Five Before Chaos

What movie is this from?

Extra credit: What recent popular movie (last few years) was heavily influenced by this?

See the comments for the answer as well as a few more pointless trivia questions. I think I’m gonna do a weekly installment of this. God help you.

If you’ve been coming here for a while you might remember this post I did last December about bogus ‘magnet therapy’. I was poking around the ‘Healthy Skeptic’ over at CSICOP’s website, and there was a brief article about magnetic shoe insoles. Guess what? They don’t work any differently than the non-magnetic variety:

In a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2003, Dr. Mark Winemiller and colleagues at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, tested magnetic and nonmagnetic insoles on 101 patients with foot pain. (Fifty-seven patients received magnetic insoles, the others received regular insoles — and neither scientist nor patient knew who was getting what.)

After wearing the insoles daily for eight weeks, both groups of patients reported pain relief, but the run-of-the-mill insoles worked just as well as the magnetic variety.

The good news about magnetic insoles is that they can ease foot pain by providing cushioning and support — just like regular insoles. “If you’re going to get an insole,” Winemiller says, “I wouldn’t bother with a magnet.”

As I pointed out in my previous post on this, there’s no concrete supportive evidence that magnetic fields affect the iron in the blood, which is the basis for many of the claims of the effectiveness of magnet therapy (see that previous post of mine for more on that). I can see why some people might believe it, because on the surface, it sounds like it makes sense. But it doesn’t really work that way.

Is it just me or is the Religious Right a bit quieter since the November elections? Not quiet enough. A legislator in Tennessee is trying to force the creation vs. evolution debate into the forefront again, this time by having the state Education Commissioner answer, once and for all, whether there is a ‘Supreme Being’ that created the universe.

As the resolution is written, if Seivers does answer no to the first question – stating that the universe was not created by a Supreme Being – she would be offered “the General Assembly’s admiration for being able to decide conclusively a question that has long perplexed and occupied the attention of scientists, philosophers, theologians, educators and others.”

But if she answers yes, or states that the answer to the creation of the universe is uncertain, then there is a follow-up question that must also be answered: Why is creationism not being taught in Tennessee schools?

Wow, how clever. They still haven’t gotten over that monkey trial thing down there, apparently. Or grasped the definition of the word, “science”, for that matter:

Finney said there is no doubt in his own mind that everything in the universe, including human beings, was created by a Supreme Being.

“There has never been any proof offered that Darwin’s theory of evolution is correct,” he said.

Uh, okay. If you say so. Curious how the article also gives us the intertwining of the words ‘creationism’ and ‘intelligent design’. I thought ID wasn’t religious? Who knew?

Next up, WorldNut Daily is reporting of the heads exploding over the James Cameron documentary about the alleged Jesus tomb thing. Brent Bozell, head of the right-wing crybaby media watch group, Media Research Center:

“Now it’s the ‘tomb’ of Jesus,” Bozell said. “What they’re really doing is attacking Christianity. The title of the documentary ought to be ‘Discovery Channel Says Christianity Is a Fraud’ – but they don’t have the guts to say it.”

Knight told WND that the danger is that people will believe what they see. “We saw this with the ‘Da Vinci Code.’ People bought into the alleged historical accuracy of claims, made even in a work of fiction, so when a documentary comes along, posing as objective critical analysis, that means more people will buy into the absurd and unproven premise that Jesus was just a man and that his earthly remains have been found.”

He noted that the “leap” of logic the film forces viewers to make is beyond belief. “All they can tell us is that two of the caskets in the crypt held remains that were unrelated maternally, then they take the giant leap of logic that these two people were married and they were Jesus and Mary Magdalene.”

Apparently , Bozell fails to mention the ‘leap’ of logic it requires to believe the ‘unproven premises’ such as a man was born of a virgin and subsequently rose from the dead. And the idea that somehow Christianity is immune to criticism and ridicule is par for the course, as well. Seeing how true believers are reacting to this makes me wonder out loud… what piece of irrefutable proof that solidly debunks the Christian mythology would ever be believed by these people? I’m not implying the tomb is the one, but I think no matter how compelling the evidence may be on these kinds of things, there is no way that people will ever accept them, for their worlds would come crashing down if they did.

Finally, over at Smirking Chimp, Mel Seesholtz has a rundown on fundamentalist homophobia and hypocrisy, ‘ex-gay’ therapy, the ‘Left Behind’ video game (where players get to kill the non-believers in bloody displays of Christian love and tolerance), and a host of other things that are indicating a lot of trouble in the ranks of the Religious Right, including their ever-diminishing influence. It’s quite an extensive good read, so check it out: ‘The Hypocritical Christian Right is being “Left Behind”

Happy Wednesday, everybody.

