Gun Magazine Makers. to CO Legislators: 'Pass That Bill and We're Leavin!' Hasta la vista, chumps!

The news in today's Denver Post (p. 1A) that the makers of multiple-clip weapons magazines will leave the state if Colorado legislators pass a law limiting clips to 15 rounds (not even the 10 demanded by Obama!) is enough to make a normal-brained citizen howl with laughter. All I can say is: 'Hey, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out!'

According to the article, if Magpul Industries follows through on its extortion to leave the state unless lawmakers back down, "it could harm more than a dozen Front Range firms specializing in plastic injection molding, and reduce the region's capacity in the manufacturing process." Well, so be it! Collateral damage happens in all spheres of life, and none of us can be protected absolutely, especially when the greater good trumps that of a limited few or even 100.

Besides, are we then- on this basis-  to surrender ANY change in laws because it might hurt or "harm" our economics? In that case, we could as well all to to earthly hell in a handbasket right now, and let the coal pumpers, frackers, oilmen and every other fossil fuel predator have its way ....and to hell with the planet and all future generations! Let them all drink oil-fouled green slime, breathe in polluted high CO2 air, come down with dengue fever or dysentery or....boil to death in a home without any power at 115F.

The Post adds:

"The Erie company which makes weapons components and high capacity ammunition magazines has threatened to leave if the state bans individuals from owning magazines with more than 15 rounds."

Then let 'em leave!

And if there are other high capacity magazine makers who want to go, let them get the hell out too! We don't need or want them!

For those who missed the news, the Colorado State House yesterday passed legislation with gun restrictions that stands as a model for the nation. It passed in the House and is now on the way to the state senate where dems also hold a majority, by 20-15 (compared to 37-28 in the House). And no, in our state we have sanity ruling, so a super majority is not needed, only a simple majority.

Two bills have so far been passed: 1) for ammunition magazine limits, to no more than 15 rounds per maazine, and 2) for universal background checks. Gov. Hickenlooper already declared he backs the provisions and will sign the bills when they arrive.  Had either of these bills been in place back in July last year, James Holmes would likely never have been able to slaughter 12 people at an Aurora, CO cinema, and maim 58 others - including Caleb Medley (shown) still trying to reclaim his life after head injuries and more than $2m in medical bills.
Meanwhile, Greg Alfred, one of the gun magazine company honchos, was quoted as warning:

"If House Bill 1224 passes, we will relocate all or part of our operations out of state."

He added that his company (Alfred Manufacturing) is searching for locations in several other western states, including Wyoming and Montana."

The fact that these guys couldn't even abide clips with 15 rounds shows they're more interested in preserving their profits than even making partial moves to cut down on the number of clips that really can only be for military purposes. But wtf does any ordinary human or hunter need a military assault rifle for? To kill a buck? To kill a rabbit? Gimme a break!

Kudos to the Colorado House for getting these new bills passed, and now let's hoe the Senate soon follows suit.

An Astrophysicist 'Young Cosmos' Creationist? Can you say OXY-MORON?

Right: D. Russell Humphreys – the latest “astrophysicist” laboring in the service of creationist bunkum.

Above:Globular cluster at 50,000 light years distance. The light from its stars has taken that long to reach Earth, or more than 8 times longer than creationists deem the age of the Earth to be!

One really has to wonder what intellectually deformed sort of nitwit – who calls himself an “astrophysicist”- can forego all the major postulates and principles (NOT beliefs!) of physics and astrophysics and subscribe to patently obvious bunkum like a young Earth or young cosmos. We have already beheld one such character, in Jason Lisle, reputed to be an astrophysicist based on one Ph.D. doctoral thesis in which – perhaps for the first time in his academic life- he came close to doing real science. But even that had numerous holes, e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/06/why-jason-lisle-is-wrong-in-his-solar.html
And: 

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/07/jason-lisle-astrophysicist-dont-make-me.html
and  http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/07/jason-lisle-faux-astrophysicist.html


Among the powerful arguments I made to show Lisle’s young Earth-young Sun etc. claims are bollocks (and automatically disqualified him from being any "real astrophysicist") is the fact he  rejects nuclear fusion in the Sun as the primary energy source.  Any first year astrophysics student knows that given accepted-known  nuclear fusion reactions the time taken to steer a spectral class G star through the Main Sequence- goes on for millions of years. Thus Lisle adheres to nonsense (for a thousands of years old Sun)  that NO REAL astrophysicist would hold! For example, Lisle in one dvd on “The Young Sun” attempts to convince gullible fundie and other viewers that he can show the Sun is “young” so fits in with the Genesis fairy tale that the Sun can be no more than 6,000 years old (since in Genesis the Earth was made before the Sun, an impossibility anyway as I’ve shown in a number of blogs).

