Thursday, September 19, 2019

BBC Science & Environment - Bird populations in US and Canada down 3 billion in 50 years.

Bird populations in US and Canada down 3 billion in 50 years

Baltimore oriole (c) Gary Mueller, Macaulay Library at Cornell Lab of OrnithologyImage copyrightGARY MUELLER, MACAULAY LIBRARY AT CORNELL LAB OF O
Image captionNorth America has lost more than a quarter of its birds since 1970
Bird populations in Asia and the US are "in crisis", according to two major studies.
The first concludes there are three billion fewer birds in the US and Canada today compared to 1970 - a loss of 29% of North America's birds.
The second outlines a tipping point in "the Asian songbird crisis": on the island of Java, Indonesia, more birds may now live in cages than in the wild.
Scientists hope the findings will serve as a wake-up call.
The two studies are published in the journals Science and Biological Conservation.
Bird seller in Java (c) Gabby SalazarImage copyrightGABBY SALAZAR
Image captionThe caged bird trade could be worth tens of millions of dollars to the Indonesian economy

How have three billion birds disappeared?

Cactus wren (c) Brian Sullivan, Macaulay Library at Cornell Lab of OrnithologyImage copyrightBRIAN SULLIVAN, MACAULAY LIBRARY AT CORNELL LAB O
Image captionBirds are declining in every type of habitat, from grasslands to deserts
The North America study revealed how many birds were being lost across every type of habitat - from grasslands to coasts to deserts. While it did not directly assess what was driving this, the scientists concluded that, among multiple causes, the major factor was habitat loss driven by human activity.
This study, explained lead researcher Dr Ken Rosenberg from the Cornell lab of Ornithology and the American Bird Conservancy, was the first to "run the numbers" on bird populations.
"We knew some species were declining," he told BBC News, "but we thought that, while rare birds were disappearing, the more generalist birds - and those better adapted to human landscapes - would be filling in the gaps."
The team's calculations were based on bringing together all the bird monitoring in North America for the past 50 years - every major survey carried out across the continent since 1970.
"What we saw was this pervasive net loss," Dr Rosenberg said. "And we were pretty startled to see that the more common birds, the everyday backyard birds and generalist species, are suffering some of the biggest losses."
That same pattern, he added, is likely to be mirrored in other parts of the world. And the situation in Asia, as the other study has shown, is a particularly striking case of a human-driven extinction crisis.

What is the songbird trade?

Bird singing competition in Java (c) Bernd MarcordesImage copyrightBERND MARCORDES
Image captionBird singing competitions are hugely popular in Indonesia
The buying and selling of songbirds - many of which are caught from the wild - is huge business in parts of Asia, particularly on the island of Java in Indonesia.
Around 75 million birds are kept as pets on Java. Many are sought after for bird singing competitions - often referred to as "Kicau-mania". At these events, caged birds' songs are judged on melody, duration and volume. Top prizes for the best singers can earn owners as much as £40,000 in the biggest contests.
This culture, however, drives the capture of birds from the wild to satisfy demand. And that, researchers say, threatens the survival of numerous species.
Harry Marshall, lead researcher on this study, explained: "The trade is estimated to be worth tens of millions of dollars to the Indonesian economy, so it is no surprise that it is a key regional source of both supply and demand for songbirds, with hundreds of markets running across the archipelago, selling more than 200 different species."
Lovebirds (c) Gabby SalazarImage copyrightGABBY SALAZAR
Image captionLovebirds are popular in the Asian songbird trade
Mr Marshall, who is a PhD student at Manchester Metropolitan University and Chester Zoo, led a survey of 3,000 households across Java, which is Indonesia's most densely populated island. From this, he and his colleagues were able to estimate that there were as many as 75 million caged birds living in Javanese households.
There may now be more songbirds living in cages on the island than there are now living in the wild.

What can be done to reverse these declines?

