.jpg)
This undated picture made available by the British Library shows a reader examining a page from the earliest surviving Christian Bible. The British Library says the surviving pages of the world's oldest Bible have been reunited _ digitally. The library says the early Christian work known as the Codex Sinaiticus had been housed in four separate locations across the world for more than 150 years. It became available Monday for perusal on the Web so scholars and others can get a closer look. The library says the work will allow scholars to further study the "unique treasure." The project united organizations from Great Britain, Germany, Russia and Egypt. Each possessed parts of the 1,600-year-old manuscript. They worked together to publish new research into the history of the Codex and transcribed 650,000 words during a four-year period. (AP Photo/The British Library)
Proving once again, that one need not rely on The Onion for their daily, news-based comic relief—there is just nothing better than the ridiculous things that people actually do. Scouring headlines, I often find myself asking, “Seriously? That actually happened?” In honor of this reaction, I have begun a new series, tentatively and appropriate titled, “Seriously?”
It is difficult to understand how, in a time of unprecedented information-sharing, an individual could escape learning that the earth is roughly 5 billion years old. It would seem, as a public official, one would have to go out of their way to harbor the false belief that the earth is only 6,000 years old.
Even if it is a belief you personally hold, it is not exactly the type of thing you go blurting out in public as an elected official. Further, if one feels the inescapable urge to profess their archaic beliefs to the public, perhaps making them outside the purview of policy-making may warrant a little compassion.
Recently, Sen. Sylvia Allen claimed the earth is only 6,000 years old. She also claimed that because we have not gone extinct over this period, climate change could not possibly be occurring. The idiocy is mind-boggling. It’s not enough that Sen. Allen professes beliefs that are in opposition to 99 percent of the global scientific community, but her stubborn ignorance, and inability to grasp the effect that fossil fuels, expanding energy use, increasing agri-business, and various infrastructure are having on global warming. We also haven’t been destroyed by an asteroid in 6,000 years, but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen.
Apparently, in Sen. Allen’s Rick James Bible, Jesus cruised the Vegas strip in a Cadillac Escalade with the Apostle’s, and skyscrapers were abundant; making the environment from multiple millennia ago, perfectly comparable to today.
I have often wondered why we expect medical professionals, legal professionals, even nail technicians, to pass a standardized text before engaging in their respective specialties, but not public officials. Sen. Allen gives me reason to believe that candidates for public office should be held to at least the same standards as my hairdresser, and required to prove they are competent to hold any particular public office.
Copyright ©2009 Jenny Kakasuleff
Comments
That would defeat the political process. The ignorant should not be deprived of political office.
OMG, are you kidding? Unbelievable.
Good lord, the woman is as mad as a hatter. Almost as crazy as Michele Bachmann.
I have to say that i agree with Harry. THe stupid have every right to participart in the political process as do the educated.
I agree with other commenters. We liberals are really smart and know every thing, we have been college edumucated. We get checks from the gubmint, and generally don't work, but we can tell you about everything.
Take religion and right versus left out of this equation and look at the basics. You have an elected official who, when presented with overwhelming evidence and facts regarding this situation, blatently chooses to ignore the evidence to support their own beliefs.
Is that really a quality of a good leader, at any level? It isn't a matter of one belief versus another. It's speculation versus fact. It's a matter of someone who has the ability to influence policy ignoring hard facts to push their own agenda.
That's a serious problem.
Obviously Sen. Allen treasures faith ahead of science, but then again, so do environmentalists who insist "Climate Change" is an issue to be capped and traded. The IPCC issued a report in 1995 written by Ben Santer, a scientist working on this task, "proving" Global Warming. Immediately, 4 of his associates who worked with him on it condemned Santer and the report saying he altered the facts "to decieve policy makers and the public". Google it. 40 of Santers other associates defended him. Since then, Santer and his associates have recieved literally hundreds of millions of dollars to continue "research". Their list of associates has grown to several hundred increasing the tax dollar flow. Also, read about the 31,000 + scientists, (www.petitionproject.org.), that the media ignores. They say it's bunk, but you didn't know that did you. Research it yourself instead of listening to the "lawmakers" who want more money. Maybe there is a conspiracy after all?
