Clapper & Spymasters Expose Trump As A Fool And A Fraud

"For a President not to be prepared to listen to the myriad of intelligence agencies - from defense intelligence to the CIA - is absolutely mindless" - VP Joe Biden yesterday.

Note the use of Biden's term "mindless" in the above quote which actually may be way too generous. It implies a person mentally vacant for a given task at hand, or job, say like an Alzheimer's victim. But there are many reasons to believe Donald J. Trump isn't mindless, he is simply using his mind in devious ways to undermine the intelligence community and security of this country.  Even if a person might originally have been tempted to give Trump the benefit of the doubt in terms of denying the veracity of intelligence reports the past few weeks, yesterday's Senate hearing ought to have quashed that once and for all.

In fact, DNI James Clapper and his fellow spymasters (the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence,  and Director of the National Security Agency) all delivered testimony basically revealing Trump as a fraud, a fool and in no way qualified to hold the office of dog catcher- far less leader of the world's most powerful nation.

Mincing no words, National Intelligence Director James Clapper bluntly stated: "There’s a difference between skepticism and disparagement,”  skewering the Trumpian nonsense that his hesitance to accept the intelligence community's findings was mere "skepticism".

Clapper told a Senate Armed Service Committee hearing into foreign cyber-threats (headed  by Sen. John McCain)  to the US  that intelligence analysts “stand more resolutely” than ever behind their conclusion of “Russian interference in our electoral process”.

The testimony was delivered before Clapper and the heads of the CIA, NSA and FBI are expected to present their findings on Russian election interference to Trump today, in his Trump Tower redoubt. Asked by Lindsey Graham if he was ready to take on Trump  today, Clapper didn't hesitate, saying "Absolutely!".

The meet with the clown Trump, who has repeatedly scoffed at the hacking claims from the intelligence community, is likely to be highly charged. How can it not be given that Trump the  tweeting troll has all but left the nation's spymasters incredulous at the spectacle of his sheer foolish claims including "I know things other people don't know about hacking".   Thereby leaving the intel community not only in disbelief but hung out to dry with his off the cuff BS and dismissive tweets. (Which VP Biden admonished him to cease saying "Grow up, Donald!")

Indeed, this lout and loon has publicly derided the agencies on the hacking issue.  Also, as reported yesterday (MSNBC) the spymasters are so worried that Trump won't accept their final report that they called members of congress asking them for public support.  They are also clearly worried that Trump this week actually cited a denial by Julian Assange of WikiLeaks that his source for Democratic party emails released during the election was the Russian government or “a state party”.

In the wake of such unfathomable disparagement of their work,  both Clapper and Admiral Michael Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency, expressed concerns about intelligence analysts’ morale with Rogers suggesting some may quit.  Many in private have confided that having to deal with such a soon to be leader of the putative free world, has shaken them to their core.

And why not? They will within 2 weeks be under the control of a totally unqualified buffoon who has no more regard for this country than the quality of the crap he sells in the assorted boutiques of Trump Tower.

As 'Exhibit A' one can cite Trump’s confidence in WikiLeaks which has shocked and angered intelligence analysts, who consider Assange at minimum a dupe, and at most a willing tool of Putin. Clapper and Rogers testified they believe Assange has no credibility. “I don’t think those of us in the intelligence community have a whole lot of respect for him,” said Clapper. Then On Thursday morning, Trump denied he was “in agreement” with Assange, tweeting: “I simply state what he states, it is for the people to make up their own minds as to the truth.”    But this is too clever by half, and way too coy, even for a president- elect with the impulse control of a three year old.

For one thing, if he took the intelligence community seriously he would not be dignifying the words of a person regarded as a hostile actor or used actor by most intel insiders. The very fact he would state what Assange states discloses he places Assange's words on a par with that of James Clapper and the intel directors. What's wrong with this picture? Well, everything!

If one trusts and accepts the reports - including daily briefs - of the intelligence analysts, then that must be mutually exclusive with accepting the words of a person they consider a hostile actor. Trump like any three year old merely tries to show he wants to have his cake and eat it too.

Asked about morale within the intelligence agencies in the wake of Trump’s comments, Clapper said: “I haven’t done a climate survey, but I hardly think it helps it.” Rogers said the “confidence of our leaders” helps motivate intelligence officers, “and without that confidence, I just don’t want a situation where our workforce decides to walk, because that’s not a good place for us to be”.

Even more sobering, according to the Wall Street Journal, which first reported the proposal, Trump is considering diminishing the director of national intelligence and even getting rid of it. This move, according to the head of the 9/11 Commission, would leave this nation even more vulnerable to outside attacks by hostiles, including terrorists.

Does Trump care? I seriously doubt it. He likely cares more about kickbacks and money coming in from foreign visitors to his Trump Hotel in D.C.

Maybe the capper on the whole sordid interlude is that the Russkies were evidently elated by the Trump win, see e.g.

[U.S. intercepts capture senior Russian officials celebrating Trump win ]

Something that ought to make every American cringe is that two top intelligence officials, as reported last night on NBC, have revealed Russian cyber attacks against not only the DNC, but the White House, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the State Department and even American companies.   Translation: We are soon to be in the maw of an administration that is friendly with the foreign entity responsible and with a "fellow traveler" holding the top position in the nation.

Instead of seriously dealing with the findings of the report, Trump blabbered in a tweet 'Who gave them this report? Politics!"  Actually no, reality!   But this is the sort of response one might expect from a fellow traveler.The better question is HOW does Trump know things about this recent hacking that no other sources do?  Does he therefore have inside information on how the hack of the DNC was done? Is it really a "fat man on a bed in New Jersey"? Or, maybe Trump himself?

Evan McMullen, former CIA analyst put it in blunt terms on MSNBC 'All In' last night, after Alabama GOOP Rep. Mo Brooks couldn't answer a simple question on whether it was more important to believe Julian Assange or  U.S. Intelligence professionals:

"It's absolutely unfathomable to me that we even have a question about whether we trust our intelligence professionals over an anti-American activist supported by Russia"

Unfathomable though it may be, it is even more so that Trump's followers and voters will likely see absolutely nothing wrong with anything he's done. The "banality of evil" as I referred to Hanna Arendt's perspective in yesterday's post.

WHY Is There Evil In The World?

One hypothesis is that what we call "evil" arises from the primitive structure and dynamics of the human brain itself.

In a recent section of the local newspaper (Colorado Springs Independent, Nov. 23-29, p. 7)  four local religious experts were asked the question" Why is there evil in the world? Among the responses given are the following:

Rev. Jim Daly (Focus on the Family)

"Ultimately, evil is a relational issue. It's a matter of man refusing to recognize his dependence upon his Creator and attempting to make himself the center of the universe."

Rev. Nori Rost (Unitarian Universalist Church)

"For me, evil is that which dominates, oppresses and harms any part of creation. What causes evil? People who use their power and wealth to gain more power and wealth, people who use fear to get one group of people to hate another. Perhaps most of all, people who remain silent, doing nothing to stop this."

