Monday, September 9, 2019

Google is my friend. Numerous evidences for evolution. Looking things up is a wonderful thing.

What is the strongest evidence for evolution?

One of the strongest evidences for common descent comes from gene sequences. Comparative sequence analysis examines the relationship between the DNA sequences of different species, producing several lines of evidence that confirm Darwin's original hypothesis of common descent.

•••••••••••••••••••••••

Comparative anatomy has long served as evidence for evolution, now joined in that role by comparative genomics; it indicates that organisms share a common ancestor. It also assists scientists in classifying organisms based on similar characteristics of their anatomical structures.

•••••••••••••••••••••••

Is Evolution a Fact?

Scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those facts in a coherent manner. Evolution, in this context, is both a fact and a theory. It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth.

•••••••••••••••••••••••

Why do scientists consider vestigial structures Evidence for Evolution?

Vestigial structures are often homologous to structures that are functioning normally in other species. Therefore, vestigial structures can be considered the evidence for evolution, the process by which beneficial heritable traits arise in populations over an extended period of time.

•••••••••••••••••••••••

What is the common ancestor theory?

Common descent describes how, in evolutionary biology, a group of organisms share a most recent common ancestor. There is massive evidence of common descent of all life on Earth from the last universal common ancestor (LUCA).

•••••••••••••••••••••••

How do comparative embryology support the theory of evolution?

The field of comparative embryology aims to understand how embryos develop, and to research the inter-relatedness of animals. It has bolstered evolutionary theory by demonstrating that all vertebrates develop similarly and have a putative common ancestor.

•••••••••••••••••••••••

What species did humans evolve from?

Human evolution is the evolutionary process that led to the emergence of anatomically modern humans, beginning with the evolutionary history of primates—in particular genus Homo—and leading to the emergence of Homo sapiens as a distinct species of the hominid family, the great apes.

•••••••••••••••••••••••

Who created the theory of evolution?

In the early 19th century Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744 – 1829) proposed his theory of the transmutation of species, the first fully formed theory of evolution. In 1858 Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace published a new evolutionary theory, explained in detail in Darwin's On the Origin of Species (1859).

•••••••••••••••••••••••

What is natural selection in evolution?

Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype. It is a key mechanism of evolution, the change in the heritable traits characteristic of a population over generations. ... Variation exists within all populations of organisms.

•••••••••••••••••••••••

What makes a theory a fact?

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

•••••••••••••••••••••••

Did Charles Darwin discover evolution?

Darwin published his theory of evolution with compelling evidence in his 1859 book On the Origin of Species. By the 1870s, the scientific community and a majority of the educated public had accepted evolution as a fact.

•••••••••••••••••••••••

The evolutionary history of life on Earth traces the processes by which living and fossil organisms evolved, from the earliest emergence of life to the present. Earth formed about 4.5 billion years (Ga) ago and evidence suggests life emerged prior to 3.7 Ga.

•••••••••••••••••••••••

What is another name for natural selection?

Natural selection is a central concept of evolution. The English biologist Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace, and is sometimes called the survival of the fittest. Darwin chose the name as an analogy with artificial selection (selective breeding).

•••••••••••••••••••••••

Evidence of Evolution - Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History

Scientists have discovered a wealth of evidence concerning human evolution, and this evidence comes in many forms. Thousands of human fossils enable researchers and students to study the changes that occurred in brain and body size, locomotion, diet, and other aspects regarding the way of life of early human species over the past 6 million years. Millions of stone tools, figurines and paintings, footprints, and other traces of human behavior in the prehistoric record tell about where and how early humans lived and when certain technological innovations were invented. Study of human genetics show how closely related we are to other primates – in fact, how connected we are with all other organisms – and can indicate the prehistoric migrations of our species, Homo sapiens, all over the world. Advances in the dating of fossils and artifacts help determine the age of those remains, which contributes to the big picture of when different milestones in becoming human evolved.

Exciting scientific discoveries continually add to the broader and deeper public knowledge of human evolution. Find out about the latest evidence in our What’s Hot in Human Origins section.

•••••••••••••••••••••••

What I copied and pasted is much less than 0.01% of all the evidences for evolution. There are hundreds of thousands of evidences for evolution and the evidence grows every day.


This blog has 383 posts about the evidence for evolution at evidence for evolution.

I recommend a post I wrote here about 2 years ago. It's about American idiots and their moronic love for magical creationism instead of science. Please click the link.

A survey by "Angus Reid Public Opinion" shows a very high percentage of Americans are evolution deniers. The same survey shows that Canada and the UK do not have this problem.

THE LINK - CLICK ME.

What I wrote at the New York Times about celebrity clown Trump and his opponent in 2016.

New York Times

"More troubling, Mr. Trump’s inability to admit that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016."

We can thank Mrs. Clinton for giving us at least 4 years and maybe 8 years of Trump. She lost to a celebrity clown. That's quite a feat.

Being alive is a good thing.

In northwestern Illinois where I live it's about 8:40 AM. I just made about $850 in the stock market. AT&T is my friend.

It doesn't matter because I will never sell AT&T. I'm only interested in the very nice dividend income.

This is something I wrote on December 28, 2017, about two years ago. It's about the Muslim morons who blow themselves up every fucking day.

Thursday, December 28, 2017.

A big part of being successful is getting thru the day without blowing yourself up. Muslim morons don't understand.

Every fucking day Muslims blow themselves up. What the fuck is their problem?

BBC News - At least 41 people have been killed and more than 80 wounded in a suicide bomb attack in the Afghan capital, Kabul.

Muslim morons are stupid fucking assholes.

Wall Street Journal

On Saturday, Mr. Trump suspended talks between the U.S. and the Taliban in Qatar and said a previously undisclosed peace summit at Camp David was canceled, a move welcomed by Afghan officials.

Mr. Trump cited a car-bomb attack in the east of the Afghan capital Thursday that killed 12 people, including a Romanian and a U.S. soldier, and wounded dozens, for which the Taliban claimed responsibility. This year, 15 other U.S. service members have been killed in Afghanistan.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Today is September 9, 2019. Two days from now it will be September 11, 2019, exactly 18 years since cowardly Muslim assholes murdered 3,000 Americans in one day (September 11, 2001).

The fucktards came here from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Lebanon, and Egypt, but they all worked for fucktard Osama bin Laden who was from Saudi Arabia but lived in Afghanistan.

Osama bin Laden was hiding in Afghanistan so we went there to kill people, especially the Taliban. We found Osama and we killed him. After that did we leave? Of course not. We are still there after 18 years of wasting a few thousand American lives and about one trillion dollars.

