He Didn't Leak the Prayer You Fools [Updated!!!]

Okay.  We've had a few diaries in which a few posters have professed their belief that Barack Obama intentionally leaked his prayer, the one that he left in the Wailing Wall.  A few others have said that, at the least, it's plausible.  This little smear has been making the rounds at all my favorite right-wing websites and I will have no ability to debunk it there.  I will do so here.

I just got off the phone with a Ma'ariv spokesman who says that the accusation is "completely false," and that he has no idea who these papers were quoting from Ma'ariv. "No official spokesman for Ma'ariv told this to any of the papers." I've got some calls in to these papers to find out where they got the quote. (I'll update here when I hear back.) He told me definitively that "the Obama campaign did not give us a copy of the letter or approve it for printing."

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank /archive/2008/07/29/obama-vindicated.asp x

The story was complete and utter bullshit and shame on any of you who leapt into believing it because you don't care for Barack Obama.  You are entitled to believe whatever you like.  You are entitled to post it here, if you like.  However, the fact that people were so damned quick and so damned glad to believe in a right-wing smear scares the hell out of me.

It was a fucking lie and you peddled it with glee and abandon.  Shame on you!

I'm not calling you Republicans, or trolls, or PUMAs, or anything else.  I'm not going to call you names.  I'm simply going to tell you that I lost respect for each and every one of you that has ignored repeated attempts by the rest of us to show you that this was a lie, a smear, and totally made up.

Speaking as a Jew, it's a HUUUUUUUGE deal that some yeshiva student would do this.  Prayers at the Wailing Wall are not for human eyes.  And before any of you reply with "Well, he isn't Jewish!" neither is the Pope!  His note wasn't read.  PEOPLE DON'T READ THOSE PRAYERS!  EVER EVER EVER.

It wasn't naive of Barack Obama to assume that nobody would break such a taboo.  I don't know of any prior instance of it happening.  That student and that newspaper violated a man's private conversation with his God.  They should all be ashamed.  And to those of you who were so goddamned eager to believe that it was a plant I say to you:

You should be ashamed.  

You are free to think and speak as you like.  I'm not muzzling you.  I am, however, pushing back.  You've earned this.

[Update]

Had a real great exchange at the bottom of the thread. I wanted to make sure you guys saw it!

I can't believe you are so gullible. There was a retraction update to the retraction also: UPDATE 1: I just spoke with an editor at one of the four publications who quoted the alleged "Ma'ariv spokesman." This editor broached the possibility that Ma'ariv was trying to deflect criticims of it by releasing these spurious rumors about the Obama campaign, but upon realizing that they'll have to back up those accusations, is now disavowing them. This editor is going to look into this alleged "Ma'ariv spokesman" they quoted in his publication so we can try to ascertain if this is a Ma'ariv cover-up. I'll update here when I hear back from him and if I get anything interesting from the other publications who also quoted this alleged spokesman. And then there's this: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/N ews.aspx/127001 Based on these statements by Maariv, Israel Insider concluded that the Obama campaign "managed the event brilliantly, if deceptively, getting the double benefit of appearing to be victimized by the invasive Israeli press and prayer-thieving Jew while at the same time leaking out his humble Christian plea to the Lord." The report noted that by the week's end, "a (relatively) slick video appeared on [public video website] YouTube that blended Obama's Western Wall prayer with various church scenes, crosses aplenty, a dove of peace, and a soundtrack based on Amazing Grace. The video closes with a "vote" button and an invitation to visit the official campaign website." This is a campaign. If you can't understand that you're watching political theater every time you see one of the pres candidates on TV, you must have been born yesterday. by lizpolaris on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:30:49 PM EST
To which I replied:
You fail at English comprehension. The update means that they're saying that Maariv made up the notion that Obama leaked it. That's the cover up. The implication is that when Maariv says they didn't originally say Obama leaked it they are lying. TNR is implying that Maariv said it, got called on it, and is now saying it never said it. TNR is not backing off of it's debunking. by Reaper0Bot0 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:34:26 PM EST



Display:


I don't want tips (2.00 / 26)

I want to calm down.  I can't believe that some of you are so cheap and credulous.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:30:10 PM EST

Re: I don't want tips (2.00 / 1)

I'm with you on this. I haven't been so pissed off for a long while. But this time, we've got our nominee. So I'm starting a new group

FERRET

F*k Every Ridiculous Republican Emulating Turdbag

Anyone want to join me?

I'm giving up with Linfar, Chitown and the lurking 'can't wait to see/make Obama fail' crowd. It's not politics (FISA, Pro-choice) that drives them, because they switch from right to left - anything to attack the democratic nominee

FERRET

F*k Every Ridiculous Republican Emulating Turdbag

FERRETS eat PUMAS


The Moose is Loose!
by duende on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 04:49:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't want tips (none / 0)

Oops. Sorry about the bold. Something to do with double asterisks


The Moose is Loose!
by duende on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 04:50:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't want tips (2.00 / 1)

OH! MY! GOD!  The emotions have run amok!  


Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:18:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't want tips (2.00 / 1)

"I just got off the phone with a Ma'ariv spokesman"

name?  Aha...just more bs.


I'm for a timeline on Iraq, public funding of elections, women's reproductive rights, gun restrictions and universal suffrage. So why should I vote for Obama?
by William Cooper on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:57:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't want tips (2.00 / 1)

William Cooper is a Republican. Republicans are done. Done like toast. Done like glaciers, done like the housing market they destroyed, done like the Iraq war, Republicans are done like Bush, done like the era of corruption is Washington, done like the era of lobbyists. William Cooper is trying to dig up the corpse of hypocrisy that destroyed our country.