Rev. Ahrianna Platten (Unity Spiritual Center)

"Evil originates in the human mind and reflects a belief in separation from the Holy.When our minds are unhealthy, we take on beliefs and behaviors that are unhealthy."

Prof. David Gardiner (Colorado College Religion Dept.)

"There is evil because we call something evil.  It's hard to defend the position that something exists independent of the perceptions of people. If it did, we wouldn't perceive it. So 'evil' is a conventional category created by human thought, It's not a self-evident portion of the existing world."

The atheist position, of course, comes closest to the response of Prof. Gardiner's. And obviously, if evil can't exist independently of language and perceptions, neither can "sin". This hearkens back to a conversation six years ago between my atheist friend Rick, and Krimhilde, my Eckist sister -in law, e.g.

Both basically agreed that sin is a Macguffin invented by conventional religions to keep humans in an inferior state as opposed to attaining mastery over their lives. Sin is also a ridiculous concept. As Rick put it, "How can a finite tiny flesh being 'offend' a supposed infinite Being?" It's totally ludicrous.

Further, both agreed that there is no such thing as "original sin" since infants can't enter the world with any such millstones. Original sin is merely a confection of theological idiots who take the "Adam & Eve" fable literally.

When the topic of "natural evil" arose, i.e. tsunamis like the one in 2004 that killed over 200,000, we all concurred that such random, geological events (as well as earthquakes) not to mention weather events (tornadoes, hurricanes) that kill many thousands a year, are in the end simply violent natural events onto which vulnerable humans impose "evil". Thus, no natural evil exists in the objective sense, even when a person is suffering from a horrible disease like brain cancer. It is simply part of the slings and arrows to which flesh is heir to, inhabiting a world rife with bacteria, viruses, toxins etc.

Much the same argument can be made with regard to "human evil" except that humans bear a measure of responsibility for their action - i.e. in terms of those actions clearly harming fellow humans. Hence, it's not the same to compare 200, 000 killed in a gas chamber during World War II to 200,000 killed in the Indonesian tsunami in 2004. The first was engineered by conscious entities with choice and will, the latter - by a purely natural displacement of an undersea fault line.

In my last book on moral philosophy (Beyond Atheism, Beyond God) in the section Practical Reason and Human Evil  I noted that one of the canards circulated about human evil is that it’s irrational. If the person only knew better, or reasoned properly, he’d arrive at the generic good, and we'd all be better off.  I cited philosopher John Kekes who disposes of this myth quite forcefully (The Roots of Evil, p. 156.)  

As Kekes observes, abundant historical examples disclose that people often robustly justify their actions on the basis of a good perceived in their minds, but which in retrospect turns out to be evil. Therefore it’s not the lack of reason or rationality that infuses their actions but instead the false beliefs that supported the reasoning!

The rush of the GOP yesterday  to toss 20 million off Obamacare is a case in point. They see it as a budget issue or reversing a program they believe to be misbegotten, not appreciating this is the only thing millions have to depend on for their health care.  They are prepared to interject a kind of "evil" based on false reasoning. Again, "evil" in the sense it harms fellow citizens.

Other examples of rational human evil  include justifications for aggressive national policy, including military occupations of sovereign states, targeted military attacks by drones and the implementation of economic evil such as austerity policies- which  can harm millions.

To the Physicalist or Scientific Materialist, of course, there is no such thing as "Satan" or  "the Devil" - those are merely cartoon copouts for the unthinking.  Evil exists, but not as an independent,  infinite negative absolute, or personified in a spirit entity, but rather as a dynamic of our own brains. What most ordinary people refer to as “evil” is easily explainable by the scientific Materialist in terms of brain evolution. Thus, Homo Sapiens is fundamentally an animal species with a host of animal/primitive instincts residing in its ancient brain or paleocortex.

The paleocortex sits evolutionarily beneath the more evolved mesocortex and neocortex, the latter of which crafts concepts and language. One clever person has compared this tri-partite brain structure to a car design welding a Lamborghini to a Model T Ford chassis, with a 1957 Chevy engine to power the Lamborghini. If an automotive engineer can conceive of such a hybrid beast, I'd be interested to know exactly how he thinks it would run.

Given the preceding brain structural defect, there is much evidence that human behavior will get progressively worse as the complexity inherent in technological and globalized societies increases, but brain evolution is unable to keep pace with it. Basically, we are a species with the capability of making nuclear weapons and intercontinental missiles but with an R-complex imbued with reptilian tendencies.

The behavior resulting from this hybrid brain is bound to be morally mixed, reflecting the fact that we literally have three brains contending for emergence in one cranium. Behavior will therefore range from the most selfless acts (not to mention creative masterpieces) to savagery, carnal lust run amuck and addictions that paralyze purpose.

The mistake of the orthodox religionist is to associate the first mode of behavior with being human and not the latter. In effect, disowning most of the possible behaviors of which humans are capable.- and hence nine tenths of what makes us what we are. Worse, not only disowning these behaviors – but ascribing them to some antagonistic dark or negative force (“Satan”) thereby making them into a religious abstraction.

The neocortex then goes into over-drive, propelled by its ability to craft words for which no correspondents may exist in reality. Suddenly, our “souls” are at risk of being “lost to Satan” who will then fry us in “Hell” if we don't grab the right afterlife insurance policy. In effect, the religionist’s higher brain centers divide reality into forces of darkness and light, just like the ancient Manicheans.

As the divide grows and persists, certain behaviorally idealistic expectations come to the fore, and a mass of negative or primitive actions is relegated to “evil”. Humans tune in to this Zeitgeist, which is soon circulated everywhere, and begin to suppress all behaviors that they regard as defective or "sinful". They don’t realize or appreciate that humans are risen apes, and not fallen angels.

Are we all sinners as assorted fundamentalists and zealots claim? No, we’re an animal species saddled with a tri-partite brain whose higher centers often become self aware of the chasm between the base, atavistic and primitive behaviors (emanating from the reptilian brain) and the ideal  behavior conceived by the neocortex. The neocortical language centers then craft the term sin to depict the gulf between one and the other.

In this context, the concept of sin  makes eminent sense. Sin emerges as the label placed on specific brands and forms of perceived personal evil. In reality, sin is predicated on an exaggerated importance of humans in the universe. Thus, it elevates (in a perverse way) the importance of humans in an otherwise meaningless cosmos. With sin the overly self-important and morally smug, self-righteous human has at least the potential of offending his putative deity – thereby getting its attention – as opposed to being relegated to the status of a cosmic cipher. Sin is thus an attention getter to a mentally conceived Big Cosmic Daddy. 

Despite this, sin is an invariably localized and reactive behavior at the personal, individual level. Sin impinges on and affects the deity (God-concept) that so many believe in. Take away the deity, and sin loses its allure and quickly becomes redundant. How can there be sin if there is no deity to offend or to notice sin and to tote up all the little black marks in its book of future judgment?

