Friday, July 30, 2010

A Great Comment

Here is a comment from Spection that I thought was worth elevating to a post of its own.

I have found the censorship of criticism at HuffPo to be appallingly egregious! I've had many scores of comment posts removed completely, most of which were non-personal, non-offensive scientific criticisms of the woo-ers' grotesque scientific misinformation. Let's face it: When it comes to science at least, Arianna Huffington is one of the most anti-scientific and gullible human beings alive, and she despotically censors any honest criticism of her belief system as well as any attempt to point that fact out.

But we are faced with blind dismissals from those wishing to deny the extreme censorship of comments and instead focus on merely trying to launch a science section at HuffPo, such as Landgon Ross and J. Vernon. Here is a direct quote from an email from Langdon Ross:

"While I am not going to discuss the housekeeping behind the scenes of Huffpost, I will say this... their practices seem to be entirely fair, and I have never had comments censored on any of my posts that I know of (or even so much as referenced or insinuated by my most avid critics)." [Quoted verbatim. Ellipsis in original - nothing omitted.]

What good would a science section be from such people who refuse to see how common and adamantly despicable the censorship is at HuffPo? The censorship is a far more severe situation than the lack of a science section, a section that most at HuffPo would ignore anyway.

I think we need to acquire more powerful allies -- such as the MSNBC hosts and the major liberal bloggers -- then apply strong public pressure on Arianna to stop the grossly excessive censorship on her site. We should shame her for her extreme contempt of the single most fundamental of the ideals of the Enlightenment and the ideals of the liberal worldview: Free Speech!

What say you?

Anti-Abortion Rally at MLK's Grave

Here is a comment from Artist-53 that was arbitrarily deleted from an article on an Anti-Abortion Rally at Martin Luther King's Grave

What an insult to all people.
Freedom Riders?
If they believed in that statement, then by definition, there should not have been a rally at all. Unless of course they're only promoting freedom for some.Exclu
ding fertile females that aren't allowed into their freedom club.

To equate abortion to pornography? And these people are the largest offenders because they slap pictures all over their bus,signs ,pamphlets and t-shirts. So they're being pompous pornographic piglets.

According to them, it's not only pornographic but a womb they claim is Dangerous as well? Well, don't blame me, it was your god that created all those uterus's , so go talk to him or her.

So a womb is a very dangerous place? Hell wait til they get a taste of the wombles world. It will really shock them.

Then to sing We Shall Over Come? Excuse me, but I think when a bus rolls into town carrying predominate number of males, school age children that were made to carry signs bearing what they've already claimed to be pornographic and older women wearing tee shirts all bearing slogans that are just that crazy, then I have to ask myself, Don't these people have anything better to do w/ their lives?

Such as stopping world hunger, or starting world peace. Those are 2 very worth while endeavors. But to do what they do from a gas guzzling bus, certainly misguided malcontents that have no business stating what any women does or doesn't do.

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Arbitrary Censorship on Afghanistan Comment

If you are new to this blog please see the Introduction.

If you want to join the group protesting censorship on The Huffington Post please send me an email at this address:

Here is another example of just ridiculous arbitrary censorship. There is an article on a Time Magazine Cover on the Tragedy of Afghan Women. I tried to reply to the following comment but saw it had been deleted. For what reason?

Click on image to see larger view

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

More Examples of Lanza Censorship

Here are some screen snapshots that Linda (Happy Realist) recorded of censored comments on the same Lanza article where Lanza compares himself favorably to Einstein. Linda's description of the screen shots:
Spacetime bending: The odd thing is that I posted essentially what you see  days ago.  Then, mysteriously the spacetime wiki link vanished.  I re-posted it.  I screen captured the "pending" and posted versions.
New Unposted Comment: you can clearly see it is in no way a violation of policy.  But, as per "unposted comment not posted", they didn't post it. Why?
Just a clear indication of the idiocy documented here.

Click on image to see larger more readable version
Click on image to see larger more readable version
Click on image to see larger more readable version

Click on image to see larger more readable version

Monday, July 26, 2010

An Outrageous Lanza Article

If you are new to this blog please see the Introduction.

