Creationists are As Clueless Now as Ever!

Announcement of Fundie Duane Gish's "Evolution vs. Creationism" lecture at the University of Alaska - Fairbanks in 1986. It's been over a hundred years and these bozos still can't provide falsification tests for their own claims! And they have the nerve to say Evolution is "not a science"!

Incredibly, lowbrow fundies with nothing better to do with their time but make up fantasies (or idiotic cartoons depicting humans talking to relatives as monkeys - yuck yuck), are still circulating the canard that “evolution can’t be tested” or that "there’s no evidence" for it. One wonders where they’ve lived for the past 100+ years. Mayhap in caves? Evolution has been tested and re-tested and found to be consistently validated over short and long term time arcs. A typical fundie, pro-creationist blogger wrote recently - after seeing my blog ( 'Teaching the Controversy" ...Uh No'):

"Both creation and evolution are faith-based systems in regards to origins. Neither can be tested because we cannot go back billions (or thousands) of years to observe the origin of the universe or of life in the universe. Evolutionary scientists reject creation on grounds that would logically force them to also reject evolution as a scientific explanation of origins."

But in truth evolution does provide evidence, so is hardly "faith-based"! For example, we have actual photographic evidence assembled for the telomeric fusion of the ape 2p and 2q chromosomes to become the ‘2’ chromosome in humans. In other words, prima facie evidence of a common ancestor. (See, e.g.: Yunis and Prakash, 1982, Science, Vol. 215, p. 1525, 'The Origin of Man: A Chromosomal Pictorial Legacy')

Then we have the evidence from the DNA (genomic) sequencing of the human and chimpanzee which discloses the remarkable fact that BOTH have the exact SAME cytochrome –c sequence! If evolution were false we’d expect the human and chimp cytochrome-c sequences to vary dramatically given that it exhibits 10^93 variations in functionality with other organisms. That is, 10 followed by ninety three zeros.


 In evolution we also  have assembled more than 29+ evidences for macro-evolution all of which were originally set out in the context of falsifiable hypotheses, and then accepted because they passed those observational tests. See more at:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

  Another key point showing his lack of education is mixing up the origin of life (or the origin of the cosmos) with evolution. The origin of life falls under the theory of abiogenesis :i.e.  the theory of the original inception of life, as opposed to its later evolution by natural selection. The origin of the universe, meanwhile, falls under the theory of cosmogenesis.- or how the cosmos originated.  If he can't tell either of these disciplines from Darwinian evolution - how can anything else he writes be trusted? I go even further, and assert that if his education is so defunct he ought not be writing about evolution at ALL!

Yet he goes on to blabber:

Evolutionary scientists reject creation on grounds that would logically force them to also reject evolution as a scientific explanation of origins. Evolution, at least in regard to origins, does not fit the definition of “science” any more than creation does. Evolution is supposedly the only explanation of origins that can be tested; therefore, it is the only theory of origins that can be considered “scientific.” This is foolishness!

NO! The preceding is foolishness! Evolutionary biologists reject creationism because it isn't based on any scientific tests of validity (which can be confirmed)  but rather BELIEF, specifically tied to biblical bunkum, as in Genesis ('Adam & Eve', Earth made before Sun etc.). Creationists don't even provide their own tests for falsifying their own alleged theories! For example, the evolutionist provides a falsfication test for his theory of common descent (i.e. that both Man and apes are descended from the same common ancestor) by using the cytochrome-c sequence, say as disclosed in chimps and humans, and asserting that beyond a certain (probability)  threshold the test fails. In other words:  the probability of Humans and apes coming from a common ancestor is low if the null hypothesis - say, that the cytochrome -c sequence variance occurring in both species is greater or equal to  0.5,  is true.. However, the actual probability for this falsity is so very low (roughly 10 followed by ninety three zeros to one) that common descent thereby passes the test. I.e. if evolution were false we’d expect the human and chimp cytochrome-c sequences to vary dramatically given that it exhibits 10^93 variations in functionality with other organisms.


WHAT tests do the creationists offer to falsify their own theories of creation? They offer nothing because creationism is not science but based on beliefs!

Then he compounds his ignorance by saying "supposedly evolution is the only theory of ORIGINS that can be tested" - failing to note evolution is NOT a theory of "origins" - like abiogenesis or cosmogenesis - but a theory of how species separated and developed by natural selection. Again, he shows he lacks understanding of the most basic principles!   As Richard Dawkins has accurately noted:

"The theory of evolution by CUMULATIVE NATURAL SELECTION  is the ONLY THEORY we KNOW OF that is capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity."

