The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States is a stupid fucking asshole and that's why Fucktard Trump gave him the job.
The idea is to protect the environment. Fucktard Scott Pruitt, chosen by Fucktard Trump, wants to destroy the environment. I'm not making this up. Trump, you fucking moron, drop dead.
I'm going to copy & paste some stuff because it's important. People need to know this stupid fucking asshole is trying to destroy America.
Los Angeles Times - EPA chief's clean-water rollback shaped by secrecy, luxury travel and handpicked audiences
By EVAN HALPER MARCH 02, 2018 WASHINGTON
As Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt jetted around the country last year, regularly flying first or business class at hefty taxpayer expense, his stated mission was often a noble one: to hear from Americans about how Washington could most effectively and fairly enforce the Clean Water Act.
Yet when Pruitt showed up in North Dakota in August to seek guidance on how to rewrite a landmark Obama-era water protection rule, it was clear there were some voices he did not care to hear.
The general public was barred from participating in the roundtable Pruitt presided over at the University of North Dakota. An EPA official even threatened to call security on reporters who tried to linger.
What happened at the meeting is still a mystery to all but the invitees, a list dominated by industry and Pruitt's political allies. The same is true of many of the other 16 such roundtables Pruitt held as he developed his plan to weaken a federal rule that protects the drinking water of 117 million Americans.
Such behind-closed-doors deliberation is a hallmark of the agency under Pruitt, an EPA administrator who spent $25,000 to set up a secure phone booth in his office and said security concerns guided his luxury plane travel. Pruitt's security detail said flying in coach exposed him to too much interaction with hostile members of the public. Under fire for the costly plane tickets, which were revealed in records obtained by the nonprofit watchdog Environmental Integrity Project, Pruitt said this week he would start trying to fly coach when possible.
But the buffer Pruitt has created from critical elements of the public extends beyond his choice of airline seating. It also defines decision making at his agency.
Pruitt purged scientists from an independent EPA advisory board that, among other things, rigorously reviewed the science behind the Obama water rule and found it to be sound. An EPA regulatory reform task force advising Pruitt on the rollback of clean water and air rules operates largely in the shadows. Pruitt's advisors ordered economic data that reflected the benefits of Obama's water rule erased from a key federal report, over the objections of career staff at the EPA.
Pruitt rejects any suggestion he is bending the rules. He says the agency is working "through the robust public process of providing long-term regulatory certainty across all 50 states about what waters are subject to federal regulation."
The effort is aimed at removing federal Clean Water Act protection from millions of miles of streams and wetlands, including more than 80% of the waters in California and the arid West. In January, the administration suspended for two years the new guidelines protecting those waters as it scrambles to draft a replacement rule that substantially narrows the reach of the act.
Pruitt is, indeed, making a robust effort to connect with stakeholders — spending a lot of public dollars along the way. But his audiences are typically handpicked, and almost always industry-friendly.
While EPA officials say others have ample opportunity to be heard through pro-forma comment filings, webinars and occasional meetings with staff, many communities feel shut out.
"No outreach at all was done here," the Navajo Nation protested in a letter to the EPA weeks before it suspended the clean water rule. The letter contrasted the hasty suspension of the rule with the four years of tribal consultation and scientific review that went into creating it.
There were no such complaints from the National Cattlemen's Beef Assn., which not only hosted Pruitt on a Colorado ranch, but also persuaded him to star in its advocacy video filmed there. The video urges ranchers to lobby the EPA to weaken the rule. Earlier on the day of the ranch visit, a commercial flight delay moved Pruitt to spend $5,700 of public money on a short-hop charter so he and staff members could stay on schedule.
In the video, Pruitt accused the Obama administration of "reimagining" its authority to define waters deserving federal protection to include even puddles — which the previous administration said it had specifically excluded from protection. The attorneys general of nine states, including California, cited the video as evidence that Pruitt, who had sued to scrap the Obama water rule while attorney general of Oklahoma, is not approaching the rewrite with an open mind, as the law requires.
In Pruitt's home state of Oklahoma, the EPA spent $14,400 to charter a plane so Pruitt and his staff could hear from several dozen farmers eager to repeal the rule in the town of Guymon. Soon after, the state of North Dakota spent $2,100 to ferry Pruitt and a couple of staffers to the closed-door meeting there. During the North Dakota visit, EPA staff directed a radio host scheduled to interview Pruitt not to take calls from listeners, according to agency emails published by E&E News. The emails also revealed how EPA staff insisted the roundtable be closed to reporters. "Pruitt does not want open press," said one message.
At the roundtable in Iowa, the Iowa Farm Bureau president and several farmers opposed to the water rule got invites. In South Carolina, some media was allowed into a meeting dominated by interests opposed to the water rule, including the state Home Builders Assn., the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce, the South Carolina Golf Course Assn. and the state Farm Bureau. In Minnesota, Pruitt went straight from a visit with the governor to the offices of the agriculture industry association AgriGrowth, where he presided over another roundtable.
EPA officials said in a statement that information from the roundtables will ultimately be uploaded into the public docket. They did not specify what information that would include or when that would happen.
The agency's caginess has drawn an onslaught of open-records lawsuits seeking basic information about who EPA officials are meeting with, when, and what Pruitt is saying in his many invite-only discussions with industry groups and conservative think tanks.
"One of the tragedies of this administration's approach is that it is just enhancing mistrust of what government is doing," said William Ruckelshaus, who demanded full transparency of all such agency meetings when he ran the EPA during the Nixon and Reagan administrations.
California Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra expressed confidence during a visit to Washington this week that Pruitt's rollbacks of policies like the clean water rule are so tainted by conflicts and legally troublesome administrative shortcuts that they will collapse in court.
The challenges Pruitt confronts include explaining the reams of data the EPA had compiled indicating that the economic benefits of keeping pollution out of the disputed streams and wetlands far outweigh the costs to farmers, developers and other business owners. The Obama rules were grounded in 1,200 scientific studies and 400 listening sessions over a period of years.
Longtime EPA staffers were stunned when political appointees at the agency last year directed them to write in a key report that protecting wetlands, intermittent streams and vernal pools would not bring any economic benefit to anyone. A detailed EPA analysis had already found that up to $500 million in benefits would be reaped by a range of interests, including commercial fisheries, recreational outfitters and drinking water utilities.
"We were told to just drop the benefits," said Betsy Southerland, who resigned her post as director of science and technology at the EPA Office of Water in August. "They told us verbally, so they wouldn't have a written record of it." An EPA spokesman downplayed the importance of the study, saying it was not required to rewrite the water rule.
Yet Pruitt's allies in Congress are clearly concerned the effort to unravel the Obama rule will falter. They are advancing a measure that would exempt the rollback from many of the public disclosure and other rules that apply to major regulatory changes.
The battle is being watched closely in California and the Southwest, where much of the water supply is linked to seasonal bodies of water and wetlands that would lose federal protection under Pruitt's vision.
"The drinking water 1 in 3 Americans consumes is linked to these types of streams," said Ken Kopocis, who was the chief EPA water official under Obama. "In California, it is the water that comes down from the mountains from the snow and rain. If the streams up in those in hills are no longer protected, you can pollute those waters free from any federal Clean Water Act responsibilities and it will end up in these reservoirs. It applies to all these feeder streams, whether in Montana or Nebraska or Ohio. This water gets captured and used by 117 million people."
"How do you maintain a healthy ecosystem if you destroy those feeders?" he said. "You simply can't."
In some states, lawmakers are moving to backstop the protections as best they can. California is particularly energized. In others, they are eager to see the rule disappear, amid a vocal organizing effort by the industries that align with Pruitt. Farmers, ranchers and homebuilders complain the rules expose them to all manner of liability. They say filling a drainage ditch or a puddle on their property could draw costly EPA enforcement actions against them under the Waters of the United States rule drafted by Obama's EPA.
Pruitt complained of overzealous puddle and ditch enforcement in the Cattlemen's video.
It's a point of view that is not necessarily shared widely in his own agency.
"We are not running around regulating ditches," said Jessica Kao, who recently left her post as the EPA's lead Clean Water Act enforcement attorney in the Southwest. "That whole argument is a red herring."
evan.halper@latimes.com Follow me: @evanhalper
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Washington Post - Trump budget seeks 23 percent cut at EPA, eliminating dozens of programs
By Brady Dennis February 12 Email the author
The White House is seeking to cut more than $2.5 billion from the annual budget of the Environmental Protection Agency — an overall reduction of more than 23 percent.
The fiscal 2019 proposal released Monday marks the Trump administration’s latest attempt to shrink the reach of an agency the president once promised to reduce to “little tidbits.” The EPA already has lost hundreds of employees to buyouts and retirements over the past year, and its staffing is now at Reagan-era levels.
Under the latest budget, the agency would continue to shrink in size and ambition, leaving much more of the work of environmental protection to individual states. The administration said Monday that its proposal will help “return the EPA to its core mission,” reduce “unnecessary reporting burdens on the regulated community,” and eliminate programs that “create unnecessary redundancies or those that have served their purpose and accomplished their mission.”
But environmental groups on Monday were quick to criticize the proposal, calling it a thinly veiled attempt to gut federal environmental safeguards.
“The Trump administration budget released today is a blueprint for a less healthy, more polluted America,” Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund, said in a statement. “A budget shows your values — and this budget shows the administration doesn’t value clean air, clean water, or protecting Americans from toxic pollution.”
The administration’s plan would cut several dozen programs altogether. Among them: funding for state radon-detection initiatives; assistance to fund water system improvements along the U.S.-Mexico border; and partnerships to monitor and restore water quality in the Gulf of Mexico, Puget Sound and other large bodies of water. Funding for the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay would fall from $72 million to $7 million, and a similar program for the Great Lakes would be cut from $300 million to $30 million — although neither would be wiped out.