William Cooper can't remember that the old man who has lost his memory isnt going to be President. McBush is not going to serve a Republican third term, Mr. Cooper, he isnt going to carry his state, he can't even remember his state.


by Exiled on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:24:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't want tips (none / 0)

Totally unnecessary. The several dozen PUMAs on the web are but a drop in the bucket. Don't hate, ignore.


Visit Election Inspection for analysis, polls, and predictions!
by X Stryker on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:18:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't want tips (2.00 / 1)

Gotta tell ya, I think your outrage is just a little over the top here.  You don't have to be some kind of hater to read the story about Obama's prayer and wonder if the whole thing isn't just a little too convenient.

I think it's a good political instinct to be skeptical any time something just happens to spontaneously occur in the middle of a political campaign that looks like it could have been written by Chairman Mao's biographers, to paraphrase Bob Somerby.  I mean, here we have this prayer, something no one else in the world was ever going to see, that just happens to portray Barack Obama as this devout, humble, wonderful human being, and then it just happens to find its way into the newspaper when no one was ever supposed to know.  I won't apologize for reading that story and thinking "Eh, come on."

By the same token, I have no interest in trying to prove that the Obama campaign orchestrated the whole thing, and I think it's lame for anyone to run around acting like it's a major deal when there's no proof whatsoever.  But like the amazing coincidence of John McCain just happening to be in Colombia when an epic hostage rescue takes place, it's one of those things I'm just not prepared to vouch for it happening exactly like the official version claims.

One of the universal truths about politics is that everyone's natural instinct is to presume good faith whenever it's their candidate doing something and bad faith whenever it's the other candidate.  This instinct never goes away, but I think the savvy person at least tries to remain conscious of it.  I mean, if you're one of those people who thinks that of COURSE Hillary Clinton cried on purpose, while also thinking that of COURSE the Obama campaign would never ever think of leaking his prayer in a million years, it's worth reflecting on whether you're maybe a little too susceptible to good vs. evil narratives.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 04:51:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's a prayer (2.00 / 4)

typically they express devotion and humility.  Hard to see how the prayer's contents suggest it was orchestrated.


by JJE on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 05:00:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't want tips (2.00 / 5)

You don't have to be some kind of hater to read the story about Obama's prayer and wonder if the whole thing isn't just a little too convenient.

Yeah, I think you kinda do have to be a hater to naturally wonder something that convoluted and fucked up.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 05:03:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't want tips (2.00 / 1)

Well, obviously not, as I'm far from a hater.  See, here's how it looks from my perspective:

Hater - "That jerk Obama leaked his prayer!  Just another scummy act from a scummy politician!"

Reasonable, skeptical person - "Eh, the whole thing sounds awfully convenient, but whatever."

There's allegations like Larry Sinclair that only truly fucked-up people would ever believe.  And there's stuff like this episode where even rational, normal people might say, "Yeah, who knows, that sounds like the sort of thing a politician might do."  Talk to a few folks who aren't deeply invested in the Obama candidacy either way and you'll see what I mean.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 05:21:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't want tips (2.00 / 5)

I have.  Nobody I know thought it was sane or rational for Obama to have done it.  No need to bring morality into the equation.

If he was gonna lead a prayer you can be damned sure it would have inclued the word "America" in it somewhere.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 05:24:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't want tips (2.00 / 3)

"Yeah, who knows, that sounds like the sort of thing a politician might do."  Talk to a few folks who aren't deeply invested in the Obama candidacy either way and you'll see what I mean.

I'm betting those folks aren't Jewish and also aren't very familiar with the Western Wall tradition. To almost any Jew, the leaking of that prayer represents the Ultimate Violation, very serious blasphemy. And the allegation that anyone familiar with the tradition (which Obama is) would intentionally violate it? BEYOND THE PALE.

Your bottle of sauce is of the severely weakest variety, here.


Visit Election Inspection for analysis, polls, and predictions!
by X Stryker on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:23:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't want tips (none / 0)

What's "convenient" about it? The guy brings up God on a pretty regular basis, he doesn't need a stunt that insults a sacred Jewish tradition (especially when he's had to work so hard to prove he's a friend of Israel). Sometimes it isn't all about what you think...I'm guessing you're not religious and therefore assume the worst of anyone who is, including perhaps the diarist.


by Alice in Florida on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 05:14:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If it was "leaked"... (2.00 / 5)

...then shouldn't it be making more effective political points: love of America ("bless my country") or security issues ("help us end the war") for instance, issues on which he's been taking a beating? How about "and protect the planet" for extra credit? Easy scores, and no one would have been in the least surprised.

Why instead, the simple and unsophisticated personal thoughts? Do you really believe these to be worthy of Chairman Mao's biographers? Give me a break!

Is it more likely that a request to "protect my family" reflected genuine personal fears for their safety, or simply something made up by paid political hacks? And why would said political hacks have included "and me" - wouldn't that have been not selfless enough of a "script"?

No one's accused him, to date, of falling prey to despair. Until this note came to light, it hadn't even occurred to me that this was something he'd be fighting. What political capital could possible be made out of highlighting one's weaknesses in that manner??

I agree with your premise about the natural instinct to presume bad faith with respect to the "other" candidate. Having said that, why is he yet the "other" candidate on a Democratic blog? That it was even necessary to dissect his most personal thoughts to defend them, on this blog, only reiterates for me the wretchedly disgusting tone that this discussion has taken.


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 05:24:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If it was "leaked"... (none / 0)

Well, I am not trying to defend the people who presumed bad faith on Obama's part with no evidence, I think that's pretty weak.  I am simply saying that it's not evil to be a little skeptical.

I mean, the tone here is like "you must agree right this instant that Obama would never ever ever do anything like that, or else you're a GOP smear artist!"  I think it's possible to support a candidate without being that way.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 05:33:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If it was "leaked"... (2.00 / 4)

Steve, the tone here is harsh because it is directed solely at four or five people who were acting in bad faith.

