<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Birthers and sceptics</title>
	<atom:link href="http://crookedtimber.org/2009/08/01/birthers-and-sceptics/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2009/08/01/birthers-and-sceptics/</link>
	<description>Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 21 Mar 2010 15:38:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: John Quiggin</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2009/08/01/birthers-and-sceptics/comment-page-2/#comment-285260</link>
		<dc:creator>John Quiggin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2009 22:51:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/?p=12262#comment-285260</guid>
		<description>@MSS (#56) Of course, there is nothing antiscientific in objecting to GM foods on ethical or aesthetic grounds, or about advocating compulsory labelling so consumers can avoid these foods if they want. 

But at least for some, the temptation has been to make claims about health risks that aren&#039;t supported by mainstream science, and to do so in a way that is very similar to the arguments of GW sceptics. Here&#039;s an example of the kind of thing I mean. 

http://todayyesterdayandtomorrow.wordpress.com/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>@MSS (#56) Of course, there is nothing antiscientific in objecting to GM foods on ethical or aesthetic grounds, or about advocating compulsory labelling so consumers can avoid these foods if they want.</p>

	<p>But at least for some, the temptation has been to make claims about health risks that aren&#8217;t supported by mainstream science, and to do so in a way that is very similar to the arguments of GW sceptics. Here&#8217;s an example of the kind of thing I mean.</p>

	<p><a href="http://todayyesterdayandtomorrow.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow">http://todayyesterdayandtomorrow.wordpress.com/</a></p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MSS</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2009/08/01/birthers-and-sceptics/comment-page-2/#comment-285211</link>
		<dc:creator>MSS</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2009 17:17:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/?p=12262#comment-285211</guid>
		<description>John (at #13), I am genuinely puzzled as to why &quot;Green objections to GM foods&quot; would be similar to anyone&#039;s rejection of plate tectonics or global warming, or Obama&#039;s US citizenship.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>John (at #13), I am genuinely puzzled as to why &#8220;Green objections to GM foods&#8221; would be similar to anyone&#8217;s rejection of plate tectonics or global warming, or Obama&#8217;s US citizenship.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Freshly Squeezed Cynic</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2009/08/01/birthers-and-sceptics/comment-page-2/#comment-285154</link>
		<dc:creator>Freshly Squeezed Cynic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2009 11:56:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/?p=12262#comment-285154</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;It did prove something, although of course not about plate tectonics. As the explanation said, it proved that, if you pushed the right racial buttons Southern Republicans would reject mainstream science, even when it’s not controversial in any way.&lt;/i&gt;

A fair point, but the question is rather ambiguously worded; it says &quot;America&quot; rather than the Americas, and I&#039;d guess that the thing most people would remember about the whole continental drift theory is the connection of South America and Africa due to the way they &quot;fit&quot;. It&#039;s not a good question.

The poll does show an interesting bias amonst Republicans that&#039;s likely to have a racial element, but I think the initial reason for Daily Kos commissioning the poll was the most interesting; the poll was an implicit critique of the way polling is done on science issues (i.e. evolution).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p><i>It did prove something, although of course not about plate tectonics. As the explanation said, it proved that, if you pushed the right racial buttons Southern Republicans would reject mainstream science, even when it&#8217;s not controversial in any way.</i></p>

	<p>A fair point, but the question is rather ambiguously worded; it says &#8220;America&#8221; rather than the Americas, and I&#8217;d guess that the thing most people would remember about the whole continental drift theory is the connection of South America and Africa due to the way they &#8220;fit&#8221;. It&#8217;s not a good question.</p>

	<p>The poll does show an interesting bias amonst Republicans that&#8217;s likely to have a racial element, but I think the initial reason for Daily Kos commissioning the poll was the most interesting; the poll was an implicit critique of the way polling is done on science issues (i.e. evolution).</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike Furlan</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2009/08/01/birthers-and-sceptics/comment-page-2/#comment-285103</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike Furlan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 23:35:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/?p=12262#comment-285103</guid>
		<description>&lt;b&gt;But is there a parallel?