The Devil or Satan is simply the mental projection of the most primitive brain imperatives onto the external world. And yes, this imperative  is capable of  rape, economic exploitation and mass murder as well as genocide. A supernatural Satan need not be invoked, only the ancient brain residue of reptiles – acting collectively – aided and abetted by a language -obsessed neocortex, which finds it as easy to create neologisms to represent non-existent phantasms as to think. It thereby does the reptile brain’s bidding, manufacturing sins, as opposed to attempting to halt it.

Beyond all of this, it is worthwhile for us to place evil also in a more contemporary context, such as accomplished by  Hannah Arendt  with her theme of the 'banality of evil". She coined this phrase in her 1963 book, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, about the trial of Adolph Eichmann, a top administrator in the machinery of the Nazi death camps, in an Israeli courtroom. If someone carries out unspeakable crimes often enough, he or she comes to accept them as “normal.” That was Arendt’s view of Eichmann.

But the “banality of evil” also applies to an entire society like the U.S., especially when faced with the prospective ascension to power of an authoritarian  narcissist. We have in the past gotten used to outrageous things — slavery, Jim Crow segregation laws, massive homelessness, widespread malnutrition, the frequent killing of Black men by police — until we are provoked to view them as unjust.  The question now upon us, especially the media, is to what extent we will tolerate Trump's fascist transgressions - allowing them to be normalized or appear so?

Thus, this banality emerges when conscious and critical thought is dispensed with. Reality is no longer based on the gathering of facts and evidence. It is based on ideology. Facts are altered. Lies become true. A media which in normal times might have reported a leader's lies and crimes, now seeks to overlook them in a perverse thrust to render them banal or unexceptional. After all,  why mount attacks on an iron-fisted, egomaniacal boor if he hasn't even built concentration camps for journalists or protestors yet?

The destruction of rational and empirically based belief systems is fundamental to the creation of all totalitarian ideologies. Certitude, for those unable to cope with the uncertainty of life, is one of the most powerful appeals of the movement. Dispassionate intellectual inquiry, with its constant readjustments and demand for evidence, threatens certitude. For this reason incertitude must be abolished. “What convinces masses are not facts,” Arendt wrote in “Origins of Totalitarianism,” “and not even invented facts, but only the consistency of the system which they are presumably part. Repetition, somewhat overrated in importance because of the common belief in the masses’ inferior capacity to grasp and remember, is important because it convinces them of consistency in time.”

Thus, did one letter writer  a "Geraldine X" I will call her, declare in a recent letter to the Indy that she voted Trump because she'd had it with the "elites" always putting people down. She treated her vote as a weaponized reaction to these "elites" and justification to recklessly vote for an unqualified, unhinged boor whose actual policies could inflict untold harm.  This lady, not to put too fine a point on it, epitomizes Arendt's "banality of evil".

TO the extent we are conscious of these issues, we can reduce the totality of harm inflicted by our fellow humans on others. And to that degree, "evil" - however it is perceived- can be reduced as well. To avoid the banality of evil in the case of Trump and his henchmen, we must never ever allow their forthcoming crimes, constitutional transgressions to be seen as banal.

"Why Trump Won" - Absolute Claptrap From Trumpkin Jon Caldara

Jon Caldara's accompaniment to his byline insists he is president of the Independence Institute , which has generally professed to be a non-partisan source of opinion, information. But from his latest piece ('And That's Why Trump Won',  Dec. 24) in The Denver Post, it's clear he's merely another pro-Trump PR moron trying to sell people baloney at cheapo rates.

Without reciting too much of his codswallop, he basically has the chutzpah to compare the crazy Right's indignation at Obama's election with the Left's reaction to Trump, with the dazzling distinction that

"I swear to God, no one I know of broke down in tears when Obama won"

Well, maybe because deep in their fake news heart of hearts they knew- when all was said and done- Obama was a rational, sane man, not a psychotic serial pussy grabber, two -bit chiseling, faux business weasel, racist xenophobe and authoritarian Hitler-esque narcissist.  For all the false claims (e.g. "socialist") the Right tried to lay on Obama, he was in the end a steady, no drama Neoliberal, and former constitutional lawyer. Oh, and a bible-believing Christian to boot.

This normality contrasts to the deranged egoism and pure ineptitude of a nincompoop who tweets policy positions and economic opinions at will. Often to the extent that CEOs of major corporations (after his GM tweet yesterday- sending shares briefly plummeting ) are treating his Twitter offal in much the same way as a hazardous waste spill or a health scare, in other words as "crisis management". This according to CBS finance commentator Melanie Hobson this morning, who pointed out how corporate heads are sick at the thought of this loon, "alone in a room with his phone", just popping off at anything that comes to mind. This is the effing asshole Caldara and his Trumpy dregs voted into power.  Hobson then detailed how companies are strategy planning to respond to the next random attacks from this Twitter troll.

Then there have been Trump's lies which continue to undermine the very intelligence agencies that will be protecting his sorry ass - not to mention the nation he is supposed to defend.  The latest was the lie that spat out again from his twitter:

"The 'intelligence' briefing on so-called 'Russian hacking' was delayed until Friday, perhaps more time needed to build a case"

Which was totally shot down by the intel community noting the Friday briefing had always been planned for that day. There was no "delay". Is this something Caldara and his cronies can really live with the next 4 years (IF we're lucky)? A lying ass punk who can't tell the truth to save his sorry ass..

If ANY person isn't disturbed by these sort of responses and cavalier attitudes they need to get themselves checked out by a therapist because they aren't in contact with reality. I would nominate Jon Caldara to be first up for serious psychological evaluation before he writes his next column full of BS.

And don't get me started on all his business entanglements which as a recent Newsweek article ('Tangled Up In Orange'. Dec. 23rd, p. 26) put it:

"Already there is a situation where the President of the United States could be blackmailed by a foreign power"

Referencing Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's earlier divulged plan (to associates) that he "intended to impede America's use of a critical Air Force base in Turkey"  should Trump win the presidency. Then there are Trump's other foreign entanglements, including with the Duterte government in the Philippines. As author Kurt Eichenwald noted:

"The Trump family's dealings in the Philippines will set off a constitutional crisis on the first day of Trump's presidency if anyone in the federal government decides to abide by the law."

Referencing the emoluments clause of the Constitution.

So, let's get this straight: between Trump's rejection of critical intelligence briefings and conclusions, and his foreign entanglements not to mention the total lack of impulse control, we're all supposed to fucking sleep easy at night? Gimme a break! Also, give me the bland, "no drama" Obama any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

The emphasis on Obama's sheer boring normality as a former Illinois state Senator and Democratic Senator is crucial to emphasize here to contrast with the unhinged insanity of Trump. And this needs to be done repeatedly, because I fear too many in the coming weeks - especially in the media- may fall down on the job and not hold a severe enough spotlight on Trump. Opting to choose the easy path of "normalization" that his follower yahoos (like Caldara) already have.

