Saturday, July 4, 2015

Transgender War Is Next

Why We Need To Fight Against Transgender Acceptance

"Media outlets have already taken sides and are branding people as being “transphobic” for not accepting the idea that Bruce Jenner is now a female. It is now “bigoted” to refer to Bruce as a “he.” Even so much as joking about Jenner is verboten. The media is rallying around him, protecting him, in spite of the fact that his refusal to get sex reassignment surgery, his sexual preference for women, and his recently having killed someone in a car accident all make him a very poor candidate as the face of transgenderism.

Nevertheless, they have made him the poster boy, hoping that everyday TV watchers won’t sweat the details and that the popularity of the Kardashians will keep him relevant. The next steps include some Will and Grace style sitcom to make transgenders seem more hip and fun, adoption by the Democratic Party as the next great civil rights issue, and finally a sustained campaign of legal and private ideological bullying until transgender acceptance is the new normal.

The Line In The Sand
Why must we draw the line at transgenderism? I argue that legitimization of transgenderism would constitute a cultural sea change.It would be the first time the cultural fascists had succeeded in enforcing genuine doublethink. Leftist ideology regarding transgenderism not only contradicts existing progressive doctrines (feminism), but is also literally false. You are being ordered to believe in a fairy tale—the idea that a dog can transform into a cat if it just wishes for it hard enough—and this is where the danger lies.

To be clear, I do not argue that we need to persecute or hate transgenders: people have the right to choose to play dress up and freely associate with others who indulge their delusions. What we need to protect is our right to disapprove of their behavior and reject their “science.” "
Jenner is a fraud, of course, not parting with who he is in reality, the possessor of XY, and cock & balls - clear empirical evidence of masculinity, not femininity. He is living an illusion, actually a delusion, but he is the best that the Left has for a poster boy for their next assault on western culture. For the Kardashian generation, maybe that means something, this guy who cross-dresses as a woman and claims to actually think he is one. This reminds me of the Furries:


You can "feel like" you are a door knob for all I care. But you cannot command my respect. That's what the Left is about: making commands that must be obeyed as if they are mortal sins if disobeyed. It's all about the Leftist roadmap to utopia and total control through intimidation of false moral diktat, and ultimately force of law.

Headline of the Day

Weenies burn flag to protest cops, get attacked by bikers, need cops to save their asses
New York Post

This Is Why We Left Oregon Nearly Two Decades Ago

Oregon's Leftism is insane and vicious:
Happy Independence Day: State of Oregon fines Christian bakers $135,000 over a wedding cake
The clear intent is to destroy this bakery completely as a warning against invoking religion in your business. The government's attack is specifically on free exercise of religion, and only superficially on the protection of homosexual rights to abuse religious beliefs of others.

Friday, July 3, 2015

A Challenge To Debate Evolution

[I sent this to Tania Lombrozo by email today]
[UPDATE: Corrected two typos]

The recent article by Tania Lombrozo has persuaded me to issue the author a challenge.

A challenge, regarding your article entitled "Don't Believe In Evolution? Try Thinking Harder"

Tania Lombrozo: http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2015/06/29/418289762/don-t-believe-in-evolution-try-thinking-harder

Summary:
This article describes a study which is based on the premises that (a) evolution is Truth; therefore, skepticism is either (b) vastly ignorant, (c) cognitively disconnected, or (d) mentally disturbed. For example, the first sentence is this:
"The theory of evolution by natural selection is among the best established in science, yet also among the most controversial for subsets of the American public." [Note 1, 2]
The following is intended to imply - not rational conclusions being drawn better in differing cultural settings - but to imply that the denizens of certain regions cannot think because they do not recognize the truth value of the first sentence.
"For decades we've known that beliefs about evolution are well-predicted by demographic factors, such as religious upbringing and political affiliation. There's also enormous variation in the acceptance of evolution across different countries, all of which suggests an important role for cultural input in driving beliefs about evolution. A child raised by Buddhists in California is much more likely to accept evolution than one raised by evangelical Protestants in Kansas." [3]
Yet as with all evolutionary apologetics, there is no empirical data provided which demonstrates experimentally and objectively that premise (a) is even contingently non-falsified using empirical techniques which are the currency of Enlightenment science for producing objective knowledge. If premise (a) is not grounded, but is based only in inference and fictions of imaginary scenarios, then the subsequent dependent premises are not valid, either. In fact, skepticism of subjective, inferential claims and the fictions of imaginary scenarios is always warranted, and is, in fact, an intellectual responsibility. It is the presumption that any truth is produced by inference and fictions surrounding the unreproducible causes for historical effects which is irrational under Aristotelian logic as well as Popperian logical demarcation.

I challenge you, Ms Lombrozo, to either a debate regarding the validity of evolution, or if you choose not to do that, then I challenge you to address the following issues surrounding evolution:

Ignoring the pseudointellectual condescension in your article, I challenge you to provide an empirical mechanism for an evolution event, even one, which provides objective knowledge of the process surrounding the creation of an all new, deterministically expected, heritable, selectable feature which benefits the selectablity of the organism or group of organisms which contain this selectable feature. By “empirical” I mean one that satisfies the Enlightenment scientific directive for obtaining objectively valid knowledge: the hypothetico-deductive, replicable and falsifiable (which is both replicated and non-falsified) experimental data which is both open and peer-reviewed, and which is, at a minimum, objective yet contingent knowledge of a single evolution event producing a new feature or features which produce obvious non-reductive speciation.

If you cannot do that, then provide at least speculative reasoning which defeats the Kimura neutral theory “box” which demonstrates statistically that positive mutations to DNA are statistically unselectable, and that negative mutation accumulations are ultimately selectable due to their proliferation. Which means, of course, that species deteriorate rather than being created from prior species.

Alternatively, provide empirical evidence for abiogenesis (for confirmation of Lewontin’s demand for Philosophical Materialism) in the manner of replicating metabolic systems (ADP to ATP conversion by the means of the ATP Synthase stepping motor/generator molecule, with all the enzymes and membranes created simultaneously): i.e. “Metabolites First”. This will be difficult, as others have found and abandoned it.

