From “Crackdown on dissent means honeymoon is over,” in our forum:

If only there had been some mechanism by which we could have found out about this man before he was elected President. If only there had been a person, or a group of people who would have accompanied the candidate as he traveled from place to place and asked real, substantive questions; demanded real answers; ferreted out information and background independently; and then even-handedly reported their findings to the American people as we weighed our options back in the summer and fall of 2008. If there had been, we would be in a much better position today.

Come to think of it, that sort of mechanism would be a good idea generally. We should consider the idea of forming a group of people whose job it would be to inform Americans of what their elected officials are doing. And why limit their job to elected officials? They might find any number of facts the airing of which would help us make better decisions in many aspects of our daily lives.

It’s an idea worth considering.

I’m not sure how the information they gather would be disseminated; it could be printed perhaps, and then mailed or actually delivered to us in our homes. There must be a way to do that using vehicles to carry the printed material. Perhaps it could be broadcast on radio and/or television. These informational updates could even be performed on a regular basis – daily, weekly, or whatever works. I doubt that this would involve much additional expense or effort — any affable-seeming dunce who can read material prepared in advance will be more than adequate.

Who’s with me on this? It’s clearly an unmet need, and there could be money in it. Or if not money, then at least the satisfaction of earning the instant and eternal enmity of the independent, individualistic, affable-seeming dunces already in the mass media, which simply Does. Not. Permit. criticism of their anointed leader.

Rumors of an automotive snuff film have been circulating around the Net, and our resident Gumlegs has tracked them to the source. DarwinCentral brings you an Internet exclusive, the elusive true story, and the snuff film itself. Just remember, when the truth erupts, you’ll hear it here first.

DC forum member El Goodo has done some excellent detective work on Obama’s so-called economic czars, wading through dirty pools that other so-called muckrakers refuse to tread. The first person he’s looked into is “green jobs” czar Van Jones. In typical Wikipedia fashion, the checkered past and political extremism of a politically liberal public figure is almost completely discarded and that which is left is played down. As noted by El Goodo, Jones is a  former communist who was radicalized by the 1992 Los Angeles riots and has continued to associate himself with groups on the far left, including the Free Press, which advocates government control of the media, and the radical Oakland community organization Speak Out Now! As extreme as these groups may be, they’re still a far cry from the “revolutionary” groups Jones used to associate himself with, such as the now defunct Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM). Continue Reading »

An Open Letter to the People of the United States

We are closing in on 100 days in the Administration of President Obama and in the Congressional rule of Reid and Pelosi. The mask of what a Democrat is has been ripped from their faces for all to see, even those who blindly put their faith in Hope and Change. Now is the time to open your eyes, people and see what you have put in power. Let’s look a just a few of the ideas already implemented and those being pushed and promised.

Continue Reading »

Senator Charles Shumer (D-NY), has never been known as an exemplar of logical thinking. Nevertheless, as Chairman of the Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee, he must be taken seriously. The partial transcript below is of a November 2008 Schumer interview aired on Fox television. We address this now because the issue is not going away.

Continue Reading »

As a follow up to the previous article, I notice the following, supposedly comforting, little note at the end of the Snopes article:

A CPSC announcement issued on 6 February 2009 regarding that agency’s enforcement policy also stated that they would not “impose penalties against anyone for making, importing, distributing, or selling” certain specified items, including any “ordinary children’s book printed after 1985.”

WTF are these idiots thinking about? How many classic books have not been reprinted since 1985 and never will be? This is exactly what was envisioned by Bradbury in Fahrenheit 451. And it’s not theoretical. It’s happening.

As readers are aware, the Consumer Product Safety Commission yesterday advised thrift stores and other resellers and distributors of used goods to discard (unless they wished to test for lead or take other typically unpractical steps such as contacting manufacturers) children’s books printed before 1985 and a very wide range of other children’s products, including apparel and playthings.

I wasn’t thrilled with the exception stating that we can sell pre-1985 children’s books as long as they are pricey vintage collectibles for adult collectors. Um, great, but most of our children’s books, even our older children’s books, are sold for children to read. And read them, they do.