Lisle's claim, supposedly made by a "real" (sic) astrophysicist, is absolutely astounding in context (especially for a "Ph.D.") - given that it stands all of stellar evolution, astrophysics on its head, especially nuclear fusion: the basis for the Sun's energy! These are things EVERY budding astrophysicist is taught in his first graduate course in stellar astrophysics or stellar evolution. Thus, there are differing nuclear cross sections for differing fusion reactions and also differing time scales.

More to the point, the same arguments that torpedo Lisle’s claims for a young Earth, young Sun also torpedo D. Russell Humphreys for a young Earth and young cosmos. The reason? To embrace such codswallop would require rejecting most of modern stellar physics predicated on nuclear fusion. A key quantity in obtaining these time scales is the energy liberated per (nuclear fusion) chain defined as: W(r) = rE, or W = (rE)/ r which is in ergs/gram for example. (I.e. the total ergs of stellar energy given off per gram of stellar matter available for reaction.)

E is found from specific nuclear fusion reactions, such as p + p -> D2 +e(+) +v, where two protons fuse to yield deuterium, a positron and a neutrino(v). The key quantity is r, defined as the reactions/cm³. Obviously, the greater this value the shorter the energy generation time scale and the smaller the value the longer it will take. It is defined (see, e.g. Astrophysical Concepts, p. 331, by Martin Harwitt:

r = B (r)²  X1X2/ T^1.5 * exp^-3[2π^4e^4mH (Z1²)(Z2²)A'/ h^2kT]^1/3


where B is a proportionality constant, r is the density, h is Planck's constant (e.g. h = 6.62 x 10^-27  erg-sec), k is Boltzmann's constant = 1.38 x 10^-16 erg/K), T is absolute temperature of the reaction, i.e. in K deg, and X1 and X2 are the concentrations associated with atomic numbers Z1, Z2 while A' is the reduced atomic mass, i.e. A' = (A1 A2)/ (A1 + A2).

 Then working out 'r' for the proton-proton fusion cycle one can (after a lot of work) obtain the time scales for each chain part and the energy yielded for each, viz. (cf. Harwit, op. cit., p. 336):p + p -> D2 +e(+) +v (1.44 MeV, Time = 14 x 10⁹   yrs.)

D2 + p -> He3 + y(gamma ray) [5.49 MeV, time = 6 secs)

He3 + He3 -> He4 + 2H1 [12.85 MeV, Time - 6 million years]

Note that the last branch of the cycle already takes 6 million years, i.e. for each fusion to furnish 12.85 Mev (millions of electron volts of energy, were 1 eV = 1.6 x 10^-19   J). Thus, this cycle alone takes almost 1,000 times longer than Lisle's time of 6,000 years, as the supposed maximum age of the Sun.


The only mildly problematical time frame in the p-p cycle is for the initial fusion, which yields 14 billion years or about three times the age of the current Sun. Thus, at face value, this translates into only about one fusion every 14 billion years for the first branch of the proton-proton reaction. While that is extremely long, the Sun fortunately has a vast number of protons available in its core, so that – at a temperature of 10 million Celsius, enough can fuse to initiate helium production and energy given off. Moreover, the key "catalyst" speeding the reaction time up is the phenomenon of "quantum tunnelling" whereby a lower energy particle can surmount a higher energy barrier (what we call the "Coulomb barrier") by virtue of its wave-like properties.

To fix ideas, let us say a particle (say proton) of kinetic energy K, must overcome a barrier of energy V ("barrier potential"), via the process of "tunnelling". Consider a deBroglie wave of wavelength l_D =  h/p  or l_D =  h/ mv  where l_D is the de Broglie wavelength) arising from (p+) of form: U(x) ~ sin(kx) where x is the linear dimension along displacement and k, the wave number vector (k= 2π/ l_D).

Now, though the associated energy K < V (the barrier "height"), the wavefunction is non-zero within the barrier, e.g.

U(x_b)~ exp(-cx)

So, sketching axes for this:

E
!
!---------V------
!   *p
!
!  
!------!-------------> x

with the potential (Coulomb) "barrier" at height V, for which we visualize the particle p(*) on the left side having "tunneled" over to the right side where it may have wave function, U(x) ~sin (kx + φ), where φ denotes a phase angle.  Note that if the barrier is not too much higher than the incident energy, and if the mass is small, then tunneling is significant.

Note also that the penetration of the barrier is a direct result of the wave nature of matter! In effect, this wave nature - which is uniquely quantum mechanical in origin- allows a higher energy barrier to be penetrated by a lower energy particle, something totally without parallel in classical, Newtonian physics.

In other words, without the benefit of quantum tunnelling, the first reaction time in the p-p cycle would be inordinately long and have to be disallowed as unphysical.


