Teresa H. Kerry tells reporter to "shove it."

From most of what I read these days, the theory of relativity is pretty much dead.

And that right there is your problem.

Most of what you read is newsmax.com, FreeRepublic.com, etc. ad nauseum.

You won't find anything meaningful about relativity or cosmology or the like on FR or newsmax. I mean, I DO read other things.

I thought that was a pretty good article, until it totally went overboard in these here last two paragraphs.

First, the same writer who lambasts the journalist for trying to smear Heinz-Kerry by association, himself goes head-first into the degrees-of-separation logic. So, the journalist actually quoted a (rather famous) Austrian thinker whose friend was a hysterical anti-semite. Well, that explains it then. And Kerry once quoted a man (JFK) who won the elections thanks to the corrupt practices of a Chicago mayor - practically proves that Kerry's the mob candidate, right? Its lame logic, whether its used by the left or the right, and it seems to have the States in a stranglehold - from Bush's attempts to link Saddam with 9-11 through "degrees of separation" to Moore's attempts to do the same with Bush and 9/11.

Then, the writer goes into the surreal by asking, "Could it be that it was Hayek and Nock's ideas that Heinz-Kerry called "un-American"?" Eh, no, as is easily enough found out by simple desk research - McNickle´s question concerned an actual use of the word "anti/American" by Heinz-Kerry - in a 60 Minutes interview that had nothing whatsoever to do with McNickle, let alone Hayek or Austrian anti-semitism. It was inquiring and speculating about the candidate's and his wife's wealth that Heinz-Kerry labelled "un-American", and thats what McNickle was baiting her about. Nice try, no cigar.

The theory of relativity is dead?

I guess that means there were no atomic WMD in Iraq. Nor anywhere else.

Nuclear weapons don't depend on "relativistic time" or on Einstein's description of gravity.

9 pages on THK telling a reporter to shove it? This is soooooooo sexist! If a man told a reporter to shove it, it would barely raise a titter! Pretty sad when the only thing they got is a silly photo and attacking the wives who aren't running for anything.

'Water under the bridge!' Ooooooohh.....HAHAHAAHA!



Source

Your pants are on fire, swolf, and I can come up with hundreds of these:

http://www.doug-long.com/einstein.htm

(Including Encyclopedia Britannica -- the idea of turning matter into energy, especially a tiny amount of matter is directly from the theory of relativity). Stephen Hawking and other cosmologists and physicists have elaborated on the theory, applying it to nearly every way the universe functions like Black Holes. Hawkings has even revised his own theory of what happens inside Black Holes -- the matter absorbed can apparantly still give off signals of its existance. If you believe all the claptrap that the theory is now useless, you are in a another time and another place. Possibly because of the Theory of Backwoods. One who likely believes that there is some beared creator floating somewhere is space with a magic wand playing David Copperfield appearing/dissapearing tricks is likely to swallow anything.

Doesn't really sound like you know anything about relativity or Hawking either one.

Hawking always struck me as something of an idiot in fact. The following was posted on usenet recently:

Seeing that science has become a religious cult, it does not surprise
me that evolutionists would step over themselves to worship a
crackpot/con artist like Stephen Hawking. One would think that
Hawking, being a world renowned scientist admired by throngs of people
who have no idea what he's talking about, would understand that
nothing can move in spacetime. Not at all. Here's Hawking on time
travel:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/warps2.html

Since we can't change the way the universe began, the question of
whether time travel is possible, is one of whether we can
subsequently make space-time so warped, that one can go back to
the past. I think this is an important subject for research, but
one has to be careful not to be labeled a crank. If one made a
research grant application to work on time travel, it would be
dismissed immediately. No government agency could afford to be
seen to be spending public money, on anything as way out as time
travel. Instead, one has to use technical terms, like closed time
like curves, which are code for time travel. Although this lecture
is partly about time travel, I felt I had to give it the
scientifically more respectable title, Space and Time warps. Yet,
it is a very serious question. Since General Relativity can permit
time travel, does it allow it in our universe? And if not, why
not.