Skepticism is fine.  I have no problem with that, and skeptical folks weren't the ones I was railing against.  You should read chitowndenny's thread and linfar's.  If you do you'll understand exactly what set me off.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 05:36:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If it was "leaked"... (2.00 / 2)

Heh, do I have to?  I avoid clicking on those sorts of diaries for a reason!


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 05:44:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If it was "leaked"... (2.00 / 3)

I think that the other major bone of contention is that it is not only Obama's credibility that is being called into question....so is 'credibility' of the Wailing Wall.

Someone up top hit the nail on the head....imagine the outcry if he was being accused of filming inside a confessional?

No matter what your beliefs...some places are sacred.


by Kysen on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 05:50:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If it was "leaked"... (2.00 / 2)

Agree 100%.  I assume all the "leak"
proponents are not Jewish and do not understand
how it makes us feel.

This continuing crap makes me feel violated, it defiles the ONLY sacred place on earth for me and any other Jew.


by lolo08 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:02:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't want tips (2.00 / 2)

Darn it Steve, you've become predictable. I read the first few words of your comment and thought "Hm, this sounds like Steve...", scrolled down and sure enough... :-)

To me, it seems if one applied Occam's Razor when they heard that story about the prayer, the first thing that would come to mind is not your this-smells-fishy thought ("it just happens to find its way into the newspaper when no one was ever supposed to know") but rather "the prayer sounds very humble because even if he isn't a humble guy, any intelligent presidential candidate would be careful to write a humble prayer JUST IN CASE their Wailing Wall note does end up in the hands of the press."


Keep it short. DemocraticShortList.com
by Rob in Vermont on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 05:38:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't want tips (none / 0)

That could very well be true.  Obama is no fool.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 05:45:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't want tips (2.00 / 2)

That was my exact reaction.  Amazing to see it here where Obama seems to either be granted sainthood or accorded an address next door to the devil.

I don't know if it sounded humble and heartfelt because it was, or because he was smart enough to know it might be sent to the press.  I think I would prefer the later because it reflects the kind of man I think our country need needs in today's world.  

I want a President who is smarter than I am, one who is smarter than the press, and one who is smarter than our enemies.

Barack Obama appears to be a brilliant pragmatic politician who would make an outstanding President.


by Susan from 29 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 06:15:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't want tips (2.00 / 3)

The prayer sounded heartfelt and none of our business. He was talking, because he's a Christian, directly to his God, in a place thought to be among the most holy in the world. Directly to his God.

It's none of our business.

Someone stole his prayer.

Someone stole his prayer.

Then someone put it in the press.

When it was none of our business.


by Exiled on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:30:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't want tips (2.00 / 2)

As you appear to be  new person here Steve...
...the benefit of the doubt...
however,;... you write....

"I won't apologize for reading that story and thinking "Eh, come on.""

I have to ask...Steve
Where did you first read this?

Did this "place" have a track record of being correct?
...


"harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy"
by nogo postal on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 06:27:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't want tips (2.00 / 3)

I don't hear the word "cheap" used often, but yeah, it fits here. Completely agree.


by Becky G on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 05:58:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't want tips (none / 0)

You all need to calm down.  Not trying to create a flamewar, because my flame retardant pantsuit is at the cleaners.  My diary was about the level of the discourse (a point many of you have proved) on this site.  I addressed another diarists contention about the plausibility of the leak of the prayer, and the thrashing she experienced for the contention.   Many of you seem intent on only discussing the plausibility, not the discourse.  

Someone asked me for the Barbara Walters clip that discussed the plausibility.  So here it is for all.  Now chill out; and once again, can we improve the level of discourse on this site?

http://abc.go.com/daytime/theview/index

Hot Topics, 7/30, Published Prayer.

Peace.


Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:16:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He Didn't Leak the Goddamned Prayer You Fools (2.00 / 8)

Wait... so newsbusters was attempting to smear a Democrat?  Hold the presses!

Rec'd.


And so, may evil beware and may good dress warmly and eat lots of fresh vegetables.
by thatpurplestuff on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:35:52 PM EST

The worst part is.... (2.00 / 9)

...the whining about free speech.  A Democratic blog isn't the proper place to peddle lies about our Presidential candidate.  There are places were you can lie about him all you want.  This isn't one of them.  


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:38:05 PM EST

but... (2.00 / 6)

But LGF was so SURE damn it!  If we can't trust them, who CAN we trust?


by libertyleft on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:41:17 PM EST

If someone had taped him in a confessional (2.00 / 10)

Catholics would be freaking out. Not so much over what is arguably the Israeli equivalent. I think it's just a wall with holes to most Americans.


by Neef on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:41:30 PM EST

Re: If someone had taped him in a confessional (2.00 / 5)

I had never thought of it like that, but it is an excellent analogy.


by TCQuad on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 04:13:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If someone had taped him in a confessional (2.00 / 1)

I think most Americans, being Christians, know the temple on the mount, they know the walls of the temple. They have read the Bible. But your analogy about the confessional is apt.

Except that confession is to one priest, of one faith, of one denomination and for all Christians, the temple is part of the central story, and Obama was talking Directly to his God.

Only the right wing, the hypocritical right wing would impugn a man's prayers.

This is hideous. Only Republicans can sink this low.


by Exiled on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:35:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He Didn't Leak the Goddamned Prayer (2.00 / 8)

It's how the creationsists push intelligent design - after all, it's just an "alternative explanation" that "deserves" debate.  It exploits the idea that there is no truth; that everything's relative.


by rfahey22 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:47:56 PM EST

Disagree with that analogy. (none / 0)

Not all that subscribe to intelligent design are unscientific boors, nor are they all fundamentalist know-nothings, nor do they all believe that the universe was created in seven days. That the MSM  - and clearly, its viewers - blindly treat these theories as dichotomous is telling.