What did Dems think about Bush? He had been arrested for drunk driving. He’d used cocaine. He’d been AWOL from the service. Some people had more elaborate things going on. Were these huge memes? Did they really fly in the face of the plausible? Were they relevant to his presidency? I’d say they weren’t exactly parallel but was there a parallel in terms of rumors about Bush?

&lt;/b&gt;

Yes there is a parallel.

Republicans disbelieve all bad things about themselves.

This is exactly parallel to believing all bad things about Obama.

WEST ALLIS, Wisconsin -- Texas Gov. George W. Bush acknowledged Thursday that in 1976 he was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol near his parents&#039; home in Kennebunkport, Maine. 

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/02/bush.dui/

A conversation between Bush and an old friend, author Doug Wead, touched on the subject of use of illegal drugs. In the taped recording of the conversation, Bush explained his refusal to answer questions about whether he had used marijuana at some time in his past. “I wouldn’t answer the marijuana questions,” Bush says. “You know why? Because I don’t want some little kid doing what I tried.”[16] When Wead reminded Bush of his earlier public denial of using cocaine, Bush replied, &quot;I haven&#039;t denied anything.&quot;[17]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_substance_abuse_controversy

Whatever the case, even though his superiors knew he&#039;d blown off his duties, they never disciplined him. (No one&#039;s ever been shot at dawn for missing a weekend guard drill, but policy at the time was to put shirkers on active duty.) Indeed, when Bush decided to go to business school at Harvard in the fall of 1973, he requested and got an honorable discharge — eight months before his service was scheduled to end.

Bush&#039;s enemies say all this proves he was a cowardly deserter. Nonsense. He was a pampered rich kid who took advantage. Why wasn&#039;t he called on it in a serious way during the 2000 election? Probably because Democrats figured they&#039;d get Clinton&#039;s draft-dodging thing thrown back at them. Not that it matters. If history judges Bush harshly — and it probably will — it won&#039;t be for screwing up as a young smart aleck, but for getting us into this damn fool war.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2446/did-george-w-bush-go-awol-during-his-time-in-the-national-guard</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p><b>But is there a parallel?</b></p>

	<p>What did Dems think about Bush? He had been arrested for drunk driving. He&#8217;d used cocaine. He&#8217;d been <span class="caps">AWOL</span> from the service. Some people had more elaborate things going on. Were these huge memes? Did they really fly in the face of the plausible? Were they relevant to his presidency? I&#8217;d say they weren&#8217;t exactly parallel but was there a parallel in terms of rumors about Bush?</p>

	<p></p>

	<p>Yes there is a parallel.</p>

	<p>Republicans disbelieve all bad things about themselves.</p>

	<p>This is exactly parallel to believing all bad things about Obama.</p>

	<p><span class="caps">WEST ALLIS</span>, Wisconsin&#8212;Texas Gov. George W. Bush acknowledged Thursday that in 1976 he was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol near his parents&#8217; home in Kennebunkport, Maine.</p>

	<p><a href="http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/02/bush.dui/" rel="nofollow">http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/02/bush.dui/</a></p>

	<p>A conversation between Bush and an old friend, author Doug Wead, touched on the subject of use of illegal drugs. In the taped recording of the conversation, Bush explained his refusal to answer questions about whether he had used marijuana at some time in his past. &#8220;I wouldn&#8217;t answer the marijuana questions,&#8221; Bush says. &#8220;You know why? Because I don&#8217;t want some little kid doing what I tried.&#8221;[16] When Wead reminded Bush of his earlier public denial of using cocaine, Bush replied, &#8220;I haven&#8217;t denied anything.&#8221;[17]</p>

	<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_substance_abuse_controversy" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_substance_abuse_controversy</a></p>

