In early March, Harris Interactive conducted an on-line survey to gauge the attitudes of Americans toward President Barack Obama. The Harris Poll generated some fascinating data. For example, 40 percent of those polled believe Obama is a socialist. (He’s not—ask any socialist.) Thirty-two percent believe he is a Muslim. (I had predicted that a Mormon, Jew, Wiccan, atheist and Quetzalcoatl worshipper would become president before America elected a Muslim, so a third of this country actually may be quite open-minded, in an obtuse way.) Also, 14 percent believe that Obama may be the Antichrist. Of those who identified themselves as Republicans, 24 percent think Obama might be.
Scientific polling may include multiple questions designed to measure the internal consistency of the responses of those being surveyed. To measure the consistency of the responses of those who think Obama might be the Antichrist, we have prepared an extension of the poll.
Please answer the following questions “yes” or “no”:
- Do you consider your belief that Obama only might be the Antichrist to be a sign
of your open-mindedness and scientific outlook? - Have you ever called a local TV news office because you saw an image of a major religious figure in (a) a piece of toast, (b) tree bark or (c) a Sheetrock water stain?
- Were you surprised that the president might be the Antichrist because, according to the movie The Omen III, the U.S. ambassador to England should be the Antichrist?
- Do you think Earth is only 6,000 years old?
- Have you had the fillings of your teeth removed to rid your person of the tracking devices placed by the government?
This poll also found that 22 percent of Republicans think that Obama “wants the terrorists to win.” We assume most of those 22 percent who think that Obama “wants the terrorists to win” are among the 24 percent who think that Obama may be the Antichrist. Therefore, a small percentage of Republicans who think that Obama may be the Antichrist also think that Obama wants the terrorists to lose. If that group includes you, please rate the following three statements from 1 to 5 (1 is “strongly disagree,” and 5 is “strongly agree”):
- The Antichrist wants us to beat the terrorists so he can take credit for it, thereby making it easier for him to accomplish his ultimate nefarious goal.
- The Antichrist considers himself to be in competition with the terrorists because they do not recognize his authority on matters of all things evil.
- The Antichrist would root against terrorists because it is just like him to be tricky like that.
Please rate the following 10 statements from 1 to 5 (using above scale):
- Obama is not the first person I have suspected of being the Antichrist.
- I was pretty sure that Bill Clinton was the Antichrist.
- As Pat Robertson noted, the Haiti earthquake was the direct result of Haitians making a pact with Satan more than 200 years ago.
- Pat Robertson is wrong about the Haiti earthquake, because earthquakes are caused by living people behaving immorally.
- Hurricanes are also caused by people behaving immorally.
- Volcanic eruptions are also caused by people behaving immorally.
- But climate change is a hoax.
- I saw Sarah Good with the Devil!
- I saw Goody Osburn with the Devil!
- I saw Bridget Bishop with the Devil!
Thank you for participating in this poll. Some respondents may feel this survey is another example of leftist political bias. In fact, these questions and statements are designed not to find out whether an individual has a specific political viewpoint but rather to determine whether the respondent is a minor, middling or major crank. The results are crucial for the proper stocking of personnel and resources of the FEMA internment camps. Again, thank you—and don’t forget to mail in your census form.
This article was originally published with the title Presidential Harrisment.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
62 Comments
Add CommentVery amusing... and quite rightly so- must take this with a piece salt.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Also, 14 percent believe that Obama may be the Antichrist. Of those who identified themselves as Republicans, 24 percent think Obama might be."
I think it's more likely 24% of Republicans thought it would be amusing to answer a survey that Obama is the antichrist. I doubt 1 in 4 believe he really is.
Heck, I don't hate Obama (not a fan either mind), and if were given that option on a survey, I might mark him down as the antichrist too- just because it would tickle my funnybone ever so slightly.
As an agnostic (leaning towards atheism), I obviously don't think there is an antichrist (nor that it is Obama).
I think it all comes down to: ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.
@David N'Gog, when half the US population believes god created the earth 6k years ago I don't think that believing in a literal antichrist is a stretch.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people - H. L. Mencken
robert schmidt,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't doubt that most American's believe that an anti-Christ will one day come.
