Generally the latter is asking the former to vote for them.

Only hypocrisy and cynicism fit into that dime-thin space.

3e9edb143295b5ccfdb5…

You speak the truth.

The stammer with which she delivered this analysis seems to come on when she is making an argument that she knows is reprehensible.

Hillary Rodham Clinton most certainly is not a racist in any reasoned sense. So when she makes racialized arguments, for the purpose of weakening her Democratic opponent, it is all the more morally blameworthy. She knows better, but chooses to exacerbate the divide between and among the races for her own ends. Bill knows better as well, but he can just access his inner Bubba and shut down the evolved world citizen within him.

If you have to identify someone as “world renowned,” he probably ain’t.

783002d6ca9072180ac1…

Good journalism though.

d0a57e9abbb8e83b2b20…

I found your site on technorati and read a few of your other posts. Keep up the good work. I just added your RSS feed to my Google News Reader. Looking forward to reading more from you….

Of course, by raising expectations, Obama is certain to leave some of them unfulfilled–I certainly expect to have some of mine left with no one to dance with–but I also expect incremental (not radical) change, especially given the range of forces arrayed against reform. I’ll be happy with someone in the mold of Teddy Roosevelt; very happy if we throw some FDR in; even happier, if Obama proves to be another animal altogether.

“If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.”

Well, Woody, as a good scientist, Feynman certainly understood that science never proves anything. What it does do is this: disprove competing theories. Absolute proof of anthropogenic global warming? I’m not holding my breath. But if all the other theories aren’t working out very well, and warming continues, what’s the difference from a policy point of view?

If Feynman said that “there is no harm in doubt and skepticism, for it is through these that new discoveries are made,” Carl Sagan also said “They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.”

Be careful what side you end up on, Woody.

This just goes to show why Woody shouldn’t be telling anyone what science is or how it works.

Did anyone back then do controlled clinical trials on bleeding to see if it worked? Of course not — if they had, they would have seen that bloodletting didn’t work. Because they didn’t, you can’t say that bleeding was a scientifically supported practice, or part of science in any way.

Wikipedia puts it well enough: “The logic of bloodletting was based in the theory of the four humours. According to this theory, a mystical equilibrium between several bodily fluids maintains human life.”

Mystical, woody. M-Y-S-T-I-C-A-L. Not science.

But in Woody’s mind, a practice becomes “part of science” simply because it was practiced by doctors (not scientists) at one time, and because we now have a field called “medical science”, which somehow retroactively applies to medicine as practiced in the early 19th century.

Good thing you didn’t try to become a scientist, Woody. You would never have made the cut.

No?

How about a grant to study the the courtship rituals of the Arctic iguana as they relate to Climate Change?

I thought so.

The eminent Slavoj Zizek unambigously backs Obama, while predicting a Mandela/Lula situation - hopes raised higher and then within two years masses disapointed in Mandela/Lula/obama.