How the "socialist Marxist Muslim" saved our financial a$$es

[Rescued from hacker oblivion, thanks to Facebook Notes.]

JISHOU, HUNAN — To listen to the right wingers, President Barack Obama has done nothing but spend, spend, spend, ruin health care, trample their rights (to do what, I have no idea), and lead the USA down the path of socialism.

Except he really hasn’t. According to Timothy Egan of The New York Times, Obama managed to save capitalism in the USA, at the price of losing his party’s majority after the midterm elections.

Suppose you had $100,000 to invest on the day Barack Obama was inaugurated. Why bet on a liberal Democrat? Here’s why: the presidency of George W. Bush produced the worst stock market decline of any president in history. The net worth of American households collapsed as Bush slipped away. And if you needed a loan to buy a house or stay in business, private sector borrowing was dead when he handed over power.

As of election day, Nov. 2, 2010, your $100,000 was worth about $177,000 if invested strictly in the NASDAQ average for the entirety of the Obama administration, and $148,000 if bet on the Standard & Poors 500 major companies. This works out to returns of 77 percent and 48 percent.

He also managed to save the banking system, following the same path as predecessor George W. Bush, without nationalizing the banks, and gave the auto industry a chance to recover so it could make both cars and money again.

Egan continues:

All of the above is good for capitalism, and should end any serious-minded discussion about Obama the socialist. But more than anything, the fact that the president took on the structural flaws of a broken free enterprise system instead of focusing on things that the average voter could understand explains why his party was routed on Tuesday. Obama got on the wrong side of voter anxiety in a decade of diminished fortunes.

In other words, he focused on the nuts-and-bolts of the economy, and not the high visibility items. He went for the long term gains, and not the short term, which for a politician, is pretty rare behavior.

The fact the economy is on the rebound has not yet resulted in better employment figures, so the middle class is still pretty pissed at Obama. Meanwhile, the Wall Street folks are making money, while trying to undermine whatever Obama and the Democrats want to do to help the middle class. Does reforming health care ring a bell? (Ask yourself, who is the most upset by health care reform? It’s probably the people who stand to “lose” some money (as in, “not make as much as before”) — the insurance industry — who have a lot of congressmen and women in their pockets.

Anyway, Egan has some good points. Maybe you’re not a big Obama fan, but I agree with Egan. Obama saved our asses.

How the “socialist Marxist Muslim” saved our financial a$$es

[Rescued from hacker oblivion, thanks to Facebook Notes.]

JISHOU, HUNAN — To listen to the right wingers, President Barack Obama has done nothing but spend, spend, spend, ruin health care, trample their rights (to do what, I have no idea), and lead the USA down the path of socialism.

Except he really hasn’t. According to Timothy Egan of The New York Times, Obama managed to save capitalism in the USA, at the price of losing his party’s majority after the midterm elections.

Suppose you had $100,000 to invest on the day Barack Obama was inaugurated. Why bet on a liberal Democrat? Here’s why: the presidency of George W. Bush produced the worst stock market decline of any president in history. The net worth of American households collapsed as Bush slipped away. And if you needed a loan to buy a house or stay in business, private sector borrowing was dead when he handed over power.

As of election day, Nov. 2, 2010, your $100,000 was worth about $177,000 if invested strictly in the NASDAQ average for the entirety of the Obama administration, and $148,000 if bet on the Standard & Poors 500 major companies. This works out to returns of 77 percent and 48 percent.

He also managed to save the banking system, following the same path as predecessor George W. Bush, without nationalizing the banks, and gave the auto industry a chance to recover so it could make both cars and money again.

Egan continues:

All of the above is good for capitalism, and should end any serious-minded discussion about Obama the socialist. But more than anything, the fact that the president took on the structural flaws of a broken free enterprise system instead of focusing on things that the average voter could understand explains why his party was routed on Tuesday. Obama got on the wrong side of voter anxiety in a decade of diminished fortunes.

In other words, he focused on the nuts-and-bolts of the economy, and not the high visibility items. He went for the long term gains, and not the short term, which for a politician, is pretty rare behavior.