Trump wanted to put an end to this bullshit so we have been talking to the Taliban about getting out of there. Unfortunately, during the talks, the Taliban kept blowing themselves up to kill women and children. It's what they do. Like most Muslims, the Taliban like to blow themselves up.

So now it looks like we will never get out of there. And if we do leave then the Taliban will kill the government and make all the women wear black tents.

I suggest, who cares. Fuck Afganistan. It's a shithole country, not worth dying for.

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Wikipedia

The hijackers in the September 11 attacks were 19 men affiliated with al-Qaeda. 15 of the 19 were citizens of Saudi Arabia, two were from the United Arab Emirates, one was from Lebanon, and one was from Egypt.[1] The hijackers were organized into four teams, each led by a pilot-trained hijacker with three or four "muscle hijackers," who were trained to help subdue the pilots, passengers, and crew.

The first hijackers to arrive in the United States were Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, who settled in San Diego County, California, in January 2000. They were followed by three hijacker-pilots, Mohamed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, and Ziad Jarrah in mid-2000 to undertake flight training in South Florida. The fourth hijacker-pilot, Hani Hanjour, arrived in San Diego in December 2000. The rest of the "muscle hijackers" arrived in early- and mid-2001.

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

This thing is easy to fix. Just don't let any more Muslim assholes enter this country. No exceptions. If you're a Muslim fucktard then you can't get in. If you're an ex-Muslim you are welcome to come here.

This was Trump's idea and it's one of the reasons he got the president job despite his breathtaking stupidity. Most Americans, unless they are liberal fucktards, do not want any Muslims in this country. Muslims are scum. If they had any sense of decency they would have thrown out Islam a long time ago.

Since the 9/11 genocide, Muslims have been blowing themselves up every fucking day. Enough is enough. If you're a Muslim moron, get out of my country.




Sunday, September 8, 2019

Muslims are cowardly stupid fucking assholes.

The death of a 21-year-old aspiring makeup artist has activists from around the world calling for justice.

Isra’a Ghrayeb, a Palestinian woman from Bethlehem, was reportedly killed this past Thursday after being allegedly tortured and beaten to death by her brother in a family honour killing.

According to The New Arab, Ghraybeb was killed after posting a video on social media depicting her and her fiance.

Her brother, Ihab — a Canadian citizen — was reportedly angered by the video, believing it was a family dishonour to show herself with her betrothed together before a formal wedding ceremony takes place.

Capitalism works best when the government gets the fuck out of the way.

I found this disgusting bullshit at the New York Times:

"Google, Facebook, Amazon and Apple are targets of government investigations and public outrage, facing accusations that they abuse their power in various ways, from exploiting personal information to stifling rivals."

Public outrage? Bullshit. I don't use Facebook but I could not live without Google, Amazon, and Apple. The government should not be punishing corporations because they are brilliant and successful.

I have an Apple desktop computer that's fantastic. I use Google for free more than 100 times a day for countless reasons. I buy all my stuff from Amazon.

And the fucking government wants to attack this stuff. Fuck you government.

I wrote this about 7 years ago on December 23, 2012. It's about agnostic assholes.

Agnosticism is the view that humanity does not currently possess the requisite knowledge and/or reason to provide sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that Easter Bunnies either do or do not exist.

The quote is from Wikipedia. I substituted deities with Easter Bunnies to demonstrate the burning stupidity of agnostic scum.

Since agnostics are unlikely to say "humanity does not currently possess the requisite knowledge and/or reason to provide sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that Easter Bunnies and leprechauns either do or do not exist", they apparently think an invisible god with unlimited magical powers is more likely than other childish fantasies.

My point is agnostics are fucking idiots, about equal to Bible thumpers and terrorists, but actually agnostics are even worse than that because they're all full of shit.

The extremists who attack science education or fly airplanes into buildings love agnostics because they help religious nutjobs think they're normal.

Agnostics, you're part of the problem. Please fuck off and die.

Christian fucktards think zombies are real.

"Christians say all the time evidence for God is abundant. Why can they never show real objective evidence?"

Christian fucktards don't know what evidence is. They really are that stupid. For example, they think 500 dead witnesses who were invented are evidence for the magical resurrection of the Magic Jeebus Man. It never happened because it's impossible. The 500 dead witnesses, even if they were not invented, is not evidence for anything.

Then, of course, they believe a magic god fairy is real. Zero evidence provided. All they have is their moronic bible which is obviously 100% bullshit.

I never met a Christian who wasn't a fucking retard.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

"Christians, why do you refuse to critically analyze your faith, why believe what others told you without any thought, are you that owned?"

A big part of religious brainwashing is teaching the victims how to never think and never have any curiosity. And this is why they usually know virtually nothing about science. They're always looking for a hiding place for their god of the gaps. If they had any curiosity which was sucked out of them, they would try to understand the science that explains what happened.

If Christians ever took your advice and critically analyzed their faith they would have thrown out their Magic Jeebus Man a long time ago.

Their faith is part of the problem. The word "faith" is their excuse to believe in childish bullshit.

Faith requires extreme stupidity.

Science requires strong evidence that can be tested. Religion requires faith in wishful thinking, no evidence required.

Faith is an excuse to believe in childish impossible fantasies like heaven. Religious fucktards think faith is a virtue.

"Faith, no one word personifies the absolute worst and most wicked properties of religion better than that. Faith is mind-rot. It’s the poison that destroys critical thinking, undermines evidence, and leads people into lives dedicated to absurdity. It’s a parasite regarded as a virtue."
-- PZ Myers, University of Minnesota biologist

"Faith is by definition belief without evidence – it’s pulling things out of your ass; it’s clinging to things that you might well know are faintly ridiculous; it’s putting up barriers to honest inquiry; it can be used as an impediment to curiosity and intellect, and it is simply the most ridiculous method of discovering or knowing anything about reality. It’s not a virtue – and it shouldn’t be a virtue in wider society any more than it would be in a court of law."
-- Heather Dalgleish, Scotland

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
-- Mark Twain

"Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking."
-- Bill Maher

Janacek - Idyll for strings - Adagio

Sissel - O Mio Babbino Caro


Sissel, the international singing sensation from Norway, is widely regarded as one of the finest and most talented sopranos in the world. Her crystal clear voice has made Sissel a national institution in Norway. Sissel has sung all over the world, selling over six million solo albums. She contributed the haunting vocal tracks for the soundtrack to Titanic. She has been doing great duets with singers like Placido Domingo, Charles Aznavour, Bryn Terfel, Jose Carreras, Russell Watson, Neil Sedaka, and Josh Groban. A very remarkable voice you will only hear once in your lifetime.

Saturday, September 7, 2019

I never met a Christian who wasn't a stupid fucking asshole.