In the newest issue, Seven Days asks the question: ‘Is Second Vermont Republic Affiliated With Racists?’ Yours truly gets in a tiny quote there. This is similar to the VT Guardian article in that it doesn’t try to spin it one way or the other, just laying out the connections, which is fine. It’s good that it’s making it into print media now.

Steve West, the host of WKVT in Brattleboro, however, has a different perspective. His show hosted John Odum one week and then a frothing-at-the-mouth Thomas Naylor the next. Here’s some of what he had to say:

In the opinion of this writer…………..Dr. Naylor’s press release/rant is paranoiac and mean-spirited, and does not indicate a person who is confident in his position. Someone who feels comfortable in their own skin can weather any kind of criticism, especially anything as “outlandish” or “presposterous” as the things Odum posted, and respond with a measure of cool and comparative aplomb. Now, I know that I can get pretty steamed, too, when I feel I’m being disrespected. But frankly, I don’t detect any disrespect in Odum’s words. Rather, I see someone bringing to light some information that should be pretty easily dismissed, if it has not credence.

Instead, I’m reading a vitriolic screed by a man defending his own anti-racism credentials (which have not been questioned), slamming the character of Mr. Odum (who he does not know), and implying that Mr. Odum’s employer should put a tighter leash on him.

No matter what the details of this discussion……….that’s just not cool.

Any hope of keeping the “moral high ground” that SVR and Mr. Naylor had prior to this phenomenon is gone. He has displayed some fairly childish “schoolyard bully” behaviors, and has entirely alienated at least one potential comrade to the SVR cause……….meaning me.

Well put, Steve. I’m tired of it, too. But SVR has really crossed the line and showed their true colors. Not gonna get this shitstink off of them for a while, if they do at all.

If you’re familiar with the VT blogosphere, you probably know this already, but John Odum, founder of Green Mountain Daily, has taken a leave of absence from blogging. Basically, his particular line of employment isn’t conducive to him being a political blogger, as he invites controversy which sometimes may be at odds with the aims of his organization. Not cool, but understandable.

The latest controversy, of course, stemmed from Odum taking on the wingnuts at the Second Vermont Republic, when he drew attention to the fact that some of their advisory board members have concrete ties with Neo-Confederate organizations, and several are on the watchlist of the anti-hate group watchdog, the Southern Poverty Law Center. Interestingly enough, SVR has ranted and railed against the SPLC with the same attacks that the Neo-Nazis and white supremacists use, if that tells you anything. As I’ve reported below, SVR’s guru Thomas Naylor made the incredibly stupid mistake of sending out a character assassination hit piece on Odum to many, many people, with the intent of causing him trouble at his job. One of the most telling parts in the letter was subsequently removed from the statement on their website…
Now, I don’t want to give those people at SVR too much credit for this. Contrary to all the academics, they’re not a particularly bright lot of people, as evidenced by the way they’ve handled this controversy… lies, evasions, lack of concern, and an almost megalomaniacal obsession with the idea that they’re somehow relevant to all but a few people. If you read Naylor’s hit piece, it sounds more like that of a cult leader with a rapidly fading grip on reality than the respected academic he’s known to be,until recently. My point is, don’t gloat over this too much, SVR guys… payback truly is a nasty muthah. And there were other forces at work here that had absolutely nothing to do with you. And don’t be deluded into thinking that now that Odum’s quiet for now that this story is going to disappear. You’ve just given yourself even more bad press (as if you needed any). And I’m certainly not going anywhere.

But anyways, back to Odum. GMD has and will continue to fill an important niche in the VT political blogosphere. There are a talented group of writers there, as well as many great diarists, so the good work that Odum started will continue. And if you haven’t already, come on over and have a read. Post a diary. Help keep it going.

UPDATE: Other VT bloggers chime in…
Cathy at 802 Online
Charity at She’s Right
Julie at Reason and Brimstone
Baruth at VDB
Alex at Rip and Read

More from Rowley on the latest lies from Thomas Naylor and Co., plus some new information. It’s interesting, since Naylor’s smear campaign went public, how the apologists have suddenly become silent.

…may actually have been found, in an archaeological site in the Holy Land.

