Do Only 6% Understand Science?

[Old Rocks]

If you want to continue believing you know liberalism better than a liberal, feel free.

Anyone with half a brain realizes you're just talking bullshit though.

"Anyone with half a brain...."

Well....in that case, you qualify.



And, yeah....I understand liberals better than a liar who refuses to admit that I posted the aims of liberals- and communists- in that post.
…That's more of a sure thing than freshly fried fox in a forest fire.


I just lit you up brighter than Marie Curie.

Dumb de dumb dumb dumber.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If you want to continue believing you know liberalism better than a liberal, feel free.

Anyone with half a brain realizes you're just talking bullshit though.

"Anyone with half a brain...."

Well....in that case, you qualify.



And, yeah....I understand liberals better than a liar who refuses to admit that I posted the aims of liberals- and communists- in that post.
…That's more of a sure thing than freshly fried fox in a forest fire.


I just lit you up brighter than Marie Curie.

Dumb de dumb dumb dumber.

Well, if you feel up to it....you're welcome to take a shot at disproving that Liberals aim for the same ends as communists did.....

...as per post #73.




Whenever your ready, Rocks.

 

[Derideo_Te]

2014 and PoliticalSpice continues on her personal quest to dumb down Science in America to 1 AD levels.

Why does she hate America so much?

 

[Destroyer2]

2014 and PoliticalSpice continues on her personal quest to dumb down Science in America to 1 AD levels.

Why does she hate America so much?

I don't think she hates America.

She just wants to be right very desperately.

 

[Derideo_Te]

2014 and PoliticalSpice continues on her personal quest to dumb down Science in America to 1 AD levels.

Why does she hate America so much?

I don't think she hates America.

She just wants to be right very desperately.

PoliticalSpice hates at least half of all Americans.

She hates Science.

She hates Obama and wants him to fail.

She hates being exposed as being wrong 100% of the time.

So given that she spends all of her time here devoted to hating Americans and the things that make it great it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that she hates America.

 

[Vox]

As a life-long smoker myself (pipe last few years having quit ciggies,) while I don't like smoking restrictions, I'm sympathetic to non-smoker's rights not to have to smell or breathe in second-hand smoke. While I'm not familar with the science of second-hand smoke, for me it's moot. It's a matter of politeness and consideration for those around me, especially when kids are about. I vividly recall how I often felt being around my Mom and Dad both smokers and it wasn't pleasant. So if a park or other locale wants to forbid smoking, long as there's somewhere I can go I'm ok with it.

thank you.

 

[Vox]

Political Chic, you are wrong on this one.

Imposing the debris of your habit ( and second hand smoke is a waste of a smoker) is rude, self-righteous, impolite and totalitarian.

And there are plenty of harm caused by second hand smoke to everybody - it does not have to be lung cancer developing next month.

It is the increased prevalence of reactive airway disease which is the most common effect of second hand smoking.

Just one of the few. Won't, most likely kill you, but is is a disease and is avoidable.

http://www.pediatricsdigest.mobi/content/131/3/407.short
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
Directly measured second hand smoke exposure and asthma health outcomes -- Eisner et al. 60 (10): 814 -- Thorax
CDC - Fact Sheet - Health Effects of Secondhand Smoke - Smoking & Tobacco Use
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/121/6/ehp.1306611.pdf

just a FEW.

there is many, many more.

second hand smoke is DETRIMENTAL to the health of the involved and KUDOS to the authorities of the cities and communities which ban public smoking everywhere - as it should be banned.

don't impose the debris of your pleasure ON ME!

 

[FA_Q2]

Political Chic, you are wrong on this one.

Imposing the debris of your habit ( and second hand smoke is a waste of a smoker) is rude, self-righteous, impolite and totalitarian.

And there are plenty of harm caused by second hand smoke to everybody - it does not have to be lung cancer developing next month.

It is the increased prevalence of reactive airway disease which is the most common effect of second hand smoking.