But what does Mr. Fundie say? He claims: "Scientists who advocate evolution are rejecting a plausible theory of origins without even honestly examining its merits, because it does not fit their illogically narrow definition of “science.” This is why radical heathens like our blogger friend are so afraid of letting our students look at both sides."


This again is doggerel since there are not two sides!    If there were then the creationists would be able to provide tests for the falsification of their own theory! This they do not provide, so they are proffering a belief system, not one based on evidence! Another example: The creationists claim that the Earth is no more than 6,000 years old yet we have rocks that have been subjected to radio-isotope testing putting them at near 4 billion years old. How do they reconcile these? Well, they cop out by blaming the radio-isotope testing as being "in error" instead of admitting THEY are the ones peddling bollocks!   And they want us to use precious class time to push this malarkey on students! And now the evidence for the proof being in the pudding, proving my point that he and his looney tune ilk are pushing religious beliefs not offering any science. He writes:

   "If creation is true, then there is a Creator to whom we are accountable. Evolution is an enabler for atheism. Evolution gives atheists a basis for explaining how life exists apart from a Creator God"  

Note that rather than counter the evidence as I showed at the beginning, they dream up “supernatural theories” of creationism  or "God" which can neither be tested or falsified.  Also noted his own logic is inverted. It isn't "if creationism is true then there is a Creator" - but IF it is true there must be scientific tests for evidence which are met! This proves my point that they aren't about scientific testing, for which they'd be able to offer falsification tests for their claims, but pushing BELIEF in a "Creator", i.e. a RELIGION.  As for evolution being an "enabler" for atheism, I am afraid the guy has no clue and doesn't realize atheism stands on its own whether or not Darwinian evolution is true. But yes, the facts of evolution (i.e. the same cytochrome -c sequence in humans and chimps) DO allow a theory - a truly scientific theory-  independent of incorporating any external agents like "creators" or books like the Bible!  Does creationism allow a counter scientific  'theory' for a creator?  Obviously not! There are no creationist  falsification tests provided!   This means we must clean up his last remark :   ." Evolution denies the need for a God to be involved in the universe."

No, evolution proves that a truly scientific theory exists independent of any religious belief in a god. We have all the evidence and other data to show that the hypothesis of a "creator" is redundant, unnecessary. Hence, we follow the principle of Ockham's Razor: that extra hypotheses are not to be increased without necessity. 

Evolution is a theory based on actual facts and tests that have been repeated and confirmed thousands of times. If the fundies wish to join us in the 21st century, they will have to accept that -else maybe figure a way to build a time machine to go back to where they really belong: two or three thousand years ago! 

Of Blackouts, Bullies, and How the 9ers Became the Whiners

Joe Flacco holds the Lombardi, and a ref with lights still out in New Orleans. This blackout was inexcusable!

After Super Bowl halftime, I had just come back with my beer, plate full of brats, polish sausage, fries and hot wings to see Jacoby Jones of the Ravens race 108 yards for a runback touchdown to make the score 28-6 Baltimore. No sooner had I remarked to wifey – delirious at her team’s success: "We're about to see a blowout!" when half the lights in the Superdome went dim. At that point, the game stopped for a full 34 minutes and we both feared this unconscionable event would suck ‘mo’ - as in momentum-from the Ravens. I mean, they had the %#&*@# Niners on the ropes, down 22 points when the place went dim.
Sure enough, when play finally resumed the Ravens’ O and D looked flat, almost as if they were in a trance or spectators at a game they were supposed to be playing. (Highlighted by 2 missed tackles by the secondary letting Frank Gore in for a TD).

Meanwhile, wifey was going into a meltdown mode – tears streaming from her eyes and onto her 'Ed Reed' No. 20 jersey: “THIS IS NOT RIGHT!”  she screamed. Indeed. And both of us knew the Niners would use the unexpected free time to gather themselves and re-plan their game and regroup. Sure enough this is what occurred though many pundits said it was “just the Niners coming back again”. Bull pockey! As Tight end Dennis Pitta put it: "By the time play resumed all our energy was sucked out and we lost our momentum".