2

"Do you plan to get very religious right before you die?"

Atheists, aka normal people, don't throw out reality when they are dropping dead.

Your religious bullshit is a denial of reality. You people are fucking cowards. Reality makes you cry.

Baby tiger is introduced to the water.

Idiot America

"Why do Christians believe the stories in the Bible are true?"

It's a stupidity problem. These people are gullible and just plain fucking stupid.

What I wrote about Canada and Idiot America.

"What is the USA like compared to Canada? Most visibly noticeable differences?"

America is under Canada.

Most Americans are morons. Most Canadians have a brain.

Canada has a few god-soaked fucktards. America has countless millions of god-soaked fucktards.

When Americans vote they elect morons like Fucktard Trump. Canada doesn't have that problem.

Variations on the Canon by Pachelbel - Piano (George Winston)

What I wrote for a Christian fucktard.

"I believe when we die and see each other again, we see those we knew as we saw them in this life."

You have a wishful thinking problem. You will never see your dead relatives because they are fucking dead.

You can't throw out reality because reality is not going anywhere. Reality doesn't care about your childish religious fantasies.

Idiot America's Evangelical Christians

Evangelical Christians are evolution deniers. They are constantly attacking science education, especially evolution. Science makes these Christian assholes cry.

The Evangelicals want to make the United States a Christian theocracy. They love Fucktard Trump because he sucks up to these uneducated morons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism#United_States

Recurrent themes within American Evangelical discourse include abortion, the creation–evolution controversy, secularism, and the notion of the United States as a Christian nation.

Today, evangelicals are conservative leaning, primarily Republican voting, individuals who faithfully attend church service. Evangelicals’ religious faith and biblical interpretations are often used as a tool to justify their political views. Evangelicals’ political views more so than their religious beliefs often guide their positions on social issues such as: abortion, immigration, gay marriage, gender roles, affirmative action, race, criminal justice, the death penalty, and the privatization of public education.

When I used to live in south Florida I ate cheeseburgers with lots of vegetables at Five Guys. This is something I wrote about Five Guys in January 2016.

This was written with a crayon by a child about the cheeseburgers at Five Guys:

"What was once a dream now it came to life."

http://gofiveguys.com/locations

Why do Muslim assholes blow themselves up every day? I looked it up. I found something from the year 2010.

Muslims are scum. They need to be wiped off this planet.

This is from Yale University:

Nine years after the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the world shares a perception that suicide attacks are unusual acts committed by the poor, the psychologically impaired, the morally deficient, the uneducated or the religious fanatics. Yet analysis of more than 1500 suicide attacks between 1981 and 2008 by author Riaz Hassan reveals far more complex motivations. Instead, altruism emerges as one of the major driving forces among young terrorists who previously demonstrated exemplary conduct. Sadly, evil can be ordinary, as noted by philosopher Hannah Arendt. Terrorists, shaped by their social environment, show a common tendency to abide by collective wisdom and follow orders. Daily life is difficult, unjust, even tenuous, in war zones or refugee camps – nurturing resistance and hatred among youth. Increasing numbers of youth in conflict zones, feeling helpless to shape a larger, uncaring world, view suicide attacks as a way to call attention to the plight of their community. – YaleGlobal
Complex motivations of suicide bombings: Those intent on evil manipulate the resentful into assuming terror is altruistic, calling attention to some cause
Riaz Hassan
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Life as a weapon: In Sri Lanka, Tamil Tiger suicide bomber hits a Sinhalese procession
ADELAIDE: Nine years ago, 19 young Muslims commandeered passenger jets and killed themselves, taking with them 2973 people to the inferno of fire. Since the 9/11 attacks suicide bombings have become a staple of daily news, although the practice dates back at least two decades. A commonly accepted narrative frames such acts of self-destruction as the action of psychologically impaired, morally deficient, uneducated, impoverished individuals and, most of all, religious fanatics.
But the analysis of information based on 1597 suicide attacks between 1981 and 2008, which killed more than 21,000 in 34 countries, suggests a more complex set of reasons, an understanding of which is essential if the world is to see an end of such slaughter. My book, “Life as a Weapon,” analyzes suicide bombings as a method of choice among terrorist groups around the world and the motivations.
Surprisingly, altruism emerges as a major factor in the complex set of causes behind the suicide attacks.
In its most fundamental character, following the seminal studies of economist Ernest Fehr and colleagues, altruism can be defined as the costly actions that confer benefits on other individuals. Altruism is a fundamental condition accounting for human cooperation for organization of society and its cohesiveness. In the conceptual map of French sociologist Emile Durkheim, suicide bombings would fall in the category of altruistic suicidal actions – distinct from other types of suicidal actions caused by personal catastrophes, hopelessness and psychopathologies that lead people to believe life is not worth living. Altruistic suicides, on the other hand, involve valuing one’s life as less worthy than the group’s honor, religion or other collective interests.
The genesis of suicide bombings is rooted in intractable asymmetrical conflicts pitching the state against non-state actors over political entitlements, territorial occupation and dispossession. Invariably such conflicts instigate state-sanctioned violence and repressive policies against weaker non-state parties causing widespread outrage and large-scale dislocation of people, many of whom become refugees in makeshift camps, in or outside so-called war zones.
Life as weapon: Reem Salih al-Rayasha, a Hamas suicide bomber, mother of two, killed four Israeli soldiers in 2004
Carolyn Nordstrom captures the mood in Sri Lanka during the recently ended civil war: “In the war zones, violence and war permeated all aspect of daily life. It was not certain a person going for work would return in the evening. A home could be suddenly searched, someone brutally killed, a mother raped or father taken away. A shell could land anywhere destroying everything around.…This kind of pervasive atmosphere of violence, rather than breaking down the resistance and spirit of population, in times creates resistance and defiance, particularly in the youth.” Other contributing factors include incarceration and dehumanizing treatments of insurgents in state custody and mutual dehumanization of the “other.”
Suicide bombing, rarely the strategy of first choice, is selected by terrorist organizations after collective assessments, based on observations and experience, of strategies’ relative effectiveness to achieve political goals. The decision to participate is facilitated by suicide bombers’ internalized social identities, their exposure to asymmetric conflict and its costs, their exposure to organizations that sponsor such attacks as well as membership in a larger community where sacrifice and martyrdom carry high symbolic significance. In Sri Lanka, the Black Tigers attached importance to how the community would view their actions: They were glorified in their burial rituals, and an eternal lamp adorned the tombstone of every Black Tiger grave to commemorate the sacrifice.
From sociological and economic perspectives, suicide bombings can be linked to altruism as a form of intergenerational investment or an extreme form of saving in which the agent gives up current consumption for the sake of enhancing probability of descendants enjoying benefit of some future public good.
Analysis of Hezbollah suicide bombers in Lebanon shows that incidents of suicide bombing attacks increase with current income and the degree of altruism towards the next generation.  Hezbollah suicide bombers come from above-average wealthy families and have above-average levels of education. The willingness of more educated people to engage in suicide missions suggests that education affects one’s view of the world, enhancing sensitivity to the future.
Altruism is not antithetical to aggression. In war soldiers perform altruistic actions by risking lives for comrades and country and also killing the enemy. Actions of Japanese kamikaze pilots in World War II are examples of military sacrifice.
Altruism can also be socially constructed in communities that have endured massive social and economic dislocations as a result of long, violent and painful conflict with a more powerful enemy. Under such conditions people react to perceived inferiority and the failure of other efforts by valuing and supporting ideals of self-sacrifice such as suicide bombing. Religiously and nationalistically coded attitudes towards acceptance of death stemming from long periods of collective suffering, humiliation and powerlessness enable political organizations to give people suicide bombing as an outlet for feelings of desperation, deprivation, hostility and injustice.
The evidence, however, also shows that such personal and collective sufferings motivating suicide bombers coexist with their inner feelings of altruism and sense of fairness. An Iraqi suicide bomber Marwan prayed that “no innocent people were killed in his mission.” Shafiqa, an incarcerated failed Palestinian suicide bomber in Israel, did not detonate her device after seeing “a woman with a little baby in her carriage. And I thought, why do I have to do this to that woman and her child?... I won’t be doing something good for Allah. I thought about the people who loved me and about the innocent people in the street…It was a very difficult moment for me.”
French filmmaker Pierre Rehov interviewed many Palestinians in Israeli jails, arrested following failed suicide-bombing missions or for aiding and abetting such missions, for his film “Suicide Killers.” Every one of them tried to convince him that that the action was the right thing to do for moralistic reasons. According to Rehove, “these aren’t kids who want to do evil. These are kids who want to do good….” The result – young people who had previously conducted their lives as good people believe that a suicide bombing represented doing something great.
Everyday degradations of Israeli occupation had created collective hatred, making them susceptible to indoctrination to become martyrs. As Stanford University psychologist Philip Zimbardo puts it, “It is neither mindless nor senseless, only a very different mind-set and with different sensibilities than we have been used to witnessing among young adults in most countries.”
Suicide bombings invariably provoke a brutal response from authorities. By injecting fear and mayhem into ordinary rhythms of daily life, such bombings undermine the state’s authority in providing security and maintaining social order. Under such conditions the state can legitimately impose altruistic punishments to deter future violation threatening security and social order. These include punishments meted out to perpetrators and their supporters. The state-sanctioned military actions against the Palestinians, Sri Lankan Tamil Tigers, Iraqi insurgents and the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan are examples of these punishments.
But altruistic punishments are only effective when they do not violate the norms of fairnessPunishments and sanctions seen as unfair, hostile, selfish and vindictive by targeted groups tend to have detrimental effects. Instead of promoting compliance, they reinforce recipients’ resolve to non-compliance. Counter-insurgency operations are aimed at increasing the cost of insurgency to the insurgents, and invariably involve eliminating leaders and supporters who plan suicide bombings, destroying insurgents’ capabilities for mounting future attacks, and restrictions on mobility and other violations of civil liberties.
But there is mounting evidence that such harsh measures reinforce radical opposition and even intensify it. This is now happening in Pakistan, Afghanistan and the Palestinian territories and has also been the case in Sri Lanka and Iraq and other conflict sites.
Riaz Hassan is emeritus professor at Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia, and global professor of social research and public policy at New York University Abu Dhabi. His book, Life as a Weapon: The Global Rise of Suicide Bombings, was published by Routledge.
Copyright © 2010 Yale Center for the Study of Globalization