I want to puke everytime I read this crap. The simple truth is that
general relativity does not permit time travel, a million star-trek
fanatics jumping up and down notwithstanding. No wormholes, black
holes and all that other nonsense that depends on the existence of
spacetime. Spacetime is frozen from the infinite past to the infinite
future. Why? Because time is already part of the manifold. As simple
as that. For more on the impossible of motion in and the fictitious
and abstract of spacetime go to:

http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Crackpots/notorious.htm

Now that one of the lesser (i.e., chicken ****) gods in the pantheon
of the cult of scientism has been cut down to size, who should be
next? Darwin? Nah. Too easy.

Louis Savain

PS. Let's see how many evolutionists actually understand the simple
truth about the impossibility of motion in spacetime, seeing that they
consider themselves smarter than the rest of humanity.
Artificial Intelligence From the Bible:
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Seven/bible.html

Falsifiable Predictions:
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Seven/predictions.html

Swolf
Swolf, you've demonstrated that anything can happen in space. For example, a thread about Teresa Heinz Kerry evolving into a dispute about space and Hawkin's opinion of it.

Such a good example of evolution with a bit of chaos theory thrown in with no strings attached.

BBB

The Scaife Strategy: Smother Teresa
By Max Blumenthal, AlterNet
Posted on July 29, 2004, Printed on July 29, 2004
http://www.alternet.org/story/19389/

Colin McNickle did not enter the Democratic Convention as an ordinary reporter. As the editorial page editor for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, a newspaper owned by eccentric rightist billionaire Richard Mellon-Scaife, McNickle came to Boston as an agent provocateur. "What happens when a conservative commentator infiltrates the Democratic National Convention?" the Tribune-Review asked in pre-convention promotion of McNickle's coverage. McNickle answered that question on Sunday, July 25 by provoking a spat with Teresa Heinz-Kerry.

The dustup occurred after Heinz-Kerry gave a speech to the Pennsylvania delegation denouncing "some of the creeping, un-Pennsylvanian and sometimes un-American traits that are coming into some of our politics." McNickle approached her and asked what she meant by "un-American activities," in effect accusing her of McCarthyism. Heinz-Kerry denied using the phrase "un-American activities" and stormed off. Yet when Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell pointed out to her that McNickle was a reporter from the Tribune-Review, Heinz-Kerry returned to him with a rebuke. "You're from the Tribune Review?" she asked McNickle with a face tightened with rage. "That's understandable. You said something I didn't say. Now shove it."

Most of the mainstream press characterized the incident as The New York Times' Jim Rutenberg did: another example of "Teresa being Teresa." For them, the dustup was a resounding confirmation that their hastily scrawled sketch of an incurable free spirit who was filling John Kerry's campaign coffers while draining his political fortunes was an accurate one. However, there is much more to it than that. McNickle's provocation of Heinz-Kerry represents the latest manifestation of a poisonous dirty tricks campaign Scaife has financed to undermine Heinz-Kerry, a fellow Western Pennsylvania philanthropist whom he considers his rival. And now that Heinz-Kerry has been thrust into the national spotlight by her husband's presidential candidacy, Scaife's smears are likely to intensify.

"The dust-up between Teresa Heinz-Kerry and Colin McNickle has a long history behind it that goes back a good 15 years before McNickle even worked there," said Dennis Roddy, a columnist for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, who has covered Pennsylvania politics for over 30 years. "Scaife has had it in for [Heinz Kerry] because she's not sufficiently conservative, she's a moderate voice. She has always felt badly treated by the Tribune-Review and it doesn't surprise me that her grievances finally came out."

The Tribune-Review routinely sniped at Teresa Heinz during her marriage to Pennsylvania's Republican former Senator John Heinz. When the senator died in 1991, and the Massachusetts Junior

Senator John Kerry stole Teresa's heart, the paper's attacks grew increasingly slanderous. On December 28, 1997, the paper featured an anonymously penned cover story falsely insinuating that a woman named Sheila Lawrence had had affairs with both Bill Clinton and Kerry. "Far from giving all to Bill, there was still something left over for Sen. John Kerry," who had "a very private tete-a-tete" with "sexy Sheila," the columnist alleged. In another column, the Tribune-Review mocked John Kerry as "Mr. Teresa Heinz."

