Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Neil deGrasse Tyson, Put To Bed

This post by Robert Tracinski at the Federalist puts a final touch on Tyson's irrational claims of total rationality (common in Scientismists). The problem is not just the lying, it is the fact that Tyson claims an objective basis for statements and behaviors which are not in the least objective. And that is an ideological failure as well as rational failure, and willful blindness to boot.

"This is all summed up in a classic Neil deGrasse Tyson aphorism which, judging from his Twitter feed, is extremely popular: “If your belief system is not founded in an objective reality, you should not be making decisions that affect other people.”

When you really think about this, the upshot is that no one who is religious is entitled to make decisions, not even about his own life—after all, what decision does not, in some small way, “affect other people”? By contrast, those who agree with Tyson assure themselves that because their belief system is “based on objective fact,” they are entitled to make decisions for other people, such as reorganizing the entire health-care system or dismantling the global economy to stop global warming.

All of which inspired me to tweet in response: “What if your belief that your belief system is based on an objective reality is not based on an objective reality?”

@neiltyson What if your belief that your belief system is based on an objective reality is not based on an objective reality?

— Robert Tracinski (@Tracinski) September 20, 2014

In this case, Tyson held a belief that was not founded in an objective reality. And it took a revealingly long time to get anyone to acknowledge that."
Just remember that Tyson, according to his fans, is smarter than you, smarter than everyone in the galaxy, no, all the multiverse. That means that he is always right. Got it? He is OmniRight.

More Life of Muhammad: "The Affair of Muhayyisa and Huwayyisa"

"The apostle said, 'Kill any Jew that falls into your power.'

Thereupon Muhayyisa b Mas'ud leapt upon Ibn Sunayna, a Jewish merchant with whom they had social and business relations, and killed him.

Huwayyisa was not a Muslim at the time though he was the elder brother, When Muhayyisa killed him Huwayyisa began to beat him, saying, 'You enemy of God, did you kill him when much of the fat on your belly comes from his wealth?'

Muhayyisa answered, 'Had the one who ordered me to kill him ordered me to kill you I would have cut your head off.' He said that this was the beginning of Huwayyisa's acceptance of Islam.

The other replied, 'By God, if Muhammad had ordered you to kill me would you have killed me?'

He said, 'Yes, by God, had he ordered me to cut off your head I would have done so..'

He exclaimed, 'By God, a religion which can bring you to to this is marvelous!'

And he became a Muslim.

I was told this story by a client of B Haritha from the daughter of Muhayyisa from Muhayyisa himself."

From The Life of Muhammad; Ibn Ishaq with A. Guillaume, translator; Oxford University Press, 1955; printed in Pakistan.

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

A Defense of Neil deGrasse Tyson That Doesn't Help Neil deGrasse Tyson

Neil deGrasse Tyson is being defended by Tom Boggioni at alternet. Boggioni, who breathlessly refers to Tyson as "really really smart guy Neil deGrasse Tyson". Which works one of two ways for Boggioni, either he feels really really smart by association, or he appears really really stupid elitist to the rest of the world. Or both.

Boggioni's defense of Tyson consists of (a)claiming that bloggers are funded by the Koch Brothers; (b)paid to "get" Tyson; (c)comparing Tyson to Dan Rather, but an innocent Dan Rather, not the one we know; (d)that one critic works for an outfit that has Ben Domenech in it; (e)references an article which mentions neither tyson nor Lowry, who he was trashing at the time; (f)ends up admitting that his article is a smear job, in a very pompous and self-righteous attempt to claim by attachment that Tyson was smeared.

Let's see. Has Boggioni proven the innocence of Tyson? No, he never even tries. He only assaults Tyson's attackers with innuendo, false associations, false data, and pretensions of self-elitism for both himself and Tyson. But this is Alternet, after all, where logic and rationality are left at the door (if they ever existed in the Alterneters), and vitriolic elitist ideology is pumped out.

One might think that Tyson's lapses, if that's what they are, could be defended rationally. But that is not how the Left rolls. And this article demonstrates the problem with Tyson and his fans, which is that Scientism is not science; it is irrational ideology.

Surveillance Video: Man Stuffs Hundreds of Ballots Into Ballot Box

The video is clear:

If this man is caught, we will find out which party he belongs to. My money is on the Dems, who scream at any and all attempts to curb voting fraud.

Monday, October 20, 2014

Obama's Racist Tactics Might Go To The US Supreme Court

The Feds have been forcing racial quotas and lowered standards for specified minorities, using "disparate impact" parlance as a threat. The fact is that they have created a huge cash flow from banks and lenders by getting them to pay the fine without fighting it. This is the same theory that led to the housing crisis when thousands of loans were made to people who couldn't afford them. But it is under a different name and approach. Texas is fighting back.