Beyond this we know the photon diffusion time (the time to make it from the edge of the solar core to the Sun's surface or photosphere) is calculated to be nearly 1 million years. This takes into account all the changed random directions the released photons undergo as a result of absorption and re-emission by particles along the way out. No core photon makes it directly through, but instead undergoes millions of interactions en route resulting in collisions. Again, 1 million years for a photon's diffusion time belies Lisle's young Sun argument! It also belies Humphreys own young Earth- young cosmos claims. (Since even the brightest O and B spectral class stars have lifetimes on the Main Sequence, much longer than this photon diffusion time)

In the case of  Jason Lisle, here’s another conundrum for his assorted worshippers to ponder: Lisle himself contradicts his 'Young Sun' assertion in his Ph.D.! (Introduction). Therein he concedes to the above dynamics for nuclear fusion occurring in the Sun! So one is forced to ask if he really believes that or if he LIED in his dissertation? If he lied then his Ph.D. isn’t worth much I don’t care which institution awarded it.

Let’s now return to Humphreys.  Let us grant, according to assorted online Wiki entries, that he is a physicist at the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), like Duane Gish. He is best known for his creationist views and his attempts to reconcile reality with the notions of young Earth creationism. As in the case of Lisle  before him, this reconciliation process entails standing long confirmed physics and astrophysics on its head, and dreaming up improbable assumptions to make the reconciliation work.  It would be roughly analogous to me using an array of misplaced physics and whacky assumptions to show an elephant could be suspended from a string and the spring’s tension would support it.

While one of Humphreys favorite sayings (cited on many fundie blogs)  is evidently that scientists –astrophysicists don’t have their own evidence but just  “believe what other scientists believe” we must take care to point out he is certainly not in the same league as many pseudoscientists.  Indeed, he appears to have far more truly scientific distinctions than Lisle.   For example, his biography at Creation Ministries International lists many commendable achievements and awards, but none of his awards appear related to his young Earth-cosmos research.

This shows two things: 1) The discontinuity in awards discloses the actual scientific establishment places no value on creationism or any of its offshoot “theories” including young cosmos, and 2) Though Humphreys cites these mainstream awards for his ICR bona fides, he technically rejects their basis since he rejects the science behind them!

This is important to note because it elicits the question of why he’d cite any mainstream awards at all. If it is to show his professional scientific acumen or capabilities then it’s mostly useless because by embracing young Earth, young cosmos bollocks he’s squandered all his scientific capital. So the awards only show a once prominent physicist who has now “gone off the rails” and in many ways has lost all credibility. In many respects this parallels what happened to the once great Nobel-winning chemist Linus Pauling who tried to parlay his many scientific awards into credibility for his whackadoodle megadose vitamin C conjectures. It didn’t work. People saw through it and concluded that a once great scientist had either become senile or that he betrayed his background to enter a fringe field.

Given then the minimal odds of Humphreys doing actual astrophysics research and getting it published, say in The Astrophysical Journal, in his previous jobs (He joined ICR in 2002, after retiring from Sandia National Laboratories (New Mexico), where he'd been working in the actual scientific fields of nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed-power research, and theoretical atomic and nuclear physics)  one has to conclude the only gig really open to him after Sandia was at the ICR, there to contrive these totally nutso “theories” (which term I hesitate to use because it dignifies codswallop more than anything else)

How nutso are they? One of the first things any budding astronomer learns is that light travels at a certain speed, e.g. c = 300,000 km/sec approximately and that the light from the distant stars has therefore been traveling for many thousands or millions of years. For example, since the Andromeda galaxy is about 2 million light years distant, the light from any stars seen in that galaxy must have been traveling at least that long. The distance measurements themselves are based on sound physics, for example, using the inverse square law for light in conjunction with Cepheid variable stars as light standards. (See, e.g. http://www.brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/08/tackling-intermediate-astronomy.html )

Ancient starlight thereby creates serious difficulties for young Earth creationists, since our ability to see stars that are billions of light years distant from Earth is incompatible with the belief that the universe was created as described by a literal reading of Genesis.  Commonly known as the starlight problem, Humphreys has attempted to explain it away through the introduction of White hole cosmology. 

The problem is that white holes are totally speculative. No one knows exactly how a white hole could actually form in the real universe. A black hole's origin is well known: the collapse of a massive star that is reduced to such a tiny volume (collapsar) that its gravity is large enough to suck up anything and everything in its vicinity. While we may speculate that the black hole’s singularity provides a ‘channel’ into the white hole (say via a wormhole) this is only speculation. This is not the same as hard evidence, or proof.

Even introducing the white hole into the universe as an initial condition, e.g. assuming  certain conditions of temperature, pressure, density allow their formation, doesn't resolve the thorny issue of lack of evidence. Is the Big Bang then merely a white hole? How can one say so when no evidence exists for normal white holes in the existing cosmos? . The bottom line: all our data and cosmological observations thus far show no objects that conform to the behavior of "white holes". Even quasars, once believed to be the outpourings of white holes, were ditched decades ago as certain discrepancies arose, and we now suspect they are unique ancient objects in themselves. Of extraordinary luminosity for sure, but not in the white hole class.