 This is also essential in order to appreciate Caldara's next bit for the balderdash it is, referencing the Right's response to Obama's election - compared to the Left's justifiable angst at Trump's ascension thanks to hacks - including of voting machines in key states.:

"Celebrities didn't post videos of their panicked hissy fits. Teachers didn't scare little grade school kids with doomsday prophecies."

Well, they didn't have to because they instinctively recognized Obama's inherently sober temperament, control of impulses and sensible disposition ("Mr. Spock" persona) . Hence, such reactions weren't needed by any person grounded in reality, i.e. sane.. So Caldara's verbal excrement is merely the screeching of a deranged banshee knowingly agitated by the fact he has supported a psychologically unstable, autocratic buffoon who promises to wreck this nation.

But the biggest bunch of bollocks may be this:

"Watching this meltdown it's clear the anti-Trumpies aren't just poor losers. They just don't get that Trump won because in great part, they had been such poor winners. The hard-edged progressive left just couldn't help doing a dance in the public policy end zone. The Trump victory was the ref's flag for 'excessive celebration'."

Huh?  WHAT excessive celebration? You mean putting together a stimulus package without which this nation would likely have fallen not only into recession but depression? (And for which the Repukes only gave minimal lip service). OR - are you referring to getting the ACA through without any GOP votes - despite the fact that 20 million now depend on it - more than two thirds of them TRUMP voters!   Seems you missed the memo that a good part of your white- worker industrial base actually WANTED THIS PUBLIC POLICY DANCE, as you call it.

Meanwhile, Denver Post letter writer Mike Pisaano had this to retort in last Sunday's paper to Caldara's codswallop:

"Trump did not win because of a Democratic meltdown caused by  “excessive celebration” of Obama’s public policy successes on gay marriage, health care, and environmental and energy changes. It’s because not enough Republican voters are disgusted by a candidate who brags about assaulting women or has regrets about not dating his own daughter. It’s because not enough Republican voters are outraged when Trump disparages John McCain for getting shot down over enemy territory and enduring five years of torture in captivity. It’s because not enough Republican voters are appalled when Trump calls Mexicans rapists and promises to exclude people who embrace Islam from entering the U.S."

Letter writer Ellen Haverl was no less severe and unforgiving in assessing Caldara's claptrap:

"Jon Caldara doesn’t remember anyone breaking down in tears when Barack Obama won because, despite one’s issues with him, his win did not mean the end of civilization as we know it. The reason there is such backlash against the Trump win is because the upcoming leader of the free world is a narcissistic, racist, sexist bully who will rule with a heavy fist. I’m proud to cry and march and sign any document I can to let everyone know that a Trump presidency is unacceptable to me and millions of Americans who genuinely fear for the future of our country. It’s called free speech, something Mr. Trump is not a fan of."

Ah yes, free speech. Something the Trump backers endlessly invoked after Obama was elected, depicting him in every disrespectful way imaginable including as a witch doctor with bone through his nose in their blogs. But now,  in their faux righteousness , they somehow expect all of us on the Left to shelve any animosity and just sing "Kumbaya" as we line up behind Trump.. Sorry, doesn't work like that!

This turkey Caldara then bellyaches about how we have accurately described his anti-global warming lot as "deniers" when they've rejected the consensus science of climate change. He writes:

"It's not that they imposed massive environmental and energy restrictions...it's that they insultingly label those who've come to a different conclusion on global warming as 'deniers':

WTF are you talking about? What "different conclusion"? You cannot have a solid, or sound conclusion unless you base it on real science and the D-E-N-I-E-R-S have NONE! Let me repeat that, none - NO science which stands up to even the most basic scrutiny of thermal physics or actual climate science. These birdbrains don't even accept that the glaciers are melting when they're doing it in from of their stupid faces, e.g.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRTInYTxLr4

So this is basic stuff. IF some semi-educated yahoo denies the sphericity of the Earth, then he IS a denier of the science of geodesy. If a similar yahoo denies  - despite all the evidence from ice cores - that more and more CO2 is warming the Earth then sorry, he IS a fucking denier! Case closed!

Or would Caldara rather we get into the realm of politically correct language and refer to his bunch as

"long term CO2 concentration serial disputators"

Or:

"climate science consensus equivocators"

Well, not going to happen. And just as his gaggle of climate DENIERS despise PC euphemisms, so do we. 

Caldara's op-ed babbling merely reaffirms again how badly divided this country is, and how much more divided it is going to become in the ensuing 4 years. The reason for an ever increasing gulf is simple: Those who treasure and abide by REALITY will never embrace bollocks, bullshit and fake news fantasy even from the likes of FAUX News' pundits, Trumpian pseudo-conspiracy creators and racist enablers. cheerleaders. And so long as enough people stand with the truth against recycled, misbegotten garbage and lies, this divide will remain. Oh, and as the garbage quotient grows so will the divide until two different nations will be effectively at war with each other.


See also: The Case For Beginning Trump's Impeachment NOW:

http://www.salon.com/2017/01/04/does-impeachment-begin-now-the-case-for-building-the-end-of-trumps-presidency-before-it-even-starts/

Climate Change Adaptation Will Be Limited And Require Competent Policy Changes

More (or less) serious proposals for adapting to climate change have been circulating for at least the past ten years.  Among the more trenchant have been those that actually claim to be techno-solutions to slow it down as proposed by the authors of the book, Super-Freakanomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes, and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance.

One of their pet Rube Goldberg schemes (which obviously could only come from the brains of a pair of economists locked into hubris) is dispersing a fleet of fiberglass boats equipped with cloud-making machines over the oceans. They reason that the clouds would increase albedo and thence, decrease the tendency to trap incoming radiation. Hence, offset warming!

Nowhere did these two stalwarts factor in that a specific type of cloud has to be generated, not just any old cloud! For example, wispy high flying cirrus are semi-transparent to incoming sunlight but block infrared radiation emitted by the Earth, thus CONTRIBUTING to the Greenhouse Effect. Meanwhile, stratus clouds are gray, dense and low flying and have a net COOLING effect since their albedo is relatively high. So how will the authors ensure they generate the second type and not the first. And also, given an average of 3.5 billion cubic meters of cloud will be needed to offset the inputs of CO2 just from the oceans, where will they get the boats? Assuming each fiberglass boat can generate one million cubic meters of cloud (a BIG assumption) that means 35,000 such boats will be needed. One was left to wonder whether either of these geniuses bothered to calculate how much CO2 generating fossil fuel would be attendant on their manufacture. (Especially given they prize themselves as "cold, calculating economists" as opposed to - perhaps, touchy feely physicists?)

Another hare-brained plan entails sucking cold water from the depth of the sea to the surface. This fails because they have no remote idea how to locate such cold water, which emergence depends upon a downwelling wave (so-called because it lowers the thermocline, or temperature gradient). By example, typical downwellings during an El Nino prevent deeper cold water from mixing with warmer water near the surface. It would therefore make more sense to use these "tubes" at that time, since the segregation from warmer water is more assured. But HOW will they do it? They easily toss out these technological fixes, offering no practical means to achieve them, as if the mere spouting of the idea solves their greenhouse gas problem!