	<p>Whatever the case, even though his superiors knew he&#8217;d blown off his duties, they never disciplined him. (No one&#8217;s ever been shot at dawn for missing a weekend guard drill, but policy at the time was to put shirkers on active duty.) Indeed, when Bush decided to go to business school at Harvard in the fall of 1973, he requested and got an honorable discharge &#8212; eight months before his service was scheduled to end.</p>

	<p>Bush&#8217;s enemies say all this proves he was a cowardly deserter. Nonsense. He was a pampered rich kid who took advantage. Why wasn&#8217;t he called on it in a serious way during the 2000 election? Probably because Democrats figured they&#8217;d get Clinton&#8217;s draft-dodging thing thrown back at them. Not that it matters. If history judges Bush harshly &#8212; and it probably will &#8212; it won&#8217;t be for screwing up as a young smart aleck, but for getting us into this damn fool war.</p>

	<p><a href="http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2446/did-george-w-bush-go-awol-during-his-time-in-the-national-guard" rel="nofollow">http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2446/did-george-w-bush-go-awol-during-his-time-in-the-national-guard</a></p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Aulus Gellius</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2009/08/01/birthers-and-sceptics/comment-page-2/#comment-285102</link>
		<dc:creator>Aulus Gellius</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 23:32:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/?p=12262#comment-285102</guid>
		<description>Also, I sometimes suspect that many people tend to mentally translate a lot of survey questions into &quot;are you on the Right or the Left?&quot; So even if you see a crazy exaggerated version of your beliefs, you&#039;d rather misrepresent yourself (especially anonymously) than take the uncomfortable mental step of saying &quot;the bad guys are right on this one.&quot;

Of course, this leads people to harm their own cause, because they make themselves seem like lunatics, but I, at least, can appreciate the temptation. If I was asked, on a survey, something like, &quot;don&#039;t you agree that allowing gay people to marry has been rather rare in much of Western history,&quot; I&#039;d be tempted to say &quot;no,&quot; when what I would really mean is &quot;fuck you, homophobes.&quot; I don&#039;t think I&#039;d do it, but I&#039;d be tempted.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Also, I sometimes suspect that many people tend to mentally translate a lot of survey questions into &#8220;are you on the Right or the Left?&#8221; So even if you see a crazy exaggerated version of your beliefs, you&#8217;d rather misrepresent yourself (especially anonymously) than take the uncomfortable mental step of saying &#8220;the bad guys are right on this one.&#8221;</p>

	<p>Of course, this leads people to harm their own cause, because they make themselves seem like lunatics, but I, at least, can appreciate the temptation. If I was asked, on a survey, something like, &#8220;don&#8217;t you agree that allowing gay people to marry has been rather rare in much of Western history,&#8221; I&#8217;d be tempted to say &#8220;no,&#8221; when what I would really mean is &#8220;fuck you, homophobes.&#8221; I don&#8217;t think I&#8217;d do it, but I&#8217;d be tempted.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Aulus Gellius</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2009/08/01/birthers-and-sceptics/comment-page-2/#comment-285101</link>
		<dc:creator>Aulus Gellius</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 23:24:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/?p=12262#comment-285101</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t think the &quot;same continent&quot; question can be interpreted as nicely as we&#039;d like to interpret it. It&#039;s true that Southern whites answering &quot;no&quot; are probably, in many cases, ignorant of the science and guessing based on irrelevant prejudices; but the same is probably true of many Southern blacks and Latinos, whose irrelevant prejudices, in this case, are more likely to match the truth. A huge number of both right and wrong answers probably come from people who don&#039;t know the science and are following their vague memories of what they&#039;ve heard and gut instinct. 
Also, seeing the question on the survey probably makes people think it must be a controversial issue; and then your answer is likely to depend on whether you think this is the sort of thing that would more likely be wrongly invented or wrongly covered up; that the liberals are trying to trick us into thinking we&#039;re all the same race, or that the white power structure is trying to invent a separate identity for blacks.
Now if you asked something like &quot;Geologists claim that America and Africa were once part of the same continent; do you think they are right?&quot;, that would do something to separate the nuts from the merely ignorant.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>I don&#8217;t think the &#8220;same continent&#8221; question can be interpreted as nicely as we&#8217;d like to interpret it. It&#8217;s true that Southern whites answering &#8220;no&#8221; are probably, in many cases, ignorant of the science and guessing based on irrelevant prejudices; but the same is probably true of many Southern blacks and Latinos, whose irrelevant prejudices, in this case, are more likely to match the truth. A huge number of both right and wrong answers probably come from people who don&#8217;t know the science and are following their vague memories of what they&#8217;ve heard and gut instinct.<br />
Also, seeing the question on the survey probably makes people think it must be a controversial issue; and then your answer is likely to depend on whether you think this is the sort of thing that would more likely be wrongly invented or wrongly covered up; that the liberals are trying to trick us into thinking we&#8217;re all the same race, or that the white power structure is trying to invent a separate identity for blacks.<br />
Now if you asked something like &#8220;Geologists claim that America and Africa were once part of the same continent; do you think they are right?&#8221;, that would do something to separate the nuts from the merely ignorant.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2009/08/01/birthers-and-sceptics/comment-page-2/#comment-285054</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 19:42:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/?p=12262#comment-285054</guid>
		<description>In my opinion the Republican Party has been taken over the most extreme religious right (people who love to push their beliefs on others while trying to take away their rights) and that’s who they  need to focus on if they real want to win.  Good Luck, because as they said in WACO, “We Ain’t Coming Out”.