If you want to join the group protesting censorship on The Huffington Post please send me an email at this address:

Here is a great example of more Lanza censorship on an article where Lanza compares himself to Einstein and essentially claims that Biocentrism has solved the grand unified field problem and unified relativity and quantum theory. The following was provided by a new contributor to this blog, describing an experience he had and some thoughts on how Huffpo's actions correspond to their published policies.
My Dear Fellow First-Amendment/Free-Speech Fans,

I, too, have had politely relevant but critical comments deleted from Robert Lanza's

insipid and ironically self-referential "false art" and "vain wisdom" anti-Einstein flame,
("Did Einstein Set Science Back 100 Years? We're Not As Insignificant As He Thought,"  posted in The Huffington Post's "Living" section on July 23, 2010 at 07:00 AM.)
 I had just noted a comment (which I paraphrase as "Why bothering to imagine into existence all those readers if you delete 95% of their comments?") which had been "posted 1 hour ago" and had just hit "REPLY"
when I received the message "You are attempting to reply to a comment that has been deleted."

My understanding of policy is that expressed on their FAQ page as:

(I) The Huffington Post welcomes all users to join our community and to comment
    and treats all members of the community equally.

We do not discriminate based on the person who is posting, and we never censor comments for political or ideological reasons.
We never delete an appropriate comment because we disagree with its viewpoint or ideology...

(II) We want the Huffington Post to be home to open, transparent conversations in which people connect, discuss, share ideas, and debate the issues.

(III) We are also committed to maintaining a non-toxic atmosphere.

(IV) In order to preserve a functional and civil conversation,
     we do not allow trolls, trollish behavior, or stalking.

Beyond the "pending" period, as I understand it, a comment would only be deleted if
"2. Your comment violated the policy above.
We pride ourselves in providing a medium for engaging and thought-provoking stories and encourage
our users to speak their minds freely, provided comments fall within our commenting policy.
We must respect our writers and protect them from vicious and inflammatory comments.
They too are entitled to free speech- the right to share their opinions
 without being subject to scathing and mean-spirited remarks."

Below is my comment that was deleted yesterday, July 23, after being up for an hour or so.
Please read and judge for yourself:

Far from "setting us back 100 years," with admirable childlike sense of wonder and true humility
Einstein said "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible."
"Comprehensible" meant mathematical, repeatable and predictable --if only in a statistical sense.

I'm sure Lanza's characterizations of Einstein's contributions as "false art" and "vain wisdom"
are well-meant, inaccurate only in deriving from visible misunderstanding of quantum mechanics
and an excess of the fuzzy-based-on-wishful thinking I tried to discourage in my med students.

Richard Feynman's Nobel-winning Quantum Electrodynamics makes predictions as accurate
as a hairsbreadth in the width of America, yet never invokes an "observer" -- except to "select"
(retrospectively) which of all possible paths a quantum has taken in a specific observer's "reality."

Biocentricism (like Geocentricism or SpeciesCentricism/Creationism) reverses our "significance":
the Universe shaped Us, not vice versa.  True, our minds DO affect our bodies far more than
we yet understand, but without lapsing into nihilistic *cynicism* (which has no place in science
nor the heart of a healer) we must still retain our healthy scientific *skepticism* as we are advised
by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins:
"Airplanes built according to scientific principles WORK, stay aloft, get you to your destination.
Airplanes built to tribal or mythological specifications, such as the dummy planes
 of the cargo cults in jungle clearings or the beeswaxed wings of Icarus, DON'T.
Show me a cultural relativist at thirty thousand feet and I’ll show you a hypocrite."

When the comment was removed without explanation after a few hours (during which time another reader had become a "fan" and "replied,") I added the following comment -- which lasted only and hour of posting:
Curiouser and curiouser... Who is empowered to dismiss & delete dissent or disapproval?

About 16:30PDT today (Friday, 23 July, 2010,) I posted a comment to this article beginning with
a quote from Einstein and ending with a quote from evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins.

This comment was removed without explanation after a few hours (during which time another reader had become a "fan" and "replied.")  If anyone know what happened, please reply to this comment.

Of course, like Krautman's comment on Lanza's apparent comment deletions, it, too, was deleted.

SOooo, just now (13:49PDT on Saturday, 24 July, 2010,) I re-posted the original dissent above. 

before I did so the article listed "96 Comments - 1 Pending" and after "96 Comments - 2 Pending",
but now, a few minutes later at 14:04PDT on Saturday, 24 July, 2010, we see "96 Comments - 0 Pending".
As a good scientist (health physicist then instrument designer then physician[radiologist] now H.S. science teacher)
I always document my work, so a screen snapshot of my 13:49 posting is attached.