There are many mathematical and scientific issues with evolution theory that it's most ardent supporters are barely capable of defending. Intelligent design wouldn't have the following it does were evolution theory itself not full of gaping holes, especially with its decidedly weak explanations of our origins. All in all, a topic worthy of further discussion - not the dismissal I perceive from your statement above.


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 05:44:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Disagree with that analogy. (2.00 / 4)

As a molecular biologist who studies evolution...

...no, you're wrong.  Evolution is as factual as gravity.  It's been seen in the lab directly many times, and observed in the wild many more.  

Now, that isn't to say we know everything about it.  Far from it (we don't even know exactly how gravity works -- is it quantum or the result of space-time curvature?).  But there is no doubt among scientists that it is real and that humans and apes (and everything else) evolved from a common ancestor.  It is woven into the fabric of everything we do.


by randomscientist on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 06:15:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Disagree with that analogy. (none / 0)

I'm not wrong, but I'll gladly give you more than sufficient opportunity to prove otherwise.

I can see how you misunderstood my use of terminology: I was rather hoping someone would. It proves my point that an overwhelming majority of the public have blindly defaulted to evolution theory because it's allegedly the "scientific" explanation. They consider evolution theory as basic as their ABCs, while understanding little or nothing of its details.

To begin with, I used the term "evolution theory", not evolution. Evolution as an observation is, of course, very real - far be it from me to argue with fossilized evidence. My use of the term "evolution theory" refers to its extrapolation to attempt broader explanations of the origins of life, from the big bang onwards.

The thread I responded to commented on intelligent design. The context I argued wasn't whether humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor, but rather the unseemly leaps of logic required to explain the evolution of either species from its simpler unicellular ancestors - and perhaps most critically, the leap from inorganic matter to organic life.

Not that basic evolution doesn't have holes aplenty - such as the development of specialized organs like the eye, of which I'm sure you're aware. I'd be glad to hear your defense for this and other more common criticisms of darwinism, however my most pressing objections deal rather with its probabilistic claims, an area in which I have sufficient background to call foul.

I have a graduate degree in computer science, specializing in Artificial Intelligence - specifically, neural network learning algorithms. I've worked with genetic and other evolutionary algorithms, with a special interest in their application in artificial life simulations. The latter in particular led to many unanswered questions about the probabilistic basis of evolution theory.

I'm fairly confident that this diary will have long fallen off the rec list before these are adequately addressed, however I'll be glad to indulge you with further details here, or anywhere else you'd prefer. A biologist's viewpoint could make for interesting rebuttals to my largely purist mathematical objections - and presumably provide some relief from the interminable political squabbling on this site.


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 04:00:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Ooo, an evolution debate! (2.00 / 1)

now this is a good topic!

Eyes are a perfect example of the rift.  It is a complex organ, how could it arise?

Eyes evolve from eye-spots.  Photoreceptive areas on simple unicellular or cell-cluster critters that provide a great deal of survival benefit.  "Swim towards the light, little one!", or conversely "something just swam between me and the light, run away!"  More effective light-detection equipment (mobility, resolution, shuttering) provides additional survival benefits, hence the inevitable emergent systems we call "eyes".

We know that hydrocarbons form in interstellar nebulas, and star systems are created from these nebulas.  Every rocky body circling any star is pummeled by the Oort cloud objects that avoid the initial cauldron of star and planet formation, providing abundant raw materials for life.  What is left is the specificity of the event that leads to the initial self-replicating systems, and having modeled some of that stuff you likely know as much as I about various steps in that process.

Imho, probability is the key debate remaining.  Computer models and the range of quantities we deal with in that realm fail to scratch the surface of the numbers in play on a single planetary surface over a pertinent period of a few million (or hundred million) years.  The quantities of organic molecules and their rate of interaction is exponentially (by large exponents) greater than the capacity we have to model in computer systems.  

I would suggest that in comparing any given results from any given computer model to biological evolution on a planetary scale you ask the question thusly: "Sure, that might be if I had a computer ten trillion times faster with as many times the storage and ran it for ten million years with software a million times as subtle, but...".  

Because you do.  You're living on it.

-chris


Motley Moose, Troll Free Blogging
by chrisblask on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 04:21:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ooo, an evolution debate! (none / 0)

Thanks for your response. I should clarify my earlier reference to issues with the evolution of the eye. These aren't with simpler structures that are little more than aggregations of photoreceptors - in which case the natural selection technique you've outlined serves rather well. It's with more complex aggregate mechanisms such as the mammalian eye, and especially with components like the lens, that problems arise. Neither natural selection nor genetic drift suitably address the appearance or evolution of the lens, because the latter would serve little purpose without being precision shaped to focus light on the retina. Its interim evolutionary states would have served to either block or refract light away from the underlying photoreceptors, hardly conditions that would direct its evolution to the form we know today.

I'm glad you mention the "specificity of the event that led upto to the self-replicating systems" we regard as life today. It's just about the most fundamental event in the history of our planet, yet its explanation so far has amounted to little more than a shrug. The Miller-Urey experiment was one attempt to reproduce it in the '50s, without success. If evolution theory is to be believed, it must imply that there was only one point in time, presumably when the earth was still young, when inorganic matter magically made this the transition to an organic life form. This is hardly an inconsequential detail. And for all our progress, neither the universe nor mankind has been able to duplicate this event, ever.