The Niner sonsabitches escaped what looked like a sure blowout. Was a Niners’ fan responsible for going into the innards of the stadium and shutting down a fuse box? Ravens’ fans are exploring that possibility while Roger Goodell and the NFL promises an investigation of the cause. Meanwhile, Entergy of Louisiana noted transmission records showing the power was never cut to the stadium. Thus, the cause had to be in the stadium itself.

New Orleanians, as typical for denizens of “the City that care forgot” just shrugged it off, but it’s not that easy. The bottom line is such travesties are not supposed to occur on the stage of the biggest sporting event on Earth, and in a putatively premier stadium in the U.S.. Rather we expect such events to hobble stadia in Santo Domingo, Port- au Prince or Kingston. It is a shameful breakdown that never ought to have transpired, and the league needs to spare no effort to uncover the source – whether human, natural or electrical fault. (This is the first Superbowl in N.O. since Katrina).


In the meantime, Forbes.com has correctly observed there should be no more SBs in the Crescent City until the 38-year old Superdome is replaced. See, e.g.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/prishe/2013/02/03/superdome-shutdown-super-bowl-xlvii-blackout-hurts-new-orleans-future-super-bowl-bids/

Fortunately, Joe Flacco and the Ravens did manage to regroup and he led a 4 minute plus drive near the end that put the game away.

The Niners did get their shots at the end – four of them into the end zone -  but couldn’t deliver. As the game ended with an intelligent ‘no call’ you could almost hear all the Niners turning into whiners. At the post-game interviews it really erupted with the likes of Ahmad Brooks and Vernon Davis implying the refs “gave the game away” and that on the best right corner end zone Kaepernick pass, to Michael Crabtree, there was defensive holding. Of course, this is horse shit and had the Refs called a penalty, as Trent Dilfer noted on ESPN, “it would have rewarded a BAD PLAY with a BAD CALL”. It would have handed a SB win to a team that didn’t deserve it, and who THEMSELVES got away with bloody murder during the game – repetitively mugging Ravens’ receivers with holds and punches (Torrey Smith being the primary "beneficiary"). Trent Dilfer also noted a vicious 49er hit on Flacco out of bounds never called. Had it been, the Ravens would have benefited from a 15-yard penalty  that could have put the Ravens further ahead in the 3rd Quarter. Did you see the Ravens pissing and moaning? NOooooooooo.....

But THIS IS HOW THE GAME WAS CALLED according to commentator Marshall Faulk. So for the refs to suddenly alter the play -calling template to benefit one team at the very end would definitely have raised eyebrows on a possible fix. 

Getting back to the Crabtree pass play, Kaepernick would have done better – instead of using a pass into the end zone that the Ravens' DBs were waiting for- to go for a read option run on the left side. There is a good chance he could have just faked a handoff to Gore, then scampered into the end zone with Ed Reed and Bernard Pollard (who we now know played with 6 broken ribs)  huffing and puffing behind him. So why didn’t Jim Harbaugh make that call instead of fruitless passes into the end zone? According to one pundit, he “overthought the strategy”. Harbaugh himself declared there was a run option on one of the plays. But it wasn't used. Why not? (And please let's not have lunk heads and paranoid delusionals saying "the last call was fixed" by the "mob" in Vegas. The infantilism of certain commentators has to stop someplace! Clue one, Sherlock, the "mob" no longer runs Vegas, it's the Corporations!)


So puh-leeze don’t blame the ‘refs for a ”bad call”, when in reality they called consistently throughout the game – ignoring obvious penalty holds, blows etc. on BOTH sides! To therefore have awarded the Niners with a special (exception)  penalty call at the very end would have been obscene as well as inconsistent. (See also : http://www.denverpost.com/renck/ci_22519807/troy-e-renck-super-time-no-call-biggest )


Thus, when assorted knotheads, punks and whiners cry that the “refs gave the game to the Ravens” they want their asses kicked, or maybe more gently – their glasses replaced! Of course, the Niners’ bullying behavior has been noted all year especially by teams they’ve played in the NFC, including my team, the Green Bay Packers. In the season opener the Niners DBs mugged Packer receivers relentlessly as they did in the playoff game, also using vicious punches (never called as penalties) to throw WRs off their timing routes. Often this whacking was done way past the 5-yard limit.