Just one of the few. Won't, most likely kill you, but is is a disease and is avoidable.

http://www.pediatricsdigest.mobi/content/131/3/407.short
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
Directly measured second hand smoke exposure and asthma health outcomes -- Eisner et al. 60 (10): 814 -- Thorax
CDC - Fact Sheet - Health Effects of Secondhand Smoke - Smoking & Tobacco Use
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/121/6/ehp.1306611.pdf

just a FEW.

there is many, many more.

second hand smoke is DETRIMENTAL to the health of the involved and KUDOS to the authorities of the cities and communities which ban public smoking everywhere - as it should be banned.

don't impose the debris of your pleasure ON ME!

No one imposes jack shit on you. It is those that don't like smokers or smoking doing the imposing by demanding they do not partake in a legal activity where they might be. There is nothing requiring you to stand near a smoker or visit an establishment that allows them to smoke there. without the harm factor all other arguments are moot. I could make the same statements about fat people because they are disgusting to look at. It is an asinine argument. To claim that the smoker is the one imposing and the non smoker is not by banishing the smoker from public places is to completely turn the concept on its head.

That all changes when detrimental health affects are added int the picture because there is no right to not be offended but you certainly have a right to safety. That was, I believe, the challenge the OP was pressing. A challenge against the harmful effects.

Sent from my ADR8995 using Tapatalk 2

 

[PoliticalChic]

Political Chic, you are wrong on this one.

Imposing the debris of your habit ( and second hand smoke is a waste of a smoker) is rude, self-righteous, impolite and totalitarian.

And there are plenty of harm caused by second hand smoke to everybody - it does not have to be lung cancer developing next month.

It is the increased prevalence of reactive airway disease which is the most common effect of second hand smoking.

Just one of the few. Won't, most likely kill you, but is is a disease and is avoidable.

US Prevalence and Trends in Tobacco Smoke Exposure Among Children and Adolescents With Asthma
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
Directly measured second hand smoke exposure and asthma health outcomes -- Eisner et al. 60 (10): 814 -- Thorax
CDC - Fact Sheet - Health Effects of Secondhand Smoke - Smoking & Tobacco Use
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/121/6/ehp.1306611.pdf

just a FEW.

there is many, many more.

second hand smoke is DETRIMENTAL to the health of the involved and KUDOS to the authorities of the cities and communities which ban public smoking everywhere - as it should be banned.

don't impose the debris of your pleasure ON ME!

"Imposing the debris of your habit ( and second hand smoke is a waste of a smoker) is rude, self-righteous, impolite and totalitarian."

Gads!

1. This is insane.


I mean insane in the clinical sense.



2. Let's imagine that you live in the United States of America, and, therefore, are covered by the Law of the Land, the Constitution.


Therein you would find: "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."
So.....you can be fairly certain that the government won't be sending soldiers with cigarettes into your home.

So much for "imposing."


3. Next, there is the concept of your home being inviolable......and the second amendment makes it possible for you to repel strangers with cigarettes......
One or two warning shots would do.

a. I believe that knowledge of your insanity would probably keep acquaintances with cigarettes away....



4. Now....the next, and last, requires the least effort....it seems to me: move a few feet away from the offender.
That would certainly obviate any problem....you might send him/her a bill for the amount of shoe leather you had to use.....
Take it to court!




5. Your fears of harmful second hand smoke....imaginary fears, by the by, are no reason to demand the force of government be inflicted upon another citizen....unless you are a card-carrying Liberal.



a. "Scientific Evidence Shows Secondhand Smoke Is No Danger"
Scientific Evidence Shows Secondhand Smoke Is No Danger | Heartlander Magazine



Who knows what next habit you would want banned.






6. Oh...and one more thing...you can't possibly understand how ironic your usage of "totalitarian" is....

a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control ..


That would be you, banning harmless habits simply because you can.
You should rethink that post.

 

[Vox]

Political Chic, you are wrong on this one.

Imposing the debris of your habit ( and second hand smoke is a waste of a smoker) is rude, self-righteous, impolite and totalitarian.

And there are plenty of harm caused by second hand smoke to everybody - it does not have to be lung cancer developing next month.

It is the increased prevalence of reactive airway disease which is the most common effect of second hand smoking.

