Creationists Say the Darndest Things — And Their True Colors Are Made Clear: via HuffPost

Creationists Say the Darndest Things — And Their True Colors Are Made Clear: via HuffPost http://huff.to/11Y6DFt I see creationism as part of an anti-christian zombie cult of the american south which makes Scientology look honest and intellectually respectable by comparison. What that cult does is imprint close to a photo-negative of christian values on the minds of the indoctorinated, where the highest order of morality is shown by guns and warfare and hatred of others. It is like the state religion of the military-industrial complex, designed to promote values consistent with aggression and imperialism. Like other cults the indoctorinated will be given opinions that radically clash with those of normal society, which will thereby reinforce the connection with the cult. The indoctorinated will only see conflicting views and evidence as proof of the work of satan. Even irrefutable scientific proof that their views are wrong will be taken only as proof that those who support conflicting views are pawns of satan who must be destroyed. All data from the world around the cult members becomes reframed to justify hatred, hostility and conquest. It’s a religion for bugs. Insects. Like army ants or killer bees. It has been manipulated to suit a specific military-corporate agenda. The values that cult represents are about as far from the teachings of Jesus as it is possible to get. Not least of the conflicts with his teachings is the opposition to critical thinking. Jesus’s teachings are riddled with appeals to common sense in face of inflexible church doctrine. Jesus is one of the earliest advocates for critical thinking. The churches that would have us think like a horde of invading warlike insects are not churches of Jesus, they are apostate churches and should be denounced as such.

Another wrongful conviction overturned

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/29/justice/ohio-police-captain-exonerated/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Yet another dubious “bite mark” conviction.  

So it turns out that the bite mark had somebody else’s saliva on it.  

Bite marks have a dubious history in law enforcement with no acceptable peer reviewed science or procedures in support of bite mark analysis. 

They have also been used to stage evidence, with the pioneer of bite mark analysis being caught on video using dental molds from an accused to forceably mark the skin of a victim. 

That illustrates the importance of reasonable search and seizure of e.g. dental molds, DNA, etc.   Corrupt police officers, pathologists and lab techs have and will use such material to alter crime scenes and samples to gain a conviction. 

Now in the case in the article, the prosecution is against overturning the convictions.  

One of the most disgusting things about wrongful convictions is that the prosecutors are almost always more interested in protecting themselves and their departments from criticism than having the right person in jail.  

But lets say that they are right and there was other evidence that they had which was strongly suggesting conviction.  

Why then mix everything up by tossing unscientific evidence into the mix and opening the door to setting aside the conviction? 

It is also highly unlikely that a victim was severely bitten by one person and then shot by another on the same day.   You would need some contortions and suspension of disbelief to sell that in Hollywood.  

The only way to make sense of it and involve the accused would be with two people working together. 

And if a police chief was involved in something like that he wouldn’t be stupid enough to gratuitously include an unstable witness and co-accused.  He would know how that usually turns out. 

It sounds to me more like there was a police chief that was in someone’s way so his wife was murdered and he got framed for it.  

The Judicial Attack on Labor: via HuffPost

The Judicial Attack on Labor: via HuffPost http://huff.to/11fg6DA Actually the ruling might be correct on the issue of the senate recess. It could be worse, given that the actual language states that it is vacancies that occur during the recess can be filled. It doesn’t allow a general filling of vacancies during any recess. As for the issue of precedent in the area and historical context I’d have to see the decision and other details to know if I agree with the interpretation. I wouldn’t consider the decision to be bad faith as the writer of the article implies. A line of attack on the reasoning could go on the requirement of advice and consent. There is no requirement for a confirmation hearing or for any other specific form of consent. When the president has put forward a name that gives the senate the opportunity to refuse it. The labor board certainly continued with the acquiescence of the senate, which was able to terminate the appointments immediately if there was an issue. So what do you do, shut the whole labor board or any other institution down because republican scum with the collusion of Reid prevent anything from getting done? I think the better approach is to take consent that isn’t withheld as implied. The republicans could have rushed in and kicked out the board members a year ago if they had enough votes to do so. The lack of any interest in bringing the issue to a head is aquiescence or laches. My reading of the constitutional passages is that the president is required to solicit the opinion of the senate on certain appointments. I would read that as requiring no more than notification and giving the senate a reasonable time to object. “Consent” has different connotations, not all of which are as involved as that prior to sexual activity.