Perhaps the most spurious of the Tribune-Review's attacks came in December, 2003, when it ran a piece accusing Heinz-Kerry of secretly "funneling cash" from her Heinz Endowment to the Tides Foundation, a group that "supports extreme left wing groups... anti-war protests... unlimited abortion rights, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender advocacy, as well as and [sic] environmental extremism." The piece was based on research conducted by the right-wing think tank Capital Research Center, yet failed to mention that Scaife granted the center $240,000 in 2002 or that he was connected to it in any way. The article also omitted the fact that the Heinz Foundation's grants were all strictly earmarked for mainstream Western Pennsylvania environmental charities, an inexcusable omission that could have been avoided if the paper had bothered to call either the Heinz Foundation or the Tides Foundation to confirm its wild claims.

Despite the article's shoddy research, its accusations became a favorite tune on the right's Mighty Wurlitzer. FrontPageMagizine plugged it in a piece called, "Teresa Heinz-Kerry: Bag Lady of the Radical Left;" The New York Post followed with the headline, "Teresa Heinz's Cash Connection;" Rush Limbaugh promoted the claims; the Weekly Standard picked the story up. By the time FOX's Brit Hume reported the accusations, they had been brushed clean of Scaife's fingerprints.

For the past 10 years, the point man in Scaife's anti-Heinz attack campaign has been Colin McNickle, a brash ideologue who has shaped the Tribune-Review's editorial page into a forum for some of the most fanatical currents of right-wing thought. Characteristic examples of McNickle's work include the anonymous obituary he commissioned of Catherine Graham which implied she murdered her husband, Philip Graham, in order to seize control of The Washington Post; his endorsement of the anti-immigrant border-patrolling Arizona militia leader, Chris Simcox; his routine references to Gov. Ed Rendell as a "socialist;" his penchant for quoting the Austrian aristocrat and conservative intellectual pioneer, Friedrich Von Hayek (perhaps Hayek's ideas were the "un-American traits" Heinz-Kerry referred to in her speech on Sunday). And there is also the fact that the Tribune-Review is the only newspaper in America which publishes columns by White nationalist author Sam Francis, a self-avowed "racialist" whose views are so extreme he was fired by the Washington Times.

McNickle has also displayed a disregard for journalistic ethics throughout his career. His chronic carelessness was most apparent in his July, 2000, column, "Thus (Mis)Speaketh Al," a collection of imbecilic quotes by then-presidential candidate Al Gore. Though the article was laugh-out-loud funny, there was one small problem: the statements McNickle attributed to Gore were actually quotes by former Vice President Dan Quayle. Yet even after his mistake was exposed, McNickle refused to give an inch. "I'll stand by where we got the information from," McNickle told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Despite McNickle's dubious background, since his dustup with Heinz-Kerry he has managed to convince the networks and mainstream press that he is a humble, workaday reporter victimized by "an arrogant, contentious billionaire," in the words of CNN's Bob Novak. In an interview on CNN on July 26, Anderson Cooper allowed McNickle to describe the Tribune-Review as "a very objective, middle-of-the-road paper" without a challenge. Later that evening on MSNBC, The New York Daily News' ever-credulous gossip columnist Lloyd Grove described McNickle as "just a reporter who's toiled in the past for the newswires UPI and AP." The following day McNickle innocently told Grove, "I'm a little uncomfortable with all the attention I'm getting. I'm here to report the news, not make it." If Grove had only done a quick search for McNickle's clips, he may have discovered what an absurd statement that was.

Scaife's dirty tricks campaign against Teresa Heinz-Kerry is not without precedent. Indeed, it bears ominous echoes to the Arkansas Project, the $2.4 million dollar dirty tricks campaign Scaife financed during the 1990's to paint Bill and Hillary Clinton as drug dealers, thieves and murderers which included paying "sources" for information that turned out to be false. Then as now, the spurious accusations germinated in Scaife's smear factory are eagerly broadcast by the right-wing punditocracy and naively entertained by a gossip-starved mainstream press terrified of appearing to affect any liberal bias.