Although the evidence contained in the film and book is hardly definitive, it is compelling. Inscribed in Hebrew, Latin or Greek, six boxes — taken from a 2,000-year-old cave discovered in March, 1980, during excavation for a housing project in Talpiyot, south of Jerusalem — bear the names: Yeshua (Jesus) bar Yosef (son of Joseph); Maria (the Latin version of Miriam, which is the English Mary); Matia (the Hebrew equivalent of Matthew, a name common in the lineage of both Mary and Joseph); Yose; (the Gospel of Mark refers to Yose as a brother of Jesus); Yehuda bar Yeshua, or Judah, son of Jesus; and in Greek, Mariamne e mara — meaning ‘Mariamne, known as the master.’ According to Harvard professor Francois Bovon, interviewed in the film, Mariamne was Mary Magdalene’s real name.

Nothing in the film or book challenges traditional Christian dogma regarding the resurrection. But it could pose a problem for those that believe Jesus’ ascension, 40 days after the resurrection, was both physical and spiritual. And, if further DNA testing were to link Jesus and Yose with Mary, it would call into question the entire doctrine of the Virgin Birth.

I have mixed feelings about this. Most importantly, one cannot rule out fraud, as the issue of the James ossuary illustrates. But if it turns out to be true, what will be the implications? This is basically saying that Jesus got married and had a child, didn’t rise from the dead, and wasn’t born of a virgin. And I realize many of you reading this are probably thinking, ‘Yeah, it’s not like we believed those things anyway, what’s the big deal?’

That’s what I’m trying to figure out. There’s pretty good odds that this could be for real, as Newsweek reports:

To calculate the odds, Mr. Jacobovici took the data to University of Toronto mathematician Dr. Andrey Feuerverger. Factoring in the commonality of these names in first-Century Israel, Dr. Feuerverger puts the odds of this tomb not belonging to Jesus and his family at one in 600.

Another estimate, commissioned by Dr. James Tabor, chair of the department of religion studies at the University of North Carolina, puts the odds at one in 42 million. “If you took the entire population of Jerusalem at the time,” says Dr. Taber, “and put it in a stadium, and asked everyone named Jesus to stand up, you’d have about 2,700 men. Then you’d ask only those with a father named Joseph and a mother named Mary to remain standing. And then those with a brother named Yose and a brother named James. Statistically, you end up with one person.”

But one can tell, even in the reporting, how much of a bombshell this could potentially be:

Good sense, and the Bible, still the best existing historical record of the life of Jesus of Nazareth, argue against Jacobovici’s claims. All four Gospels say that Jesus was crucified on the eve of the Sabbath; all four say that the tomb was empty when the disciples woke on Sunday morning. “The New Testament is very clear on this,” says Alan Segal, religion professor at Barnard College. “Jesus was put in a tomb that didn’t belong to him and then he rose and there was nothing left.”

“Good sense and the Bible?” Is Newsweek implying that doubting the historical accuracy of the Bible is somehow ‘bad sense’? Are they implying that the resurrection is actually ‘part of the historical record’, as in ‘actually happened?” So, if this story gets legs (as I’m sure it might be tough, considering how many reporters and news orgs won’t want to touch this), be aware of the subtle spin that implies that the Bible is somehow accurate in all of this.

It will be interesting to see how true believers react to this. If they try to use it as proof of Jesus’ existence, they’re also going to have to accept that the supernatural stuff was a bunch of bunk. But it’s not like that particular group tends to be swayed by ‘facts’. They don’t require evidence to believe what they do in the first place, so they might just ignore it. If it does turn out to be true, it’s another argument to use against the literalists. I’ll definitely be keeping an eye on this one.

UPDATE: More here.

Sly and the Family Stone – Thank you Falletin’ Me Be Myself, 1970, and Larry Graham on bass, too. Enjoy.

UPDATE: In an incredibly stupid move, SVR has posted their attack piece on John Odum on their website. Before reading my post here, go have a look, then come back here. And let me know if you don’t agree if it sounds more like the insane rantings of a paranoid demagogue than a well-respected (until recently) academic.

You know, when observing how the Second Vermont Republic is dealing with this ever-increasing scrutiny over their ties to Neo-Confederate organizations, the best comparison I can possibly make is to the tactics of the Bush Administration (ironic, considering how much the SVR rallies against the Bush-led imperialism). Straw man arguments, attacking the messenger, disingenuous innuendo, and bald-faced lies. Did Karl Rove lend them his playbook?

The latest outrage is a letter sent out by Second Vermont Republic’s guru/leader, Thomas Naylor, to its members, which is basically a hit piece on John Odum, the Green Mountain Daily blogger who first drew attention to the story broken on the Vermont Secession blog. For an organization that likes to continuously attribute the motivations of its critics as coming from ‘fear of the success of SVR (while completely ignoring that to many, SVR is merely a novelty or punchline), they’re sure acting like they’re the ones with something to be afraid of.