Just one of the few. Won't, most likely kill you, but is is a disease and is avoidable.

US Prevalence and Trends in Tobacco Smoke Exposure Among Children and Adolescents With Asthma
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
Directly measured second hand smoke exposure and asthma health outcomes -- Eisner et al. 60 (10): 814 -- Thorax
CDC - Fact Sheet - Health Effects of Secondhand Smoke - Smoking & Tobacco Use
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/121/6/ehp.1306611.pdf

just a FEW.

there is many, many more.

second hand smoke is DETRIMENTAL to the health of the involved and KUDOS to the authorities of the cities and communities which ban public smoking everywhere - as it should be banned.

don't impose the debris of your pleasure ON ME!

"Imposing the debris of your habit ( and second hand smoke is a waste of a smoker) is rude, self-righteous, impolite and totalitarian."

Gads!

1. This is insane.


I mean insane in the clinical sense.



2. Let's imagine that you live in the United States of America, and, therefore, are covered by the Law of the Land, the Constitution.


Therein you would find: "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."
So.....you can be fairly certain that the government won't be sending soldiers with cigarettes into your home.

So much for "imposing."


3. Next, there is the concept of your home being inviolable......and the second amendment makes it possible for you to repel strangers with cigarettes......
One or two warning shots would do.

a. I believe that knowledge of your insanity would probably keep acquaintances with cigarettes away....



4. Now....the next, and last, requires the least effort....it seems to me: move a few feet away from the offender.
That would certainly obviate any problem....you might send him/her a bill for the amount of shoe leather you had to use.....
Take it to court!




5. Your fears of harmful second hand smoke....imaginary fears, by the by, are no reason to demand the force of government be inflicted upon another citizen....unless you are a card-carrying Liberal.



a. "Scientific Evidence Shows Secondhand Smoke Is No Danger"
Scientific Evidence Shows Secondhand Smoke Is No Danger | Heartlander Magazine



Who knows what next habit you would want banned.






6. Oh...and one more thing...you can't possibly understand how ironic your usage of "totalitarian" is....

a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control ..


That would be you, banning harmless habits simply because you can.
You should rethink that post.

I am sorry, PC, but I don't take some magazine with some personal opinion of a smoker not supported by ANY data for the clinical research and second hand smoke has been proven numerous times to be harmful - it might not cause immediate cancer - but it does increase the asthma prevalence, otitis media, cardiovascular disease, peripheral vascular disease ( this one is caused by first hand or second hand smoking only almost 100%) and is plain stinking for anybody around.

so if you want to indulge in your harmful habit - you have all the right to - IN YOUR OWN HOME, where nobody else ( if your family members do not object) will be forced to inhale the debris of your habit. You are free to harm yourself, but you have absolutely no right to harm others.

Hail the Boston city council.

They are planning to do it here - and finally on the beach. Good

 

[ScienceRocks]

Why won't the skeptics open up their own organizions of science?
Own data bases
and get into peer review????

Oh'yesss as they only have bull shit to spout!

 

[Wry Catcher]

Here at USMB we are blessed with a dunce who regularly posts that Republicans are anti-science, or a tiny fraction of scientists.....suggesting that the Leftists are deep thinkers, and the cutting edge of raciocination....


Sure would like to see his analysis of the following story:

" BOSTON APPROVES BAN ON SMOKING IN CITY-RUN PARKS"
Boston approves ban on smoking in city-run parks



Seems to me one could not find a less-Republican big city than Boston......


The 'Second-Hand Smoke Scam'....hysteria masquerading as science.





