Of mockingbirds and blue jays and shooting and singing

Recommended Posts

When did it become popular in America to eat pancakes with your fingers, with extra syrup and sand, and then touch every millimeter of surface area on a rental DVD?


I just laughed out loud in class and got stared at. :lol:

People need to wash their grubby little fingers. Seriously...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL! Chris, I was reading a thread on another forum where people were just posting facts about animals and such. This was one of them and it struck me as very funny...mostly the "and no one knows why" got me. What a strange thing to say. Anyway, I just looked it up, and it has apparently been proven false.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 14 years later...

I found some old letters that discuss the Confederacy and the Civil War. Peter

From: "George H. Smith" To: "*Atlantis" Subject: ATL: Re: American Civil War Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 17:01:31 -0500. Erik Herbertson wrote: "The issue I´m concerned with here is not really the right of secession as such, but the *motive(s)* for the South to secede. I would have wanted "pro-Confederates" using much more comments like the above in assessing secession. All too often I have read texts where libertarians elevate the Confederacy to the status of freedom fighters like the revolutionaries of 1776. I don´t think this is a reasonable position for the very reasons pointed out in Sandefeur´s article. Also, the Confederacy established in their Constitution the explicit right to own slaves. Many of the original Founding fathers had doubts about slavery, as most of us know, and wanted an end to it. George Mason called slavery "diabolical in itself and disgraceful to mankind". After nearly one hundred years of agitation against slavery as a violation of the American principles of self-determination, the CSA gives slavery constitutional protection. Some freedom! CSA was not more noble than the USA. Habeas corpus was suspended in the CSA as well, draft was introduced and civilian property was stolen. CSA had rotten elements just like USA had (and has). You don´t need to inform me about Lincoln´s actions."

It is misleading to say that most of America's founding fathers wanted to end slavery. Many supported it, and virtually all of those who opposed it were gradualists who took a position akin to that of St. Augustine's prayer, "Lord, give me chastity, but not yet." There was a widespread belief that slavery was economically inefficient compared to free labor, so the South would eventually be forced to abandon slavery out of self-interested motives. As far as political measures to end slavery were concerned, the original strategy (embodied in the Constitution) was to prohibit the slave trade (not slavery itself) 20 years after ratification, in the hope that a purely domestic supply of slaves would be unable to maintain the "peculiar institution."

Eric is right to point out that many founding father at least had serious "doubts" about slavery. Eric, for example, quotes George Mason's polemic against slavery, but he fails to mention that Mason himself was a slaveowner who said he would never free his slaves. He also conceded this was a contradiction which he would not attempt to rationalize or justify.

As for the Southern "motive" for secession, this can be a difficult thing to get a handle on, because "motives" pertain only to individuals, not to collective entities, such as states. Although most southerners did not own slaves (and many commoners resented the slaveowning aristocracy), it is clear that for many southerners the issue of slavery lit the fuse that would eventually ignite the struggle for independence.

Nevertheless, the official southern rationale was independence. Likewise, the official northern rationale was the argument that secession is illegitimate. Lincoln was very clear about this: "My paramount object in this struggle *is* to save the Union, and is *not* either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing *any* slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing *all* the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union....." (Lincoln went on to note that this was his *official* position; personally, he would like to see all slaves set free.)

Two other things should be kept in mind. First, the Union itself contained four slave states. Second, the Emancipation  Proclamation "liberated" only those slaves in rebellious states; it did not free the slaves in the four Union border states, nor in those southern territories that had been conquered by Union armies. It is was simply and solely a war measure designed to weaken the South. (For more on this, see Jeff Hummel's excellent book, *Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men,* which Eric also mentioned.)

Eric correctly notes that slavery was explicitly sanctioned by the Confederate Constitution, But slavery had long been legally sanctioned in the Union, not only by provisions in the Constitution (such as the fugitive slave clause and the notorious three-fifths provision), but by federal and Supreme Court decisions as well.

Slavery aside, southerners had a number of legitimate grievances, such as the propensity of northerners to impose high tariffs that benefited northern manufacturing at the expense of southern agriculture. But we should have no illusions about the fact that the slavery controversy did play an important role in how some southerners thought about independence.