Or, provide empirical evidence for self-replication of RNA along with the simultaneous creation and existence of all the ancillary enzymes required – RNA World. You might check with Jack Szostak, the researcher who abandoned that pursuit after decades of laboratory attempts to do so, non-randomly, with intelligent guidance.

Since you will not be able to do these things, you will not have proven any possible validity for Materialism. So then possibly you can show how to avoid the internal contradiction (self-referencing) involved in the materialist claim to know that there is no non-material existence, while being unable to materially investigate non-material claims. In other words, Materialism cannot prove its own premises while being restricted to its own existential claims, and therefore is paradoxical and thus, irrational

But returning evolution, then, possibly you can show a modern biological knowledge development that was originated by being predicated on “evolution” as the hypothesis. Well, no, because evolution predicts everything and nothing, simultaneously and without differentiation. And that renders evolution non-falsifiable, and under Popper’s demarcation, it is therefore not knowledge, not even contingent knowledge, much less objective knowledge or even “truth” as some evolutionists claim (Jerry Coyne); it is blind belief without actual proof.

For example, let’s look at the T-cell, and its “education” (a molecular biological term) which is required before it is of any use. Among other things it must be educated in the Thymus not to attack the cells that are “self”, i.e. the cells of the organism which the T-cell must protect rather than attack. This is a pure process of differentiation, which is not a physical, molecular thing that evolved, but a rational process relationally involving three entities: a source actor; an object actor which is to be attacked; an object actor which must not be attacked. The complexity is high, and the evolutionary failure at any point renders the host organism vulnerable, even self-destructive. This is similar to the “three body problem” in physics, which Poincare showed is insoluble analytically. There are many more evolutionary conundrums of this type and many are simultaneously required for cellular life to exist (DNA, RNA and RNA polymerase are another example).

Now for cognitive thinking.
To elaborate on cognitive thinking: if one should actually investigate the science maunderings of the elite evolutionary scientists, one would find a blatant lack of any belief in actual empirical science. What one finds is a belief in the power of storytelling as an avatar for non-existent causal evidence regarding actual cause and effect. Evolution cannot be held to any principle of cause and effect specifically because it predicts everything and nothing simultaneously, and is therefore logically internally contradictory and without a rational basis. That is why evolutionary theorists are engaged in creating fictional accounts which they apply to existing (incomplete) fossil records. These fictional accounts are declared to be “plausible” if they have been massaged sufficiently to eliminate blatant contradictions. And having been bestowed the mantle of “plausibility”, the fictions become entrenched as “truths”. Yet they remain fictions, they remain non-falsifiable, empirically, and they remain NOT objective knowledge.

Yet it is also claimed that because there are a lot of these fictions which are declared “plausible”, that the sheer quantity (“ a mountain of evidence”) renders the overall narrative to be Truth, and thus unassailable except by the irrational. How many fictions does it take to make a single Truth? Ten? Ten thousand? Ten million? The concept is logically absurd, and fails Reductio Ad Absurdum. But that does not stop it from being a tenet of evolutionary cant.

It is falsely claimed that evolution is the unifying theory of biology, yet no (zero) biological advances are dependent upon evolution, and a great many modern biological principles cannot show consistency with evolution or First Life as abiogenesis. Both RNA World and Metabolism First theories have cratered and are in the dust bin of biological history. The existence of simultaneous mutual dependency of RNA, DNA, and RNA-ase as well as many necessary enzymes which are necessary for transcription is merely one example of many, many instances which rationally falsify materialist creationism of life from minerals.

Cognitive thinking, if it were actually activated, would appreciate this, rather than make claims against skeptics regarding their capability to think.

If you would care to either respond to these issues or to debate the issue of cognitive thinking and evolution in general, I’d be happy to oblige. Contact me at ascent.from.materialism@gmail.com or go to the blog, http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/ and we can chat about it.

Stan,
at http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/

Notes:
1. Selection has been falsified by the segment of evolutionary theorists known as the Altenberg 16. "Evolution; the Extended Synthesis"; Piggliucci/Muller, eds; MIT Press; 2010; pgs 13, 14.

2. The term "established" is non-specific and prejudicial; further it is not the case that any evolutionary event is empirically substantiated under the hypothetico-deductive experimental method of Enlightenment science, which is dedicated to the production of objective knowledge.

3. This is little more than class-driven bigotry; there is no assessment made of the intellectual process for being skeptical of evolution; skepticism is presumptively a mindless derivative of acculturation. The pseudoscience and its basis in prejudice is obvious.

Thursday, July 2, 2015

Science Frauds

Scientist Sentenced To Prison For AIDS Research Fraud By Spiking Vaccine With Rabbit Blood

"DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — A former Iowa State University scientist who altered blood samples to make it appear he had achieved a breakthrough toward a potential vaccine against HIV was sentenced Wednesday to more than 4 ½ years in prison for making false statements in research reports.

Dong-Pyou Han, 58, also must pay $7.2 million to a federal government agency that funded the research. He entered a plea agreement in February admitting guilt to two counts of making false statements.

Government prosecutors said Han’s misconduct dates to 2008 when he worked at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland under professor Michael Cho, who was leading a team testing an experimental HIV vaccine on rabbits. Cho’s team began receiving NIH funding, and he soon reported the vaccine was causing rabbits to develop antibodies to HIV, which was considered a major breakthrough. Han said he initially accidentally mixed human blood with rabbit blood making the potential vaccine appear to increase an immune defense against HIV, the virus that can cause AIDS. Han continued to spike the results to avoid disappointing Cho, his mentor, after the scientific community became excited that the team could be on the verge of a vaccine."
While I'm not sure under what legal theory science fraud is prosecuted (probably fraudulent grant manipulation, given the $7.2 million bill he has to pay) but I do approve. False science can be dangerous, on top of wasting taxpayer cash.

Also Pedophilia, Of Course

Kate, at Small Dead Animals:
"At the current rate of Muslim immigration to the west, gay marriage is just a temporary condition. Poligamy, on the other hand... "
As Vox said, Islam solves their Gay problem very simply, using tall roofs and gravity.

Honesty In Sinage



More Fake Victimology

Black Suspect Arrested After Racist Message Discovered Outside Predominately Black Church

"COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (CBS4)– A Colorado Springs man was arrested after police believe he left racist messages outside a church.