The head of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation called the proposal “another assault on clean water, from a president who campaigned saying he valued it.”
“This administration says they want to partner with states, but a 90 percent budget reduction says the opposite,” William C. Baker said in a statement. “The Chesapeake Bay Program is the glue that holds the state/federal partnership together. A cut of this magnitude would severely damage Bay restoration efforts, just at a time when we are seeing significant progress.”
In addition, the Trump budget would eliminate — or very nearly eliminate — the agency’s programs related to climate change. Funding for the agency’s Office of Science and Technology would drop by more than a third, from $762 million to $489 million. And funding for prosecuting environmental crimes and for certain clean air and water programs would drop significantly.
The Superfund cleanup program, a priority of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, would not face the same draconian reductions as were proposed last year. The agency expects to use the $1 billion fund “to reduce administrative costs, identify efficiencies, and prioritize the cleanup of sites.”
The agency also would receive an additional $397 million to bolster investment in wastewater and storm water infrastructure. The White House is no longer seeking to eliminate the Energy Star program, although it would be funded entirely through fees.
The fiscal 2019 proposal comes a year after the Trump administration proposed slashing the EPA’s budget by 31 percent, as well as cutting 3,200 positions, or more than 20 percent of the agency’s workforce.
“You can’t drain the swamp and leave all the people in it. So I guess the first place that comes to mind will be the Environmental Protection Agency,” Mick Mulvaney, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, told reporters at the time. “The president wants a smaller EPA. He thinks they overreach, and the budget reflects that.”
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Sun Sentinel - Trump budget cuts threaten Florida's waters | Editorial
Florida’s drinking water, as well as its waterways and beaches, could suffer from President Donald Trump’s push to slash spending at the Environmental Protection Agency. Congress needs to say no.
Federal help to fight water pollution in Florida is among potential casualties of Trump’s pledge to cut the EPA’s $8 billion budget by 30 percent.
A new report from the Environmental Defense Fund warns that Trump’s proposed cuts could cost Florida millions used to combat pollution that fouls beaches, pollutes lakes and rivers and threatens drinking water supplies.
During the past five years, Florida benefited from about $600 million in EPA grants that fund efforts such as cleaning up or preventing water pollution. But if Trump’s budget cuts had been in effect, the state would have received less than half of that, according to the report from the environmental advocacy group.
Losing that money would put Florida’s tourist-attracting waterways and beaches at risk, as well as the drinking water the state’s growing population needs.
When Congress considers budget measures in September, it should reject the president’s proposed deep cuts to the federal agency that helps protect Florida’s waters.
Trump’s cuts could mean ending the pollution-fighting National Estuary Program at a time when Florida is trying to avoid more toxic algae blooms along the coast.
Last year, pollution-fueled algae blooms produced a foul-smelling, green ooze that spread across waterways near Stuart — making waters unsafe for fishing and swimming — and scared away tourists to boot. Trump’s proposed cuts could do away with the EPA program that during the past five years has directed nearly $12 million in help to Florida’s estuaries, according to the Environmental Defense Fund report.
The cuts could also hamper efforts to make sure waters off Florida’s beaches are safe for swimming. The state received nearly $3 million in federal funding during the past five years to test for fecal matter and other pollutants, according to the report.
The EPA has been a popular target for Trump and other Republicans who complain that the federal agency’s pollution-fighting regulations hamper businesses and stifle job creation. Long before running for office, Trump in 2011 tweeted that the EPA was, “an impediment to both growth and jobs.”
During the campaign, Trump singled out the department that enforces environmental regulations as an example of something he would get rid of “in almost every form.”
“We’re going to have little tidbits left, but we’re going to take a tremendous amount out,” Trump said during the March 4, 2016 presidential debate in Detroit.
Trump picked an EPA administrator, former Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt, who had long fought the regulatory agency he now oversees. Also, Pruitt has questioned whether man-made pollution is the primary cause of climate change.
Under Pruitt, the EPA has rolled back pollution limits on power plants and is seeking to rein in water pollution regulations.
In May, Pruitt defended the president’s proposed budget cutbacks as an effort that “respects the American taxpayer” while still enabling the EPA to support its “highest priorities.” But Pruitt’s priorities for the EPA are far short of the protections that Florida waters need.
And Trump’s campaign pledges to help businesses by cutting federal regulations shouldn’t mean sacrificing pollution protections that would put Florida’s drinking water and public health at risk.
Diminishing programs that guard Florida’s waterways will end up hurting — not helping — businesses in a state dependent on tourism.
If Congress does back the president’s EPA budget cuts, that could shift more of those costs to state and local taxpayers.
Trump, who makes frequent Florida visits, doesn’t have to look far from his Mar-a-Lago Club to find examples of the need for the EPA’s pollution fighting efforts.
Recently, beaches near Mar-a-Lago were temporarily closed due to high bacteria levels typically blamed on pollution. And last year’s toxic algae blooms fouled waters less than an hour’s drive north of Trump’s Palm Beach estate.
Trying to save money by making big cuts to the EPA’s budget will make it harder to prevent and respond to those types of pollution emergencies in the future.
Also, while Trump’s nearly $3 billion in proposed EPA cuts risk efforts to fight pollution, the cuts would do little to trim the federal government’s nearly $600 billion budget deficit.
Congress and the president need to ensure that protecting Florida’s waters from pollution remains a federal priority, not a budget sacrifice.
Monday, March 12, 2018
This is a copy & paste job. I found this fantastic idea. The idea is a bit extreme but I agree with it.
Should we execute the religious out of pity?
Recently the topic of euthanasia is one of those hot-button topics. If someone is in such a way that prolonging their life guarantees nothing more than continued pain, is it not more humane to painlessly end that life?
If we expand that concept, how about euthanizing religious people? They are clearly too stupid to live, as they are totally unable to tell fiction from reality, and as certain of them seem to be gagging to go to their next world (heaven / paradise / whatever), why not give them a head start?
In the modern era, religion serves not a single positive purpose, unless you count being a self-righteous cünt who has never had an independent thought in your life.
Plus we'd be reducing the world's population by quite a considerable amount, and given the strain on the planet caused by the current 6-7 billion people on it, we'd be doing the planet a favor as well.
I can't see a single downside. Can you?
Recently the topic of euthanasia is one of those hot-button topics. If someone is in such a way that prolonging their life guarantees nothing more than continued pain, is it not more humane to painlessly end that life?
If we expand that concept, how about euthanizing religious people? They are clearly too stupid to live, as they are totally unable to tell fiction from reality, and as certain of them seem to be gagging to go to their next world (heaven / paradise / whatever), why not give them a head start?
In the modern era, religion serves not a single positive purpose, unless you count being a self-righteous cünt who has never had an independent thought in your life.
Plus we'd be reducing the world's population by quite a considerable amount, and given the strain on the planet caused by the current 6-7 billion people on it, we'd be doing the planet a favor as well.
I can't see a single downside. Can you?
Sunday, March 11, 2018
We have a larger brain than the other ape species thanks to natural selection. 9 minute video. 2001: A Space Odyssey - The Dawn of Man. "This scene shows the beginning of the Paleolithic Era, and reveals that, by the usage of tools, man could stop being a victim of the world to become an active element, who has the power of action over nature."
The celebrity clown who won the Republican nomination for President and then won the election is not a real Republican.
"Senator Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) voiced support for President Donald Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminum."
Way to go Trump. A liberal loon agrees with your trade war nonsense.
In 2020 if Trump's opponent is an ax murderer I'm voting for the ax murderer.
Way to go Trump. A liberal loon agrees with your trade war nonsense.
In 2020 if Trump's opponent is an ax murderer I'm voting for the ax murderer.
Somebody in south Florida did the right thing. A wounded American bald eagle was rescued. The problem is being fixed. The eagle will fly again. I once saw bald eagles from a train in Illinois. The pesticide DDT almost wiped out this precious species. That problem was fixed. Today America's stupid fucking assholes, aka Christian Republicans, want to make DDT legal again. Of course that will never happen.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - American bald eagle
Fact Sheet: Natural History, Ecology, and History of Recovery
A North American species with a historic range from Alaska and Canada to northern Mexico, the bald eagle is an Endangered Species Act success story.
Forty years ago, our national symbol was in danger of extinction throughout most of its range. Habitat destruction and degradation, illegal shooting, and the contamination of its food source, largely as a consequence of DDT, decimated the eagle population. Habitat protection afforded by the Endangered Species Act, the federal government’s banning of DDT, and conservation actions taken by the American public have helped bald eagles make a remarkable recovery.
Bald Eagle Biology
Distinguished by a white head and white tail feathers, bald eagles are powerful, brown birds that may weigh 14 pounds and have a wingspan of 8 feet. Male eagles are smaller, weighing as much as 10 pounds and have a wingspan of 6 feet. Sometimes confused with golden eagles, bald eagles are mostly dark brown until they are four to five years old and acquire their characteristic coloring. There is a distinction between the two species, though, even during the early years. Only the tops of the bald eagle’s legs have feathers. The legs of golden eagles are feathered all the way down.
Bald eagles live near rivers, lakes, and marshes where they can find fish, their staple food. Bald eagles will also feed on waterfowl, turtles, rabbits, snakes, and other small animals and carrion.
Bald eagles require a good food base, perching areas, and nesting sites. Their habitat includes estuaries, large lakes, reservoirs, rivers, and some seacoasts. In winter, the birds congregate near open water in tall trees for spotting prey and night roosts for sheltering.
