Losing Faith in God Particles

The "God Particle" is (almost) dead:

A few years ago, celebrated British physicist Stephen Hawking was widely reported in the press to have placed a provocative public bet that the LHC (along with all particle accelerators that preceded it) would never find the Higgs boson, the so-called “God particle” believed responsible for having imbued massive particles with their mass when the universe was very young...

...informal polls of physicists over the last decade have shown that an overwhelming majority believed that the existence of the Higgs was a foregone conclusion and that all that was needed was simply to run the LHC long enough...

But the Higgs boson never appeared...

And yesterday, August 22, ... CERN scientists declared that over the entire range of energy the Collider had explored—from 145 to 466 billion electron volts—the Higgs boson is excluded as a possibility with a 95% probability.

...there is still a 5% chance that the Higgs is hiding somewhere ... But the Higgs is quickly running out of places to hide.

Fortunately, particle physics isn't nearly as politicized as climate science, so Higgs boson skeptics probably needn't worry about being likened to racists. But the possibility of erosion of faith in science causes some to fret:

Another, less profound, but far more obnoxious, outcome is that people who choose to dismiss science altogether simply because it doesn’t have the all the answers (in this case, the answer to, “How did we come to exist in the first place?”) will have new ammunition for their arguments. So, don’t be surprised when CERN’s troublesome admission that Higgs boson is likely a myth is cited as a reason that global warming doesn’t exist.

I don't know anyone who's "dismissing science altogether," but the fact of the matter is that the hard work of science can be a miserably difficult and disappointing endeavor.

And science isn't democratic in the sense that it can be settled by comfortable consensus. Fueled by skepticism, science is never "settled."

White Devils: Racism, Real and Imagined

Ken Layne: Reads books, hates white people

The race-obsessed left never misses an opportunity to fabricate evidence of conservative racism:

Ever a magnet for controversy, Minnesota Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann is once again the subject of a vicious rumor. A doctored video surfaced this week that appears to show Bachmann asking an audience, “Who likes white people?”

Accusations of racism followed, as blogs and websites including Wonkette used the video as evidence of Bachmann’s extreme views.

Alice Stewart, a spokesperson for Bachmann’s presidential campaign, explained to The Daily Caller: “She said, ‘Who likes wet people?’ It was pouring down rain that night.”

A Yahoo! News report also laid the rumor to rest by pointing out that when Bachmann seized the microphone on stage, her audience was soaking wet and as a way to lighten the mood, she jokingly asked, “Who likes wet people?”

Over at Wonkette, where the video rumor was launched given prominence, self-loathing "subhuman" Ken Layne provides relevant commentary:

Who likes white people? Uhh, everybody except for black people and brown people and yellow people, we guess? Also, many actual white people don’t much like white people, having read a history book or two.

Being a white person, Ken Layne is inherently inferior, but at least he is educated well enough to recognize that he was born with a heart marred by sinful white nature. He's "one of the good ones."

Discussion: Memeorandum

x-posted

UPDATE:

Robert Stacy McCain produced the orignal, unaltered version of the doctored smear job video:

...on Saturday Aug. 27, a left-wing anti-Christian blog, “On Knees for Jesus,” posted a pirated version of my video, edited and with a caption falsely asserting that Bachmann asked the crowd, “Who likes white people?” — with the contextual clue about “the winds and the rains” removed. That dishonest smear was then given prominence by the left-wing gossip site Gawker.

Chris Moody of Yahoo News exposed this vicious falsehood and, after I learned that my video had been stolen and misused for such a defamatory purpose, I put up a blog post denouncing the smear, and sent an e-mail to the anonymous proprietor of the “On Knees” Web site. He then deleted his first lie and substituted another vicious smear as a “correction.” But his pirated and re-edited version of my video — a clear violation of my copyright, and of YouTube’s terms of service agreement — is still online. I have spoken to an attorney and fully intend that the perpetrator of this crime will be brought to justice.

Yahoo Catches Flak for Pro-Obama Propaganda

The headline: "Obama takes charge at hurricane command center"

Are you kidding me? In what sense is Obama qualified to take part in such an effort, let alonetake charge?