I do *highly* doubt that 14% of Americans (24% of republicans) think that Obama is at all likely to be the anti-Christ.
If you ask questions like that you're opening yourself up for people not taking the poll seriously and answering in a way to slam your opposition.
It tempts people to be mischievious and answer the question in a less than honest, but amusing fashion.
Is this a surprise to anyone? I mean, really.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is one thing in the world every fanatic and zealot hates, and that is a non-fanatic.
Obviously Mr. Mirsky is also a fanatic, just of the liberal order. He makes fun of people who demonize President Obama by . . . demonizing them. He suggests people who have religious convictions are closed-minded, but then displays his personal closed-mindedness by making denigrating, condescending statements about their beliefs that are typical of an elitist, holier-than-thou liberal (the opposite of the elitist, holier-than-thou conservatives he so vehemently mocks) who knows better than everyone else. While I totally agree that there ARE fanatics on the right wing, Mr. Mirsky would have us believe there are only fanatics on the right wing. He is wrong, as he is a good example of the fanatical left wing. I find it interesting that he only associates fanatacism with Republicans because 24% of them think Obama is the anti-Christ, completely ignoring the fact that a certain subset of Democrats thought that, too. Ah, the old ploy of spinning the facts to support one's personal argument regardless of the truth. It is people like Mr. Mirsky on both sides of the spectrum who make independent moderates like myself sick. They claim to be open-minded, but in the very act of claiming to be so prove the very opposite. Polarization, either to the left or right, is not the answer, and inane articles like this one do nothing to improve the situation. Mr. Mirsky should be ashamed of himself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe very little is by chance. To me it seems that powers in America are trying to create a people without the ability to process information and facts, by way of logic and reason where-by they may reach logical conclusions based upon factual evidence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe also that this article is important to the scientific community on so many levels that anyone who should comment that it has no place in Scientific American could possibly be one of the ones I'm speaking of.
It's very important to understand what leads to this mentality. It is also what is leading to the fact that America is becoming a nation which has fallen way behind in science and mathmatics as far as those coming from our schools.
Again I cannot believe this is all by chance. I think it's a way to keep the rich...rich and the poor....poor. The rich kids go to better schools, get better educated, have better prospects in life. To bad they're the minority, or America as a nation would be strong in math and science. But I guarantee they are smart enough to know that any of the lower end jobs will not support you, nor a family, with the current wages being given. America needs these jobs filled, and "the machine" has convinced those whom are going to fill these jobs that the illegals who come from places where the dollar is still strong against their currency, where-by they can eek out a living for their families, are a blight against America. Instead of a group that's been a blessing to America without whom America would have starved because for along time nearly all the fruits and veggies were tended and harvested by illegals.
The rich who control America are good with scientific approaches, their kids go to good schools so as they should learn how to put their minds towards money rather then accomplishments for mankind. They're the same brainiacs who almost destroyed the worlds economy and the same ones who support those who should say evolutionists and enviromentalists and smart people who don't buy into their b.s. are anti-American, communists, socialists, anti-christs, etc.
It's mind boggling.
Outrageous, when did SciAm get into politics? Very unwise decision on your part. Stick to doing what you do best, science reporting. You have offended me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpoken like a true Zombie Socialist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSocialist: One who advocates or supports socialism
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSocialism: A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
Let's see - Obama took ownership of GM, Chrysler, and the student loan program. He wants defacto control of the banks, the auto companies, and the entire energy system. He wants to control the pay of workers in private industry.
You don't flip a switch to get from capitalism to socialism. You accomplish it in increments, just like Obama is doing. So yuck it up Mr. Mirsky. Those who believe in capitalism will have the last laugh in 2012.
Soccerdad - well spoken!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe polls poorly with fanatics? How about he polls poorly with Americans! The latest Rasmussen poll has him at 52% disapproval among likely voters with 41% strongly disapproving.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot exactly a fanatical minority.
@David N'Gog said:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> I think it all comes down to: ask a stupid question,
> get a stupid answer.
That pretty much sums it up!