I understand the probability scale argument. I don't wish to reignite the monkeys writing Shakespeare debate, so for now I'll note that scaling alone wouldn't explain away the many issues I've observed that a truly randomly evolving universe should not have. What is with the quirky preference for symmetry - and for even-numbered limbs, for example? MIT's artificial life simulations showed that creatures with both odd- and even-numbered limbs could learn, superbly, how to self-ambulate. And why the common design threads (the cell, for example) in the vast majority of life forms? Was this one paradigm truly the only one to outlast natural selection? A more general question would be - why did life apparently evolve only down the one incredibly narrow path, with the seemingly endless other possibilities strangely absent? And if the latter are absent because natural selection prevented their evolution, shouldn't there be plenty of fossilized evidence of the myriad other possible paths that life might have taken, had it been successful?

Where is this evidence?


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:18:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Disagree with that analogy. (2.00 / 1)

My use of the term "evolution theory" refers to its extrapolation to attempt broader explanations of the origins of life, from the big bang onwards.

The reason I "misunderstood [your] use of terminology," as you say, is because your definition of "evolution theory" has nothing to do with scientists' definition of the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution explains changes in gene frequency in a population over time.  It has nothing to do with the origin of life or the Big Bang per se.  I don't claim to know how life started and I don't think any other scientists claim to either.  There are hypotheses about that, of course, but no theories.

The thread I responded to commented on intelligent design. The context I argued wasn't whether humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor, but rather the unseemly leaps of logic required to explain the evolution of either species from its simpler unicellular ancestors - and perhaps most critically, the leap from inorganic matter to organic life.

There are countless examples of homology in both DNA and protein sequences between single-celled organisms and humans.  You can even take one of the cyclins (a protein that controls the cell cycle) from humans and place it in yeast, and it works.  That's how similar humans and yeast are at the molecular level.  Homology even extends to bacteria.  If you'd like I can produce some examples for you.

As for the leap from inorganic matter to organic life, again -- this is outside the purview of evolution.

Not that basic evolution doesn't have holes aplenty - such as the development of specialized organs like the eye, of which I'm sure you're aware. I'd be glad to hear your defense for this and other more common criticisms of darwinism

The development of an eye is not a hole in evolutionary theory.  The proteins that make up an eye have homology to proteins with other functions.  Here, check this out:

http://services.uniprot.org/blast/blast- 20080731-19405773

That's a BLAST of rhodopsin against fungi (BLAST finds protein homology).  And it shows that rhodopsin is similar to a protein in the fungus Aspergillus fumigatus at a level that is statistically nearly impossible (there are examples from other organisms as well, see here: http://services.uniprot.org/blast/blast- 20080731-19434909).

So why hand-wave about how improbable making an eye is when we have evidence in front of our faces that proteins in the eye, such as rhodopsin, were coopted from other functions in single-celled organisms?


by randomscientist on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:47:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Disagree with that analogy. (none / 0)

The reason I "misunderstood [your] use of terminology," as you say, is because your definition of "evolution theory" has nothing to do with scientists' definition of the theory of evolution.

I've defined my use of "evolution theory" as being an extrapolated one. This term wasn't one of my choosing, and your "scientists' definition" sadly doesn't govern the less than scholarly debate raging over intelligent design that I've engaged. I've already noted that ID and evolution as you've defined it are not at all, in my opinion, mutually exclusive.

The theory of evolution explains changes in gene frequency in a population over time.  It has nothing to do with the origin of life or the Big Bang per se.  I don't claim to know how life started and I don't think any other scientists claim to either.  There are hypotheses about that, of course, but no theories.

The origin of life is an integral component of any ID v/s evolution debate. This was the debate into which you chose to interject your opinions - when you do this, you cannot expect to implicitly redefine its purview. But I'll accept your explanation in good faith.

There are countless examples of homology in both DNA and protein sequences between single-celled organisms and humans.  You can even take one of the cyclins (a protein that controls the cell cycle) from humans and place it in yeast, and it works.  That's how similar humans and yeast are at the molecular level

A reasonable, comprehensive, and well-documented explanation, nevertheless, not (to me) a convincing one. You can take a bolt out of a dishwasher and use it on an aircraft: that hardly proves that the latter was derived from the former. All it proves is that there is evidence of commonality of design - evidence that strengthens the ID cause more than that of its detractors.

As for the leap from inorganic matter to organic life, again -- this is outside the purview of evolution.

A reasonable line of defense, but one we'll have to disagree on for now.

So why hand-wave about how improbable making an eye is when we have evidence in front of our faces that proteins in the eye, such as rhodopsin, were coopted from other functions in single-celled organisms?

Refer my recent response to chris blask for more details on this. It's been a long-standing criticism, and I'm surprised that you aren't familiar with it. I think I've already addressed the coopting argument above.

Thanks for taking the time to respond.


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:17:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I hope your comment is a snark.. (none / 0)

your second paragraph is not credible..well random scientist who knows better than this idiot (me) had already replied to you..so..


by louisprandtl on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:08:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I hope your comment is a snark.. (none / 0)

It is not snark. I've responded to "random scientist" - see above.

I'm genuinely curious as to how you (and many others, clearly) jumped to conclusions about my skepticism with modern evolutionary theories. No offense taken: to me it's just a statement of the degree of popular buy-in to evolutionary theory and prevalent cynicism with any alternate explanation.


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 04:08:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Alternate explanations (2.00 / 2)

are always the sticking point.  What are they?

the standard answer is "god" though I know a few bright folks who will say "aliens".  The former is a nod to magic (one day in a field there was nothing, a loud "pop" and there stood Man) the latter drives me bats because I have yet to get to the end of the conversation with an answer to my stock response "where did the aliens come from, then?" - origin is somewhere, and if it was planted then the planter came from somewhere (where they evolved).

I grew up very very very Christian and never had a single problem with evolution.  Despite numerous lengthy discussions with many bright friends who do not believe it, I have yet to understand why they do not.