What should we do about this arrogant suppression of polite informative dissent by the man humbly self-described on his various websites as "one of the leading scientists in the world"?


Friday, July 23, 2010

After Staying published for two weeks...

If you are new to this blog please see the Introduction.

If you want to join the group protesting censorship on The Huffington Post please send me an email at this address:

Here is a new example from J.B. where a comment disappeared after being up for two weeks.

Friday, July 23, 2010
3:45 PM CST

Another  censorship on top of censorship from the same blog.

After a second posting, this entry stayed at the top of page one for nearly two weeks. Apparently no one (was allowed ?) to post after it. Today I noticed my entry was censored; guess they figured no one was paying attention.


Channeling Erik: Conversations With My Son in the Afterlife
James Ballard   1 hour ago (5:35 PM)
[ 2nd posting ]
@ "JohnFromCensornati" & "kwinter"
4:35 PM CST

The cen$$oring being committed on this blog...entire pathetic and desperate. Sad, frightened little souls who can only be comforted by their own words, fairytales and self-delusion.

Such a demoralizing display of expediency on a so-called "progressive" blog.


Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Southern Bubba

The following is a comment from user Southern Bubba. I thought it was worth putting up as a seaperate post:

Southern Bubba said...

SouthernBubba here. The most ardent hater of censorship at HP or anywhere else you will ever find. Hope that you will spend time on this site and encourage others to do so. If you post regularly on HP and get censored for ridiculous reasons (and those are the only reasons for censorship), then start using using the term censormod2nit(s) every chance you get. Quite a bit of the time that term will make it through, I think because it shames some of them. Also, as often as possible, mention that posters hate HP for giving ANY poster the right to influence (don't use censor-deletion will surely follow) ANY other poster for ANY reason. Throw in the phrase Constitution/Free Speech Hater(s) in a quick post right after a pending and sometimes that will shame them into letting the original post go through. Another little trick: fan the posters that you do not like with the highest # of fans and that way when get you 'em with a zinger, there is a greater chance that more will see it.

This problem of censorship is a common crime against the Founding Fathers and does not have anything at all to do with which side of the aisle you are on. Let's hear some good ideas on how we can get this corrected on HP and make it truly as great as it was intended to be.

Seperating Church and Hate: But don't forget to Moderate

There was an interesting article published on Huffpo today: Separating Church and Hate: Irrationality and Anti-Muslim Stereotyping The following is an exchange I had with user Jan Allen McDaniel:

Jan Allen McDaniel 4 hours ago (6:05 PM)
"And you talk of Islamic terrorism as if it is something built into Islam or one sided on the part of them. In fact the number of people killed in the US and elsewhere due to Islamic terrorism is dwarfed by the number of Islamic people caused to die through US intervention in the mideast since 1950."

We could go on for some time about who did what to whom and not settle anything. I hope we can start from the agreement that a lot of Muslims want to kill us and we want to kill them. Given that, we can speculate on why this is true.

I believe that the struggle is over which system of law will survive the war, Islamic law or Western law like America's. Mybe you disagree.

RedDogBear 2 hours ago (7:29 PM)
"We could go on for some time about who did what to whom and not settle anything. I hope we can start from the agreement that a lot of Muslims want to kill us and we want to kill them. Given that, we can speculate on why this is true."

There isn't much speculation. Osama bin Laden has said why he wants to attack the west and most of his charges are true. Which doesn't mean I think he is any way justified. He is a criminal and a thug and the worst kind of theocratic would-be tyrant.

I can give you countless examples. The US has overthrown governments (Iran, Iraq), installed dictators who routinely practice torture (Iran), destroyed basic infrastructure resulting in wide spread civilian deaths (Iraq), shot down civilian airliners (Iran), and supported corrupt dictators (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan) through out the middle east. These aren't matters of speculation. They are facts.

Jan Allen McDaniel 1 hour ago (8:21 PM)
Maybe your intent is to blame America for the situation we are in, and I will not join in that. If you want to talk about where we go from here, I'm game.