Wayne LaPierre, NRA Leader, Opposes Expanded Background Checks: via HuffPost

Wayne LaPierre, NRA Leader, Opposes Expanded Background Checks: via HuffPost http://huff.to/YEDpe6 This is because 40% of gun sales occur at “gun shows”, i.e. venues for criminals, felons, paranoid schizophrenics etc. to get weapons. Slow the sale of guns there and it will probably reduce sales of new weapons. Most guns sold in Arizona are trafficked. Most guns used in crimes in New York are trafficked from places like Arizona. The bottom line for gun makers is that the sale of guns to criminals, while illegal, is essential to their bottom line. The reason their arguments and agenda don’t make any sense is that their highest priority, the sale of guns to criminals, cannot even be mentioned publically. Their margins aren’t great, if buyers can’t traffic to criminals easily and untraceably, the gun makers are probably in the red. As for the general republican approaches of making it difficult for citizens to vote while making it easy for even felons to have guns, which should be harder to do? The present republican position is that it should be easier to kill other human beings with guns than to vote. Somebody explain to me how there is any scenario where that position makes any sense.

Obama Popularity Rating Rises In Second Term, Poll Shows: via HuffPost

Obama Popularity Rating Rises In Second Term, Poll Shows: via HuffPost http://huff.to/VvywTV So Obama takes a stand on some issues and his popularity goes up. So much for the theory that the only way for the left to survive is to go as far to the right as possible.

Is satire dead

If Eating Chocolate Can Make You Smarter, Can It Also Make You an Olympic Skier?: via HuffPost http://huff.to/10WzDIT It used to be that making a point through farce could be even more powerful than some dry intellectual analysis. So when some researchers lampooned a certain type of “scientific” study and methodology they probably were not expecting the media and scientific community to take it as seriously as it was. The consumption of chocolate can be correlated with the funds available for luxury items and generally whether it is a society with surplus or one that is just getting by. A population focussed on survival isn’t thinking about progress, it’s thinking about survival. Something right wing governments should be thinking harder about. But any number of things could have been chosen in place of chocolate, for instance alcohol. That would have been a more amusing and provocative study. Or the availability of pornography. Probably tobacco consumption. There are probably a lot of things that would correlate in the same way for the same reason.

The (Really Scary) Invisible Gorilla: via HuffPost

The (Really Scary) Invisible Gorilla: via HuffPost http://huff.to/127e5OD

Anti-Whistleblower (AgGag) Laws Threaten Human Health, the Environment and Animals: via HuffPost

Anti-Whistleblower (AgGag) Laws Threaten Human Health, the Environment and Animals: via HuffPost http://huff.to/Yf0foC And so we move towards the republican goal of the entire economy consisting of criminal activity.

New test for pancreatic cancer by 15 year old

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/good-news/15-old-develops-revolutionary-test-cancer-173615725.html

This is where progress comes from.  This is how you get things done.   Not through established people whose jobs are a jumble of teaching and other duties, or who are expected to sanitize their work to the point where it is no longer groundbreaking if they are to get any grants, which they will be expected to compete for.  

The present system is structured to impair and punish creative problem solving.  People who authorize grants generally want to see that what researchers are doing or trying to prove as in line with accepted practice or theories.  

In other words, anything revolutionary will be presumed wrong at the outset. 

Then there is the issue of cost. 

When coming up with research proposals many centres will already have established staff, equipment that needs servicing, etc.  They will be looking for grants that keep that apparatus going. 

That impairs the pursuit of low cost, straightforward solutions that don’t involve a lot. 

If you start with a ton of baggage and work that into your research it will be a lot more difficult than starting with what a realistic solutions will look like and working your way backward from there. 

This Is the Way Sarah Palin Ends, Not With a Bang But a Whimper: via HuffPost

This Is the Way Sarah Palin Ends, Not With a Bang But a Whimper: via HuffPost http://huff.to/113qy18 She damaged her brand from being fresh and original to being a no-bame brand generic and poor quality Michelle Bachman beta release, just another screeching, demented harpy that nobody can stand to listen to. Back before she turned into a generic republican hate-bot, she was actually likeable. In the process of pandering to the network and the loons she threw away her competitive advantage. She also blundered by quitting her day job as governor. It may reduce the risk of scandal but it also means she has little record to run on. The spare time created was spent foolishly. She turned into an attention wh*re. If she’d stayed on as governor and learned from republican pragmatists instead of the nutters at Fox she’d still be a force and possibly be in contention for higher office in 4 years. Instead she’s being discarded as a used up husk. What a waste.