The problem for the 49ers is that in the SuperBowl, as Shannon Sharpe of CBS put it: “The Niners met Bigger Bullies than they were!” Indeed. You see the Ravens’ are built to be the biggest, toughest bunch on the block and they take no shit, especially from any Niner punks . You could see in the first half several skirmishes and punches thrown because this team is designed to BULLY, not be bullied. Their O-line alone has more ‘beef’ than five Texas Longhorns. Their defensive backs are trained to hit wide receivers so hard on receptions that on every future play they’re skittish and often drop passes. That is the way Baltimore plays and why they earned the nickname “The Baltimore Bullies” after blistering Denver a number of times over several years during the pre-Manning era. (The monicker was invented by DPost sport columnists.)


ON a final footnote, some peeved Denver fans still haven’t gotten over their playoff beating to Baltimore. Some on the Denver Post forums last night – after a story on Baltimore fans’ celebration in the streets-  asserted bollocks like “Just wait until they start burning the cars and property!” But these morons have their cities mixed up. It has actually been SAN FRANCISCO (like after their Giants’ World Series’ win) that have burned cars and rioted. See also: http://www.sfgate.com/49ers/article/49ers-fans-wild-ride-ends-quietly-in-SF-4247858.php  Another wrote: "If they do burn it down there's no great loss!" Well, moron, hate to break it to you, but Baltimore has more culture in one square mile than cowtown Denver has in its whole 200- odd square miles.


Maybe all losing teams and their football fans need to reclaim their lives ASAP after their team goes down, and stop making stupid excuses as well as insulting the victors!

Prediction for SuperBowl XLVII: Ravens WIN 20-17

Ray Lewis - shown - may have one of the best games in his life today.

All week we've heard the talking heads basically coronating the 49ers even before the game is played. But how can we trust most of them when they can't even get basic facts correct? For example NFL Channel's Shaun O'Hara saying "both teams'  kickers have underperformed". Huh? Methinks he confused the Ravens' former kicker, Billy Cundiff(now with SF), with their new guy Justin Tucker - who has missed only 3 FGs out of some 36 attempts. You call that "underperforming'?  Sheesh!

Yes, SF wins most of the matchups and with a D secondary playing safety over the top they may well stop Torrey Smith of the Ravens from long TDs like he got with Denver in the AFC Divisional Playoff game. However, as former Niner LB Bill Romanowski put it in today's D Post, the Ravens have an "x-factor" an "it" that could enable them to upset the Niners and have all those who bet on them in the Vegas Sports Books crying in their beer. Romanowski referred to the fervor and spirit that Ray Lewis - playing in his last game - brings to the team and how none of those players wants to let him down.

As Nate Silver also observed on his NY Times blog: the Ravens can upset the Niners on special teams, and I also expect this is where the 'W" will emerge this evening. Look for a forced SF error in a punt return, with one or more Ravens knocking the ball out of the Go guy's mitts. Probably setting up a score on the Niner 15.

That plus one defensive pick six, likely by Ed Reed, along with Justin Tucker FGs will seal the win. Kaepernick? He will be sacked three times, and punished severely by a Pollard hit on an attempted read option run. Alex Smith may have to be called into duty!

Post game -the two rival brothers will then shake hands,  after which the Niners will become the Whiners.

We will see! Now, let's start those brats and hot wings!

About Obama's Pro Football Comments...

Tim Tebow dumped on his ass by a Lions' defender in October, 2011. Football is a rough game and too many weakening changes (on defense) will transform it into something else - and not what most fans came to watch.

Much of the football world last week was hyper-cautious about President Obama's opinions of the sport when he opined that: "I would have to seriously consider letting any sons play football."

Well, now that is HIS opinion, and he is entitled to it! I am not going to portray him as a "communist" or "sissy" or "Pansie" (sic, sp.) as some nutwhack bloggers have done who never played a down of football in their lives....but know how to flap their gums if it's anything about Obama. (And, btw, this is the thanks he gets for ensuring they can collect their VA or S.S. disability benefits!)

Picking up on the Prez' theme, Baltimore safety Bernard Pollard noted in New Orleans (Media Day) that he could "foresee the end of the game within thirty years".. By that he didn't mean the absolute end but - if things keep going as they are now - the end of a violent game which features hard defensive hits, such as the one Pollard made on Pats RB Steven Ridley (and got fined for in the AFC Playoff game).  Already, the defenses of assorted teams have been neutered with assorted new rules since the 90s that have sought to emphasize high octane passing offenses at the expense of defense. Thus, we've seen rules such as you can't whack a guy off his route beyond 5 yards (Deacon Jones and Ray Nitschke would have laughed at that one) nor can you hit a QB in a certain way ("roughing the QB") or make too much contact down the field fighting for the football ("pass interference"). The effect has been to turn the game into an almost entirely passing exercise for guys like Peyton Manning, Tom Brady and Drew Brees.