In the same vein, to all the birthers in La, La Land, it is on you to prove to all of us that your assertion is true, if there are people who were there and support your position then show us the video (everyone has a price), either put up or frankly shut-up.  I heard Orly Taitz, is selling a tape (I think it’s called “Money, Lies and Video tape”). She is from Orange County, CA, now I know what the mean when they say “behind the Orange Curtain”, when they talk about Orange County, the captial of Conspiracy Theories.  You know Obama has a passport, he travel abroad before he was a Senator, but I guess he fooled them too?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>In my opinion the Republican Party has been taken over the most extreme religious right (people who love to push their beliefs on others while trying to take away their rights) and that&#8217;s who they  need to focus on if they real want to win.  Good Luck, because as they said in <span class="caps">WACO</span>, &#8220;We Ain&#8217;t Coming Out&#8221;.</p>

	<p>In the same vein, to all the birthers in La, La Land, it is on you to prove to all of us that your assertion is true, if there are people who were there and support your position then show us the video (everyone has a price), either put up or frankly shut-up.  I heard Orly Taitz, is selling a tape (I think it&#8217;s called &#8220;Money, Lies and Video tape&#8221;). She is from Orange County, CA, now I know what the mean when they say &#8220;behind the Orange Curtain&#8221;, when they talk about Orange County, the captial of Conspiracy Theories.  You know Obama has a passport, he travel abroad before he was a Senator, but I guess he fooled them too?</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: michael e sullivan</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2009/08/01/birthers-and-sceptics/comment-page-1/#comment-285049</link>
		<dc:creator>michael e sullivan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 19:01:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/?p=12262#comment-285049</guid>
		<description>So that plate tectonics question is going to be an interesting date point for St*v% S&amp;^l#r to chew on.  Looks like Black and Latino folks are smarter than white people.   Too bad they didn&#039;t sort out Asians or Ashkenazi Jews.  

Somebody needs to create a diabolical (or perhaps it would be angelical?) IQ/standardized knowledge test, full of questions where movement conservatives who refuse to accept the truth will drag down the white average dramatically.  