Vincent Broughton, 44, who is black, is facing charges for committed a bias-motivated crime and disorderly conduct.

The signs were posted outside the New Covenant church that is predominately attended by African Americans. One sign references the KKK. Another reads, “Black men beware, you are the target.

The messages had the congregation on edge.

“We locked our doors this morning, so we were inside, but it shouldn’t be that way. You shouldn’t have to lock your doors in the church, it’s just… I’m speechless,” said Pastor Roland Joyner.

Police said Broughton admitted to posting the flyers but did not explain why he targeted the church. "

Mark Dice Again Demonstrates the Failure of American Education



Or maybe there's just something wrong with that pier...

Daniel Greenfield aka "Sultan Knish" on Tranny Rights

No Truce With the Left

"Republicans are still trying to figure out a truce on gay marriage. They retreated to civil unions, then accepted a full defeat on gay marriage and then acted baffled when Christian bakery owners were dragged into court for refusing to participate in gay weddings. When the left insisted that gay marriage was a civil rights issue, they refused to take them as their word.

Now they're wondering how an accommodation can be made with tranny rights. A brief look back at gay rights will show that the only possible accommodation is one in which men in dresses have a legal right to use the ladies room and every single closed female space and event. And yes, that means your business will be shut down if you object to Steve using the female locker room."
The Left is not about partials, any more than Islamists are about hudna. Total conquest is their aim, and if it comes through smaller antithesis/synthesis increments, then they will pretend to accommodate a compromise which they fully intend to violate as soon as is convenient.

Vox's SJW Laws:
1. SJWs always lie.
2. SJWs always double down.
3. SJWs always project.
Until recently I was dubious about the "always" part; no longer. And I think that there is another SJW Law:
4. SJWs require total conquest through total cultural destruction and will never stop until it is achieved, or they are defeated and dismantled.
There is no end to the Class War, and it has been successful in its indoctrination of several generations of school children who became school teachers, politicians, journalists, community activists. SJWs now infest the military, police forces, border "security" and judiciaries. And their accommodationist/useful-idiots infest the Republican Party.

Greenfield:
"After a few skirmishes, some fundraising and angry letters, the accommodationists will find ways to accommodate that and we can look forward to conservative activists eagerly crowing about the first gay Republican presidential candidate around say, 2024, and the first Republican man in a dress in the Senate around the same time.

Of course by then it will be something else. Maybe pedophiles. Gay rights activists don't like the analogy, but their movement and its assorted allies, particularly in Europe's Green parties, have a long history of advocating it. The same pop culture methods that were used to sell gay rights and Bruce Jenner can easily be flipped around to sell NAMBLA."
As I have frequently said here, pedophilia is part of the Kinseyan spectrum of normal sexual behaviors (Kinsey very likely being a pedophile himself). After all, pedophiles are "born that way", just as the claim goes for homosexuals; so it is as normal as homosexuality, and all the arguments for normalization of homosexuality apply to pedophilia in a one-to-one mapping. Marriage extensions downward in age would accommodate the "loving relationship not to be denied its fruition" between adult and child, as is commonly done in Islam, which already accommodates pedophilia - and remember that Islam is the loving pet of the Left. And remember too, that for the Left it is never "RAPE-rape", if it is done by one of their own (just ask Whoopi Goldberg about Roman Polanski).

In the ramp-up to WWII, the accommodationists ceded many lives and nations to Hitler, and Britain would likely have been lost were it not for a semi-sane USA coming to their aid, albeit fairly late. There is no visible analog in the Culture War. There is no large, resource rich, bigger brother to step in and rid us of the culture warrior infestation. We have to do it ourselves, and it might be too late.

If we are to take the same approach - no compromise, only total defeat - as the culture warriors take, it will require the warrior's steadfastness of the Allies in WWII: total unconditional surrender, and fight to the death until that is achieved. That commitment seems beyond the capabilities of the remaining constitutionalists in the USA today.

Weaponized words have no impact in this war because the SJWs lie: they promise on bibles to protect the constitution and constitutional rights while having every intention of violating that oath. They have already weaponized the hot button words of "justice, tolerance, equality, freedom and liberty", by inverting their meanings such that those principles apply only to themselves, while reserving judicial abuse for those who are not them. In short, words have no actual meanings for SJWs. The time for words is long past. Squelching class warfare peacefully is not likely to happen.
"The left does not care about gay rights. If you doubt that, consider how many of the left's favorite Muslim countries have gay rights. The left has recently divided its campaign passions between gay marriage and defending Iran. Iran denies the existence of gays and hangs them where it finds them.

The USSR treated homosexuality as a crime even while it was recruiting gay men as spies in the West. Cuba, the darling of the American left, hated both gays and blacks. The ACLU backed the police states of Communism. If the left supports an enemy nation, the odds are excellent that it is also a violently bigoted place that makes a KKK rally look like a hippie hangout.

To understand the left, you need to remember that it does not care about 99 percent of the things it claims to care about. Name a leftist cause and then find a Communist country that actually practiced it. Labor unions? Outlawed. Environmentalism? Chernobyl. The left fights all sorts of social and political battles not because it believes in them, but to radicalize, disrupt and take power.

The left does not care about social justice. It cares about power."
The alternatives are rather bleak. It is easy to dominate a peaceful people if you condone "moral" brutality; it is not so easy for the chronically peaceful to rise up forcefully against tyrannical despots. The chronically peaceful are frogs in a pot, tolerating ever hotter water. There is a revulsion to bringing violence to stop a "peaceful" takeover by the despots.

But what other choice is available? I see none.
"There's a long human history to such atrocities, to mobs whipping themselves up into spasms of manufactured outrage, subsuming their own doubts, confusion and unhappiness into the 'cause'.

The cause is progress, but the real cause is the power of its enforcers to vent their unhappiness and destructive impulses on everyone else under the guise of reform.