But whatever the motives of some southerners may have been (and they were complex, sometimes having as much to do with cultural as with political reasons), both sides agreed that the Civil War was being fought over the right of secession. There are some parallels here with the American Revolution. The physician Benjamin Rush (the guy who convinced Thomas Paine to write "Common Sense") estimated that the motives of around one-third of the American revolutionaries were less than noble. (Some, for example, wished to escape the responsibility of paying their debts to British merchants, whereas others did not like the restraints imposed upon them to protect Indians.) Moreover, the British (for military reasons similar to those later invoked by Lincoln) offered to free any slaves that fought on the British side, and it is scarcely coincidental that most Indian tribes sided with the British as well.

Thus, in the American Revolution as in the Southern Revolution, the motives of individuals were often varied and mixed. Lysander Spooner dealt with this troublesome issue by clearly distinguishing the right of secession from the motives that may impel some people to demand secession. Thus, although Spooner had long been a  vehement abolitionist, he defended the southern cause, claiming it was as legitimate as the American  revolution had been. I agree with him on this.  Slavery was sanctioned and flourished much longer under the Union flag that it did under the Confederate flag. We should therefore take them both down, everywhere and permanently. If we must have a national symbol, then let us salute the old revolutionary flag with a coiled snake and the motto, "Don't tread on me." This would be a clear indication that Americans oppose all forms of slavery, both chattel and political, and regardless of whether the tyrant prefers to be called "Master" or "Mister President." Ghs

From: Michael Hardy To: atlantis Subject: ATL: Re: American Civil War -- answer to George Smith Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 16:09:27 -0400 (EDT)  I am surprised that George Smith doubts that the desire to maintain slavery was the major motive for secessions of the southern states.  The conventions that decided to secede published their reasons.

The official "Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union" states that "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world," and goes on to enumerate various threats to that institution. The official "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union" complains at length about the refusal of northern states to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, the harboring of slaves charge with murder or with inciting servile insurrection, etc.  It states over and over and over and over that it was from the "non-slave-holding states" that the state of South Carolina wished to be separated.

Why just those ones?  Why not all of the other states? George, how do you answer that?  Did South Carolina have various separate grievances, unrelated to slavery, against precisely those states that, by some strange coincidence, also happened to be non- slave-holding states?  And did they then refer to them by means of that coincidence without suspecting that they were setting themselves up to be misunderstood as acting for the purpose of preserving slavery?

The "Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union" makes much of the ""beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery." Below I quote from the official Declaration of Causes of Secession of the state of Georgia.

These documents are at <http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html>. Mike Hardy

<< A similar provision of the Constitution requires them to surrender fugitives from labor.This  provision and the one last referred to were our main inducements for confederating with the Northern  States. Without them it is historically true that we would have rejected the Constitution. In the fourth year of the Republic Congress passed a law to give full vigor and efficiency to this important provision. This act depended to a considerable degree upon the local magistrates  in the  several  States  for its efficiency. The non-slave-holding States generally repealed all laws intended to aid the execution of that act, and imposed penalties upon those citizens whose loyalty to the Constitution and their oaths might induce them to discharge their  duty.

Congress then passed the act of 1850, providing for the complete execution of this duty by Federal officers. This law, which their own bad faith rendered absolutely indispensable for the protection of constitutional rights, was instantly met with ferocious revilings and all conceivable  modes  of  hostility.  The Supreme Court unanimously, and their own local courts with equal unanimity (with the single and temporary exception of the supreme court of Wisconsin), sustained its constitutionality in all of its provisions. Yet it stands today a dead letter for  all practicable purposes in every non-slave-holding State in the Union. We have their covenants, we have their oaths to keep and observe it, but the unfortunate claimant, even accompanied by a Federal officer with the mandate of the highest judicial  authority in  his hands, is everywhere met with fraud, with force, and with legislative enactments to elude, to resist, and  defeat  him.   Claimants are  murdered with impunity; officers of the law are beaten by frantic mobs instigated by  inflammatory  appeals  from  persons  holding  the highest  public  employment in these States, and supported by legislation in conflict with the clearest provisions of the Constitution, and even the ordinary principles of humanity. >>

From: "George H. Smith" To: "*Atlantis" Subject: ATL: Re: American Civil War -- answer to George Smith Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 17:30:07 -0500 Mike Hardy wrote: "I am surprised that George Smith doubts that the desire to maintain slavery was the major motive for secessions of the southern states.  The conventions that decided to secede published their reasons."