OMG STANDARDIZED TESTS HAVE BIASES WHO KNEW???</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>So that plate tectonics question is going to be an interesting date point for St*v% S&#038;^l#r to chew on.  Looks like Black and Latino folks are smarter than white people.   Too bad they didn&#8217;t sort out Asians or Ashkenazi Jews.</p>

	<p>Somebody needs to create a diabolical (or perhaps it would be angelical?) IQ/standardized knowledge test, full of questions where movement conservatives who refuse to accept the truth will drag down the white average dramatically.</p>

	<p><span class="caps">OMG STANDARDIZED TESTS HAVE BIASES WHO KNEW</span>???</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cod3fr3ak</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2009/08/01/birthers-and-sceptics/comment-page-1/#comment-285021</link>
		<dc:creator>cod3fr3ak</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 16:21:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/?p=12262#comment-285021</guid>
		<description>bob mcmanus@19

Can you go into the tribal purity marker a bit. I am really interested in the psychology of human behavior and I think this is an excellent topic for study.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>bob mcmanus@19</p>

	<p>Can you go into the tribal purity marker a bit. I am really interested in the psychology of human behavior and I think this is an excellent topic for study.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JM</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2009/08/01/birthers-and-sceptics/comment-page-1/#comment-285018</link>
		<dc:creator>JM</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 16:04:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/?p=12262#comment-285018</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;In the 2000s the LaRoucheites were very anti-war and very anti-Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld. The latter distinguished them starkly from Buchanan.&lt;/i&gt; 

Really?  Judging by Buchanan&#039;s work at amconmag, his anti-war stance wouldn&#039;t exactly &quot;distinguish&quot; him &quot;starkly.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p><i>In the 2000s the LaRoucheites were very anti-war and very anti-Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld. The latter distinguished them starkly from Buchanan.</i></p>

	<p>Really?  Judging by Buchanan&#8217;s work at amconmag, his anti-war stance wouldn&#8217;t exactly &#8220;distinguish&#8221; him &#8220;starkly.&#8221; </p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Salient</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2009/08/01/birthers-and-sceptics/comment-page-1/#comment-285001</link>
		<dc:creator>Salient</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 14:23:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/?p=12262#comment-285001</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;BTW, the same poll shows that most Republicans and most Republican voting groups reject plate tectonics because it implies that Africa and the Americas were once joined. We really face a global glut of stupidity here.&lt;/i&gt;

Anyone who felt surprised by this definitely hasn&#039;t taught at various rural high schools. Which granted, is most everybody.

Personally, having taught at a couple rural high schools, I was extremely &lt;b&gt;pleased&lt;/b&gt; to see this was true.

I&#039;m not trolling, I swear! Why pleased? Because the answer shows that most Republican voting groups at least &lt;i&gt;understand plate tectonics well enough&lt;/i&gt; to know the theory does indeed imply the Americas were once joined to Africa. To me, that&#039;s... impressive. Or at least, not depressing.

&lt;i&gt;As the explanation said, it proved that, if you pushed the right racial buttons Southern Republicans would reject mainstream science, even when it’s not controversial in any way.&lt;/i&gt;

I have copious anecdata about the rejection of Newtonian physics, specifically friction and gravity, together with the idea that an object would travel forever in a straight line at constant velocity unless a force was acting on it. But there&#039;s no point in me going on about it; you can imagine anecdata-like stories for yourselves...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p><i><span class="caps">BTW</span>, the same poll shows that most Republicans and most Republican voting groups reject plate tectonics because it implies that Africa and the Americas were once joined. We really face a global glut of stupidity here.</i></p>

	<p>Anyone who felt surprised by this definitely hasn&#8217;t taught at various rural high schools. Which granted, is most everybody.</p>

	<p>Personally, having taught at a couple rural high schools, I was extremely <b>pleased</b> to see this was true.</p>

	<p>I&#8217;m not trolling, I swear! Why pleased? Because the answer shows that most Republican voting groups at least <i>understand plate tectonics well enough</i> to know the theory does indeed imply the Americas were once joined to Africa. To me, that&#8217;s&#8230; impressive. Or at least, not depressing.</p>

	<p><i>As the explanation said, it proved that, if you pushed the right racial buttons Southern Republicans would reject mainstream science, even when it&#8217;s not controversial in any way.</i></p>