An even more extreme conjecture by Humphreys attempts to validate the young Earth bunkum by postulating the Earth being created within a black hole, with the associated gravity inducing time dilation effects! (See e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/08/introduction-to-special-relativity-3.html )

This would effectively have Earth's time running at a different rate to the rest of the universe.  BUT here’s the problem with this stretchy bit of imaginative overkill: if Earth’s time rate were running differently, how could we possibly have landed space craft such as ‘Curiosity’ on Mars? Or Viking on Mars, back in 1976? After all, the equations used to plan rocket –space craft trajectories are precise in terms of timing! Hence, if Earth’s time rate were that far out of synch (billions of years, in effect) we’d never be able to launch a craft successfully! Telemetry and videos received from the craft, i.e. showing Mars’ surface, shows the craft HAVE arrived, and hence Humphreys’ whacko speculations can’t be correct.

In the end, Humphreys' extreme efforts to explain away the young Earth or star light problem commits the worst sort of scientific offense and violates the well known Ockham’s Razor principle: that the simpler of two hypothesis, i.e. the one with fewer assumptions,  is always to be preferred over the more complex one.

For this reason, Humphreys’ starlight solution can’t be taken seriously, certainly by any astrophysicist worth his salt.

We therefore have to dismiss him and his far out fringe baloney, just as we do Jason Lisle.  Those who accept their young Earth- young cosmos bafflegab are religious believers, not scientifically minded seekers.

TWO Cosmic Shots Over the Bow for Earth's Planetary Sleepers!

Today, not one but TWO cosmic shots over our planetary bow have been received - well, ok, the 2nd is the asteroid DA 14 2012, scheduled to make a close pass at 2.25 p.m. ET today. (See graphic attached). Will we take note or continue living in a fool's paradise oblivious to the threats of large rocks from space landing on us at any time? One wonders! We are supposedly the species with the large brains and high intelligence, unlike the dinosaurs who were basically taken out 65 million years ago by the KT boundary event.  The dinos at least had an excuse, since their average brain size was about the size of a walnut so they'd never be able to configure rockets or telescopes to provide advance warning systems for asteroids or large meteoroids. (Apart from the fact they lacked the digits to render such machines, even if they had the brain power to conceive them.)

Anyway, the first 'shot over the bow' occurred with the explosion of an 11 ton (~2.2. x 10 ⁴ kg) meteoroid over the Russian Urals barely 12 hours ago by Russian local time. The blast broke windows in 6 cities according to an MSNBC report this morning, and injured 1,000 people, while 3,000 buildings sustained damage mostly from the blast shock wave. See, e.g.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/15/world/europe/russia-meteor-shower/index.html

  The incident recalled for many the Tunguska Siberian event in 1908 which knocked down nearly 80 million trees and decimated nearly 820 square miles, about two-thirds the size of Rhode Island.  And this was from an object perhaps ten times the size of the 11 ton meteoroid that just hit the Urals this morning.

Meanwhile, a much larger asteroid, the one identified as DA 14 2012 is making its closest pass barely three hours from now. It packs a mass of 130,000 metric tons (~ 2.9 x 10⁸  kg) and with the explosive release equivalent of a 20 megaton nuclear bomb.  Incredibly, the object was first discovered back in February last year by a DENTIST using a high powered telescope! Why the hell had no national scientific agencies made the discovery? What would have been the case if,  instead of a minor midget asteroid making this close pass, it was a planet killer 6 km across or larger? (As opposed to only 150'  or 45 m  DA 14 2012) Would we be ready to do anything other than piss, moan and pray?

It seems doubtful! This despite evidence that we truly are living in a fool's paradise of false security! As far back as 1979, in an interview given to the BBC, Dr. Basil Boothe warned it was most unwise of humans to bet on their future security from approaching cosmic objects. This would be by assuming that their lone home planet would remain untouched, unaffected and they could sleep in peace. Not so! He estimated at least a 50-50 chance of a strike by a planet killer within 250,000 years. Sadly, this long timeline - misunderstood by the budget cutters- has been taken to mean we can do nada for a quarter million years, as opposed to a strike happening at ANY time between NOW and a quarter million years hence.

Indeed, as recently as 1994 Earthlings also observed transfixed as nearly 21 immense fragments from Comet Shoemaker Levy 9 crashed into Jupiter. Had they instead smashed into our own planet, we might not even be having this discussion.

Meanwhile, Projects Space watch and Spaceguard remain on relative life support, funding wise. The first, based at the University of Arizona, featured generous grant allocations in its early years when it discovered over 1,300 Earth -approaching asteroids by 2002. As the austerity mindedness infected all science research areas, that capability has since wound down a lot, leaving Spacewatch mostly in the hands of amateurs. Not that the latter aren't observationally capable, but we also need professionals to spot these things and then (using the well known equations of celestial mechanics) to obtain the orbital parameters as fast as possible.

Spaceguard extends the detection to focus more on NEOs (near Earth objects) as opposed to singling out near Earth asteroids (NEAs).  Again budget limitations have loomed and imposed  truncated observation time frames and selectivity.