Eagles mate for life, choosing the tops of large trees to build nests, which they typically use and enlarge each year. Nests may reach 10 feet across and weigh a half ton. They may also have one or more alternate nests within their breeding territory. In treeless regions, they may also nest in cliffs or on the ground. The birds travel great distances but usually return to breeding grounds within 100 miles of the place where they were raised. Bald eagles may live 15 to 25 years in the wild, longer in captivity.
Breeding bald eagles typically lay one to three eggs once a year, and they hatch after about 35 days. The young eagles are flying within three months and are on their own about a month later. However, disease, lack of food, bad weather, or human interference can kill many eaglets. Recent studies show that approximately 70 percent survive their first year of life.
The Plight of the Bald Eagle
When America adopted the bald eagle as the national symbol in 1782, the country may have had as many as 100,000 nesting eagles. The first major decline of the species probably began in the mid to late 1800’s, coinciding with the decline of waterfowl, shorebirds, and other prey.
Although they primarily eat fish and carrion, bald eagles used to be considered marauders that preyed on chickens, lambs, and domestic livestock. Consequently, the large raptors were shot in an effort to eliminate a perceived threat. Coupled with the loss of nesting habitat, bald eagle populations declined.
In 1940, noting that the species was “threatened with extinction,” Congress passed the Bald Eagle Protection Act, which prohibited killing, selling, or possessing the species. A 1962 amendment added the golden eagle, and the law became the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
Shortly after World War II, DDT was hailed as a new pesticide to control mosquitoes and other insects. However, DDT and its residues washed into nearby waterways, where aquatic plants and fish absorbed it. Bald eagles, in turn, were poisoned with DDT when they ate the contaminated fish. The chemical interfered with the ability of the birds to produce strong eggshells. As a result, their eggs had shells so thin that they often broke during incubation or otherwise failed to hatch. DDT also affected other species such as peregrine falcons and brown pelicans.
In addition to the adverse effects of DDT, some bald eagles have died from lead poisoning after feeding on waterfowl containing lead shot, either as a result of hunting or from inadvertent ingestion.
By 1963, with only 487 nesting pairs of bald eagles remaining, the species was in danger of extinction. Loss of habitat, shooting, and DDT poisoning contributed to the near demise of our national symbol.
The Road Back
As the dangers of DDT became known, in large part due to the 1962 publication of Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring, the Environmental Protection Agency took the historic and, at the time, controversial step of banning the use of DDT in the United States. That was in 1972, and it was the first step on the road to recovery for the bald eagle.
In 1967, the Secretary of Interior listed bald eagles south of the 40th parallel under the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966. Following enactment of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Service listed the species in 1978 as endangered throughout the lower 48 states, except in Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin where it was designated as threatened.
“Endangered” means a species is considered in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. “Threatened” means a species is considered likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future, but is not currently in danger of extinction.
The species was not listed as threatened or endangered in Hawaii because it does not occur there, or in Alaska because populations there have remained robust.
Listing the species as endangered provided the springboard for the Service and its partners to accelerate the pace of recovery through captive breeding programs, reintroduction efforts, law enforcement, and nest site protection during the breeding season.
In July 1995, the Service announced that bald eagles in the lower 48 states had recovered to the point where those populations previously considered endangered were now considered threatened.
In July 1999, the Service proposed to remove the bald eagle from the list of threatened and endangered species. Since then, the Service has reviewed comments received on that proposal along with new data and information to determine the best ways to manage the species once it is removed from the protections of the Endangered Species Act. In 2006, the Service re-opened the public comment period due to new information on the proposal to delist. Data gathered during this comment period was factored into a final decision on the status of the species.
Based on the most recent population figures, the Service estimates that there are at least 9,789 nesting pairs of bald eagles in the contiguous United States. Bald eagles have staged a remarkable population rebound and have recovered to the point that they no longer need the protection of the Endangered Species Act.
Thus, on June 28, 2007, the Service announced the recovery of our nation’s symbol and removal from the list of threatened and endangered species.
What Lies Ahead
Although the Service removed the bald eagle from the list of threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act, the bird will still be protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Both laws prohibit killing, selling or otherwise harming eagles, their nests, or eggs.
The Service will continue to work with state wildlife agencies to monitor the status of bald eagles for a minimum of five years, as required by the Endangered Species Act. If the species should need the protection of the Act, the Service can relist it as endangered or threatened. In the meantime, individual states may also pass or implement laws to protect bald eagles.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Unable to fly, bald eagle lands at Fort Lauderdale wildlife hospital
Doug Phillips Contact Reporter Sun Sentinel March 9, 2018
A rescue effort that began outside Boynton Beach was continuing in Fort Lauderdale on Friday where an American bald eagle found in obvious distress is being treated.
The eagle is at the South Florida Wildlife Center, where it was found to have a soft tissue injury on its right elbow that is likely “trauma-related,” according to center officials.
“The eagle was found by a private citizen in Palm Beach County, on the ground and unable to fly,” said Debra Parsons-Drake, executive director, South Florida Wildlife Center.
The discovery was made on Monday in the area of 96th Court South in West Boynton. The man who found the bird called the center and a wildlife rescuer brought it to Fort Lauderdale shortly before 4 p.m., Parsons-Drake said.
Officials don’t know how the eagle’s wing got hurt, but the male bird appears otherwise healthy.
“He has a good body condition and weight and is eating very well on his own,” said staff veterinarian Dr. Amanda Grant.
The eagle is being treated with anti-inflammatory medication and soft tissue laser treatment — processes that will continue until the bird is healed.
The wildlife center, an affiliate of The Humane Society of the United States, treats thousands of animals, but eagles are rarely among them.
The center sees more than 12,000 animals representing about 250 species annually, officials said. But during the last 10 years it has only treated five other American bald eagles.
“Although bald eagles have been removed from the national endangered species list, they are still rarely seen in South Florida and in most of the country,” said Deborah Robbins Millman, the wildlife center’s director of outreach.
It’s believed Florida is home to about 1,500 nesting pairs of bald eagles, she said.
 |
| A rescue effort that began outside Boynton Beach was continuing in Fort Lauderdale Friday where an American bald eagle that was found in obvious distress is being treated as it recuperates. |
One hour video: Animals National Geographic Wild - The Most Extreme Predators. Yellowstone National Park is a world of predators, scavengers and opportunists. In this vast and complex kingdom, two dominant predators reign supreme: the grizzly bear and the wolf. Size and power square off against speed and teamwork, as mighty grizzly bears contend with powerful packs of wolves for control of the food supply. Normally these two fearsome hunters would rule their ranges uncontested, but in Yellowstone they must share resources, or face starvation.
Three cheetahs vs one ostrich. Guess who wins.
At a Chicago museum I was able to compare the fossil of a small dinosaur to the skeleton of an ostrich. Everything about these two creatures was virtually the same. It was obvious to me ostriches (and all other birds) evolved from the one branch of dinosaurs that didn't go extinct.
Why does the cheetah run faster than any other land animal? This is the result of an evolutionary arms race.
The ostrich is dangerous. With one kick it can damage or kill a cheetah. And ostriches are huge. It takes 3 cheetahs to bring one down.
These cheetahs have the intelligence to figure out how they can work together to earn a huge meal. I would rather go to the grocery store and buy a dead farm animal.
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
"BBC Earth" David Attenborough - a fantastic must see 4 minute video:
Why does the cheetah run faster than any other land animal? This is the result of an evolutionary arms race.
The ostrich is dangerous. With one kick it can damage or kill a cheetah. And ostriches are huge. It takes 3 cheetahs to bring one down.
These cheetahs have the intelligence to figure out how they can work together to earn a huge meal. I would rather go to the grocery store and buy a dead farm animal.
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
"BBC Earth" David Attenborough - a fantastic must see 4 minute video:
Evolution makes American fucktards cry. This 10 minute video explains Idiot America's stupidity problem.
Bill Nye, author of “Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation”. Evolutionary science being left out of schools.
There are religious scientists. They are very rare, especially in biology, but they exist. They disgrace their profession and they have my contempt.
A very small minority of biologists are god-soaked. Apparently these idiots for Jeebus have a switch in their head they can turn off or on. They turn it off when they write about their childish ridiculous god fairy fantasies. When they go to work they turn the switch on so they can do their scientific research.
How is this possible? I don't know but I think it's a brain damage problem.
Here's an example. This biologist is obviously competent but he has a cowardly belief in a magical paradise after he drops dead. Incredibly he says "we know that heaven awaits." How does he know this anti-science anti-reality bullshit is true? How does he "know" his nutjob fantasy is real?
This is his excuse to be a moron: "That is faith."
There's that word again. Faith. It's an excuse to throw out reality. It's a mental illness.
I don't care how competent and knowledgeable a scientist is, if he or she uses the word "faith" to justify magical bullshit, then that scientist is fucking insane and he deserves to be ridiculed and laughed at. These fucktards for Jeebus disgrace their profession. They have my contempt.
This is the whole thing: "Nye has a very peculiar view of religion. When he is asked why the whole debate is so vexing, he argues that it all boils down to a fear of death and that we just don't want to die. One of the central tenets of Christianity is that, after death, if you accept Jesus as your savior, you go to heaven. When death comes, despite the desire to live life to the fullest and to hang on to life (not inconsistent with Christianity, by the way), we accept it, because we know that heaven awaits. That is faith. His response almost comes from a complete ignorance of religious knowledge or history."
A complete ignorance of your breathtaking stupidity? I never met a Christian who wasn't a stupid fucking asshole.
I wrote a comment there a long time ago and I was polite about it. He vaporized it. This is how Christian assholes defend their moronic cult. They love censorship because they know they can't defend what's impossible.
Bill Nye Thinks Creationism is "Raising A Generation Of Young People Who Can't Think"
How is this possible? I don't know but I think it's a brain damage problem.