Add to that now the new impetus to control "head hits" - i.e. leading with the helmet- and you can make the case that Pollard may not be very far off in his forecasts. (I kidded to wifey, a rabid Ravens' fan two days ago, he probably meant we will have tag football instead of tackle in 30 years.)  Now, according to a CBS News spot last night, the Commissioner (Roger Goodell) plans to have the zebras look for any sign of head hits in tomorrow's game. NO using the helmet to stop a guy no matter how high powered or large, or long legged. So wait? No helmet to Colin Kaepernick's solar plexus? That's the best way to stop a guy!

But no, the Commish, according to a CBS TV host, insists all the tackles be made "using the shoulders". I suppose that Ray Lewis heard the warning, as well as Terrell Suggs, and of course, the Niners' Patrick Willis and Justin Smith! In any case it will be quite interesting to watch and see what transpires and how many flags get tossed. Oh, also how many fines are assessed on Monday!

Look, I sympathize with Obama but football is a rough sport, probably best compared to the game of rugby or 'ruggers' from which much of its structure, plays were copied. (Though in rugby there are no forward passes). Also, contrary to myth, football can be violent even in its tag or flag variation. When I attended Monsignor Pace High (1962-64) there was no varsity or other tackle football team yet - but we did have intramural tag teams. I played inside LB for "the USC Trojans" - the name of one such intramural team - and my job was to sack the quarterback. I loved it. And be aware that on every down that meant crashing through blocks of the O-line using arms, elbows. That meant you sported bruises after each game, though maybe not concussions.

Yes, people like Obama are now fretting, especially after the news of five Pop Warner players suffering concussions in one pee wee game, and missing so many players that the opposing team romped 55-0. In that case, I can certainly see grounds for some caution, because we can't have a whole slew of 10-13 years olds turned into brain -damaged zombies before they reach the age of 18. But in the case of the NFL, it's a different kettle of fish, because these guys know what they're being paid millions each year for.  Yes, it's sad Dave Duerson and Junior Seau committed suicide, but they knew what the game was all about and what was expected of them.

Alas, those deaths, as well as others - and numerous lawsuits- now threaten to see the league wussify and dilute the game so much that it may well become boring within five years or less, paving the way for Pollard's prediction. This is sad, because it means the only way many of us will enjoy those tough hits anymore will be via the old NFL video releases such as "NFL's Greatest Hits".

It may then be the best thing Ray Lewis is retiring this year. There seems to be no more room in the league for dedicated, heavy hitters whose only objective is to prevent the opponent's QB, RB or WR from gaining a yard.

As for Obama, he's lucky he has no sons, so he isn't faced with the decision to allow them to play or not. For the rest of us, we hope the game will at least continue with some semblance of allowing rough tackles, and at least some use of helmets. After all, would YOU want to try to take down Frank Gore using your shoulders?

Colorado Communities Seek to Use NIMBY Laws to Defeat Amendment 64

Barely three months after Amendment 64 passed in Colorado with nearly two thirds of the votes, one by one communities across the state are trying to peck it to death with idiotic "NIMBY" laws. This is totally nuts, plus it violates a STATE constitutional amendment. In principle, ALL these comunities are subverting the will of their own voters, and their "laws" are derelict and UNLAWFUL!  Douglas County and its associated burgs started this nonsense and has been joined by others. Now we also learn, in today's Denver Post, that the Greenwood Village City Council - undoubtedly packed with Village idiots, has jumped on the 'Ban the MJ in Our Burg' Bandwagon.

According to the Post story ('Greenwood Village Ordnance to Test Pot Legalization law'):

“An ordinance passed last month in Greenwood Village is poised to become a test case for how far cities can go to keep marijuana out of their communities after legalization.


In early January, the Greenwood Village City Council voted to ban use, possession and transportation of marijuana on city property. That is not so unusual, as numerous cities and counties have restricted marijuana after the passage of Amendment 64.

Here's the catch, though: The Greenwood Village ordinance defines city property to include all the public streets and sidewalks in the city. That makes it illegal even to drive through the city with an otherwise legal amount of marijuana in the car.