Although there have been many discoveries of near-Earth asteroids  the Spaceguard Project has been criticized for not having an in-depth master plan if our humble planet is directly in the crosshairs of a giant asteroid. It has also been criticized of having false alarms that could lead to dangerous implications.

NASA published an article in April of 2001 to clarify many questions that have come up with this project. The report distinguished the difference between NEOs and NEAs, why the organization selected NEAs with a diameter of at least one kilometer in diameter, why the number of 90 percent was chosen and many other questions that have perplexed the general public.

Neither Space watch or Spaceguard is adequately funded, which means that either an NEO or NEA can escape through the observational 'net' and could wreak havoc, especially if the size and mass approaches that of a planet killer such as exterminated the dinosaurs.

In addition, there is no plan of which anyone is aware  for taking out a planet killer - say 6-10 km across, if one does target Earth. There have been past ruminations about using nuclear weapons to try to split the object into smaller pieces, but that was put aside when the ''architects" decided a number of smaller (1 km ) strikes might not be so good either. But still, a planet killer of 6 km arriving intact is not something to dismiss lightly and our space gurus may well have to opt on the side of losing half of the earthly populace to losing ALL of it, say from a nuclear winter onset as a result of some 10 ²⁸ kg of dust and debris in our atmosphere, cutting off sunlight.

We have the brains, supposedly, and given we aren't planning to abandon 'Mother' Earth any time soon, we had better damned well come up with a credible plan to deal with a monster planet killing asteroid if and when one appears and approaches us - whether that be next year, or in ten thousand. It is either that, or we go the way of the dinosaurs, in which case, our vaunted intellect wouldn't have made a dime's worth of difference!

Solutions to p-adic Problems

These are the solutions to the problems at the end of the blog on p-adic numbers, http://www.brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/02/what-are-p-adic-numbers.html


1) Take the The 7-adic value for each side;


[A]₇ = [14 - 1/7]₇   = ç[2 x 7]₇ - 1/[1 x 7]₇ ç

=  ç 1/7 - 7 ç= 6 6/7 = 48/7


 

[B]₇ = [1/7 - 21]₇ = ç1/[1 x 7]₇ - [3 x 7]₇

= ç7 - 1/7 ç =  6  6/7 = 48/7


[C]₇ = [21 - 14]₇ =  ç 3 x 7] ₇ - [2 x 7]₇ ç=  ç1/7 - 1/7ç₇ = [0]₇ = 1

From these calculations of p-adic (7-adic) absolute values we find:


side A = side B = 48/7,

Hence in the p-adic format the triangle is isosceles.

(2) Find the value of the sum S for:

S = 1 + 7 + (7)² + (7)³ + (7)⁴ + (7)⁵ + ....

Rewrite the sum (multiplying both sides by 7):

7S = 7 +  (7)² + (7)³ + (7)⁴ + (7)⁵ +  (7)⁶....

Subtract the lower form from the upper, viz.:

S = 1 + 7 + (7)² + (7)³ + (7)⁴ + (7)⁵ +  (7)⁶....

-7S = 7 + (7)² + (7)³ + (7)⁴ + (7)⁵ +  (7)⁶....

--------------------------------------------

S - 7S = 1 (all other top and bottom terms cancel)

whence:


-6S = 1 and therefore, S = - 1/6


  (3) This is straightforward. Let N be the new irrational and equal to S' where S' is a variant sum derived from S, i.e. by excluding all even-exponent terms in (7),  such that:

N= S’ =

7 + (7)³+ (7)⁶ + (7)⁹ + (7)¹² + (7)¹⁵ + .........

WHY does this answer qualify?

The Keystone XL Pipeline Must Still Be Stopped!

The primary problem with resorting to rhetoric alone when it comes to warning of the costs of climate change, is that at some point you will be called upon to not only talk the talk, but walk the walk. In the case of President Obama, despite his inspiring declarations (at his Inaugural and the SOTU) on halting the climate catastrophe before us, the time has now come for single-handed action on his part. That means nixing the Keystone XL pipeline - all the critics and naysayers be damned.

As noted in an earlier blog: http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/11/bill-mckibbens-prediction-of-nightmare.html

Climate scientist Bill McKibben has developed models disclosing mathematical limits showing we have roughly 550 gigatons (gT) left of carbon we can deposit anthropogenically into the atmosphere before earthly Hell is unleashed. That “hell” includes the runaway greenhouse effect, to turn our planet into an endlessly burning pile of ash and refuse. Give a current 30 gT/year deposition rate - and assuming we don't add to it, don't increase its rate - that leaves us roughly 18 years- give or take a fraction, before we end up in a likely runaway greenhouse world. It's a world no one or their offspring would want to inhabit.

