Friday, July 31, 2015

What If Embryos Had Cute Names... Like Cecil?


"Miss CJ at Chicks On The Right notes the curious leftist rage imbalance over the death of one lion compared to the deaths of unborn human children. And over at Time, Nash Jenkins offers remarkably clear-headed thoughts on the current Cecil crisis.

UPDATE. Incidentally, this happened in Africa on the weekend:

A 10-year old girl killed 16 people in a suicide bombing in the northeastern Nigeria city of Damaturu on Sunday.

The girl detonated her explosives next to a crowded market as shoppers were being screened by security services. According to the BBC, around 50 people were injured.

No lions were harmed. "
Well, the girl was a Muslim, not an American Dentist. Class distinctions are everything for Moral Outrage Rampant Organized Neanderthals.

Har! Just... Har!!

You Know You Live in a Conservative State When . . .

"Over in Williamson County, Tennessee — just north of my home — prosecutors actually filed a motion asking the court to order a defense attorney to stop calling them “the government” in open court. Yes, that’s right — in my home state, it’s apparently now a slur to call the government by its name. In its motion, prosecutors claimed:
“The State has noticed in the past few years that it has become commonplace during trials for attorneys for defendants, and especially Mr. Justice, to refer to State’s attorneys as ‘the Government,’ ” [prosecutors wrote.] “The State believes that such a reference is used in a derogatory way and is meant to make the State’s attorney seem oppressive and to inflame the jury.”
This is a great little story by itself, but then the defense attorney, Drew Justice, went and committed an act of pure awesomeness. He filed a motion with his own request:

He demanded his client no longer be referred to as “the Defendant,” but instead be called “Mister,” “the Citizen Accused” or “that innocent man” — since all defendants are presumed innocent until a judge or jury finds them guilty. As for himself, clearly “lawyer” or “defense attorney” wouldn’t do him, well, justice.

“Rather, counsel for the Citizen Accused should be referred to primarily as the ‘Defender of the Innocent.’ … Alternatively, counsel would also accept the designation ‘Guardian of the Realm,’ ” Justice wrote.

And since prosecutors are often referred to formally as “General” in court, Justice, in an effort to be flexible, offered up a military title of his own.
“Whenever addressed by name, the name ‘Captain Justice’ will be appropriate.”
Gathering steam, he went on to say that even “the defense” wasn’t adequate and that “the Resistance” would be far more appropriate.

He then concluded his motion, returning to the formal language of court documents — sort of.
“WHEREFORE, Captain Justice, Guardian of the Realm and Leader of the Resistance, primarily asks that the Court deny the State’s motion, as lacking legal basis.”
According to Captain Justice, the court denied both motions. So the government is still the “government,” but Captain Justice, Guardian of the Realm, lives on in print – but not in court. Well done, Captain. You’ve made the Tennessee Bar proud."

Planned Parenthood: Under the Bus by Their Own Crisis Managers

Public Relations Firm SKDKnickerbocker Scrubs Website Of Tie To Planned Parenthood

You know things are bad for Planned Parenthood when even their crisis communications firm is trying to distance itself from them.

I Love This

Drudge Juxtaposition (Updated)

Two Adjacent articles on Drudge:
The Iran Nuke Documents Obama Doesn’t Want You to See

"Seventeen unclassified Iran deal items have been locked in ultra-secure facilities ordinarily used for top secret info. Why is the Obama administration trying to bury this material?

Scattered around the U.S. Capitol complex are a series of Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facilities, or SCIFs, which are typically used to hold Top Secret information.

But today in these deeply secure settings are a series of unclassified documents—items dealing with the Iran nuclear deal that are not secret, but that the Obama administration is nevertheless blocking the public from reading."
What turns someone into a conspiracy theorist? Study to look at why some are more 'receptive' to such theories
Watching Obama works for me.

And now this:
IAEA Refuses to Brief Senators on Iran Deal, Even in Classified Setting
The MASTER CLASS has spoken. Congress must obey.

Re-Post: The Breitbart/Bast Rules For Anti-Radical Counter Warfare

[Originally HERE]

From Steve Milloy:
"1. Don’t be afraid to go into enemy territory. Our most articulate voices, likable faces, and best idea-makers need to go into hostile territory and plant the seeds of doubt in our ideological enemy and the apolitical masses who simply go where the media flows. Don’t just preach to the choir. Invade their space, get their attention, make them report what you say.

2. Expose the left for who they are – in their own words. It’s easy to label the left, to analyze them, to take them apart using your rationality….What’s much harder than understanding the left is exposing it. Come with real evidence …. quotations with names and dates, print-outs from Web sites. Push it across the table and say “on March 15 you compared gun owners to Nazis. Do you deny that?”

3. The key to success of the New Media is making news by breaking news. What people want to hear, what is important in an information-saturated world, is not research or commentary or opinion or reaction, but news. Get there first and report what you see, don’t comment on what other people say or think. Your ideas and opinions are not news. Never start with “I think” or “I happen to believe.”

4. Be open about the secrets and sins of yourself and your spokespersons. Once it’s out there, there isn’t much the left can do with it – you already admitted it. Say “that’s not news” and move on. See Rule #3: “That’s not news, so why are you still talking about it?” When confronted with your own past mistakes, embrace them. Don’t talk about how you regret them, don’t apologize, don’t explain. Say you lived through them and they made you who you are today. Embracing your mistakes makes you invulnerable to their slings.

5. Accuse the other side of hypocrisy. Use the words: “You are so hypocritical… you are a hypocrite.” The right is cited with it all the time because we actually have standards, they know it, and part of their Alinsky playbook is to try to embarrass us by holding us to our own standards. Everything bad they accuse us of doing, they are doing themselves. They lie, exaggerate, cherry-pick, live indulgent and wasteful lives, throw allies under the bus (e.g., native Americans, the poor, endangered species), etc. Hypocrisy appeals directly to the emotional heart of politics: one standard for you, another for me.

6. Don’t let the other side characterize you or shape the narrative. Object to labels and force them to report/register your objection. It’s not big business against the environment or the little guy, it’s the little guy against Big Environment, Big Labor, Big Government. If you refuse to buy into their lexicon, if you refuse to back down in the face of those intimidation tactics, they can’t harm you.

7. Express righteous indignation. Don’t just call them out, express your own outrage at being falsely accused. Point out that what they’re doing is pure Alinsky and that it has no basis in fact or reality. For example, say they’re showing themselves to be racists in their own right by citing race every time they meet someone with whom they disagree.

8. Dismiss phony accusations and labels out of hand as being ridiculous, then immediately go on the offense. Don’t start by defending yourself against baseless charges, dismiss them out of hand as ridiculous. Say he is a punk for leveling that kind of charge without any basis whatsoever. Demand that they back up their charges with specifics, and when they can’t, counter-charge them with hypocrisy (see Rule #5).

9. Control your story by serializing it. Think ahead to the next step of the argument, the debate, the longer-term strategy. View the current encounter as just one step, anticipate their response and plan your next step. Serialization is one way to do this: Van Jones was taken down by Glenn Beck because Beck had the goods – and because he revealed them piece by piece. He got them to come out of the closet and attack him. then he calmly laid his cards on the table, one by one.

10. Feed the media, starve your critics. Feeding the media is like training a dog – you can’t throw an entire steak at a dog to train it to sit. You have to give it little bits of steak over and over and over again until it learns its lesson. Meanwhile, give your critics nothing so they have nothing to report . Give them nothing to report (Rule #3), anticipate their response and force them to react to your story over and over again (Rule #9).

11. Ubiquity is key. When the MSM is ignoring you, develop relationships with like0-minded allies or even enemies and news junkies and allow them to share in the good fortune of a good scoop. Ubiquity is about growing the pie for everyone, spreading the stories, the channels of distribution, the resources around so that the entire movement can benefit, because our chunk of the public square gets bigger and bigger each time we break something huge.

12. Engage in the social media. Building a movement used to take time, but now it can be done in a few hours with the right connections and the right posts on the right websites. Use Facebook and Twitter and texting.

13. Don’t pretend to know more than you do. It feeds our ego and, we think, plays to our strength, but nobody can be an expert on everything, and nobody likes the guy who thinks he is but then flubs answers to seemingly simple questions. Instead of playing the know-it all, play Socrates, asking pointed questions rather than citing facts we may not be sure of.