Because residents can't bring marijuana to their homes, the only way legally to possess marijuana in Greenwood Village is to grow it — and the City Council is expected to pass an ordinance soon that places strict controls on growing at home to address concerns about mold and fire hazards.

Greenwood Village City Attorney Tonya Haas Davidson said the ban is allowed under the marijuana-legalization law, which says "an entity who occupies, owns or controls property" can prohibit marijuana on that property. We own public property," she said. "So we just wrote the most restrictive ordinance we could."

And you also just landed yourself and your little burg in court, Madam! Because the parameters of the law were never intended to go THAT far- which if followed by every tinhorn town in the state, would effectively ban it everywhere and thence nullify the will of Colorado voters. In that case, we would have to deal with the reality of a fascist state!

Nor am I wrong on this, as these deluded cretins will soon learn.Brian Vicente, one of the authors of Amendment 64, said that interpretation will land Greenwood Village in court. He said streets and sidewalks aren't so much government property as public places where people should be able to exercise constitutional liberties.


"What they've done is invite inevitable, costly litigation," Vicente said. "This is a direct violation of the state constitution."

Amendment 64 legalizes use and possession of up to an ounce of marijuana for people 21 and older. It also allows for retail marijuana sales, although pot shops won't open for about another 11 months.

Cities can ban marijuana businesses, but not possession for private use, including in one’s own vehicle! This carries the community’s property rights way too far!

Why are so many communities doing this when they allow alcohol - with one hundred times the negatives of MJ -to be sold all over hell's half acre? Probably because these fools believe they are "protecting the children" when in fact the kids are likely going after dad's brandy maybe every afternoon.  City Council Member Leslie Schluter proved my point when she was quoted as saying:


"I think (marijuana) is a major threat to the welfare of especially our children!  You can't do this without making it more acceptable to those who are under age."


One of the best missives to smash the "protect the kids" codswallop was by a Denver Post letter writer 4 months ago. It was so brilliant that I saved it:

"“There are many freedoms adults often enjoy that are illegal for kids, including gambling, drinking, smoking, investing, driving, getting piercings and tattoos, getting married, staying out all night, going to many concerts, working a double shift, etc. Granted, many of these freedoms could be considered bad for adults, too, but the “bad for kids” trope is nothing more than a cudgel designed to stifle honest debate. An unregulated black market is most assuredly more harmful to kids than a regulated honest market, and Colorado enjoys many economic advantages from the tax revenue these freedoms bring when adults enjoy them responsibly. And rest assured, adults most certainly do enjoy them.


Intelligent, evidence-based arguments against passing Amendment 64 are hard to find, so these folks fall back to the emotionally charged, false argument that it’s “bad for kids.”

------

BINGO!

This letter nails it spot-on since the "kid danger" argument, which has often been resurrected lately, relies on impairing intellectual judgment by appeal to emotionalism and hysteria.

What the inveterate idiots raging against all MJ posession in the state don't grasp, is that they have effectively negated all further citizen initiatives and referenda if they succeed with their lawless laws. Because if they are allowed to side step the law in this case, it can be done in any other, for any referendum - no matter how ostensibly noble.

The people that voted for Amendment 64, which includes more than 3 in 4 who don't use it at all (we happen to believe in grass roots democracy, unlike the Nazis and their ilk against it)  must collaborate with the bill's authors and drag Greenwood Village and its Council, lawyers to court to make examples of them all. Nothing less will do and it will serve as a lesson to any and all other would be NIMBY fascists.

On the positive side: Two Greenwood  Village Council members had the intelligence and insight to vote against this bollocks. Jerry Presley was one of two council members who voted against the ordinance, and even declared the city shouldn't override the will of the state's voters. He went on:


"Any common-sense reading of Amendment 64 would say that the people, when they voted for it, did not believe the transport of marijuana on city streets should be illegal"

At least there is hope - a small amount - for some residual intelligence in the state of  Colorado. Let's hope we don't go down the low I.Q. rabbit hole of Mississippi and other secession minded states!

Has Bill Maher Bought into the “Entitlement Spending Crisis”?

A crowd in D.C. two years ago protests against possible Social Security cuts. Bill Maher somehow thinks that cutting "entitlements" like Social Security will free up more $$$ for those under 18. He's dreaming! What needs to be cut - pared down in HALF- is the Military-Industrial Complex and  Military Welfare State.