1. Dr. James Enstrom, disputed the epidemiological studies on secondhand smoke in the British Medical Journal:
“ The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed…. Most epidemiological studies have found that environmental tobacco smoke has a positive but not statistically significant relation to coronary heart disease and lung cancer. ” Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98 | BMJ



2. What happens when scientists disagree with the Left? Science takes second place to Liberal politics.
“A longtime professor at UCLA, told that he would not be rehired because his "research is not aligned with the academic mission" of his department,… Enstrom, an epidemiologist at UCLA's School of Public Health, has a history of running against the grain. In 2003 he wrote a study, published in the British Medical Journal, in which he found no causal relationship between secondhand smoke and tobacco-related death – a conclusion that drew fire both because it was contrary to popular scientific belief and because it was funded by Philip Morris…. "The significance of this is a threat to academic freedom and it's also a threat to academic science," Siegel said. "If scientists have to produce work that meets a certain view to keep their jobs, researchers are going to stop publishing negative findings for fear of being fired.".” Scientist's Firing After 36 Years Fuels 'PC' Debate at UCLA | Fox News




3. No measure of cumulative lifetime secondhand smoke exposure was ever possible, so the epidemiologic studies estimated risk based not only on an improper marker of exposure, but also on exposure data that are illusory…. More than two dozen causes of lung cancer are reported in the professional literature, and over 200 for cardiovascular diseases; their likely intrusions have never been credibly measured and controlled in secondhand smoke studies. … It has been fashionable to ignore the weakness of "the science" on secondhand smoke, perhaps in the belief that claiming "the science is settled" will lead to policies and public attitudes that will reduce the prevalence of smoking. “ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/01/29/AR2007012901158.html




4. Columbia University magazine included this in its “Letters” section, from Dr. Attila Mady:
“The theatrics around the antismoking crusade not only discredit those who resort to fuzzy logic, but also compromise an overall laudable effort to improve public health. There are no prospective case-control studies of smokers. Nor will there ever be, since a properly designed study would require fifty years and millions of participants….Statistics ignore herd immunity and exposure to volatile and particulates since the onset of the industrial age and don’t translate into the real world.”
Columbia Magazine, Spring 2012, p.4.




And, this, particularly significant for Boston's ridiculous park ban......

5. A real laugher is the outdoor smoking ban various nanny-state governments have instituted.
“But no evidence demonstrates that the duration of outdoor exposure — in places where people can move freely about — is long enough to cause substantial health damage…. To make matters worse, in trying to convince people that even transient exposure to secondhand smoke is a potentially deadly hazard, smoking opponents risk losing scientific credibility.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/opinion/06siegel.html





Hypothetically, as many individuals on the Right dislike smoking as do individuals on the Left…why, then, are those on the Left so much more likely to believe that secondhand smoke can seriously hurt their health, and, possibly, kill them?

And why are Liberal cities, governed by Liberal, so much more likely to ban outdoor smoking….?


When Liberals hear the words ‘studies show,’ or ‘experts say,’ they cease to ‘question authority.’ Hence…Lock-Step Liberals

CrusaderFrank (12-31-2013), JimBowie1958 (Yesterday) thanked you for this thread. You must be so proud.

 

[Vox]

1. Dr. James Enstrom, disputed the epidemiological studies on secondhand smoke in the British Medical Journal:
“ The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed…. Most epidemiological studies have found that environmental tobacco smoke has a positive but not statistically significant relation to coronary heart disease and lung cancer. ” Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98 | BMJ

Let us look closer to who conducted the analysis and WHO PAID for it.

Eureka LOL - the tobacco industry paid for the "study"


Paper
Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98
James E Enstrom, researcher (jenstrom@ucla.edu)1,
Geoffrey C Kabat, associate professor2,
Davey Smith, Editorial



In recent years JEE has received funds originating from the tobacco industry for his tobacco related epidemiological research because it has been impossible for him to obtain equivalent funds from other sources. GCK never received funds originating from the tobacco industry until last year, when he conducted an epidemiological review for a law firm which has several tobacco companies as clients.

Ladies and gentleman - do we need to say MORE

the ones who pay - request the music.


Especially in a so-called "epidemiological cohort study" where biased conclusions are at every corner as the interpretation bias and selection bias are the base of the moving the "study" to any direction the tobacco industry paid for

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Dr. James Enstrom, disputed the epidemiological studies on secondhand smoke in the British Medical Journal:
“ The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed…. Most epidemiological studies have found that environmental tobacco smoke has a positive but not statistically significant relation to coronary heart disease and lung cancer. ” Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98 | BMJ

Let us look closer to who conducted the analysis and WHO PAID for it.