My reply was censored. Luckily I had a feeling it might be. Here it is:

I don't blame America any more than I blame Afghanistan, Iran, or Iraq. I blame Ronald Reagan, George Bush (both of them), Osama bin Laden, .... I blame specific people who have committed crimes. I don't excuse either side for killing innocent people. Its never justified. As for going forward you can't go forward unless you admit the crimes that both sides have committed.

I think this is a very illustrative example. Even if you are a conservative libertarian I think you would agree that there was nothing obscene, personal, off topic or anything else that would contradict the supposed Huffington Post standards. The only reason to suppress this comment is that if expresses ideas that criticize our government and the right to criticize our government is an essential part of free speech and democracy.

Monday, July 19, 2010

Remembering HumeSkeptic and CarlIV

There is a new article on the Huffington Post today mourning the loss of two users: HumSkeptic and CarlIV, both of whom died recently. First we would like to also express our sadness at their passing. We all had interesting discussions with both of them.

However, there is an interesting statistic glossed over in the article. The following statistics are from the Huffington Post as quoted in the article. 

HumeSkeptic had a total of 116,966 comments. Of those 24,038 were censored! I.e. 20% of the comments of a user that the moderators praise as one of the most thoughtful commenters on the site were censored. Some other users have commented on this as well but no reply from the Huffpo moderators who wrote the article yet.

Click here if you can't see the comment box

Saturday, July 17, 2010

New Facebook Group

There is a new group on Facebook called Banned from Huffpo

The threaded discussion capabilities on this blog are relatively limited. The Facebook group provides a way for us to have better discussions and also for other users to quickly post their own examples of censorship or other thoughts.

Friday, July 16, 2010

Dirty Little Secret: Criticism of 2 party system gets censored

Here is a recent post from a user this comment was censored from the article Dirty Little Secrets the Republicans Don't Want You to Know.

It was polite, on topic, and contained no profanity:
America's 2 party system is a joke! The neo-cons and neo-liberals all have dirty hands regarding the transfer of wealth from the middle class to transnational corporations and the banking cartel. We are in the middle of a economic war and America the Republic is losing.

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

Another Deleted Comment

Here is another example where one of our members tried to respond to a comment from user MattBass83 only to find that the comment was deleted. The comment was captured below. Why it was deleted from a progressive blog is hard to imagine.  This is yet another example of how arbitrary and capricious the censorship on Huffpo can be. (Click on the image to see a larger version).

Holy Boldness doesn't include bold enough to allow free speech

Here is an example from James Ballard of a long thread, an interesting discussion of religion that got censored for no apparent reason except perhaps the author of the main article on the Holy Boldness of Women disagreed with it:

Thursday, July 8, 2010 
4:50 PM CST
Hey Red Dog,
Last night I discovered whole chunks of dialogue were censored; this time I'm sure by the author, because they all made it past the moderators this past holiday weekend. Regardless who's doing it, censorship is censorship, and in this particular case I believe it is egregious. I did not copy the entire thread as I normally do; the posts WERE published and there was an entire dialogue going on between "llisa" and myself. They censored hers as well; my apologies to "IIisa" for not including her all of her replies, assuming she visits this blog...J.B.

Georgetown/On Faith: Holy Boldness of Women

llisa   10:47 PM on 6/30/2010

179 Fans

Perhaps the best thing to happen to religion would be for the men to step down and let the women take over. Women seem to be better able to see that religion should contain good works and kind words and be used for good instead of for control.

@ "IIisa"12:00 PM CST

..."Women seem to be better able to see that religion should contain good works and kind words and be used for good instead of for control...."

Sorry "IIisa" but this is absolute nonsense. Neither "good works" nor "kind words" are gender predestined. I'm fed up with hearing this abysmally failed "feminist" slant promulgating inane assumptions about men.
If the men in your adult life are "controlling", it's because you want it that way. Takes two to twist.
No doubt you'd be quick to label yours truly "controlling"; a PC word that has virtually emasculated the American male.
I have no desire to "control"; I just won't be manipulated either. Plenty of men who aren't "controlling"; plenty of women who are "controlling" just have to look for one while avoiding the other, and forget the idiotic stereotypes that have been drilled into your brain for the past several decades.


llisa   7/2/2010
Takes only one man to twist.
The man who twists alone is not telling you about the partners he is with.
[ The 2 replies above I adopt from memory...they were also censored;  the rest of "llisa's" posts were censored as well ]

@ "IIisa"
1:45 PM CST

"...And women were not allowed to be elders or deacons or preachers and girls were not allowed to light candles or ring the bell...This is still the way it is in too many religions. Women are subservient and do all the work, and men rule."...
The "women" you speak of have been and, tragically, are "subservient" because they wanted to be and want to be. Otherwise, they would not have been "subservient", nor want to be. Sorry. It's that simple. It's called the line of least resistance, which all humans indulge in; not just women.
And this is the "way" with ALL religions. I'm happy that you were smarter than that, and left. The problem I have with today's American "feminists" as that they continue to fail to appreciate paradox; in fact, they chose to remain in denial over it.