You can't find common ground with the left because it is an activist machine dedicated to destroy common ground, not only with the right, but even with its own allies on the left. Progress turns what was once progressive into what is reactionary. And what was reactionary into what is progressive."
There are really only two political conditions: individual liberty which produces peace, and despotically enforced peace. Between these two end-points is war, the struggle for control of the endpoint destiny.
"The left will destroy the things you care about, because you care about them. It will destroy them because that gives them power over you. It will destroy them because these things stand in the way of its power. It will destroy them because a good deal of its militant activists need things to destroy and if they can't attack you, they'll turn on the left in a frenzy of ideologically incestuous purges.

The left's social justice program is really a wave of these purges which force their own people to hurry up and conform to whatever the Party dictated this week. Examples are made out of laggards on social media to encourage the rest to stop thinking and start marching in line. As Orwell knew well, these shifts select for mindless ideological zombies while silencing critical thinkers."
It was not that long ago that the Amazing Randi had to do a rapid belly-crawl penitence after the outrage poured upon him for slightly questioning AGW. He had to scramble to be reinstated after his ideological blunder. He committed ideological treason, as did Antony Flew when he abandoned Atheism and was symbolically eviscerated for having done so.
"These changes are a test of reason. If you can reason, you fail. If you can Doublethink, you pass.

The constant shifts create their own version of future shock. They leave people baffled and uncertain. Society no longer seems to resemble what they knew, even though the real society of men and women has not really changed much, only the media's presentation of it has. But a beaten down mass of ordinary people now imagines that the country is filled with gay men and trannies. They accept that what they thought was common sense no longer applies and that it's someone else's country now.

And that is the prize that the left dearly wants. Surrender."
Greenfield agrees with the bipolar characteristics of the cultural war:
"You can't accommodate the left on social issues. You can't accommodate it on fiscal issues. You can't do it. Period.

The left exists to destroy you. It does not seek to co-exist with you. Its existence would lose all meaning. Any common ground will be used to temporarily achieve a goal before the useful idiots are kicked to the curb and denounced as bigots who are holding back progress.

The purpose of power is power. The left is not seeking to achieve a set of policy goals before kicking back and having a beer. The policy goals are means of destroying societies, nations and peoples before taking over. If you allow it a policy goal, it will ram that goal down your throat. It will implement it as abusively as it can possibly can before it moves on to the next battle.

It's not about gay marriage. It's not about cakes. It's about power.

More fundamentally it's about the difference in human nature between the people who want to be left alone and those who want power over others.

You can't work out a truce with tyrants. You can give in or stand up to them. There's nothing else. "
The indication that several states will refuse to obey the SCOTUS legislation demanding marriage for homosexuals is encouraging. But it will not be enough. A majority of states and their citizens must defy, blatantly defy, the diktats of the despots, PLUS be willing to take that defiance to the ultimate conclusion. That conclusion must entail the complete dismantling of Leftist power structures that have already been built. No compromise; complete unconditional surrender.

Tuesday, June 30, 2015

No Atrocity Is Too Egregious For the Left, When Visited Upon Americans

Undocumented sex offenders left in Seattle-area neighborhoods without tracking

"SEATTLE — After digging through hundreds of ZIP codes, KIRO 7 found 11 convicted sex offenders in the country illegally living across western Washington neighborhoods.

The government has tried to deport most of these people, but a Supreme Court ruling requires they be released after six months in jail, if their home country won't take them back."
Releasing illegals who are also otherwise criminals as well into American communities is an ongoing atrocity, and has been happening openly for several years. It is now an expectation of US government.

US Caves in Iran Nuclear Negotiations

The Sentence That Could Doom the Iran Deal

"Here's a news bulletin from the Iran talks in Vienna:
US says system reached to give UN access to suspect Iran sites

Vienna (AFP) - A system has been reached in talks between Iran and major powers towards a nuclear deal that will give the UN atomic watchdog access to all suspect sites, a senior US official said Monday.

"The entry point isn't we must be able to get into every military site, because the United States of America wouldn't allow anybody to get into every military site, so that's not appropriate," the official said.

"But if in the context of agreement... the IAEA believes it needs access and has a reason for that access then we have a process that access is given," the official said on condition of anonymity.

"We have worked out a process that we believe will ensure that the IAEA has the access it needs."
This sentence is key: "The entry point isn't we must be able to get into every military site, because the United States of America wouldn't allow anybody to get into every military site, so that's not appropriate," the official said.

Think about that. The American official argues that Iran—a rogue regime that sponsors terror and that has lied about its nuclear program, and that is under sanctions precisely because it has proved time and again it can't be trusted—should be held to the same standards as the U.S. Amazing. It turns out the left's old doctrine of moral equivalence between the Soviet Union and the U.S. has been replaced by a doctrine of moral equivalence between Iran and the U.S."

[Emphasis added]
Not so amazing. Obama has favored Iran over the US from day one. He visited Iran as president-elect immediately after the first election. Or was it as a candidate... I forget. Maybe his election was partially funded by Iran for all I know. His funding sources will never be known.

Battle of the Victimhood Groups in Chicago

Let's see. Gays vs. Blacks vs. Queers (whatever those are these days):
Black Lives Matter Protesters Disrupt Chicago Gay Pride Parade

"But by far the biggest disruption was from a large group of “black lives matter” protesters. The group was joined by members of the black queer community of Chicago who announced the disruption on their website.

After noting that they had “purposefully disrupted the Chicago Pride Parade,” the queer group explained their reasoning.

“We do so,” the group said, “because our people are dying at the hands of police, military and state-funded militias around the globe. We do so because we refuse to be tokenized by the same corporations that sponsor state violence, refuse a living wage and profit off our poverty. We do so because young queer people need a better outlet to celebrate themselves than a mire of consumption and sexual violence.”

The queer group was also attacked by the “black lives matter” protesters who held signs and walked as a group to push their own message."
Well, Gays are now officially mainstream just like "the Man". And so are blacks who have even more rights and privileges than Gays, due to affirmative action programs and extra welfare if they don't marry. That leaves Queers (whatever those are these days). So maybe the next SCOTUS legislation will be for Queers (whatever those are these days), leaving group marriage until later.