Jenny, when you threw that rock you hit me, too. I was a successful atheist for 27 years and then fell off of the wagon. For the last 15 years I've become a Bible-believing Christian who trusts the Genesis account of Creation. I plan to monitor your subsequent articles in this series to see how Bible-thumpers should be dealt with with regard to public life.
What is a successful athiest? please, somebody define that term for me.
Berley Liberal. I liberal, i live in section eight housing. ive had three kids, but one of them died because i dont want health insurance. Also i have a mercedes benz, but i dont work, and cant work. i am in an ivory tower, i have no real life experience, because i only read books and studies, but then at the same time i dont read anything and i am barely litterate.
QUit being a tard mark
watch out Jenny, your activities are being monitored. lol. SteveWhite, i plan on stalking a girl i go to school with, she is of age and smoking hot. when i need advice i ask an expert. what kind of photography equipment would be most effective at getting a stealthy photograph
Harry: The ignorant should not be deprived of a vote, but a candidate running for Treasurer should be able to add and subtract.
Murph: What I know is that 95% of the scientific community around the world believes global warming is occurring. They did not all rely on the study of one individual to come to this conclusion. There are always dishonest people who will serve their personal interest over the interest of the whole--however, I don't believe this is the case with all 95% of the climate change community.
Brad we know you don't work because you're always here, and you probably don't have a woman either, hahahaha. Hey there lonely boy, lonely boy, bwah-haha.
Slacker. I do have ninety nine problem, a lady dog isnt one, if you got problems with your wife, i sympathize, lad
Hey Jenny,
This 95% figure you use comes from where? I gave a web address to page where over 31,000 scientists say no, bet you never heard of it before. These are experts. The IPCC and government sponsored think tanks yammering on about this do not equal that amount of expertise, and they report exactly what their sponsors want them to. The world wide "subject matter expert", Al Gore is not an expert, yet he teaches the world about it. The mantra of 95% is just another talking point being force fed to you. Check out that site, prepare to learn something. CO2 is needed, the more the better, plants love it. Rain cools the planet when it gets too hot, been doing it for eons, it will continue for a while.
By the way, I don't have a problem with going green, makes good sense to be conservative and not pollute, but the greenhouse gas thing is a joke. We gonna cap and trade cow farts next? Keeping pollutants down is a just cause, not CO2. Big difference.
Define scientist for me. How many scientist were polled in the data you provided. and notice that murph failed to repeat the name of the publication, in follow up comments. Example, when Jenny cites Shoc Doctrine, she uses the full name and title, Murph, you do not cite the full names and title of your sources, because you dont want people reading them. if people check out your sources they wouldnt take you seriously. Try to follow Marks sources in a google search.
Murph: Scientific consensus does not necessarily mean that global warming is entirely understood, but to argue a consensus does not exist is ignorance to the subject, and a willingness to absorb information laced with special interests. The IPCC makes recommendations based on independent researchers, and organizations may either adopt the IPCC standards are not. It just so happens, most in the scientific community do.
I'm not advocating the government's plans for erradicating it, because I'm in no position to adequately address them.
www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Psssst, Psssst, ssshhh, Global Warming is a HOAX.
On the surface, this clip of Sylvia Allen is funny and unbelievable. But, the more I think about the more infuriating it becomes. Remember, she was elected into this office by folks who presumably believes the same thing she does. Allen represents the pervasive anti-intellectualism, anti-science, and anti-education that runs like a cancer through American society. It is absolutely shameful and utterly self-defeating.
I didn't think it was possible. Someone dumber than Michele Bachmann. There is a related post at iamsoannoyed.com/?page_id=588
Your story includes a picture of the earliest surviving Christian Bible.