Here's an example. This biologist is obviously competent but he has a cowardly belief in a magical paradise after he drops dead. Incredibly he says "we know that heaven awaits." How does he know this anti-science anti-reality bullshit is true? How does he "know" his nutjob fantasy is real?
This is his excuse to be a moron: "That is faith."
There's that word again. Faith. It's an excuse to throw out reality. It's a mental illness.
I don't care how competent and knowledgeable a scientist is, if he or she uses the word "faith" to justify magical bullshit, then that scientist is fucking insane and he deserves to be ridiculed and laughed at. These fucktards for Jeebus disgrace their profession. They have my contempt.
This is the whole thing: "Nye has a very peculiar view of religion. When he is asked why the whole debate is so vexing, he argues that it all boils down to a fear of death and that we just don't want to die. One of the central tenets of Christianity is that, after death, if you accept Jesus as your savior, you go to heaven. When death comes, despite the desire to live life to the fullest and to hang on to life (not inconsistent with Christianity, by the way), we accept it, because we know that heaven awaits. That is faith. His response almost comes from a complete ignorance of religious knowledge or history."
A complete ignorance of your breathtaking stupidity? I never met a Christian who wasn't a stupid fucking asshole.
I wrote a comment there a long time ago and I was polite about it. He vaporized it. This is how Christian assholes defend their moronic cult. They love censorship because they know they can't defend what's impossible.
Bill Nye Thinks Creationism is "Raising A Generation Of Young People Who Can't Think"
Saturday, March 10, 2018
"How come religious nutters seem to think they know everything about God?"
"How come religious nutters seem to think they know everything about God?"
Good point. The Magic God Fairy was invented. Then morons made stuff up about the thing.
The stuff they made up is whatever made them feel good, for example "The fairy loves us" and "The fairy will magically send us to a magical paradise for cowards after we drop dead."
Good point. The Magic God Fairy was invented. Then morons made stuff up about the thing.
The stuff they made up is whatever made them feel good, for example "The fairy loves us" and "The fairy will magically send us to a magical paradise for cowards after we drop dead."
I answered this question: "Who would you say is the best candidate for replacing Jesus as the king of a new era?"
"Who would you say is the best candidate for replacing Jesus as the king of a new era?"
The Magic Jeebus Man was an uneducated moron. He contributed nothing to human progress. He was not king of anything. He was just a worthless know-nothing preacher man. He's dead. Good riddance.
The most important person who ever lived is Charles Darwin because he changed everything.
"Darwin was the first to use data from nature to convince people that evolution is true, and his idea of natural selection was truly novel. It testifies to his genius that the concept of natural theology, accepted by most educated Westerners before 1859, was vanquished within only a few years by a single five-hundred-page book. On the Origin of Species turned the mysteries of life's diversity from mythology into genuine science."
-- Jerry Coyne, University of Chicago biologist
The Magic Jeebus Man was an uneducated moron. He contributed nothing to human progress. He was not king of anything. He was just a worthless know-nothing preacher man. He's dead. Good riddance.
The most important person who ever lived is Charles Darwin because he changed everything.
"Darwin was the first to use data from nature to convince people that evolution is true, and his idea of natural selection was truly novel. It testifies to his genius that the concept of natural theology, accepted by most educated Westerners before 1859, was vanquished within only a few years by a single five-hundred-page book. On the Origin of Species turned the mysteries of life's diversity from mythology into genuine science."
-- Jerry Coyne, University of Chicago biologist
My favorite fossil. An ancient species of fish, the ancestor of all land animals including human apes.
 |
Tiktaalik |
Neil Shubin and his team did research to figure out where to find a fossil like this. The research showed they should look for it on a remote Canadian island which has rocks about 375 years old. They were right. A fantastic achievement.
Wikipedia - Tiktaalik
Tiktaalik /tɪkˈtɑːlɪk/ is a monospecific genus of extinct sarcopterygian (lobe-finned fish) from the late Devonian period, about 375 MYA (million years ago), having many features akin to those of tetrapods (four-legged animals).[1]
Tiktaalik has a possibility of being a representative of the evolutionary transition from fish to amphibians. It is an example from several lines of ancient sarcopterygian fish developing adaptations to the oxygen-poor shallow-water habitats of its time, environmental conditions which are thought to have led to the evolution of tetrapods.[2]
It and similar animals may possibly be the common ancestors of the broad swath of all vertebrate terrestrial fauna: amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals.[3] The first well-preserved Tiktaalik fossils were found in 2004 on Ellesmere Island in Nunavut, Canada.
 |
| Restoration |
"The Christian Right embraces obedience, inequality, intolerance, and strong intrusive government."
Wikipedia is my friend.
Christian right or religious right is a term used mainly in the United States to label conservative Christian political factions that are characterized by their strong support of socially conservative policies. Christian conservatives principally seek to apply their understanding of the teachings of Christianity to politics and to public policy by proclaiming the value of those teachings or by seeking to use those teachings to influence law and public policy.[1]
In the U.S., the Christian right is an informal coalition formed around a core of evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics.[2][3][4] The Christian right draws additional support from politically conservative mainline Protestants, Jews, and Mormons.[2][5] The movement has its roots in American politics going back as far as the 1940s and has been especially influential since the 1970s.[6][7] Its influence draws, in part, from grassroots activism as well as from focus on social issues and from the ability to motivate the electorate around those issues.[8] The Christian right is notable today for advancing socially conservative positions on issues including school prayer, intelligent design, embryonic stem cell research,[9] homosexuality,[10] contraception, abortion,[11]and pornography.[12] Although the term "Christian right" is most commonly associated with politics in the United States, similar Christian conservative groups can be found in the political cultures of other Christian-majority nations.
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
School prayer in public schools violates the Establishment Clause of our Bill of Rights.
Evolution makes Christian retards cry. Teaching childish religious bullshit like "magical intelligent design creationism" in public schools violates the Establishment Clause of our Bill of Rights.
Embryonic stem cell research makes Christian assholes cry so they try to suppress it. Christian scum contribute nothing to human progress. They just get in the way.
Abortion makes Christian crybabies cry. Christian assholes can't mind their own fucking business. They are constantly sticking their nose into other people's private lives. I never met a Christian who wasn't a stupid fucking asshole.
The 1964 Republican candidate for President of the United States, Barry Goldwater, predicted Christian scum would destroy the Republican Party and he was right.
“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”
-- Barry M. Goldwater
"However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in “A,” “B,” “C,” and “D.” Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of conservatism."
– Senator Barry Goldwater
Christian right or religious right is a term used mainly in the United States to label conservative Christian political factions that are characterized by their strong support of socially conservative policies. Christian conservatives principally seek to apply their understanding of the teachings of Christianity to politics and to public policy by proclaiming the value of those teachings or by seeking to use those teachings to influence law and public policy.[1]
In the U.S., the Christian right is an informal coalition formed around a core of evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics.[2][3][4] The Christian right draws additional support from politically conservative mainline Protestants, Jews, and Mormons.[2][5] The movement has its roots in American politics going back as far as the 1940s and has been especially influential since the 1970s.[6][7] Its influence draws, in part, from grassroots activism as well as from focus on social issues and from the ability to motivate the electorate around those issues.[8] The Christian right is notable today for advancing socially conservative positions on issues including school prayer, intelligent design, embryonic stem cell research,[9] homosexuality,[10] contraception, abortion,[11]and pornography.[12] Although the term "Christian right" is most commonly associated with politics in the United States, similar Christian conservative groups can be found in the political cultures of other Christian-majority nations.
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
School prayer in public schools violates the Establishment Clause of our Bill of Rights.
Evolution makes Christian retards cry. Teaching childish religious bullshit like "magical intelligent design creationism" in public schools violates the Establishment Clause of our Bill of Rights.
Embryonic stem cell research makes Christian assholes cry so they try to suppress it. Christian scum contribute nothing to human progress. They just get in the way.
Abortion makes Christian crybabies cry. Christian assholes can't mind their own fucking business. They are constantly sticking their nose into other people's private lives. I never met a Christian who wasn't a stupid fucking asshole.
The 1964 Republican candidate for President of the United States, Barry Goldwater, predicted Christian scum would destroy the Republican Party and he was right.
“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”
-- Barry M. Goldwater
"However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in “A,” “B,” “C,” and “D.” Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of conservatism."
– Senator Barry Goldwater
One more time to help religious nutjobs understand.
Mr. God, also known as the Magic Man, is not real.
How do I know this? There is no magic in the universe therefore Magic God Fairies and Magic Easter Bunnies are impossible.
How do I know this? There is no magic in the universe therefore Magic God Fairies and Magic Easter Bunnies are impossible.
Iran's Supreme Asshole, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, needs to be tortured and killed.
Iranian Supreme Leader Urges Women to Wear Head Scarves to Avoid ‘Deviant Lifestyle’. Comments come during regime crackdown on social unrest.
By Asa Fitch and Aresu Eqbali Updated March 8, 2018
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, seeking to stop women removing their head scarves in public, defended the garments Thursday, saying wearing them protected against “a deviant lifestyle.”
The comments were the first from Iran’s most powerful figure since the spread of a movement in which women remove their head scarves, or hijabs, in the streets, to protest against laws requiring them to don them in public places. Scores of women have been captured on video with their heads uncovered in 2018 in cities and towns across the country.
“By promoting modest dress (#hijab), #Islam has blocked the path which would lead women to such a deviant lifestyle,” Mr. Khamenei said Thursday on his official Twitteraccount. “Hijab is a means of immunity, not restriction.”
“The western model for women is symbolic of consumerism, cosmetics, showing off for men as a tool of male sexual arousal,” he said in another tweet.
Women have protested against wearing the hijab for decades, but the displays of defiance entered a new phase late in 2017, when a 31-year-old mother named Vida Movahed clambered onto an electrical box on a busy Tehran street, took her head scarf off and waved it from the end of a stick.