14. Only accept media invites where you control the terms of engagement. Be generous with your time with friendly reporters, bloggers, and allies. In contrast, don’t agree to long interviews with hostile reporters which result in only a couple sentences taken out of context in a hit-piece published a week later. Insist of being interviewed live on television shows, know who the other guests are in advance so you can prepare, insist that the topic be something you want to discuss and are prepared to discuss and not “open-ended” or “to be decided.”

#15. Don’t let them pretend to know more than they do. The other guys will pretend to know more than they do, and because they seldom stray outside their friendly media zones they will not be prepared for demands that they prove their claims or the presentation of counter facts. You can always puncture their balloon with one word: why. Asking them to provide evidence for their assertions is always fun, and it’s even more fun asking them to provide the sources for that evidence. Reason is not their strong suit, emotion is. Force them to play on the football field of reason.

#16. Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. This is one of Alinksy’s rules, and he’s right. Memorable put downs of our opponents and their ideas can stick to them for a long time and damage their credibility. Create an unfavorable image that people can retrieve whenever a name (Al Gore) or idea (global warming, gun control) is mentioned. Images that are funny last the longest.

#17. Don’t let them get away with ignoring their own rules. This is another Alinsky rule: point out how their position contradicts some other position they hold, make them explain how killing barred owls to protect northern spotted owls helps the environment, how windmills that kill golden eagles and bats are good for the environment, why Indians are not allowed to use fracking on their own lands.

#18. Truth isn’t mean. It’s the truth. Don’t be afraid to say we are for the truth. “We’re not here to try to sell you anything. We’re just devoted to finding the truth.” Contrast the truth with “spin” and “political agendas.” The left is too deep into subjectivism and post-modern deconstructionism to believe the “truth” exists, so they will stumble and stutter when confronted with someone who naively believes it does. In a public debate, where most people do believe there is objective truth, saying you’re on the side of truth is good.

#19. Believe in the audacity of hope. Optimists win debates and elections and sell the most books. Do not be the guy on the panel who is dour, frowning, and the source of bad news. Be the guy who is smiling, looking up and around, laughing at everyone’s jokes, and eager to comment. Say “apathy is suicide” and “every problem has a solution, and the benefits of solving really big problems are huge.” Say we are winning… the debate, public support, the future. People like
winners, they look for horses to which to hook their wagons. Be that horse. Compete to pull the audience’s wagons. "
There's some slight discontinuity betweeen 1, 5, and 7. And I don't like 16. Mostly, though, the message is boldness, truth and persistence in the face of the enemy, and they ARE the enemy of both truth and freedom.

Thursday, July 30, 2015

Fourth Planned Parenthood Video: "It's A Boy!"

It turns out that only one video was stopped by judicial action. Here is the fourth video, released today:

Potential Write-In Candidate

The Man We Need: Kickass J. Biteme, Presidential Candidate

"I'd like you to meet Kickass J. Biteme, candidate for President of these United States.

Mr. Biteme — or Kick, as he prefers to be called — says what he thinks. And what he usually thinks is that American politics is petty, venal bullshit.

Kickass tells it like it is. He calls out the media for a pack of smug, entitled scribblers every day. He knows how we can deal with America's enemies: blow them right the fuck up, instanter. He kicks over the trough of slops from which Congress feeds and mocks their pretensions. He knows how to cure ever social ill, how to meet every challenge: do something fast and muscular, and stop talking. He has no truck with carefully crafted campaign statements.

"But why do I need Kickass Biteme?" you might ask. "Trump's my man."

Well, sure. Trump's got a decent shot at winning your id's vote. Trump's sure of himself. Trump's loud. But Trump's a real person, and therein lies his flaw. The realities of his past disrupt the sweet song of our viscera. Kickass Biteme's got no baggage. When Kick rants about government for sale, we won't be troubled by reminders that he's been a frequent buyer. When Kick vents against the target of the day, we won't have to remember that he was sucking up to them a moon's turn ago when it suited his purposes. When Kick blasts manufacturers for sending jobs overseas, nobody's going to be handing around polos with his vulgar insignia made by Laotian eight-year-olds. When Kick cuts a sneering interviewer off at the knees, we can be confident that it's robust American moral vigor, not just the latest thread in a tired pattern of childish petulance. Kick is pure. Kick isn't a poseur.

Since the ballot doesn't (yet) have a box for "none of the above," Kick is the word and the way — Kick is the guy we back to say "not a single one of you lying narcissistic motherfuckers deserves anything more than a boot in the ass." Kick is the way we ask "why should we pretend be happy that it's time to choose between the clap and a crowbar to the nuts again?" Kick's how we express our outrage at the naked emperor, at the sordid, venal pantomime of American politics — without the cognitive dissonance of endorsing someone who is, themselves, clearly full of shit, someone who is just clever and cynical enough to see our disgust as a distinct voting bloc.

Vote Kick in 2016. Accept no imitations. "
If you read this far, be kind and give the author a click at the LINK.

Planned Parenthood On The Ropes

Both the Obama Administration and Hillary are fast-pedaling backwards away from Planned Parenthood:
Hillary throws Planned Parenthood under the bus
White House Won’t Commit to Veto of Bill Defunding Planned Parenthood.
Planned Parenthood no longer helps their agendas, it appears. PP might need heftier crisis management help.

The Racism of Abortion

Do black lives really matter? Or just a few black lives?
“Five thousand, four hundred and ninety-nine abortions are in Cuyahoga County, which I happen to represent,” Patmon said in a speech Tuesday. “And 63 percent of them are black women.”
Video at link. As Moe Lane adds, African-Americans have serious moral issues with abortion. It doesn’t stop African-Americans from voting for Democrats, obviously – but their personal attitudes on abortion still remain. So the Democrats are playing with some serious fire, here. Because you may have noticed that the crowd was firmly in agreement with state Representative Patmon on all of this…”
From Instapundit
Blacks killed in abortions and blacks killed by other blacks don't matter. There is no protest for any of them. Only the racist assertion that just those blacks killed by whites, THOSE are the black lives that matter.

This is Leftist and black racism, openly exposed for all to observe.

American Insanity, Episode L(ion)

Here's the reaction in the country of the lion's residence:
"Why are the Americans more concerned than us?" said Joseph Mabuwa, a 33-year-old father-of-two cleaning his car in the center of the capital. "We never hear them speak out when villagers are killed by lions and elephants in Hwange."
You see, Mr. Mabuwa, a great many Americans place more value on certain classes of animals than they do on humans in certain classes. Certain classes of humans are killable; certain classes of animals are not. Rage ensues whenever this class system is violated. That's how Americans - in certain classes - think these days. Irrational? Yes. Insane? Yes. Impossible to change back to sanity? Who knows? For now, the dentist is in the Killable Class.

Cecil the Lion and America's Broken Outrage Meter

"Paying $54,000 to kill a wild, beautiful animal seems like a strange and questionable hobby at best; at worst, it seems downright cruel. On the other hand, some conservationists applaud the practice, at least when it’s done legally. What’s telling, however, is that the great Cecil conflagration of 2015 occurred on the same day undercover operatives released the third in a series of graphic, disturbing Planned Parenthood videos. This video, unlike the former two, featured body parts. Tiny body parts. Detailed, well formed, and unmistakably human.

But never mind. Let’s talk about Cecil, a lion that has emerged as a benevolent, finely sketched cartoon creature in the global moral imagination, setting our hyperactive but wildly misfiring outrage meter into a wild, chaotic spin. He’s a lot more fun to think about than unborn baby humans, apparently. The villains in his case are certainly more dramatically drawn. And really: Who doesn’t like cartoons better than reality?t"
Read elsewhere: Lions don't have names; cartoons have names. You'd think that Elmer Fudd actually killed Bugs Bunny.

Cyber Stalker

The adolescent calling himself Hugo/Liberal Viewer now thinks he has my name and address, and that of at least one other person who comments here. I will report this to the FBI. He is likely traceable now via his email, given Google's cooperation with NSA. We'll see. Stalking is illegal in all US states.

What he actually has is our address from 2007 which was attached to the old website, the original site which has been dormant and neglected for quite some time. I just started to revive the site, and removed our current address from the whois file, which is attached to the new provider.

Stalking is not necessarily caused by a single recognized mental disorder, but is frequently characterized by the presence of several disorders, including Borderline Personality Disorder, depression, substance abuse, and other personality disorders (1). Sometimes it's just a person with a grudge, who is too cowardly to present himself honestly and with personal integrity.