Mike then quotes from the Declaration of Immediate Causes from Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Georgia, all of which refer to slavery in some fashion. I never denied that slavery played a significant role in secession -- indeed, I specifically stated that "we should have no illusions about the fact that the slavery controversy did play an important role in how some southerners thought about independence." But the issue is more complex that Mike has indicated. Secession occurred in two waves. Seven slave states seceded within three months of Lincoln's election, even though, apart from his opposition to the extension of slavery into the territories, Lincoln had pledged not to tamper with the peculiar institution.

The second wave occurred after the Fort Sumter incident, when Lincoln had refused to evacuate Union troops from Charleston Harbor. This was the spark that caused four additional states -- Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas -- to join the rebellion. The Governor of Virginia (who had previously been critical of South Carolina's actions) flatly refused Lincoln's order to muster militia for to the purpose of forcing the rebellious states back into the Union, and he accused Lincoln of starting a civil war for the purpose of subjugating the South. As Jeff Hummel puts it: "Previously unwilling to secede over the issue of slavery, these four states were now ready to fight for the ideal of a voluntary union." (*Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men,* p. 141.)

This is what I meant in saying that the motives for secession were varied and complex. But it would be silly to say that slavery was the fundamental issue that was contested during in the Civil War (even if it was the motive that caused *some* southerners to demand independence), since neither side was calling for its abolition. (As I pointed out before, slavery was legal in four border states within the Union itself.) Rather, the fundamental issue had to do with the right of secession. This is an issue that had been debated in the United States for many years. Btw, I have no sympathy with either side in that bloody and senseless war. Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...

Weird. She didn’t use to seem so weird. But I guess she went to Christian Schools? No science. Just The Holy Bibble?
Fox News: It wasn’t long ago that Lara Logan was a correspondent for CBS News, which is a little hard to believe considering the types of conspiracy theories she’s been pushing since she left the network. The latest came during an appearance on the right-wing podcast “And We Know,” during which Logan suggested that the theory of evolution is the result of a wealthy Jewish family paying Charles Darwin to devise an explanation for what gave rise to humanity.

Does anyone know who employed Darwin, where Darwinism comes from?” Logan, now with Fox News’ streaming service Fox Nation, asked. “Look it up: The Rothschilds. It goes back to 10 Downing Street. The same people who employed Darwin, and his theory of evolution and so on and so on. I’m not saying that none of that is true. I’m just saying Darwin was hired by someone to come up with a theory — based on evidence, OK, fine.” end quote

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

“Aw Shucks”. Some off the cuff “evolution?” From: "Dennis May" To: atlantis Subject: ATL: Naturally Evolved, Man-Made, & The Supernatural Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 00:46:35 -0500/ Another Poke in the Dark: Question #1:   Did man arrive at the position he is in now by a natural process (no god/mysticism involved)? ANSWER: (Y/N)

Most Objectivists seem comfortable with the position (Y).  A few people interested in most of Objectivism are not but let's continue...   The overwhelmingly favored description of this natural process is called Natural Selection (AKA Evolution).  I am unaware of any competing theory with any merit.  It basically means you stir (energy) a big pot of chemicals over a long period of time and life results.  If the ingredients and stove co-operate intelligent life can result.

Question #2: Is there anything within in the natural selection processes or the products of that process creating mystical conditions? ANSWER: (Y/N) Most would agree the process introduces no mystical element.

Question #3: Natural selection is a crude, wasteful, undirected, and inefficient process yet it has created the human mind in just a few billion years.  Can a man-made process generate something equivalent to or superior to a human mind? ANSWER: (Y/N) Many say no.  I must look back to question #1 and ask if perhaps they didn't understand the meaning of question #1.

Question #3 is going to rock the world of philosophy like no Star Trek episode ever thought of.  In many ways it would be more disturbing to some foundational methods of thought than aliens showing up on the White House Lawn.

Philosophy can attempt to describe what role science must play within philosophy, but like a million lawyers with endless paper trails every niche will be probed until the weakness is exposed then another million lawyers will come rushing in and choke you to death with paperwork. Not a flattering comparison but philosophers have left themselves so utterly exposed on this issue that when the time comes there won't be any catch-up or learning curve.  It will be clean gutting and those who slept won't be playing anymore (intellectually anyway).

Many religions and philosophies will still continue as people isolate themselves from unpleasant realities.  Others will adapt the information in some form which appears harmless (un-integrated or improperly integrated information).  Religion's have successfully dodged the bullet of science for centuries now.