Perhaps their ultimate solution is based on the Mount Pinatubo volcano that erupted in the Phillippines in 1992. The volcano sent so much SO2 (sulphur dioxide) into the atmosphere that it resulted in cooler global air temperatures (by about 1.0 F) for about three years. So why not shoot enormous quantities (about four quadrillion tonnes a month) of sulphur dixoide into the atmosphere using an eighteen mile long hose?

First, the hose would have to be - in order for effect comparable to Pinatubo- about a half mile wide. Such a hose even if made of thinnest mylar with maximum ram pressure of the flowing gas -would not remain stable against gravity. Indeed, one can do calculations showing that by the time the mass of SO2 pumped attained a height of 2 miles the "hose" will collapse.

Even if the mechanical problems could be met, it would still be a god-awful idea. For one thing, SO2 in the presence of the catalyst NO2 forms sulphuric acid, H2 SO4, and this can then generate acid rain. Do we really want ten septillion tonnes of acid rain descending on what remaining agriculture growth areas, farms remain in a greenhouse world? Not to mention raining on humans, with concentrations of pH in the range of 2-3? Ever had H2SO4 spill onto your skin in a lab?

Beyond that, SO2 at the given altitude needed for effect can further erode the ozone layer. Beyond a certain threshold, this erosion of protective ozone leads to much higher influx of ultraviolet radiation - more skin cancers, more blindness, etc.

Then there is this: their idiotic SO2 pumping solution would only work IF fossil fuel production at the onset of pumping made no further increases, leading to further CO2 concentration. But this would require really draconian solutions, such as stopping all births (since human population is the base producer of greenhouse gas) and all industrial activity. To use the authors' own dubious words and turn them upon them:

"Wouldn't it be simpler just to control our carbon inputs?"

Interestingly, Raymond J. Perrehumbert - a real climatologist at the University of Chicago, actually sent these two climate bozos a letter some eight years ago. It read in part:

"The problem wasn't necessarily that you talked to the wrong experts or to too few of them. The problem is that you failed to do the most elementary thinking".

Ouch!

But all this elicits the question of what, if anything, can be done to adapt once the worst manifestations of global warming erupt. The hard fact is that any solutions may depend specifically on geographical locations. Consider rising sea level and how it will flood nearly one-third of Florida by 2035 (see graphic). The most relevant means of adaptation to such a future would be to start building massive dykes to prevent such flooding, using the technology already employed in places like Holland. These dykes would have to be constructed along the coast lines of all regions at sea level or even below (e.g. New Orleans).

Other adaptations may not be so simple. For example, how will communities adapt to constant power grid breakdowns arising from electricity overuse - say during 2 or 3 week long heat waves? The answer isn't clear apart from utility companies rationing the 'juice'. This may mean doing without electricity for extended periods each day, perhaps up to 12 hours or more. Can Americans adapt to such rationing? I am not sure.

Adapting to worm infestations may be the most straightforward process but require enormous supplies of anti-worm serums, meds such as Ketrax. I recall here my own worm infestation while in Peace Corps - noticed only after being awakened one night by intense itching of my skin, mainly on the inner thighs. As I switched the night light on and spotted definite wriggling movement of the skin, I grew concerned, had it checked out by a dermatologist. Sure enough, a common species of small worm ("beach worm" in the vernacular)  had laid eggs and its hatched offspring invaded me. The cure? Ketrax, prescribed by the spoonful three times a day. After a few bouts of vomiting the vermin out, all the worms had been eliminated. I don't know that people will even be properly diagnosed as multiple worm infestations spread on approaching the cusp of the runaway greenhouse.

Adapting to the soon to be spreading virulent diseases is another matter. How will we tolerate or adapt to much more  tropical diseases such as dengue fever, malaria, and even cholera? The assumption currently is there are no problems, but clearly those who believe that haven't read the frightening paper Global Climate and Infectious Disease:The Cholera Paradigm, in Science, Vol. 274, 20 December, 1996, p. 2025.)

How will a basically "captive" (i.e. no emigrating) population adapt to accelerated anti-biotic resistance and the spread of newer, more virulent bacterial infections as the heat ramps up? We don't know but with Trump and the Repukes ready to tear up Obamacare, any sane person ought to shudder at the prospect of millions without adequate health care.

Relevant to all the above is a recent workshop convened in Oslo, Norway by The Center for International Climate and Environmental Research,  which brought together representatives from across scientific disciplines to discuss the challenges of climate change adaptation. See, e.g.

http://bit.ly/CCAdaptation

A general consensus emerged that all groups, including environmental economists and statisticians, need distilled climate data to support decisions made by the public and private sector, especially at state and city levels.  In this light, one of the main challenges identified was open access to available data - namely economic and insurance data. For example, compelling results from one pilot study presented at the workshop showed how local insurance loss data obtained from the insurance industry can enable informed decision making which in turn may reduce vulnerability to climate-induced hazards.

This might have served many citizens here in the Springs, three -odd months ago after being pummeled by hail the size of softballs. We  had to have our entire roof repaired, with pits, holes that one roofer compared to as "meteorite craters" - an exaggeration but he got the point over to us. After the roof, we had one entire south siding replaced after it was literally ripped into multiple holes by the hail. According to the insurance company (Hartford) hundreds of homes were affected putting enormous pressure on roofers and others in the area, now forcing wait times of many weeks to complete repairs.

The matter of insurance data (such as acquired during the recent hail storms in CO) is urgent, given how these sort of freak occurrences will soon be regular events as climate change intensifies. Only the utmost fool - having experienced such an event and the size of the hail- would deny the reality of climate change or compare it idiotically to claims of "global cooling" back in the 70s. (Claims, as I noted, which were always subject to revision after global dimming was taken into account).

At the Oslo conference several recommendations emerged including that various data types be coupled to assess climate change effects and the costs of different adaptation options. Specifically, attendees called for new frameworks that can model  the uncertainty of climate risks to society. For example, what is the uncertainty in emergence of cholera in various locations, say compared to worm infestations of the brain?  Given the latter perspective, one can then determine the costs vs. benefits of different adaptation strategies. For example, given the benefits vs. costs, it may be better to establish preventive systems to contain cholera or dengue fever before implementing a widespread worm control template. (The cost benefit ratio for controlling worms is likely less than for controlling cholera or dengue fever.)

The attendees also pointed out that in conjunction with the above, decision support tools must be able to deal with basic uncertainty.  Participants thus discussed  tools that combine real options analysis with a portfolio approach. These sort of strategies are appealing because they allow decision makers to ponder combined adaptation strategies and basically invest in whatever schedule they choose- all while accounting for the uncertain effects of climate change.

Most interesting was the universal appeal to climate scientists to craft "stories" to get the attention of politicians. Storytelling, say setting a scene for a near climate future, could thereby help scientists convey information to policy makers without dozens of graphs and reams of data. It would be especially crucial to convey the near future to Trump and his minions. But what type of story would get their attention, and entice them to do the right thing?