No, David N'Gog, its not "ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer"; its ask a stupid republican a question, get a stupid answer. The republicans do not like taking responsibility for their deeds or actions.... The Bush war is now the Obama war...the oil spill in the Gulf is now Obama's Katrina...the health care reform is Obama's Armageddon. ...Obama is the Antichrist because that is what vp Chaney was called, and the health care reform is going to kill our senior people and send all our children to Africa to work as slaves for the Muslims. The Teabagers are not racist. Every time Obama opens his mouth a lie comes out and then he looks at you like you are so stupid that you can't tell he is lying. Obams is the most disrespectful and secretive president in the history of America. Obama is the stupidest president this country has ever allowed to buy their way into office.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow can a human reason with a stupid ignorant animal like the republicans are showing themselves to be. 97% of the republicans should be kicked out of office
Soccerdad, you are overstating in order to use the scare word socialism. Those are temporary matters : private groups will again own them all completely again, except for the loan program.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis shows the mind of a fanatic and how her reasoning projects onto the president her own fantasies.
That person is not a serious thinker.
There are no increments to get us to socialism; these increcments are ever giving us a better capitalism than that of the laissez-faire, dog-eat-dog variety espoused by the SpencerRandians- those in the tradiction of Herbert Spencer and Ayn Rand, those two extremists!
The last laugh is that as with Rand Paul and the Tea Party and the Libertarian Party, the public sees libertarianism for the drivel it is!
Oh, 2012 will be the liberal grand victory,folks!
And, please Google Liberalism Resurgent to see why libertarianism is so pernicious and without any foundation , and why liberalism is in the interests of all1 Altruism is in our interests rather than sterile egoism!
To soccerdad: extremely poorly spoken, unless you are deliberately trying to distort the facts, in which case you are merely poorly spoken.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe activities related to bailing out the banks and various investment entities was initiated and largely completed during the Bush administration's final months. Secretary Paulson was one of the main architects. Everyone recognizes that the Federal government should not be in the banking business, or any business. It should, however, more effectively regulate banking and investment so that incidents like the 2008 collapse to not occur.
The Federal government took stakes in GM and Chrysler in return for loans to them to keep them from going bankrupt, with the associated consequences thereof. One can argue whether our country should just have let them go bankrupt (see Stiglitz for his views...a classic Keynesian, he nonetheless stated in an interview with Charlie Rose that I watched that bankruptcy should have been the road taken in at least some cases in the recent meltdown). Note the action was taken before Obama became President, i.e. Dubya was Prez. The action was authorized by Congress.
The action regarding the student loan program was also taken by Congress. Although it was part of the President's agenda, the vote was at least somewhat bipartisan. And I think the action is a good one. The only people hurt were the middlemen who got between students, their families, and loans. In case you hadn't noticed, there is a significant trend in modern capitalism towards getting rid of the middleman.
Obama has not sought control of the energy system. He has proposed various reforms or various activities the government can facilitate or implement. One can argue about whether these are good ideas or not, but in no case do his proposals seek or result in any kind of takeover.
The only private sector pay he has proposed controlling is that of those in the private banking and investment sector who engaged at least in questionable if not illegal activities and are now reaping the benefits of being propped up by the Federal government. O gee I guess that means controlling the banking system.
We can't let people like you, who are either ill-informed or deliberately misleading, ever have the last laugh. And you won't.
Soccerdad, myopic & misguided as usual.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI suspect the actual numbers in this article are even higher and, of course worse than indicated. So many people in our deteriorating country...mostly the right wing republicans seem determined to prove that any fool can have his (her) voice heard and that many others will buy into this ignorance. Frightening prospect for our future!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSoccordad is at it again!! You should be ashamed of yourself but your bias, purposeful ignorance shows what kind of person you are from this and your other posts here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt was Bush, repubs who bought/bailed out GM, Chrysler, AIG, banks 2-5 months before Obama was elected., not Obama. Obama just had to clean up their mess. Maybe you need to stop getting your info from Rush, Beck
As for student loans from the gov Obama just got tired of banks stealing money that should be going to students for just loaning gov, not their money. Now students get 6% more money/loans at no extra cost. isn't that what gov should do, cut costs?
While the author is biased, he is not wrong but that style writing should not be in SA. Though it was rather funny and sad some are so ignorant.