	<p>I have copious anecdata about the rejection of Newtonian physics, specifically friction and gravity, together with the idea that an object would travel forever in a straight line at constant velocity unless a force was acting on it. But there&#8217;s no point in me going on about it; you can imagine anecdata-like stories for yourselves&#8230;</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Quiggin</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2009/08/01/birthers-and-sceptics/comment-page-1/#comment-284993</link>
		<dc:creator>John Quiggin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 12:14:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/?p=12262#comment-284993</guid>
		<description>It did prove something, although of course not about plate tectonics. As the explanation said, it proved that, if you pushed the right racial buttons Southern Republicans would reject mainstream science, even when it&#039;s not controversial in any way.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>It did prove something, although of course not about plate tectonics. As the explanation said, it proved that, if you pushed the right racial buttons Southern Republicans would reject mainstream science, even when it&#8217;s not controversial in any way.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Freshly Squeezed Cynic</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2009/08/01/birthers-and-sceptics/comment-page-1/#comment-284987</link>
		<dc:creator>Freshly Squeezed Cynic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 11:28:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/?p=12262#comment-284987</guid>
		<description>Um, the plate tectonic question was not actually meant to prove anything, except the inadequacy of the question itself. This was explained on Daily Kos, because it was meant to be an analogue of the very poor questioning Gallup does on &quot;belief in evolution&quot;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Um, the plate tectonic question was not actually meant to prove anything, except the inadequacy of the question itself. This was explained on Daily Kos, because it was meant to be an analogue of the very poor questioning Gallup does on &#8220;belief in evolution&#8221;.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Danielle Day</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2009/08/01/birthers-and-sceptics/comment-page-1/#comment-284918</link>
		<dc:creator>Danielle Day</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Aug 2009 19:17:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/?p=12262#comment-284918</guid>
		<description>Preferring to deal with realities on the muddy street rather than guessing from the Ivory Tower, i recently witnessed two LaRouche followers camped in front of our local post office as they interacted with some hapless locals. Friends, these guys are about as crazy as you can get walking around upright without a strait jacket.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Preferring to deal with realities on the muddy street rather than guessing from the Ivory Tower, i recently witnessed two LaRouche followers camped in front of our local post office as they interacted with some hapless locals. Friends, these guys are about as crazy as you can get walking around upright without a strait jacket.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bianca steele</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2009/08/01/birthers-and-sceptics/comment-page-1/#comment-284897</link>
		<dc:creator>bianca steele</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Aug 2009 15:04:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/?p=12262#comment-284897</guid>
		<description>The article authored by Buchanan is incoherent.  He notes that Jonah Goldberg&#039;s call for war followed &quot;the Ledeen doctrine&quot; (Michael Ledeen being Goldberg&#039;s more intellectually sophisticated colleage at National Review).  Ledeen, however, in the writer&#039;s opinion, is &quot;less frivolous&quot; than Goldberg; the call to war, obviously, comes from Goldberg himself.  He quotes some passages from Ledeen&#039;s writing.  Then he concludes, &quot;Passages like this owe more to Leon Trotsky than to Robert Taft and betray a Jacobin streak in neoconservatism that cannot be reconciled with any concept of true conservatism.&quot;  (Obviously, of course, this part of Ledeen&#039;s writing is where he exposes views he picked up from Goldberg, not his own.  Obviously.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>The article authored by Buchanan is incoherent.  He notes that Jonah Goldberg&#8217;s call for war followed &#8220;the Ledeen doctrine&#8221; (Michael Ledeen being Goldberg&#8217;s more intellectually sophisticated colleage at National Review).  Ledeen, however, in the writer&#8217;s opinion, is &#8220;less frivolous&#8221; than Goldberg; the call to war, obviously, comes from Goldberg himself.  He quotes some passages from Ledeen&#8217;s writing.  Then he concludes, &#8220;Passages like this owe more to Leon Trotsky than to Robert Taft and betray a Jacobin streak in neoconservatism that cannot be reconciled with any concept of true conservatism.&#8221;  (Obviously, of course, this part of Ledeen&#8217;s writing is where he exposes views he picked up from Goldberg, not his own.  Obviously.)</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