Here's one: On entering the cusp of the runaway greenhouse effect nearly half the U.S. population will already be dealing with one antibiotic resistant disease (MRSA, c. diff.) or other, as well as multiple worm infestations of various organs- including the brain. Most power grids will no longer work 24/7 but have to be shut down because of the lack of capacity as millions try to stay cool -  overtaxing the system. Heat waves, rather than lasting a week or so, will now last months, and reach similar temperatures to Death Valley. Water resources will be at risk, and many communities will be without water, also because of power grid collapse. If you can't get electrical power you can't pump water to homes.

Will Trump and his buffoons process and appreciate that story? I doubt it, because his money making schemes probably mean more to him than the country which provided the opportunity.  It is doubtful in this light the Trumpsters would even do the minimum suggested at the Oslo meet: communicate the costs and benefits of climate change adaptations to the public.

Of course, by the time of the runaway greenhouse all adaptation strategies will be too little, too late anyway!

Healthy Eating-Living Leads To Massive Medical Costs Later

"Screw healthy eatin'! I gonna have my wings, pizza and beer to save the country trillions!"

The article in PARADE magazine Sunday (p. 6) presented a dietician's prescription for the foods to eat in 2017 under the header: 'What to Eat in 2017'.   The foods consist mainly of "rabbit food" (e.g. beets, chick peas, lentils, maca) that my primary care doc has been trying to get me to eat for the past five years. She, of course, is barely 100 pounds and is a vegan by nature. Ditto with my sister-in-law Krimhilde who conducted her healthy living crusade for many years, even criticizing me once for eating a foot long Subway Italian BMT.  Now, alas, "K" is battling medical bills and the early stages of Alzheimer's disease.  But physically she is still a picture of health.

Is healthy eating-living really all it's cracked up to be, or a lot of oversold hype pushed on us by assorted healthy living scolds?

According to a recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the country spent $3.2 trillion last year on health care. Within a decade it estimated - as things are going now - a full one fifth of the U.S. economy will consist of medical care. In an earlier post (July 26) I cited my own efforts to try to control soaring medical costs to do with my prostate cancer - now estimated at over $65,000. Fortunately, Medicare and Medicare supplemental insurance has covered most of the costs. If I had been reduced to being on a Paul Ryan Medicare voucher program I'd have long since had to declare bankruptcy.

Other costs since then have continued to mount, including for x-rays, bone scans, genetic marker tests, and a scheduled 3D staging -mapping biopsy, as well as focal cryotherapy to treat cancer recurrence.  Despite my best ambitions to control the spiraling health care costs,  my medical providers and wife have made it clear I can't just allow the cancer to progress  What caused this cancer? Who knows? Some might be tempted to blame my heavy meat diet, but I am more inclined to lay blame on the hundreds of toxic chemicals in the environment.

In any case, what if it was my  meat diet?  Are those like me really responsible for driving up health care costs, OR is it more the health zealots with their lentil and avocado "smoothies" each day who add 25 -30 years to their lives and end up adding monstrous medical costs over a longer time?

According to a paper ( Death and Taxes: Why Longer Lives Cost  Money)  produced by the UK Institute of Economic Affairs:

"Despite the costs associated with the ageing population, it is sometimes claimed that people who are at risk of premature mortality due to lifestyle factors are a ‘drain on the taxpayer’. Smokers, drinkers and the obese, in particular, are blamed for rising costs to the general taxpayer.

These claims do not stand up against evidence. If one looks at the lifetime costs to all public services, it is clear that the ‘longevity-related’ costs of healthier people are considerably higher than the ‘lifestyle-related’ costs of less healthy people. Acute healthcare costs are usually higher, long-term healthcare costs are invariably higher, and welfare costs (eg. pensions) are vastly higher."


The IEA paper goes on to elaborate:

:"In recent decades, healthier lifestyles and longer lifespans have been associated with a rise in the number of years spent in poor health. There has been a rise in the number of people suffering from chronic and non-fatal conditions which are often expensive to treat and manage. Medical science and healthier living do not eradicate the costs of disability and disease, they merely postpone them and pave the way for more expensive non-fatal conditions amongst very old people."

Whether one wishes to admit it or not, therefore, practicing healthy living or eating habits could merely be postponing massive, exploding medical costs until later as the IEA paper suggests.

But let's not bandy words, I can cite examples from my own extended family,  apart from Krimhilde. Janice's cousin Desmond, for example, hardly ever touched animal fats over this life - no bacon, no burgers, no steaks  None of that. He also didn't smoke and drank only on rare (celebratory) occasions.. He was the full embodiment of the healthy low BMI 80 -year old male-  until he got Alzheimer's at the age of 83 and went downhill from there. Having to be kept in a special nursing facility with astounding expenses paid for by his family estate.  See e.g.:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/05/an-alzheimers-blood-test-would-you.html


As the IEA document puts it:

"Long-term healthcare and nursing home costs are strongly associated with age and cannot be driven down by healthier lifestyles. Pensions and social care costs dwarf the healthcare costs associated with ageing and are intractable in an ageing society. These costs cannot be mitigated by policies that encourage healthy lifestyles. On the contrary, healthy lifestyles directly lead to higher costs by increasing the size and age of the retired cohort.

There is strong and consistent evidence that smokers incur less public expenditure than non-smokers. People who do not smoke have lower annual healthcare costs but higher lifetime costs due their longer lifespans. "

Would it not have been better in retrospect for Desmond to have gorged on animal fats, smokes etc. to spare him the indignity of his later decline as well as expenses that nearly bankrupted his family?   You tell me.  Denver Post columnist Teresa Keegan certainly cut through the crap in a recent piece ('A Message to the Healthy Living Scolds: We All Die Someday'). She acerbically noted that while the health scolds target the food choices of the less well off, such as "cheap booze, fries, quarter pounders and cigarettes" they say nary a word regarding the vices of the one percent, e.g. "fine wines. Chateaubriand, Brie, and fat cigars".  Adding "these are considered somehow less harmful to one's health than burgers and fries".  Implying that too many of us are conditioned to class preferences and the higher the class (or income level) the easier it is to forgive the vices.

 

Keegan's point (and mine) is that life has to be about more than having a stringbean body BMI,  and triglyceridies lower than room temperature!  What is better? Living to 90 with low triglycerides and a BMI of 22, but getting Alzheimer's, or living only to 63 or 65 and croaking from a heart attack - sparing one's loved ones years of care and impossible bills? Nasty question, I know, but therein is the key to rising medical costs - in fact exploding costs. And the fact is that those who croak earlier spend less overall on medical procedures than those who eat healthy and postpone their health issues until 88 or 90.

