FlishFun.com

Thing number 1 (Political):

Hillary Clinton won West Virginia by a 41% margin. Nice. Just thought I’d mention it. Also, a couple links for you to think about that I’ve picked up over the past couple days:

Obama thinks that “[Israel is a] constant wound, [a] constant sore, [that] does infect all of our foreign policy”

Obama supports splitting Israel into two parts to form a contiguous Palestinian State.

Al-Jazeera shows Palestinians engaging in phone banking activities for Barack Obama.

Michelle Obama’s Name Removed from Terrorist Fundraiser’s (Hatem El-Hady) Page on Barack Obama’s Site.

Interesting stuff.

Thing number 2 (Home):

I’ve been off my levothyroxine for 29 days now and happen to also be radioactive after a dose of 159 millicuries of Radioactive Iodine (I-131). For those wondering, nope… no super powers yet, and no, the many rules you have to follow are not fun. Ick. Still feel like crap, hoping to go back on my meds on the 21st of May (I hope I hope I hope).

With a 10% lead over Barack Obama, Hillary was able to pull off a great win in Pennsylvania last night. A lot of people have a lot of things to say, with most looking at Obama and wondering why he just can’t seem to “end the game.” For all of his rhetoric and all of his money spent, after 4 weeks in PA, he still lost by over 215,000 people… that’s a pretty big loss. Obama outspent Clinton in the state almost 3:1, spending at least $11 million dollars (according to his camp), yet just couldn’t bring home the “win.” So what is going on here? There are plenty of thoughts on the subject, for example this is from Anderson Cooper and deals with the “late voters”:

According to Yahoo News, the most recent local “search buzz” stats for Pennsylvania (as of yesterday) show that users in city after city searched the word “Obama” four times as much as they did the word “Clinton.” They were more curious about Obama from one end of the state to the other.

The problem for Obama was that his negative-related searches—searches of terms “Rev. Wright” and “bitter,” for instance – outnumbered all searches for Clinton by a margin of 7 to 1. While folks followed the rumor mill with Obama, even searching his name with Brad Pitt after reports surfaced they may be related, Clinton searchers predominantly focused on policy-related matters like “health care” and “economy.”

CNN exit polls show of the 18 percent of voters who decided their vote the final three days, Clinton handily won those voters 58% to 42%.

So are the comments and other issues surrounding Obama now coming to the front? Will this affect him in the coming races? He’s expected to win North Carolina, which is just 2 weeks away, but the latest polls show him with just a 9% lead, and with news like this:

Howard Fineman is reporting on MSNBC that Clinton will soldier on to North Carolina and to not be surprised if Elizabeth Edwards makes several appearances with Hillary and let her feelings be known who she stands with. He says that this could have a real impact there as they love Mrs. Edwards.

He did say that while this was likely to happen, John Edwards would remain “neutral” on the sidelines.

Clinton could feasibly win (as it says, they love Mrs. Edwards, and some will see it as a “silent” endorsement by John himself)… and if she does, what does that mean for the Superdelegates? Will they continue to support Obama, or will the tide turn, looking to Clinton as regaining her strength in time for the General Election? Also, according to Real Clear Politics, here is the current (estimated) popular vote results:

Popular Vote (w/FL & MI, Estimating IA, NV, ME & WA):

Barack Obama: 15,307,804 47.5%

Hillary Clinton: 15,319,525 47.5%

Iowa, Nevada, Washington & Maine Have Not Released Popular Vote Totals. RealClearPolitics has estimated the popular vote totals for Senator Obama and Clinton in these four states. RCP uses the WA Caucus results from February 9 in this estimate because the Caucuses on February 9 were the “official” contest recognized by the DNC to determine delegates to the Democratic convention. The estimate from these four Caucus states where there are not official popular vote numbers increases Senator Obama’s popular vote margin by 110,224. This number would be about 50,000 less if the Washington primary results from February 19th were used instead of the Washington Caucus results. This count also includes certified vote totals in Florida and Michigan.

You can either call this a statistical tie, or say that Hillary Clinton is now leading the popular vote. While it’s not any “official” indicator, it’s a lot to think about at this point in the game. It seems that also with the wind, she’s found new support in contributors with her website saying:

The campaign has raised more than $3.5 million since PA polls closed last night…last night’s fundraising total the was the strongest ever.

The unofficial reports (yet to be verified) are stating:

Clinton campaign Chairman Terry McAuliffe just announced that the campaign has raised $10 million from 50,000 new donors since the polls closed last night.