Why are Christians so fucking stupid?

"Atheists, why won't you just admit you already know that God exists but you simply despise him and want to live your own way?"

"The Bible has you figured out. According to the Bible, there is no such thing as an atheist, only people who claim to be atheists. Atheists suppress the truth in unrighteousness. You know God exists. Even babies know God exists. But if you aren't born again you will suppress that truth. But you already know that God exists and Christianity is true, all you need to do is repent."

You don't understand atheism. An atheist is 100% certain magic god fairies and Easter Bunnies are impossible.

If you're too fucking dense to understand simple English, then there's nothing I can do for you.

By the way, your disgusting bible is 100% bullshit.

Why are Christians so fucking stupid?

Russia’s Opposition, Barred From Moscow Vote, Looks Elsewhere for Gains

Wall Street Journal - Russia’s Opposition, Barred From Moscow Vote, Looks Elsewhere for Gains

Putin’s opponents hope a wave of dissent will carry them past a crackdown and their own discord.

Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, greeting protesters in Moscow in July, has backed a strategy of running as many opposition candidates as possible in elections Sunday.

By Thomas Grove and Ann M. Simmons

Updated September 6, 2019

MOSCOW—Targeted by police and barred from the ballot in Moscow’s city elections, Russia’s opposition is trying to gain a political foothold in other municipal races Sunday as it rides a rising wave of dissent against President Vladimir Putin.

But to convert a surge in support into a coherent political challenge to Mr. Putin, opposition leaders must first overcome a crackdown against them, and their own internal divisions.

The push for a voice in local politics offers Russia’s loose opposition coalition an opportunity to indicate the breadth of its popular backing.

The United Democrats, as the alliance is known, have registered more than 400 candidates in districts in St. Petersburg, Russia’s second city and Mr. Putin’s hometown, and supports candidates in six other cities across the country.


The Russian opposition held protests in Moscow for weeks after officials refused to allow several activists on the city ballot.
Russian officers detain opposition figure Lyubov Sobol in Moscow on Aug. 10.

Lyubov Sobol took part in an opposition rally in Moscow on Aug. 31 after ending a month-long hunger strike.
Police detained a protester in Moscow in August, as Russian authorities intensified a crackdown on opposition activists.
Attempting to inject a wider range of views into city politics, the alliance aims to build on anti-government demonstrations in Moscow this summer that drew the biggest crowds in nearly a decade.

“The momentum is just beginning for us,” said the opposition’s Lyubov Sobol, a would-be candidate who went on a month-long hunger strike that lasted into mid-August after election authorities denied her application to run for Moscow’s city council.

Arrests and legal actions are threatening to sap the momentum, however, as are opposition leaders’ conflicting strategies.

Some activists oppose participation in the municipal elections, calling for more street protests instead. Others, such as protest leader Alexei Navalny, have put their weight behind fielding as many candidates as possible. Mr. Navalny was barred from registering to run in last year’s presidential election, and isn’t competing for a seat on the Moscow city council.