Prof. McKibben in his November appearance on Chris Hayes’ UP', noted the major contributor to push us into this hothouse hell is none other than implementation of the Keystone XL pipeline because of the concentrated carbon it will unleash over years. To remind readers, this pipeline will deliver tar sands oil from Alberta, Canada to Gulf Coast refineries for export to an international market. The pipeline would have an initial capacity of 830,000 barrels per day and would leave a carbon footprint equivalent to building more than seven new coal-fired plants. By the time it reaches full capacity the enhanced carbon deposition will be nearly 3 gT/yr. In other words accelerating the timeline to reach the 550 gT maximum carbon load the planet can bear.


Despite misleading claims of “benefits” by TransCanada, the downsides of this ill-conceived project remain the same and include:

1)  Building a future of dirty energy,  hastening our pace toward an uninhabitable world. The fact is the Keystone XL is a massively detrimental dirty energy project that would open a major export artery for toxic tar sands oil across the U.S. for at least 50 years. In that interval, massive spills and contamination of our water supply (already threatened by fracking) will accelerate cancers and other endemic health problems.

2)  It’s an unnecessary risk. The U.S. itself doesn’t need this crap oil especially since we’ve reduced our oil consumption by nearly two billion barrels per day over the past five years. This stat will continue to improve with the growing number of electric and hybrid cars.

3) Water pollution: A planned Keystone XL pipeline would pass through Nebraska’s Sandhills region, endangering the Ogallala Aquifer, which forms the drinking water for millions as well the water source for one third of American agriculture. In other words, a massive tar sands oil spill could pollute not only the water but crops used for food consumption. During the tar sands oil extraction process, vast amounts of water are needed to separate the extracted product, bitumen, from sand, silt, and clay. It takes three barrels of water to extract each single barrel of oil. At this rate, tar sands operations use roughly 400 million gallons of water a day. Ninety percent of this polluted water is dumped into large human-made pools, known as tailing ponds, after it’s used. These ponds are home to toxic sludge, full of harmful substances like cyanide and ammonia, which has worked its way into neighboring clean water supplies.


4) Higher gas and food prices: TransCanada has admitted one of its goals is to raise oil prices in 12 midwestern U.S. states thereby increasing revenue to the Canadian oil industry by $2b to $4b. Meanwhile, U.S. farmers, who’ve already spent $12.4 b on fuel (in 2009) could see expenses rise to $15b  if the pipeline goes through,  a cost which will surely be passed on to Americans as higher food prices.

5) Increased respiratory disease and cancer: The pollutants released by mining and refining tar sands will incept acid rain, smog and haze as well as other effects associated with lung disease and cancer. The solid or semi-solid waste, embedded in the toxic sludge, will unleash astronomic rates of kidney, breast, colon, pancreatic and liver cancers by the ingestion of the water soiled by the tailing ponds.

6) Climate disaster: Any future tar sands development – say via Keystone XL- will mean “game over” for the planet according to NASA climate scientist James Hanson. I already noted earlier how much extra load of carbon will be added and how it impinges the 550 gT critical threshold.

To his credit Obama has so far nixed this odious deal, which will only bring jobs for the very few (maybe 21,000 if that) and major hellacious environmental costs that would be a hundred times greater than the Exxon Valdez disaster if major leaks occur. Now, Obama must use his full authority (which no repug can stop) to kill this project once and for all.

Just WHO is pushing this abomination on us? Giant oil corporations invested in Canada's tar sands and who have, as Bill Moyers stated last April in on Bill Maher's Real Time, already contributed more than $47 million of campaign donations to Repukes and lobbying money to try to make it so. They are hoping that Americans will be too dumb or dense to see the hidden (and not so hidden) costs that will be extracted.

If Obama’s recent rhetoric on climate change and global warming mean anything, then he has no other option than to kill the Keystone pipeline once and for all.

Still, It's up to all of us to do everything we can to urge President Obama to reject Keystone XL. To do your part, readers,  Will you pick up the phone today, and make a quick call to the White House?

Be polite, but be firm: NO Keystone XL deal!

LOL- Fundie Punts on Evolution Test But Challenges Me to Live Debate

Excuses, excuses….as well as daft rationalizations! What can you expect from dumbass fundies! So, it appears the nuisance fundie blogger who’s created a veritable cottage industry out of attacking evolution and global warming (including selling t-shirts with apes conversing with human descendants and clownish images of Al Gore) looked at my test on evolution and opted to wimp out. Oh, he has loads of excuses for punking out (see below)  including interjecting the red herring that I “only went to a ‘podunk’ university (‘Voodoo U’ in his ignorant parlance) in the West Indies for my graduate work, as if this has anything to do with a biology test I set for my secondary school students while serving in Peace Corps! (Never mind The University of the West Indies is affiliated with the University of London and has featured some of the top scholars, researchers in the world – including Dr. Shirin Haque in the field of astro-archaeology.)  But what does Mr. Knuckle Dragger know when he can't even solve a problem on half-life, radioactive decay that my secondary students could do in five minutes?