Eureka LOL - the tobacco industry paid for the "study"


Paper
Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98
James E Enstrom, researcher (jenstrom@ucla.edu)1,
Geoffrey C Kabat, associate professor2,
Davey Smith, Editorial



In recent years JEE has received funds originating from the tobacco industry for his tobacco related epidemiological research because it has been impossible for him to obtain equivalent funds from other sources. GCK never received funds originating from the tobacco industry until last year, when he conducted an epidemiological review for a law firm which has several tobacco companies as clients.

Ladies and gentleman - do we need to say MORE

the ones who pay - request the music.


Especially in a so-called "epidemiological cohort study" where biased conclusions are at every corner as the interpretation bias and selection bias are the base of the moving the "study" to any direction the tobacco industry paid for

I knew who paid for it....but I'll give his research the same respect as I would any other that conforms to my experience.


Calm down, and review the report in terms of this, from the Washington Post:

"… It has been fashionable to ignore the weakness of "the science" on secondhand smoke, perhaps in the belief that claiming "the science is settled" will lead to policies and public attitudes that will reduce the prevalence of smoking. “

Your fears are bogus.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Here at USMB we are blessed with a dunce who regularly posts that Republicans are anti-science, or a tiny fraction of scientists.....suggesting that the Leftists are deep thinkers, and the cutting edge of raciocination....


Sure would like to see his analysis of the following story:

" BOSTON APPROVES BAN ON SMOKING IN CITY-RUN PARKS"
Boston approves ban on smoking in city-run parks



Seems to me one could not find a less-Republican big city than Boston......


The 'Second-Hand Smoke Scam'....hysteria masquerading as science.





1. Dr. James Enstrom, disputed the epidemiological studies on secondhand smoke in the British Medical Journal:
“ The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed…. Most epidemiological studies have found that environmental tobacco smoke has a positive but not statistically significant relation to coronary heart disease and lung cancer. ” Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98 | BMJ



2. What happens when scientists disagree with the Left? Science takes second place to Liberal politics.
“A longtime professor at UCLA, told that he would not be rehired because his "research is not aligned with the academic mission" of his department,… Enstrom, an epidemiologist at UCLA's School of Public Health, has a history of running against the grain. In 2003 he wrote a study, published in the British Medical Journal, in which he found no causal relationship between secondhand smoke and tobacco-related death – a conclusion that drew fire both because it was contrary to popular scientific belief and because it was funded by Philip Morris…. "The significance of this is a threat to academic freedom and it's also a threat to academic science," Siegel said. "If scientists have to produce work that meets a certain view to keep their jobs, researchers are going to stop publishing negative findings for fear of being fired.".” Scientist's Firing After 36 Years Fuels 'PC' Debate at UCLA | Fox News




3. No measure of cumulative lifetime secondhand smoke exposure was ever possible, so the epidemiologic studies estimated risk based not only on an improper marker of exposure, but also on exposure data that are illusory…. More than two dozen causes of lung cancer are reported in the professional literature, and over 200 for cardiovascular diseases; their likely intrusions have never been credibly measured and controlled in secondhand smoke studies. … It has been fashionable to ignore the weakness of "the science" on secondhand smoke, perhaps in the belief that claiming "the science is settled" will lead to policies and public attitudes that will reduce the prevalence of smoking. “ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/01/29/AR2007012901158.html




4. Columbia University magazine included this in its “Letters” section, from Dr. Attila Mady:
“The theatrics around the antismoking crusade not only discredit those who resort to fuzzy logic, but also compromise an overall laudable effort to improve public health. There are no prospective case-control studies of smokers. Nor will there ever be, since a properly designed study would require fifty years and millions of participants….Statistics ignore herd immunity and exposure to volatile and particulates since the onset of the industrial age and don’t translate into the real world.”
Columbia Magazine, Spring 2012, p.4.




And, this, particularly significant for Boston's ridiculous park ban......