My real question is still the same as it has been for over a year now, what is the Objectivist solution?  Having heard none I assume there is none.  Will Objectivism simply retain the information in undigested form, ignore it, or give up the claim of being objective.  I suspect from what I've seen so far some combination of indigestion and ignoring it (leave it to the specialized sciences) will occur.  That will certainly wash with some people but not with many others.  The process will be greatly drug out by those who will claim no artificial intelligence is intelligent in any case.

A definite crossroads for Objectivism.  Can it adapt it's foundational approach when new information of foundational importance is learned?  Since there is no structure within Objectivism allowing it to adapt what next?  Does a philosophy die with its originator when assumptions must change?

Since most Objectivists don't see the problem or don't believe AI will ever happen I expect little more will come of this for a few more years then wham like a hammer on the head. Dennis May

P.S. - New technology just announced will allow silicon wafers to be used to the 40 atoms wide level within conventional electronics.  Since electronics function much faster than human neurons the day is fast approaching when the unique processing capabilities of the human mind will be surpassed in every way. There is talk of selling (in the next few years) instant every human language translators including dialects, accents, rate of delivery, and other nuances appropriate to each individual based on speech heard on the fly.

From: "Jeff Riggenbach" To: "Atlantis" <atlantis : "The Human Brain" and Perception Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 00:03:09 -0700

Dennis May writes, with his trademark combination of the "aw shucks" manner and the air of absolute certainty: "Implantable senses are a reality today. Vision and auditory implants have been tested.  From my co-workers years ago in the Air Force I know that the human brain can directly perceive certain frequencies of  microwaves as a high pitched whistle."

This is what I love about Dennis May, what makes him one of the greatest comedians of our time (though I admit  I'm troubled by clues in his messages that suggest he is unaware of this comedy and perhaps doesn't intend it).

A brain cannot perceive anything. Only a living entity, human or otherwise, can perceive. In the act of perception, the living entity's brain plays an important part, but it's far from the whole story. Even perception will never be understood if it is regarded by researchers as equivalent to events in brain tissue.

There is also no such thing as "the human brain." There's your brain, and mine,  and his, and hers.  Haven't our modern day advocates of scientism read Roger J. Williams? Williams was the University of Texas biochemist whose research in the 1930s and '40s led him to question such convenient abstractions as "the human brain."  In a series of books in the 1950s and '60s -- Biochemical Individuality, You Are Extraordinary!, others – he argued the view that the more complex an organism is the greater its predictable deviation from any supposed "standard" or "average."

In fact, for reasons delineated a hundred years ago by Henri Bergson, biology has never been able to duplicate the "precision" of physics. Living matter -- animate matter -- is not the same thing as inanimate matter.  This has nothing whatever to do with miracles.  It has to do, rather, with the simple fact that one size does *not* fit all.

Max Stirner has useful things to say about the mindset Dennis seems to exemplify.  His references to "fixed ideas," "wheels in the head," and "spooks" are all highly relevant.  But if, like most Objectivists, you're deeply suspicious of Stirner, read Aristotle instead. Everything that exists is particular. "Man" does not exist; only individual men. "The human brain" does not exist; only individual brains. JR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bit more weird stuff about Human Evolution?

The evolutionary debate continues. The author and Scientific American, invite you to email this to a friend but I could not get it to work, so I will simply cut and paste the article. There was also a section at the end urging the reader to: Scientific American.

I have often wondered about whether key human adaptations (e.g., bipedalism, large brain size, opposable thumbs) represented universal traits for the development of high intelligence and technological complexity. In The Social Conquest of Earth (2012) by evolutionary biologist Edward O. Wilson, he posits that they are. Wilson argues that highly intelligent, technologically complex species have been so rare in the history of life because there are specific universal preadaptations required to produce the human condition. He contends that without these preadaptations, a species intelligent enough to "build a microscope, deduce the oxidative chemistry of photosynthesis, or photograph the moons of Saturn" is an impossibility (Wilson, 2012: 45).

From Wilson himself: "Overall, it now seems possible to draw a reasonably good explanation of why the human condition is a singularity, why the likes of it has occurred only once and took so long in coming. The reason is simply the extreme improbability of the preadaptations necessary for it to occur at all. Each of these evolutionary steps has been a full-blown adaptation in its own right. Each has required a particular sequence of one or more preadaptations that occurred previously. Homo sapiens is the only species of large mammal - thus large enough to evolve a human-sized brain - to have made every one of the required lucky turns in the evolutionary maze." (Wilson, 2012: 45)

