August 31, 2007

IT'S IN YOUR DNA

from the Bad Eagle blog

Although the neo-con base of the Republican Party, which includes David Yeagley, often belittle and even advocate against gay folks now and again, it is widely acknowledged that a high percentage of those same “traditional family value” pontificators are themselves gay. We can only wonder about Yeagley, although it is certainly no crime or even especially noteworthy; “being gay” is “in your DNA” to borrow that song’s phrase.


There are many neo-con types that have been outed in the past Republican years in the white house, just look at these famous examples below. What is particularly disgusting is not their being gay (who really cares, honestly), but that they work against gay rights using zealous Christianity and hate politics. Contrary to the neo-con outcry — when permitted to do so despite the fearful politicians passing silly laws against them — the gay couples seem to have a rather successful percentage of outstanding marriages, when compared to their non-gay counterparts.



David Dreier




James Guckert AKA Jeff Gannon




Ken Mehlman




Armstrong Williams




Mark Foley




Larry Craig


I’m guessing this report is probably the result of a hoax, but one wonders about it, given the known tendency of some closeted gay men to pursue an outward agenda of overtly anti-gay rhetoric probably to shield their inner self from discovery. Does the profile fit Yeagley? We’ll let you be the judge, below is the recent report from DavidYeagley.org. We’re at least glad of the recent ruling declaring Iowa's former ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional, maybe it’s a sign of returning sanity in the judiciary?

Is Yeagley Finally Out of the Closet?

DavidYeagley.org—”Has Yeagley decided to finally admit to being what just about everyone who has heard of him already knows that he is, a self hating gay white man in denial? I was just sent this by someone who claims to be a gay male that Yeagley has emailed looking to get together for gay sex.
I'm fairly sure this ad below was a hoax or a joke played on Yeagley. But either way, this gay personal posted by Yeagley or at his expense certainly sounds very much like him, perhaps too much.

The most hilarious details, outside of mimicking his "super patriot" act and racist comments, is that Yeagley is admitting to being white and no longer posing as being Native.
Perhaps, now that he's possibly "outed," Yeagley will be less the cantankerous hateful racist bigoted crank and crackpot that he's always been before. Or not. But one can hope. And it's a funny thought to see Yeagley jumping in to support gay marriage” (8-31-07).



From GayFriendFinder.com

DavidYeagley
White American Super Patriot Seeks Same 55 year old Man in Lawton, Oklahoma Looking For: Men for a friend, casual dating, a serious relationship or marriage Profile for DavidYeagley I'm out to save the world from all the liberals, Commies, and perverts, and I need another hot white guy by my side, and I need to be down beneath him, if you know what I mean. No darkies! My Ideal Person: Absolutely no darkies! Just other white hot American Super Patriots like me.

DavidYeagley's Information:

Gender: Man

Birthdate: January 1, 1952
(55 years old)
Lives in: Lawton, Oklahoma

Height: 5 ft 0 in / 152-153 cm

Body Type: Slim/Petite
Smoking: I'm a non-smoker
Drinking: I don't drink at all

Race: Caucasian
Speaks: English
Education: PhD/Post doctorate

Occupation: American Super Patriot

Religion: Protestant

August 29, 2007

AND AGAIN!!

(Yeagley lack of facts)

It’s not such a big mistake given that the conservative media comprises most of what Yeagley reads or watches “as news.” But it’s still a mistake, and to be clear an error of fact. A blog commentator made a salient point that the mostly "bought" press is not as objective as it once was, and that it is mostly controlled by conservative profiteers (largely Republican).

Rafael — “We still have the illusion of a relatively free press. News is much too vital for freedom to be left to the raw market forces of unregulated capitalism. It used to be considered a public service. As it has become shackled to the accelerating profit motive, it has been morphed into infotainment... Radio and TV are much the same. Now, virtually all our major media outlets are controlled by a handful of multinational corporations... Investigative journalism has suffered the most...

This tirade about ‘liberal media’ is hogwash. Compared to what? The highly government censored wartime and Cold War propaganda media of the 40's, 50's and 60's? Absolutely! That is no standard to have for such a heavy responsibility. Leave it to Beaver, Father Knows Best, and Andy Griffith, et. al., were unreality shows that created a dangerously unhealthy images of how a free people actually live. Those were the days of the Right-Wing media” (8-27-07).
Yes, it appears that Yeagley has been cherry-picking his facts, by only looking at the reports that suit his inclinations. Contrarily, Yeagley then decries foul against the commentator for getting facts wrong when it is Yeagley that actually got them wrong.
Yeagley — “Raph, you don't have the facts. Donahues show was pulled after six months, for poor ratings! ...Or, now are you going to say the Right, the Republicans, the Christians, own MSNBC? So, you're beginning to annoy me now. You are so biased you are wrong on almost everything. With this kind of wrongs facts, I consider you dangerous, in a manner of speaking. I don't have the time nor the inclination to unravel all your skeins for you. The Donahue example will do.

‘MSNBC hoped “Donahue” would provide a liberal counterweight to Fox News Channel's competing "The O'Reilly Factor," but the ratings started poorly and didn't improve.’ This is the CNN news report... Straighten up there, son. Get it together. Consider that a lot of your other skeins are equally as erroneously based. You have a bias, and you just gather material you want, and paste it together with error” (8-27-07).
The actual fact is that, at the moment the Donahue show was canceled, the show was the highest rated show on MSNBC. The media “spin” claimed the show was canceled due to low rating when the opposite was true. Donahue actually went on Hannity & Colmes talking about the cancelation.
"On the October 28 edition of FOX News Channel's Hannity & Colmes, veteran talk show host Phil Donahue remarked on being fired from MSNBC in February 2003. As The New York Times reported at the time, when Donahue's MSNBC show, Donahue, was cancelled, 'he was actually attracting more viewers than any other show on MSNBC'."
So, it appears that Yeagley has simply gotten his facts wrong, and most likely got it wrong by only cherry picking what he watches and reads. It must be difficult to live in an neocon vacuum, especially if they don’t even pay you well for it.
Phil Donahue on his 2003 MSNBC firing: "We had to have two conservatives on for every liberal. I was counted as two liberals."

SEAN HANNITY (co-host): What happened at MSNBC?

DONAHUE: Well, we were the only antiwar voice that had a show, and that, I think, made them very nervous. I mean, from the top down, they were just terrified. We had to have two conservatives on for every liberal. I was counted as two liberals.

HANNITY: You have the force of two liberals.

DONAHUE: I mean, you know, it's a shame, you know? Now, we were replaced by Michael Savage, and now they have Chuck [sic: Joe] Scarborough. And by the way, I wish them all well. A lot of the people who worked for me, incidentally, a wonderful crowd of very young, bright people who worked for me, some of whom have now matriculated to other programs on MSNBC. So I want them to do well, but I certainly wasn't -- it was a very, very unhappy time for me.

HANNITY: You felt mistreated? You felt mistreated?

DONAHUE: Well, we were very -- I was isolated, and we were very alone at the end. And then we had nobody supporting us, and our numbers were very decent. We weren't Elvis, but we were often the best number --

HANNITY: You were the highest-rated show on the network.