There are five identified types of stalker:
Rejected Stalker

Intimacy Seeking Stalker

Incompetent Stalker

Resentful Stalker

Predatory Stalker
This particular stalker is definitely incompetent, having been banned from the blog specifically due to his incompetence and irrationality; his current attacks reek of juvenile resentment, like a hateful, disciplined pre-teen, and so has the component of rejection stalking as well. He cannot gain respect legitimately, so he must resort to stalking to attempt to artificially pump up his self-esteem in the only fashion remaining to him. He is filled with Leftist hate, and apparently wants to strike enough fear so that this site is shut down. I do not fear him or anyone. Plus he is incompetent: he has not actually found me so far. This site will merely point out his sorry, sordid state of mind and his consequential incompetence, until he gets psychiatric care. Most stalkers do not get such care, because they are too mentally scrambled to recognize their own illness. A large number of stalkers wind up dead or in prison, instead of getting the help they need.

So to summarize what I do know about Hugo/LiberalViewer: he is Atheist; Leftist; irrational; incompetent; resentful at his rejection; resorting to cowardly pseudo-bullying.

1. Via :
Meloy, J.R. (1998). The psychology of stalking. In J.R. Meloy (Ed.) The psychology of stalking: Clinical and forensic perspectives. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

This has been reported to the FBI.

Planned Parenthood Video #3

Unless hackers obtain and release the further videos, this will be the last; Planned Parenthood has gotten them banned by the court. Their fear of daylight is palpable. This video reveals one reason why.

Wednesday, July 29, 2015

Note to Hugo Pelland

Hugo Please Email me, thanks.

More Jon Stewart: Obama's Democrat Princeling of Leftist Snark

Jon Stewart’s secret Obama meetings reveal he’s a partisan hack

Jon Stewart — the man who loves to be called a nonpartisan, a scourge of cant, an honest soul who follows the truth wherever it leads — has been secretly taking trips to the White House to receive intense one-on-one lobbying from President Obama.

Moreover, Politico reported Tuesday, “Daily Show” staffers routinely call up the White House to get the administration’s input.

Austan Goolsbee, a former top economic adviser to the president, frequently emailed with his college classmate Scott Bodow, a “Daily Show” executive producer, to offer spin. Obama flunky David Axelrod often reached out directly to Stewart.

Obama himself would summon Stewart to Washington for meetings.

It turns out Jon Stewart isn’t our Edward R. Murrow or our Mark Twain. He’s more like our . . . Jay Carney. Don’t count on future generations knowing Stewart’s name any more than they will know Carney’s.

Remember when, under a Republican president, it was the duty of all comedians to be the loyal opposition, to speak truth to power? Stewart does the opposite.

He’s more like a referee who sneaks into the Patriots’ locker room to ask Tom Brady how much he wants his footballs deflated.

“The Daily Show” isn’t enduring political satire. It’s more like sports talk radio for liberals. Liberals watch it not to be informed but to get caught up in team spirit, a big part of which is simply mindlessly razzing the other team.

Just as a Patriots fan might occasionally carp at this or that player or coaching decision because they might put the game or season at risk, Stewart occasionally jabs the Obama administration.

But these jabs tend to be mild and rarely directed at the man in charge. Even the most egregious policy bungle or misuse of power tends to serve as an excuse for a segue to an attack on Fox News or the hypocrisy of conservatives.

Last year, under fire for the horrifying conditions at Veterans Administration hospitals that led to the deaths of perhaps hundreds of vets, Obama tried to reroute the nation’s attention with what he thought would be a warm, patriotic tableau: the release of POW Bowe Bergdahl in Afghanistan.

It immediately became obvious that Bergdahl, for whom Obama had traded five Taliban prisoners, was a likely deserter, and Bergdahl is currently awaiting trial on that charge. Stewart’s response was to blast away at Fox News for suggesting Bergdahl was a deserter.

If that blame-shifting non-answer had come directly from the White House, it would have seemed as pathetic as Richard Nixon telling us not to listen to those pinkos Woodward and Bernstein. But Stewart’s pose as an honest observer helped cement the impression with liberals that there was nothing wrong with the Bergdahl decision.

Mild sarcasm is about the worst Stewart can hurl at Obama, but he called conservative columnist Robert Novak a “vampire demon” and George W. Bush an “a–hole,” and mocked the heart transplant that saved Dick Cheney’s life as “more of a heart plant when you don’t have an original.”
So now Stewart will be known as the Obama's boy partisan hack faux journalist (and vile racist)... who Leftists assiduously believed. That says as much about Leftists as it does about Stewart.

Planned Parenthood: All FOR Deceptively Edited Videos Before They Were Against Un-editied Videos

Remember when Planned Parenthood was cool with secretly recorded video? We do! [pic]
Planned Parenthood slams Live Action for ‘edited videotapes,’ slimes Romney in deceptively edited ad; Update: NYT agrees
Too slimy even for the NYT!

Yes. Keep Planned Parenthood's Actions Secret - by Government Decree

Court bars anti-abortion group from releasing new videos
The government protects the secret ops of Planned Parenthood. Official censorship in action.

Here's What Happens in Today's World When You Assert Innocent Until Proven Guilty

What Cecil the Lion Tells Us About America

"Now, Dr. Palmer wasn't the only one getting death threats, but so was I. And this of course, bathed in an endless list of brilliant and cogent arguments presented by the YouTube community about me "being a dumbass" or "a stupid fucker" and other arguments of intelligence, thought, and ponderance proving the quality of education the Millennial generation is receiving in college. But it wasn't the death threats or names that forced me to pull the video (that comes with the territory), it was when they started posting the private data of Dr. Palmer that I now had a legal risk. And so unfortunately the video had to come down.

Still, we don't need the video to realize a very important and vital lesson about the mental faculties of your average American. And that lesson is they are no longer capable of logic, reason, empiricism or sanity. Worse, they're so selfish and narcissistic, they happily put their emotions over principles and the rights of others. With no proof (at that point in time) that Dr. Palmer was guilty of violating any law people were already threatening to kill him, ruin his career, and ruin his life. Some were so far gone they said they didn't care about the legality of his kill, they just thought he should be punished for hunting. And it is this principleless, amoral, mindless mob who put their emotions over, not just an individual's rights, but reality, facts, and truth that not only makes it difficult for the legal system to mete out justice, but is undermining our respective societies today.

The real story is not that poor Cecil was tragically shot. It's that western civilization, specifically the younger generations, have lost their collective minds and do not have the mental faculties to be adults, let alone adults in the free world. They are effectively zombies. And there is no reasoning with them."
Well, they move faster than zombies when they attack.

And there's this:
In Memory Of Cecil The Lion

"By now you have learned about the outrage geared toward a particular dentist from Minnesota who shot a lion in Zimbabwe. The lion even had a name, Cecil. There are many comments from leftist websites and twitter feeds where the dentist is receiving death threats. Death threats for shooting a lion…a lion who had a cute name. And here I thought leftists didn’t believe in the death penalty. Who knew? Weird how many of these leftists are outraged over a lion being shot, yet don’t say as much as “boo” about baby parts being sold to PP.

Here is my tribute to Cecil the lion and wild animals everywhere.

Here is Lippy the Lion just doing what lions do."

Planned Parenthood Hires Crisis Management

Nine More Undercover Videos Ready To Drop On Planned Parenthood

"WASHINGTON — David Daleiden, founder of the Center For Medical Progress (CMP), told conservative talk radio host Sean Hannity Tuesday there are nine more sting-operation videos that reveal Planned Parenthood’s operations.

“We have close to 300 hours total of undercover video that was gathered during a 30 month long in depth investigative journalism study of how Planned Parenthood sells the body parts of the babies they abort,” Daleiden said, noting that each highlight video released will have the full footage posted on their website without any edits.

CMP has already released three videos showing Planned Parenthood officials, personnel, and doctors discussing the harvesting of aborted baby parts. Congress proposed legislation Wednesday to defund Planned Parenthood’s abortion activity and moving the money to community health centers and hospitals instead.

Planned Parenthood has hired a Washington D.C. based crisis management firm to deal with the fallout."

[Emphsis added]
Yes, they will need help. The "malicious editing" Red Herring won't get them far.

Camille Paglia, On Atheism, Jon Stewart, and Snark Atheism

I'm surprised that Salon published this:
Camille Paglia takes on Jon Stewart, Trump, Sanders: “Liberals think of themselves as very open-minded, but that’s simply not true!”