The fact the economy is on the rebound has not yet resulted in better employment figures, so the middle class is still pretty pissed at Obama. Meanwhile, the Wall Street folks are making money, while trying to undermine whatever Obama and the Democrats want to do to help the middle class. Does reforming health care ring a bell? (Ask yourself, who is the most upset by health care reform? It’s probably the people who stand to “lose” some money (as in, “not make as much as before”) — the insurance industry — who have a lot of congressmen and women in their pockets.

Anyway, Egan has some good points. Maybe you’re not a big Obama fan, but I agree with Egan. Obama saved our asses.

Court restrains further distribution of Expelled, per Yoko Ono suit

A federal judge in Manhattan has told the makers of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed that they cannot distribute the film any further, until a copyright infringement complaint is heard in court later this month.

The temporary restraining order issued April 30 does not affect existing screenings of the anti-evolution film, which uses a segment of John Lennon’s song, “Imagine,” as an example of “Darwinist” philosophy. Lennon’s heirs filed suit April 24 in US District Court in Manhattan against the producers and distributors of the film, alleging copyright and trademark infringement and requesting monetary damages and an injunction against any showing of the film in its present form.

Expelled is showing in 656 theaters nationally, and has gross box office receipts topping $6 million.

The parties involved in the suit have until May 6 (Wednesday) to produce documents supporting their cases. Premise Media and its co-defendants have until May 14 to argue against the injunction. The plaintiffs, Yoko Ono Lennon, John Lennon’s sons and his publisher, EMI Blackwood, have until May 16 to rebut. Final arguments are due May 19.

Justice is swift, for some of us anyway.

Here is the text of the judge’s order:

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Upon the annexed Affidavit of Yoko Ono Lennon dated April 29, 2008, Declaration of Dorothy M. Weber, Esq. dated April 30, 2008, Affadavit of Darnetha L. M’Baye dated April 29,2008, Declaration of Nancy Weshkoff dated April 29, 2008, together with the Exhibits annexed thereto; the accompanying Memorandum of Law and the Summons and Complaint, and all proceedings heretofore had herein

-page-

IT IS ORDERED BY STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES in open court on April 30, 2008 or as otherwise ordered by this Court, Defendants Premise Media Corporation, L.P., C&S Production L.P. d/b/a Rampant Films, Premise Media Distribution L.P. and Rocky Mountain Pictures, Inc. (the “Defendants”), be and they are hereby are enjoined PENDING THE HEARING of the motion for a preliminary injunction from distributing any additional copies of the Movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” (the “Movie”) beyond those third party venues which possess and are showing the Movie as of the date of this Order. Defendants ALSO AGREE THAT pending the hearing of the motion for preliminary injunction they WILL NOT MANUFACTURE or PUBLICLY DISTRIBUTE ANY CDs or DVDs of THE MOVIE anywhere in the world.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs will be permitted to conduct expedited discovery. Defendants will produce the following documents on or before _May 6_, 2008: (i) a complete copy of the Movie, (ii) Defendants’ agreements,

-page-

licenses and contracts with third parties in connection with rights and permissions for all musical compositions or “clips of third-party film or video footage, still photography, and any and copyrighted materials included in the Movie; (iii) documents and opinions obtained by Defendants in connection with their use of the song “Imagine” in the Movie which support any defense of fair use or first amendment; and (iv) Plaintiff will produce documents on or before May 6, 2008, reflecting the exclusive administration by EMI Blackwood Music, Inc.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants show cause before the Honorable Sidney H. Stein, United States District Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York, Courtroom 23A, on May _19_, 2008, at 4:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, why an order should not be entered, pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure and the Court’s inherent and equitable powers, during the pendency of this action:

-page-

1. enjoining and prohibiting the Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys and all persons in active concert and participation with them, from further use of any portion, or the music and lyrics, in any media, of the musical composition written by John Lennon entitled “Imagine”, or committing any further copyright infringement with respect thereto;

2. recalling for destruction or editing out of any and all references to the Song “Imagine” any and all copies of the Movie from all third-party distributors or editing those copies to remove the infringing Song;