Let’s see how he rationalizes his avoidance to prove he’s qualified to comment or critique evolution:

 "I can't speak for any other "Fundies and Creationists," but contrary to what he may believe, I have studied evolution in my formal biblical studies. But...oh wait! I forgot, that won't count with this dimwitted disciple of Satan since my classmates and I were not brainwashed first by 'Planet of the Apes' profs...my bad   Of course, even if I did decide to take his "test," it would be akin to flipping a coin with him where he tells me, "Okay, heads I win, tails you lose." In other words, God-given common sense tells me that regardless of what answers I give him - they would be wrong - or at a minimum, he'd accuse me of "cheating" by googling for the answers. In sum, he doesn't really want to give me a test, he just wants me to give him a stick so he can beat me over the head with it!"  

Note he claims he HAS studied evolution, but in his BIBLE studies. Are you kidding me? Is he serious? Can you imagine what kind of slanted, erroneous "study" that would be, at the hands of biblical literalists? I was, of course, not talking about “bible studies”  - which he is evidently taking from some Podunk Southern Florida Bible College via an ONLINE course – but rather a full UNIVERSITY SCIENCE course from an accredited university!  Hence, he’s wise not to speak for other fundies, because his online bible study doesn’t cut it.

Further proof: He didn’t even attempt one of the EASIER questions, though anyone who’d truly taken such a course would have found the ten problems to be a piece of cake. But not for this guy!  He’s not even able to do problems like (1) and (2) for Cripes’ sakes. Either of these being correctly done would at least show his online bible study education is worth a pound of doggie lickspittle, but no….he can’t show it because he doesn’t know what the hell the basis for either question is! And he has the chutzpah to criticize my education!

He blabbers on, windbag that he is, full of bluster and self-righteousness:

"This coming from a guy who, on his blogs, writes about almost anything from the Bible to the military to guns to food to cancer, and just about everything else under the sun - as well as criticizing areas he doesn't agree with.Don't get me wrong here. As a true American, I believe this guy - or anyone - can write and criticize anything or anyone he chooses, regardless of their academic qualifications (or lack thereof), and regardless of how asinine the writings may be. We all have that right under the 1st Amendment. But, in true Socialist Obummer-worshipping form and fashion, this Nazi wants to suppress not only Americans' 2nd Amendment rights, but now our 1st Amendment rights by some sort of litmus test?"

Incredibly,  this Bozo complains I “write about anything”: cancer, the Bible, astronomy, economics, politics, math – in other words, I am a diverse thinker and curious about the world at large, also informed enough to cast a wide net of intellectual scrutiny. Can he even spell E-C-L-E-C-T-I-C blog? Wait, he probably doesn't even know the meaning of the word! I mean, he actually thinks or believes an academic test of aptitude in a field in which he's got lots of yap is a "litmus test"!

But I choose to have a diverse, eclectic blog, unlike being a 'one trick pony' who reads so little (outside his good Book)  that the only thing on his radar are his biblical fairy tales!  But hell, if he is happy being ensconced in such a narrow, 2-dimensional cubby hole (and after all, it appears to suit his narrow mind), who am I to complain?  Methinks though that this is a guy that can't  walk and chew gum  at the same time either. Hey! Maybe he's related to Gerald Ford!

He goes rambling on - having taken his testosterone, challenging me to come and debate him in person:

 "I'd like to debate this guy and offer to pay his travel expenses! We'd debate on 'evolutionism vs. creationism! I'd twist him into a pretzel within the first half hour and send him packing back to Colorado Springs where he could to0ke on a few joints and lick his wounds!"    

So the blustering twit challenges me to debate in person. Hey, ANY time, Roscoe! You want to debate me, fine! I have debated far better educated people than you over more than 30 years. People who actually obtained their religious-theology degrees from places like Oxford, Cambridge and Harvard as opposed to Smoke House Online Bible School in Okeechobee, FL. You pay my expenses, including motel, and agree to an independent venue and objective judges (not your brain- jacked bible college minions) and I will certainly debate your sorry fundie ass!

But somehow I doubt he will follow through, because like so many on the Right he's more full of BS than ballast.   The funniest part is near the end of his rant where he demands I take his own test!  Never mind I set out my test for him first and in the higher reaches of academia the one first invited to respond does so, he or she doesn't cop out.. But in any case, nearly three years ago, I’d already answered in detail similar questions to the ones he tossed out in his current version. See e.g.:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/01/part-i-of-pastor-mikeys-stupid-test.html

But what’s the point? He will never read them anyway because his interest and investment isn’t in learning anything but rather inducing false controversy to sell more of his specious bunkum to any gullible buyers or followers. So, if he can claim I “never answered” his bollocks he can insist creationism is correct, never mind he punked out on the simplest evolution questions! Madness anyone?