As Ms. Keegan puts it:

"Anyone who thinks it's an absolutely fabulous idea to live to an advanced old age needs to pay a visit to a nursing home and talk with residents about the joys of arthritis, incontinence, macular degeneration and Alzheimer's"

Most of these nursing home elderly were like Desmond and Krimhilde, firmly swearing off "bad" foods, habits for a virtuous lifestyle, only to finding themselves in worse predicaments later, and at much more cost.  Again, no one disputes there are diseases that drive a lot of health care spending - and many are tied (at least using correlations) to "bad lifestyle choice". On the other hand, as Teresa Keegan notes, "okay you extend your life into the eighties, then what?"  Well, from the IEA study, a lot more expense merely because of all those added years - plus, diseases (like Alzheimer's) which by their very nature extract vastly more care costs, attention.

The IEA paper concludes:

"Long term planning of public finances should not be based on the fantasy that people can live longer lives without incurring additional costs, nor can it be based on the delusion that healthcare costs will fall if unhealthy lifestyles are stamped out. The reality is that it is healthy, not unhealthy, lifestyles that have driven up costs and they will continue to do so. It makes no sense to blame escalating public sector budgets on people whose lifestyle choices tend to be cost-saving."

Of course, no one - certainly not me - is advocating deliberate, dedicated consumption of high fatty foods, like the constant diet of Kentucky Fried Chicken that ultimately did in former child star Tommy Rettig  at the age of 54.  What we are saying is that one ought to be able to enjoy his food, even if those choices lean to burgers, the occasional steak and hot dogs, without being made to feel like a health spending criminal.  The reason is that it is actually the healthy eating zealots whose longer lives add the bulk of medical costs over time.  Maybe, indeed, we should strive more for a balanced quality of life - which includes eating what we wish up to a point - than emulating an abstemious monk who reaches 90 years of age, but wears Depends every waking minute- if he can recall where he stores them.

See also:

https://iea.org.uk/in-the-media/press-release/healthier-lifestyles-will-not-defuse-the-demographic-time-bomb

"Hidden Figures" Shows Importance of The 1964 Civil Rights Act

African-American NASA workers compute orbital elements for John Glenn's mission in new movie, 'Hidden Figures'

Problem of the type the women would have had to know how to compute


Orbital geometry the women would have had to help compute.

As the superb film "Hidden Figures" has opened, it's provided an eye opening vista on the critical role of African -Americans in the NASA Manned Space Program. The movie basically highlights a little known facet that a team of African-American women - trained in high level 'rocket science' math- actually did the computations that put astronaut  John Glenn into successful orbit in February, 1962.  The women  (Katherine G. Johnson, Mary Jackson, Dorothy Vaughan) were referred to as "human computers" within NASA.

An exaggeration? Check out the above sample problem and the geometry of a basic artificial satellite orbit (which is what Glenn's craft was) then see for yourself. The irony of it is that despite the skills applied by these talented black women they were treated as second class citizens in the America of 1962. Unable to eat at the same lunch counters as their co-workers, unable to even work in the same room with them or use the same transport (buses)  or use the same rest rooms they to endure not only the sexism of the era but the Jim Crow segregation laws.  Among the other insults, they had to submit a special legal petition to be allowed to attend university math classes at a segregated high school.

Incredibly, some today evidently still have problems with the law (1964 Civil Rights Act) that would have ensured a measure of dignity and respect for these high level NASA workers. According to one distorted meme spread about the law:

" The Civil Rights Act of 1964 should have been two pages long and said specifically that the government can’t keep blacks from voting or turn firehouses onto black women and children, as well as other actions that happened prior to the law. However, the law was ambiguous and opened the doors for it to be used in ways that we were warned against. "

Seriously?   In fact the law (under Title I) did require that voting rules and procedures be applied equally to all races. (See below)  As for  accepting a 2-page mimeograph that the law had to be used solely to prevent fire hose or dog attacks on defenseless people?   Helloooooo! NO one, especially authorities, should  be doing that anyway!  It shouldn't take any law beyond the Bill of Rights in the Constitution to stop it. (But it did require such). It's like saying the only justifiable law limiting the behavior of parents is one to the effect that they should not be able to lock their kids in closets, and beat or starve them to death! That's bare foolishness!

A law defined for civil rights is useless unless it specifically defines those rights and preferably in terms of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, or earlier civil rights acts (such as one from 1875). Thus, all the 1964 Civil Rights law did is extend to African Americans the exact same rights already allowed to whites, mainly in the Jim Crow South. In the case of the African-American women working for NASA, that meant not  (at a minimum) segregating them from their white workers - working on the same damned project.

As for the 1964  Civil Rights Act being "ambiguous" that is pure, unadulterated  horse manure and codswallop. The law was never ambiguous from the time JFK conceived it  (LIFE December 19, 1960, p. 31, 'Kennedy's objectives' ). It was always intended to repeal the Jim Crow laws, abominations that declared - for example that the team African -American women working for NASA had to go to the back of the bus, and couldn't be served with their white coworkers at lunch counters.The key provisions are laid out below and not are in any way ambiguous.

Title I

Barred unequal application of voter registration requirements.. It did not eliminate literacy tests, which were one of the main methods used to exclude Black voters, other racial minorities, and poor Whites in the South, nor did it address economic retaliation, police repression, or physical violence against nonwhite voters. While the Act did require that voting rules and procedures be applied equally to all races, it did not abolish the concept of voter "qualification", that is to say, it accepted the idea that citizens do not have an automatic right to vote but rather might have to meet some standard beyond citizenship.It was the Voting Rights Act, enacted one year later in 1965, that directly addressed and eliminated most voting qualifications beyond citizenship.

Title II

Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private".

(The last aspect we will get to in a bit)

Title III

Prohibited state and municipal governments from denying access to public facilities on grounds of race, color, religion or national origin.

Title IV

Encouraged the desegregation of public schools and authorized the U.S. Attorney General to file suits to enforce said act..

Title V

Expanded the Civil Rights Commission established by the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1957 with additional powers, rules and procedures.

Title VI

Prevents discrimination by government agencies that receive federal funds. If an agency is found in violation of Title VI, that agency may lose its federal funding.

Under the General provision of the Act we see: This title declares it to be the policy of the United States that discrimination on the ground of race, color, or national origin shall not occur in connection with programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance and authorizes and directs the appropriate Federal departments and agencies to take action to carry out this policy.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but it makes it clear what the extent of the law's objectives were and tied them to federal assistance. This is why Churches or hospitals receiving such assistance cannot willy nilly engage in segregation practices. A trenchant moment in the film occurs when one of the NASA women informs her boss (played by Kevin Costner): "There are no colored bathrooms in this building or any building outside the west campus - which is half a mile away. Did you know that? I have to walk to Timbuktu just to relieve myself'.

The Act recognized  such outrages were unacceptable. It recognized that refusing positive civil rights, like being able to order food at PUBLIC lunch counters, or attend schools of their choice meant a hollow law, actually devoid of rights.  In this sense, the "right' to not be fire hosed or beaten with truncheons or shot is only the most minimal of negative rights, but not true rights - since those actions ought not be inflicted on a fellow innocent human anyway! How hard is this stuff to grasp?