3. awarding to the Plaintiffs costs, attorney fees and such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that good and sufficient service of this Order to Show Cause and other papers on which it is based shall be made, via hand delivery or Federal Express overnight delivery, to be received on or before April 30, 2008 at 5:00 p.m. on Defendants Premise Media Corporation, L.P., C&S Production L.P. d/b/a Rampant Films, Premise Media Distribution L.P. and Rocky Mountain Pictures, Inc. c/o Allen C. Wasserman, Esq., Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP, 885 Third Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY 10022 and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that answering papers, if any, shall be served upon Plaintiffs by hand delivering copies thereof to Plaintiffs counsel, Shukat Arrow Hafer Weber & Herbsman LLP, 111 West 57th Street, New York, New York 10019 on or before May _14_, 2008 at 5:00 p.m.; and

-page-

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that reply papers, if any, shall be filed with the Court and served upon Dendants by hand delivering copies thereof to be retrieved by Defendants’ counsel, on or before May _16_, 2008 at 5:00 p.m..
On consent, no undertaking is required for the T.R.O.

_Sidney H. Stein_
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: New York, New York
April 30, 2008

ISSUED: _4:23 p.m._

While the Lennons and EMI Blackwood Music allege copyright infringement and trademark damage, the makers of Expelled claim their use of “Imagine” falls within the “fair use doctrine” of copyright law, which allows critics and commentators the freedom to use short quotations or excerpts from a work in order to write about it. While the film makers obtained permission from other musicians to use their work in the film, they did not however seek similar permission from Lennon’s heirs.

Soon after the film opened April 18, a blogger at The Huffington Post, falsely accused Yoko Ono Lennon of “selling out” her husband’s legacy, which created a storm of anti-Yoko venom in the blogosphere. The adverse publicity forms part of the lawsuit against Expelled‘s producers and distributors.

Last week, Stanford University Law School’s Fair Use Project agreed to represent the makers of Expelled in court.

‘Imagine’ is neo-Darwinist theme song, says Expelled producer

John Lennon’s 1971 song, “Imagine,” is the theme song of neo-Darwinists, according to Walt Ruloff, CEO of Premise Media, and was thus used appropriately in his company’s movie, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

In an interview with the conservative news site, World Net Daily, Ruloff insisted the use of the song fit the theme of the movie.

“If you really listen to the lyrics of ‘Imagine’ then you realize that it represents everything that the Neo-Darwinists want. ‘Imagine there’s no Heaven … No hell below us … Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too…’ That’s exactly what the Darwinist establishment wants to do: get rid of religion,” said Walt Ruloff, CEO of Premise Media. “And that’s what we point out when we play less than 15 seconds of the song and show some of the lyrics on screen.”

Rrrright … John Lennon channeled Charles Darwin, who wrote a biological theory proposing that we do away with religion. I don’t understand how I missed that connection before.

Expelled alleges that a “neo-Darwinist” conspiracy seeks to quash any debate about the theory of evolution and that evolution — Darwinism — is directly responsible for racism, the Holocaust, abortion and euthanasia. The movie opened April 18 and has grossed just over $3.4 million so far.

Part of the movie includes a short excerpt of “Imagine,” in an attempt to make a connection between the sentiments expressed in the lyrics and the movie’s allegations of this neo-Darwinist (in the old days, it was called secular humanist) conspiracy.

Lennon’s heirs filed suit Wednesday in New York to bar the use of the song in the movie, and are seeking unspecified damages for copyright infringement, and damages of at least $75,000 for damages relating to Ono’s role as executor of Lennon’s estate.

Premise Media insists its use of the short excerpt was within the fair-use doctrine of copyright law, meaning that critics and authors can use portions of copyrighted material without seeking permission first.

Lennon’s heirs, widow Yoko Ono and sons Julian and Sean, and his publishing company don’t see it that way. Their complaint filed Wednesday in US District Court in Manhattan seeks to bar the use of Lennon’s song, which if enforced would require all 1,052 theaters showing the flick to pull it off their schedules and require Premise Media to make new 35 mm prints.

Musical woes are only part of Premise Media’s legal problems. Earlier this month, a Cambridge, Mass., based scientific animation studio sent a letter to Premise Media officials pointing out similarities between its cell animations and Expelled‘s animations, and alleging copyright infringement. The letter asked the animations be removed from the final release copies of the film, which apparently happened.

Premise Media then itself turned around and filed a nuisance suit in Texas against the animator, XVIVO LLC, asking for a summary judgment that there was no copyright infringement and for XVIVO to pay Premise’s legal and court costs.