If this is true, Mr. Obama may face some serious heat in the coming weeks. Only time will tell what happens here, but I think it just got a bit more interesting. For those interested, here are the current remaining Primaries:

May 3: Guam
May 6: Indiana and North Carolina
May 13: West Virginia
May 20: Kentucky and Oregon
June 1: Puerto Rico
June 3: Montana and South Dakota

Let’s keep on watching and see what happens!

Well, I know I wouldn’t… but I’m just one person. From what I can tell, about 50% of Democrats would like one (our economy has a spare $800 billion, right?)! What am I talking about? Barack Obama’s Global Poverty Act, of course! What’s that? You mean you haven’t heard of it? Well let’s take a look!

The official page of the bill can be found here:

S. 2433: Global Poverty Act of 2007 (Sponsor: Sen. Barack Obama [D-IL])

It was introduced on 12/07/2007 and here is the brief summary:

Global Poverty Act of 2007 - Directs the President, through the Secretary of State, to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the U.S. foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the United Nations Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.

Well, that doesn’t sound too bad, right? I mean, you know all about the United Nations Millennium Development Goals and such, correct? You say you don’t? Wow… hasn’t Mr. Obama explained it all in his speeches? I kinda assumed that’s what he does when he has all those people’s attention captured. Anyway, let’s take a look at these goals.

The official page for the goals can be found here:

The United Nations Millenium Goals

Now I admit, this is a very noble cause, but it also doesn’t really say anything about cost or what it entails (including that we’d also be joining into the United Nations Millennium Declaration… it’s a fine read). Well, here is some info from you, taken from an article written by Cliff Kincaid.

The bill defines the term “Millennium Development Goals” as the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, General Assembly Resolution 55/2 (2000).

The U.N. says that “The commitment to provide 0.7% of gross national product (GNP) as official development assistance was first made 35 years ago in a General Assembly resolution, but it has been reaffirmed repeatedly over the years, including at the 2002 global Financing for Development conference in Monterrey, Mexico. However, in 2004, total aid from the industrialized countries totaled just $78.6 billion - or about 0.25% of their collective GNP.”

In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that declaration commits nations to banning “small arms and light weapons” and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Millennium Declaration also affirms the U.N. as “the indispensable common house of the entire human family, through which we will seek to realize our universal aspirations for peace, cooperation and development.”

Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the U.N.’s “Millennium Project,” says that the U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP in increased foreign aid spending would add $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already spends. Over a 13-year period, from 2002, when the U.N.’s Financing for Development conference was held, to the target year of 2015, when the U.S. is expected to meet the “Millennium Development Goals,” this amounts to $845 billion. And the only way to raise that kind of money, Sachs has written, is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels.

Did you catch that? Yep… an estimated $845 billion dollar tax that we, as Americans, won’t see a penny of. Sounds great… where do I sign up? For those who don’t want to read the whole article from Sachs, here is the part they’re referring to:

We will need, in the end, to put real resources in support of our hopes. A global tax on carbon-emitting fossil fuels might be the way to begin. Even a very small tax, less than that which is needed to correct humanity’s climate-deforming overuse of fossile fuels, would finance a greatly enhanced supply of global public goods. No better time to start than as the new millennium begins.

So I’m sure a few of you are surprised and many are wondering why you haven’t heard about this. Well, according to Accuracy In Media, it was covered up, and while I don’t want to go that far, it does seem odd that no one I’ve spoken with has heard of it. Here’s what AIM had to say in their press release:

Accuracy in Media editor Cliff Kincaid disclosed today that a hugely expensive bill called the “Global Poverty Act,” sponsored by Democratic Senator Barack Obama, was quickly passed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. Kincaid said that the major media’s cover-up of the bill, which makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations, demonstrates the media’s desire to see Senator Obama elected to the presidency.In a column posted on the AIM web site, Kincaid noted that Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was trying to rush Obama’s “Global Poverty Act” (S. 2433) through his committee without hearings. The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends. It was scheduled for a Thursday vote but was moved up a day, to Wednesday, and rushed through by voice vote. Kincaid learned, however, that conservative Senators have now put a “hold” on the legislation, in order to prevent it from being rushed to the floor for a full Senate vote.