But this sort of demeaning and regressive thought is typical for too many currently under the influence of fake news in Trumpland.  Others, the Steve Bannon types -  offended that their white privilege is now being challenged- want to trash any and all earlier laws that protect minorities. What is white privilege ? It's often not encoded in any formalism or legal language. It's  the ability to walk down a suburban street or drive and know in your little white heart of hearts you won't be stopped by cops, tased or given a good old fashion boot kicking- or be shot in the back. THAT is what  the most fundamental translation of white privilege is about. The conscious or unconscious sense of entitlement that little white you is basically immune to the slings and arrows that may dog others of darker complexion, oh....who also don't get called "black apes" by little white likes of you.

Another wayward and misplaced interpretation of the Civil Rights Act is one circulating on some blogs:

"The law has outlawed freedom of association, private business operating as it sees fit and any number of private clubs."

In fact the law has done no such thing. IF one establishes a truly PRIVATE club  then he is  indeed entitled to associate with whomever he desires - KKK, Neo-Nazis, proto- Confederates, and exclude those with whom he doesn't.. A "private business' is more problematical. Such as what? No businesses I know are truly private because they operate with licenses in the public domain.  A "private" business, would - by definition - have to limit its very potential for profit and sales by excluding populations. In more than one sense, a "private business" is an oxymoron. This is probably why the 1964 Act left open the definition, it would have been a fool's errand to do otherwise.

Hence, all genuine businesses are subject to laws of commerce which mandate trade in the public domain. The 1964 civil rights act merely formalizes the already existing trade laws which ought to be followed anyway. Our Trumpy brethren don't seem to know that, however.  The type of blabber here about "associations" reminds me  of former Loyola University prof Walter Block's absurd arguments made several years ago in a NY Times piece:

"Woolworth's had lunchroom counters and no blacks were allowed. Did they have a right to do that? Yes, they did! No one is compelled to associate with people against their will."

But consider the consequences if this bat shit crazy meme was extended willy-nilly so that anyone could apply it. Pharmacies could refuse serving people they regarded as 'misfits'  - say denying birth control pills to young, single women or not even permitting blacks to cross the doorway.

Owners of football teams could decide that they want no Jews, blacks, or gays entering their stadiums and they might put that into place. Private hospitals -operating as businesses - might decide that they want no blacks, Jews or gays on their premises either. Restaurants would feel free to bar anyone they think is marginal, including those who look like 'thugs' - or  whoever doesn't fit flitty criteria like hair length, or quality of dress.

In other words, you'd invite a society bordering on chaos, and don't think for a moment that  the millions of excluded folk would just sit there and take it! It is no wonder that Block describes himself as an "anarcho-capitalist".   

Block, like our Trumpy anti-Civil Rights brethren, argues:

"If it is morally wrong to force someone to work for you against their will, how is it any less wrong to force someone else to trade with another against their will? ."

Which is total nonsense and shows the abject ignorance at work in terms of grasping the nature of commercial laws.  That is, the restaurateur or trader is afforded certain privileges (via  licensing) to trade or provide services (such as food) in the public domain. Hence, the so called "freedom" is limited for business owners to do whatever they want. Their commercial warp and woof can't include refusal of service unless there are extenuating circumstances, i.e. the customers enter drunk and disorderly. The public trader doesn't have the latitude or luxury to refuse service on the basis of race, religion, skin color or sexual orientation. Sorry!

But there is an out! If positive civil rights objectors really want to impose their own subjective limitations on business associations they can devise their own private businesses. Good luck in earning any kind of sustainable profit with just a tiny subset of consumers!

See also:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/05/applications-of-diferential-equations-1.html

New Research Shows How Different Greenhouse Gases Adversely Affect Crops

One of the tropes circulated by climate deniers has been that "Excess carbon dioxide is good for plants and especially crops". In other words, CO2 even at exceptionally high levels, is not really a pollutant, but something to help us attain better crop yields. While climate scientists and environmentalists have tried to correct this, i.e showing that excess CO2 actually propels "super weeds" which kill crops and that necessitates ever stronger weedicides like agents as: 2, 4- D, dicamba and paraquat, the effects have been nominal. (See also:The Wall Street Journal  June 4, 2010, p A16, 'Superweeds Trigger New Arms Race')

The deniers, for their argument, probably invoked the (summary) chemical equation most of us learned in high school biology for photosynthesis:

6 CO2 +   6 H20 + light energy  ->  C6 H12 O6  + 6 O2

Thus, the carbon dioxide (6 molecules) combined with six of oxygen and adding in radiant energy (sunlight) gives glucose plus oxygen. What could be wrong? Well, a lot it there is too much carbon dioxide.

But this example, illustrates the recurring problem of exactly how any greenhouse gas affects crop yields. Now thanks to new work by Drew T. Shindell, e.g.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000377/full

We are finally getting some useful answers. While it's been known that carbon dioxide is the largest driver of climate change, Shindell found that other anthropogenic emissions cause more damage to actual crop yields.  Among the culprits named in the past: methane, halocarbons (used in refrigeration and air conditioning),  and black carbon (from biomass and fossil fuel burning)

In his paper published in Earth's Future, Shindell sought to create a more complete picture of human-caused emissions.  He did this by assembling data from his previous studies as well as the IPCC's fourth and fifth assessment reports and crop yield data from previous work.  Shindell then created a model to determine the effect that individual greenhouse gases have on global temperatures, precipitation, carbon dioxide and ozone - all of which affect crop success.

Shindell's model revealed that in the short term (i.e. 1st decade after release of emissions), the greatest damage to crops per ton comes from black carbon and halocarbons. Methane emissions come next, given that the gas (CH4) increases surface ozone which causes harmful chlorosis, i.e. a yellowing of leaves.

Shindell found the effects of CO2 are more complicated, For example, as the amount in the atmosphere increases, crop yields initially do as well. But as the CO2 emissions continue to contribute to climate warming the overall impact becomes negative with any benefits originally accruing basically being outweighed by deleterious effects after only 10 years.

Overall, Shindell's model indicates that up to 93 percent of crop losses through the rest of the century will be caused from non-carbon dioxide emissions with methane the most damaging. (Let us also bear in mind the most massive methane outgassing, as from melting permafrost in the Arctic, is triggered by much higher warming from carbon dioxide)

The most intriguing aspect of Shindell's paper is in where it shows how mitigation procedures can increase crop yields. For reduced CO2 alone, for example, crop yields would go up 3 percent. If methane is suitably reduced (which also means CO2 and warming is reduced) we can expect a 16 percent increase in crop yields.

On the other hand, under a high emissions scenario for all greenhouse gases (likely under Trump) there will be nearly 25 percent crop losses by the end of the century. Given the world's population is expected to balloon to 11 billion or more, we are looking at extreme hunger, starvation. This will be in the most densely populated regions such as Africa.

Without a doubt, Shindell's work provides a solid basis for decisions by policy makers. The question now is whether they will even read his work, and then act on it.