Then the title is "Seriously? Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen says, “Earth is 6,000 years old”"
Are you not aware that this woman is a sister of the Jehovah's Witness?
You didn't note it.
www.watchtower.org/e/jt/index.htm
I have never been to a christian church. What role does the sister of the Jehova's witness play in your culture?
SERIOUSLY? From one of your favorite sitting Supreme Court Justices? Guess which one!
If this was said by Chief Justice Roberts, what would happen to him?
“Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
What "populations that we don't want too many of"??????
We have idiot politicians from all over the spectrum-there is this one fellow flying all over the world in a Gulfstream 2, running up $20,000 utility bills, pimpin in motor yachts, using Limo Services etc. and is out giving seminars on Global warming and talking of selling/trading carbon credits-
A pompous, vain chubby fellow-forgot his name-I believe he is from Tennessee--Can someone help me out?
Que: The author of Freakonomics would argue that the 'populations' refer to those individuals who would have been born to women unable to adequately parent them, and whose offspring would be more likely to be societal deviants and criminals.
As a result of these women seeking abortion, a population of would-be criminals were never born. He argues that Roe v. Wade largely explains the drop in crime in the 1990's, when the unborn of the 1970's would have been entering their criminal prime.
Stephen Dubner is the person who studied this.
I really don't care WHAT a book says, this was said by a SITTING Justice. It is what SHE meant. What group SHE had in mind.
You agree with her?
I find it frightening.
"Sanger's other colleagues included avowed and sophisticated racists. One, Lothrop Stoddard, was a Harvard graduate and the author of The Rising Tide of Color against White Supremacy. Stoddard was something of a Nazi enthusiast who described the eugenic practices of the Third Reich as "scientific" and "humanitarian." And Dr. Harry Laughlin, another Sanger associate and board member for her group, spoke of purifying America's human "breeding stock" and purging America's "bad strains." These "strains" included the "shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of antisocial whites of the South."
Not to be outdone by her followers, Margaret Sanger spoke of sterilizing those she designated as "unfit," a plan she said would be the "salvation of American civilization.: And she also spike of those who were "irresponsible and reckless," among whom she included those " whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers." ......
.........."She further contended that "there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped." That many Americans of African origin constituted a segment of Sanger considered "unfit" cannot be easily refuted."
Sanger was not a conservative!
"Justice Ginsburg's remarks appear to align her expectations for abortion with those of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, and other prominent members of the 20th century's eugenics movement. Sanger and her eugenicist peers advocated the systematic use of contraception, sterilization, and abortion to reduce the numbers of poor, black, immigrant and disabled populations."
Yes, Que. We know you don't like books.
Did someone say Sanger was a conservative? I think the eugenics movement was ridiculous, and rightly so, it died out. Women have a choice--they aren't being forced to abort and criminals aren't being barred from reproducing, and some justices of the day would have supported.
You spend too much time listening to Alex Jones and other conspiracy theorists. Most of the women having abortions have no business parenting--no doubt you would be the same one blaming their parenting for other societal ills--but would force them to birth children just the same by prohibiting them from abortion.
It's not forceful depopulation--in fact, abortions are not cheap! A woman has to really want one before she is going to go through the process and pay for it.
I'm sorry but did someone mention me?
Temps aren't even hitting 70 degrees in Chicago this week, yeah it's getting warmer.
Jenny
You are alianating your liberal base, because you are getting caught up in, for the lack of better words a "c*ck measuring contest, with someone who only cares about taking over the message board. you have let mark take over this forum, and i will quit following your blog, unless you stop acting childish, and get back to ideas and reason, and quit this banal dual with a non entity. Jenny this is not about you and your pride, its about the greater good.
Go ahead and leave already crybaby, bye-bye.