Monday, June 29, 2015

Elena Kagan: Lying Leftist Liar and SCOTUS Legislator

"ELENA KAGAN IN 2009: “THERE IS NO FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE.” As Prof. William A. Jacobson writes at his Legal Insurrection blog, “Then she was a nominee for Solicitor General, now she is an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Then she was bound to follow the law, now she gets to make it.”
From Ed Driscoll at Instapundit
The full context of Kagan's statement and subsequent validation of its meaning is at the LINK.

Brady Center Goes Face-first Into Its Own Muck

I am amazed at this turn of events:
Judge orders Brady Center to pay ammo dealer’s legal fees after dismissing lawsuit

"A federal judge has ordered that the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence pay the legal fees of an online ammunition dealer it sued for the Aurora movie theater shooting.

The order, which was issued last week, comes after Judge Richard P. Matsch dismissed the gun control group's suit that sought to hold Lucky Gunner legally responsible for the 2012 shooting. The Brady Center had argued in their suit that the way Lucky Gunner sells ammunition is "unreasonably dangerous and create a public nuisance."

"A crazed, homicidal killer should not be able to amass a military arsenal, without showing his face or answering a single question, with the simple click of a mouse," Brady Center's Legal Action Project Director Jonathan Lowy said at the time. "If businesses choose to sell military-grade equipment online, they must screen purchasers to prevent arming people like James Holmes."

Judge Matsch disagreed with the Brady Center's argument. He said the suit was filed for propaganda purposes. "It is apparent that this case was filed to pursue the political purposes of the Brady Center and, given the failure to present any cognizable legal claim, bringing these defendants into the Colorado court where the prosecution of James Holmes was proceeding appears to be more of an opportunity to propagandize the public and stigmatize the defendants than to obtain a court order," he said in his order.

Lucky Gunner praised the court's decision and vowed to do everything in its power to recover the money awarded to it by the ruling.

"The federal judge on the case ruled it was apparent that this suit was filed to pursue the Brady Center's 'political purposes' and was used as an 'opportunity to propagandize the public,'" Lucky Gunner spokesman Anthony Welsch said. "Lucky Gunner agrees with the court's assessment and continues to do all it can to hold the Brady Center accountable for legal fees awarded in the case."
Lucky Gunner should counter sue the Brady Center for ideological harassment. Ammunition is not illegal to own or sell. A dealer is not a psychiatrist. Brady Center was not injured. The only basis for this lawsuit was to harass Lucky Gunner. Since the tables have turned, Lucky Gunner should push back to the limit.

Quote of the... um, Very Long Time

Victor Davis Hanson:
It is almost as if California answers back: “I am too bewildered by your premodern challenges, so I will take psychological refuge in my postmodern fantasies.”
From "Goodnight California"

Post Democracy

As Vox points out, the last week of SCOTUS bench-legislation is a firm indication that the USA is beyond rule "by the people". We are now post-democracy, post-republic. We are firmly Leftist oligarchy, with tycoon symbiosis. There is no assault on the constitutional rights of the individual which cannot be overturned in a flash by the SCOTUS coterie. Here's an example of legislation interruption due to lawsuits from "women's health" activists who want to preserve fetal death by dismemberment:
Kansas judge enjoins Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act

"On June 25, Shawnee County District Court Judge Larry Hendricks issued an injunction that bars the first-in-nation Kansas Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act [Senate Bill 95] from going into effect July 1.

The judge’s order will remain in effect while he considers the lawsuit further.

The lawsuit was filed and argued by the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights on behalf of the Overland Park Center for Women’s Health that had previously sued two other Kansas pro-life laws.

Kansans for Life is confident this law will eventually be upheld—mirroring the long, but successful partial-birth abortion battle in which the U.S. Supreme Court eventually acknowledged the validity of pro-life legislation."
This optimism is ill-deserved. There is little resemblance between killing a half-born baby and the killing of younger embryos by tearing them apart while still in the uterus. Two separate issues.

However, these two separate issues do illuminate the totally callous nature of "women's health" activism. This obvious drive to kill and keep killing also illuminates the Leftist propensity for violence being visited upon defenseless innocents, including their deaths in the dozens of millions - nearly 60 million in the USA alone. And the elderly are next:
Health-Care Rationing Is Inevitable
Let's stop debating the why of rationing and get on with the how."
And:
Ration Roulette: U. S. House debates ObamaCare’s Death Panels

"As the former chief of Medicare said, it’s much cheaper for the government to let sick people die than care for them. So, the President’s team invented this Board, which would be hand-picked by the White House to determine who is worthy of care and who isn’t. Not only would IPAB be free of congressional oversight, but it would also operate without much input from health care providers. Instead of discussing the options with your doctor, IPAB will be sitting at the controls in Washington making health decisions for your family.

Essentially, the Board’s 15 members would be completely unaccountable — to Congress or anyone else. They’d have the power to limit which doctors you see, what treatments are available, and in some cases, whether you’re eligible for care at all. “The ‘independent’ part of IPAB’s name is no joke…” Forbes points out. “If Medicare spending exceeds limits set by law, then IPAB can impose its own set of cost controls… Once IPAB settles on its cuts, lawmakers must either offer an alternative plan that cuts the same level of spending or muster a super-majority to block the Board’s cuts from taking effect.”

Republicans have called it a “rationing board” — and even liberals agree."
There is no human right which cannot be sacrificed to Leftist "new rights" such as are invented in order to subvert the older, constitutional rights. Right to Life is subverted to the phony new "Right to Choose To Kill One's Progeny Violently". Right to Free Exercise of Religion is sacrificed to the phony new "Rights of the Mentally Disordered to the Sacraments of Normal Unions, to be Enforced Upon Religious Providers With Pain of Financial/Professional Destruction For Violation".

These newly discovered "rights" are actually merely attacks on morality which the Left hates and especially hates having imposed on them from the bottom up. The Left has its own diametrically inverse morality which it imposes in reverse, down onto the population. This is done by a coterie of Leftists in federal courts, culminating in the US Supreme Court. SCOTUS is infested with four Leftists who always vote against constitutional rights for individuals and for the Leftist new rights for designated classes. The remaining justices include two which bend with every Leftist wind, with only three justices who value the written constitution as the sole guide for judicial decisions. Since six justices do not value the US Constitution, they willingly violate their oaths of office to protect it. They are scofflaws and social engineers who drive the law of the land in whatever direction they wish. The essence of SCOTUS is that of outlaws making laws.