5. A real laugher is the outdoor smoking ban various nanny-state governments have instituted.
“But no evidence demonstrates that the duration of outdoor exposure — in places where people can move freely about — is long enough to cause substantial health damage…. To make matters worse, in trying to convince people that even transient exposure to secondhand smoke is a potentially deadly hazard, smoking opponents risk losing scientific credibility.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/opinion/06siegel.html





Hypothetically, as many individuals on the Right dislike smoking as do individuals on the Left…why, then, are those on the Left so much more likely to believe that secondhand smoke can seriously hurt their health, and, possibly, kill them?

And why are Liberal cities, governed by Liberal, so much more likely to ban outdoor smoking….?


When Liberals hear the words ‘studies show,’ or ‘experts say,’ they cease to ‘question authority.’ Hence…Lock-Step Liberals

CrusaderFrank (12-31-2013), JimBowie1958 (Yesterday) thanked you for this thread. You must be so proud.

It's more than amusing that you attempt to cast aspersions on other posters....I mean, coming from lying scum like yourself.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why won't the skeptics open up their own organizions of science?
Own data bases
and get into peer review????

Oh'yesss as they only have bull shit to spout!

Peer review only means a rubber stamp by other Leftists.....or is ignored if it isn't lock-step with Liberalism.

Case in point:

The following details the fate of any scientist who dares to buck the orthodoxy.

a. “ Richard Sternberg, a research associate at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History in Washington. The holder of two Ph.D.s in biology, Mr. Sternberg was until recently the managing editor of a nominally independent journal published at the museum, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, where he exercised final editorial authority. The August issue …included an atypical article, "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories." Here was trouble.

b. …the first peer-reviewed article to appear in a technical biology journal laying out the evidential case for Intelligent Design. According to ID theory, certain features of living organisms …are better explained by an unspecified designing intelligence than by an undirected natural process like random mutation and natural selection.

c. Mr. Sternberg's … future as a researcher is in jeopardy …He has been penalized by the museum's Department of Zoology, his religious and political beliefs questioned…. "I'm spending my time trying to figure out how to salvage a scientific career."

d. Stephen Meyer, who holds a Cambridge University doctorate in the philosophy of biology. In the article, he cites biologists and paleontologists critical of certain aspects of Darwinism -- mainstream scientists at places like the University of Chicago, Yale, Cambridge and Oxford.

e. He points, for example, to the Cambrian explosion 530 million years ago, when between 19 and 34 animal phyla (body plans) sprang into existence. He argues that, relying on only the Darwinian mechanism, there was not enough time for the necessary genetic "information" to be generated. ID, he believes, offers a better explanation.

f. …it was indeed subject to peer review, the gold standard of academic science. Not that such review saved Mr. Sternberg from infamy. Soon after the article appeared, Hans Sues -- the museum's No. 2 senior scientist -- denounced it to colleagues and then sent a widely forwarded e-mail calling it "unscientific garbage." the chairman of the Zoology Department, Jonathan Coddington, called Mr. Sternberg's supervisor. According to Mr. Sternberg's OSC complaint: "First, he asked whether Sternberg was a religious fundamentalist. She told him no. Coddington then asked if Sternberg was affiliated with or belonged to any religious organization....He then asked where Sternberg stood politically; ...he asked, 'Is he a right-winger? What is his political affiliation?'" The supervisor (who did not return my phone messages) recounted the conversation to Mr. Sternberg, who also quotes her observing: "There are Christians here, but they keep their heads down."

g. Worries about being perceived as "religious" spread at the museum. One curator, who generally confirmed the conversation when I spoke to him, told Mr. Sternberg about a gathering where he offered a Jewish prayer for a colleague about to retire. The curator fretted: "So now they're going to think that I'm a religious person, and that's not a good thing at the museum."

h. The Biological Society of Washington released a vaguely ecclesiastical statement regretting its association with the article. It did not address its arguments but denied its orthodoxy, citing a resolution of the American Association for the Advancement of Science that defined ID as, by its very nature, unscientific.

i. Critics of ID have long argued that the theory was unscientific because it had not been put forward in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Now that it has, they argue that it shouldn't have been because it's unscientific. They banish certain ideas from certain venues as if by holy writ, and brand heretics too. In any case, the heretic here is Mr. Meyer, a fellow at Seattle's Discovery Institute, not Mr. Sternberg, who isn't himself an advocate of Intelligent Design.

j. Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches -- like the National Museum of Natural History.” The Branding of a Heretic - WSJ.com





Perhaps you'd like Dr. Sternberg to have to wear a yellow star as well.