Hey yo Brad, I thought this was spose to be political discussions here bro', not a love triangle between you, Jenny, and some Mark guy? Woo paisan you're gettin too weird airing out your dirty laundry, probably best move is to just move on Brad. No shame that Mark's a lady killer, you're just out of his league paisan. Next time work on your approach me and the boys thoutght you displayed some game-time nerves where you definitely lost some cool pts. Much to much to agressive physically, emotionally, verbally, cool-out dude you're one tence cat....
"The idiocy is mind-boggling." - this just about sums it up.
With all the misery and torment going on in thw world today, why are we americans whining and crying about every petty grievence they can muster. Seriously people, who care if some dumb politician, believes in a work of fiction(yes the bible is a wor of fiction) We should worry about how many ids die each hour from starvation. While thousands of children are dying for an hour, you silly little highschool kids are bickering over fact checking, and basic reference quibbles. And Jenny, Shock Doctrine was Naomi Klein's third best work, and not takien too seriously by the left intelegencia. Thanks L
That russian dude is right. Why the hell are we beating eachother up over simple semantics. I have noticed that ive been picking up alot of viruses off this site. I will track down the hacker thats doing this, and he will find four flat tires, on his overpriced clown car
We all know Bradly, Brad whoever he is today, has a little schoolboy crush on Jenny and is getting angry she talks to others.
Brad, go upstairs, I think mommy is calling.
Geez, a bit harsh there "other Murph". You might want to actually research a thing before you blast it. Despite the fact that I already cited my source, I guess I’ll hold your hand and take you there again. www. petitionproject.org
In response to your character assassination efforts to discredit my post:
1). Scientist: noun: From the Latin scientia: a person learned in science; especially natural science.
2). I was not referring to a “poll”, I was directing readers to my source. Do you really think that not repeating my source means I don’t want you to read it? Pretty weak.
The site I reference contains the position of 31,000+ scientists who have studied the data that “proves” GW. They refute it. The site Jenny directed us to cites less than 1000 papers where 75% support GW and 25% do not. How is less that 700 for, and 31,000 against a consensus?
Brandon, you are a f*g.
Murph: What do conservatives have against conservation? Just curious...
Yo Brad stay strong for the cause Bro, meet ya at Starbucks later for a couple of lattes, that will cheer ya up bro.
L
I would love to but i am too broke to make the trip. you can check out my amazon sight Bradsbooks. anyway, maybe next week.
B
Mark, i soncerely hope that you have good medical coverage. I would hate for you to have an unexpected acciedent, possibly in a parking lot. The worse thing about emergency medical needs, is that it comes out of nowhere, and when you least expect it.
"i soncerely hope that you have good medical coverage."
Why? Just go the the hospital and like millions do every year, just speak in Spanish and say you are an illegal alien and you get health care on the Americans dime.
Hi Jenny,
I wouldn't know, I'm not conservative, but I have nothing against conservation, it makes sense to be conservative. In fact, it makes sense to me to do all in our power to preserve what we have to the best of our abilities. My lifestyle is quite "green". I recycle, avoid plastic, I take coth bags with me when I shop and always request paper when I can, I eat fresh and free range products, carpool to work, ride a bicycle to the store for small purchases... But that has nothing to do with the GW issue; that issue is based on faulty science regarding greenhouse gases the government wants to cap and trade as if that will have any impact other than reduction of wealth and liberty. But I don't have enough caracters left in this post.
I enjoy your writing style and will check and chime in on your articles from time to time. I appreciate the opportunity to express an alternate view without being butchered for independent thought. Thanks for asking!
Murph
Murph. Its nice to know that a conservative is living the right way. Unfortunatley even the most liberal among us live wastefull lifestyles, and they turn around and tell other people how they should live. To tell the truth, at this point i am close to voting republican, because so few liberals practice what they preach. Back in 96 i built a 4000 square foot lava rock house, under the guise f sustainable housing. How can you be green and live in a 4000 square foot house?
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!