The bulk of the comments at the aforementioned Yahoo News story are decidedly negative. Here's a sample:

• One wonders if Yahoo, AP , the DNC flackers like Politico really believe this tripe. Obama takes charge. Obama captures 2nd Al Q leader in Pak. All by his lonesome. Puleeze. This naif is the worst CEO-CIC in my 72 yrs. Takes charge for what? Frankly, I hope the storm floods his command center...

• The bias here is appalling. This man has zero credibility as a leader.

• Please Obama stop the hurricane now.

• I'm sure this genius knows as much about hurricanes as he does about being president...

• What are all these buttons tell me which one to push so I look good and almost intellegent...

• Thank Alla that we have a truly fearless leader who is not afraid to stand in the face of Hurricanepalooza, give a speech, and make the godless storm move away from his voting base. I wish that I could bear his child.

Discussion: Memeorandum

Obama as Dukakis

Why America Doesn't Embrace The Left

Lefties at Salon.com are wondering why their quest to fundamentally transform America has been so difficult.

I suspect that the global failures of communism and socialism of the past 100 years have made an indelible impression on most Americans, but Van Deven and Kazin are looking for less obvious answers (i.e., ones not necessarily based on reality). Their discussion is an interesting example of willful blindness:

...most Americans accept the basic ground rules of capitalist society. The ideas are that if you work hard you can get ahead and that it's better to be self-employed than employed by the people. They believe that the basics of a capitalist society are just or can be made just with small alterations. Americans want capitalism to work well for everybody, which is somewhat of a contradiction in terms since capitalism is about people competing with each other to get ahead, and everyone's not going to be able to do well at the same time. That's simply not possible.

That is possible, actually, and we owe our 21st century standard of living to the fact that it's possible. Fortunately, a great number of Americans have an intuitive understanding of the trader principle, harmony of interests, comparative advantage, etc. In short, we know why capitalism works because we're immersed in it.

We know that life doesn't have to be a zero-sum game and we know from experience that in the effort to create wealth, preserve wealth and spread wealth around, free-market capitalism can't be beaten.

Surprisingly, Kazin seems to come perilously close to admitting that the left has failed to sell its economic agenda because their ideas don't work:

When the economic crisis hit in the 2008, Americans were already primed to believe the government couldn't do anything right because it hasn't been doing anything right for years. Ironically, the conservatives were proved right when the stimulus didn't do what the Obama administration hoped it would do, and clearly the Tea Party has been able to grow on that policy mistake.

On the other hand, Kazin thinks that one of the great successes of the left is in their approach individual freedom, er, social equality:

The left has promoted a lot of the important changes that have occurred in American society, especially in expanding the meaning of "individual freedoms" to include African-Americans, women and homosexuals. The United States says it is committed to individual freedoms, but in practice those freedoms have been either betrayed or not fully realized. The left in this country has always been the vanguard of calling for complete equal rights and social equality.

Folks like Kazin seem to be incapable of accepting the fact that most Americans apparently have no trouble distinguishing "individual freedom" from the left's dreadful substitute for individual freedom, i.e., "social equality."

Why is collectivist egalitarianism unpopular in America? Kazin has an explanation for that:

The myth of the self-made man that emerged in the 19th century wasn't entirely a myth. There were people who came to America and did very well for themselves.

So Kazin is prepared to admit that an exceptionalism of rugged individualism is a cherished part of the fabric of our culture, but he goes on to declare that our exceptionalism is actually one of exceptional oppression, exceptional destruction and exceptional bloodthirst.

Isn't it amazing that the left even has to ask why the rest of America doesn't approach them with warm and fuzzy hugs?

Related: "A progressive laments how they have taken over our culture, yet Americans have still failed to embrace their destructive economic policies. If only we were more like Europe, we’d have found utopia!" Read the rest at the Lonely Conservative.

Discussion: Memeorandum

x-posted

New York Times: Obama Is Failing Miserably, So Let's Talk About Jesus

Anything to distract from Obama's miserable failures...