Example : "...And women were not allowed to be elders or deacons..."

So what? No disappoint there. Why would you want to be recognized as such by ignorant people who choose to sustain a failed and oppressive way of life ?

Example : Gays are denied "marriage rites".  So what ? Ditto to what I said above.
One answer : Do not ever, EVER circumscribe your life by the the dictates and stupidities of others, whether or not "others" means one individual or the culture at large.


Not sure about this new "partnership" bit; comes from a failed premise : No one is "equal" to anyone. Period. You can't expect human beings to behave like a bank portfolio. Deny or dummy down the uniqueness of one individual is destructive; regardless whether either member of the "partnership" is capable of recognizing this or not. "Partnership" is another Orwellian PC buzz word that ultimately means : Control.

And your fortunate upbringing seems to shatter the very premise of your initial statements; the fact that "the church" is and has been "controlling" is a no brainer. This does not translate that "most" men are "controlling", or that women in "religion" could make any improvements, at all, to a rigid outdated belief system.
@ "IIisa"
2:10 PM CST
The RCC has been and remains among the worst oppressors of the human spirit. Over the centuries the RCC has pushed and polished the envelop of tyranny and cynical manipulation of language to such extremes as to defy all sense of logic or appearance of sanity.

They are and remain the masters of propaganda and brainwashing technique. Get to the children first. It will become the ultimate irony that had they not followed this centuries old practice, the RCC would never have been sustainable.
Get to the children first.

Other orthodoxies, (again, ironically) follow in their footsteps. But they are amateurs compared to the Roman Catholic Church.

Only until recently do we bear witness to the extremity of their corruption.
@ "llisa"
4:25 PM CST

If you are going to quote me please do not do so out of context. These blog threads are unwieldy enough as it is; no need to compound the problem.

Quote :
..."Men have always been in control of religion."...
...Not without the help of the women who enabled it.
Same line of "thinking" in the cliche :
"Men make war"...That's right...but not without the women who enable it. Passive-aggressively, I might add.
Quote :
..."Since religions are not going away any time soon, they would certainly benefit if women were to take over"...
You did not explicitly state : "Most men are controlling" True. You clearly implied it in your previous statements I quote above. Passive-aggressive methinks. No ?
 Quote :

...""Since religions are not going away any time soon, they would certainly benefit if women were to take over..."
That's not only capitulation and defeatist, you are rationalizing to support your contention. The fact is, "religion" is going away, very quickly; notwithstanding all the woo and blustering in the so-called "spiritual' essays saturating this blog. You see in them the desperation and final gasps of the Boogeyman hoodoo/voodoo nonsense that has plagued humanity for centuries...Besides, neither my thinking nor my physical being is tied down to a "country"; another outdated notion.

The world has indeed joined the 21st century, notwithstanding the morons this "country" has been breeding with an impunity that is horrific to the rest of the world. If we continue to regress, our regression will be matched and countered simply by the rest of the planet ignoring us.

Can't leave an old joke in the bread box too long without expecting it to mold and be thrown away.

Thursday, July 8, 2010

More Lanza, more censorship

There are some authors I've pretty much just given up commenting on and Dr. Lanza is one of them. He has a new article: What Are We? New Experiments Suggest We're Not Purely Physical that pretty much sticks to his standard template.

I thought I had seen it all in terms of Huffington Post censorship but here is a fascinating example from Huffpo User JohnFromCensornati:

My comment cleared the moderators at 8:30 PM EST and disappeared 30 - 45 minutes later. Believe it or not, it consisted of nothing but things that Lanza himself has said. Here it is:

-------- Begin Comment ----------------
New experiments suggest that part of us exists outside of the physical world.

Experiments suggest the answer is simpler than anyone thought. Without the glue of consciousness, time essentially reboots.

