact public and encourages doctors to test for the condition and treat it can be sued for royalty fees. Any doctor who reads a patient’s test results and even thinks of vitamin deficiency infringes the patent. A federal circuit court held that mere thinking violates the patent.

All this may sound absurd, but it is the heart of a case that will be argued before the Supreme Court on Tuesday. In 1986 researchers filed a patent application for a method of testing the levels of homocysteine, an amino acid, in the blood. They went one step further and asked for a patent on the basic biological relationship between homocysteine and vitamin deficiency. A patent was granted that covered both the test and the scientific fact. Eventually, a company called Metabolite took over the license for the patent.

Although Metabolite does not have a monopoly on test methods — other companies make homocysteine tests, too — they assert licensing rights on the correlation of elevated homocysteine with vitamin deficiency. A company called LabCorp used a different test but published an article mentioning the patented fact. Metabolite sued on a number of grounds, and has won in court so far.

But what the Supreme Court will focus on is the nature of the claimed correlation. On the one hand, courts have repeatedly held that basic bodily processes and “products of nature” are not patentable. That’s why no one owns gravity, or the speed of light. But at the same time, courts have granted so-called correlation patents for many years. Powerful forces are arrayed on both sides of the issue.

In addition, there is the rather bizarre question of whether simply thinking about a patented fact infringes the patent. The idea smacks of thought control, to say nothing of unenforceability. It seems like something out of a novel by Philip K. Dick — or Kafka. But it highlights the uncomfortable truth that the Patent Office and the courts have in recent decades ruled themselves into a corner from which they must somehow extricate themselves.

For example, the human genome exists in every one of us, and is therefore our shared heritage and an undoubted fact of nature. Nevertheless 20 percent of the genome is now privately owned. The gene for diabetes is owned, and its owner has something to say about any research you do, and what it will cost you. The entire genome of the hepatitis C virus is owned by a biotech company. Royalty costs now influence the direction of research in basic diseases, and often even the testing for diseases. Such barriers to medical testing and research are not in the public interest. Do you want to be told by your doctor, “Oh, nobody studies your disease any more because the owner of the gene/enzyme/correlation has made it too expensive to do research?”

The question of whether basic truths of nature can be owned ought not to be confused with concerns about how we pay for biotech development, whether we will have drugs in the future, and so on. If you invent a new test, you may patent it and sell it for as much as you can, if that’s your goal. Companies can certainly own a test they have invented. But they should not own the disease itself, or the gene that causes the disease, or essential underlying facts about the disease. The distinction is not difficult, even though patent lawyers attempt to blur it. And even if correlation patents have been granted, the overwhelming majority of medical correlations, including those listed above, are not owned. And shouldn’t be.

Leaders to debate face to face as race row grows· Clinton camp accuses Obama of distorting words
· Bitter exchanges reflect closeness of contestEwen MacAskill and Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Tuesday January 15, 2008
The Guardian

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama come face to face tonight for the first time since their two camps embarked on the dangerous strategy of trying to extract political gain from the race issue.

After Obama’s victory in Iowa and Clinton’s in New Hampshire, the two candidates, who are meeting for a debate in Las Vegas, are looking to break the tie in Nevada on Saturday or South Carolina the following week.

The increasingly ugly exchanges over race reflect the importance of South Carolina, where about half the Democratic voters are African-American.

LEXINGTON, Mass. — There is more controversy at a Lexington elementary school, where once again a parent is upset about gay themes being inserted into the curriculum.

This time, the mother of a second-grader is upset that her son’s teacher read the class a book highlighting two gay princes.

NewsCenter 5’s Gail Huff reported that some parents of students at the Estabrook Elementary School are upset that the students were read a book called “King and King,” the story of prince who is interested in the brother of the princess.

“My problem is that this issue of romantic attraction between two men is being presented to my 7-year-old as wonderful and good and the way things should be,” parent Robin Wirthlin said. “We feel like 7 years old is not appropriate to introduce homosexual themes.”

The Estabrook School is the same school that garnered attention last year after another father, David Parker, was arrested when he protested the school’s decision to have his 5-year-old son’s class read a book depicting gay families. Parker was arrested and banned from school property for refusing to leave without a promise from school officials that he would be notified in advance if similar material was going to be taught.

Although school officials said their goal in exposing the children to such topics was to be inclusive as possible, Parker’s position was not tolerated.

“We want all of our families and all of the children to feel that they’re welcome and included there, and one of the ways to do that is to show different kinds of families,” school committee member Helen Cohen said.

The school superintendent, Paul Ash, issued a statement about the latest controversy saying, “The Lexington school system cherishes diversity … we welcome children and families of all backgrounds, including families headed by same-sex parents.”

Wirthlin said she and other parents should be notified in advance when such topics will be addressed so they can remove their children from the class.

February 6th, 2008

In the following passage, Einstein illuminates the importance of intellectual autonomy to the creation of critical societies:

Only the individual can think, and thereby create new values for society, nay, even set up new moral standards to which the life of the community conforms. Without creative personalities able to think and judge independently, the upward development of society is as unthinkable as the development of the community…In politics not only are leaders lacking, but the independence of spirit and the sense of justice of the citizen have to a great extent declined…In two weeks the sheeplike masses of any country can be worked up by the newspapers into such a state of excited fury that men are prepared to put on uniforms and kill and be killed…the present manifestations of decadence are explained by the fact that economic and technologic developments have highly intensified the struggle for existence, greatly to the detriment of the free development of the individual
Last Updated ( Wednesday, 06 February 2008 )