With a cowardly Congress (which constitutionally should defund the executive branch assaults on America and Americans, AND defund SCOTUS) which takes no reparative action at all, there seems to be no peaceful recourse to the loss of popular control of America to the pagan totalitarian outlaws who are currently in charge.

Sex Nannies and Social Engineers: Law professors Stephen J. Schulhofer and Erin Murphy

The Left is probing deeper into the American bedroom, apparently with their every SJW breath. Sexual freedom has become "rape culture", with men in the crosshairs of Leftist activists who are pursuing lesbian feminist agendas:
Has the federal government ever had sex?

"The act of sex is not illegal. But if two members of the American Law Institute have their way, it will be — unless you follow their rules.

Law professors Stephen J. Schulhofer and Erin Murphy are trying to update the criminal code when it comes to sex offenses, believing current definitions of rape and sexual assault are antiquated. The focus of their draft is on what constitutes consent. It adopts the "yes means yes," or "affirmative consent" model that was passed in California last year.

The California law applies only to college campuses, however. Schulhofer and Murphy aim to take that definition of consent — which says that before every escalation of a sexual encounter, clear and convincing consent must be given — to the state or federal level. No one actually has sex this way, requesting permission and having it granted perhaps a dozen times in a single encounter.

But the theory that millions of Americans are having sex wrongly has gained currency among campus activists. This new attempt to alter the American Law Institute's Model Penal Code, a highly influential document that has been adopted in whole or in part by many states' legislatures, is part of a push to bring authoritarianism into the bedroom."

[Emphasis added]
Social Justice is always - always - authoritarian/totalitarian. Social Justice never addresses individual justice (traditional justice); it always addresses class issues, and pits one class against another, favoring one class over the other. The SJW crowd will dictate your behaviors in every venue where it has ingress and enough freedom to operate; law is highly vulnerable, and the pursuit of classist social justice will attack personal freedom wherever it is allowed to exist without challenge. The fascination with rape, in a culture where rape has decreased and especially on-campus rape, is a mental disorder: irrational and uncontrollable. It is demonstrably anti-logical. But the term "rape" has cachet; it resonates in the fevered SJW cranium, likely due to the utility of the term in demonizing men. That's highly valued by the lesbian feminist storm troopers and their SJW adjuncts.

Angry Feminists

Stacy McCain:
"And let’s face it: If you weren’t angry all the time, you wouldn’t really be much of a feminist, would you?"
This observation by McCain back in 2011 was in reference to the attack on the pronoun "he" by lesbian feminists Kate Swift and Casey Miller, who somehow became editors for a sex education text (who better to teach sex than a pair of anti-masculine homosexuals??):
“Kate Swift, Writer Who Rooted Out Sexism in Language, Dies at 87,” reads the New York Times obituary headline, to which we might cheerfully add: “And Not a Moment Too Soon!”

'Ms. Swift turned her attention to the issue of sexist language when she and Casey Miller, her companion, formed a professional editing partnership in 1970 and were asked to copy-edit a sex education manual for junior high school students.

The stated goal of the manual was to encourage mutual respect and equality between boys and girls, but Ms. Swift and Ms. Miller, who died in 1997, concluded that the author’s intent was being undermined by the English language.

“We suddenly realized what was keeping his message — his good message — from getting across, and it hit us like a bombshell,” Ms. Swift said in a 1994 interview for the National Council of Teachers of English. “It was the pronouns! They were overwhelmingly masculine gendered.”'

"Read the whole thing, which was sent to me by Dave C. from At the Point of a Gun, who should therefore get all the hate-mail from angry feminists. (And let’s face it: If you weren’t angry all the time, you wouldn’t really be much of a feminist, would you?)
I have and will continue to use the generic "he" which has been the English standard from time immemorial. Lesbian hatred of non-gynocological gender(s) should not drive language conventions, or anything else. Lesbian hatred and perverted logic should be sealed hermetically, restricting it to lesbians and containing it wholly within their cloisters.

Interesting Takes

...On fragile but onerous Snowflakes, and the "generic 'he'" becoming the "generic 'she'". Ed Driscoll at Instapundit:

"OUR PRECIOUS LITTLE SNOWFLAKES: “This celebration of a child’s every accomplishment, however slight, is something new. By the time a kid reaches 18, she will have accumulated boxes and boxes of diplomas, medals, ribbons, trophies and certificates for just showing up – whether she’s any good at anything or not,” Margaret Wente writes in the Canadian Globe and Mail:
'Sometimes you have to compromise in life, but we don’t want to break this crushing news to our children. Personally, I’ve met far too many young adults who graduate from university with plans to work in development/save the world/find a career in environmental sustainability. There’s nothing wrong with these noble aspirations. What’s amazing is that no adults have ever levelled with them.

Reality will bite soon enough, of course. The idea that your job should be your passion is a misguided romantic notion that only the upper-middle-class can afford to entertain. In fact, most people wind up in areas that nobody ever talks about. “Insurance is a very interesting field,” Mr. Laurie assured me. “But no one says ‘I want to go into insurance.’ ”

The trouble is, snowflakes are not very resilient. They tend to melt when they hit the pavement. How will our snowflake children handle the routine stresses of the grownup world – the obnoxious colleagues, pointless meetings, promotions that don’t come their way? How will they cope when no one thinks they’re special any more?

I’m afraid they could be in for a hard landing.'
And how.

It’s an interesting essay and a great conclusion, but the author’s consistent use of “she” as a pronoun along the way, leapfrogging from the now doubleplus ungood crimethink use of “he” past “he or she” all the way to “she” makes one pause for a double-take. Particularly given, as Dr. Helen has noted, academia’s own war on young men over the past decade or so. In a chapter of his 1995 book The Vision of the Anointed titled “The Crusades of the Anointed,” Thomas Sowell explored the thinking behind the crusade that drove what he called “The Generic ‘He’” out of first academic and then most MSM writing. By 2010, Theodore Dalrymple noted:

I get to review quite a number of books published by academic presses, British and American, and I have found that the use of the impersonal “she” is now almost universal, even when the writer is aged and is most unlikely to have chosen this locution for himself (or herself). It is therefore an imposed locution, and as such sinister.

