I suppose it was the third reason that modern science is completely wrong that captured my attention. Conservative Andy Schlafly was attacking Einstein's Theory of General Relativity as "heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world." It's a left wing plot. And I missed the memo.

The reference for the third reason was a two parter. "In a complicated or contrived series of calculations that most physics majors cannot duplicate even after learning them ..." The mathematics is so darned complicated as to be suspect. We've all encountered that sort of thing before. If a politician, or salesman, or corporate executive cannot explain something without a lot of gobbledygook, we start grabbing our wallets and looking for the fine print. If Einstein was really onto something, why couldn't he say it so everyone could understand it? After all, it's not as if it's rocket science.

The second part of the third reason was the kicker. All that mumbo-jumbo was there for a reason. "...the theory of general relativity was conformed to match Mercury's then-observed precession of 5600.0 arc-seconds per century." So the obscure, needlessly complicated calculations available only to a tricky few had been twisted to fit observable fact.

The great weakness in creationist arguments has always been structural. Real science looks to evidence to affirm or disprove theory. Anomalies are aggressively sought. Sometimes the variations between generally accepted formulae and actual observation result in modification. Sometimes they result in a radical new way of explaining what is detected. Einstein's calculations will someday be disproven, supplanted by some creative thought that is then confirmed by experimentation. That's how science works.

Creationism is an exercise that starts with conclusions, then sifts evidence, discarding what is contrary. Its an all or nothing sort of process. That is why creationists regard their shaky views to be constantly proven. That science is always self-questioning is regarded by some non-scientists as a weakness.

Which brings us to the heart of Mr. Schlafly's case. His number one reference in disproving contemporary science is this: "Virtually no one who is taught and believes relativity continues to read the Bible, a book that outsells New York Times bestsellers by a hundred-fold." This is reinforced by his ninth reason. Jesus healed the sick, at least in one case, from a distance, thus disproving the immutability of sub-light speed. Oh my.

I am vitally interested in spiritual truth. My faith is independent of whether Jesus was born in Bethlehem or in Nazareth. The virgin birth is not central to me. But I acknowledge, as a Christian, that my beliefs do involve certain historical affirmations. I would be quite shaken if I became convinced that Jesus died running from Gethsemane with a Roman spear in his back.

I may be wrong, but I dare to speculate that Andy Schlafly's faith depends on what he thinks of the curvature of space and the speed of light.

I had a funny feeling in my gut. I didn't want to make a mistake. I made a decision, and that was it.

 - - Stanislav Petrov, Lieutenant Colonel USSR, Quoted February 10, 1999
     On why the Soviet Union did not launch a massive retaliatory nuclear
     response as an apparent missile attack by the US was detected by
     Soviet satellites in September, 1983

When Stanislav Petrov reported for work on the evening of September 25, 1983, he had no way of knowing this was the night the world would end. As a lieutenant colonel in the USSR, Petrov was aware of danger. The US was clearly preparing to attack. Tensions were high. War was in the air. Still, the night was no different from any other Sunday.

On this night America would finally launch an attack to end communism forever. The Soviets would respond with one massive nuclear retaliation, and humankind would walk the earth no more. Stanislav Petrov knew none of this as he began his routine, looking over the readouts from the satellite system that gave him eyes and ears over the United States.

Sometime in the 1950s both sides had decided that the gentlemanly aiming of missiles exclusively at the other side's missiles would inevitably result in war. All the incentives were to be the first to attack. If the USSR launched all her missiles, most US missiles would be destroyed on the ground. Those that were left would have only empty silos to destroy. If the US attacked first, the USSR would be in the same position. The two sides were scorpions in a bottle. One of them would have no choice but to be the first to fire.

So both sides shifted to population centers. If you hit us, you'll destroy most of our missiles, but we'll destroy most of your people. Those left alive won't have lives worth living. Same if we attack you. Thus began Mutual Assured Destruction, MAD. Aim at military targets, you'll start a war. Aim at cities, you'll keep the peace. So aim at cities.