Neither the Lennon nor the XVIVO suit has been settled yet.

Ono was raked over the coals in the blogosphere last week when a writer for the Huffington Post incorrectly reported that Ono had given her permission to use “Imagine” in the anti-evolution movie. He later retracted the story, but the viral nature of the Internet spread the infamy far and wide. Ono is still smarting from the allegations.

'Imagine' is neo-Darwinist theme song, says Expelled producer

John Lennon’s 1971 song, “Imagine,” is the theme song of neo-Darwinists, according to Walt Ruloff, CEO of Premise Media, and was thus used appropriately in his company’s movie, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

In an interview with the conservative news site, World Net Daily, Ruloff insisted the use of the song fit the theme of the movie.

“If you really listen to the lyrics of ‘Imagine’ then you realize that it represents everything that the Neo-Darwinists want. ‘Imagine there’s no Heaven … No hell below us … Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too…’ That’s exactly what the Darwinist establishment wants to do: get rid of religion,” said Walt Ruloff, CEO of Premise Media. “And that’s what we point out when we play less than 15 seconds of the song and show some of the lyrics on screen.”

Rrrright … John Lennon channeled Charles Darwin, who wrote a biological theory proposing that we do away with religion. I don’t understand how I missed that connection before.

Expelled alleges that a “neo-Darwinist” conspiracy seeks to quash any debate about the theory of evolution and that evolution — Darwinism — is directly responsible for racism, the Holocaust, abortion and euthanasia. The movie opened April 18 and has grossed just over $3.4 million so far.

Part of the movie includes a short excerpt of “Imagine,” in an attempt to make a connection between the sentiments expressed in the lyrics and the movie’s allegations of this neo-Darwinist (in the old days, it was called secular humanist) conspiracy.

Lennon’s heirs filed suit Wednesday in New York to bar the use of the song in the movie, and are seeking unspecified damages for copyright infringement, and damages of at least $75,000 for damages relating to Ono’s role as executor of Lennon’s estate.

Premise Media insists its use of the short excerpt was within the fair-use doctrine of copyright law, meaning that critics and authors can use portions of copyrighted material without seeking permission first.

Lennon’s heirs, widow Yoko Ono and sons Julian and Sean, and his publishing company don’t see it that way. Their complaint filed Wednesday in US District Court in Manhattan seeks to bar the use of Lennon’s song, which if enforced would require all 1,052 theaters showing the flick to pull it off their schedules and require Premise Media to make new 35 mm prints.

Musical woes are only part of Premise Media’s legal problems. Earlier this month, a Cambridge, Mass., based scientific animation studio sent a letter to Premise Media officials pointing out similarities between its cell animations and Expelled‘s animations, and alleging copyright infringement. The letter asked the animations be removed from the final release copies of the film, which apparently happened.

Premise Media then itself turned around and filed a nuisance suit in Texas against the animator, XVIVO LLC, asking for a summary judgment that there was no copyright infringement and for XVIVO to pay Premise’s legal and court costs.

Neither the Lennon nor the XVIVO suit has been settled yet.

Ono was raked over the coals in the blogosphere last week when a writer for the Huffington Post incorrectly reported that Ono had given her permission to use “Imagine” in the anti-evolution movie. He later retracted the story, but the viral nature of the Internet spread the infamy far and wide. Ono is still smarting from the allegations.

Sudanese immigrant granted review of residency request

Pressure from Kentucky’s congressional delegation has convinced immigration authorities to take another look at Lino Nakwa’s residency request, preventing for now any deportation proceedings.

The Department of Homeland Security’s Citizenship and Immigration Services officials had told Nakwa, a Sudanese “lost boy,” they were denying his application for a green card because of his association with a “terrorist organization.”

Nakwa had been forced to join the Sudanese People’s Liberation Army when he was 12. He escaped, and was granted political refugee status in the US in 2003. He settled in Louisville, where he raised his four brothers and attended Jefferson Community College. Nakwa is now on the dean’s list at Transylvania University.

Check the details at the Lexington Herald-Leader.