The rift in the opposition has alienated some supporters who want the movement to take a common stand.

Opposition politicians have been denied a nationwide platform for years, with some being arrested or even killed. Local elections have been seen as the last remaining outlet for competitive politics in Russia.

In 2017, the opposition won a sizable victory in Moscow municipal elections, and last year several Kremlin-backed gubernatorial candidates suffered rare defeats in regional races.

“Going local and regional is good because it helps the opposition broaden its reach and debunks the regime’s portrait of the opposition as spoiled Muscovites unrepresentative of the ‘real narod’,” or ordinary people, said Virginie Lasnier, a political-science research fellow at the University of Montreal.

But city elections like the centerpiece ballot in Moscow are being pushed off limits for the opposition as the Kremlin addresses this chink in its armor.

“Even that vulnerability must be closed,” said Tatiana Stanovaya, founder and CEO of political analysis firm R. Politik.

The run-up to Sunday’s vote became a lightning rod for protesters in mid-July after city officials in Moscow refused the candidacies of several important antigovernment activists. The demonstrations snowballed into weeks of rallies and street marches, some drawing as many as 50,000 people.

The Moscow electoral commission barred opposition candidates it says failed to collect enough legitimate signatures to be placed on the council ballot—a claim the protesters deny. Last month, a Moscow court reversed a decision to ban opposition candidate Sergey Mitrokhin of the Yabloko Party from Sunday’s election, a rare concession that followed the weeks of protests.

Opposition leaders say they believe they have galvanized a sizable segment of Russian society that has grown frustrated with declining living standards. Support for Mr. Putin has weakened at home despite his success abroad at helping to re-establish Russia’s claim to be a world power.

The Russian government, in public comments, shrugged off the protests, suggesting they speak to the country’s democratic credentials. Mr. Putin said during an investment forum in Vladivostok on Thursday that sometimes protests can have results by shaking up power, but that “things should be done within the framework of the law.”

The government response on the ground has been less muted. Authorities have deployed armed riot police and filed legal cases against more than a dozen opposition leaders. Five people have been convicted and sentenced to prison on charges relating to protests, including one man who was given a three-year sentence for allegedly hitting a police officer’s helmet.

The crackdown is intended to scare people away from joining demonstrations or supporting the opposition, analysts said.

The authorities’ attempts to stifle the opposition are becoming more intense and brutal, said Andrei Kolesnikov, chair of the Russian Domestic Politics and Political Institutions Program at the Carnegie Moscow Center.

“They choose repression as one of the main tools,” Mr. Kolesnikov said. “Before that they tried to use propaganda. Right now, they are openly repressive. It’s kind of a new station of development of our authoritarian regime.”

Sergei Chemezov, the head of arms conglomerate Rostec who worked alongside Mr. Putin in the KGB in East Germany, recently spoke in defense of the opposition in a leading Russian media outlet. His remarks prompted opposition leaders and Russia-watchers to wonder how high support for the protests goes.

“We see there is some internal resistance including among figures who are close to Putin,” said Ms. Stanovaya at R. Politik.

“The regime is weakening and the nonsystemic opposition will grow stronger,” Ms. Stanovaya said, referring to opposition forces that operate outside of politics. “People are taking that into account.”

Write to Thomas Grove at thomas.grove@wsj.com and Ann M. Simmons at ann.simmons@wsj.com

Christians are too cowardly to grow up and face facts.

A question I asked: Christians, if you realized there is no afterlife, would you be very upset about it?

One of the answers: "There is an afterlife, so the question is moot. But yes, I would be."

Every other Christian fucktard would not answer the question. Instead, they said the bible says heaven is real therefore heaven is real because the bible is the word of the Magic Man. They ignored "if you realized there is no afterlife".

Christians, besides being extremely dense, are very gullible. They believe any bullshit that makes a coward feel good.

The one honest Christian ("But yes, I would be.") admitted he would very upset if he had only one life. But that's the way it is. We are born then we drop dead.

Why would this Christian be upset if reality is real? I thank goodness I have only one life instead of having an eternal 2nd life. Imagine the never-ending boredom.

Why are Christians 100% certain their ridiculous magical 2nd life fantasy is real? I think it's a stupidity problem. They are very hard of thinking. And obviously they're cowards.

Being able to think is a good thing. Christians have been brainwashed to never think. The indoctrination sucked all their curiosity out of them.

Some Christians are able to grow up and realize their brainwashers were stupid fucking know-nothing assholes. But the vast majority of Christians will waste their entire lives being completely wrong about everything.

"One recent survey found that the number of young Russians who “fully trust” Putin fell to 19 percent this year, from 30 percent last year. That’s not a good trend line for a man who aspires to die on his throne."

New York Times - How Vladimir Putin Falls

A dictator meets an opponent he can’t co-opt, corrupt, calumniate, cow or coerce.

By Bret Stephens
Opinion Columnist

September 6, 2019

The Russian human-rights lawyer Karinna Moskalenko once explained to me how Vladimir Putin’s machinery of repression works.

“It isn’t necessary to put all the businessmen in jail,” she said. “It is necessary to jail the richest, the most independent, the most well-connected. It isn’t necessary to kill all the journalists. Just kill the most outstanding, the bravest, and the others will get the message.”

Her conclusion: “Nobody is untouchable.”

That was in 2007, when Putin still cultivated an image as a law-abiding, democratically elected leader. But that fiction vanished long ago.

Boris Nemtsov, the leading opposition figure, was murdered in the shadow of the Kremlin in 2015. His successor in that role, Alexei Navalny, has been in and out of prison on various trumped-up charges, as well as the victim of repeated attacks by “unknown chemicals.” Others, like the Putin critic and ex-Parliament member Denis Voronenkov, have been gunned down in broad daylight in foreign cities.

So it’s little less than awe-inspiring to read Andrew Higgins’s profile in The Times of opposition activist Lyubov Sobol.


Sobol, 31, is a Moscow lawyer and Navalny associate who has spent years pursuing a graft investigation of Putin intimate Yevgeny Prigozhin, the oligarch indicted by the U.S. last year for sponsoring the troll factory that interfered in the 2016 U.S. election. Considering that journalists have been killed looking into Prigozhin’s other businesses, Sobol’s doggedness recalls Eliot Ness’s pursuit of Al Capone in “The Untouchables” — except, unlike Ness, she has no knife, no gun, no badge, no law, and no federal government to aid her.

Now she is at the forefront of protests that have rocked Russia this summer after the regime disqualified opposition candidates (including her) from running in Sunday’s municipal elections. Her husband has been poisoned. Assailants have smeared her with black goo. Police dragged her from her office. Only a law forbidding the imprisonment of women with young children has kept her out of jail.