 

[rdean]

"Because they didn't listen for the couple of years they attended school."


So....does the same explanation apply to all the Democrats/Liberals/Socialists/Progressives/Communists who fail to recognize that the imposition of their policies resulted in over one hundred million human beings murdered by same in the century of genocide, the 20th century?

Does it, huh???

That only applies to Communists and arguably Socialists.

The terms are not interchangeable, no matter how much you try to make them so.

Yeah, they are.

1. Whittaker Chambers wrote in his book WITNESS that liberals are/were incapable of ever effectively fighting Communism because they did not see anything in Communism that was antithetical to their own beliefs.
In short, Liberals are Communists and Communists are Liberals.



2. ... Chambers, former communist was correct, and easily proven so.



Here are some of the aims and designs of Liberals:


1. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

2. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces.

3. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.




4. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

5. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.

6. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.




7. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

8. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."




9. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."

a. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."





10. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

11. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man." Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."

12. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

13. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.


Now....wouldn't an honest appraisal .....agree that all or almost all are clearly the aims and direction of Democrats/Liberals/Progressive leaders?


I mean, seriously......


QED?




Oh...wait.....did I say Democrats/Liberals/Progressives????
Silly me....I got 'em from a website of declared communist goals...
The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals
The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals

Wedge strategy

The Southern Strategy Revisited: Republican Top-down Advancement in the South - Joseph A. Aistrup

There has been a "Wedge Strategy" for years. Only it's not the democrats. And your ignorant post with all the silly accusations prove it's alive and well today. GOP sticking to their "roots".

 

[PoliticalChic]

That only applies to Communists and arguably Socialists.

The terms are not interchangeable, no matter how much you try to make them so.

Yeah, they are.

1. Whittaker Chambers wrote in his book WITNESS that liberals are/were incapable of ever effectively fighting Communism because they did not see anything in Communism that was antithetical to their own beliefs.
In short, Liberals are Communists and Communists are Liberals.



2. ... Chambers, former communist was correct, and easily proven so.



Here are some of the aims and designs of Liberals:


1. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

2. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces.

3. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.




4. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

5. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.

6. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.




7. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

8. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."




9. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."

a. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."





10. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

11. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man." Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."

12. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

13. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.


Now....wouldn't an honest appraisal .....agree that all or almost all are clearly the aims and direction of Democrats/Liberals/Progressive leaders?


I mean, seriously......


QED?




Oh...wait.....did I say Democrats/Liberals/Progressives????
Silly me....I got 'em from a website of declared communist goals...
The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals
The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals

Wedge strategy

The Southern Strategy Revisited: Republican Top-down Advancement in the South - Joseph A. Aistrup

There has been a "Wedge Strategy" for years. Only it's not the democrats. And your ignorant post with all the silly accusations prove it's alive and well today. GOP sticking to their "roots".

"And your ignorant post...blah blah blah...."

Well, assuming that mine is ignorant, it shouldn't take much effort for you to explain which of the 13 declared goals of the communists don't apply equally to Liberals/Progressives/Democrats......and communists.

If you cannot....well, then if Liberals/Progressives/Democrats......and communists all want the same things......I have proven my point.



Shall I wait, or should we simply stipulate that you, with very little effort, have become the greatest source of greenhouse gases?

 

[Vox]

1. Dr. James Enstrom, disputed the epidemiological studies on secondhand smoke in the British Medical Journal:
“ The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed…. Most epidemiological studies have found that environmental tobacco smoke has a positive but not statistically significant relation to coronary heart disease and lung cancer. ” Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98 | BMJ

Let us look closer to who conducted the analysis and WHO PAID for it.