The House version (H.R. 1302) was suddenly brought up on the House floor last September 25 and was passed by voice vote. House Republicans were caught off-guard, unaware that the pro-U.N. measure committed the U.S. to spending hundreds of billions of dollars. Kincaid’s column notes that the official in charge of making nations comply with the U.N. Millennium Goals, which are prominently highlighted in the Obama bill, says a global tax will be necessary to force American taxpayers to provide the money.

Is it true that it was covered up? That’s hard to say… the Conservitives seem to think so, and while I don’t want to agree, I do find it odd that I never heard about it. I mean, it seems something like that would be brought up again and again.

Now, the one thing I will say, is I’m all about fixing America before trying to fix the problems of the rest of the world. We’re not living in some Utopia here, we do have a lot of issues. This is one of the reasons it bugs me that not only is this bill a pet project of Obama’s, but it shows that he cares more about other countries than America. Did you know that he actually did sponsor a bill that became law? It’s true! He sponsored the Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, & Democracy Promotion Act… here’s the summary:

Obligates a specified minimum amount for each of FY2006-FY2007 under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, and the Arms Export Control Act for bilateral assistance programs in the DRC.

Expresses the sense of Congress that the Department of State should submit budget requests in FY2008-FY2009 that contain appropriate bilateral assistance increases for the DRC if progress is being made toward accomplishing the policy objectives.
States that the United States should work with other donor nations to increase international contributions to the DRC.

There’s more, but that really sums it up. So, why is Obama so concerned with life outside the US, when our life isn’t as good as it could be?

I guess the big question is, would poor hard working Americans (black, white, and other) really want to spend that much money, time, and effort helping people outside our borders? I know I don’t. I say fix America first, deal with other countries later. We have plenty of broken stuff here to keep us busy. The may sound cruel, but if you’ve checked out our economy lately, I don’t know if we can afford to spend any more, especially if it’s not going to help us out. Now if you’re the type of person who likes to hear their articles, check out this YouTube link from CNN’s coverage of this whole thing.

So, remember, when it comes to electing a President it’s just like a used car… “Buyer Beware.”

As some of you may know, Ben Stein has a movie coming out that deals with Evolution. Now, settle down, if you haven’t heard about it, it’s actually about Creationism, and why he is for it. Truly. Check out the Website here, but the big issue is not that he’s spreading false truth, it’s that there are certain things about the movie they’d rather you not know. Scientific American went into them in depth, but I figure I’ll run through them here for those that would like to know.

1. Expelled quotes Charles Darwin selectively to connect his ideas to eugenics and the Holocaust.

   What Expelled Says:

   With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

   What Darwin Actually Says:

   With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.

   Just a bit of a difference there. Nice editing, guys!

2. Ben Stein’s speech to a crowded auditorium in the film was a setup.

   From the article:

   “Viewers of Expelled might think that Ben Stein has been giving speeches on college campuses and at other public venues in support of ID and against “big science.” But if he has, the producers did not include one. The speech shown at the beginning and end was staged solely for the sake of the movie. Michael Shermer learned as much by speaking to officials at Pepperdine University, where those scenes were filmed. Only a few of the audience members were students; most were extras brought in by the producers. Judge the ovation Ben Stein receives accordingly.

3. Scientists in the film thought they were being interviewed for a different movie.

   From the article:

   As Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Eugenie Scott, Michael Shermer and other proponents of evolution appearing in Expelled have publicly remarked, the producers first arranged to interview them for a film that was to be called Crossroads, which was allegedly a documentary on “the intersection of science and religion.” They were subsequently surprised to learn that they were appearing in Expelled, which “exposes the widespread persecution of scientists and educators who are pursuing legitimate, opposing scientific views to the reigning orthodoxy,” to quote from the film’s press kit.

   When exactly did Crossroads become Expelled? The producers have said that the shift in the film’s title and message occurred after the interviews with the scientists, as the accumulating evidence gradually persuaded them that ID believers were oppressed. Yet as blogger Wesley Elsberry discovered when he searched domain registrations, the producers registered the URL “expelledthemovie.com” on March 1, 2007—more than a month (and in some cases, several months) before the scientists were interviewed. The producers never registered the URL “crossroadsthemovie.com”. Those facts raise doubt that Crossroads was still the working title for the movie when the scientists were interviewed.

4. The ID-sympathetic researcher whom the film paints as having lost his job at the Smithsonian Institution was never an employee there.
   
