Stephen Hawking: Still At It

Stephen Hawking always seems to make big news, and his pronouncements go uncriticised in the MSM. Now he is at Caltech and giving lectures regarding his personal beliefs and his personal disdain for Theism. At least that is how it is reported.

Hawking preached M theory to the crowd, which was reported as follows:

“He closed by outlining "M-theory," which is based partly on ideas put forward years ago by another famed physicist, Caltech’s Richard Feynman. Hawking sees that theory as the only big idea that really explains what he has observed.

M-theory posits that multiple universes are created out of nothing, Hawking explained, with many possible histories and many possible states of existence. In only a few of these states would life be possible, and in fewer still could something like humanity exist. Hawking mentioned that he felt fortunate to be living in this state of existence.”

The belief in M theory requires a belief in String Theory which in turn requires a belief that infinity divided by infinity equals 1. I.e. undefinable divided by undefinable has a specific finite value: 1. These assumptions are made cavalierly in String Theory, as even Hawking admitted.

Also non-credible is the concept that matter just jumped into existence from nothing whatsoever. The problem here, unaddressed by Hawking… ever, at least in his books, is that nothing means no constraints as well as no preceding mass, energy, fields, quantum soup or pudding or pies, or rules. Yet without rules, such as self-limitation, there should be mass, energy etc. popping into existence everywhere, all the time, from absolutely nothing, and without constraint. And that should be empirically observable, everywhere, all the time, and without constraint. It obviously is not.

These issues don’t stop Hawking from his celebrity appearances. And no one ever asks him about them, at least not in public.

Atheists Bully Another Small Foe Into Submission

Another school district has been bullied by the FFRF into submission by threats of expensive lawsuits. The Breathitt County School District in Kentucky has opted to remove the Ten Commandments rather than be exposed to significant costs of defending their Freedom of Religion under the First Amendment. The students would have been the losers if the school district had fought, either winning or losing their case. The FFRF has no empathy for them, only for bullying small entities which cannot afford the court costs.

I wish that the school district had placed a separate plaque on the wall just for Atheism: Entitled "Moral Principles Of Atheism", the plaque would be blank.

Choice: In Marriage Too

It didn’t take all that long for the slope to slip to this:

Legalize Polygamy: No I’m Not Kidding:

“Here’s the thing: As women, we really can make our own choices. We just might choose things people don’t like. If a woman wants to marry a man, that’s great. If she wants to marry another woman, that’s great too. If she wants to marry a hipster, well—I suppose that’s the price of freedom.

And if she wants to marry a man with three other wives, that’s her damn choice.”
[Emphsis added]

You just have to love the Left’s euphemistic term, “Choice”, originally as a substitute for the more accurate term, “kill your progeny”. The concept of “Choice” works for all sorts of other things too, when taken to its Reductio Ad Absurdum conclusion. A woman can “choose” all sorts of things with her private body and her private emotional state and her private whatever. So in terms of fairness, so can a man (well, maybe not white men). But if a woman wants to marry her cat, her hamster, all her first cousins, and all her neighbors on both sides of the street… that’s her damn choice.

"All marriages deserve access to the support and resources they need to build happy, healthy lives, regardless of how many partners are involved. Arguments about whether a woman’s consensual sexual and romantic choices are “healthy” should have no bearing on the legal process. And while polygamy remains illegal, women who choose this lifestyle don’t have access to the protections and benefits that legal marriage provides."

And that settles it. Or does it? Here’s the money quote:

“The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. Though polygamists are a minority—a tiny minority, in fact—freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us. So let’s fight for marriage equality until it extends to every same-sex couple in the United States—and then let’s keep fighting. We’re not done yet.”
[Emphasis added]

Yes, all of a sudden the definition of marriage is definitely plastic. In fact, marriage should be extended to a person who wants to marry herself. And maybe her mother. And daughter. (But not her father, if he is white). Definitely plastic, which means that the definition has no meaning at all, since a definition which has no differentiation is no longer a definition. And how can pedophiles be discriminated against if there is no differentiation in the definition of marriage? Fair is fair. If there is to be no discrimination in the definition of marriage, then you cannot draw lines which discriminate, just not against you and your damn choice. That's - you know this - intolerant.

Reuters Headline: “Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown”

“Theories for the pause include that deep oceans have taken up more heat with the result that the surface is cooler than expected, that industrial pollution in Asia or clouds are blocking the sun, or that greenhouse gases trap less heat than previously believed.

The change may be a result of an observed decline in heat-trapping water vapor in the high atmosphere, for unknown reasons. It could be a combination of factors or some as yet unknown natural variations, scientists say.”

NO! Nonononono!
There are models! There is data! Satellites! Tree rings! Even graphs! The issue is settled! Deniers are anti-science Luddites! There cannot possibly be any unknown natural variations! Computers don’t lie! We must spend trillions, NOW! Most importantly, we need trillions for more research!

Gosnell and the Frayed Narrative

When you hear and see on TV dismembered bodies, legs ripped off, bloody killings, will it be the Gosnell mass murders, or the Boston Marathon bombings? (Hint: Do you even know who Gosnell is?)

Many seem to think that the MSM has, to this point, maintained its silence on the Gosnell mass murders by abortion because Gosnell (and many of his clients) are black and therefore immune under the Trayvon immunity narrative, and because abortion is endangered by knowing what really happens in unmonitored abbatoirs.

I think that is only partially valid. Based on the increasing tendency to admit to their actual feelings on “women’s health”, it appears that they very likely actually approve of killing the offending problem, the new human, regardless of when or how it is done. The recent admission by Planned Parenthood that an aborted but still living baby's fate is still up to the mother and physician, and is not considered to have rights of its own, illuminates this attitude.

As has been pointed out before, the client has paid for her progeny to be killed: she is owed a dead something, be it an embryo, fetus or baby. And that’s what Gosnell did: he obliged with dead somethings. Even if they had to be killed after they were out and on the table. So, for the Leftist Kill proponents, the abortions were performed successfully, where’s the problem?

In reality, it is all three issues that cause the Left to not care. The narrative for killing one’s progeny as "women's healthcare" must be umbesmirched; the protected category of black people must be unbesmirched; and the process was succeeding. So kill the story, no one needs to know about this: there is no lesson which we need to teach; the narrative remains intact if we just squelch the entire knowledge of what happened there.

But they cannot protect themselves. The information is widely available on the internet, even if it must come from foreign sources first. The web has destroyed the ability of the Left to control the information available to the herd. Some of the herd is bound to find out.

The MSM continues to pound nails into its own coffin. Credibility is received on merit, not on demand. Their Leftist narrative is fraying badly.

Addendum:
From the Wall Street Journal:

"Here is incontrovertible proof that Kirsten Powers and Conor Friedersdorf are correct in arguing that the murder trial of Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell has received insufficient media coverage: On Friday, Snopes.com was compelled to publish a page confirming that the story is real, not merely an urban legend."

Fred On...

Guns.