And just as Hillary was initially derided by the press for claiming she was the victim of "a vast right-wing conspiracy," Heinz-Kerry is ridiculed for standing up to one of Scaife's hatchet men. Nevertheless, Teresa Heinz Kerry's dustup with Colin McNickle is an encouraging sign. Because like Hillary, Teresa Heinz Kerry has a keen awareness of who her enemies are and by telling them to "shove it," she has demonstrated the courage to stand up to them.

Re: Swolf


Especially cyberspace and also the space between swolf's...oh never mind!

Harper
Harper, to bring us back to the topic of this thread before it was hijacked, the above article demonstrates why I'm so disgusted with so many reporters and editors. They've become lazy and incompetent. I blame the lack of responsible journalism for many of the problems facing the US today. Too many members of the Media are not doing their jobs in the common interests of the public.

BBB

Hmmmm. They don't seem to mind being seen spending a million plus to measure ketchup's dripping ability. Or how far a Tse Tse fly travels in a year.

Latest example of Colin McNickle's screeds
This column will really upset liberals
By Colin McNickle
Sunday, December 16, 2001
Colin McNickle is the Trib's editorial page editor.

As with fools, I don't suffer liberals gladly. I'm a proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy. If not a founding member, I'm at least a charter member and darn proud of it. And I, too, find myself continually shaking my head over the Styrofoam-for-brains liberals and ``their'' media. All who enter my office are reminded of my persuasion when they leave. It's so chilling that some even here don't linger very long.

My ``sustaining membership'' card for 2002 from the Republican National Committee, taped to the wall, is one far-from-tacit notandum. (Down boys and girls; no money exchanged hands for this honorific.)

Below that is my ``I'M FED UP WITH THE LIBERAL MEDIA'' bumper sticker that Brent Bozell gave me January last in Washington. (That, by the way, was right after Brent gave Bob Bork a big bear hug and secret handshake.)

Of course, that glossy print of Patrick Buchanan at the bottom of the wall stack is the real topper for those who might still harbor any doubts about ``where I come from.''

Oh, and did I forget to mention the pristine, framed copy of the April 12, 1945, edition of the Martins Ferry-Bellaire, Ohio, Times-Leader, my hometown newspaper, that hangs just to the right of my clock and above my bank of computer terminals?

It features that very large headline, ``Roosevelt Dead,'' from which I garner immeasurable inspiration every single day.

To liberals, all of this is the sure sign of a pompous conservative ass. To conservatives, even if there's a bit of tongue in the cheek, it's a sign of resolve.

Which brings me to my point this Sunday.

We live in an age of weasely corporate journalism in which boilerplate liberalism is passed off as objective coverage and reasoned discourse. (That's why the Pittsburgh Trib was born.) It's so bad that many, many people - most in this business and quite a number outside it - think the list to the left to be the ``norm.''

News stories that might just happen to balance the ingrained ideologically liberal scales are anathema to ``modern'' journalists trained in schools of journalism surely as poorly as modern teachers have been trained in schools of education.

History, basic economic rules, the Constitution - all regularly are distorted, dismissed and disdained in promotion of statist ideals. (Liberals, by the way, simply hate it when conservatives use that very apropos word against them.)

It's the kind of mind-set that gives us such gems as tax cuts being ``spending'' that ``we can't afford.''

Or that governments can spend us to prosperity.

Or that after you pay your taxes, it's not your money anymore so you have no right to complain about how it's wasted.

Or that a quota, if called ``affirmative action,'' isn't what it is - discrimination.

Or that oldie but goody - Ronald Reagan's fiscal policies led us into the abyss of the largest deficits in the nation's history.

Locally, the coverage of the proposed high-speed magnetic levitation train between Pittsburgh International Airport and Greensburg comes to mind. Truly objective news stories on this boondoogle-in-waiting have been woefully hard to come by. It's the same story for coverage of the steel industry's woes. Parochial rah-rah-sis-boom-bah has trumped all reason.

And just last week, The New York Times offered yet another egregious example of the liberal media's wartime hand-wringing, second only to the flourishing ``civil liberaltarianism'' that has been sweeping the country (at least in academic and journalistic circles):

On Page 1, above the fold, and right next to a large photograph of slain CIA operative Johnny Michael Spann being laid to rest, was the story that dozens of captured Taliban soldiers apparently had died of asphyxiation as they were being transported to prison in cargo containers. Food, parts, garbage, Taliban; it's a common practice there.