As the number of women engaging in similar protests and video shared of them on social media has grown into the hundreds, the authorities have clamped down. In early February, Tehran police said they had arrested 29 protesters.
Ms. Movahed was arrested and released after a few weeks. On Wednesday, Tehran’s chief prosecutor announced that an unidentified hijab protester had been sentenced to two years in prison, signaling that others may be dealt with more harshly. The identity of the person sentenced couldn’t be independently determined and a request for comment from Iran’s United Nations mission in New York wasn’t immediately met.
Women have traditionally been given far lighter penalties for hijab violations, although immorality statutes allow for one to 10 years’ imprisonment.
The prosecutor, Abbas Jafari Dolatabadi, also said women seen driving without their headscarves would have their cars impounded, according to the judiciary’s official Mizan Online news agency.
The moves come as Iran’s regime contends with wider social discontent that boiled over in late December and early January with a wave of protests over economic grievances and political disenfranchisement. Those demonstrations, the biggest in nearly a decade, died down after two weeks in the wake of a crackdown by security forces.
As the authorities move to quell dissent, a public outcry has grown over the treatment of people caught in the net. Kavous Seyed Emami, a 63-year-old Canadian-Iranian environmental activist arrested during January’s crackdown and accused of spying, died in February in Tehran’s Evin Prison under what his family said were suspicious circumstances. The authorities called it a suicide, an explanation family members don't accept.
Mr. Seyed Emami’s family say they have faced continued harassment by the authorities since raising the alarm internationally about his death. On Wednesday, family members boarded a plane to flee to Canada, but the authorities barred Mr. Seyed Emami’s wife from leaving, according to his son Ramin.
“The emotional damage and distress that we’ve endured are beyond comprehension,” Ramin Seyed Emami said after arriving in Vancouver on Thursday.
He said his family has endured threats and harassment from Iranian authorities since his father’s death. He said his mother’s passport was confiscated.
“She said I just want you guys to be safe and away from this horrible place, and no matter what happens to me don’t ever come back,” Mr. Seyed Emami said.
He said he and his brother were pressured not to speak about their father’s case. “But we will not be silenced,” he said.
Canada’s foreign minister, Chrystia Freeland, posted about the case on Twitter on Wednesday. “I am outraged to learn that Maryam Mombeini, widow of Kavous Seyed-Emami, was barred from leaving Iran. We demand that, as a Canadian, she be given the freedom to return home,” Ms. Freeland wrote. She also spoke with Ms. Mombeini earlier on Thursday, according to a spokesman.
Even after the nationwide protests ended, worker strikes over unpaid salaries have continued amid economic stagnation exacerbated by Iran’s weakening currency. Steelworkers, railway workers and employees of a sugar-production outfit are among those who have aired grievances since January, sometimes drawing security crackdowns and arrests.
“The regime has done nothing to accommodate labor demands besides using repression,” said Alireza Nader, the chief executive of the Nader Research Group.
The hijab protests, which U.S.-based activist Masih Alinejad has helped organize under a campaign called My Stealthy Freedom, have persisted alongside other forms of unrest.
“Compulsory hijab is a backward law,” Ms. Alinejad tweeted Tuesday, ahead of a weekly anti-hijab protest dubbed White Wednesdays. “We will take to the streets.”
—Kim Mackrael in Ottawa contributed to this article.
Write to Asa Fitch at asa.fitch@wsj.com
Appeared in the March 9, 2018, print edition as 'Iran’s Top Leader Urges Women to Wear Head Scarves to Avoid ‘Deviant Lifestyle’.'
By Asa Fitch and Aresu Eqbali Updated March 8, 2018
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, seeking to stop women removing their head scarves in public, defended the garments Thursday, saying wearing them protected against “a deviant lifestyle.”
The comments were the first from Iran’s most powerful figure since the spread of a movement in which women remove their head scarves, or hijabs, in the streets, to protest against laws requiring them to don them in public places. Scores of women have been captured on video with their heads uncovered in 2018 in cities and towns across the country.
“By promoting modest dress (#hijab), #Islam has blocked the path which would lead women to such a deviant lifestyle,” Mr. Khamenei said Thursday on his official Twitteraccount. “Hijab is a means of immunity, not restriction.”
“The western model for women is symbolic of consumerism, cosmetics, showing off for men as a tool of male sexual arousal,” he said in another tweet.
Women have protested against wearing the hijab for decades, but the displays of defiance entered a new phase late in 2017, when a 31-year-old mother named Vida Movahed clambered onto an electrical box on a busy Tehran street, took her head scarf off and waved it from the end of a stick.
As the number of women engaging in similar protests and video shared of them on social media has grown into the hundreds, the authorities have clamped down. In early February, Tehran police said they had arrested 29 protesters.
Ms. Movahed was arrested and released after a few weeks. On Wednesday, Tehran’s chief prosecutor announced that an unidentified hijab protester had been sentenced to two years in prison, signaling that others may be dealt with more harshly. The identity of the person sentenced couldn’t be independently determined and a request for comment from Iran’s United Nations mission in New York wasn’t immediately met.
Women have traditionally been given far lighter penalties for hijab violations, although immorality statutes allow for one to 10 years’ imprisonment.
The prosecutor, Abbas Jafari Dolatabadi, also said women seen driving without their headscarves would have their cars impounded, according to the judiciary’s official Mizan Online news agency.
The moves come as Iran’s regime contends with wider social discontent that boiled over in late December and early January with a wave of protests over economic grievances and political disenfranchisement. Those demonstrations, the biggest in nearly a decade, died down after two weeks in the wake of a crackdown by security forces.
As the authorities move to quell dissent, a public outcry has grown over the treatment of people caught in the net. Kavous Seyed Emami, a 63-year-old Canadian-Iranian environmental activist arrested during January’s crackdown and accused of spying, died in February in Tehran’s Evin Prison under what his family said were suspicious circumstances. The authorities called it a suicide, an explanation family members don't accept.
Mr. Seyed Emami’s family say they have faced continued harassment by the authorities since raising the alarm internationally about his death. On Wednesday, family members boarded a plane to flee to Canada, but the authorities barred Mr. Seyed Emami’s wife from leaving, according to his son Ramin.
“The emotional damage and distress that we’ve endured are beyond comprehension,” Ramin Seyed Emami said after arriving in Vancouver on Thursday.
He said his family has endured threats and harassment from Iranian authorities since his father’s death. He said his mother’s passport was confiscated.
“She said I just want you guys to be safe and away from this horrible place, and no matter what happens to me don’t ever come back,” Mr. Seyed Emami said.
He said he and his brother were pressured not to speak about their father’s case. “But we will not be silenced,” he said.
Canada’s foreign minister, Chrystia Freeland, posted about the case on Twitter on Wednesday. “I am outraged to learn that Maryam Mombeini, widow of Kavous Seyed-Emami, was barred from leaving Iran. We demand that, as a Canadian, she be given the freedom to return home,” Ms. Freeland wrote. She also spoke with Ms. Mombeini earlier on Thursday, according to a spokesman.
Even after the nationwide protests ended, worker strikes over unpaid salaries have continued amid economic stagnation exacerbated by Iran’s weakening currency. Steelworkers, railway workers and employees of a sugar-production outfit are among those who have aired grievances since January, sometimes drawing security crackdowns and arrests.
“The regime has done nothing to accommodate labor demands besides using repression,” said Alireza Nader, the chief executive of the Nader Research Group.
The hijab protests, which U.S.-based activist Masih Alinejad has helped organize under a campaign called My Stealthy Freedom, have persisted alongside other forms of unrest.
“Compulsory hijab is a backward law,” Ms. Alinejad tweeted Tuesday, ahead of a weekly anti-hijab protest dubbed White Wednesdays. “We will take to the streets.”
—Kim Mackrael in Ottawa contributed to this article.
Write to Asa Fitch at asa.fitch@wsj.com
Appeared in the March 9, 2018, print edition as 'Iran’s Top Leader Urges Women to Wear Head Scarves to Avoid ‘Deviant Lifestyle’.'
Friday, March 9, 2018
I agree with what Jerry Coyne wrote about North Korea, especially "Trump is an idiot". Click the link if you want to see the 71 comments.
Why talks with North Korea won’t succeed
While everyone seems to be heartened by the sudden announcement that Donald Trump will meet Kim Jong-un to negotiate for the DPRK’s suspension of either nuclear testing or building weapons, I am not optimistic. (I hope I’m wrong, but I doubt it.) There are three reasons.
1.) Trump will be meeting with Kim Jon-un, and Trump is an idiot—far less savvy than the North Korean leader. The U.S., as before, will be played.
2.) Kim Jong-un, and his predecessors, have no intention of abandoning their nuclear program, which is their one assurance against attack by the West.
3.) In the last decade and a half, North Korea has agreed to freeze its nuclear program and/or halt missile tests three times. It’s violated all three agreements. Why should we trust them now, especially in view of the spate of missile tests and bigger weapons?
Yes, I know it’s better to seem optimistic than pessimistic, for if talks don’t work, the alternatives are either that the status quo will continue (my own view) or unthinkable war will happen. But my prediction is that, five years from now, North Korea will have missiles capable of hitting everywhere in the U.S., they won’t use them, and we’ll just have another nuclear power on the planet.
While everyone seems to be heartened by the sudden announcement that Donald Trump will meet Kim Jong-un to negotiate for the DPRK’s suspension of either nuclear testing or building weapons, I am not optimistic. (I hope I’m wrong, but I doubt it.) There are three reasons.
1.) Trump will be meeting with Kim Jon-un, and Trump is an idiot—far less savvy than the North Korean leader. The U.S., as before, will be played.