Bill Maher comes off as an intelligent host of HBO’s REAL TIME, and in most instances his intellect manages to side on the right side of issues. However, in a disturbing few moments last night one wondered if maybe he had too many tokes before his show. In one exchange, which included guest Sam Harris, Bill opined:


“Do we really want to be spending $4 on every adult over 65, to only $1 on every child under 18?”

Guest Sam Harris, a putative, proclaimed liberal, didn’t help matters by suggesting Social Security be “means tested”, so that no high earners could receive benefits.

First, let me hammer Bill before going on to Sam Harris. The issue again, isn’t “ entitlements” such as Social Security, but rather out of control “defense spending” which is really EMPIRE building! I mean, c’mon already! Do we REALLY need 702 military 'installations' in 63 foreign countries with 4,471 bases altogether? This, according to the Defense Department's 2012 annual budget statement.


Clearly, if you’re spending so much on this nonsense there will be little left for humane spending, including on social insurance. Nor will there be sufficient funding for education, teachers. Bill, before disengaging mouth, ought to have considered what spending $0.3b each on 2,335 F-35 bombers would have accomplished for schools, services, paying teachers. Instead, he became an instant Neoliberal moron by parroting their usual lines, almost right out of Bob Woodward’s playbook.


So what Bill actually did with his reckless comment, is disclose being hostage to the false choice paradigm – which he’s often accused others of promoting! Had he done a tad more research, such as into former defense analyst Chuck Spinney’s research, showing that the jump in military spending in 2004-05 by 2% of GDP would mean “war on social programs” – he might have been more temperate. He’d also then have recognized that spending on seniors – whether via Medicare or Social Security, is not counterpoised against spending on education and services for youth. Instead, it is bloated military spending which is gobbling up so much of the budget pie it leaves little for other needs. See also: http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-military-industrial-complex-still.html

Bill also appears oblivious to the fact that aging Boomers in their 50s -early 60s) have actually suffered the most in the past decade and hence need the social insurance lifeline the most. Studies have found that Americans in their 50s and early 60s — those near retirement age who do not yet have access to Medicare and Social Security — have lost the most earnings power of any age group. This according to Sentier Research, a data analysis company.  Their income fell 10% even as their retirement savings and home values fell sharply at the worst possible time: just before they needed to cash out. They are supporting both aged parents and unemployed young-adult children, earning them the inauspicious nickname “Generation Squeeze.”  Meanwhile, a recent study by economists at Wellesley College found that people who lost their jobs in the few years before becoming eligible for Social Security lost up to three years from their life expectancy, largely because they no longer had access to affordable health care.

Does Bill really want to cut the social insurance floor out from under them to save the military industrial complex and defense contractors?  These besieged Boomers – above all- NEED those “entitlements”!


Hence, if Bill had been even remotely with it, instead of Neoliberal grand standing, he’d have been able to offer a REAL solution: i.e. that closing 50% of all the overseas military bases, installations, would save $500 BILLION a year! (DoD estimates put the cost of sustaining all the bases at $1 trillion a year). THAT money would then be more than enough to help all the under 18 segment of the population, as opposed to pissing more good money after bad on useless bases – many of which are in WWII former opponent nations, like Japan and Germany.


Now, as for Sam Harris, while his “means testing” proposal sounds rational and reasonable at first blush, it also shows a disarming lapse in grasping political dynamics. The fact is that when social programs are means-tested, they instantly become altered to WELFARE in political perceptions. And we have already seen what happened to welfare in the 1996 ‘Welfare to Work’ act. Think it couldn’t happen with Social Security? Think again!


Think of this now: when all economic demographics pay in and can also obtain benefits, they will be more likely to see the program as worth preserving. On the other hand, when some of these, especially in the upper tiers, have their benefits cut off by a means –test, they will be less likely to offer further political support. After all, they’re not benefiting, so why should they? To them, Social Security becomes just another "welfare" program to be cut!

When enough economically powerful demographics or quintiles are sliced off, the voting interests also mutate and this will include the directions of money contributions. These political campaign contributions will then pitch toward those enclaves favoring “entitlement cuts” or maybe even balancing access to Social Security with work (The same way my own state of Colo. requires indigent seniors to work in exchange for receiving breaks on their property taxes. For example, if you get a $1500 break on your property taxes you can expect to work for 500 hrs. at $3.00 /hr)

The conclusion is that Sam Harris is just as wrong with his means testing proposal as Bill Maher is with his entitlement cuts to loosen funds for the under-18 year old set.