I certainly don't find glee in what likely were horrible, horrible deaths. But we are at war. And does The Times really expect us - based on the way it ``played'' the story and the verbiage it employed - to bestow some kind of equivalency on those deaths to the 3,000 or so who died in the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington?

I wonder how many of the World Trade Center victims, many trapped in pockets of floors that didn't fully collapse - for hours, days, ever? - and were cooked alive, asphyxiated or died of dehydration.

Strong conservative viewpoints, too, regularly are labeled as ``shrill'' and ``unreasoned'' by liberals and ``their'' liberal media. And most of the time, it's simply because it's, well, not liberal. The philosophy of a strong, conservative publisher I know regularly is chided and dismissed as the ``unchecked,'' if not ``uniformed,'' rantings and ravings of ``one man.''

The only ``valid'' newspaper opinions, they say, are those reached and written by committees. It's the only way ``real'' journalistic opinion can be crafted. Journalistic ``integrity'' requires consensus viewpoints. It's the ``time-honored tradition'' of journalism, we are told.

Well, it's not.

And this kind of editorializing also ``requires'' the liver-lipped inanity that's usually the result - wishy-washy editorials that say everything but say nothing?

I think not.

It's another example of liberals, in defense of liberalism, invoking a largely invented ``rich'' and ``storied history'' that conveniently forgets this business's founding history.

Back in the olden days of this here U-S-of-A, some newspapers - both Federalist and Republican - ridiculed this faux claim of fairness, open-mindedness and ``impartiality'' as a dream that was unattainable even if desirable, wrote Donald H. Stewart in his simply outstanding 1969 book ``The Opposition Press of the Federalist Period.''

The following example pertains specifically to politics. But I find it incredibly germane to this industry in general, to editorial pages in particular, to these times in particular, and to my overall argument:

``The pro-(John) Adams Newark Gazette found talk of neutrality in politics `curious,' and mentioned certain printers who felt they serve neither party and therefore published what they called `both sides of the question.'

``This practice, it continued, evaded the issue, and such editors were similar to witnesses who inserted prevarications into their testimony to avoid taking a stand for either the plaintiff or the accused. Such folly should not be tolerated.''

```The times demand decision,'" wrote Mr. Stewart, recounting the editor's words. "`There is a right and a wrong, and the printer, who under the specious name of impartiality jumbles both truth and falsehood into the same paper' must either doubt his own judgment in distinguishing between the two or be governed by ulterior motives.'''

Pretty good stuff, yes?

There's lots of liberal falsehood that's been passing for ``truth'' for years now in the liberal media and by the liberal intelligentsia. Oh, yes, the scales are becoming a bit more balanced. Rush. Fox News. The Washington Times. The pending return of The New York Sun. But there's much work to be done.

Here's hoping true conservative voices - and ``printers'' - gain even more weight in the new year.

One final note this Sunday. Word is that the liberal illiterati is set to converge en masse on the regularly scheduled meeting of the Mt. Lebanon school board Monday night.

Their target is Director Gracelynn Ratay. She had the utter temerity last month to publicly object to the one-sided content of an all-school assembly attended by 1,800 students in October. Featured was Dr. Hunter ``Patch'' Adams and a liberaled-up moral equivalency sermon that's become the hallmark of the post-Sept. 11 ``Blame America First'' crowd.

Tomorrow night will be no time to sit quietly in your homes, Mt. Lebanon conservatives. Balance the scales and turn out to support not only Mrs. Ratay but the very right-headedness that's she's trying to preserve on your behalf.

Chris Wallace apologize...? Nah.

It made my jaw drop, as well, because he was on the floor reporting, rather than seated on an opinion panel--but who will make him apologize? Teresa?

I think this time, it is SHE who can shove it.

If people don't like it, they don't have to watch. Considering their veiwership and the hilarity of what he said, this free publicity will just amass a larger audience for FOX.

Chris's quote was on target, if not appropriate.

She'll soon be known as Evita.

All's fair in love, war....and politics.

Peron's was a "fascist regime"?