Trump's a carnival barker, but funnier than Stewart. Richard Dawkins is a joke. Sanders and Drudge earn approval

Salon: "You’re an atheist, and yet I don’t ever see you sneer at religion in the way that the very aggressive atheist class right now often will. What do you make of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and the religion critics who seem not to have respect for religions for faith?
I regard them as adolescents. I say in the introduction to my last book, “Glittering Images”, that “Sneering at religion is juvenile, symptomatic of a stunted imagination.” It exposes a state of perpetual adolescence that has something to do with their parents– they’re still sneering at dad in some way. Richard Dawkins was the only high-profile atheist out there when I began publicly saying “I am an atheist,” on my book tours in the early 1990s. I started the fad for it in the U.S, because all of a sudden people, including leftist journalists, started coming out of the closet to publicly claim their atheist identities, which they weren’t bold enough to do before. But the point is that I felt it was perfectly legitimate for me to do that because of my great respect for religion in general–from the iconography to the sacred architecture and so forth. I was arguing that religion should be put at the center of any kind of multicultural curriculum.

I’m speaking here as an atheist. I don’t believe there is a God, but I respect every religion deeply. All the great world religions contain a complex system of beliefs regarding the nature of the universe and human life that is far more profound than anything that liberalism has produced. We have a whole generation of young people who are clinging to politics and to politicized visions of sexuality for their belief system. They see nothing but politics, but politics is tiny. Politics applies only to society. There is a huge metaphysical realm out there that involves the eternal principles of life and death. The great tragic texts, including the plays of Aeschylus and Sophocles, no longer have the central status they once had in education, because we have steadily moved away from the heritage of western civilization.

The real problem is a lack of knowledge of religion as well as a lack of respect for religion. I find it completely hypocritical for people in academe or the media to demand understanding of Muslim beliefs and yet be so derisive and dismissive of the devout Christian beliefs of Southern conservatives.

But yes, the sneering is ridiculous! Exactly what are these people offering in place of religion? In my system, I offer art–and the whole history of spiritual commentary on the universe. There’s a tremendous body of nondenominational insight into human life that used to be called cosmic consciousness. It has to be remembered that my generation in college during the 1960s was suffused with Buddhism, which came from the 1950s beatniks. Hinduism was in the air from every direction–you had the Beatles and the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Ravi Shankar at Monterey, and there were sitars everywhere in rock music. So I really thought we were entering this great period of religious syncretism, where the religions of the world were going to merge. But all of a sudden, it disappeared! The Asian religions vanished–and I really feel sorry for young people growing up in this very shallow environment where they’re peppered with images from mass media at a particularly debased stage.

There are no truly major stars left, and I don’t think there’s much profound work being done in pop culture right now. Young people have nothing to enlighten them, which is why they’re clinging so much to politicized concepts, which give them a sense of meaning and direction.

But this sneering thing! I despise snark. Snark is a disease that started with David Letterman and jumped to Jon Stewart and has proliferated since. I think it’s horrible for young people! And this kind of snark atheism–let’s just invent that term right now–is stupid, and people who act like that are stupid. Christopher Hitchens’ book “God is Not Great” was a travesty. He sold that book on the basis of the brilliant chapter titles. If he had actually done the research and the work, where each chapter had the substance of those wonderful chapter titles, then that would have been a permanent book. Instead, he sold the book and then didn’t write one–he talked it. It was an appalling performance, demonstrating that that man was an absolute fraud to be talking about religion. He appears to have done very little scholarly study. Hitchens didn’t even know Judeo-Christianity well, much less the other world religions. He had that glib Oxbridge debater style in person, but you’re remembered by your written work, and Hitchens’ written work was weak and won’t last.

Dawkins also seems to be an obsessive on some sort of personal vendetta, and again, he’s someone who has never taken the time to do the necessary research into religion. Now my entire career has been based on the pre-Christian religions. My first book, “Sexual Personae,” was about the pagan cults that still influence us, and it began with the earliest religious artifacts, like the Venus of Willendorf in 35,000 B.C. In the last few years, I’ve been studying Native American culture, in particular the Paleo-Indian period at the close of the Ice Age. In the early 1990s, when I first arrived on the scene, I got several letters from Native Americans saying my view of religion, women, and sexuality resembled the traditional Native American view. I’m not surprised, because my orientation is so fixed in the pre-Christian era.
You mentioned Jon Stewart, who leaves the “Daily Show” in two weeks. There’s handwringing from folks who think that he elevated or even transcended snark, that he utilized irony very effectively during the Bush years. And that he did the work of critiquing and fact-checking Fox and others on the right who helped create this debased media culture? What’s your sense of his influence?
I think Stewart’s show demonstrated the decline and vacuity of contemporary comedy. I cannot stand that smug, snarky, superior tone. I hated the fact that young people were getting their news through that filter of sophomoric snark. Comedy, to me, is one of the major modern genres, and the big influences on my generation were Lenny Bruce and Mort Sahl. Then Joan Rivers had an enormous impact on me–she’s one of my major role models. It’s the old caustic, confrontational style of Jewish comedy. It was Jewish comedians who turned stand-up from the old gag-meister shtick of vaudeville into a biting analysis of current social issues, and they really pushed the envelope. Lenny Bruce used stand-up to produce gasps and silence from the audience. And that’s my standard–a comedy of personal risk. And by that standard, I’m sorry, but Jon Stewart is not a major figure. He’s certainly a highly successful T.V. personality, but I think he has debased political discourse. I find nothing incisive in his work. As for his influence, if he helped produce the hackneyed polarization of moral liberals versus evil conservatives, then he’s partly at fault for the political stalemate in the United States.

I don’t demonize Fox News. At what point will liberals wake up to realize the stranglehold that they had on the media for so long? They controlled the major newspapers and weekly newsmagazines and T.V. networks. It’s no coincidence that all of the great liberal forums have been slowly fading. They once had such incredible power. Since the rise of the Web, the nightly network newscasts have become peripheral, and the New York Times and the Washington Post have been slowly fading and are struggling to survive."
Go there for much more: LINK.Paglia is that rarest of Atheists: willing to look at Atheism with an honesty grounded in the truths of historical rational processes. She seems to ebb and flow; here she is definitely flowing.
"Now let me give you a recent example of the persisting insularity of liberal thought in the media. When the first secret Planned Parenthood video was released in mid-July, anyone who looks only at liberal media was kept totally in the dark about it, even after the second video was released. But the videos were being run nonstop all over conservative talk shows on radio and television. It was a huge and disturbing story, but there was total silence in the liberal media. That kind of censorship was shockingly unprofessional. The liberal major media were trying to bury the story by ignoring it. Now I am a former member of Planned Parenthood and a strong supporter of unconstrained reproductive rights. But I was horrified and disgusted by those videos and immediately felt there were serious breaches of medical ethics in the conduct of Planned Parenthood officials. But here’s my point: it is everyone’s obligation, whatever your political views, to look at both liberal and conservative news sources every single day. You need a full range of viewpoints to understand what is going on in the world."
If you go first to the Leftist media and then to the conservative media, you find that the conservative media publishes twice as much news, because it publishes all the news censored by the leftists.

Organic Products: Open To Fraud and Moral Abuse

The Colossal Hoax Of Organic Agriculture

"Many people who pay the huge premium—often more than a hundred percent–for organic foods do so because they’re afraid of pesticides. If that’s their rationale, they misunderstand the nuances of organic agriculture. Although it’s true that synthetic chemical pesticides are generally prohibited, there is a lengthy list of exceptions listed in the Organic Foods Production Act, while most “natural” ones are permitted. However, “organic” pesticides can be toxic. As evolutionary biologist Christie Wilcox explained in a 2012 Scientific American article (“Are lower pesticide residues a good reason to buy organic? Probably not.”): “Organic pesticides pose the same health risks as non-organic ones.”

Another poorly recognized aspect of this issue is that the vast majority of pesticidal substances that we consume are in our diets “naturally” and are present in organic foods as well as non-organic ones. In a classic study, UC Berkeley biochemist Bruce Ames and his colleagues found that “99.99 percent (by weight) of the pesticides in the American diet are chemicals that plants produce to defend themselves.” Moreover, “natural and synthetic chemicals are equally likely to be positive in animal cancer tests.” Thus, consumers who buy organic to avoid pesticide exposure are focusing their attention on just one-hundredth of one percent of the pesticides they consume.