But then in the 21st century, there are precious little snowflakes of all ages whom we don’t dare offend."

Sunday, June 28, 2015

Tales Of Climate Science As A Protected Species

The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science

"At first, the science establishment reacted sceptically and a diversity of views was aired. It’s hard to recall now just how much you were allowed to question the claims in those days. As Bernie Lewin reminds us in one chapter of a fascinating new book of essays called Climate Change: The Facts (hereafter The Facts), as late as 1995 when the second assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) came out with its last-minute additional claim of a “discernible human influence” on climate, Nature magazine warned scientists against overheating the debate.

Since then, however, inch by inch, the huge green pressure groups have grown fat on a diet of constant but ever-changing alarm about the future. That these alarms—over population growth, pesticides, rain forests, acid rain, ozone holes, sperm counts, genetically modified crops—have often proved wildly exaggerated does not matter: the organisations that did the most exaggeration trousered the most money. In the case of climate, the alarm is always in the distant future, so can never be debunked.

These huge green multinationals, with budgets in the hundreds of millions of dollars, have now systematically infiltrated science, as well as industry and media, with the result that many high-profile climate scientists and the journalists who cover them have become one-sided cheerleaders for alarm, while a hit squad of increasingly vicious bloggers polices the debate to ensure that anybody who steps out of line is punished. They insist on stamping out all mention of the heresy that climate change might not be lethally dangerous.

Today’s climate science, as Ian Plimer points out in his chapter in The Facts, is based on a “pre-ordained conclusion, huge bodies of evidence are ignored and analytical procedures are treated as evidence”. Funds are not available to investigate alternative theories. Those who express even the mildest doubts about dangerous climate change are ostracised, accused of being in the pay of fossil-fuel interests or starved of funds; those who take money from green pressure groups and make wildly exaggerated statements are showered with rewards and treated by the media as neutral.

Look what happened to a butterfly ecologist named Camille Parmesan when she published a paper on “Climate and Species Range” that blamed climate change for threatening the Edith checkerspot butterfly with extinction in California by driving its range northward. The paper was cited more than 500 times, she was invited to speak at the White House and she was asked to contribute to the IPCC’s third assessment report.

Unfortunately, a distinguished ecologist called Jim Steele found fault with her conclusion: there had been more local extinctions in the southern part of the butterfly’s range due to urban development than in the north, so only the statistical averages moved north, not the butterflies. There was no correlated local change in temperature anyway, and the butterflies have since recovered throughout their range. When Steele asked Parmesan for her data, she refused. Parmesan’s paper continues to be cited as evidence of climate change. Steele meanwhile is derided as a “denier”. No wonder a highly sceptical ecologist I know is very reluctant to break cover."
Of course it's not just climate science that is not science in the "self-correcting" sense. The very definition of science as the objective, empirical, testable hypotheses with test data for non-falsification, went by the wayside in the Atheist rush to declare evolution to be scientific truth. The overarching need was for a narrative, not knowledge. So wildly fantastic inference stood in for testable hypotheses and non-falsification, and that malpractice rapidly got transferred to other sciences, especially the soft sciences, where no amount of testing can generate consistent data (psychology comes to mind, as does anthropology, which now eschews the title of being a science).

Unfortunately for reputable science, evolution has a heavy demand from the ideology of Atheism. And climate science has a heavy demand from SJWs and One-world Messiahs. So the defense of these two hinges not on actual outcome data, rather it depends purely on inferential conclusions which are projected from certain observations - observations which are not of the actual effect, and possibly not even related to the stated causes.

Much modern science is not even a shadow of its former self; it is an inversion, going directly away from objective knowledge generation by observing the effect as a final product of an hypothesized cause. And much other science is bogus, being self-referencing fraud. The remaining, actual objective science is stained by all the scientific malpractice - started by Darwin.

SMOD2016 - Candidate for Everyone

SMOD2016
This changes everything.

Politico Immediately Primes the Pump for Polygamy

With homosexuality normalized, protected with extra punishment, and now dictated by judicial fiat to usurp marriage as a moral institution, the next horizon for the SJWs is, as some have predicted, polygamy. According to the Leftists on SCOTUS, its all about love and not wanting to be lonely. The obvious solution to loneliness is marriage in the eyes of the state. The Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution is no barrier to Leftist "feelies" and feelguud legislation by the court. Most of the declared SCOTUS feelguuds would apply also to anybody who loves anybody else, regardless of the quantities or genders involved, and maybe regardless of whether "anybody else" is even human. I fully expect a group wedding between a large consortium of SJWs and Gaia, with tax breaks for all. But for now, it's just polygamy:

"It’s Time to Legalize Polygamy

Why group marriage is the next horizon of social liberalism.


"Welcome to the exciting new world of the slippery slope. With the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling this Friday legalizing same sex marriage in all 50 states, social liberalism has achieved one of its central goals. A right seemingly unthinkable two decades ago has now been broadly applied to a whole new class of citizens. Following on the rejection of interracial marriage bans in the 20th Century, the Supreme Court decision clearly shows that marriage should be a broadly applicable right—one that forces the government to recognize, as Friday’s decision said, a private couple’s “love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family."
With the removal of morality, common sense as well as any constitutional restrictions on the SCOTUS justices, there is no longer any limitation at all, outside of whatever the justices create for the Law Of The Land. The "love" argument should apply equally to all, shouldn't it? If you claim "love", then you qualify... to marry your brother and grandma and her goat, with marriage privileges all around.