“I am always asked whether I am afraid, and I know that I should say, ‘Yes, I am,’” she tells Higgins. But, she says, “I am a fanatical kind of personality and am not afraid. I have always been a fan of the idea of fairness and, since childhood, have hated to see the strong abuse the weak.”

When regimes like Putin’s realize they cannot co-opt, corrupt, calumniate, cow, or coerce their opponents, what usually comes next is a decision to kill them. The risk that this could happen to Sobol or Navalny is terrifyingly real, not least because Putin has so many underworld friends willing to do his presumptive bidding without asking for explicit orders.

But Putin also need to beware. Dictatorships fall not only when they have implacable opponents but also exemplary victims: Steve Biko in South Africa, Benigno Aquino in the Philippines, Jerzy Popieluszko in Poland. Through their deaths, they awakened the living to the conviction that it was the regime that should die instead.

Today, Nemtsov continues to haunt the Kremlin. So do Sergei Magnitsky, Natalia Estemirova, Alexander Litvinenko and Anna Politkovskaya, to name just a few of the regime’s murdered adversaries. At some point, a growing list of victims will start to weigh heavily against Putin’s chances of staying in power. The death of a galvanizing opposition figure could be the tipping point.

Especially when the political-survival formula that has worked for Putin so far is coming unstuck. That formula — enrich your cronies, terrify your foes, placate the urban bourgeoisie with a decent standard of living, and propagandize everyone else with heavy doses of xenophobic nationalism — no longer works so well in an era of Magnitsky sanctions, international ostracism, a persistently stagnant economy, middling oil prices, unpopular pension reforms, and dubious foreign adventures.

It works even less well when your domestic foes aren’t so easily terrified. As in Hong Kong, a striking feature of the Russian protests is the extent to which they are youth-driven — a vote of no-confidence in whatever the regime is supposed to offer. One recent survey found that the number of young Russians who “fully trust” Putin fell to 19 percent this year, from 30 percent last year. That’s not a good trend line for a man who aspires to die on his throne.

None of this guarantees that Putin can’t bounce back, not least if Donald Trump gives him the kinds of breaks, like readmission into the G7, he needs. And Robert Mugabe’s death this week at 95 is a reminder that tyrants can endure longer than anyone expects.

Still, for the first time in 20 years, the elements by which Putin falls are coming into place. Core among them is the courage of people like Sobol — a woman who, as Pericles said more than 2,400 years ago, “knows the meaning of what is sweet in life and of what is terrible, and then goes out undeterred to meet what is to come.”

Bret L. Stephens has been an Opinion columnist with The Times since April 2017. He won a Pulitzer Prize for commentary at The Wall Street Journal in 2013 and was previously editor in chief of The Jerusalem Post. Facebook

Friday, September 6, 2019

The magical soul, a bullshit fantasy for insane cowards.

"If someone chose to be an organ donor, would they still go to heaven?"

According to the insane myth, the decomposing corpse does not matter because an invisible magical soul from the body magically flies to magical heaven and soul is very happy there.

The whole thing is ridiculous and totally insane. It's a fantasy for feeble-minded cowards.

soul: the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.

The stupid, it burns.

This is something I wrote about Christian assholes.

"Will religious people never admit that their god does wrong?"

For example, the imaginary bible god. The god thing murdered thousands of babies according to the ridiculous Noah's Ark genocide myth. I asked Christians about this disgusting fantasy and they were OK with it. Their logic: God made us so it's OK if God kills us including babies.

I never met a Christian who wasn't a stupid fucking asshole.

What I wrote for the liberal fucktards at the New York Times. If they nominate an idiot and I think they will do that, we will be stuck with Fucktard Trump for 4 more years.

Anyone can get a job these days, including people who have been in prison. If Trump can end his ridiculous trade wars he's going to win in 2020, especially if the Democratic candidate is an anti-business liberal extremist like Senator Warren.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Some from New York wrote this reply:

Thousands are being released from prison early (including a close family member) thanks to the First Step Act, which has been largely ignored by the media and Democrats. Strange since Democrats are the first to talk about mass incarceration.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

I looked it up.

Wikipedia - First Step Act

The Formerly Incarcerated Reenter Society Transformed Safely Transitioning Every Person Act or First Step Act reforms the federal prison system of the United States of America, and seeks to reduce recidivism. An initial version of the bill passed the House of Representatives (360–59) on May 22, 2018; a revised bill passed the U.S. Senate (on a bipartisan 87–12 vote) on December 18, 2018. The House approved the bill with Senate revisions on December 20, 2018 (358–36). The act was signed by President Donald Trump on December 21, 2018, before the end of the 115th Congress. The act, among many provisions, retroactively applies the Fair Sentencing Act, allows for employees to store their firearms securely at federal prisons, restricts the use of restraints on pregnant women, expands compassionate release for terminally ill patients, places prisoners closer to family in some cases, authorizes new markets for Federal Prison Industries, mandates de-escalation training for correctional officers and employees, and improves feminine hygiene in prison.

The legislation increases the number of good conduct time credits prisoners receive from 47 days per year to 54 days. Due to a legislative drafting error, this change is not being applied retroactively.

Donald Trump designated April 2019 as First Step Act Month at a 1 April 2019 ceremony.

Edvard Grieg - Peer Gynt - Morning Mood.

Thursday, September 5, 2019

What I wrote and what someone else wrote about Christian retards and Muslim scum.

This is what I wrote:

Muslims are terrorists. Even the "moderate" Muslims think suicide bombing is often justified.

Christian morons share many fantasies with Muslim scum, including the magic god fairy and magical creationism.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

This is what someone else wrote and I agree with the whole thing which was well done:

Sometimes I get mixed up between Xianity and Islam as they have far more similarities than differences. How can we best get rid of religion?

Ponder the following:
They were each spawned from Judaism retaining none of the wisdom and settling on emotive-sentimental speculation ...

Constantine xianised Europe by ` and
Mo' mooslimised Arabia by sword...

They both believe they have all the answers to their version of morality;
They both believe only they are the only moral beings on the planet;
They both believe in an everlasting paradise and everlasting hell;
They both believe in that utterly ridiculous one-god fantasy;
They both believe that homosexuality is an abomination;
They both allow men to beat women into submission;
They both believe the woman’s place is in the home;
They’re both ruled by patriarchal misogynists;
They each 'know' they have the only truth;
They both believe in the death penalty;
They both believe abortion to be a sin;
They both crave world domination;
They both believe in end-times;

They are both nothing more than Middle Eastern pseudo Jewish religions.