We ran an audit in our bookstore today. We have about 7000 books catalogued. Of our children’s chapter books, about 65% are pre-1985. Of our children’s picture books, about 35% are pre-1985. Most of these sell for under $10 and are stocked as children’s reading.

As an ethical matter, I really can’t discard our cultural heritage just because the CPSC has decreed that books published through *1984* may or may not still form a legal part of the canon of children’s literature for our culture.

So how’s it going to feel in fifty years when the Democratic administration that replaced the evil George Bush will be known as the book burners? And the mainstream press that looked on in horror at conservative culture warriors sat silent while the flames rose?

Only in America.

The usually trustworthy Snopes.com has screwed the pooch on the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) of 2009.

There’s been a lot of talk about it’s effect on flea markets and thrift shops, and Snopes tries to oil the troubled waters.

However, the new regulations are not as restrictive as first feared, nor will they put the thrift shops out of business.
…
Sellers of used children’s products, such as thrift stores and consignment stores, are not required to certify that those products meet the new lead limits, phthalates standard or new toy standards.

Oh, is that so? Reading further we find:

In other words, used children’s items offered for resale after 10 February 2009 must still meet the new CPSIA standards regarding lead and phthalate content, but vendors will not have to have such items tested and certified.

Hmmmmmm…

Vendors should therefore “avoid products that are likely to have lead content, unless they have testing or other information to indicate the products being sold have less than the new limit.”

Now what might that include?

How about just about everything? Including, it seems, ALL children’s books made before 1985. By law it will be illegal to sell, give or transfer ownership of any children’s book published before 1985. You don’t have to do any expensive testing. You just can’t do it.

I can’t wait ’till someone tries to burn one of these lead containing books. Or put it in a landfill. Maybe they can be snuck into landfills with fluorescent lamps.

So what if one of these unthreatened thrift shops fails to test their items and sells something that violates the standards of the new law?

“Those resellers that do sell products in violation of the new limits could face civil and/or or criminal penalties,” a reasonable interpretation of that statement as it applies to the sale of used goods would be that the agency will focus its attentions on those retailers who blatantly take a cavalier attitude towards the used childrens’ items in their inventory by continuing to vend merchandise items they have good reason to suspect contain lead.

Reading the latest in Creation Science. So you don’t have to.

I’m not just suggesting, I’m saying that evolution is not science and is of Satan. It has no place in Conservatism.
Link

Satan has everything to do with this thread, because the thread is about Darwinism and evo-atheism, which are of Satan. It matters not how long one has been posting here, it matters what they have been posting. I have been posting the Word, and evo-atheists have been posting the words of the Deceiver.

Remember, God is the final Admin.
Link

Continue Reading »

Forget about Lady Hope and Darwin’s deathbed conversion. Now we have the audacity of hope and a lame duck conversion. George Bush, about to leave office, says:

I think that God created the Earth, created the world; I think the creation of the world is so mysterious it requires something as large as an almighty and I don’t think it’s incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution.

And to think, just a few years ago, Bill (Waterloo) Dembski’s website, Uncommon Descent was proclaiming a final political victory over evolution:

…and last but far from least, George W. Bush hisself drove a stake in the ground saying teach the controversy. Unless Judge Jones wants to cut his career off at the knees he isn’t going to rule against the wishes of his political allies. Of course the ACLU will appeal. This won’t be over until it gets to the Supreme Court. But now we own that too.

Politically biased decisions from ostensibly apolitical courts are a double edged sword that cuts both ways. The liberals had their turn at bat. This is our time now. We won back congress in 1996. We won back the White House in 2000. We won back the courts in 2005. Now we can start undoing all the damage that was done by the flower children.

Somehow science trudges on, ignoring the fortunes of politics and power.

I’ve pretty much dispensed with the EF. It suggests that chance, necessity, and design are mutually exclusive. They are not. Straight CSI is clearer as a criterion for design detection.

Bill Dembski

This leaves one poster a bit confused:

Has anyone got an easy to understand CSI calculation? I’m fairly math savvy…

Okayyyyy… We’ll get right on that.