The economy is in the latrine, likewise for Obama's approval numbers, so Obama's "Journolist" fanboys at the New York Times have no choice but to change the subject and try to portray the GOP as a radical bunch of Dixiecrat crucaders whose judgement is clouded by tribal superstitions.

Hugh Hewitt explains:

Former editor of the New York Times Bill Keller is out with a piece that encourages his colleagues in the Manhattan-Beltway media elite to do their best to stoke the fires of religious intolerance by turning this presidential campaign into the occasion for an inquisition into all of the Republican's religious beliefs...

Having just returned from Jerusalem where one thinks a lot about the consequences of religious intolerance, Keller's naked appeal to prejudice is startling to me. Can he not know --really not know-- how his lines of inquiry play out and how they have always preceded the worst sort of religious intolerance?

So the New York Times thinks folks running for high office should answer obnoxious questions about their religious background?

Fair enough!

Let's ask Barack Hussein a few questions. He's an important guy in politics, right? Other conservative bloggers have already come up with a bunch of good questions ― here are mine:

• How does your "Christian faith" distinguish your thinking from that of atheists and agnostics?
• How does your "Christian faith" distinguish your thinking from that of Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and Jews?
• Do your religiopolitical views on "social justice" make you vulnerable to faith-based political decisions?
• You said, "It's that fundamental belief — I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper — that makes this country work." Do your relationships with your brother and other family members reflect your Christian faith?
• How do your deeply held religiopolitical beliefs interfere with your ability examine scientific issues with appropriate skepticism (e.g. AGW)?
• How many times did you attend services at Reverend Jeremiah Wright's church?
• Do you support or believe in Black Liberation Theology? Why or why not?
• Your spiritual adviser, Jim Wallis, runs a blog called "God's Politics." Do you believe that Jim's politics should be described as "God's politics?" Do you believe that your politics can be described as "God's politics?"
• Describe your relationship with Jim Wallis. How has he influenced your administration? Do you disagree with Jim Wallis on any issues?
• When you refer to people who "cling to religion" what does that phrase mean? Do you harbor antipathy toward people who, in your view, fit that description? Are you someone who refrains from clinging to religion?
• Would you have any hesitation about appointing a religiously conservative church-going Southern Baptist to the federal bench?
• Many religious leaders who are close to you and your administration believe that their religious views should shape public policy. Do you believe that your ability to maintain the wall of separation between Church and State has been compromised by your relationships with religious leaders?
• What, if anything, do you do to keep your religion out of your decisions in the Oval Office?

John has a score of great questions over at Verum Serum. Here are the ones I like best:

1. Do you believe the God of the Christian Bible is the same as the God of the Koran? Does this view influence your foreign policy?
4. Do you believe, as some liberals churchmen do (including some you’ve consulted with), that socialism is the system most compatible with the Gospels? Does this influence your public policy and if so how?
10. How do you integrate your faith with a scientific worldview including belief in evolution?
15. Do you believe Christ will return to earth in the future?

Bryan Preston adds this one: "What did you find so appealing and comforting about the preachings of the Reverent Jeremiah Wright?"

The fact that Obama is already in the White House should not exempt him from difficult questions about his religious and spiritual views. In fact, I would argue precisely to the contrary.

Related... Obama’s Enablers:

It’s counterintuitive, but Obama has been hurt by the media’s leniency. Both his presidency and reelection prospects have suffered. He’s grown lazy and complacent. The media have encouraged him to believe his speeches are irresistible political catnip, though they aren’t. His overreliance on words hasn’t helped.

Read the rest...

Karl Rove's Sparkling Brilliance

William A. Jacobson, our friend over at Legal Insurrection, offers a generous defense of Karl Rove:

Bashing Rove is in fashion these days, but watch this video carefully. In addition to be a prolific fundraiser for American Crossroads, which played a critical role in the 2010 elections, Rove is one of the more articulate spokesmen for taking on the Obama message machine.