Maybe we can ascribe it to a fundagelical mental disease! In that case it ought to be treatable, see: http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/11/treating-advanced-fundagelical-psychosis.html

Obama's State of the Union Speech: A Veritable Masterpiece

As my wife and I sat down to watch the State of the Union speech last night, we didn’t know exactly what to expect. Would Obama come across strong and principled, or appear like he planned to appease the Repukes? Recall that earlier in the day, at a breakfast, Bonehead John Boehner declared that Obama “doesn’t have the guts to do the heavy lifting” regarding the economy.


But as Obama waded into the most masterful State of the Union I’ve ever heard, one could assess his success and hitting the right notes by the somber visage of Boehner seated on the dais to one side. As my wife put it: “He looks like a constipated Gnome that’s just been seized by a combination of brain fart and  freeze.” And so he did!

Obama singled out attention in a way that challenged his obstructionist opposition to find their own national conscience and place their future actions above spiteful reproach and party lines. The themes included:


- The Sequester. Obama vowed to continue to fight for the middle class, protecting “entitlements” from the Repug rapists who he noted actually wanted to preserve the defense budget at the expense of cutting Social Security and Medicare. Obama advanced more cost saving ways to help Medicare, though I’d have liked to see included in his prescriptions the ability to bargain for lowest prescription drug prices like Medicare. This alone would save $100b a year.

- Obama made a powerful push to help the poor by demanding the minimum wage be increased to $9 an hour. He correctly argued that NO one in the wealthiest nation on Earth, who works 40 hours (or often more) per week should be living below the poverty line. That must mean increasing the federal minimum wage to at least the liveable minimum. Obama observed that this increase will: 1) mean more customers for businesses since people will now have more $$$ to spend, 2) will mean fewer people dependent on government for food stamps since they will now have the wage support to reduce that dependency.

- Infrastructure: Obama called eloquent attention to our crumbling infrastructure, which is now approaching the level of a third world nation. The crumbling roads, bridges, sewer and water mains are now estimated (by the American Society of Civil Engineers) to need $1.7 trillion in maintenance just to bring them back to serviceable standards. This means money needs to be forthcoming by which to hire hundreds of thousands of people to assist in this national effort. But this means the Repukes will have to cease with their military welfare state, or using defense spending to the tune of $1 trillion a year (according to David Cay Johnston on Chris Hayes last Saturday) as their own military jobs program. We need now domestic jobs, not millions of military jobs which only serve to keep the funders looking for more wars or occupations!

- Energy. Obama correctly noted we are nearly energy independent but that we also need to look at alternative energy sources. He made it clear that it’s not good enough to have the Chinese going all in for solar, for example, while we sit on the sidelines with fossil fuels. Solar IS the way of the future – at least one major form – and we need to get all hands on board in a national initiative.

- Guns: Alluding to more than two dozen – the families of gun victims – in attendance, Obama made an eloquent plea for a vote to be taken to pass common sense gun legislation, including a universal background check that could eliminate felons from gun purchases. Obama repeated the clarion call of ‘Let us bring it to a vote’ over and over as the families clapped and cheered. Will the Repukes do it, or as more likely, will the cowards punk out and let the bill rot unattended, as they’ve done so many others?

- Global warming: Obama referenced superstorm Sandy and that we can no longer look the other way as global warming-climate change devastates nation after nation. Obama references that 12 of the past 15 years have been the hottest on record, and clearly, only an imbecile would deny global warming, especially after the events of 2012. (See my earlier blog on ‘Puhleeze tell me people can’t be this stupid’)


But despite Obama’s masterpiece SOTU speech, make no mistake that the braying Neoliberal enclaves will be pushing at him to make a “grand deal” that will include serious social insurance cuts. Already Neolib hack Fareed Zakaria has written a column (‘Will He Fight or Compromise?’, TIME, Feb. 18, p.20) that opines Obama has already disclosed himself to be a “centrist searching for compromise”. But this would be a tragic error, given the mandate Obama received in the recent election. Also, I believe this is at least on his political radar after the SOTU.

In terms of “entitlement reforms” which Zakaria claims Obama is still eyeing, he writes:

“Obama might be doing this because he wants to notch some legislative accomplishments and leave a legacy”.


But make no mistake that any “legacy” which includes putative cuts such as a chained CPI for Social Security would be a severely tarnished one. It would perhaps grant Obama a lasting “ Neoliberal legacy” in the minds of the corrupted corporate media and the wealthy Washington Elites, but at the cost of destroying the Democratic Party brand in perpetuity. Rather than Repukes undermining Social security a Dem – one of their own – would have done it. Sorry, this can’t wash all of Zakaria’s bellyaching (at the prospect of Obama fighting) to the contrary.

At least for the moment, nerves are calmed after the SOTU. But we still have to see how Obama deals with the upcoming Sequester (March 1) and the ensuing 27 days before the government account runs dry. Will be blink and surrender to the Repuke terrorists, or fight? The whole world is watching.

We will see. If he fights, then in retrospect the SOTU speech will have been the war cry from a guy who’s finally found his spine. A guy no longer interested in making nicey with Repuglicans or appeasing the Neoliberal media bastions.