Hopefully both these guys will move away from their unwarranted Neoliberal enchantment in the near future.

Is Obesity Prevalence a Myth?

Fans at Stadium Bar & Grill in Green Bay, Wisconsin on SuperBowl Sunday two years ago. I warrant that NONE of these fans would be 'obese' if the BMI was replaced!.


According to assorted health centers, institutes and sources, depending on which one you cite, up to 2 of every 3 Americans are “overweight” denoting a BMI or body mass index of 25 to 30. With one fell swoop the adoption of the insane BMI index created about 25 million additional “overweight” people, and "BMI inflation" led to 35 million by last year. Included in the new overweight population were football running backs and wideouts such as: Ray Rice of the Ravens, Danny Woodhead and Wes Welker of the Patriots, and Davon Best of the Dolphins. Of course, this exposes the BMI as absurd and inaccurate.


The effect? To possibly siphon many more citizens into the maw of the Medical Industrial Treatment Complex, including being hostage to weight loss regimens prescribed by docs, or drug prescriptions. Of course this modus operandi isn’t new. In medical arenas such as psychotherapy (with disorders determined by the Diagnostic and Statistics Manual) as well as cancer testing, millions and millions are herded into medical treatments they don’t need each year. This adds hundreds of billions of dollars in extra costs.


In the case of cancer testing, a recent Consumer Reports (‘Save Your Life – Cancer Screening is Oversold’, March, p. 28) we learn that only three cancer screening tests – for breast, cervical and colon cancer- are really worth their repeated costs. The others are not and frequently lead down a treatment path that can be harrowing as well as dangerous. (For example, a simple prostate biopsy risks hemorrhage, sepsis). The prostate cancer screening itself is also hostage to the numbers game, determined by PSA. This is why CR recommends men aged 50-74 speak with their doctors first about whether the benefits of the test outweigh the harm based on risk factors. Generally, given 96% of prostate cancers are slow growing,  a test every other year is more than adequate.

At the root of massive screening rejection is a new concept of cancer. As the article notes: “Cancer is different than once thought. Doctors used to view cancer as uniformly deadly, but researchers now understand that cancer cells can appear and even disappear on their own or never spread. Most screening tests don’t discriminate between the harmless and deadly kinds.”


When my PSA doubled over a year’s time, the first thing I did – as opposed to rushing into a biopsy – was to have it re-tested. Humans are liable to make errors after all. When the result was confirmed I then took the “free PSA” test to check that the doubling could really have been from cancer as opposed to benign prostate hypertrophy. (The free PSA measures the ratio of bound to free prostate specific antigen in the blood). Only after all 3 tests spelled “failure” did I march myself in to get a biopsy, and yes, the finding was adenocarcinoma in 5 lobes.


Back to the BMI and Americans being overweight. According to a new book by Paul Campos: ‘The Obesity Myth: Why America’s Obsession with Weight is Hazardous to Your Health’, the BMI has been largely responsible for fomenting an obesity hysteria. If that hyper-biased measure were removed and the earlier weight standards adopted, 35 million Americans currently falling under the umbrella of overweight would be normal weight. That is a significant amount. Adding heft to Campos’ thesis is a study appearing in The Journal of the American Medical Association that “found that all adults categorized as overweight and most of those categorized as obese have a lower mortality risk than so-called normal weight individuals” (‘Vindication for the Obesity Debunker’ in The Denver Post, Jan. 30, by Vincent Carroll)


Carroll in his DPost article acknowledges factors such as fitness and quality of life are often neglected in looking at BMI, but he adds:

“That’s true enough, except that BMI statistics are used all the time to beat Americans over the head with the idea that something like 7 in 10 of us weigh too much.”


Carroll then goes on to insist more Americans need to be aware of the JAMA findings, especially when they encounter the BMI driven morbidity persecutors and “fat” obsessives who, by their zeal, have probably forced more millions of young women into anorexia or bulemia than overweight people they’ve helped by their incessant preaching. Campos, for his part, doesn’t dismiss the danger of being seriously obese or the import of physical activity but he does insist the more extreme claims of the obesity alarmists are seriously overblown.

This is a view with which most sober observers can agree, as well as rational nutritionists. Certainly, if we want to see lower medical cost inflation in the U.S. – including for prescription drugs- then all out anti-fatness frenzy needs to be avoided and that includes the over the top tongue- wagging of the food police who demand we switch from brats to Brussels sprouts on Super Bowl Sunday..