Some consumers think that the USDA National Organic Program (NOP) requires certified organic products to be free of ingredients from “GMOs,” organisms crafted with molecular techniques of genetic engineering. Wrong again. USDA does not require organic products to be GMO-free. (In any case, the methods used to create so-called GMOs are an extension, or refinement, of older techniques for genetic modification that have been used for a century or more.) As USDA officials have said repeatedly:
Organic certification is process-based. That is, certifying agents attest to the ability of organic operations to follow a set of production standards and practices which meet the requirements of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 and the [National Organic Program] regulations . . . If all aspects of the organic production or handling process were followed correctly, then the presence of detectable residue from a genetically modified organism alone does not constitute a violation of this regulation. [emphasis added]

Putting it another way, so long as an organic farmer abides by his organic system (production) plan–a plan that an organic certifying agent must approve before granting the farmer organic status–the unintentional presence of GMOs (or, for that matter, prohibited synthetic pesticides) in any amount does not affect the organic status of the farmer’s products or farm.

Under only two circumstances does USDA sanction the testing of organic products for prohibited residues (such as pesticides, synthetic fertilizers or antibiotics) or excluded substances (e.g., genetically engineered organisms). First, USDA’s National Organic Production Standards support the testing of products if an organic-certifying agent believes that the farmer is intentionally using prohibited substances or practices. And second, USDA requires that certifying agents test five percent of their certified operations each year. The certifying agents themselves determine which operations will be subjected to testing."
When we started raising cattle we looked seriously into organic beef. The requirements for organic beef allow and virtually require the abuse of cattle. This is done by disallowing both common pesticides for biting insects and worms, as well as disallowing health treatment by common antibiotics, whether for internal distress or topical wounds. Organic beef, then comes from cattle which are denied health care which is normally available to them, and is common for humans. It is actually outrageous. Similar problems occur with vegetables, but fraud is likely the largest issue: selling non-organic for organic to get the higher price; who's to know the difference in the supermarket?

More Leftist Racism

CDC Should Admit Coverup of Vaccine-Autism Link: Top Doctor

"Last summer, Dr. William Thompson, a senior epidemiologist at the Centers for Disease Control, admitted that he had helped the CDC hide data from a study which linked the MMR vaccine to autism. Holistic doctor David Brownstein tells Newsmax Health the CDC is still not owning up to Dr. Thompson's charges that they found data that links the vaccine to a spike in autism. "The CDC is still not coming clean," Dr. Brownstein says. "They want to keep it quiet, but it's time the cover-up ended."
Some experts believe that the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine (MMR) caused an increase in autism, but the idea has been roundly discredited by government officials.

Officially, the 2004 CDC study Dr. Thompson helped conduct found no link between the MMR vaccine and autism. In addition, the study, which was published in the journal Pediatrics, stated that no particular racial group was more at risk than others.

But Dr. Thompson said the actual data painted quite a different picture. He confessed that he and other CDC scientists intentionally omitted African-American children from the study, and changed data in order to show no link between vaccines and autism.

In fact, the original data found that giving a child the vaccine before the age of 36 months increased the risk of autism by 69 percent, and giving it to an African-American child increased the risk of autism by 240 percent!

Since Dr. Thompson's admission, nothing has been done, says Dr. Brownstein, author of the newsletter Natural Way to Health. "It's been almost a year and nothing has happened. Zip. Zero. No testimony. No hearing. No nothing."

Earlier this year, the Obama administration gave Thompson whistleblower status, granting him immunity. Hearings have been promised, but none have taken place. Dr. Brownstein urges Congressman Jason Chaffetz to move forward with plans to hold hearings on the CDC cover-up, and to issue a subpoena to Dr. Thompson. "The CDC will not let him speak out without a subpoena," he says.

As for Thompson, although he believes in the importance of vaccines, he regrets going along with omitting crucial information that showed a link between the vaccine and autism. "I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics," he said in a statement. "The omitted data suggested that African-American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed."

[emphasis added]
The Left likes to say, "government is just the things we choose to do together". Riiight. This is specific discrimination against black children, specifically caused and maintained by the Leftist US government. These children are sacrificial pawns in the narrative that ALL children must be vaccinated and ALL vaccines are safe; hysteria-mongering is the weapon: measles will KILL CHILDREN (at least a few, and only 'maybe', and of course, only those who made it through the abortion killing juggernaut and thus are not already dead.)

Vox Day produced this data from CDC (yeah I know; is it corrupted, too? But it's interesting anyway):
Since there is so much ridiculous ignorance being blathered about, particularly on the pro-vaccine side, I thought it would make sense to remind everyone of the actual facts of the matter. First of all, vaccines have had even less impact with regards to measles than I'd shown yesterday, because 1912-1916 was not the peak of the pre-vaccination era. From the CDC:

1900-1909: 8377 deaths per year (average) associated with measles.
1920-1929: 6659 deaths per year (average) associated with measles.
1953-1962: 444 deaths per year (average) associated with measles.
1959-1962: 404 deaths per year (average) associated with measles.

To be more precise, lets look at the actual annual deaths recorded in the years leading up to the introduction of the vaccine. Remember that the measles vaccine was introduced in 1963.

1950: 468
1951: 683
1952: 618
1953: 462
1954: 518
1955: 345
1956: 530
1957: 389
1958: 552
1959: 385
1960: 380
1961: 434
1962: 408

Obviously, the reduction of deaths from 8,377 to 408 is even better than the decline from 5,300 to 450 cited in the Oxford Journals study yesterday. That means that 95.1 percent of the decline in measles mortality had NOTHING to do with vaccination. It could not have. The vaccine had not yet been introduced.
There's more at the LINK: go there if you're interested. In another post, Vox says this:
383,542: Automobile deaths in last 10 years
6,770: Bicycle deaths in last 10 years
0: Measles deaths in last 10 years

As it happens, since 2003, 108 more Americans have died from reactions to the measles vaccine than have died from measles. Vaccine apologists like to claim that anti-vaxxers "have blood on their hands" due to hypothetical deaths that could theoretically occur as a result of imagined transmissions of communicable diseases that haven't actually taken place, but the fact is that they have real blood from actual deaths on their own.
Here's another pro-vaxxer claim: what if one of those children were your own? Yeah. What if?

All this is confirmable at the CDC, as of the date of the articles. Now, maybe not so much...

You Knew It Was True

Jon Stewart’s secret White House visits

Obama, aides took unusual steps to cultivate ‘Daily Show’ comic.

"Samuelsohn reports that Stewart visited the Oval Office in the fall of 2011 to privately meet with Obama, in the midst of heated budget negotiations. According to former Obama aide Austan Goolsbee, “the president wanted to counter his critics on the left and lay the groundwork for his 2012 re-election campaign.”

In 2014, the president met with Stewart during the early days of the Ukraine crisis. Later that day, Obama announced that there would be harsh consequences for Russia if they continued their aggression towards Ukraine. In his first show after the meeting, Stewart– who had skewered the aggressive cowboy stances of George W. Bush during his presidency– ran an opening segment mocking… Vladimir Putin."
Where will millenials get their "Daily" indoctrination, now that Jon Stewart is leaving Obama in the lurch?

It's interesting that it has also been revealed that Stewart engaged in video editing, such as putting guest's answers after different questions than the one actually asked. Where's the outrage?

Genetic Science (vs. Dictated Equality)

What should be common sense now has a scientific datum:
Genes influence academic ability across all subjects, latest study shows

Around 60% of differences in GCSE results can be explained by genetic factors, with the same genes responsible for maths, science and the humanities

"Robert Plomin, a professor of genetics at King’s College London and the study’s senior author, said: “We found that academic achievement in English, mathematics, science, humanities, second languages and art were all affected by the same genes. People may think that they’re good at one subject and bad at another, but in reality most people are strikingly consistent.”

In the future, if specific genes were identified, nursery children could be screened to help target those who are likely to require more help learning basic skills such as reading and arithmetic, Plomin added.

Results in all subjects, including maths, science, art and humanities, were highly heritable, with genes explaining a bigger proportion of the differences between children (54-65%) than environmental factors, such as school and family combined (14-21%), which were shared by the twins."

Comparing the outcomes for identical twins with fraternal twins allows scientists to investigate the extent to which genetics influence a person’s life. Identical twins share 100% of their genes, whereas fraternal twins share on average only half of the genes that differ between people.

So if genetics were a significant factor governing GCSE results, the differences between fraternal twins’ performances would be expected to be consistently greater than those between identical twins – and this is what the scientists saw.

When the scientists factored in IQ scores, they found that intelligence appeared to account for slightly less than half of the genetic component, suggesting that other heritable traits – curiosity, determination and memory, perhaps – play a significant role.

Kaili Rimfeld, who led the study and is also at King’s College London, said: “There’s a general academic achievement factor. Children who do well in one subject tend to better in another subject and that is largely for genetic reasons.”