First, they relocate the Langdon St. Cafe appearance, out of concerns of ‘risk’ (as in the ‘risk’ of being questioned and confronted about the allegations). Now, they send out this letter. You’d need a Camel’ s Hump-sized shovel to get through all of the bullshit in Naylor’s letter. Now, Odum’s more than capable of defending himself, but considering he’s getting all of the heat and attention, and it’s involving personal matters now, I thought it was best that I let those of you who are interested know about the latest lies from Naylor, because the SVR certainly isn’t going to point you to this blog (but they sure do see to spend a lot of time here, reading).It’s curious that FBC has stayed under the radar during all of this, considering the criticisms here on this site have been harsh, and for the most part, accurate.

1) Naylor states that anonymous blogger Rowley’s ‘only source’ is the Southern Poverty Law Center (a credible source by any means, except if one is in one of the hate groups watched by the SPLC). Naylor offers no proof on this allegation whatsoever. Must have heard it from the ghost of Ethan Allen.

2) Naylor the gets into calling Odum a ‘Democratic party hack’ and, horror of horrors, a ‘supporter of Bernie Sanders’. He then keeps insisting that Odum has a problem with the Lincoln revisionism and that he doesn’t know the well-known quote from Lincoln about being okay with Lincoln not freeing the slaves to save the Union, (which one doesn’t obviously have to be a Neo-Confederate to know-just a Howard Zinn reader). He also says that Odum thinks ‘Abe Lincoln was their greatest president’ and ‘is vehemently opposed to peaceful secession.” Once again, there is no record of this as motivated by ‘objections to Lincoln revisionism’, and Odum has been on record as stating the idea of secession as ‘somewhat appealing’. Naylor is just pulling this one out of his ass.

3) He then goes on to somehow insinuate that Odum’s non-profit workplace is somehow behind this. He accuses him of calling into the Brattleboro radio show last week on company time, in an apparent attempt to jam him up with his job. Problem is, Naylor’s too lazy to look out the window, because there was a huge blizzard that day, and NOBODY went to work, including Odum. The fact that Naylor is resorting to these kinds of attacks (without even bothering to check the weather) is very telling as to who the ‘scared’ ones are in this.

UPDATE: The above thing about the calling in on the snow day was removed from the website, but not on the actual letter sent out. Here’s the text from the original:

4) He then cites that oft-cited poll (that nobody seems to be able to obtain specifics on) that ‘found that 40,000 Vermonters support secession’. It’s a bit misleading, considering that we can’t find out exactly how many people were polled, but I’ll bet it wasn’t 40,000. And one poll doth not a movement make.

5) He once again defends the League of the South, Basani and DiLorenzio, while downplaying the racism rampant in the organizations these people associate. Remember , as SVR’s Rob Williams said, ‘they don’t know and don’t care’. He then goes off on some Bernie AIPAC rant. I guess that one plays well with those ‘Zionist conspiracy’ types who might be listening.

6) He talks about the VNN controversy… apparently there was some posts on the hate site, of dubious origin with DiLorenzio’s name on them that I pointed out in the comments section of GMD. Since then, I and numerous others have acknowledged that their veracity may be in question (they’re still there, as to not insinuate we’re going back and doing some kind of whitewash). Naylor then accuses the ‘the blogger’ of a cut-and-paste fabrication. That may be true, but the ‘blogger’ in question is whoever put the posting on VNN, not FBC, Rowley, or Odum, as Naylor is trying to infer.

7) Naylor goes on to list his lifelong opposition to segregation and racism. I don’t doubt his accounts on this. He then once again goes on with the blatantly false accusation that Odum has accused Naylor of being racist. Must be Ethan Allen’s ghost again.

He wraps up with the laughable and by-now-tired notion, once again, that our motivations are because we somehow fear what this organization represents. First it implies we’re in stark opposition to secession (once again, an outright lie), and second it implies that they’re much further along in their goals than they actually are. Does he actually believe the words coming out of his mouth?

It would be nice if Naylor could actually point to some real example of these allegations, instead of listening to the voices in his head. Maybe he thinks you’re too stupid to bother trying to figure it out for yourself.

I REALLY want to be done talking about this. I have better things to write about.The people who needed to know about this now do, and in the grand scheme of things, SVR doesn’t really matter all that much outside of its supporters. But if Naylor’s idea of a defense is completely sidestepping the issue here while lying his ass off, it’s important you know about it. Hopefully, this will be my last post on this for a while, so those of you who in SVR who are checking this site religiously every few hours out of fear of some new allegation, rest easy. Go back to looking at Confederate memorabilia sites or something.