Snowy owl (c) Tom Johnson, Macaulay Library at Cornell Lab of OrnithologyImage copyrightTOM JOHNSON, MACAULAY LIBRARY AT CORNELL LAB OF OR
Image captionConservationists hope these results will be a wake-up call for those who want to protect birds
Both teams of scientists were keen to highlight the optimism among the obvious "doom and gloom" in these new findings.
Prof Stuart Marsden, from Manchester Metropolitan University - an authority on the Asian songbird trade - pointed out that the national obsession with keeping caged birds in Indonesia was driven by a love of birds.
"I think that passion can be channelled into conservation," he said.
Dr Rosenberg pointed to a striking example of bird conservation success as a reason for what he called his "weirdly optimistic" view about the dramatic decline in North America's bird population.
"In US and Canada, it was the duck hunters who noticed a decline in waterfowl and did some thing about it. Millions of dollars have been put into wetland protection and restoration - in order to have healthy populations for duck hunters.
"That's a model - if we can replicate it for birds that are not hunted and birds that people love in other habitats, we know that bird populations can be resilient and will come back."

Variations On A Theme From Pachelbel's Canon In D Major

Handel: Messiah, For unto us a child is born - Sir Colin Davis conducts the London Symphony Orchestra

The magnificent "Miserere mei, Deus" composed by Allegri and here brilliantly performed by the Choir of New College, Oxford.

Beethoven Piano Concerto No. 5 in E-flat major, Op. 73 Adagio Un Poco Mosso

Somewhere Over the Rainbow by Israel Kamakawiwo'Ole


Beloved Israel "Iz" Ka'ano'i Kamakawiwo'Ole sings his renowned medley of "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" and "What a Wonderful World." Israel was among the most celebrated of Hawaiian performers with a kind and gentle spirit that is evident in his touching voice. He tragically died in 1997 of a heart attack at an early age (38) and has been sorely missed by his many adoring fans.

According to Wikipedia: "The Hawaii State Flag flew at half-staff on July 10, 1997, the day of Kamakawiwoʻole's funeral. His koa wood coffin lay in state at the Capitol building in Honolulu. He was the third person in Hawaiian history to be awarded this honor, and the only one who was not a government official. Approximately ten thousand people attended the funeral." The 64 photos of Rainbows were selected from Google and Bing image searches for "rainbow" to help visualize Israel's soaring words and melodious Spirit that still touches and inspires our deep places many years after he has gone. Thank you Israel Kamakawiwo'Ole.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Wikipedia - Everything you always wanted to know about Rainbows

A Universe Not Made For Us (Carl Sagan on religion)


This is part 1 of Callum C. J. Sutherland's tribute series to Carl Sagan. One of several excellent playlists dedicated to Carl Sagan.

You can check out them out here:
The Sagan Series 10 videos

I found this comment at YouTube. It's a good thing. Science is killing religion.

"I was a devout Muslim before I discovered Carl Sagan thanks to YouTube. I'm ever so grateful to Carl Sagan for liberating me."

Gabriel FAURE': Pavane, Op. 50 - Paintings By "CLAUDE MONET"

In America politics we have people who call themselves "liberals" which means "don't understand how capitalism works."

At the New York Times, a liberal moron wrote an article to explain why millions of people couldn't get a job because President Obama didn't waste enough taxpayer money to create jobs.

These fucking liberals don't understand anything. The best job creator is not the government. Jobs are created by large corporations and small businesses. When Trump became president, despite his extreme stupidity, he knew what he had to do to help businesses create jobs. All he had to do was get the government out of the fucking way. He did this by throwing out unnecessary regulations on businesses.

This is what I wrote and what someone else wrote at the New York Times to help liberal morons understand:

What I wrote:

"Trump got rid of unnecessary regulations. What he did was a good idea. These days anyone who wants to work can get a job. Capitalism works best when the government gets out of the way."

What someone else wrote:

"They will never give Trump an ounce of credit and will focus only on environmental laws. In fact, Trump's loosening the regulatory yoke from the necks of small businesses was a godsend."

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

For numerous reasons, America has to get rid of President Fucktard Trump. Unfortunately, the Democrats are so fucking stupid they're going to lose the 2020 election.

Christianity is brain damage. These fucktards for Jeebus are totally insane. For example this ridiculous childish bullshit I found at the god-soaked Wall Street Journal.

God is the center, while man is on the periphery.

And there is someone else, who isn't being discussed, who is an enormous part of the drama: Satan.