So what are these "lucky turns"? And are they as universal as Wilson supposes? First I think it is appropriate to explain what is meant be an "evolutionary maze." An evolutionary maze is a metaphor to understand the probability of an organism acquiring a certain trait (i.e. large size, flight, echolocation, intelligence, etc.). By using this metaphor we can say with certainty that descendants of contemporary pigs could become aquatic, but will never be able to fly. This is because their ancestors acquired adaptations that "closed the door" to flight as a future adaptation through the evolutionary maze. In essence, Wilson uses this metaphor to illustrate how many, and what type, of preadaptations it took for evolution to produce a highly intelligent, technologically complex species. So that brings us back to "lucky turns". What were they for us? And can we deduce that these preadaptations represent a universal process for biological evolution? Is the human condition a singularity? According to Wilson there were four major turns, and these turns can be seen as prerequisites for biological evolution to produce another species with our abilities:

1. Land The first of Wilson's lucky turns is an adaptation to a terrestrial environment. This is the first key preadaptation because Wilson argues that technological evolution past simple stone tools requires fire. This means that in the evolutionary maze aquatic species could develop technology, but could never develop technologies with evolutionary trajectories of their own. Therefore, no descendant of the octopus or dolphin could deduce oxidative chemistry of photosynthesis, or photograph the moons of Saturn, without first adapting to land.

2. Large body size Wilson's next preadaptation is large body size. The reason for this adaptation is fairly self-explanatory: in order for a species to develop human-level intelligence, they must have a body that can support the evolution of a human-sized brain. Wilson draws on his experience studying the highly complex societies of ants, bees, and termites to support the inclusion of this preadaptation: "[body size is the] one reason why leafcutter ants, although the most complex of any species other than humans, and even though they practice agriculture in air-conditioned cities of their own instinctual devising, have made no significant further advance during the twenty million years of their existence." (Wilson, 2012: 46). In contrast, we acquired this adaptation gradually over time within the order primates.

3. Grasping hands The third preadaptation is grasping hands. For Wilson, a species that has not acquired this ability will never be able to manipulate the environment in the way necessary to produce complex technologies. Of course, this is a preadaptation that our lineage acquired within the order primates. Grasping hands distinguishes primates from all other mammals.

4. Meat/Control of Fire The fourth preadaptations are the consumption of meat and control of fire. Meat is a necessary adaptation for Wilson because it yields higher energy per gram eaten, and because of the cooperation between individuals required to acquire meat. In our lineage, meat was first consumed regularly within the genus Homo. Before this the australopithecines subsisted off of vegetation, although they were potential scavengers as well. Regular consumption of meat was followed shortly by the control of fire. For humans, control of fire allowed us to catch larger game, and created a central common cooking space, which facilitated the development of an even more complex social environment dependent on altruistic sharing of resources.

The Evolutionary Maze The metaphor of the evolutionary maze is a useful one. It can help us conceptualize biological evolution. However, Wilson depicts the human journey through the maze to be the only possible way for biological evolution to produce both high intelligence and technologically complex species. Of course, I agree that the maze towards these evolutionary developments is narrower than the maze towards less complex adaptations. I also agree that a great number of preadaptations are necessary for a species to achieve high intelligence and technological complexity. However, the human condition may not be a singularity. Unfortunately, we know of only one species that has developed high intelligence and technology with an evolutionary trajectory of its own. Therefore, our sample size is too small to be definitively sure that our path through the maze was the only one.

As a consequence, I believe questions about the universality of the human condition must be relegated to a grey borderland between philosophy and empirical science. Are there universal preadaptations? I think it is possible, but we can't scientifically determine that yet. Take for example Wilson's first preadaptation: adaptation to land. Is it impossible for a lineage adapted to an aquatic setting to develop high intelligence and technological complexity? I am just not sure how we can scientifically rule that out. Just because it hasn't happened on Earth, doesn't mean that it can't happen in the future, or on some other planet similar to our own.

As Wilson point out in the book, alien scientists studying our planet three million years ago would likely think nothing special of the australopithecines. However, they were part of the maze that ended up producing us. Could our species be making a similar mistake as Wilson's hypothetical alien scientists if we conclude that the evolutionary maze to high intelligence and technological complexity is shut to the descendants of octopuses and dolphins? Furthermore, we can't conclude that consumption of meat and control of fire are necessary preadaptations, even though they were for us. Although meat yields higher energy per gram eaten when compared to vegetation on Earth, it may not be the case on other planets. I would argue the same with the preadaptation for control of fire. It was important for our lineage, but could technology develop without control of it in an aquatic setting? We don't have the data to rule it out.