Supreme Court May Yet Blunt Obama's 'Disparate Impact' Weapon

"Race-Baiting: The Obama regime has used a dubious discrimination theory to shake down home and car lenders for $1.1 billion and counting. Finally, the high court may step in to stop this witch hunt.

The Supreme Court has granted the state of Texas a petition for certiorari disputing the use of disparate impact to determine discrimination in housing after a civil-rights group sued its housing department.

The liberal Inclusive Communities Project argues that state tax policies have created racial segregation in the Dallas area and thus have a disparate impact on minorities, allegedly in violation of the Fair Housing Act.

The same legal theory, which is based purely on statistics without any evidence of intentional racism, is actively used by the Obama administration to sue banks for lending bias and employers for bias in hiring. So federal policy also is at stake in this case.

Disparate impact has proved an effective policy weapon for this regime, and it is loath to lose it. In fact, fearing the conservative majority would strike down its favorite race-baiting tool as unconstitutional, the administration sabotaged two prior cases challenging disparate impact before the high bench could hear them.

Barring more bribery and intimidation, lenders may finally get their day in court. If Texas Department of Housing v. Inclusive Communities Project stays on the docket, it could deal a huge blow to the radical racialist agenda of this administration.

If justices throw the theory out, no longer will the Justice Department, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, EEOC or HUD be able to target banks, mortgage companies or employers for supposed violations despite the complete absence of discriminatory conduct.

They'll no longer be able to frame businesses as racist — a threat that has already led thousands to in effect adopt racial quotas in lending and hiring to avoid federal persecution.

"The risk of disparate-impact lawsuits, in the absence of guidance from the court, pressures the residential mortgage lending industry to arrive at particular outcomes and end numbers to avoid such lawsuits," the American Bankers Association wrote the high bench in a joint amicus brief.

"It is not surprising that to avoid legal risk, some businesses may feel pressure to manage end numbers or at least place a 'racial thumb on the scales.'"

Such pressure can force lenders to water down underwriting standards and take on more risk, since "down-payment requirements, debt-to-income requirements, loan-to-value requirements, and other neutral, risk-based underwriting requirements can all affect various racial and ethnic groups differently," ABA added"
A writ of certiorari doesn't guarantee the the USSC will hear the case, but it's a step in that direction.

Holder's DOJ Is Now Under Investigation?

Apparently there still exist pockets of un-corrupted government officials; more power to them:
Government case implodes as its former lawyers allege fraud against Holder DOJ

The New York Observer reports that two former Assistant United States Attorneys say the Holder Justice Department engaged in deceit and corruption of justice in connection with the DOJ’s litigation against Sierra Pacific Industries, a California lumber company.

As a result of the allegations, a federal district judge has ordered the recusal from the case of every judge in the Eastern District of California. He reasons that the court may have been defrauded by the government, thus requiring the appointment of an outside judge to handle the matter going forward.

The Holder DOJ brought the case against Sierra Pacific for allegedly being responsible for a wildfire that destroyed 65,000 acres in California. Sierra Pacific maintained that the fire started elsewhere and that state and federal investigators and DOJ attorneys lied about the origin of the fire so they would have a “deep pocket” from which to collect millions of dollars.

Nonetheless, as litigants confronted by the power of the federal government are wont to do, the company settled the case. It agreed to pay $55 million to the United States over a period of five years and to give up 22,500 acres of land.

But now two former DOJ lawyers in the office that prosecuted the action corroborate Sierra Pacific’s claim that the DOJ’s case was based on fraud and deception. Using information provided by these lawyers, Sierra Pacific told the federal court that “the United States presented false evidence to the Defendants and the Court [and] advanced arguments to the Court premised on that false evidence or for which material evidence had been withheld.”

In addition, the United States “prepared key. . .investigators for depositions, and allowed them to repeatedly give false testimony about the most important aspects of their investigation.” The United States also “failed to disclose the facts and circumstances associated with the. . .lead investigator’s direct financial interest in the outcome of the investigation arising from an illegal bank account that has since been exposed and terminated.”

One of the former DOJ lawyers says he was removed from the original prosecution by his boss, David Shelledy, chief of the civil division in the United States Attorney’s office, because he “rebuffed” pressure to “engage in unethical conduct as a lawyer.” According to the Observer, Eric Holder will this week award Shelledy the Department’s highest award for excellence.

It figures.

Another former DOJ lawyer left the prosecution team stating: “It’s called the Department of Justice; it’s not called the Department of Revenue.” He reportedly told defense counsel that in his entire career, “I’ve never seen anything like this.”