2.) Kim Jong-un, and his predecessors, have no intention of abandoning their nuclear program, which is their one assurance against attack by the West.
3.) In the last decade and a half, North Korea has agreed to freeze its nuclear program and/or halt missile tests three times. It’s violated all three agreements. Why should we trust them now, especially in view of the spate of missile tests and bigger weapons?
Yes, I know it’s better to seem optimistic than pessimistic, for if talks don’t work, the alternatives are either that the status quo will continue (my own view) or unthinkable war will happen. But my prediction is that, five years from now, North Korea will have missiles capable of hitting everywhere in the U.S., they won’t use them, and we’ll just have another nuclear power on the planet.
Approximately 620,000 soldiers died from combat, accident, starvation, and disease during America's Civil War.
Approximately 620,000 soldiers died from combat, accident, starvation, and disease during America's Civil War.
Casualties at Gettysburg totaled 23,049 for the Union (3,155 dead, 14,529 wounded, 5,365 missing). Confederate casualties were 28,063 (3,903 dead, 18,735 injured, and 5,425 missing), more than a third of Lee's army.
https://www.arcamax.com/thefunnies/barneyandclyde/
Someone provided links to articles that show the god-soaked are god-soaked because they're morons. I'm saving those links here.
"All the evidence shows atheists are smarter than theists."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the...
http://www.medicaldaily.com/proved-athei...
http://www.asanet.org/research-and-publi...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/religious-people-are-less-intelligent-than-atheists-according-to-analysis-of-scores-of-scientific-8758046.html
http://www.charismanews.com/us/40669-study-suggests-atheists-smarter-than-christians
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2395972/Atheists-higher-IQs-Their-intelligence-makes-likely-dismiss-religion-irrational-unscientific.html
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the...
http://www.medicaldaily.com/proved-athei...
http://www.asanet.org/research-and-publi...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/religious-people-are-less-intelligent-than-atheists-according-to-analysis-of-scores-of-scientific-8758046.html
http://www.charismanews.com/us/40669-study-suggests-atheists-smarter-than-christians
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2395972/Atheists-higher-IQs-Their-intelligence-makes-likely-dismiss-religion-irrational-unscientific.html
There are 5 reasons why millions of American idiots are evolution deniers.
There are 5 reasons why millions of American idiots are evolution deniers.
1. Americans are morons.
2. Religious brainwashing.
3. The Christian war against science education. I never met a Christian who wasn't a stupid fucking asshole.
4. Incompetent biology teachers.
5. America's State Science Standards suck (mostly because of number 3).
This post is about the State Science Standards of all 50 states.
This information is 6 years old but it's probably still very accurate.
Thomas B. Fordham Institute - The State of State Science Standards 2012
"International comparison is even more disheartening. The most recent PISA assessment, released in December 2010, showed fifteen-year-olds in the United States ranking a mediocre twenty-third out of sixty-five countries. By contrast, youngsters in Shanghai ranked first, demonstrating both China’s commitment to science education—and the various bounties that accompany it—and that nation’s capacity to deliver on its educational aspirations."
China is going to kill Idiot America.
Problem 1: An Undermining of Evolution
“Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” So wrote famed biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky in 1973.12 And so it is today. Yet controversy continues to envelop the teaching of evolution in American schools. One wonders, indeed, how much progress we’ve made in this realm since the Scopes trial in 1925. Six years ago, our science reviewers noted that:
The attack on evolution is unabated [since 2000], and Darwin’s critics have evolved a more-subtle, more dangerous approach. A decade ago, the anti-evolution movement...argued vigorously for explicit teaching of the evidence for intelligent design. ...The claim now is that evidence against “Darwinism” exists, that curriculum- makers should include it as an exercise in critical thinking, and that “freedom of speech” or “fairness” requires that they do so. The hidden agenda is to introduce doubt—any possible doubt—about evolution at the critical early stage of introduction to the relevant science.
While many states are handling evolution better today than in the past, anti-evolution pressures continue to threaten state science standards. In June 2008, for example, Louisiana passed its infamous Science Education Act, ostensibly an “academic freedoms act” meant to give teachers and students legal cover to debate the merits and veracity of scienti c theories. In practice, the measure pushes a pro-creationist agenda—and gives cover to those looking to teach intelligent design creationism. Though the act is a free-standing statute with no direct link to the Pelican State’s academic standards, it does damage by allowing for the introduction of creationist teaching supplements—thereby affecting classroom instruction without explicitly altering the state’s standards.
Louisiana is not the only state that has tried to undermine the teaching of evolution through legislation. In 2011 alone, eight anti-evolution bills were introduced in six state legislatures. (Thankfully, none made it into law.) And two similar bills were pre- led in New Hampshire for the 2012 legislative session,15 as well as one in Indiana.
Of course, most anti-evolution efforts are aimed more directly at the standards themselves. And these tactics are far more subtle than they once were. Missouri, for example, has asterisked all “controversial” evolution content in the standards and relegated it to a voluntary curriculum that will not be assessed. (Sadly, this marks a step back from that state’s coverage of evolution in 2005.) And Maryland includes evolution content in its Kindergarten through eighth-grade standards but explicitly excludes crucial points from its state assessment.
Other states have undermined the teaching of evolution by singling it out as somehow not quite as “scienti c” as other concepts of similar breadth. A common technique—used to a greater or lesser extent by Colorado, Missouri, Montana, and West Virginia—is to direct students to study its “strengths and weaknesses.”
Far too often, important evolution content is included, but minimally. Some states mention evolution just once in their standards and never revisit it. Others—including Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, and Nebraska— unnecessarily delay it until high school.
Even some of the nation’s best standards subtly undermine the teaching of evolution. In California, for example, students are told to “understand science, not necessarily [to] accept everything taught.” In New York, students learn that “according to many scientists, biological evolution occurs through natural selection.” (This is not according to “many” but, in fact, all true scientists.)
Finally, conspicuously missing from the vast majority of states’ standards is mention of human evolution—implying that elements of biological evolution don’t pertain to human life. This marks a subtle but important victory for creationists: Even states with thorough and appropriate coverage of evolution (e.g., Massachusetts, Utah, and Washington) shy away from linking the controversial term with ourselves. Only four states—Florida, New Hampshire, Iowa, and Rhode Island—openly embrace human evolution in their current science standards. (Pennsylvania, which referenced human evolution in its previous standards, has omitted it from the more recent version.)
There are 50 states but I'm only going to choose Alabama and Louisiana and only the stuff about evolution. If people want more information about the American morons of the other states they can click this link.
ALABAMA
At the high school level, biology is mostly good and includes some biochemistry and lots of genetics and environmental material. The high school course electives—genetics, botany, and human physiology—are also substantive. That said, there is one glaring deficient with the Alabama biology standards. Evolution, which should be a front-and-center feature of genetics, is all but absent.
Alabama is clearly frightened by the “E-word”—a phobia from which most other states have recovered. The term “evolution” occurs exactly once in the basic biology course, once more in the genetics elective course, not at all in any of the other seven life science electives, and (despite those intimations) never prior to high school. Perhaps this is not surprising, given that the Alabama Department of Education of cially considers creationism, an explicitly religious and non-scientific position, to be a form of evolution.
The high school biology course has only this to say about evolution:
Describe protective adaptations of animals, including mimicry, camou age, beak type, migration, and hibernation.
Identifying ways in which the theory of evolution explains the nature and diversity of organisms
Describing natural selection, survival of the fittest, geographic isolation, and fossil record. (high school biology)
The odd implication here is that evolution and natural selection are sub-categories of the listed adaptations, rather than the center of the entire study. What are otherwise reasonable standards are marred by this agrant omission of this central tenet of the life sciences.
LOUISIANA
The Louisiana science standards are reasonably challenging and comprehensive, but they suffer from a devastating flaw: Thanks to the state’s 2008 Science Education Act, which promotes creationism instead of science, the standards (especially for biology and life science) are haunted by anti-science influences that threaten biology education in the state.
The most significant drawback to the standards covering Kindergarten through eighth grade is the omission of evolution. Indeed, the term evolution doesn’t appear at all. Instead, eighth graders are asked only to:
Compare fossils from different geologic eras and areas of Earth to show that life changes over time. (grade 8)
Asking students to understand that life changes over time is not the same thing as asking them to learn the building blocks of evolutionary theory.
Fortunately, the high school coverage of evolution is reasonably strong. Tenth graders, for example, are asked to:
Analyze evidence on biological evolution, utilizing descriptions of existing investigations, computer models, and fossil records. (high school biology)
MY COMMENT: The problem with Louisiana is the teachers who are allowed to spread lies about evolution and teach magical creationism. When Louisiana interviews a biology teacher they ask "Are you an evolution denier?" If the answer is yes they say "You're hired."
1. Americans are morons.
2. Religious brainwashing.
3. The Christian war against science education. I never met a Christian who wasn't a stupid fucking asshole.
4. Incompetent biology teachers.
5. America's State Science Standards suck (mostly because of number 3).
This post is about the State Science Standards of all 50 states.
This information is 6 years old but it's probably still very accurate.
Thomas B. Fordham Institute - The State of State Science Standards 2012
"International comparison is even more disheartening. The most recent PISA assessment, released in December 2010, showed fifteen-year-olds in the United States ranking a mediocre twenty-third out of sixty-five countries. By contrast, youngsters in Shanghai ranked first, demonstrating both China’s commitment to science education—and the various bounties that accompany it—and that nation’s capacity to deliver on its educational aspirations."
China is going to kill Idiot America.