DONAHUE: Yes. And we were told to leave.
For more on the "liberal media" myth, go read here:
Albert Einstein — "Under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights"

August 27, 2007

YEAGLEY GETS HIS FACTS WRONG — AGAIN

from the Bad Eagle journal

Yeagley’s so-called “scholarship” or the so-called scholarly “mask” he attempts to brandish, do not entitle him to any specialized skills or knowledge of course. They are simply a facade in which to entice his onlookers. Like slowing by a roadside accident, intelligent folks sometimes slow to gaze at the tragedy, and briefly ponder how such a reality exists.

Yeagley is a tragedy, of course, a man with an obvious need to find fulfillment in himself, to discover a purpose in life, but searching without a good compass. Finding a life purpose by designing a prejudicial blog does not seem logical, pragmatic nor prudent, though it exists nonetheless for Yeagley (in a negative way).

It seems Yeagley has made himself a blogger’s hustle out of cutting down nonwhites and women, though we may never know the reason his misfortune occurred save the well known ‘abusive father/affectionate mother’ syndrome producing in Yeagley some type of malformed judgment capacity.

But speculation aside, let’s look again at some of his recent conclusions and how they stand up to the facts. It seems that Yeagley has not improved at all in his fact gathering abilities, which probably factor into the poor compass he uses to make decisions.

ON THE CONSERVATIVE PRESS

Yeagley — “If you don't think America has free press, then I don't know how to talk to you. If you don't see that liberals dominate it, in all forms of media, then again, I don't know what to say... Mass media is hardly behind Republicans or conservatives or Christians. To say that tells me you are brain-washed Lefty. A ‘useful idiot’ ...But, I confess, I'm naive, and trusting, and generally open minded” (8-26-07).
EXAMINING YEAGLEY’S CLAIM
Examining the "Liberal Media" Claim — The conservative critique of the news media rests on two general propositions: (1) journalists' views are to the left of the public, and (2) journalists frame news content in a way that accentuates these left perspectives... The findings include:
• On select issues from corporate power and trade to Social Security and Medicare to health care and taxes, journalists are actually more conservative than the general public.
• Journalists are mostly centrist in their political orientation.
• The minority of journalists who do not identify with the "center" are more likely to identify with the "right" when it comes to economic issues and to identify with the "left" when it comes to social issues.
• Journalists report that "business-oriented news outlets" and "major daily newspapers" provide the highest quality coverage of economic policy issues, while "broadcast network TV news" and "cable news services" provide the worst.
The 14 news organizations that received more than 10 surveys each were:
1. ABC News /ABC Radio
2. Associated Press /AP Broadcast News
3. Bloomberg News
4. CNN
5. Knight-Ridder Newspapers/Tribune Information Services
6. Los Angeles Times
7. NBC News
8. New York Times
9. Reuters America, Inc.
10. Time
11. USA Today/USA Weekend
12. Wall Street Journal
13. Washington Post
14. Washington Times
BLAME THE VICTIM
Yeagley — “Tillman was killed because he was going to have a meeting with the nothing, Noam Comsky... Tillman was a hot dog, loose cannon and war is a nasty, unpredictable business. Blame the Islamo-Fascists for his death, since it is their fault” (8-26-07).
EXAMINING YEAGLEY’S CLAIM
Army medical examiners concluded Pat Tillman was shot three times in the head from just 10 yards away, no evidence of “friendly fire” damage at scene, Army attorneys congratulated each other on cover-up, Wesley Clark concludes “orders came from the very top” to murder pro-football star because he was about to become an anti-war political icon:

• He was shot three times in the forehead at close range with an American M-16.
• No evidence at all of enemy fire was found at the scene — no one was hit by enemy fire, nor was any government equipment struck.
• “The medical evidence did not match up with the scenario as described,” a doctor who examined Tillman’s body after he was killed on the battlefield in Afghanistan in 2004 told investigators.
• He was shot in the head AFTER he was shot in the chest, legs and hand.
• The doctors — whose names were blacked out — said that the bullet holes were so close together that it appeared the Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away.
• The Pentagon still has his diary that he kept with him in Afghanistan, where he was killed, and they won’t release it to his family.
ON BUSH’S WAR
Yeagley — “His stated plan is to create an exemplary democracy in the Middle East...by demonstrating the superior way of freedom. It is for the world, for history, that he undertook such a plan... I think Bush is mistaken on the globalist ideology...but, it doesn't include Iraq and the management of global Islamic murderism. You have to understand. We're all the small people, the little people” (8-26-07).
EXAMINING YEAGLEY’S CLAIM
Spanish Judge Calls for Architects of Iraq Invasion to Be Tried for War Crimes
One of Spain’s leading judges on war crimes and terrorism-related cases, Baltasar Garzon, ranks the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq among “the most sordid and unjustifiable episodes in recent human history.” The judge criticizes US President George W. Bush and his allies, including British and Spanish Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Jose Maria Aznar, who supported the attack “despite having doubts and biased information.” Garzon’s condemnation of the leaders reflects growing disenchantment worldwide with the Iraq catastrophe. (March 27, 2007)
The Courts Are Starting To Accept That the War against Iraq Is A Crime
A British domestic court has ruled that the damage caused to military planes and equipment by two anti-war protestors was not illegal because the defendants sought “to prevent specific war crimes from being committed” in Iraq, where the planes and munitions would ultimately end up. Furthermore, in a German court an army major has successfully argued that the US and the UK did not legally invade Iraq, therefore he broke no laws in refusing to obey a military order. The author concludes that such decisions set a precedent for the recognition of the Iraq war as an act of aggression, and therefore a war crime – of which the British government should be very wary. (October 17, 2006)
Bush and Saddam Should Both Stand Trial, Says Nuremberg Prosecutor
A prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg, Benjamin Ferenccz, believes US President George W. Bush’s aggressive war in Iraq constitutes a “supreme international crime” capable of prosecution in an international court. Claiming that the atrocities of the Iraq war were “highly predictable," Ferenccz points to the UN Charter, which unequivocally states that no nation can use armed force without UN Security Council permission. He convincingly argues that, due to his invasion of Iraq and the subsequent acts of the US military, Bush should face charges for war crimes along with Saddam Hussein. (August 25, 2006)
NO END IN SIGHT
Chicago Sun-Times — “Remember the scene in ‘A Clockwork Orange’ where Alex has his eyes clamped open and is forced to watch a movie? I imagine a similar experience for the architects of our catastrophe in Iraq. I would like them to see ‘No End in Sight,’ the story of how we were led into that war, and more than 3,000 American lives and hundreds of thousands of other lives were destroyed.

They might find the film of particular interest because they would know so many of the people appearing in it. This is not a documentary filled with anti-war activists or sitting ducks for Michael Moore. Most of the people in the film were important to the Bush administration. They had top government or military jobs, they had responsibility in Iraq or Washington, they implemented policy, they filed reports, they labored faithfully in service of U.S. foreign policy and then they left the government. Some jumped, some were pushed. They all feel disillusioned about the war and the way the White House refused to listen to them about it.

The subjects in this film now feel that American policy in Iraq was flawed from the start, that obvious measures were not taken, that sane advice was disregarded, that lies were told and believed, and that advice from people on the ground was overruled by a cabal of neo-con goofballs who seemed to form a wall around the president.