This post is a blatant attempt to strengthen the false Red team vs. Blue team pony show. Bush, McCain and Obama signed sweeping socialist (by definition, not opinion) reforms together; the latter two pausing their presidential campaigns to lock step.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd this dismissal is amazing: (Hes notask any socialist.) The nerve you have to write so dismissively while taxpayers are actually being looted without consent...
Just look at the healthcare system, auto industry, Wall St., and the golden dawn of forcibly socialized losses (while profits remain private, of course) which steal hundreds of billions from the poor, to give the rich, oh screw it, 100 cents on the dollar for their bad investments.
Red vs. Blue is a distraction, and a cheesy one at that. Don't fall into the trap.
Wow, that was an extreme bit of "humor" targeted at some of low-hanging-fruit fringe beliefs held out there...! How brave to go after the uber-religious folks. How about this question to the masses: "Do you believe 9/11 was an inside job conducted by the Bush administration?" I wonder how many people believe that? That particular belief is something scientific reasoning can easily be applied to in order to debunk, and so why do so many leftists hold the "inside job" view? I thought the left was so rational and science-based. Regarding the Muslim belief, I wonder why this exchange went as it did: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMUgNg7aD8M Not that that little bit of confusion and, luckily, correction by George S, proves anything, but see, even the president gets a little confused from time to time...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe takeover of the student loan program was bipartisan? It was tacked onto the health care bill, which received exactly zero Republican votes. How is that bipartisan?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd actually I forgot about Obama's takeover of healthcare as an additional example of his socialist bent. That is 1/6th of the economy. The banking industry is another 1/6th with the latest legislative abortion taking shape in congress. Obama will soon have at least 1/3 of the economy under his direct control.
And jerryd, Bush kicked the GM can down the road on the request of Obama by giving GM a couple billion. Bush did not assume control and bilk the bondholders while rewarding the unions. Obama did.
And on student loans - just wait. Soon we will be bailing out that program as well after the government gives (er I mean lends) money in a reckless manner. It was sold as a program to save money. It's really a program to increase direct cash payments to students because the government will be completely ineffective in getting them to pay the money back.
Judging by the reaction of hotblack, rgentry and James Davis and jerryd, the truth apparently hurts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe biggest story of the decade that many people missed is when a Bush White House staffer approached Ron Suskind and started explaining why all the "reality-based" people like Suskind were mired down, while the non-reality-based folk were creating their own world. The folks that think of Obama as a socialist and a secret Muslim are among the non-reality-based crowd, as are the tea-partyers. It is frightening for us reality-based folk to behold.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe ral story is when a Bush White House staffer approached Ron Suskind and explained that Suskind was a "reality-based" person, while the conservatives like him were not, that they created their won reality. Those who believe that Obama is a socialist or a secret Muslim, or that Sarah Palin has intelligent policy solutions are not reality-based. Science should be studying why people have such wingnutty ideas, because they are not exactly the people who will try to find the best solutions to societal problems. Metaphysics will trump science (evolution is evil) and facts can always be bent by magic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisO'bammmmma doesn't exist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNothing unreal exists.
Get over it already.
Don't forget that there were some in the democrat party who thought Reagan was the antichrist. Why? Count the number of letters in each of his names: Ronald Wilson Reagan. 6 6 6. The number of the beast. Right?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't forget that there were some in the democrat party who thought Reagan was the antichrist. Why? Count the number of letters in each of his names: Ronald Wilson Reagan. 6 6 6. The number of the beast. Right?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't be surprised at how many people DO print out your article and answer those questions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere is John Gault
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this'never underestimate human stupidity' - robert a heinlein
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis magazine is becoming a propaganda arm of the liberal left. Too bad you have Mr Mirsky in a decision-making and editorial position. Can we get away from fluff political pieces in this "so-called" scientific publication. I am canceling my subscription.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-T.M., PhD
I am actually the Antichrist, not Obama. I wish people would sharpen up and make it a little more challenging for me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPolitics, Religion and Dogma are all subjects which have historically deleterious effects on the presentation and discussion of scientific concepts. It would therefore seem logical that they should have no place in a forum where scientific concepts are presented. In science, the inclusion of bias from any quarter which has an impact on scientific thought -- while entertaining to many -- are repugnant to others and of little Scientific value to any.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientific American while technically a lay journal is such a forum. Therefore politics, religion and dogma should be eschewed within that forum.