Problem 1: An Undermining of Evolution
“Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” So wrote famed biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky in 1973.12 And so it is today. Yet controversy continues to envelop the teaching of evolution in American schools. One wonders, indeed, how much progress we’ve made in this realm since the Scopes trial in 1925. Six years ago, our science reviewers noted that:
The attack on evolution is unabated [since 2000], and Darwin’s critics have evolved a more-subtle, more dangerous approach. A decade ago, the anti-evolution movement...argued vigorously for explicit teaching of the evidence for intelligent design. ...The claim now is that evidence against “Darwinism” exists, that curriculum- makers should include it as an exercise in critical thinking, and that “freedom of speech” or “fairness” requires that they do so. The hidden agenda is to introduce doubt—any possible doubt—about evolution at the critical early stage of introduction to the relevant science.
While many states are handling evolution better today than in the past, anti-evolution pressures continue to threaten state science standards. In June 2008, for example, Louisiana passed its infamous Science Education Act, ostensibly an “academic freedoms act” meant to give teachers and students legal cover to debate the merits and veracity of scienti c theories. In practice, the measure pushes a pro-creationist agenda—and gives cover to those looking to teach intelligent design creationism. Though the act is a free-standing statute with no direct link to the Pelican State’s academic standards, it does damage by allowing for the introduction of creationist teaching supplements—thereby affecting classroom instruction without explicitly altering the state’s standards.
Louisiana is not the only state that has tried to undermine the teaching of evolution through legislation. In 2011 alone, eight anti-evolution bills were introduced in six state legislatures. (Thankfully, none made it into law.) And two similar bills were pre- led in New Hampshire for the 2012 legislative session,15 as well as one in Indiana.
Of course, most anti-evolution efforts are aimed more directly at the standards themselves. And these tactics are far more subtle than they once were. Missouri, for example, has asterisked all “controversial” evolution content in the standards and relegated it to a voluntary curriculum that will not be assessed. (Sadly, this marks a step back from that state’s coverage of evolution in 2005.) And Maryland includes evolution content in its Kindergarten through eighth-grade standards but explicitly excludes crucial points from its state assessment.
Other states have undermined the teaching of evolution by singling it out as somehow not quite as “scienti c” as other concepts of similar breadth. A common technique—used to a greater or lesser extent by Colorado, Missouri, Montana, and West Virginia—is to direct students to study its “strengths and weaknesses.”
Far too often, important evolution content is included, but minimally. Some states mention evolution just once in their standards and never revisit it. Others—including Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, and Nebraska— unnecessarily delay it until high school.
Even some of the nation’s best standards subtly undermine the teaching of evolution. In California, for example, students are told to “understand science, not necessarily [to] accept everything taught.” In New York, students learn that “according to many scientists, biological evolution occurs through natural selection.” (This is not according to “many” but, in fact, all true scientists.)
Finally, conspicuously missing from the vast majority of states’ standards is mention of human evolution—implying that elements of biological evolution don’t pertain to human life. This marks a subtle but important victory for creationists: Even states with thorough and appropriate coverage of evolution (e.g., Massachusetts, Utah, and Washington) shy away from linking the controversial term with ourselves. Only four states—Florida, New Hampshire, Iowa, and Rhode Island—openly embrace human evolution in their current science standards. (Pennsylvania, which referenced human evolution in its previous standards, has omitted it from the more recent version.)
There are 50 states but I'm only going to choose Alabama and Louisiana and only the stuff about evolution. If people want more information about the American morons of the other states they can click this link.
ALABAMA
At the high school level, biology is mostly good and includes some biochemistry and lots of genetics and environmental material. The high school course electives—genetics, botany, and human physiology—are also substantive. That said, there is one glaring deficient with the Alabama biology standards. Evolution, which should be a front-and-center feature of genetics, is all but absent.
Alabama is clearly frightened by the “E-word”—a phobia from which most other states have recovered. The term “evolution” occurs exactly once in the basic biology course, once more in the genetics elective course, not at all in any of the other seven life science electives, and (despite those intimations) never prior to high school. Perhaps this is not surprising, given that the Alabama Department of Education of cially considers creationism, an explicitly religious and non-scientific position, to be a form of evolution.
The high school biology course has only this to say about evolution:
Describe protective adaptations of animals, including mimicry, camou age, beak type, migration, and hibernation.
Identifying ways in which the theory of evolution explains the nature and diversity of organisms
Describing natural selection, survival of the fittest, geographic isolation, and fossil record. (high school biology)
The odd implication here is that evolution and natural selection are sub-categories of the listed adaptations, rather than the center of the entire study. What are otherwise reasonable standards are marred by this agrant omission of this central tenet of the life sciences.
LOUISIANA
The Louisiana science standards are reasonably challenging and comprehensive, but they suffer from a devastating flaw: Thanks to the state’s 2008 Science Education Act, which promotes creationism instead of science, the standards (especially for biology and life science) are haunted by anti-science influences that threaten biology education in the state.
The most significant drawback to the standards covering Kindergarten through eighth grade is the omission of evolution. Indeed, the term evolution doesn’t appear at all. Instead, eighth graders are asked only to:
Compare fossils from different geologic eras and areas of Earth to show that life changes over time. (grade 8)
Asking students to understand that life changes over time is not the same thing as asking them to learn the building blocks of evolutionary theory.
Fortunately, the high school coverage of evolution is reasonably strong. Tenth graders, for example, are asked to:
Analyze evidence on biological evolution, utilizing descriptions of existing investigations, computer models, and fossil records. (high school biology)
MY COMMENT: The problem with Louisiana is the teachers who are allowed to spread lies about evolution and teach magical creationism. When Louisiana interviews a biology teacher they ask "Are you an evolution denier?" If the answer is yes they say "You're hired."
Why the magic god fairy was invented and why we don't need the thing anymore.
Ancient know-nothing people invented the Magic Man to explain what they didn't understand. "God did it, problem solved."
Here in the 21st century we know things these days. The magic god fairy of the gaps has run out of hiding places. The god fairy's magic wand is no longer necessary therefore the thing is not real.
Morons didn't get the memo.
Here in the 21st century we know things these days. The magic god fairy of the gaps has run out of hiding places. The god fairy's magic wand is no longer necessary therefore the thing is not real.
Morons didn't get the memo.
Theistic evolution is magical creationism. It's not science.
The pope is OK with evolution but only if Jeebus was one of the mechanisms. In Idiot America there are millions of Catholics who want to throw out all of evolution. They didn't get or did not agree with the pope's memo.
Evolution is a basic fact of science and the magic god fairy had absolutely nothing to do with it. When people stick their dead Jeebus into evolution that's magical creationism. Magic is not science. These idiots for Jeebus are science deniers whether or not they pretend to accept the science.
Evolution is a basic fact of science and the magic god fairy had absolutely nothing to do with it. When people stick their dead Jeebus into evolution that's magical creationism. Magic is not science. These idiots for Jeebus are science deniers whether or not they pretend to accept the science.
Most Wall Street Journal subscribers are god-soaked fucktards. However there are some normal people. Not many but they exist.
A normal person, aka atheist, wrote this excellent comment:
"Before we take a stab at the Muslim religion - which I’m about to - don't all you other religious nuts think you’re any different. The Arab women are repressed because of a silly belief in some writing. When will the humans of this planet open their eyes and realize there isn’t a god, or whatever you worship, and you are not part of some master plan. When you die - you die - end of story."
"Let the hate relies begin."
Wimpy atheist wimps are worse than the religious scum they suck up to.
An atheist wimp wrote this disgusting gibberish at the god-soaked Wall Street Journal.
"I too am an atheist, but I see no reason to denigrate individuals who do believe in a deity and try to live good and moral lives. I am happy to live in a country where my essential rights are purported to be granted by God and so are inalienable, and not be at the mercy of some government or individual."
This is what I wrote for the wimpy asshole:
"I too am an atheist, but I see no reason to denigrate individuals who do believe in a deity and try to live good and moral lives. "
I did not "denigrate individuals". I criticized their ridiculous fantasies. You are trying to suppress my freedom of speech.
"good and moral lives."
They brainwash children. You're OK with this child abuse.
"I am happy to live in a country where my essential rights are purported to be granted by God and so are inalienable"
If you're really an atheist then I'm the pope.
In her book Ayaan Hirsi Ali described in great detail the pain she had to endure when her body was mutilated for religious reasons. But you're OK with it because you don't want to denigrate individuals.
Fine with me. Nobody cares. Just don't give people are hard time because they have zero tolerance for child abuse.
"I too am an atheist, but I see no reason to denigrate individuals who do believe in a deity and try to live good and moral lives. I am happy to live in a country where my essential rights are purported to be granted by God and so are inalienable, and not be at the mercy of some government or individual."
This is what I wrote for the wimpy asshole:
"I too am an atheist, but I see no reason to denigrate individuals who do believe in a deity and try to live good and moral lives. "
I did not "denigrate individuals". I criticized their ridiculous fantasies. You are trying to suppress my freedom of speech.
"good and moral lives."
They brainwash children. You're OK with this child abuse.
"I am happy to live in a country where my essential rights are purported to be granted by God and so are inalienable"
If you're really an atheist then I'm the pope.
In her book Ayaan Hirsi Ali described in great detail the pain she had to endure when her body was mutilated for religious reasons. But you're OK with it because you don't want to denigrate individuals.
Fine with me. Nobody cares. Just don't give people are hard time because they have zero tolerance for child abuse.