Plomin said that while talking about genetics and education was no longer the taboo that it was twenty years ago, education professionals were slow to adapt teaching methods in the face of new scientific findings. “It’s a problem with evidence,” he said. “Thirty years ago medicine wasn’t particularly evidence-based. I think education is fundamentally not based on evidence. What programme has been rolled out that has been based on evidence? We ought to hold educationalists to the same standards of evidence as medicine.”
If this is replicated properly, then there is a secondary conclusion: not all people are equal in their intellectual and cognitive abilities. So declaring equality is ideological, not rational. The next step in such an investigation would include genetic achievement differences within races, sexes, ideological classes, and between races, sexes, ideological classes; that would be too controversial and would not happen under current political correctness. There are some truths which may not be spoken.

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

New Charge of NOAA Data Fraud

A new accusation from Steve Goddard:
Mind-Blowing Temperature Fraud At NOAA

"The measured US temperature data from USHCN shows that the US is on a long-term cooling trend. But the reported temperatures from NOAA show a strong warming trend.

They accomplish this through a spectacular hockey stick of data tampering, which corrupts the US temperature trend by almost two degrees.

The biggest component of this fraud is making up data. Almost half of all reported US temperature data is now fake. They fill in missing rural data with urban data to create the appearance of non-existent US warming.

The depths of this fraud is breathtaking, but completely consistent with the fraudulent profession which has become known as “climate science”"

I don't recall ever seeing a graph of percentage of fake data before. Interesting. On the surface it sounds like a whistleblower has surfaced with inside views into their processes. Without that, their data is unfalsifiable and is therefore dogma.

Dice's Extra Male-Privilege Tax On Men

[Sarcasm Alert: Go To Your Safe Place Immediately]

The Coming (And Hilarious) Democrat Implosion

"Yes, if she wants to keep ahold of her base and any chance of winning, Her Highness {Hillary] is going to have to try to decipher the ever-changing cryptography of leftist priorities. Do black lives matter more than brown ones? How about if someone has a limp … is that worth a couple extra points on the oppression scale? And what about LGBTQ lives – how much do they matter with respect to Pacific-Islanders lives? And is the acronym “LGBTQ” even enough, or is she unforgivably forgetting several more letters representing other oppressed classes of esoteric gender identity contortionists and exotic sexual practitioners?

But turning on Team Social Justice Fascism means turning off the normals. Hillary wanted to be reaching out to regular Americans and now she has to kiss up to millennial twerps with 500,000 Twitter followers who babble about “privilege.” Regular Americans are going to be super excited to hear how they are morally deficient solely because their great-great-great grandfather hailed from Stuttgart.

And that whole War on Women thing is going to fall a little flat now that Hillary’s allies got caught on tape swilling cabernet and giggling about their war crimes. Despite what those in her little circle of abortionophilics think, normal people are disgusted and appalled at the thought of a tax parasite organization supplementing its government subsidies by dismembering babies and auctioning off the chunks. "
Unless there are actually sufficient "normal people" remaining, Hillary will win anyway; it's her turn in the hierarchic ascension. Maybe after her it will be Caitlyn's turn to be the first XY-quasi-woman president.

And there is this:
'Have you been sexually harassed by Bill Clinton?'
I wonder why WaPo hasn't covered this? They're probably in their safe place, I guess.

[Link Fixed].

Monday, July 27, 2015

More: Truth That May Not Be Spoken

Senate GOP leaders slam Cruz for calling McConnell a liar

"WASHINGTON The Senate’s Republican leadership rhetorically took Sen. Ted Cruz to the woodshed Sunday for calling Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell a liar last week on the chamber’s floor.

Cruz was unbowed, firing back soon after leaving the Senate floor and accusing Senate Republican leaders of marching in lockstep with Senate Democrats on such things as funding the Affordable Care Act, funding Planned Parenthood and refusing to tie an Iran nuclear deal to Iran’s recognition of Israel’s right to exist.

“They operate as a team, expanding Washington and undermining the liberty of the people,” the Texas Republican said of Senate Democratic and Republican leaders.

“We’ve just seen something extraordinary on the Senate floor. The American people elected a Republican majority believing that a Republican majority would be somehow different from a Democratic majority in the United States Senate. Unfortunately, the way the current Senate operates, there is one party, the Washington party.”

The admonishment of the 2016 Republican presidential candidate came as a prelude to a series of votes that advanced language to revive the Export-Import Bank, moved the chamber closer towards passing a highway funding bill, and once again rejected a measure to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

The Senate opened the rare Sunday session in a highly unusual manner: with a warning.

“The chair reminds all senators of the following paragraph from Rule 19 of the Standing Rules of the Senate … ‘No senator in debate shall directly or indirectly by any form of words impute to another senator or to other senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a senator,’” Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the chamber’s president pro tempore, sternly read.

That was a response to Cruz, who last Friday accused Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.,of lying about whether he made a deal to have the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank attached to a highway legislation that senators must pass by this coming Friday.

“What we just saw today was an absolute demonstration that not only what he told every Republican senator, but what he told the press over and over and over again, was simply a lie,” Cruz said in the fiery speech Friday. “We know now that when the majority leader looks us in the eyes and makes an explicit commitment, that he is willing to say things that he knows are false."
One who is proven to produce lies is a liar. This is obvious truth; it cannot be said. Why? Because establishment Republicans no longer accept truth as a valuable commodity - being Democrat-lite is their worldview.

Yep. Just Like They Did In Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria...

Defense Secretary Carter: ISIS will be defeated, but important to ‘make it stick’

The Left Eats Itself; Hillary/NYT Edition

Hillary camp rips NY Times, but email story still dogs her

"Hillary Clinton’s email mess has been like a low-grade fever that keeps returning in nastier form.

And the problem is she’s never taken the cure—by answering all the outstanding questions—as part of her media-averse approach.

Now the Clinton campaign is on the offense against the New York Times, branding its latest story on the controversy “false” and “discredited.”

“This incident shows the danger of relying on reckless, inaccurate leaks from partisan sources," the campaign says.
Leftist journalism seems to be turning on Clinton; this time it is the NYT. But Clinton still has some juice, and the NYT backed up into passive mode:
The paper has been taking a lot of heat for softening the wording of the lead paragraph after a complaint from the Clinton camp.

This regularly happens with newspapers, by the way, and changes are made between editions if the editors and reporters feel they have gotten something wrong or used overstated language. Now it happens instantaneously online—but in that culture, the Times had a responsibility to tell readers that it was weakening the story. This was hardly a routine change in a routine story, and that undermines faith in the paper.

The original story said that two inspectors general were asking Justice to consider a criminal probe of “whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account she used as secretary of State.”

The revised version had the investigators making the referral based on “whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of State.”

The passive construction might seem minor, since any probe would involve the same private Hillary emails. But the wording of the first version does insinuate that Hillary might be a target of such a probe; the second does not.

After nearly a day of being hammered by journalists and media critics, the Times did post a correction:
“An earlier version of this article and an earlier headline, ​using information from senior government officials, misstated the nature of the referral to the Justice Department regarding Hillary Clinton’s personal email account while she was secretary of state. The referral addressed the potential compromise of classified information in connection with that personal email account. It did not specifically request an investigation into Mrs. Clinton.”
This only fuels the controversy surrounding the nature of emails she was sending from a private server rather than using a State Department account."
So if they are not investigating Clinton, then who, exactly, are they investigating? Who must fall on their sword to protect the queen this time? And will the NYT be kind to Clinton in the future, after this public kick in the nether parts? Stay tuned...

Sunday, July 26, 2015

Caution: This is NOT a Falsification

I love this stuff.
Four-Legged Snake Shakes Up Squamate Family Tree – Or Does It?

"Some would argue that the origin of snakes was pretty much settled back in May, when a landmark paper by Allison Hsiang and her colleagues was published in BMC Evolutionary Biology. “We put together a large dataset comprising both fossil and living snakes and used mathematical models and computer programs to infer ‘ancestral states,'” explains Hsiang, a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Geology and Geophysics at Yale University. "
OK, then. It's got computer models going for it.
"The diagram of snake evolutionary relationships they produced, called a phylogenetic tree, is the most robust analysis of snake evolution to date, and it strongly supported the land-based evolution of serpents.

Ancestral state analyses, which essentially use math and science to estimate the biological and ecological traits of the most recent common ancestor of a group of species, suggested that early snakes were nocturnal hunters, preying upon the small vertebrates of their era through stealth, not constriction. Their analysis didn’t find that snakes were burrowers, however — there was no strong support of a fossorial lifestyle, just that the snakes lived on land.