Experiments suggest that you're not an object -- you are your consciousness.

A series of experiments hold the answer to why we exist.

Experiments suggest that life is not just a one-time deal.

Will the wicked be punished? Yes, according to a new interpretation of recent experiments.
-------- End Comment ----------------

Quantum Censorship

There is a new article on Quantum Consciousness by Michael Bernard Beckwith.

Here is a comment thread that got deleted. This is one of those where I saw the comments and then they disappeared:

-------- Begin Comments --------------
RedDogBear Commented Jul 07, 2010 at 14:00:34 in Religion
“What exactly IS "Quantum consciousness THEORY"? I've never seen any actual basic definition, just a lot of musings about how the Internet is cool and bringing us all together and how quantum entanglement proves we are all spirits. BTW, I agree with the first two but don't think they have anything to do with quantum anything and I think the last one is false and shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what quantum (physics) theory is really all about.”

DrBlizzardo replied on Jul 07, 2010 at 14:25:19
“Wow. This is the first time I've seen a post allowed that called the author's knowledge of quantum physics into question.

Generally they allow comments by the gullible, the clueless and the ignorant, but if one of we scientist who DO know something about quantum physics points out the sheer nonsense and rank ridicularity of many of the assertions and suppositions made, or that perhaps the author does not know quantum physics in general and that there is little or no basis in science for the wild assertions of authors like Beckwith, Lanza and Chopra in these pages in particular, your comments get whacked.

The gullible get a platform, the scientists are muzzled.

Why? These comment pages are for the glorification of the authors, not the free exchange of ideas and information between the readers.

Fortunately, most of us cross-post our comments on Digg, StumbleUpon, Tumblr, etc...

But it is still a shame it is HuffPo's policy to muzzle scientists in order to appease authors who may be only selling ignorance to the gullible.”
-------- End Comments --------------

My "spidey sense" as to what moderators will tolerate is getting more fine tuned. As soon as I saw Dr. Blizzardo's comment I had a feeling that both his reply and my original comment would be gone soon.

Tuesday, July 6, 2010

Wink, wink,...

The last post was an example of how any comment that talked about Huffpo or the moderation policy was almost certain to be censored. Here is another example, where even just alluding to the policy gets you censored (click the image for full size if you have trouble reading it).

Monday, July 5, 2010

First rule of Huffpo: Don't talk about Huffpo

Here is an interesting thread that was censored today.  As I've tried to reverse engineer the Huffpo censorship rules one thing I've noticed is that most comments that in any way talk about the censorship policy or indeed even the Huffpo site itself almost always get censored. To me this is one of the most egregious things about the whole policy.  If we are really interested in creating a new media, an alternative to the corporate controlled newspapers, cable news, network news, etc. then I think one of the most essential qualities would be a willingness for us to discuss the medium itself.  Personally, I've come to believe for quite some time that Ms. Huffington is just interested in being the electronic version of the New York Times, with a lot less science and a lot more new age woo and People magazine. Here is the thread with an introduction from James Ballard:

Huff "moderators" (or the author) just censored an entire thread between myself and a new fan. The first and reply posts ("ZumaBlue's reply) were already published over the weekend, then when I replied and fanned "ZumaBlue", the entire thread was censored !

Why ?

James Ballard

Channeling Erik: Conversations With My Son in the Afterlife 

James Ballard   06:17 PM on 7/03/2010
[ 2nd posting ]
5:15 PM CST

Sad. This "MD" is in total shutdown mode : complete denial.

A better therapy for her would be to read a book, as opposed to enabling herself with "mediums" and formulating these delusions on a public blog. Catharsis ? I don't think so. Denial ? Definitely.

And why is this blog in "living" and not in "religion", where it belongs ??

ZumaBlue   08:01 PM on 7/03/2010
My sympathies were with this grieving family possibly being exploited by a "medium", but now it's with other vulnerable, mournful people logging onto this blog now being exploited by a mother who has taken up the reigns and is now "channeling" her deceased son - herself. Telling people that this is her "sons" work, fortune telling. Healthy boundaries seem to be completely erased all for some personal need.

