1. I don't know about you, but I rarely listen or read something and immediately agree/believe it because of who said it.
There is not an area in which I feel I cannot know as much as any 'expert' if I decide to research same....and I often do research.
The smartest folks I know behave in exactly that way.
2. I relate the above because of two categories of folks who seem to get that kind of benefit without a doubt because of their job title....and it is undeserved.
They are judges, and scientists.
3. I've heard that in my city, one can become a judge by 'contributing' a year's salary to the party of choice. That explains things like this:
a. "The most recent step was the 9th Circuits ruling that called the American flag a symbol of racial animus.
Americans now ?racist? for waving American flag
b. ."... Judge Legally Declared Insane Wants Back on Bench" Suburban Chicago Judge Legally Declared Insane Wants Back on Bench | Wizbang
c. "We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is,...." Charles Evans Hughes
4. Under a government originally built around checks and balances, there is no check on the supreme court.
Chief Justice Rehnquist pointed out the problem:
"[The view] that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving societys problems. Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a quite different light.
Judges then are no longer the keepers of the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately situated people with a roving commission to second-guess Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative officers concerning what is best for the country."
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf
5. Now for scientists.
Any pronouncement by a 'scientist' is invested with immediate rectitude. People forget that there are more 'scientists' working today than all the previous combined....and, just like anybody else, they need to make a living.
Advancement, stature, tenure, monetary grants, etc., depend on one's findings, and agreement with the powers that be.
The result:
a. Professor named Diederik ,dean of the universitys School of Social and Behavioral Sciences and Zeelenberg head of the social psychology department. Famous for publishing 'studies' that supported Liberal memes. Turned out he made 'em up.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/m...cious-academic-fraud.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
b. Emory University Professor Michael A. Bellesiles book on American gun culture. was 'aimed' at supporting anti-second amendment propaganda. " ....won the prestigious Bancroft Prize, but later became the first book in that prize's history to have its award rescinded.".. He made it all up, too. Fired.
Arming America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
c. And some scientists get fired if their work runs counter to Liberal doctrine. "In sum, it is clear that I was targeted for retaliation and harassment explicitly because I allowed a scientific article to be published critical of neo-Darwinism, and that was considered an unpardonable heresy. I failed in an unstated requirement in my role as editor of a scientific journal: I was supposed to be a gatekeeper turning away unpopular, controversial, or conceptually challenging explanations of puzzling natural phenomena." RichardSternberg.org | Summary of Retailiation and Discrimination
d. Then there were the East Anglia emails...."Climate sceptics claim leaked emails are evidence of collusion among scientists.... evidence that some of the climatologists colluded in manipulating data to support the widely held view that climate change is real, and is being largely caused by the actions of mankind." Climate sceptics claim leaked emails are evidence of collusion among scientists | Environment | The Guardian
6. Dr. Chesler gives the real scoop, explaining that there is no objectivity:
"Academic feminists who received tenure, promotion, and funding, tended to be pro-abortion, pro-pornography (anti-censorship), pro-prostitution (pro-sex workers), pro-surrogacy, and anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist, and anti-American proponents of simplistic gender-neutrality (women and men are exactly the same) or essentialist: men and women are completely different, and women are better. They are loyal to their careers and their cliques, not to the truth."
The Death of Feminism, by Phyllis Chesler
So.....judges, scientists......they're just people with the same biases and foibles that you have.
Me?
No....I'm objective.
There is not an area in which I feel I cannot know as much as any 'expert' if I decide to research same....and I often do research.
The smartest folks I know behave in exactly that way.
2. I relate the above because of two categories of folks who seem to get that kind of benefit without a doubt because of their job title....and it is undeserved.
They are judges, and scientists.
3. I've heard that in my city, one can become a judge by 'contributing' a year's salary to the party of choice. That explains things like this:
a. "The most recent step was the 9th Circuits ruling that called the American flag a symbol of racial animus.
Americans now ?racist? for waving American flag
b. ."... Judge Legally Declared Insane Wants Back on Bench" Suburban Chicago Judge Legally Declared Insane Wants Back on Bench | Wizbang
c. "We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is,...." Charles Evans Hughes
4. Under a government originally built around checks and balances, there is no check on the supreme court.
Chief Justice Rehnquist pointed out the problem:
"[The view] that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving societys problems. Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a quite different light.
Judges then are no longer the keepers of the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately situated people with a roving commission to second-guess Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative officers concerning what is best for the country."
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf
5. Now for scientists.
Any pronouncement by a 'scientist' is invested with immediate rectitude. People forget that there are more 'scientists' working today than all the previous combined....and, just like anybody else, they need to make a living.
Advancement, stature, tenure, monetary grants, etc., depend on one's findings, and agreement with the powers that be.
The result:
a. Professor named Diederik ,dean of the universitys School of Social and Behavioral Sciences and Zeelenberg head of the social psychology department. Famous for publishing 'studies' that supported Liberal memes. Turned out he made 'em up.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/m...cious-academic-fraud.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
b. Emory University Professor Michael A. Bellesiles book on American gun culture. was 'aimed' at supporting anti-second amendment propaganda. " ....won the prestigious Bancroft Prize, but later became the first book in that prize's history to have its award rescinded.".. He made it all up, too. Fired.
Arming America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
c. And some scientists get fired if their work runs counter to Liberal doctrine. "In sum, it is clear that I was targeted for retaliation and harassment explicitly because I allowed a scientific article to be published critical of neo-Darwinism, and that was considered an unpardonable heresy. I failed in an unstated requirement in my role as editor of a scientific journal: I was supposed to be a gatekeeper turning away unpopular, controversial, or conceptually challenging explanations of puzzling natural phenomena." RichardSternberg.org | Summary of Retailiation and Discrimination
d. Then there were the East Anglia emails...."Climate sceptics claim leaked emails are evidence of collusion among scientists.... evidence that some of the climatologists colluded in manipulating data to support the widely held view that climate change is real, and is being largely caused by the actions of mankind." Climate sceptics claim leaked emails are evidence of collusion among scientists | Environment | The Guardian
6. Dr. Chesler gives the real scoop, explaining that there is no objectivity:
"Academic feminists who received tenure, promotion, and funding, tended to be pro-abortion, pro-pornography (anti-censorship), pro-prostitution (pro-sex workers), pro-surrogacy, and anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist, and anti-American proponents of simplistic gender-neutrality (women and men are exactly the same) or essentialist: men and women are completely different, and women are better. They are loyal to their careers and their cliques, not to the truth."
The Death of Feminism, by Phyllis Chesler
So.....judges, scientists......they're just people with the same biases and foibles that you have.
Me?
No....I'm objective.