But Jimmy Carter got mad as hell about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. America had a lot more missiles than the USSR. So he aimed a few at military targets. Reagan came into office and thought that was a good idea. He aimed a whole lot of missiles at military targets. Both claimed they wanted peace, but Soviet strategists knew better. So they put satellite systems up. Any attack would give the Soviet leadership at least a few minutes to fire back. Officers like Petrov were given priority training.

Lieutenant Colonel Stanislav Petrov saw the missile approaching, but a US attack didn't make any sense. Why only one missile? Then another missile appeared, then another and another. In all, five missiles were on their way. Still, Petrov held off. He was convinced something was wrong with the new satellite system. He was right. And on September 26, 1983,the night all mankind was to die, Stanislav Petrov stopped the end of the world.

When I was a kid in school, we had a periodic drill. We filed into the hall, sat facing the wall, and pulled our heads between our legs. In the event of an actual attack, our last act would have been to kiss our behinds goodbye.

This year, the US and Russia agreed to destroy most nuclear weapons. The missiles that remain will be aimed at countries like Iran, if they don't drop their own nuclear weapons programs. If mischievous Republicans don't filibuster the agreement, a lot of kids might be spared that last kiss goodbye.

Whatever the reason for the treaty's failings, it must not be ratified: The security of the United States is at stake. The only responsible course is for the Senate to demand and scrutinize the full diplomatic record underlying the treaty. Then it must insist that any linkage between the treaty and our missile defense system be eliminated.

 - - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts, July 6, 2010

It's fair to say that the Massachusetts Democratic candidate for US Senator, Richard Blumenthal, had misled voters about his Vietnam military record. He didn't have one. But Blumenthal, with one exception, stayed on the right side of the literal truth. When the New York Times, reporting the story, released a tape in which a kinda-sorta truthful statement was edited out, it appeared to a lot of voters that the out-of-state-big-city Goliath of a newspaper was smearing the local small town hero. It looked like a preview of Andrew Breitbart snipping and stitching Shirley Sherrod's speech.

So the real credit goes to Mark Kirk (R-IL) for getting the ball rolling. He claimed to have won military awards he really hadn't won; being under fire in Iraq; serving in Desert Storm, when he was never under fire and had not served in Desert Storm. He told of his heartwarming experiences as a church school nursery teacher, which the church said was untrue. As a teenager, he had a near death experience after his boat tipped over, swimming for his life. Except witnesses say he just waited on top of the boat for a while until someone picked him up.

Just when it couldn't get worse, reporters brought up his big area of expertise, foreign policy. One expert fact after another had just been made up. Once the story became a discernible pattern, reporters felt free to let go of the finely calibrated he said-she said non-reporting that is the norm, and actually reveal facts. Other candidates are also not immune.

But reporters are unused to the new motif, clumsy about actual facts. Congressional candidate Ben Quayle (R-AZ), son of the unfortunate no-Jack-Kennedy Dan, produced literature in which he was described as an ardent family man, pictured with two cute little girls. Reporters found he has no kids. News stories told of this misleading ad. A primary opponent gleefully described Quayle's "rented" family. What a fake! And another one bites, another one bites, another one bites the dust. Career stillborn.

Quayle finally responded. The two kids were his nieces, part of his extended family. Oops. So Quayle, the newly vindicated, wrongly accused family man (extended) is the new front runner. Gotcha!!

Rand Paul, the extreme libertarian who captured the Republican nomination for US Senate in Kentucky has devoted much of his time aiming his high caliber weapons at the targets he wears in place of shoes. He said BP was treated unfairly. He told miners that safety issues are best left to mine owners. Then local press came up with a scandal. It seems Paul never graduated from Baylor University. His campaign never bothered to correct countless reports that said he did. Except it turns out Paul was guilty of no more than excessive modesty. It seems his academic record was so impressive, Duke University's School of Medicine asked him to attend before he had a chance to finish at Baylor. Gotcha!

There is good reason to vote against Paul. It has nothing at all to do with Baylor. Reporters would do well to focus on the real scandal: Turns out Rand Paul supports the horribly mistaken policies and beliefs of Rand Paul.