The *only* differences that I can see are:
Xianity had a sort of reformation
Mooslims didn't.

Mooslims will kill you if you leave.

I'm adding this bullshit to my list of favorite quotes.

Please learn punctuation cos
Punctuation saves lives.
"Let's eat, grandma."
"Let's eat grandma."

-- Everard

On my desktop computer I watched BBC's World News America. There was an interview of an author of a book about Lincoln. I'm adding this book to my Amazon wish list.

Amazon: All the Powers of Earth: The Political Life of Abraham Lincoln Vol. III, 1856-1860 (3) Hardcover – September 3, 2019 by Sidney Blumenthal (Author)

An interesting fact: Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin were born on February 12, 1809.

Abraham Lincoln:
Born February 12, 1809
Sinking Spring Farm, Kentucky, U.S.
Died April 15, 1865 (aged 56)
Washington, D.C., U.S.

Charles Darwin
Born February 12, 1809
The Mount, Shrewsbury, Shropshire, England
Died April 19, 1882 (aged 73)
Down House, Downe, Kent, England

I answered a question about magical creationism.

"Is creationism scientific?"

Scientists, including the rare religious scientists, know they can't invoke supernatural magic to explain the natural world.

Magical creationism is a supernatural fantasy that has zero evidence. It's anti-science.

Here is a quote about why religious ideas like creationism do not belong in science classrooms:

"Creation science has not entered the curriculum for a reason so simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is false, and because good teachers understand why it is false. What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious commodity in our entire intellectual heritage—good teaching—than a bill forcing our honorable teachers to sully their sacred trust by granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an enterprise?"
-- Stephen Jay Gould

I asked Christian fucktards a question about the Magic Jeebus Man. The answers were ridiculous but one Christian was civilized.

Christians, what would it take for you to throw out the belief that Jesus rose from the dead?

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

For the historical reliability of the claims to not be significant. You may dismiss this without giving it a second thought. I can't stop you from doing that.

Watch a couple YouTube videos on the historical evidence for Christ's Resurrection. William Lane Craig is very thorough on what's available to us to study and honest about what's not there.

-- Peter

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

I watched part of one of his videos. He quoted people who lived 2,000 years ago. That's not evidence for anything.

The resurrection never happened because it's totally impossible. Nobody can throw out reality, including magic god fairies. There is no magic in the universe. Thanks for your answer.

Americans love their military-style assault weapons despite the out-of-control violence in this country. A Democratic candidate for President has some good ideas to fix the problem.

Wikipedia - Beto O'Rourke

New York Times - Stop Lying About Gun Control

Beto O’Rourke is rare among politicians for speaking honestly of wanting aggressive limits.

By Charles M. Blow
Opinion Columnist

September 4, 2019

Beto O’Rourke has easily emerged as my favorite presidential candidate on the issue of gun control.

He has done so because he is speaking openly, passionately and honestly about what he would like to do to stem our epidemic of gun violence, a stance that is surprisingly rare in my estimation.

I long ago tired of hearing politicians who are supposed to be in favor of smarter gun laws and reducing American gun deaths and injuries pull their punches so as not to upset the gun lobby and gun lobbyists.

Among other things, O’Rourke’s “gun safety” plan includes declaring gun violence a public health emergency, creating a national gun licensing system and registry, requiring universal background checks, implementing red flag laws and banning “the manufacturing, sale and possession of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.”

Other candidates agree with some of these proposals, and others have additional ones, but I like the full-throated way O’Rourke responds to being challenged on this front.

This week in Charlottesville, a reporter asked O’Rourke, “How do you address the fears that the government is going to take away those assault rifles — if you are talking about buybacks and banning?”

O’Rourke didn’t skip a beat: “I want to be really clear, that that’s exactly what we’re going to do. Americans who own AR-15s, AK-47s, will have to sell them to the government. We’re not going to allow them to stay on our streets, to show up in our communities.”

This was not the first time O’Rourke’s buyback plan has been challenged. Two weeks ago, the USA Today editorial board complained, “Anything smacking of confiscation would breathe life and energy into the not-from-my-cold-dead-hands crowd, endangering law enforcement and likely putting a full stop to any further gun safety measures.”

When asked this week on CNN about that criticism, O’Rourke responded, “This triangulation, calculation, poll-testing every move — that’s what got us here in the first place.”

Finally, a breath of fresh air.

Listen, I don’t know if O’Rourke’s full slate of gun policies are all right, but I do know that we have to start taking deliberate and thoughtful action to deal with this problem. For instance, a mandatory buyback could be met with a constitutional challenge. A voluntary buyback might be most doable.

The scope of the problem is enormous.

According to a Washington Post report in 2018: “There are more than 393 million civilian-owned firearms in the United States, or enough for every man, woman and child to own one and still have 67 million guns left over.”

Furthermore, The New York Times reported in December:

“There were 39,773 gun deaths in 2017, up by more than 1,000 from the year before. Nearly two-thirds were suicides. It was the largest yearly total on record in the C.D.C.’s electronic database, which goes back 50 years, and reflects the sheer number of lives lost.”

To my mind the goal is as simple as the task is daunting: We must reduce the overall number of guns in the population, especially those considered weapons of war; we must shrink the market desire for new weapons; and we must set a course to not only pass a new law in a moment but build in the expectation that federal legislation around guns will be the never-ending, ever-adjusting reality.

People interested in reducing gun violence in America have to stop lying about what that would require. Opponents of new gun legislation will accuse its supporters of seeking the worse no matter what they do.

But also, the opponents are right in some of their arguments. Can I or anyone else point to a specific proposal and say it would have affected this or that specific mass shooting? Occasionally yes, but often not. But that’s not the point. The point is to see a reduction in all shootings. And that argument actually reinforces a need to aggressively fund studies to figure out which measures would work best.

They are right when they say that restrictions on new purchases would place a burden on responsible gun owners — the overwhelming majority of gun owners — when only a tiny fraction participate in shootings. To that I say: AND?! Nearly 40,000 people in 2017 were killed by guns in this country. If a reduction in that number comes with more red tape for you, then so be it.

This is a public health crisis, as O’Rourke points out, and anything we can do to prevent guns from being used in a crime, to prevent a child from accidentally shooting a sibling, to prevent a depressed person from putting a barrel in his or her mouth, must be a consuming priority for all of us.

The people resisting regulation say that any new legislation is a slippery slope for an aggressive agenda to massively restrict guns. I say my great desire is to thoroughly hose that slope with oil.

Even in the radical District of Columbia v. Heller Supreme Court decision in 2008 that established the right to bear arms as an individual right, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the majority opinion:

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

Guns can be effectively and constitutionally regulated in this country. People who want to do so should be upfront and honest about how far they truly hope to go in that regard.