The president and his inner circle knew, just knew, for example, that Saddam had or would have weapons of mass destruction, that he was in league with al-Qaida and bin Laden, and that in some way, it was all hooked up with Sept. 11. Not all of the advice in the world could penetrate their obsession, and they fired the bearers of bad news.

It is significant, for example, that a Defense Intelligence Agency team received orders to find links between al-Qaida and Hussein. That there were none was ignored. Key adviser Paul Wolfowitz's immediate reaction to Sept. 11 was ‘war on Iraq.’ ...A National Intelligence report commissioned in 2004 advised against the war. Bush, who apparently did not read it, dismissed it as guesswork...

Although Bush and the war continue to sink in the polls, I know from some readers that they still support both. That is their right. And if they are so sure they are right, let more young men and women die or be maimed. I doubt if they will be willing to see this film, which further documents an administration playing its private war games. No, I am distinctly not comparing anyone to Hitler, but I cannot help being reminded of the stories of him in his Berlin bunker, moving nonexistent troops on a map, and issuing orders to dead generals” (Roger Ebert, 8-10-2007).
Watch the Trailer:

August 22, 2007

INDIAN SOIL MAY PROVIDE COMMUNITIES A GOOD FOUNDATION

from the Bad Eagle blog

Some great news, of which I am personally proud. Dane County, Wisconsin, has passed a resolution calling for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney. It is the second county in the U.S. to do so. Why am I proud? As a Stockbridge Mohican from the reservation near Shawano, I was born in Dane County at a hospital in Madison. I am very glad to see that the folks living in Dane County have the backbone to stand up for justice and the Constitution. So, while Yeagley blogs about why he fantasizes about blondes and why being blonde is important to his Comanche identity, I’d rather give you a piece of heartening news from Dane County, place of my birth.

Capital Times — “At the end of a marathon seven-hour session, the Dane County Board early today became the second county government in the nation to endorse the impeachment of President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney... the night began with fanfare and a demonstration in support of the impeachment proposal. Although many cities and other municipalities have endorsed impeachment, Dane is only the second county — behind New York's Tompkins County — to endorse such action.

A group of 60 or more gathered in front of two black coffins bearing the names of Constitution and Democracy — part formal protest, part street theater. ‘A lot of people are saying we ought to let these fellows run out the clock,’ said Midge Miller, whose first presidential protest began five decades ago against Lyndon Johnson. ‘But I say we cannot afford to give them any more time, because we do not know what they will continue to do.’

The protesters, dressed in orange vests and armbands, beat drums and waved signs as County Board members Barbara Vedder, Ashok Kumar and John Hendrick all spoke in favor of the resolution. ‘People have said this is not our business," said Hendrick, "but as board members we swore an oath to defend our Constitution against these kinds of attacks.’ ... Among the reasons given for impeachment were illegal wiretaps, the deception that led up to the Iraq war and the torture of detainees...

Buzz Davis, a veteran from Stoughton who helped organize the event, produced more than 8,000 petition signatures in favor of the impeachment resolution. Joan Schwarz, a Madison resident, Stoughton attorney and lecturer at UW-Whitewater, said for the group: ‘Our last impeachment began at the top. This time there is a need for this action from the bottom up’.” [Ben Hopper, 8-21-07]

August 17, 2007

David Yeagley and Happy Thoughts

from the Bad Eagle blog
Here’s a bit of encouraging news. It’s heart-warming because it speaks volumes to the traditional way of American Indian solidarity and conducting respectful relationships with others, and it shows the movement toward this thinking as a global one. It is also news that Bad Eagle readers can take with a measure of hope: that all the anti-Indian pontificating by Yeagley cannot stop the older more traditional values of indigenous people from continuing onward, and that is a happy thought.

Please go here and sign the Six Nations International Petition, it'll make you feel good too.


Mohawks attend International Congress of Indigenous People in Venezuela — The Indigenous people and President Hugo Chavez brought together 40 Indigenous nations of Venezuela from August 7 to 9, 2007. The Mohawk delegation was made up of two women, Kahentinetha, an elder and Karenhahes, Bear Clan Mother. Here are the words of the Mohawk delegation delivered to the International Congress of Indigenous People “in Defence of the Planet”, outlining a new paradigm for human existence.

“Nia:wen for your invitation to witness this historic event. From our women, we bring greetings to the women of your country.

From the “Rotiyaner” who are the men of our nation, we bring greetings from our men to your men.

From our elders, those who are the grandmothers and grandfathers, we bring our greetings to you who are the grandmothers and grandfathers of this nation.

From the fathers and mothers of our nation we bring greetings to you who are the mothers and fathers to your nation.

From our young people we bring greetings to your young people of this nation.

From the children of our nation we bring greetings to the children of your nation.

From those who still crawl upon the earth and those who are still on the cradle board, we bring greetings to your children who crawl on the earth and those who are on the cradle board.

From those faces of our future who are still beneath the earth, we bring the greetings to those of your people whose faces are yet beneath the earth.

Now that we have said this, we may begin.

We would like to have had a larger delegation here to day. Due to our struggle to preserve our sovereignty we are oppressed and ignored on our own homeland we call Onowarekeh, also known also as “Turtle Island”. The foreign colonial governments of Canada and the United States limit our movements on our own land. They fail to teach their people about our existence, our philosophy, our laws.

Mr. Chavez, thank you for giving our people an opportunity to establish relations between our governments under our philosophy known as the “Kaianereh’ko:wa”, the Great Law of Peace. We are not under the colonial laws. We continue to adhere to our laws and traditions. We continue to ensure a future for our people as the Kanion’ke:haka/Mohawk.

We are the eyes and ears that will witness this event. This is the beginning of a message to other nations to work towards bringing people back together to form an alliance. We wish to develop a sane and healthy way of life that assures that all people are decently cared for.

We need to renew the solemn blood covenants that have bound all Indigenous Peoples of South America and Onowarekeh, our name for Turtle Island, for thousands of years. We are one blood. When one family member is oppressed the other must aid their covenant partners. Everyone is there to uplift each other. No one goes without.

Our perception is that the material world is to be shared and distributed equally. Our ancestors knew that when a hunter went into the woods and brought back a deer, the entire community shared in that bounty. This is common to all Indigenous peoples of the world. Those who have fallen away from these simple concepts and now practice colonialism must be brought back into the human family and saved from themselves.

We present you with a copy of the Great Law, our constitution, in both Mohawk and English, our Confederacy flag, the Unity flag and several books about us that will be of interest to you.

We, the Onkwehonweh [the original people], are the guardians of Onowarekeh. Recently South America was visited by the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada. They both avoided Venezuela because they can’t understand what’s happening here and it frightens them. These are emotionally disturbed people. They don’t know how to exist on a level of equality with their fellow human beings.

They do not represent us or even the people of their countries. They follow habits of thought that have been proven to be ineffective and destructive to the continuation of human life on earth. They represent foreigners who have usurped our resources and deny us any rights to our ancestral heritage.

Our words as the true representatives are binding on Turtle Island. We have always been here. We belong to the land on which we were formed. Mr. Chavez is here with the true owners of the lands of Onowarekeh and South America. What we say between us is binding.

Under natural law and international law everyone has a right to our own government, nationality and land.

As elders of our nation, we are dedicated to work in the best interests of our people. Each of us has power in our lives. We have a duty to spread the Kaianerehkowa throughout the world. The white roots from the Tree of Peace go in the four directions. Those who wish to find shelter may trace its roots to the source. My nation and Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy are in need of this alliance at this time.