According to Hsiang, morphological data “strongly influenced” the snake tree. “Our study helped to demonstrate how important and essential it is to include fossils when we are trying to understand how and when organisms evolved.”"

Well, now. Computer models, math AND science, plus morphology AND fossils. Got it nailed then.
"Though there was some excitement when Hsiang and her colleagues published their analysis in May, a paper published a little over a month earlier in PLoS ONE slipped by the press unnoticed. The analysis, led by Tod Reeder from San Diego State University, looked beyond snakes to reconstruct the evolutionary relationships within the squamates, the group of reptiles that contains lizards and snakes. Using the largest dataset to date which, like Hsiang, included both genetic and morphological markers, Reeder and his colleagues affirmed one of the crucial pieces of evidence of a marine snake origin: the close relationship between mosasaurs and snakes.

“The most comprehensive analysis of the lizard evolutionary tree now reinstates these aquatic mosasaurs as the nearest relatives to snakes,” explains Michael Lee, associate professor at the University of Adelaide, who was one of the first scientists to suggest that snakes may have started in the water."

Oh NO! Are math AND science AND computer programs failing us?
"Because of this, Reeder et al. calls into question the methods used by Hsiang et al., specifically one of the core assumptions in the paper: the closest relatives of snakes. When constructing evolutionary trees, assumptions have to be made to “root” the tree, or put the relationships into the context with regards to time. Scientists must compare their data to what is called an “outgroup”, which is ideally the closest relative or relatives to the group of interest. Hsiang and her colleagues used a subset of a group of lizards called anguimorphs, which includes land dwelling lizards like the Komodo dragon.

“The Hsiang paper was a terrific analysis of the evolution within snakes, but the fundamental core assumption they made in the paper was that terrestrial lizards were ancestral to snakes,” said Lee. “The direction of evolution was determined by that assumption. But if you assume, as the Reeder paper suggests, that mosasaurs are ancestral to snakes, then some of the inferences by Hsiang might not hold.”
Since when are core assumptions questioned when using math AND science AND computers?? Is this not heresy? Or is it turf protection?
"Hsiang admits that there are differences between the phylogenies in her paper and Reeder’s, and that the choice of outgroup may have skewed their results. “There are differences between the Reeder et al. phylogeny and our phylogeny — it would be interesting to conduct an in-depth analysis to try and determine why the differences in phylogeny exist,” she said. While her team’s tree was strongly influenced by morphology, Reeder’s team found that genetics most strongly predicted the results. “In fact, the morphological data are really ambiguous,” co-author John Wiens said in a press release. “Or in some cases, even worse than ambiguous.”"
Hold up right there buddy. Morphology is the core, the very core, the essence, the truth centering at the very heart of Darwinism and 150 year of evolutionary theorizing. This is very close to hate speech here, pal. Remember, Darwinism is protected by law, so watch your step.

Hsiang strikes back and then makes this statement:
"“Of course, we’d have to actually run the analysis to know for sure.”"
And there's the problem. No one will ever, ever, ever, "know for sure". So I think neither camp actually will admit to this. It is a struggle to establish contingent knowledge which probably won't last more than a few years, decades at most.

It's arguable that there are no longer any sciences which can produce objective knowledge, period. So scientists get paid, probably from tax payer largesse, to squabble over things which cannot be objectively and unambiguously proven, and which make no real difference in the human objective knowledge base.

And here comes another one, examining visual pigments:
"“Visual pigments, like opsin and rhodopsin, are basically the business front-ends of the visual pathway,” says Simões. “So basically if anything is happening in the visual system, the visual pigments will be the first to be impacted.” Burrowing mammals, for example, have lost some visual pigment genes, as they no longer need them underground. But even more impressively, scientists can connect genetic changes in these pigment genes to ecology and function. “By checking their amino acid composition, you can estimate what kind of wavelengths the animal can see,” says Simões.

When Simões et al. compared the visual pigment genes in snakes to other lizards, they found something exciting: snakes have lost two of the five pigments found in the rest of the squamates. They retain the same three that we have. Simões explained that this means snakes likely went through an “ancestral nocturnal bottleneck,” just like mammals did. “Snakes have this contrasting pattern from lizards that converges with mammals.”"

Whatever you think that means, forget it; here's the ancestor... maybe:
"Which brings us back to the most recent finding, what Martill and his colleagues claim is a four-legged snake ancestor from Brazil. Though there’s no concrete information about where this fossil originated, the color and texture of the limestone it is encased in suggests it’s from the Crato Formation, a fossil deposit which was laid down some 100 million years ago when the area was a shallow sea."
From that two sentence statement one can see this: they don't know where the fossil is from (!) They think that it's four legs occurred in a shallow sea (!) Why four legs confers selectability in a sea is not even speculated here.
"“This thing is much much more of a snake than it is of a lizard,” he concluded. But some scientists don’t buy it. “I think the specimen is important, but I do not know what it is,” University of Alberta paleontologist Michael Caldwell told Ed Yong from National Geographic. But Lee is willing to give Martill the benefit of the doubt. “I’m prepared to provisionally accept that it’s a very unusual small snake,” he said. “But the specimen is so small and the skull is so badly crushed that I think there is going to be a lot of debate until all interested researchers are able to look at it.”
So whether it is a snake or not merely depends upon who you can convince. Science is what scientists do, scientists say.
“It does seem to have some pretty intriguing snake features,” Lee admits. “Snake teeth have a very distinct curvature to them… and this animal does seem to have that. So that’s one feature that really makes me think this is probably a snake.” He’s also impressed by the animal’s spine. “It’s got a very large number of vertebrae — 160 backbone elements — which is also a very snake-like feature,” he added. “None of the other features that they list do I find particularly compelling.”

Hsiang, on the other hand, is entirely convinced. “Tetrapodophis does seem to possess many anatomical features that are unique to snakes — the recurved teeth, intramandibular joint, vertebral characters, et cetera,” she said. “So, based on Martill et al.’s report of the anatomy, it seems likely that Tetrapodophis is indeed an early snake.” She’s especially intrigued by what else is visible in the new fossil: its last meal. Martill et al. report that inside the snake’s stomach are a collection of vertebral bones, likely from a small mammal or lizard that it ate just before it died — the same diet that Hsiang et al. predicted with their ancestral state analyses. “The new fossil provides empirical confirmation of some of our results,” she noted. “For instance, the discovery of
vertebrate bones in the stomach contents of Tetrapodophis aligns with our inference that the earliest snakes likely ate small vertebrates.”
So the snake ate a mammal or a not-mammal. I'm convinced.

Evolution is just like the monkeys on the typewriters, typing up stuff which makes sense only to themselves. It can't be falsified, so, of course, it won't be falsified; thus it must be true, right?

Stalking By Hugo/Liberal Viewer

I've been stalked before. It takes severe mental illness to stalk someone.

This time it is Hugo/Liberal Viewer. I'll post this one email and no more:

"SOOOO how is the weather in Missouri?
ANDDD why do you hide your real name XXXXX?"

[name redacted to protect whoever it is]

So s/he is looking up how to find me. He thinks he has a thread, now. What a loser. The previous stalker at least got the name right. I've already revealed my approximate location a number of times; that's not news. He's definitely not too good at this. But, if he does manage to show up at the door, or more likely a window on the ground floor, he needs to know that we are all armed here, with plenty of detection devices employed. On the surface I'm not convinced that he has the intelligence to find us, yet the world is bizarre since the advent of the Leftist trolls to power in the government.

So, to Hugo/Liberal Viewer - bring it on. There are plenty of woods in this part of the state for private burials.

This Cannot Be Said Too Often

A history of racism and eugenics.

We Shouldn’t Be Surprised at Planned Parenthood’s Callous Inhumanity

"While Kirsten Powers’ outrage at Planned Parenthood is well justified, it’s not anything new to those familiar with the organization’s ugly, racist, eugenicist history. And despite attempts by the group to downplay it, the behavior on display on those videos is (as the president said recently in a different context, but much more accurately in this case) “in Planned Parenthood’s DNA.”

About a century ago, Margaret Sanger, the founder of
[Planned Parenthood] the organization, created a journal called Birth Control Review. In it, she published numerous papers on the need for purifying the race through selective breeding and culling. Some of the titles included “Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics” (June 1920), “The Eugenic Conscience” (February 1921), “The Purpose of Eugenics” (December 1924), “Birth Control and Positive Eugenics” (July 1925), and “Birth Control: The True Eugenics” (August 1928). From her own childhood experience, Sanger believed that overpopulation was the source of most societal ills, writing that she “…associated poverty, toil, unemployment, drunkenness, cruelty, quarreling, fighting, debts, jails with large families.”