   This one is pretty cut and dry… the guy never worked for the Smithsonian. The relevant part of the article:

   This selective retelling of the Sternberg affair omits details that are awkward for the movie’s case, however. Sternberg was never an employee of the Smithsonian: his term as a research associate always had a limited duration, and when it ended he was offered a new position as a research collaborator. As editor, Sternberg’s decision to “peer-review” and approve Meyer’s paper by himself was highly questionable on several grounds, which was why the scientific society that published the journal later repudiated it. Sternberg had always been planning to step down as the journal’s editor—the issue in which he published the paper was already scheduled to be his last.

5. Science does not reject religious or “design-based” explanations because of dogmatic atheism.
   
   Sorry guys, but it really doesn’t. As the article explains:

   Expelled frequently repeats that design-based explanations (not to mention religious ones) are “forbidden” by “big science.” It never explains why, however. Evolution and the rest of “big science” are just described as having an atheistic preference.

   Actually, science avoids design explanations for natural phenomena out of logical necessity. The scientific method involves rigorously observing and experimenting on the material world. It accepts as evidence only what can be measured or otherwise empirically validated (a requirement called methodological naturalism). That requirement prevents scientific theories from becoming untestable and overcomplicated.

   By those standards, design-based explanations rapidly lose their rigor without independent scientific proof that validates and defines the nature of the designer. Without it, design-based explanations rapidly become unhelpful and tautological: “This looks like it was designed, so there must be a designer; we know there is a designer because this looks designed.”

6. Many evolutionary biologists are religious and many religious people accept evolution.

   Again, anyone involved in a Scientific field can tell you that there are plenty of religious people. From the article:

   Expelled includes many clips of scientists such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, William Provine and PZ Myers who are also well known as atheists. They talk about how their knowledge of science confirms their convictions and how in some cases science led them to atheism. And indeed, surveys do indicate that atheism is more common among scientists than in the general population.

   Nevertheless, the film is wrong to imply that understanding of evolution inevitably or necessarily leads to a rejection of religious belief. Francisco Ayala of the University of California, Irvine, a leading neuroscientist who used to be a Dominican priest, continues to be a devout Catholic, as does the evolutionary biologist Ken Miller of Brown University. Thousands of other biologists across the U.S. who all know evolution to be true are also still religious. Moreover, billions of other people around the world simultaneously accept evolution and keep faith with their religion. The late Pope John Paul II said that evolution was compatible with Roman Catholicism as an explanation for mankind’s physical origins.

So what does this all tell us? It tells us that no matter how much we respect someone (and I have tons of respect for Ben Stein), we should always be skeptical and do research, no matter how convincing the argument seems to be. One more last note on Expelled, you can check out the website, Expelled Exposed here. So, while we’re on the subject of Evolution, the Philadelphia Enquirer had a pretty awesome article about Evolution today, and why our bodies work the way they work (and why there are some quite large design flaws). Here is some of the good stuff they go into:

One argument scientists often make against so-called intelligent design - the idea that evolution cannot by itself explain life - is that on closer inspection, we look like we’ve been put together by someone who didn’t read the manual, or at least did a somewhat sloppy job of things.

Viewed as products of evolution, however, our anatomical quirks start to make sense, says University of Chicago fossil hunter and anatomy professor Neil Shubin, author of the recent book Your Inner Fish (Pantheon Books). And by focusing on our less lofty traits, evolutionary biology can help dispel one of the most egregious and even tragic fallacies surrounding Darwinian evolution - that it moves toward perfection, with man at the apex of some towering ladder.

The theme of his book is that we owe much of our anatomy to our animal ancestors. “Parts that evolved in one setting are now jury-rigged to work in another,” he says. “When you look at the human body, you see layer after layer of history inside of us.” The first layer is what we share with chimpanzees and gorillas. The next goes back to mice and cows, while further down, you get to the relatively underappreciated layers we share with fish - which include the backbone and basic layout of the body.

As for design, intelligent or otherwise, Shubin says the body only makes sense if viewed as a product of evolution. If it was designed, the designer could have done away with some of our relics of the past.

“This designer, if there was one, liked history, and he really liked fish.”

I suggest you read the whole article, and if you’re like me, you’ll be going to look for that book the next time you’re near a book store. I’d say, all and all, science is grand, and I really hate to see people attacking it. I say it’s fine to believe anything you want, I do. Go to church and believe what your holy books tell you, but please don’t make it your mission to invade Science and try to make it match. Remember, it’s called a “belief” for a reason… if you make it your goal to have other things match, I would say your faith is a bit shakier than you’d like to believe, no?