Mr. Chavez holds the same political positions as the Mohawk Nation. We are here to help fan the flames so that the fire grows larger to make a place for all humans to share its warmth and benefits.

No one needs anyone’s permission to promote alliances, unification of our peoples and to spread the peace as prescribed in the Kaianereh’ko:wa. We refuse to live under a dictatorship.

An opportunity came to us to come here. We seized it. Last September some of our people went to New York City, which is on Iroquois land, to hear Mr. Chavez speak. He was inspiring. They told us that they agreed with every word he said.

Our message of peace came to us from our ancestors, Dekanawida and Jigosaseh. They told our people to bring everyone into a covenant of peace, to link arms with all the other peoples of the world. We are continuing the work of our ancestors to bring the message of peace to you today.

South America has the same colonial past as Onowarekeh, Turtle Island. We have occupied our territories since time immemorial. This land is who we are. It is our identity. Mr. Chavez is one of us. His roots go deep into the soil, the jungles, the mountains and fields of Venezuela. From the earth he gets sustenance, vitality and ability to help his people. The people feel safe. His first instinct is to protect the Indigenous people and the visitors who are here.

Venezuela is a beautiful wealthy part of the world. Your resources are now being skillfully used to enhance the best interests of the land and the people who live upon it. You are tapping into the wellspring of ancestral memories that are hidden in the minds of every person living here.

Now all other Indigenous people are seeing that it is possible to take our lives under our own control, not be dominated by foreign forces and to do good.

We feel secure with the Venezuelans. You are competent and sure of who you are. Initially the multinational corporations felt intimidated by the turn of events. They are finding they can work with the original people in the best interests of all. Everyone is benefiting. The only way to achieve harmony and prosperity among us is to bring all our talents and innate abilities together.

Mr. Chavez has found a way to bring this out in all of his people. He represents the forces of a people who are on the move. He has offered a new paradigm. He is showing Indigenous peoples and others that we can take over our own lives and run our own affairs. We can do it so that no one feels intimidated or threatened. It is becoming the natural way to do things.

Dekanawaida and Jigosaseh, the man and woman who helped develop the Great Law of Peace, understood this. They realized that the strength of the Confederation was based on no nation dominating the others. Each, no matter how large or small, had a right to exist and remain who they are.

There was no stifling of the innate abilities of the Onondagas, Senecas, Oneidas, Cayugas, Mohawks or Tuscaroras. Larger nations did not overpower the smaller ones. We were equal. Diverse peoples were brought together to work in harmony for the benefit of everyone. No one could assert themselves over others.

This is the reason why the indigenous government in Venezuela is successful. Mr. Chavez has tapped into the same knowledge that exists in all Indigenous people. The renaissance in Venezuela is going to spread all over the world.

People always feel threatened by a new paradigm. We can expect many attacks from the colonial powers. We do not use guns but they point theirs at us. They don’t know what else to do. The young, the poor and even the middle class in the colonized countries are all suffering from the same insecurity and dislocation that has been imposed on us. They will join us once they understand.

If everyone doesn’t relearn how to look after the earth and each other, there will be nothing left for anyone to eat; no clean water to drink; and no clean air to breathe. The colonial commercial exploitation of the environment has been taken to such extremes that human life itself is in peril. We can work together to clean up the mess we have created as human beings and make the earth healthy again.

The greedy grasping power hungry people who are trying to gain control over all of humanity have lost touch with reality. Just when they think that they have achieved their goal of absolute control and domination, the pyramid of delusion will collapse beneath their feet. Life itself will be gone.

Nobody wants to suffer the consequences of a collapse of this order. Venezuela has a model that is working. People are free and work together to develop everyone to their full potential in whatever area of life they have chosen.

When somebody wants to go from one place to another through forests, jungles, swamps, deserts or mountains, somebody always goes ahead and cuts the trail. The others follow the steps of those who went ahead. They all get to their destination safely. It takes a courageous visionary to see far ahead the dangers that are prowling around. Hugo Chavez is a trailblazer in the realm of the world’s progressives. He helps whole groups of people move forward together. He is setting in motion an act that others will follow.

We have a chance to see how this model is working to its fullest potential so that the good life and good health is shared by all equally. We feel gratified and honored that we are taking part in the dedication of the land to the original people. We need more people like Hugo Chavez all over the world. We hope for the continued good health of Mr. Chavez, who cares to lead in troubled times. Artificial ways will dissolve themselves because they are not real. Humanity must go back to the natural relationships. We salute you, Venezuela, for showing the world how your humanitarian goals are being achieved and are inspiring others to achieve”.

August 16, 2007

David Yeagley Hates Black People?!

from the Bad Eagle journal

For those who are new to David Yeagley’s antics, this may sound radical on its face, but for those who have stomached longer exposure it seems David Yeagley “hates black people.” Yes, where have we heard this before? Yeagley denies the existence of his own racism though. If only for show, or whether he really believes the tripe, it seems Yeagley is in denial over the facts on the ground regarding his own behavior.

Yeagley — “The darkness of the Negro has always repulsed other races” (2002).

Yeagley — “There is a tremendous drive in many white women to experiment with the darkies” (2002).

Yeagley — “The sexual aggression of the Negro, particularly when surrounded by those not of his race, is well known” (2004).
Yeagley’s brand of racial stereotyping and criticism does not end with blacks however. His “rants” are routinely aimed at American Indians, Arabs, Mexicans, Muslims, non-Christians and any other perceived “threat” to his vision of sanctified white purity. Does he actually believe his own blog? We may never know, but this is true: because he denies the existence of racism for himself, he also denies its existence for others.
Yeagley — “Judeo-Christian religion allowed the European Caucasian race to advance above all other people.The darker races now encroach through integration and intermarriage” (2002).

Yeagley — “I'm beginning to think there's no such thing as racism. If there is, it is very rare” (2005)

Yeagley — “What does ‘n_gg_r’ mean? What does it refer to? When everyone says how marvellously offensive it is, no one says why... I just think it is neurotic and preposterous to make the sky fall because somebody says ‘n_gg_r,’ ...It is ludicrous, in fact” (2006).

Yeagley — “The same people who want to remove the word ‘n_gg_r’ want to remove ‘Christmas,’ and ‘God.’” (2006).
Because Yeagley apparently operates under the delusion that racism is nonexistent, when it does rear its ugly face Yeagley has no vocabulary to cope with that reality. Instead, Yeagley resorts to quoting the bible, name calling, rhetorical labels and other “word games” to undercut or eliminate the criticism, instead of working to eliminate the racism. Yeagley attacks the messenger as "anti-white," "immoral" and "heathen" rather than looking for real life solutions to the larger complexities.

To illustrate his bias, consider Yeagley's views of indigenous people from other hemispheres sharing in a north American Indian powwow. Powwows are events of sharing and respect, anyone is welcome Indian or not. There are no rules or laws of exclusivity at powwows, none. Powwows have always been open and inclusive to anyone wishing to participate. Yet, we see Yeagley with the below observations and opinions:

Yeagley — “It was also an un-Indian thing to see as “Aztec” figure in the Grand Entry... He had on a huge feather crown that was taller than any other. I turned to a couple of Comanche friends and said, “Who’s the Mexican chicken?” They looked at me oddly. “You mean the Aztec?” I nodded, “the Mexican chicken.” I suppose next we’ll see the Negroes from New Orleans in their Mardi Gras ostrich feathers” (2007).