Florida school boards begin doomed anti-evolution battle

Down in the Sunshine State, state education authorities are attempting to hold local school systems to consistent standards of science education, that is, to teach evolution and not creation science or Intelligent Design. Not surprisingly, some local school boards are none too happy about the new standards.

So far, 12 local boards (including Polk, Taylor and Holmes Counties) have passed resolutions that state education authorities revise the standards to include evolution as only one explanation of how life began and developed on Earth. Taylor County’s board actually resolved, “the district is opposed to teaching evolution as a fact.”

All of these challenges are doomed to fail, given the clear results from the Kitzmiller v. Dover court case, which basically sank the Intelligent Design ship in the Dover, Penn., schools. After weeks of expert testimony, the judge hearing the case definitively found that ID was a religion and not science, and thus it had no place in the Dover schools’ science classes.

Clearly, none of the Florida school board members voting for these anti-evolution standards have any clue about the significance of Kitzmiller v. Dover, much less what the words “scientific theory” mean. Science standards by definition cannot include creationism or ID instruction, since neither is scientific by any stretch of the imagination. Who knows what the school boards there expect to happen — the entire state challenging legal precedent and common sense?

Meanwhile, the Answers in Genesis folks, the people who brought the Creation Museum to the Commonwealth of Kentucky, have started a new on-line, peer-reviewed journal of creation “science,” Answers Research Journal. Apparently, they are trying to fool the public into thinking creationism is scientific by putting a coat of academic shellac on it.

Can creationists get any dumber?

Updates to school-related posts 2: Brittany McComb

Nevada senior Brittany McComb made a name for herself in June 2006 when she delivered a valedictory that testified to her love for Jesus, and encouraged other students to find Him. She had earlier agreed to leave such remarks out of the speech. School officials disconnected her mike in the middle of her delivery in response.

Juvenile behavior all around.

McComb, who is now a freshman at a Christian school, Biola University in California, became the darling of conservative Christians looking for more examples of the “war on Christianity” and the pernicious influence of the American Civil Liberties Union. The conservative legal group, the Rutherford Institute, agreed to take her case to the U.S. District Court in Nevada, alleging her free speech rights were violated.

The text of the suit is here — Adobe Reader required.

The case has been stalled in the courts since. The defendants in McComb’s suit filed two motions to dismiss, which the district court judge denied. They have since appealed to the Ninth District Court of Appeals in California, and filed opening briefs earlier this month. Rutherford Institute attorney Doug McKusick says McComb’s lawyers will file their replies in January.

The case raises several issues. Was McComb badgered into deleting the overtly Christian references from her valedictory? Were school officials acting legally when they first told her to delete the references, and then pulled the plug on her speech? Was McComb herself at all culpable, agreeing to tone down the speech then proceeding with the original text? Given that schools cannot favor one religion over any other constitutionally, was McComb a representative of the school and bound by those restrictions, or was she merely speaking her own mind?

Time will tell whether the courts will answer those questions. Appeals take months to proceed, and if the defendants lose their appeal, the case will end up back in District Court to drag on some more. McComb may be a senior before it’s all settled.

Back again … in The Tangled Bank!

It’s been a long while since I participated in the science blog carnival called The Tangled Bank. So, I submitted my post on zero point energy. Hopefully, the physicists reading it won’t laugh me off the stage.

Former Kentucky science teacher slams Creation Museum

James Willmot, a former science teacher at our sister school, lays down the law in an opinion piece that appeared in the Sunday Courier-Journal.

It begins:

There is a great educational injustice being inflicted upon thousands of children in this country, a large percentage of whom come from the Kentucky, Ohio and, Indiana areas. The source of this injustice is a sophisticated Christian ministry that uses the hook of dinosaurs, the guarantee of an afterlife, and the horrors of hell to convince children and their families to believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible.

It gets better after that. Willmot basically slams down creationism and pins it to the floor. It’s worth reading.

Willmot taught science at St. Francis School in Goshen, Kentucky, a K-8 school that sends a lot of kids to St. Francis High School. He now lives and writes in England.

Needless to say, the fundies among the C-J’s readers were none too pleased. Comments ranged from suggesting Willmot was intolerant to predicting he would burn in Hell for questioning a literal interpretation of Genesis.

We have a long way to go. Religious intolerance and closemindedness is alive and well in mid-America.