Thanks for the good conversation, btw, I can't sleep and my book is boring me... ;-)

-chris


Motley Moose, Troll Free Blogging
by chrisblask on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 04:30:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

How is it any different (none / 0)

to claim that at some unknown point in our planet's history, there was a loud pop and magically life appeared - the living precursor of everything that supposedly evolved from it? Yet this is essentially the "scientific" explanation that the allegedly enlightened folk subscribe to.

I've been down that same rat-hole when it comes to the "aliens" explanation, by the way. In truth, it's actually a more compelling theory than the current "we haven't a clue ourselves, but we do know that you're wrong" theory. True, it postpones the identity behind the alien origin, but it's still a far more believable explanation for the marvel of engineering that what we so casually dismiss as "life".


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:38:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry so slow, just caught this response (none / 0)

The difference is stark.  The evolutionary thread says that, somewhere among quadrillions(cubed(cubed)) of chemical interactions in a soup of constituent building blocks over (by our time scales) virtually limitless time, at least one combination is consistently replicable.

The religious occurence presupposes an intelligent universe-creating entity who chooses at a given moment to create functional humans out of mud/nothingness/goodwill...

The former doesn't require any leap of imagination.  The latter requires substantial leaps of imagination, if not outright suspension of disbelief (which is the very definition of religious faith).  One has to first believe that there is an unknowable extra-Universal Being with limitless powers.

The alien thing does nothing for the logic of the argument.  Moving the arising of life back some abitrary period in time doesn't add or subtract anything from the question.  If our own genetic heritage were 10 or 20 billion years old instead of 3 we'd still have the task of understanding the begining moment.

-best

-chris


Motley Moose, Troll Free Blogging
by chrisblask on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 09:32:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I hope your comment is a snark.. (2.00 / 1)

In reality, evolutionary theory is just a better explanation for what we see.  Do we know it is 100% true?  Maybe not.  But we know it is a lot closer to 100% than the idea that a god snapped its fingers and "poof" there is everything.  And to be honest, I find the whole "well, well...God DIRECTED evolution" to be a pretty weak justification and kind of a cop out.


by ProgressiveDL on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:11:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I hope your comment is a snark.. (none / 0)

You've reflected the very belief that frustrates me to no end.

Evolution and intelligent design aren't mutually exclusive - I see the latter complementing rather than opposing the former. If you've read my arguments upthread, you'll see no mention of any divine intervention - just reasoning that to cling to evolution theory to the exclusion of anything else is to believe in magic. That something, somewhere snapped its fingers and caused life to magically appear out of nowhere.

The idea that evolution was prejudiced along its current path - "directed" as you've termed it - is neither weak nor a cop-out. It's certainly more compelling than any alternative explanation I've heard.


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:37:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I hope your comment is a snark.. (2.00 / 1)

It's only compelling if you already believe the premise that there is a god.  If you went to an atheist (let's say someone who had never heard about religion) and said, "Which is more likely?  Some magical being directed this or evolution happened on its own?"  I doubt they would side with ID.  Just my two cents.  In fairness to you, I'm biased because I'm already an atheist.  Any agnostics here care to jump in?


by ProgressiveDL on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 04:46:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You don't need that premise. (none / 0)

The point I've been trying to make does not require you to subscribe to any particular belief system. That point being, that the notion that evolution has progressed randomly is not supported by the evidence.

You don't need to conclude any divine intervention to agree on this point. As mentioned earlier, even the hypothesis that all life on earth was seeded by aliens from outer space is more viable than the claim that our evolution into complex life forms just "happened on its own". There's simply way too much bias and predisposition in play for the latter line of reasoning to be credible.

Please read the comments and my (admittedly verbose) responses upthread: you'll need that context for what I've been saying to make sense. If nothing else, I'd be particularly curious to hear what an atheist might make of those observations.

As an aside, I doubt we'll be hearing from many of the others, now that this diary is off the rec list. Which makes me even happier for your company on this now lonely thread! Thanks for the response.


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 05:36:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You don't need that premise. (none / 0)

Ha, at least we won't get yelled at for being offtopic!  

I've seen enough evidence elsewhere to be confident in the evolution of the eye, tongues, lungs, etc.

But that isn't the main sticking point between us.  The real difficult point is how we got from inanimate matter to animate matter.  I happen not to believe in a soul (not for humans, not for animals, not for anyone), so perhaps it's an easier leap for me to make than someone (atheist, agnostic, or religious) who does believe in a soul.  

In my opinion, there just is not a huge difference between simple living organisms and non-living matter.  I admit that I haven't read enough on the subject to know how likely/unlikely it is that chemical compounds evolved into RNA/DNA or viruses or whatever the first life was.  And if we agree that the rest of the evolutionary chain seems correct in principle (if not always perfect in specifics), we only disagree on one point: how life evolved.  Not so much, in the end.  Maybe impossible to resolve beyond the matter of faith (in a god or disbelief in a god), but I'd certainly be interested in hearing more about it.


by ProgressiveDL on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 06:33:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You don't need that premise. (none / 0)

I guess you still haven't read my notes on the eye. The lens within the eye couldn't have evolved into the perfect convex shape it is today. This is a claim that's well nigh impossible, confidence doesn't come into the picture. But let's get past that.

One physical law consistently observed by matter in the universe is the tendency towards an increasingly disorganized state. Water flows from a higher to a lower point, Snow melts down into rivers, electrically charged clouds discharge as lightning, hurricanes dissipate tropical heat to temperate latitudes.

Life is however strikingly different in one incredibly important aspect - it is self organizing, from its simplest unicellular forms to its most complex creatures. Living cells self-organize to form organs and organisms that rely on them, they come together to create offspring - and only living forms can beget other living forms.

The key difference being debated here isn't with inorganic and organic matter. The key difference is with living organic matter. Take life away from from any life form, and it will predictably decay and decompose in precisely the way that its component chemicals might be expected to, and nothing can reverse the process.