Yeagley — “in my opinion, Aztec attire is wholly out of place at an American Indian pow-wow” (2007).
Where most people would recognize this failure to see a larger picture, such as friendships and inclusiveness with others who may be different from ourselves, Yeagley appears to force his own internalized vision onto the rest of the world around himself in a proscribed way. What Yeagley “sees” he thinks everyone must see, “how could it be otherwise?” he argues.

But herein lies the rub, Yeagley is — at the heart of his contentions — asking you or me to take his word for it; trust him. Yeagley is a “doctor” after all. For Yeagley, reality is not what exists by way of collective understanding; no, that would be too “socialistic” a way to look at life — too “commie.” No, for Yeagley what really exists appears to be in his own mind exclusively, and merely projected out onto everything else, and everyone else.

If Yeagley “knows” it, or “sees” it, it must be real, not just for himself but for all of us. Therefore, using Yeagley’s illogic, if racism appears rare or does not exist at all in the mind’s-eye of “doctor” David Yeagley, how could it possibly exist for others like me or you?, Yeagley reasons. Like a big blanket of fixed comfort, Yeagley seems to throw his own vision over cosmopolitan benevolence in an attempt to categorize, criticize and rationalize it away. Rather than accept the reality, Yeagley apparently prefers to live with an internalized daydream, snuggling into a safe unchanging world, where words have fixed meaning and every race knows their place.

It’s one thing to read and understand Yeagley’s own dilemma and recognize his projecting it onto everyone else, but it’s quite another thing to snuggle up with him in his blankie. Such is the case for his affectionate blog commentators, who regularly crawl in with him and seek the comforts of an unchanging stasis and receive encouragement for their own perceived suffering. You know the story if you’ve been to his blog, “if there’s no racism what are all the commies complaining about?” and other such observations based not in reality but nestled in the cozy folds of projected comfort.

What others should perhaps consider, is that Yeagley’s racism may be something more institutionalized and subversive than one might observe at first glance. It could be that Yeagley himself is unaware of this possibility, a factor I would consider “likely” in Yeagley’s case. But for everyone else who are not Yeagley and not huddled into the folds, it may help to be aware of a kind of racism that is not so easily discovered, one that remains rather persistent yet illusive.

From The Washington Post, a test was conducted on bias with doctors treating black patients versus non-black patients, and the results were revealing. It appears that the doctors saw themselves as unbiased, but their actions were measured as discriminatory nonetheless. It is a test case of measuring factual bias regardless of the anti-bias claims being declared. Personally, I see this study as pertinent to any reading of Yeagley’s racist and misogynist blog.

Long before word recently broke that white referees in the National Basketball Association were calling fouls at a higher rate on black athletes than on white athletes, and long before studies found racial disparities in how black and white applicants get called for job interviews, researchers noted differences in the most troubling domain of all — disparities in survival and health among people belonging to different racial groups.

Black babies, according to the federal government's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, have higher death rates than white babies. Black women are more than twice as likely as white women to die of cervical cancer. And in 2000, the death rate from heart disease was 29 percent higher among African Americans than among white adults, and the death rate from stroke was 40 percent higher.

The trouble with all these numbers, as with the NBA study — which was conducted by researchers Justin Wolfers and Joseph Price — is that they do not explain why such differences exist among racial groups.

Some studies have shown, similar to the NBA analysis, that diagnoses and treatments offered by physicians vary between racial groups, for diseases as dissimilar as heart disease and schizophrenia. But does this reflect physician bias, or the possibility that patients from different backgrounds present themselves differently? Could race be a marker for some other variable that really matters, such as health insurance status?

A new study by researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital and other institutions affiliated with Harvard University provides empirical evidence for the first time that when it comes to heart disease, bias is the central problem - bias so deeply internalized that people are sincerely unaware that they hold it.

Physicians who were more racially biased were less likely to prescribe aggressive heart-attack treatment for black patients than for whites. The study was recently published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine.

The research finding cannot be automatically extrapolated to the NBA or other domains, but it does suggest a mechanism by which disparities emerge. No conscious bias was apparently present - there was no connection between the explicit racial views of physicians and disparities in their diagnoses. It was only when researchers studied physicians' implicit attitudes — by measuring how quickly they made positive or negative mental associations with blacks and whites — that they found a mechanism to explain differences in medical judgment....

Mahzarin Banaji, a co-author and Harvard psychologist who helped develop the Implicit Association Test used in this study, said the racial bias unearthed by the study is at odds with conventional views of bigotry - and perhaps more insidious. Rather than harboring deliberate ill will, she said, the physicians had apparently internalized racial stereotypes, and these attitudes subtly influenced their medical judgment without their even realizing it.

The study of physicians had one hopeful note, Banaji said: Doctors at least were willing to open their subconscious minds for inspection, which is something that many other professionals — judges, police officers and NBA referees — rarely are willing to do” (Shankar Vedantam, 8-13-07).
I doubt that Yeagley would ever open his mind for a similar review, but it is significant that the material results of discrimination, the bias resulting in inequitable rights, the lingering racism, is not only measurable but is obviously still around. As I can hear my friends at this moment, “We didn’t need a study to tell us that.” And anyone with an ounce of empathy and compassion, and two good eyes, would agree.

To those of us clearly on the outside, Yeagley’s blog is quickly repugnant, especially to those who possess an ample measure of the quality called empathy. For the mini-Yeagleys though, the flock, the recent study of internalized bias should be enough to question Yeagley’s ill-conceived motives and halfhearted observations a bit more thoroughly. No matter what Yeagley says about his own lack of racism, to simply curl up with him in his comforting blanket is not an answer.

August 14, 2007

“AS THE SERMONIZER TURNS”

Part II

Looks like the old doctorate of piano playing is having a difficult time getting his readers to understand his superior intelligence. Yeagley so hates to have to explain and further expound on that which should be so obvious to all — his painfully obvious "superiority" ... and white superiority to boot.

Yes, Yeagley does his usual dance of “attack-advice” delivering putdowns and so-called “word game” attacks under the ruse of doling out “advice.” Yeagley is mundanely predictable and may not be worth the read; however, his overreacted responses to the more rationale commentators (below) is an interesting look at the rigidity of the flat-earthers like Yeagley.

I wish to also point out (yet again) that Yeagley earned a D.M.A. (Doctor of Musical Arts) in piano performance, and his written thesis was a paper on a piano piece he liked. Literally, Yeagley is a “doctor” of playing the piano, and should be understood accordingly.

Piano Doctor — “Be that as it may, the Darwin theory of evolution is so utterly unscientific and disproved at this point it is mentioned only as an example of the bias and prejudice of science as an enterprise” (8-12-07).

Ray
— “Then, pray tell, why can't you get yourself to relinquish your adoration for the social aspects of Darwinian theory. Time and time again, you do just what the nineteenth century evolutionists did, and classify human cultures and races on a grading scale from ‘lowest civilized’ to ‘highest civilized,’ according to Western European/pseudo Christian standards. You fit right in with the racialists/evolutionists of the late-ninteenth/early twentieth century sciences... Perhaps it's a case of good old fashioned cognitive dissonance, no?” (8-12-07).