Eureka LOL - the tobacco industry paid for the "study"


Paper
Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98
James E Enstrom, researcher (jenstrom@ucla.edu)1,
Geoffrey C Kabat, associate professor2,
Davey Smith, Editorial



In recent years JEE has received funds originating from the tobacco industry for his tobacco related epidemiological research because it has been impossible for him to obtain equivalent funds from other sources. GCK never received funds originating from the tobacco industry until last year, when he conducted an epidemiological review for a law firm which has several tobacco companies as clients.

Ladies and gentleman - do we need to say MORE

the ones who pay - request the music.


Especially in a so-called "epidemiological cohort study" where biased conclusions are at every corner as the interpretation bias and selection bias are the base of the moving the "study" to any direction the tobacco industry paid for

I knew who paid for it....but I'll give his research the same respect as I would any other that conforms to my experience.


Calm down, and review the report in terms of this, from the Washington Post:

"… It has been fashionable to ignorethe weakness of "the science" on secondhand smoke, [/B]perhaps in the belief that claiming "the science is settled" will lead to policies and public attitudes that will reduce the prevalence of smoking. “

Your fears are bogus.

there is no weakness in the scientifically proven second hand smoke harm - even in this bogus, tobacco-industry paid "study".

It also has shown that second hand smoke is the cause of COPD, asthma and lung cancer.

did you read the study?

you, obviously, did not, because you cite Washington Post instead of the study itself.

It DID prove that second hand smoke in the house where one spouse smokes IN THE HOUSE ( and that is the point - who needs the "study" if there is no second hand smoke as the smoker smokes outside the house) and for the long enough time - it is invariably the cause of the lung cancer of the second hand smoker.

Asthma and COPD are induced even at the lighter exposure.


That is what the study says itself.

Not the media sensationalizatipn about it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let us look closer to who conducted the analysis and WHO PAID for it.

Eureka LOL - the tobacco industry paid for the "study"


Paper
Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98
James E Enstrom, researcher (jenstrom@ucla.edu)1,
Geoffrey C Kabat, associate professor2,
Davey Smith, Editorial



In recent years JEE has received funds originating from the tobacco industry for his tobacco related epidemiological research because it has been impossible for him to obtain equivalent funds from other sources. GCK never received funds originating from the tobacco industry until last year, when he conducted an epidemiological review for a law firm which has several tobacco companies as clients.

Ladies and gentleman - do we need to say MORE

the ones who pay - request the music.


Especially in a so-called "epidemiological cohort study" where biased conclusions are at every corner as the interpretation bias and selection bias are the base of the moving the "study" to any direction the tobacco industry paid for

I knew who paid for it....but I'll give his research the same respect as I would any other that conforms to my experience.


Calm down, and review the report in terms of this, from the Washington Post:

"… It has been fashionable to ignorethe weakness of "the science" on secondhand smoke, [/B]perhaps in the belief that claiming "the science is settled" will lead to policies and public attitudes that will reduce the prevalence of smoking. “

Your fears are bogus.

there is no weakness in the scientifically proven second hand smoke harm - even in this bogus, tobacco-industry paid "study".

It also has shown that second hand smoke is the cause of COPD, asthma and lung cancer.

did you read the study?

you, obviously, did not, because you cite Washington Post instead of the study itself.

It DID prove that second hand smoke in the house where one spouse smokes IN THE HOUSE ( and that is the point - who needs the "study" if there is no second hand smoke as the smoker smokes outside the house) and for the long enough time - it is invariably the cause of the lung cancer of the second hand smoker.

Asthma and COPD are induced even at the lighter exposure.


That is what the study says itself.

Not the media sensationalizatipn about it.

Puh-leeezzzze......

1. "....a positive but not statistically significant relation to coronary heart disease and lung cancer."
Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98 | BMJ


2. From the WaPo article:
"Estimating the risk of those diseases posed by secondhand smoke requires knowing the sum of momentary secondhand smoke doses that nonsmokers have internalized over their lifetimes. Such lifetime summations of instant doses are obviously impossible,...."

im·pos·si·ble (m-ps-bl)
adj.
1. Incapable of having existence or of occurring.
2. Not capable of being accomplished: an impossible goal.
impossible - definition of impossible by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


Get it?
It's a GUESS!
Not science.