A Christian fucktard asked a stupid question and I answered it.

"Is it easier to attack Christianity because its been specifically named as a source of hope and moral guidance?"

My "moral guidance" comes from my own common sense.

Christianity is easy to attack because the whole thing is just a childish fantasy. For example, your decomposing Magic Jeebus Man did not rise from the dead because that's impossible. Reality can't be thrown out.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

I can't imagine the stupidity that's required to be a Christian fucktard in the 21st century.

President Trump is a fucking moron. His trade wars are ridiculous.

Wall Street Journal: The Trade War’s Winners Don’t Include Us

Lost foreign markets, retaliation, higher prices, falling investment. Where’s the upside?

By Robert B. Zoellick

September 4, 2019

President Trump’s trade thunder booms so frequently that the public has difficulty discerning what’s really happening. After more than two years of trial and much error, Congress and the country should step back to survey the big picture.

The president’s trade policy represents a fundamental break from the past 85 years. It’s more than a matter of aggressive negotiating tactics. Not since Herbert Hoover has a U.S. president so openly embraced trade protectionism. In his inaugural address, Mr. Trump proudly proclaimed himself a protectionist; we should now believe him. His assertion that he is a “tariff man” should convince any holdouts. The president also likes unpredictability, creating the kind of uncertainty that confuses business planning and investment. For example, after signing the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (the new North American Free Trade Agreement), he stomped on his own deal by threatening to hike tariffs on Mexico because he was angry about Central Americans seeking asylum.

He will not change. Trade—like the wall with Mexico and hostility to immigration—is a core issue for the president’s political base. He must keep it boiling.

What have been the effects of Mr. Trump’s return to protectionism? First, the U.S. has lost markets for exports because it dropped out of deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The TPP lowered trade barriers in Asia for others, but not, thanks to Mr. Trump, for the U.S. The European Union has gained preferential access to Japan and other markets. China has lowered its average tariff for others to 6.7%.

Second, the tariffs have provoked world-wide retaliation, hurting America’s most productive businesses and farmers. For Americans, China boosted its average tariff to 21.8%. Congress now doles out tens of billions of dollars to U.S. farmers to compensate for lost sales. U.S. exporters will pay a price for years because of supply-chain shifts.

Third, the president’s protectionism costs American businesses and families. The administration raised taxes on 15% of U.S. imports even before the upcoming tariff increase on almost all Chinese goods. Mr. Trump started by raising tariffs on intermediate goods—on aluminum, for example, even though 97% of U.S. jobs in the sector use aluminum as an input. The Peterson Institute for International Economics estimated that the cost paid by steel users for each steel job gained by tariffs was about $650,000. As U.S. firms pay more for inputs, some are regretfully moving operations abroad to remain competitive. In two years, the president has increased the average tariff on Chinese goods to 24%, up from an average of 3%. Americans will end up paying these in the form of higher prices.

Fourth, with increased costs and uncertainties about doing business in the U.S., foreign direct investment is falling. This suppresses job and wage growth and disrupts international supply chains.

Fifth, President Trump’s trade policy ignores how the U.S. has used free-trade agreements to write pro-U.S. rules for cutting-edge sectors such as medical and financial services, intellectual-property rights, and data access and security. Trade agreements also allow the U.S. to establish best practices in anticorruption laws, border procedures and transparency. Because U.S. businesses have been leaders in innovation, past American negotiators have been at the forefront of international rule-making. This president disdains rules; he acts as if governments control purchases like in old-style mercantilism.

Mr. Trump counters that these costs are the price Americans must pay for his deal-making. But his record is pitiful. His administration renegotiated with South Korea, adding a steel quota that hurts U.S. users, raising a quota for U.S. autos that companies had already failed to meet, and extending a 25% tariff on trucks. The USMCA is a mixed bag at best. It weakens protections for investors in Mexico at a time when that nation’s government is making investors nervous. The deal enfeebles pledges by governments to allow foreign companies to bid for procurement contracts, thus raising costs for government purchases. The new Nafta even has an expiration date and is subject to review every six years—a recipe for uncertainty. The heart of the renegotiation is a maze of new requirements for how companies should build autos. It will make the North American industry less competitive globally. Ironically, the agreement’s useful modernizations are drawn from the TPP, which Mr. Trump trashed. But the USMCA may never become law; Democrats in Congress want changes and time for action is running out.

Negotiations with the EU are stalled. India and the U.S. have each raised barriers to one another. Mr. Trump is even struggling to strike a small deal with Japan to recover some access that he lost by dropping out of the TPP. He has passed up opportunities to capitalize on China’s need to liberalize. Chinese retaliation carefully excluded almost one-third of U.S. exports because Beijing recognizes, as Mr. Trump does not, that higher taxes on inputs hurt a nation’s global competitiveness. The president’s apologists have retreated to arguing about which country has been hurt more, a sure sign of trade defeatism.

Mr. Trump has even threatened to leave the World Trade Organization. The Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations fought to create the WTO, including its dispute-settlement procedures, because they knew Americans could compete successfully with fair, enforceable rules. The current president, by contrast, has blocked appointments to the WTO appeals body to try to put it out of business by year’s end. The U.S. sabotages or ignores efforts by other countries—even China—to tighten rules on state-owned enterprises and developing countries.

Amazingly, even amid such a record of failure, the Washington Post last month referred to the administration’s “mixed success” on trade. What success? Even by the president’s own measure, the U.S. trade deficit, he’s losing. If the U.S. slides into recession, his policies will make conditions worse. Congress needs to wake up and push back. Business executives should support them before the trade smashup leads to an economic breakdown.

Mr. Zoellick is a former World Bank president, U.S. trade representative and deputy secretary of state.

Muslims are scum. What I wrote for a Muslim asshole at the New York Times.

@Syed Abdulhaq

"If Israel can have nuclear weapons, why can't Iran?"

Israel only wants to defend itself while the theocratic dictators of Iran want to destroy Israel.

Israel wants to live in peace. The Iranian theocrats want never-ending violence.

Faith is a mental illness.

"Faith is by definition belief without evidence – it’s pulling things out of your ass; it’s clinging to things that you might well know are faintly ridiculous; it’s putting up barriers to honest inquiry; it can be used as an impediment to curiosity and intellect, and it is simply the most ridiculous method of discovering or knowing anything about reality. It’s not a virtue – and it shouldn’t be a virtue in wider society any more than it would be in a court of law."

-- Heather Dalgleish
Scotland

The whole thing is on PZ's website at: Why I am an atheist – Heather Dalgleish

Muslims are scum.

September 11, 2001