Piano Doctor
— “’Fittest,’ among men, means weapons as well as numbers. Technology. Animals don't develope this, really. I don't believe in grand, macro evolution, but only micro... Are we pressed to say that superiority is a matter of technology? ...Do you concede any kind of superiority at all?” (8-12-07).


Rafael
— “Superiority? What sort of inferiority complex is tormenting you, Dr. Yeagley? ...By your own dogma, different races are only able to interbreed - by the intelligent design of a ‘superior’ being! ...You have a dangerously inadequate understanding of science. ID could not even present any evidence to hold up in a courtroom, read the transcript! Scientific theories only give way when more effective ones are presented - with evidence. They must demonstrate more effective and efficient methods of investigation resulting in consistently more accurate predictions which can be verified independently... ID has never proven, nor predicted anything. It only proposes that we abandon the pursuit of scientific knowledge before it can further humiliate religious leaders. To discard science simply because it has not yet answered every question in barely a century of research, demonstrates the abysmal ignorance and childish impetuosity of prima donna celebrities incapable of dealing with the inconvenience and complexity in life...” (8-12-07).


Piano Doctor
— “...No responses could have been more impertinent... Rafael, I will not grant you the term ‘science’ as a blanket term. Too much of it simply isn't science. In turn, you should not render ‘religion’ as a catch-all for anything that isn't ‘science.’ Science has no canon, by your own admission of it's ever changing venues and conclusions. Religion is supposed to have a canon, but many Christians don't buy that, either. No, this was the farthest thing I've ever said from evangelical Christianity...” (8-12-07).


Tom
— “This column is another Sunday sermon, an attempt at proselytizing disguised as intellectual discourse. It's trying to market belief in Christianity in less than biased-sounding terms... The use of a quasi-intellectual discussion of Darwinism is a smoke screen to preach anti-intellectualism and Creationism. If this is an Indian blog, then this is a sermon directed toward Indians. And if this is directed toward Indians then we are being told to drop our pagan religions and become Christians. It's as though we were missionary or boarding school Indians who needed to be ‘saved’...” (8-12-07).


Piano Doctor
— “Tom, I'm not bound by Comanche believes [sic!]. Originally, there weren't any. No sun, no mother earth, no ‘spirituality.’ ...Religion has nothing to do with being Comanche... That's what I feel, anyway... A person can believe whatever he wants. Your Indian religion makes you Indian? That's kind of a new one, coming from a modernized man, isn't it? The religion makes the man? The man is the culture? Sounds bloodless to me. Anyone can be Indian. Any race...” (8-12-07).


Rafael
— “And neither will I grant you the authority to redefine the common meaning of words for your own rhetorical sophistry, Dr. Yeagley. Science does indeed use a canon of specific method, which the proponents of ID have shown they are utterly incapable of employing:
Science...only shares the best understanding of what truth it discovers with the common people, arrived at by the most informed minds using the most accurate tools. There is nothing so ridiculously pompous and solipsistic as claiming possession of an ‘ultimate truth’ that is incapable of change. It has proven very effective in amassing great worldly empires by religious leaders bilking sweet old ladies though...” (8-13-07).

Piano Doctor
— “Here is an extract from Darwini's autobiographical work, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin... ‘The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble to us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic.’ Sounds like ‘evolution’ takes faith, too. After all, none of us were there to witness the beginning. And it is the nature of a created being that he cannot witness his own creation. We're forever dependent on the word of others for our own identity!” (8-13-07).


Tom
— “You wrote: ‘Religion has nothing to do with being Comanche. Other tribes, yes. But not the old way of the Comanche. That's what I feel, anyway.’ I thought I'd check the veracity of your statement by using the search engine method of truth verification you described in your August 10, 2007 posting (‘Over a million entries on "Canadian+Mohawk" on Yahoo.’). Sorry, but I used Google:
‘Godless + comanches’ returned 899 web pages I wasn't sure if this proved or disproved anything so I tried: ‘Canadian + comanches’ which returned 1,450,000 hits. Then, just for fun I tried: ‘Conservative + christian + white + mexican + christian + comanche + oklahoma city’ and I got 18,100 pages! But guess who's name appeared in the top three spots? So if I added ‘gay’... :)” (8-13-07).

Piano Doctor
— “Tom, it is my contention that what made the Comanche absolutely unique was the absense of organized thought or religion... If we did live in the southern Rockies for untold amount of time, when we came out, we were stripped of all superfluity. This was man, naked, in the world. A tabula rasa. A reversion, a recovery of pure human experience and nature. No frills, only thrills. Now, can I suggest some other ‘search’ words? I don't think you're going to find anything under Comanche religion. Our secrets are implied in our language. I'm learning more about this. It tends to confirm my intuitions in this matter...” (8-13-07).


Tom — “You wrote: ‘...(I)t is my contention that what made the Comanche absolutely unique was the absense(sic) of organized thought or religion, or any abstraction that was outside the most pragmatic, most practical use in daily living.’ ...and this is based on... ‘When we first were noticed by others, anyway, we apparently had no visible religion or politics among us.’
There' s a story from the Pima. One day the white man rode up to an Indian and said, ‘Hi, what do you people call yourselves?’ The puzzled Indian, who had no idea what they were saying, said, ‘Pimache?’, which translates as ‘I don't know.’ From that day, the white man called these Indians the Pima. Relying on anecdotal observations from people who can't communicate with people they observe equals little to nothing. ‘If we did live in the southern Rockies for untold amount of time, when we came out, we were stripped of all superfluity. This was man, naked, in the world. A tabula rasa. A reversion, a recovery of pure human experience and nature. No frills, only thrills.’ Ah, it's just so Shangri-la, romantic and Adam and Eve-like! And this is based on... ‘Our secrets are implied in our language. I'm learning more about this. It tends to confirm my intuitions in this matter...’ Fluent in Comanche are we? That's great! But if not, well, that's ‘the absense [sic!] of organized thought.’ But I guess that would make you a traditionalist, as well” (8-13-07).

Piano Doctor
— “...All humans came from Lucy, and all apes came from the same kind of strain of bipod hominids. This is all rather foolish imagination, some vicarious identification with animals. It think it is some kind of escape-ism... Evolution thought is a manifestation of Freudian psychological theory, really... But, I'm no scientist. I'm a mythicist! I see things in allegory, symbol, archetype, myth, intuition. My intuition doesn't lead me to the apes, however” (8-13-07).


Rafael
— “’But, I'm no scientist. I'm a mythicist! I see things in allegory, symbol, archetype, myth, intuition. My intuition doesn't lead me to the apes, however.’ proclaims Dr. Yeagley. -- Aye, there's the rub! What unmitigated hubris to presume that YOUR intuition is ‘superior’ to the proven conclusions of the most qualified minds using factual evidence. Lucy lived before racial differentiation emerged in the species. Can you still admit to accepting even micro-evolution now? It is the content of your very own mitochondrial DNA, living inside you right now, that binds you to a common ancestral ‘negress,’ as you would put it. However distasteful that may be to your intuition, it is irrefutable. It is based on proven principles of medical microbiology, not fossil records.
Perhaps you could enlighten the rest of us by explaining the ‘superior intelligence’ of placing hind legs in whales and finger bones in dolphins. Darwin was hardly the flawless patriarch writing in stone that creationists require. The basic principles he proposed have merely been repeatedly confirmed by branches of science which did not even exist in his day. Isaac Newton devoted far more time and effort pursuing alchemy than mathematics and physics. Should we demonize him as well? When irregularities were found in the orbits of the outer planets, it did not ‘prove’ that the biblical geocentric universe was superior... Evolution is merely the mechanism which best describes the evidence. Creationists have failed to propose any mechanism other than magic and are perpetrating mass child abuse in our education system” (8-13-07).