Rove's searing intellect always impresses, but Rove's weakness is that he routinely puts acquisition of power ahead of adherence to principle. And he’s an enemy of the Tea Party primarily because of the Tea Party’s anti-establishment bent.

His strategic brilliance notwithstanding, Rove’s grand era of big government “conservatism” backfired and helped to create perfect conditions for the rise of the Democrats in 2006 and 2008. Rove is too cynical, too short-sighted, and he puts cronyism before country.

Ceteris paribus, I’d always choose someone from outside of the Rove network for any position of government influence.

x-posted

Gaddafi Regime Over? Finally, I Can Sleep At Night!

You have one less thing to worry about today: Muammar Gaddafi.

I know... you can finally sleep like a log tonight, right?

Apparently, this is a big victory for supporters of the Obama regime. Here are a few choice quotes from Twitter...

• When THIS President is on vacation, he is not clearing brush, he's clearing dictators!
• BREAKING: Obama topples a dictator while eating ice cream in Martha's Vineyard.
• Sarah Palin ... So, what were you guys up to today? My president helped topple Gadhafi during his vacation.
• Tea Party folks seem pretty quiet over Libya.
• Uninstalling dictators in progress .. 99.99% complete..

When Obama and his minions finish spiking footballs on the sidelines, I hope they'll remind us why we stumbled into this mess, spending billions of dollars to kill thousands of people in Africa. Did Gaddafi have Saddam Hussein's old WMDs?

X-posted at LCR

Discussion: Memeorandum

Moammar Gaddafi Dead? (Graphic Photo Warning)

UPDATE (10-20-11):

The REAL photos of Gaddafi...

More here.

Old post below:

Rumors swirl... apparently the Gaddafi (Gadhafi? Qaddafi?) regime is all but over.

Obama loyalists are rejoicing, for reasons that are not quite clear to me. Did they vote for Obama in 2008 desperately hoping Obama would stumble into a war with Libya that might finally put an end to all of their worst fears about Moammar Gadhafi's insidious threat to America and the rest of the world?

By the way, the photo above is a bad fake. Compare it with the photo below, from the Bin Laden Compound:

Hat tip: Reaganite Republican

Greta & Palin Rally Behind Tea Party Poser Orrin Hatch

Michelle Malkin (rightly) rips Greta van Susteren to shreds for Greta's incredibly bizarre and sloppy blog post in support of Orrin Hatch. Go read this now. Come back here with your reaction.

Exit question: Is Greta from Utah? If not, she has no business complaining about "external influence."

Obamageddon: The Left Reacts

Obama's approval ratings are circling the drain. Time for some schadenfreude. Very few on the left have the courage to confront the latest numbers, but here's a sampling of reactions from those who do...

Kos:

Just 23 percent of independents approve of Obama's handling of the economy, which is funny, because I thought that his incessant talk about "deficits" was supposed to help him with independents...

Once again, for the billionth time—no one gives a sh[*] about deficits. No one. Not even the teabaggers who claim they care about the deficit. No one cares.

(Actually, Obama spends most of his time complaining about tsunamis, the Tea Party and the Bush years. He's free to start talking about solutions anytime he's good and ready.)

From The Left:

President Obama’s poll numbers appear to be in free fall.

The latest Gallup poll shows Obama hitting a new low of 26% approval on his handling of the economy, down 11 points since it was last measured in mid-May and well below his previous low of 35% in November 2010.

Obama earns similarly low approval for his handling of the Federal budget deficit at 24% and on creating jobs Obama scores 29%.

The president and his family are spending their summer vacation in a $50,000 a week farm on Martha’s Vineyard paid for by the U.S. taxpayers.

Political Carnival:

Holee shinola. That is all.

AMERICAblog News:

They ignored all of us who said focus on jobs. Oh no, they had to talk about the debt because that's what Republicans wanted to debate. Well, look where it got him. Guess that genius strategy of being the adult in the room didn't quite pay off this time.

(I thought ObamaCare was supposed to create millions of jobs. What happened with that?)

Remember when Obama's approval ratings were in excess of 70%? I'm so glad those days are behind us.