Although it is a First Amendment right of any U.S. publication; the presence of Politics, Religion and Dogma in a journal which acts to present current scientific ideas undermines the concepts of those ideas and the journal as well as the reputations and integrity of the advisory board and editorial staff responsible overall for the forums content.
Without pursuing in detail the multiple articles where Politics, Religion or Dogma have been an issue within SciAm, I simply urge that the editorial staff discuss this concern and consider a policy to remove its components, as much as practicable, from consideration in Scientific American articles.
Politics, Religion and Dogma are all subjects which have historically deleterious effects on the presentation and discussion of scientific concepts. It would therefore seem logical that they should have no place in a forum where scientific concepts are presented. In science, the inclusion of bias – from any quarter – which has an impact on scientific thought -- while “entertaining” to many -- are repugnant to others and of little “Scientific” value to any.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientific American – while technically a lay journal – is such a forum. Therefore politics, religion and dogma should be eschewed within that forum.
Although it is a “First Amendment right” of any U.S. publication; the presence of Politics, Religion and Dogma in a journal which acts to present current scientific ideas undermines the concepts of those ideas and the journal as well as the reputations and integrity of the advisory board and editorial staff responsible overall for the forum’s content.
Without pursuing in detail the multiple articles where Politics, Religion or Dogma have been an issue within SciAm, I simply urge that the editorial staff discuss this concern and consider a policy to remove its components, as much as practicable, from consideration in Scientific American articles.
Let's take a new poll:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) How many people feel that this piece was more appropriate for a political magazine (e.g., Newsweek) than SCIENTIFIC American?
2) How many people feel that such a piece, which presumes a conclusion and forecloses debate, is antithetical to the tradition of peer review that's critical to science?
3) How many people who answered "Yes" to either of the above feel that the editors erred in running this piece rather than asking Mr. Mirsky to post it on a blog?
Note that I am not challenging he article itself. Many will agree with Mr. Mirsky. Many more (hopefully) will agree that the "cranks" (as he characterized them) are entitled to their opinion, even if they feel it's ill-informed. My question is... is this really the forum for this article and discussion?
I, for one, don't think so. I invite all the cranks to disagree.
Very well said. My thoughts on the topic exactly, to which I'd add only that Scientific American is not the forum for a political debate when the politics at hand have nothing at all to do with the practice or funding of science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother example of the demagoguery used by the left in discrediting anyone who dares to disagree with them(in this case on the causes of global warming). And they wonder why they get called "demacrats".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJamesDavis:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUm. . . Obama is a democrat.
jchardy:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, but if there is a big debate in Congress about a bill propsing a carbon tax, or something like that, Scientific American should cover that.
This article, though I found it quite amusing, belongs somewhere else. It causes SA readers, such as engsci, to cancel their subscriptions. Last month's article belong in SA, because it had to do with science. This article was about politics, and it offended some readers. Articles like this one should not be in Scientific American.
MITGreenb: Excellent questions. This kind of political pap has no place in a journal of Sci Am’s historic quality. If the editorial board of Scientific American wants to bend itself to a political agenda, it should redefine itself openly. It is unconscionable to covertly reformat itself while continuing to hide behind scientific reporting. Articles such as Mirsky’s (and other more subtle attempts in other articles throughout the past two years) are repugnant. It does not matter who’s political agenda they attempt to promote people see through them and this one was particularly sloppy indeed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJ.S. HARDY M.D.