Piano Doctor
— “Raph, very little in ‘science’ is irrefutable. Honest scientists always confess that their work is theory. There are basically two kinds of science: 1) temporal 2) laboratory
1) That which involved historical reconstruction, that which involves imaginary recreation of events, through analogy and projection. The past cannot be replayed, ever. This would be cosmology, astronomy, paleontology, anthropology, geology, etc. 2) that which can be tested by experiment. Chemistry, physics, mathematics, etc. True, scientists try to combine the laws of No.2 and apply them to No.1, but, this is still theory. You certainly can't assume all laws proven today were operative from all time before. Evolution itself shows that. There have been no observable changes of life forms (kinds) since humanity has consciously observed anything at all. There have been but variations within species. This is all that has been observed. The rest is pure fantasy. Or, are you somehow able to witness the eons passed in some trance?” (8-13-07).

Rafael — “My apologies, Dr. Yeagley, for assuming you were a serious, sincere person. Your abominable understanding of even the basics of science is really unforgivable for someone of your alleged education. What possible background or experience do you claim in any science, with " ", or without " "? ...There is a fundamental, qualitative difference in the definition of the specific term ‘scientific theory,’ used in the formal practice of the profession, and the common misuse of the word ‘theory,’ in popular culture to impart the illusion of substance to what is otherwise nothing more than fantastical, unsubstantiated conjecture. Hypothesis is a more appropriate term, since it only based on a rudimentary observation and has yet to be tested and confirmed by consistent results.
Blurring the two only serves to poison the public debate. There is indeed a time machine, Dr. Yeagley. Every time you look up at the sky, you are seeing the past. The fundamental laws of physics still apply in the most remote recesses of space and time, so far detected. Physical materials do indeed contain footprints that betray where and when they have been and we can indeed measure it as remote witnesses. It does not require your personal comprehension or consent for carbon atoms to divulge their dating secrets. You neglected the most important kind of science -- applied science. Principles confirmed by repeated results in the laboratory are repeatedly thrown against the real world under all possible conditions and still keep on ticking. It is true that any scientific principle may be refuted, but only through a more rigorous application of science... You should sharpen you powers of observation” (8-13-07).

Piano Doctor
— “Very little subtance in your remarks, Raf. Very little. I'm still looking for something. Blank refutations are not sufficient. They impress ignorant people, so, maybe you should go on some lower level discussion board... You play word games. I think you appear dishonest, and fake about it... All bravura. I gave very specific philosophical challenges, to which you responded with ablsolutely nothing. Did you not comprehend what I said? You cannot replay the past. You're understanding (and everyone else's) of the past is based on analogy and projection. You cannot demonstrate one second of the past in the laboratory. If you cannot understand this, it is useless to try and reason with you. You are sophomoric about science. Certainly not an open minded scientists. (Is there really any other kind--worthy of the name?)” (8-13-07).


Rafael
— All you offer is your personal fantasy and illusions. How do you expect to find agreement on that? If the past cannot be recreated in its entirety, then any other means of accessing it are meaningless? How ignorant is that? You have thrown down the gauntlet for christians: either accept Genesis completely, or not at all. You are either with us, or against us. Gee, where have I heard one that before? Do you suppose there might have been a good reason for abandoning the doctrine of Papal infallibility? It amuses me that you can't see that you have so much in common with the radical Islamists produced by the madrassas. Blind faith, taught through fear of eternal damnation for challenging the veracity of proclamations which cannot be verified until after death...” (8-14-07).


Piano Doctor — “Raph, your abjectly sophmoric. You're throwing words around aimlessly. I can only assume you have no formal knowledge of logic or philosophy. I don't know how to talk with you. You rely only on insult for validation... This is the quintessence of presumption and aggression, and is quite silly when one considers the circumstance of each individual mind. You are too blind to admit that you depend, desperately, on someone else's word... your braggadocio about the absurd is rather self-idolizing, don't you think? We're not arguing about existence. That's your sophomoric contention. If you'd think about what I'm saying, you'd see that we're arguing about methodology in theoretical reconstructions of the past... Science is simply another tale of origins. Objectively speaking, it cannot be otherwise classified. It may think itself outside former classifications, but, that is only arrogance. All that man does is what man does. It's never anything else” (8-14-07).

Tom — “You wrote: ‘Tom, what exactly are you looking for...’ I'm looking for the Indian in this supposed Indian web site. It's simply not enough to claim one's site is ‘Indian’. Being some blood percentage doesn't make one's words Indian. And since you're playing this Indian card on a global stage you owe it to Indians to consistently present recognizable Indian ideology. This particular piece highlights Darwin, creationism and Genesis. While this may be a heady combination at the Young America's Foundation picnic, it doesn't amount to a hill of beans at a pow wow or even an Indian Methodist church. Have you ever wondered why those invitations to speak at Indian functions aren't on your answering machine? Better luck with future columns...” (8-14-07).

Rafael — “We all depend desperately on the words of others, Dr. Yag. Only imbeciles accept lies, once they are known to be lies though. Logic is indeed man-made and the most reliable truth detector in existence. It is far more important than knowing whether or not a god exists. People will often refuse to answer questions when they fear they may be caught in a lie. Are there factual errors in the bible, Dr. Yag??” (8-14-07).
As the Sermonizer Turns ... Will Dr. Yag accept “the bait” and actually cite a “biblical error” for Rafael? If the piano doctor does it, will he get slammed as a hypocrite? If he does not do it, will Rafael point out an irrefutable error? (i.e., the Bible is probably riddled with them, as the book is the byproduct of fallible beings, etc.) Stay tuned as the Sermonizer Soap Opera turns ... ugly and laughable.

August 13, 2007

More from David Yeagley, The Sermonizer

from the Bad Eagle blog

Who’s your favorite white supremacist pulpitarian? Why, David Yeagley is?! Who else can rely on evolution for his OWN lineage claims (the congenital result of supposed kinship to Águila Negativa in a line of natural selection), and in the same breath totally denounce that which lies at the foundation of his grandiose persona? Few can both seemingly spew and suck simultaneously like David Yeagley, the sermonizer, returning this time with a little ditty about ‘how creationism is better than Comanche evolution’ at explaining where he comes from.


He may be right in one sense, Creationism might better explain where Yeagley originates, but I’ve no doubt most Comanche people would rather cite their own kinship ties as a more plausible explanation of their own roots. Spouting the latest distraction from failed neocon politics (talk about anything other than Rove’s subpoena-induced resignation), Yeagley has chosen to rant on something considered a long-standing burr under the fundamentalist’s saddle: creationism’s attempt to undermine genuine science.