Some people will go to any length to hear, what they desperately want and desire to hear. To absolve themselves of guilt, anger, fear, grief. All perspective long lost -
James Ballard   0 minute ago (1:56 PM)

@ "ZumaBlue"
12:55 PM CST


...Furthermore, the fact that Huff is enabling her is also sad and in direct violation of the health boundaries you are addressing. It's both exploitive and pathetic. It gives me shivers to think that this woman is an "MD". I pity the "patients" within her sphere of "medical practice". Just how objective in diagnosing and treatments can this "MD" be in dispensing sound medical practice while at the same time she solicits "mediums" ?

Outrageous. Sad . And pathetic.


Friday, July 2, 2010

An Interesting thread that got cut off Part 2

This is part two. For reasons of formatting and my pathetic skills in HTML I had to divide this up into two posts. For the beginning of this thread see Part 1 below. My reply to the end of part 1 was published but TheWM's reply below was one of those that I could see and tried replying to several times only to realize that his reply never really was published:

RedDogBear "And yet you still think he was as bad as Hitler?
Hm. One of us is surely missing something."

I'm talking about a moral evaluation. Stalin ruthlessly killed millions of his own people in the Gulags. He created a climate of fear and paranoia through the Soviet bloc countries and he ruled those countries through intimidation.

The fact that he was also used as a bogey man by the right wing US and that they inflated the threat he posed doesn't matter much when evaluating his morality. Its analogous to Sadam Hussein. He was never a serious threat to the US and he was also overblown as an external enemy. That doesn't mean he wasn't a murderous tyrant.
posted Jun 24, 2010 at 16:09:48     Reply     Link
TheWM "Stalin ruthlessly killed millions of his own people in the Gulags."

What really happened in the Gulag? I for one do not trust Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's account of things. He was a pretty fervent Orthodox Christian and saw everything through that prism.

There are a lot of wildly inflated numbers circulating when it comes to tallying up all of Stalin's victims, a lot of misinformation. I think it may be a while before a really reliable and accurate history of the Soviet Union is written.

Clearly, Stalin did many very bad things. But he also took over the Soviet Union when it was still mostly agrarian and illiterate, and when he died three decades later it was mostly literate and industrialized.

When Hitler took over Germany it was a world leader in science, industry and culture, and when he died twelve years later it was a smoking pile of rubble, its citizens' heads were full of racist propoganda, Germany had started a world war in which over 50 million people died, and millions of men, women and children -- including tiny babies -- had been systematically gassed and shot.

An Interesting thread that got cut off Part 1

Here is the first part of an interesting thread that got cut off just as we were getting into what IMO was some very interesting discussion. I think TheWM was wrong, wrong, wrong, (and I'm sure he thinks the same about me) but his arguments were more interesting and cogent than 99% of the users I talk to on Huffpo.  This is one of the things that I find most annoying about The Huffington Post. You can talk about the latest star on American Idol to your heart's content but as soon as you start getting into an interesting political discussion you get cut off because you may use a forbidden word or phrase such as genocide, holocaust, or zionism.

beninabox1   01:10 PM on 6/24/2010
yep, stalin hitler and roosevelt were religously motivated. Must have missed those speeches.

TheWM   01:21 PM on 6/24/2010
As a leftist atheist I'm used to debating against the Stalin-was-as-bad-as-Hitler meme, which has morphed into the Stalin-was-much-much-worse-than-Hitler meme -- but did you just lump Hitler, Stalin and Roosevelt together? Seriously?

RedDogBear   02:26 PM on 6/24/2010
Well we agree putting Roosevelt there was ridiculous. But I'm about as left wing as they come and I think Hitler and Stalin were more or less the same. Hitler was more psychotic I think especially toward the end. And Stalin more the controlled sociopath.

Now if we were comparing say Lenin or Trotsky to Hitler I would agree with you. That's about as sensible as comparing Roosevelt to Hitler. Lenin could be ruthless in consolidating his power but if you read actual history George Washington had his ruthless moments too. But Stalin was just a butcher IMO.
RedDogBear   02:36 PM on 6/24/2010
One more point. I do agree that the fear of Stalin as a threat to the world has been vastly overblown. He never had the chance and was never all that interested in conquering the world. He was concerned with (and understandably given the devastation the Russian people suffered in WWII) with securing Russia's security against future invasions.
TheWM   03:45 PM on 6/24/2010
"I do agree that the fear of Stalin as a threat to the world has been vastly overblown. He never had the chance and was never all that interested in conquering the world."

And yet you still think he was as bad as Hitler?

Hm. One of us is surely missing something.