What a waste of space. Spew from your soapbox somewhere else please you loonie leftie. Science indeed!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPompous ass.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho is the non-fanatic here?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI suspect the SA rather shortsightedly loves all this debate about this ridiculous "article." Let's see how much they like it when I cancel my subscription (they won't care much I am sure)--which is a shame because a lot of what's in the magazine is quite good and I enjoy the more scientific stuff. But Mirsky and company are just too galling for me and if I want political twaddle dressed up as drivel I'll read a newspaper.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHenri Poincaré, the famous French scientist and mathematician said, "Science progresses, funeral by funeral". but so does common sense. As healthcard joins medicare, social security, unemployment compensation, oversight of white collar bank robbing and unethical capitalism in all its forms; those who have opposed these measures will be seen to be lacking in common sense. This is why Henri and I expect to see the members of the Geriatric Old Party to toddle off to oblivion with no one to replace them. So long, Repulsicans!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPoll, shcmoll! Heres one for the anti-conspiratorialists:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisObama was trained in the Chicago-based Saul Alinsky school for community organizers. Please dont take my word for it. Alinskys
son David admitted it publicly: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2008/08/31/son_sees_fathers_handiwork_in_convention/
Saul Alinsky dedicated his book, Rules for Radicals, to Lucifer. Read his listing of the 13 rules. This is Obamas code. Is Obama an anti-Christ? Let the reader decide.
and as they should be denigrated and "demonized"...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI subscribe to Scientific American. I also subscribe to a monthly newspaper by the name of "Funny Times", that is filled with facetious articles, political high jinks cartoons, and other blather that I sometimes find humorous. I hardly expected to find anything of that ilk in your magazine.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI also think that SciAm should stay away from politics. A few more articles like this one and will cancel my subscription as well. I have used SciAm articles in my math and physics classroom (I am a high school teacher). If SciAm doesn't stay away from promoting such bias results (based on asinine questions), the only thing I will be using SciAm articles for is as reference to the sorts of bias supposedly reputable SCIENCE magazines are expected to at least attempt to avoid. How disappointing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot too many Republicans believe Obama is the Anti-Christ. (I've heard that the Anti-Christ is supposed to be a competent, effective, and even truthful leader, not a prevaricating, finger-pointing , feckless jackass-in-a-suit.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome Republicans --like me -- actually believe that our unique one-in-a-googleplex-to-the-googleplex power universe was de-singularized through a quantum vacuum fluctuation about 13.8 billion years ago, and that the first vesicle or double-layer membrane of life that ultimately led (unfortunately) to the mind of Steve Mirsky was afloat in the Haldane Soup nearly 4 billion years ago.
Our one real worry is that we will someday encounter another of our multiverses in which the Anti-Steve Mirsky resides, wreaking havoc with his progressive, spiteful, spontaneous symmeytry-breaking. When he encounters our own Steve Mirsky, and shakes his hand(of different parity) in a Feynmannian way, they will both be obliterated, generating an intense and fetid blast of LHER (Leftist Horse Excremental Radiation). Other observers will be unable to see it where they expect it, because like Obama, it will be fantastically red-shifted.
And Stephen Jay Gould(punctuated evolutionary equilibrium anyone?) said:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The most important scientific revolutions all include, as their only common feature, the dethronement of human ARROGANCE from one pedestal after another of previous convictions..."
And so it will be with the Man-child Anointed One, and his pimple-faced, 'I live with mom and dad' , Progressive Demons of the Dummycrat party. Their attempt to turn us all into gray-costumed Maoist serfs, with no life, no liberty, no happiness will fail -- the Sleeping Giant is now awake -- he is loose in the land, and his reason and strength will rock you in your fetid arrogance, and all you leftist cloacae maximae will be flushed back down into the Progressive cesspool from which you came. Power to the Real People!