The "love" argument can easily be combined with the "tolerance" argument in order to weaponize this type of slogan-lawmaking against dissent. It's already got a fair grip, and it won't take much to turn "free exercise of religion" into "free exercise of love and tolerance of all prior abominations without exception, or else: hate crime". And that's already underway on large portions of the web, with dissent by the justices not approving the gay's judicial legislation being labelled as hate criminals:
"Justice Scalia Is a Homophobe

By BARNEY FRANK

June 26, 2015"
The execrable Barny Frank is a perfect example of homosexual egregiousness, scofflaw attitudes, and intolerance. And he is always in the vanguard of desecration and destruction which homosexual activists and the "progressive" Left wish upon the USA. It should not be mistaken that they are in the business of advancing freedoms; they are in the business of tearing down uncomfortable civilized behavior restrictions which they don't like, in order to allow and even ennoble destructive behaviors which they do like. They see themselves as elite iconoclasts. All that needs be done is to redefine the ignoble behaviors as normal yet noble, and dissenters as ignoble X-ophobes (suddenly "mentally disordered" without any logic to, or recourse in, their Class designation). This is cynically done in order to both eviscerate dissent and to reverse the charge of mental illness which actually applies to the deviant behaviors of homosexuals and not to heterosexuals (or those who defend heterosexuality as normal).

I think this war is not over; it is just heating up. Whites, heterosexuals, Christians and conservatives, as well as logic and morality have been under attack from the Obama administration and SCOTUS for a long time, and all their targets have tolerated it... so far. We'll see where it goes from here.

Democrats Must Apologize For Their History of Slavery, Jim Crow, Ku Klux Klan, and Century of Apartheid Visited On American Blacks

From the American Spectator (read it all, this is just a sampling):
Will Democrats Apologize for Slavery and Segregation?

"You, Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz, along with President Obama and former Secretary Clinton, talk of what happened in Charleston by mentioning the need to discuss “race bigotry and violence” (you), or saying of racism that “societies don't, overnight, completely erase everything that happened 200 to 300 years prior” (President Obama) or calling the Charleston attack “an act of racist terror” (Secretary Clinton). But somehow you never get around to saying just who was doing all of this — your political party. The Democrats.

In fact, as I noted here in 2008, the Democratic National Committee — on the eve of the Obama nomination — went out of its way to deliberately erase a full fifty years of Democratic Party history from the official DNC website. What was erased? All reference to your party’s role in slavery, segregation, lynching, and the rest. Those platforms that supported slavery, mentioned above? The number of Democrats who occupied the White House while owning slaves? The platforms that supported segregation — and the Democratic presidents, senators, governors and more who supported segregation? The tie between Democrats and the Klan? All of this and more was simply gone from your website — deliberately and willfully hidden from voters while trying to leave the impression that your party was a historically enthusiastic supporter of civil rights. Which, to understate, is not true.

Amid all the tragedy of Charleston, I would suggest that it is finally time for the Democratic Party — the party you chair — to come forward and admit its role in this long-running national horror. It’s time — way, way past time — for an apology. An apology directly from the leaders of the Democratic Party to black Americans, not to mention the rest of the country, for what your party has done.

And instead of raising all those millions for the next election? How about raising some millions from all your rich donors to pay black Americans for the damage you have done to them since the inception of your slavery/segregation and race-based party in 1800?"
The Democrats were formed as a political party based solely on support for racism and its, yes, "national horror". It is different now only in its tactics, not in its foundational premises. (Remember that abortion was founded on racist attempts to reduce the number of blacks; abortion is still focused heavily on blacks, as is the destruction of black families through welfare policies).

No Longer Sure That Trump is a False Flag Candidate

No Lefty could have responded as Trump did to the Univision issue.
Univision's Attack on Donald Trump Backfires

"So. As a result of Univision’s decidedly unthought-thorough stab at partisan politics they received in return 1) a lawsuit for breach of contract over the cancellation of the Miss Universe Pageant; 2) a lawsuit for defamation (the poster comparing Trump to the racist killer in Charleston; 3) its executives have been booted from the Trump golf course; 4) a once convivial agreement on building a gate between neighboring properties has been ordered closed; 5) there is now a demand for the resignation of the executive who posted the defaming poster; 6) the private letter revealing anchorman Ramos to be beseeching Trump for an interview has been publicly released; and…and 6;) Trump has received a boatload of priceless publicity that appears as his numbers surge in the polls.

Well done Univision! If this is the company’s idea of humiliating a Republican presidential candidate other GOP candidates are going to demand equal, Trump-style treatment from the network.

While this particular media episode has a Hispanic flavor, in fact it is one more example of life in the liberal media bubble. One can only imagine the conversations that went on internally in Univision.

Executive One: “Hey, I’ve got an idea! Let’s cancel Trump’s pageant!”

Executive Two:” Great idea! That’ll show him!”

Executive Three: “Yeah..yeah…that’s the ticket! And I have a great idea for a poster too!”

In other words? In the world of the liberal media bubble there was no one there to say: “What? Are you crazy? These are seriously bad ideas!”
If this is just Trump being a Lefty who is "acting like" a hardened business-conservative, he's a very good actor. Univision was playing with dynamite, or so it appears from the outside, peering in. Univision is pretty much in Hillary's pocket, so nothing has been lost by Trump. And much has been gained.

Bogus Science

Study claims 1 in 4 cancer research papers contains faked data

"While we don't think that the initial claim—a quarter of cancer research is fake—is accurate, the fact that it's closer to one in eight should still be troubling. A lot of responsibility rests with the authors who write these papers, as well as the reviewers and journal editors who accept them for publication. With bandwidth and storage as cheap as they are now, there's no good reason why one shouldn't be asked to submit the raw data for each experiment when submitting a paper.

Sadly, the pressure to puff up one's findings probably isn't going away any time soon. So, unless there's an organized strengthening of standards, problems like these probably won't go away either."

Boehner/Obama Party on Airforce One

John Boehner is a disgrace and should be impeached.
John Boehner gets his first Air Force One ride with Obama

"The change in Air Force One hangouts following the midterms provided a marked contrast to the middle of the Obama presidency; from September 2011 until February 2013 not a single Republican lawmaker joined the commander in chief aboard the plane, despite a litany of possible trips.

The president flew to Charleston Friday with a large group of lawmakers, including not only Boehner, but also Republican Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) and Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and John Lewis (D-Ga.).

Boehner carried with him an envelope containing a first-flight certificate, given to passengers when they make their first trip with a president aboard his plane."
Clutching a first-flight certificate?? Like his first merit badge?? No self respect at all. At least no respect from me. He gave Obama the secret but massive trade bill(s). And he acts like Stalin to his own party.