While many, then and now, might agree with that sentiment, she took it much further. In her seminal book Women and the New Race, she wrote that “the most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” When it came to a one-child policy, China had nothing on her. In 1932, she proposed three totalitarian rules:

Article 1. The purpose of the American Baby Code shall be to provide for a better distribution of babies…and to protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.

Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit…

Article 6. No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.

A couple years later, she proposed that society must “…give dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.
[Emphasis Added]

Please! Go to the SITE and read the whole thing...

2nd Quote of the Day

"My own preference isn’t to describe this middle as “radical” (because I don’t think they are) but “patriotic.” They abhor the cronyism of Washington elites, and reflect a major “values gap” between DC and Main Street, USA. The irony, of course, is that Trump does not share their values, really–except perhaps on immigration and a few other patriotism-centric issues upon which he’s wisely capitalizing. But at least Trump is finally giving a voice to the Silent Majority’s deeply felt patriotism. The great middle is craving a leader who is unafraid to be unabashedly patriotic.

The question is: Why aren’t more GOP presidential hopefuls getting a clue and matching Trump’s vigor on these issues? Are they simply too weak, and are waiting for Trump to stop stealing “their” spotlight? Or are they too weak on these issues to really care?"

This is exactly right, on both points. But the other Republican candidates are not, and likely will not be, representing the views of those of us who despise scofflaws, cronies and power brokers. They have attacked Trump in defense of McCain the RINO and failed presidential candidate, for pete's sake. They are not on my side in this thing, so far, at least.

Quote of the Day


But in Iraq we cared what the population thought of us."

Several Takes on ObamIrana

Heard on the radio:
"The Iran deal guarantees Iran the bomb, and that guarantees that the Saudis and other Sunni nations will also need and get the bomb. So Obama has virtually guaranteed that the middle east will truly explode, with mutually destructive fireballs of internecine slaughter. The result for the entire world will be catastrophic."
Obama lied to Congress about the Iran deal; it now comes out that there were several secret "side deals" made, outside of the written capitulation. That plus withholding information about the agreement, and then rushing it into the UN for international-law-making even before the Senate vote, makes Obama's actions so illegal as to be definitely impeachable:
Congress Must Hold Obama Accountable for His Deception Over Iran

By lying and withholding information about the agreement, he gives aid and comfort to America’s enemy.

"The president “must certainly be punishable for giving false information to the Senate.” One can imagine hearing such counsel from a contemporary United States senator on the receiving end of President Obama’s “full disclosure” of the nuclear deal with Iran. But the admonition actually came from James Iredell, a champion of the Constitution’s ratification, who was later appointed to the Supreme Court by President George Washington. Iredell was addressing the obligations the new Constitution imposed on the president in the arena of international affairs.

Notwithstanding the chief executive’s broad powers to “regulate all intercourse with foreign powers,” it would be the president’s “duty to impart to the Senate every material intelligence he receives.” Indeed, among the most egregious offenses a president could commit would be fraudulently inducing senators “to enter into measures injurious to their country, and which they would not have consented to had the true state of things been disclosed to them.” A little over a year ago, I recounted Iredell’s cautionary words in Faithless Execution. They echo an instructive illustration offered by James Madison, the Constitution’s principal author: If the president were “to commit any thing so atrocious” as to fraudulently rig Senate approval of an international agreement, he would “be impeached and convicted.”

Interestingly, the perfidy in Madison’s hypothetical involved summoning into session only senators favorably disposed toward a formal treaty that the president wanted approved. That was more plausible in the late 18th century: Under the Constitution, a treaty may be approved by “two thirds of the senators present” for the vote; and back then, senators coming from far and wide could not fly to the nation’s capital at the drop of a hat.

The hypothetical is telling as we consider Obama’s Iran deal. The Constitution makes treason a ground for impeachment, but it seems to have been outside Madison’s contemplation that a president would actually be so insidious as to use his foreign-affairs power to give aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States. On that score, note that as soon as Obama’s deal was announced, not only was Iran’s foreign minister vowing to continue funding jihadist terror; the regime’s “supreme leader,” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was also extolling the continued Iranian call for “Death to America.”

Madison could not fathom a president who undermines the Constitution’s treaty requirements by the ruse of labeling a treaty an “agreement” or a “joint plan of action.” Still less could he imagine a president who resorts to chicanery in communicating the terms of an international agreement to the Congress. Such duplicity must have seemed inconceivable. Yet now, it is not just conceivable. It is happening: Obama’s original stated commitment to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear-weapons power has deteriorated into a deal that enables Iran to become a nuclear-weapons power by abiding by the deal’s terms.

The mullahs’ inevitable cheating will merely speed up matters; the outcome is already certain. Obama is willfully providing material support to the mullahs’ terrorism (a felony violation of federal law) — the deal will inject over $100 billion into Iran’s economy, and Iran brags that it will continue its open and notorious funding of Hezbollah and other anti-American, anti-Western, and anti-Israel “allies” (while the administration splutters that, gee whiz, curbing terrorism was not part of the negotiations).

Obama not only lifts restrictions on Iran’s traffic in ballistic missiles and conventional weapons (which were also not supposed to be part of the negotiations) but also looks the other way while Russia sells the mullahs hundreds of sophisticated surface-to-air missiles — missiles that will be used against American forces when, inevitably, a future president decides to deal differently with our enemies.

Obama’s deal, rationalized as necessary to delay (but no longer to forbid) Iran’s nuclearization, obliges the United States to protect Iranian nuclear facilities from sabotage — i.e., the deal makes America the scourge of erstwhile allies like Israel, with which we have colluded in impeding our actual enemy’s nuclear progress.

Yet, however shocking they may be, these acknowledged concessions do not fully convey the depth of the president’s betrayal. After a few days of misdirection, administration officials now admit that there are “side deals” that the administration has not revealed to Congress and does not intend to make public. So far, we know of two “side deals” — who knows how many more there may actually be? As the Center for Security Policy’s Fred Fleitz writes in National Review, they involve (a) a full accounting of Iran’s prior nuclear activities (many of which are believed to have been in blatant violation of international law) and (b) access to the Parchin military base, where Iran has conducted explosive testing related to nuclear missiles.

Apropos of these subjects, recall that the administration repeatedly promised there would be no deal, that the president would walk away from the table, unless Iran agreed to a rigorous inspection regiment. Such a regiment minimally requires: (a) complete disclosure of the “possible military dimensions” of Iran’s past nuclear work, in order to establish a baseline for evaluating future conduct, and (b) the ability to conduct credible snap inspections of nuclear facilities.

Despite the administration’s chest-beating about these “red lines,” the Iranians remained alternatively coy and intransigent: When not lying about what cards they were willing to show, the mullahs insisted that Americans would not be permitted to snoop around their country and interfere in their military affairs. Someone had to cave in, and — you could set your watch on it — that someone is Obama (if, that is, you are one of those who believed he was being honest in the first place). Thus the problem: how to cover up this decisive surrender within the surrender?

So, in his signature “if you like your health-care plan, you can keep your health-care plan” style, the president has come up with a fraudulent scheme: use the IAEA (the International Atomic Energy Agency) as a smokescreen. His administration now cynically claims that these critical agreement components — the rationale for lifting American sanctions on and making American commitments to the “Death to America” regime — actually have nothing to do with America . . . they are strictly between Tehran and the IAEA. Translation: Blame the IAEA, not Obama, for the abandonment of Obama’s core commitments.

And there's Jackie Mason:
"Mason put his comic chops to use in analyzing the inspection of Iran's nuclear facilities as it is laid out in the deal. “Instant” inspections will only take place 24 days after requested, giving time – he charged – to clean up the site to be inspected.

"First Obama said we can inspect them any time, any place, whenever we please. Now it turns out ‘whenever we please’ except when they don’t allow it. If they don’t want it it’s up to them. So then we have to wait 28 days [sic] to inspect, as if to say for the 28 days we can trust them completely, because they’ll do nothing. They’ll just hold the bomb in front of us waiting for us to come so they can show it to us. That’s how stupid this negotiation is to us," he said.

"Do you know that in the restaurants of New York, they have an inspection system. You can surprise any restaurant without notice that you can walk in and inspect them… So we are protected in this city from a bad tuna fish. We’re not protected from a bomb but we’re protected from a bad quality of a tuna fish," Mason joked."