This is why the issue of origins isn't simply one irrelevant point in a sea of far-reaching conclusions. Rather it is, by far, the most important and pivotal one. Evolution requires one to believe that life came into existence in the flash of an instant at one point in our planet's past, never to be seen or measured again.

Never, think about this, never has either the universe or mankind been able to reproduce this one-time life-giving event, over the history of our planet. I find that to be mighty fishy, don't you?


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 08:23:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You don't need that premise. (none / 0)

I'm not enough of a biologist to refute your points about the eye.  But if every other organ can evolve (and there is not much debate on most other organs), I don't see why the eye would somehow be different.  Maybe we don't know how yet, but that doesn't mean we won't eventually.

I concede that there is a leap of faith (ironically) in believing that life was able to essentially create itself without an outside force.  But there is also debate about why matter won out over antimatter when they were exactly in balance at one point.  I suppose a god is as good an answer as any for now.  But I am confident we will eventually know the answer and that it won't have to do with an outside force.

As for life producing itself only here at one point, I don't believe that.  First off, I am confident that life exists on thousands (millions?) of planets out there.  It may be totally unrecognizable to us for now, and I won't live long enough to see evidence of it, but someday we will see life elsewhere.  Think about it:  why would god create all those planets and this huge universe if the only life in all of existence is here on this one rock?  Why make all those other planets and stars?  If we ever find life on any other planet, be prepared to face an increasingly unbelieving population.

Also, we don't know for sure that life didn't develop in multiple places on this planet.  We don't know that it isn't developing right now in the crust or in a volcano or in a rainforest.  The point is, we don't know a lot of things.  For the things without answers, you believe in an outside entity, I believe in luck.  Not all that different in the grand scheme of things.


by ProgressiveDL on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:14:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You don't need that premise. (none / 0)

Also, I am not positive that there is not some form of energy or matter that somehow acts on the universe to make things be created.  But I don't believe it is essentially benevolent (I would call it neutral) and I don't believe it can directly affect human lives.  In other words, I don't believe in a soul, I don't believe in an answer to prayer, I don't believe in sin (or punishment for sin), I don't believe good things happen to good people (and the inverse), I don't believe in a human that can be part god, and I don't believe in miracles.  At that point, whether I believe in the idea of a god or not is pretty irrelevant.


by ProgressiveDL on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:18:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Whereas "Intelligent Design" (none / 0)

is all about human beings who cannot accept the fact that we are, essentially, critters. Really smart critters, to be sure, but critters nontheless, descended (ascended?) from itty-bitty critters like all the rest. You can do all the fancy arguing you like about theory, but that's what it's all about.  


by Alice in Florida on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 05:30:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"That's what it's all about"? (none / 0)

Really? Here's another hypothesis: those that dismiss factual debates as "fancy arguing about theory" - arguments that they cannot or do not want to understand - are, in reality, just doing the hokey-pokey. That's what it's all about.


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:43:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He Didn't Leak the Prayer You Fools (2.00 / 11)

Rec.  This was disgusting, and the one who should be most ashamed is the Yeshiva student who stole the prayer from the wall (who has been identified only as "Aleph").


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:48:23 PM EST

The PUMA Republican filth (1.33 / 3)

don't care about the truth.


by Geekesque on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:50:15 PM EST

Re: The PUMA Republican filth (2.00 / 4)

Not everyone who peddled it deserved the title you just gave them.

I would urge you to ease off a tad on the harsh language.  Some of the people who will think you're targeting aren't in those groups.

Direct your fire with precision and try to avoid collateral damage.  Disagreements aren't always born of malice or lies.  Sometimes folks just see it differently.  Not everybody who questions Obama is a PUMA or a Republican.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:52:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The PUMA Republican filth (2.00 / 1)

no, but those that link to places like newsbusters are. Come on, stop being so darned nice.


by Dog Chains on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 04:01:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The PUMA Republican filth (2.00 / 5)

I will not comply.  I am perfectly capable of considerable rage, but I will be sure to properly direct it.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 04:01:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The PUMA Republican filth (2.00 / 1)

I am directing it at the right people. Chitown and Linfar and all the other ridiculous people acting like disinterested bystanders while continuously posting filth


by Dog Chains on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 04:06:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The people who push an obvious (2.00 / 2)

lie are either contemptibly stupid or Republican shills.

I really don't care to distinguish.


by Geekesque on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 04:19:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Now there is some righteous anger (2.00 / 5)

It's okay to get angry sometimes.  I have trouble with that myself, but in this case, the smackdown was entirely deserved.

I felt like I was violated, or perhaps a violater, just reading the ill-published note here.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:50:59 PM EST

Thanks Reaper (2.00 / 8)

I've been wondering where all the fucking outrage over this was! This is a privacy violation of the first fucking order and a show of disrespect to the Jewish faith and to faith in general. Whole thing makes me sick, and the blatantly false suggestion that it was somehow the victims fault just absolutely disgusts me. Jews understand the magnitude of this violation; I've been sad to find out that most other people either don't understand or don't take the Jewish faith seriously enough to care. I've avoided even reading the published prayer, and anyone else who hasn't yet seen it I encourage to abstain.

Anyone who helped spread this horse-shit is a bastard, plain and simple, a creep on par with those who smeared Chelsea Clinton. Even in Presidential politics, there are a few basic human decencies whose violation is out of bounds.