Are you kidding me!! Because I believe in small / weak Federal government and strong state governments (the founding fathers believed this was crucial for a free people) you consider me a dolt!! This is important to prevent another unyielding oppressive government, like King George, from depriving us of our free will. It's this kind of scientific prejudice that makes the average American distrust science. The moment scientists are pursuing a political agenda rather than the truth, the trust and confidence of the average American is lost and all science becomes suspect. It makes me ill to see the scientific process begin with a result and work backward while concealing contrary evidence to prove it. That leads to data being suppressed, and false science being disseminated. It makes me ill. I enjoy Scientific American, but will cancel my subscription if this type of political posturing is condoned. It truly does make me sick!! VERITAS!!!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, and by the way, the first I ever heard of a politician being the Anti-Christ was Ronald Reagan. The theory was 666. Ronald Wilson Reagan all had 6 letters. I’m pretty sure no conservative Republican (or conservative Democrat for that matter) proposed this lunacy. There are loonies on both sides, but you, of course, would be happily oblivious. You and yours make me sick.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPolitics certainly brings out the best in people now doesn't it! Is it just me or has talk radio lowered the bar in how we debate each other.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI just read this article in your magazine since I am a subscriber and I thought for a moment that a black hole had sucked me into the National Enquirer realm. What importance did this have to the scientific community? Nothing in my opinion. Why waste a page to political opinions - (gag) - keep to reporting science and maybe dedicate that page to innovation and new advances. Not to the same old shirt routine - I wasn't laughing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe has been reincarnated - check for updates in 2012.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree that a Socialist would not see Obama as a Socialist because he is not a fully evolved one in a fully evolved socialist nation. However Obama and many of his helpers display a socialist trait in the fact that they view capitalism not as success by fortunate free people who have studied hard, worked hard and reap success but as a powerful few exploiting the poor and the powerless. Obama has definite Robinhood tendencies. This is what frustrates fair minded conservatives like myself. In Obama's virtual reality he would not have an old guy in old clothes wearing a cowboy, driving a 30 year old pickup truck as CEO of a corporation worth hundreds of millions of dollars like Sam Walton did when he was alive. No, instead he would be labeled "Big Retail" and demonized.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI want to thank Mr. Mirsky for lending his credibility to Christianity. Sometimes credibility comes from the darndest places. After all out of all the powerless religions in the world you chose Christianity over Muslimhoodedness and Quetzlecoatl-ness. Fits precisely like a glove with the warnings His namesake left for us in writings from antiquity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisImagine the probability of stating the future and thousands of years later a civilization sees it come to fruition. "All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved."
Let me make a correction for the uninitiated even at Harris Polls. The question should not be "Do you believe Obama is the anti-christ?" Should read "Do you believe Obama is an anti-christ?" It is the same concept as anti-matter and matter but with different results. An anti-christ presumes there is a Christ like we, as matter, correctly prove there is anti-matter.
For that revised question the answer is "Yes I believe Obama to be an anti-Christ." Citing writings from antiquity Christ said: "If you are not with me you are against me." Obviously the intent is great because the same phrase would not work for lesser causes. In the context of me wanting to go to Starbucks, for example. A person may not want to go to Starbucks with me for any number of reasons but it would not be seen as working against my goal of obtaining the Bold Pick of the Day.
Cheers!
No not really. Remember one of Limbaugh's motto's is "I am equal time!" In other words mainstream media for the most part permits only one view and virtually none other is permitted. Talk radio, on the other hand, does a great job presenting the conservative concerns and viewpoints. Remember nature abhors a vacuum so the response was, in a free market, to try radio shows that debate. Its balanced with entertainment and bombastic fun otherwise many would switch it off and advertisers would not be awarded with much of an audience.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMay question is: What is this political op-ed piece doing in Scientific American, anyway? I subscribe to read about science, not to be insulted regarding my political stance. If I want this kind of pure, anti-republican slurry I can watch CNN or read the NY Times. Please cancel my subscription!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding June, 2010 ANTI-GRAVITY
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLook, Im an atheist, OK, and I have done several local public debates against Creationists locally. But I am a political conservative, have many friends who are Christian fundamentalists, and I try to practice the virtue of tolerance in its original meaning.
Maybe my opinion doesnt count because Im not a subscriber. I read my Scientific American in a library. Im even more suspicious my opinion doesnt count because Im a conservative. But here it is. I think political bullying and mockery should have no place in your science magazine.
Obama, whatever you want to call him, is close enough to socialism and all that is objectionable about it for my blood. And whatever religious category you place him in, I think he is sympathetic to Islam to a degree that is both irrational and dangerous to America.
Let me tell you from long experience, liberals are just as inconsistent, irrational, and obdurate in their thinking as Christian fundamentalists, and a lot nastier in defeat and less gracious in victory.
Norman Carlson
Busti, N. Y.
The government provided loans to GM and Chrysler, it did not become the owner of the auto industry. GM has repaid the loan and kept the jobs that were in danger of being lost. That is not Socialism, just capitalistic common sense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this