Naturally, the allegations of these former prosecutors made a big impression on the court. As noted, the chief judge of the District, Morrison England, Jr., ordered the recusal of all the Eastern District judges from the case due to evidence that the government defrauded the court. He referred the case to Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, so Kozinski could appoint a judge from outside the Eastern District to handle the case.

In a related case, a California state judge found that the investigation and prosecution of this matter by the state involved “egregious,” “pervasive,” and “reprehensible” abuses that amount to “government corruption.” The state court case “betray[ed] the primary purpose of the judicial system—to reveal the truth,” the judge stated.

Islam and Peace

Biographer of Muhammed, Ali Sina, an ex-Muslim, comments on Islam:
Sam Harris is wrong about Islam

"Even though at one time the religion associated with Jesus had become violent and intolerant, there is nothing violent and intolerant in his teachings. The Crusades were the response of Christendom to jihad, and the Inquisition was the copycat of mihnah, a practice started by Caliph Ma’mun, which means “inquisition.” They have no basis in the teaching of Christ.

The Christian Reformation aimed to get rid of un-Christian practices. They suggested that the Bible should be read literally and its allegorical interpretations should be rejected.

An analogous reformation also took place in Islam. It is called Salafism.

The Prophet Muhammad reiterated repeatedly that he is the best salaf, the best example to follow and after him, his companions are the best model for Muslims to emulate.

He raided villages and towns, massacred unarmed men, beheaded his captives, raped their women and sold them as slaves. His successors, the so-called “rightly guided Caliphs” and their successors did the same. These are the very things the Wahhabis advocate and Islamic State is doing.

Islamic State is the true embodiment of the Islamic Reformation.

Is this what Sam Harris has in mind? No, he is talking about people like Maajid Nawaaz, Irshad Manji and Zuhdi Yasser.

These people are not suggesting that Muslims should go back to the original teachings of Muhammad, as the Christian reformers did. They want to get rid of them while somehow acknowledge the legitimacy of Muhammad as a prophet of God.

How is that possible? How can we tell people Muhammad was a true prophet, but don’t believe him – that his message was from God, but don’t follow it? Furthermore, isn’t it what the majority of Muslims already doing? Most Muslims don’t practice the violent parts of the Koran. As long as Islam is accepted as a true religion there will always be a minority who will want to practice it fully and honestly.

Yusra Hussein, a 15-year-old British Muslim of Somali origin, suddenly disappeared – and it transpires that she has gone to join Islamic State to become a “jihadi bride.” Her family is distraught.

“If it can happen to Yusra it can happen to anyone,” her aunt said. “She was just a normal, young girl. She was a home girl. There was no anger, no frustration. We had no idea,” she opined.

One does not have to be a neuroscientist to figure that out. Yusra’s family call themselves Muslim. At the same time they lived a comfortable westernized life, which is contrary to Islam. The young Yusra felt the cognitive dissonance and saw the hypocrisy of her family. If Islam is from God, why should she dilute it with the decadent ungodly ways of the unbelievers? Thousands of young Muslims join Islamic State. The great majority come from moderate Muslim families. It is easy to radicalize them. You ask them whether they believe in the Koran and they respond “yes.” Then you read it to them and show them that God enjoins jihad, that their parents who prefer this world to the next are hypocrites, and the Koran orders true believers to neither associate with the hypocrites nor take them as friends and guardians, even if they are fathers and brothers."

I just received "The Life of Muhammad; A Transation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah" by A. Guillaume. This 800 page work purportedly "presents in English practically all that is known of the life of the Prophet". In randomly opened pages, the book proves to be loaded with killing, beheading and violence against non-right thinkers. An example: The Prophet, aka the Apostle, on page 367 hears that Ka'b B. Al-Ashraf has mourned The Prophet's killing of "the nobles of the Arabs and kingly men; by God, if Muhammad has killed these people, 'twere better to be dead than alive." He makes a poem of mourning and disaffection with The Prophet.

When The Prophet hears of this, he asks,
"who will rid me of Ibnu'l-Ashraf?.

Muhammad b Maslama, brother of the B 'Abdu'l-Ashal, said, "I will deal with him for you, O apostle of God, I will kill him".

Soon, Maslama says,
"'O apostle of God, we shall have to tell lies.' He [the apostle of god] answered, 'Say what you like, for you are free in the matter."
After the killing, they wrote a commemorative poem, as was customary:
"Of them Ka'b was left prostrate there
(after his fall al-Nadir were brought low).
Sword in hand we cut him down
By Muhammad's order when he sent secretly in the night
Ka'b's brother to go to Ka'b.
He beguiled him and brought him down with guile
Mahmud was trustworthy and bold.