M. It's like W, but flipflopped.
by warmwaterpenguin on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:53:51 PM EST

Re: He Didn't Leak the Prayer You Fools (1.00 / 7)

Someone in Obama's entourage walked off with several prayers--its on video. Diary is coming. You been had...


by linfar on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:54:19 PM EST

Re: He Didn't Leak the Prayer You Fools (2.00 / 8)

BRING

IT

ON


by Reaper0Bot0 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:55:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He Didn't Leak the Prayer You Fools (2.00 / 6)

I'll give you the short version:

"Seconds after Obama left the stones, some of his entourage
stepped up to the wall (seen dressed in suits) while young men
began gathering notes in their hands in what appeared to be
the search for Obama's freshly placed personal note. He is
joined by others who unwrap notes and read them. I know this
video is potentially a great asset to you in the continuing
coverage of this story. "

It's from the description of this YouTube video:

The guy's trying to sell footage of guys scrambling for the note.

I think linfar misread the coverage as:

"Seconds after Obama left the stones, some of his entourage
began gathering notes in their hands in what appeared to be
the search for Obama's freshly placed personal note...."

If you skip a line, the story looks really bad.


by TCQuad on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 04:10:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He Didn't Leak the Prayer You Fools (2.00 / 10)

Yeah, but damn.  The people who are doing the looking are pretty obviously not in his entourage.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 04:13:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He Didn't Leak the Prayer You Fools (2.00 / 6)

Do you see the look on the one dude's face after reading through the one he got? Like a mixture between fear of getting caught and gleeful disrespect. And thoughts of how much money/prestige he could get from having the note. As evidenced by the buddy he got to film the whole thing.


"Tell me about your work ethic." "Well, I don't think ethnics do no work. I mean, that's they problem, really." "Overt racial prejudice. Impressive."
by vcalzone on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 04:18:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

She's already made up her mind (2.00 / 3)

that the Great Satan leaked his own prayer.

No use reasoning with that one.


by Geekesque on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 04:14:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He Didn't Leak the Prayer You Fools (2.00 / 4)

Hey, I think that one guy was wearing a fake beard. Was that Axelrod?


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 04:28:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He Didn't Leak the Prayer You Fools (2.00 / 1)

Maybe linfar can enlighten us.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 04:29:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He Didn't Leak the Prayer You Fools (2.00 / 7)

Maybe it was the dread Fauxbama!

I sense his fell hand at work.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 04:30:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He Didn't Leak the Prayer You Fools (2.00 / 2)

Well done.


by NewOaklandDem on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 04:38:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He Didn't Leak the Prayer You Fools (2.00 / 4)

LOL, I really hope that's not the video Linfar is talking about, because the last time I looked, that is definitely not what Obama's "entourage" looks like.
Linfar, you have had a good reputation here, don't blow it by posting crap like this video as proof. Please.

"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC
by skohayes on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:06:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He Didn't Leak the Prayer You Fools (none / 0)

"has a good reputation" ???

lol no


by Exiled on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:40:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He Didn't Leak the Prayer You Fools (none / 0)

"have had". Linfar has written a few very good diaries in the last few weeks which made the rec list, and people thought she was back on board. Evidently not.


"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC
by skohayes on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:31:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He Didn't Leak the Prayer You Fools (2.00 / 9)

That and the Michelle "Whitey" video should be coming any second now. you disgust me


by Dog Chains on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:58:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He Didn't Leak the Prayer You Fools (2.00 / 3)

Whose side are you on?  


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 04:02:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He Didn't Leak the Prayer You Fools (2.00 / 3)

Is this SNARK?
 Seriously...
"harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy"
by nogo postal on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 04:04:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh brother (2.00 / 6)

So I am now waiting for three videos

Larry Sinclair

Whitey

And now the Wailing Wall.

Don't mind me if I don't hold my breath.


Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
by jsfox on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 04:04:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh brother (2.00 / 5)

I'm fairly certain that we'll all see The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants VI in 3D IMAX before we see any of the other videos.


And so, may evil beware and may good dress warmly and eat lots of fresh vegetables.
by thatpurplestuff on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 04:07:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh brother (2.00 / 7)

Greedo put the pants on first!


by Reaper0Bot0 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 04:08:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Kind of ironic, isn't it (2.00 / 3)

In this age of information, all these videos can't be found but are just around the corner


by Dog Chains on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 04:08:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He Didn't Leak the Prayer You Fools (2.00 / 4)

That's the type of response you write when you're willing to show your proof.  Otherwise the appropriate response is chagrin.

Reaper, you should put up a countdown diary each day that we don't see Linfar's "proof".


by Tenafly Viper on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 04:09:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If it's not true, will you leave Mydd (2.00 / 4)

and promise to never come back?


by Geekesque on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 04:09:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He Didn't Leak the Prayer You Fools (2.00 / 4)

Oh and btw if you happen to be interested in the truth, Linfar (maybe you should post this response in your forthcoming diary on the topic):

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/27/ student-apologizes-for-stealing-obama-pr ayer-from-western-wall/

Sure it's posted on the fox news website but the report itself is courteousy of the AP.


by Tenafly Viper on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 04:22:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He Didn't Leak the Prayer You Fools (2.00 / 4)

What's your story?

The other day you said that you wanted to know what Obama wanted to do and that he wasn't being specific and then when people suggested you read his policy white papers and listen to his speeches, you said that there was no point in doing that.

Another day you made crap up about the prayer and now you are pushing a video that doesn't prove what you have to say.

No logic, no intellectual honesty.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 04:24:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He Didn't Leak the Prayer You Fools (2.00 / 4)

His entourage, eh? Let's see it. I just watched the video posted above my comment. Let's see yours.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 04:27:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He Didn't Leak the Prayer You Fools (2.00 / 3)

Up rated.  Although it's a complete fabrication and a smear, I think the many substantive responses deserve to be seen in order to combat it.


by Tenafly Viper on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 04:32:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He Didn't Leak the Prayer You Fools (2.00 / 2)

Uprated.  I am sure it is absolute garbage but I will give Linfar the opportunity to speak.


by Reaper0Bot0 on