On the other hand, I believe the preadaptations Wilson explored do give us important insight. For example, I would think it to be highly unlikely for a species with a small body size to develop human-level intelligence. As he mentioned, the lack of advance among the social insects is likely attributable to this variable. Also, I am in general agreement with Wilson that a species like us would require some type of grasping preadaptation. Of course, grasping hands could be supplemented for the evolution of some other type of appendage (e.g., fin, tentacle, etc.) that could be used to manipulate the external environment.

This means all intelligent science fiction aliens should be equipped with some type of grasping appendage, in order to be scientifically appropriate. Jokes aside, this type of question is worth exploring. However, I think we should be cautious and hesitant to make any broad conclusions. A scientific consensus will not likely be reached until we have more data, and that requires understanding life off of our island of life: Earth.

References: Wilson, E.O. 2012. The Social Conquest of Earth. New York: W.W. Norton.

Yada, yada, yada. Was it an "evolutionary advantage" to start using forks? Come on! Spoons are the best evolutionary tool ever.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Peter said:

It wasn’t long ago that Lara Logan was a correspondent for CBS News, which is a little hard to believe considering the types of conspiracy theories she’s been pushing since she left the network.


If you never look at her sources and only read people who criticize her and want her shut up, that is a reasonable conclusion. If you start digging, your opinions would probably change. Lara is a professional of the highest order in journalism.

(And she would never do what CBS did and does with the fake news crap they put out all the time. Lara sticks to facts and never uses a source like "someone with knowledge of the incident" like CBS does all the time.)

But I get your feeling that something is off. I've gone through it myself. I used to think the Darwin thing was simple and easily boiled down to evolution or religion as in the Scopes Monkey trial (or the movie Inherit the Wind).

It looks like a whole lot of stuff was happening around Darwin's work and conclusions. And, believe it or not, there was a form of cancel culture imposed at time time. New current additions to evolution are recovering some of the lost lines of inquiry. I know. I read some of this stuff.

History-wise, there is a huge entanglement with a large faction of the ruling class in England at the time, which was trying to preserve the empire while seeing the writing on the wall (they never got over losing the American Revolution). There was enormous input from the grandfather of Aldous Huxley. There are at lot of things that added to this history. I have not become an expert in all this, only a dabbler, but I have seen enough to know there is a there there. And I have not looked at what Lara looked at. My knowledge on this comes mostly from The Rising Tide Foundation. They use original documents, letters, press notices, etc. I like their work so far.

Back to Lara, I haven't seen that podcast with her yet, but even without seeing it, I would bet good money--and win--that it is not as portrayed by the person or organization you got that from. And I know you got it from somebody because I just don't see you, on your own, seeking out podcasts with Lara Logan in them.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just an aside on Lara Logan.

Remember the 2011 Arab Spring? Remember when they toppled Egypt's Mubarak in a giant demonstration and every liberal's heart gushed that social media was saving the world from brutes and bastards, the guy from Google actually cried for God's sake, and finally THE PEOPLE got their say, muh feelings and blah blah blah? Remember that? (That was right before they put in the Obama-sanctioned murderous Moslem Brotherhood bastard Morsi.)

Do you remember talk about an American journalist getting sexually assaulted?

Well, that was Lara Logan. She was gang raped right out in the open in Tahrir Square by 200 to 300 young Egyptian men from THE PEOPLE, bless their little hearts. Lara was raped for CBS. 

To be fair to the Egyptian THE PEOPLE, it was Egyptian women who saved her. They literally put their bodies as a barrier between her and the gang of rapists, their efforts grew and finally soldiers showed up.

That is Lara Logan.

And that is the extent she goes to get her facts.

But, to the same people who cheered on the Arab Spring from their computer keyboards, the Arab Spring that brought so much death and destruction to the region and the reemergence of public human slave auctions--muh slavery! except this isn't a CRT talking point, this is real slavery in 2022 (and remember ISIS?)--Lara is a conspiracy kook.

These people need to get a mirror and actually look at it...



  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Peter said:

The author and Scientific American, invite you to email this to a friend but I could not get it to work, so I will simply cut and paste the article.

Link ...


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks William. I will read it tomorrow.

Quote “Overall, it now seems possible to draw a reasonably good explanation of why the human condition is a singularity, why the likes of it has occurred only once and took so long in coming. 

To me, that is a bit depressing. I would prefer human like beings throughout the galaxies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now