David Yeagley — “In the sociological context of the world in which Darwin lived, it is abundantly clear that that book's primary purpose was to justify the white European Christian dominance in the world. Never before had any ‘species’ of humanity accomplished so much... In a way, Darwin's Origin of Species declared that the white race was simply the ‘fittest,’ and therefore rose to the top, and ‘survived’ most effectively... Be that as it may, the Darwin theory of evolution is so untterly unscientific and disproven at this point it is mentioned only as an example of the bias and prejudice of science as an enterprise” (8-12-07).
First, Darwin’s Origin says nothing about whites being superior, absolutely nothing; on this major point Yeagley is falsely attributing his own white supremacy mindset — incorrectly — to Charles Darwin. Secondly, Darwin’s theory was not about the pop world’s fascination with the phrase “the survival of the fittest.” The science of evolution has never been disproved, and has withstood every challenge time and time again.

Yeagley is simply trying to use Darwin to instigate his own brand of bigotry and white supremacy.


Well, for those who wish to take a closer look at Charles Darwin and see what his discovery was all about, here are some beginning explanations and links. Though Yeagley would have you believe you are not a product of evolution, I think it’s fairly safe to conclude with a high degree of certainty, that Yeagley’s claim only applies to himself. Perhaps, someday, he may evolve too; we can only hope.

What is evolution?
Biological evolution refers to the cumulative changes that occur in a population over time. These changes are produced at the genetic level as organisms' genes mutate and/or recombine in different ways during reproduction and are passed on to future generations. Sometimes, individuals inherit new characteristics that give them a survival and reproductive advantage in their local environments; these characteristics tend to increase in frequency in the population, while those that are disadvantageous decrease in frequency. This process of differential survival and reproduction is known as natural selection. Non-genetic changes that occur during an organism's life span, such as increases in muscle mass due to exercise and diet, cannot be passed on to the next generation and are not examples of evolution.
Isn't evolution just a theory that remains unproven?
In science, a theory is a rigorously tested statement of general principles that explains observable and recorded aspects of the world. A scientific theory therefore describes a higher level of understanding that ties "facts" together. A scientific theory stands until proven wrong -- it is never proven correct. The Darwinian theory of evolution has withstood the test of time and thousands of scientific experiments; nothing has disproved it since Darwin first proposed it more than 150 years ago. Indeed, many scientific advances, in a range of scientific disciplines including physics, geology, chemistry, and molecular biology, have supported, refined, and expanded evolutionary theory far beyond anything Darwin could have imagined.
Are all species related?
Yes. Just as the tree of life illustrates, all organisms, both living and extinct, are related. Every branch of the tree represents a species, and every fork separating one species from another represents the common ancestor shared by these species. While the tree's countless forks and far-reaching branches clearly show that relatedness among species varies greatly, it is also easy to see that every pair of species share a common ancestor from some point in evolutionary history.

For example, scientists estimate that the common ancestor shared by humans and chimpanzees lived some 5 to 8 million years ago. Humans and bacteria obviously share a much more distant common ancestor, but our relationship to these single-celled organisms is no less real. Indeed, DNA analyses show that although humans share far more genetic material with our fellow primates than we do with single-celled organisms, we still have more than 200 genes in common with bacteria.


It is important to realize that describing organisms as relatives does not mean that one of those organisms is an ancestor of the other, or, for that matter, that any living species is the ancestor of any other living species. A person may be related to blood relatives, such as cousins, aunts, and uncles, because she shares with them one or more common ancestors, such as a grandparent, or great-grandparent. But those cousins, aunts, and uncles are not her ancestors. In the same way, humans and other living primates are related, but none of these living relatives is a human ancestor.
Is evolution a random process?
Evolution is not a random process. The genetic variation on which natural selection acts may occur randomly, but natural selection itself is not random at all. The survival and reproductive success of an individual is directly related to the ways its inherited traits function in the context of its local environment. Whether or not an individual survives and reproduces depends on whether it has genes that produce traits that are well adapted to its environment.
Are evolution and "survival of the fittest" the same thing?
Evolution and "survival of the fittest" are not the same thing. Evolution refers to the cumulative changes in a population or species through time. "Survival of the fittest" is a popular term that refers to the process of natural selection, a mechanism that drives evolutionary change. Natural selection works by giving individuals who are better adapted to a given set of environmental conditions an advantage over those that are not as well adapted. Survival of the fittest usually makes one think of the biggest, strongest, or smartest individuals being the winners, but in a biological sense, evolutionary fitness refers to the ability to survive and reproduce in a particular environment. Popular interpretations of "survival of the fittest" typically ignore the importance of both reproduction and cooperation. To survive but not pass on one's genes to the next generation is to be biologically unfit. And many organisms are the "fittest" because they cooperate with other organisms, rather than competing with them.
How does natural selection work?
In the process of natural selection, individuals in a population who are well-adapted to a particular set of environmental conditions have an advantage over those who are not so well adapted. The advantage comes in the form of survival and reproductive success. For example, those individuals who are better able to find and use a food resource will, on average, live longer and produce more offspring than those who are less successful at finding food. Inherited traits that increase individuals' fitness are then passed to their offspring, thus giving the offspring the same advantages.
How do organisms evolve?
Individual organisms don't evolve. Populations evolve. Because individuals in a population vary, some in the population are better able to survive and reproduce given a particular set of environmental conditions. These individuals generally survive and produce more offspring, thus passing their advantageous traits on to the next generation. Over time, the population changes.
Does evolution prove there is no God?
No. Many people, from evolutionary biologists to important religious figures like Pope John Paul II, contend that the time-tested theory of evolution does not refute the presence of God. They acknowledge that evolution is the description of a process that governs the development of life on Earth. Like other scientific theories, including Copernican theory, atomic theory, and the germ theory of disease, evolution deals only with objects, events, and processes in the material world. Science has nothing to say one way or the other about the existence of God or about people's spiritual beliefs.
Recommended Book
Evolution happened, and the theory describing it is one of the most well founded in all of science. Then why do half of all Americans reject it? There are religious reasons, such as the fear of atheism and the perceived loss of ultimate meaning; there are psychological reasons, such as the ego-deflating realization that we are mere animals; and there are political reasons, such as the equation of evolution with moral relativism on the right, and the connection of evolution to eugenics and social Darwinism on the left.

In Why Darwin Matters, historian of science and bestselling author Michael Shermer diffuses these fears by examining what evolution really is, how we know it happened, and how to test it. Shermer then discusses what science is through a brief history of the evolution-creation controversy from the Scopes “Monkey” trial of 1925, through the U.S. Supreme Court case of 1987, to the ongoing trials today, demonstrating clearly how and why creationism and Intelligent Design theory are not science.

Dr. Shermer also builds a powerful case for evolution as the scientific theory that most closely parallels the Christian model of human nature and the conservative model of free market economics.
The most common reason people give for why they believe in God is the good design of the world and the life in it. The question is: who or what is the designer?

Why Darwin Matters examines the difference between supernatural design (creationism) v. natural design (evolution) and how evolution can explain complex design.
Dr. Shermer was once an evangelical Christian and a creationist, and is now one of the best-known public intellectuals defending evolutionary theory, so Why Darwin Matters provides readers with an insiders’ guide to the evolution-creation debate, in which he shows why creationism and Intelligent Design are not only bad science, they are bad theology, and why science should be embraced by people of all beliefs.