Thursday, March 8, 2018
Eastern dwarf tree frog
Eastern dwarf tree frog
| Eastern dwarf tree frog1 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Scientific classification | |
| Kingdom: | Animalia |
| Phylum: | Chordata |
| Class: | Amphibia |
| Order: | Anura |
| Family: | Hylidae |
| Genus: | Litoria |
| Species: | L. fallax |
| Binomial name | |
| Litoria fallax Peters, 1880 | |
 | |
| Eastern dwarf tree frog distribution | |
| Synonyms | |
Hylomantis fallax Peters, 1880
| |
The eastern dwarf tree frog or eastern sedge-frog (Litoria fallax), is a small and very common tree frog found on the eastern coast of Australia, from around Cairns, Queensland, to around Ulladulla, New South Wales. Individual frogs of this species are often found elsewhere, having been accidentally relocated by transported fruit boxes. Confirmed sightings of breeding pairs have confirmed their survival in Victoria's cooler climate.
 |
Eastern dwarf tree frog |
Some interesting science, living fossils.
 |
| The coelacanths were thought to have gone extinct 65 million years ago, until a living specimen belonging to the order was discovered in 1938. |
 |
| The coelacanth fish lives in deep-sea caves off the coast of Africa. |
The 'living fossil' coelacanth fish left behind by evolution.
One of the few species to have hardly changed in tens of millions of years
Steve Connor Wednesday 17 April 2013
A deep-sea fish which became known as a “living fossil” has not changed in appearance since before the time of the dinosaurs with the help of an extraordinary genome that is barely evolving, a study has found.
The coelacanth, which lives in deep-sea caves off the coast of Africa, was once known only from its fossils and so was thought to have gone extinct at least 70 million years ago until a recently-dead specimen was discovered by South African fishermen in 1938.
It is one of the few species to have hardly changed in tens of millions of years and now scientists believe this physical stability is mirrored in the coelacanth’s genome – the 3 billion “letters” of its DNA code.
“We found that the genes overall are evolving significantly slower than in every other fish and land vertebrate that we looked at. This is the first time that we’ve had a big enough gene set to really see that,” said Jessica Alföldi, a research scientist at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard in Massachusetts.
Charles Darwin first coined the term “living fossil” to describe species that have endured unchanged due to limited competition with other animals. However, Dr Alfoldi said that the description is not always helpful because it suggests a relic from the past that has been brought back to life.
“It's not a living fossil; it’s a living organism. It doesn’t live in a time bubble; it lives in our world, which is why it’s so fascinating to find out that its genes are evolving more slowly than ours,” she said.
Coelacanths grow about four feet long and have conspicuously fleshy fins that resemble the limbs of four-legged land animals with backbones, the vertebrate “tetrapods” such as frogs, lizards and mammals. This and their ancient lineage suggested they may be closely related to the first fish that made the evolutionary transition from sea to land.
Scientists have speculated as to whether the unchanging physical appearance of the coelacanth was truly because it was evolving slowly, or whether its DNA was somehow evolving just as rapidly as other species.
The complete coelacanth genome shows that the genes do indeed match the fish’s appearance in terms of slower evolution, the researchers say in a study published in the journal Nature.
The genes of the coelacanth have a lower rate of “substitution” – a type of mutation – than other animals with backbones, which may reflect the fact that they do not need to evolve quickly because they live in the relatively unchanging environment of deep-sea caves where there are few predators, the researchers say.
“We often talk about how species have changed over time. But there are still a few places on Earth where organisms don’t have to change, and this is one of them,” said Kerstin Lindblad-Toh, scientific director of the Broad Institute’s vertebrate genome biology group, a co-author of the study.
“Coelacanths are likely very specialized to such a specific, non-changing, extreme environment – it is ideally suited to the deep sea just the way it is,” Dr Lindblad-Toh said
A genome analysis also found that the coelacanth is unlikely to be directly descended from the first fish to walk on land. A more likely candidate is the lungfish, which are closely related but have a much more complicated genome, the scientists said.
More about:
Animals
Biology
Genetics
Nature
Relics
Sea And Ocean
I answered a dumb question.
"Do you worship God or science? You cannot worship both, so which is it?"
I don't worship the magic god fairy. Even if it was real I would not worship it or suck up to it. Of course it's not real. There is no magic in the universe.
I'm very interested in science, especially evolution, but I don't worship it.
I don't worship anything except chicken thighs.
An interesting fact: As everyone knows about 66 million years ago the dinosaurs went extinct. However one branch of dinosaurs, the very small dinosaurs, did survive and eventually evolved into birds. Birds are dinosaurs. Every night I eat dinosaur thighs.
I don't worship the magic god fairy. Even if it was real I would not worship it or suck up to it. Of course it's not real. There is no magic in the universe.
I'm very interested in science, especially evolution, but I don't worship it.
I don't worship anything except chicken thighs.
An interesting fact: As everyone knows about 66 million years ago the dinosaurs went extinct. However one branch of dinosaurs, the very small dinosaurs, did survive and eventually evolved into birds. Birds are dinosaurs. Every night I eat dinosaur thighs.
I found something about religious fucktards. It was well done. The comments had the usual extreme stupid.
Why do religious people require evidence for science, but for your religion all you require is faith?
I find the hypocrisy of this kind of weird. So religious people require evidence for scientific claims, which is good. You should require it, strive to understand it. But when you get an explanation simple enough for a high school freshman to understand it you refuse to accept it, not because you can disprove it but because it must be wrong or else your chosen religion is wrong.
But where is the evidence for your religion? That you never question. That you simple accept on faith. Just like that. Take other religions for instance. When it comes to other religions you need primary sources for the existence of their prophets, your require evidence for their so called miracles and you take nothing at face value. Ironically you become quite atheistic towards other religions. But when it comes to your religion all you need is faith.
I'm sure you will say that you have evidence. But if you really did there wouldn't be hundreds of religions on the planet. Feelings, speaking to yourself, your personal experience in a dream, someone's near death experience or using your holy book to prove your religion is not evidence.
So why is that? Why do you need evidence for evolution, age of the Earth, size of the universe but you require only faith for your religion?
But where is the evidence for your religion? That you never question. That you simple accept on faith. Just like that. Take other religions for instance. When it comes to other religions you need primary sources for the existence of their prophets, your require evidence for their so called miracles and you take nothing at face value. Ironically you become quite atheistic towards other religions. But when it comes to your religion all you need is faith.
I'm sure you will say that you have evidence. But if you really did there wouldn't be hundreds of religions on the planet. Feelings, speaking to yourself, your personal experience in a dream, someone's near death experience or using your holy book to prove your religion is not evidence.
So why is that? Why do you need evidence for evolution, age of the Earth, size of the universe but you require only faith for your religion?
Today is March 8, 2018. International Women's Day is celebrated on March 8 every year. It commemorates the movement for women's rights. Meanwhile a woman will be in prison for two years in Iran. Her terrible crime: Not wearing a headscarf. I never met a Muslim who wasn't a stupid fucking asshole.
Iranian woman who removed headscarf jailed for two years. Prosecutor says woman took off obligatory hijab in Tehran street to ‘encourage corruption’
An Iranian woman who publicly removed her veil in protest against Iran’s compulsory headscarf law has been sentenced to two years in prison, the judiciary said on Wednesday.
Tehran’s chief prosecutor, Abbas Jafari Dolatabadi, who announced the sentence, did not give the woman’s identity but said she intended to appeal against the verdict, the judiciary’s Mizan Online news agency reported.
Dolatabadi said the unidentified woman took off her headscarf in Tehran’s Enghelab Street to “encourage corruption through the removal of the hijab in public”.
The woman will be eligible for parole after three months, but Dolatabadi criticised what he said was a “light” sentence and said he would push for the full two-year penalty.
More than 30 Iranian women have been arrested since the end of December for publically removing their veils in defiance of the law.
Most have been released, but many are being prosecuted.
Women showing their hair in public in Iran are usually sentenced to far shorter terms of two months or less, and fined $25.
Iranian law, in place since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, stipulates that all women, Iranian or foreign, Muslim or non-Muslim, must be fully veiled in public at all times.
But the zeal of the country’s morality police has declined in the past two decades, and a growing number of Iranian women in Tehran and other large cities often wear loose veils that reveal their hair.
In some areas of the capital, women are regularly seen driving cars with veils draped over their shoulders.
Dolatabadi said he would no longer accept such behaviour, and had ordered the impound of vehicles driven by socially rebellious women.
The prosecutor said some “tolerance” was possible when it came to women who wear the veil loosely, “but we must act with force against people who deliberately question the rules on the Islamic veil”, according to Mizan Online.
An Iranian woman who publicly removed her veil in protest against Iran’s compulsory headscarf law has been sentenced to two years in prison, the judiciary said on Wednesday.
Tehran’s chief prosecutor, Abbas Jafari Dolatabadi, who announced the sentence, did not give the woman’s identity but said she intended to appeal against the verdict, the judiciary’s Mizan Online news agency reported.
Dolatabadi said the unidentified woman took off her headscarf in Tehran’s Enghelab Street to “encourage corruption through the removal of the hijab in public”.
The woman will be eligible for parole after three months, but Dolatabadi criticised what he said was a “light” sentence and said he would push for the full two-year penalty.
More than 30 Iranian women have been arrested since the end of December for publically removing their veils in defiance of the law.
Most have been released, but many are being prosecuted.
Women showing their hair in public in Iran are usually sentenced to far shorter terms of two months or less, and fined $25.
Iranian law, in place since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, stipulates that all women, Iranian or foreign, Muslim or non-Muslim, must be fully veiled in public at all times.
But the zeal of the country’s morality police has declined in the past two decades, and a growing number of Iranian women in Tehran and other large cities often wear loose veils that reveal their hair.
In some areas of the capital, women are regularly seen driving cars with veils draped over their shoulders.
Dolatabadi said he would no longer accept such behaviour, and had ordered the impound of vehicles driven by socially rebellious women.
The prosecutor said some “tolerance” was possible when it came to women who wear the veil loosely, “but we must act with force against people who deliberately question the rules on the Islamic veil”, according to Mizan Online.
 |
| The hijab is obligatory in public in Iran. |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)