The drama that's playing out in heaven and on Earth involves all three and it's clear that a good share of the plot hasn't been shared with us yet. We know a bit about how it began, what's going on, and how it will end, but we don't have the knowledge that God has. Maybe someday, we will know. But, until then, we shouldn't be too concerned with why God has chosen to keep us uninformed.

The important thing is we are his creations and he has provided us a way of escape from judgment. It is just human hubris to think that we should be privileged to know everything that God does--and that is a sin. He lets us know what we need to know and nothing more. And it's cool to know that Satan will lose.

Wednesday, September 18, 2019

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

I have worked at several corporations. Sometimes there would be what I called "Stupid waste of time meetings". Never once did anyone pray to their Magic Man during a meeting.

But in Idiot America our idiot politicians can't exist without sucking up to Jeebus before a government meeting. I'm not making this up. America is infested with millions of god-soaked assholes.

The problem for these fucktards is the Establishment Clause of our Bill of Rights, also known as the wall of separation between church and state. When a normal person complains about religious bullshit in a government meeting, this is what happens:

HOMER, Alaska (AP) - Pastafarian pastor leads prayer at Alaska government meeting.

September 18, 2019

A pastor wearing a colander on his head offered the opening prayer on behalf of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster to open a local government meeting in Alaska, the latest blessing from a nontraditional church since a court ruling.

Barrett Fletcher, the Pastafarian pastor, noted the duties performed by the members of the Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly in his Tuesday message, adding a few of them "seem to feel they can't do the work without being overseen by a higher authority, " Kenai radio station KSRM reported Wednesday.

"So, I'm called to invoke the power of the true inebriated creator of the universe, the drunken tolerator (sic) of the all lesser and more recent gods, and maintainer of gravity here on earth. May the great Flying Spaghetti Monster rouse himself from his stupor and let his noodly appendages ground each assembly member in their seats," Fletcher said.

The only people who stood for the invocation were those without seats in the standing-room-only assembly hall in Homer, which is about 125 miles (201 kilometers) south of Anchorage. One man turned his back to face the wall during the invocation, and other men did not remove their hats.

The Pastafarian invocation followed one in June from Satanic Temple member Iris Fontana that caused about a dozen people to leave the assembly chamber in Soldotna in protest when she invoked "Hail Satan" in her opening prayer.

Fontana was among the plaintiffs in the lawsuit litigated by the American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska against the borough after it approved a 2016 policy saying that people who wanted to give the invocations at the government body's meetings had to belong to official organizations with an established presence on the Kenai Peninsula. Other plaintiffs who had been denied permission to give the invocations included an atheist and a Jewish woman.

The Alaska Supreme Court last October ruled that the borough policy was unconstitutional, and the borough government changed it in November to allow anyone to offer invocations regardless of religion.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster church, called FSM for short, was formed in 2005 as a response to the Kansas State Board of Education's hearings on evolution in schools. Its founder sent a letter about FSM as a way to argue against teaching creationism in biology classes, the Homer News has reported.

Church followers believe an invisible and undetectable monster made of spaghetti and meatballs created the universe after drinking heavily, and that his "noodly appendages" hold great power. Many label the movement as satire, but it is recognized as an official religion in some countries, the News reported.

Barrett, who started his chapter in Homer, on the lower Kenai Peninsula, concluded his opening prayer as asking the Flying Spaghetti Monster to provide each assembly member "satisfaction in the perception of accomplishment and allow them true relaxation and an ample supply of their favorite beverage at the end of this evening's work."

He then ended the prayer with: "Ramen."

I wrote a comment at the Wall Street Journal which will probably be vaporized. At the wimpy New York Times it would definitely be vaporized.



The Iranian dictator with the disgusting beard and the ridiculous hat, how hard would it be to have a missile land on his head?

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Cowardly morons can't exist without their policial correctness bullshit.

Today's religious news: A fucktard country attacked another fucktard country.

Saudi Arabia's military says the drones and cruise missiles that hit Saudi oil facilities over the weekend were launched from the north, not the south — where Yemeni rebels have claimed the attack.

Saudi Arabia's military displays what it says is wreckage from drones and cruise missiles used to attack Aramco oil facilities. A Saudi spokesman says the weapons did not come from Yemen, as a rebel group has claimed, but from Iran.
NPR - Saudi Arabia Says Iran 'Unquestionably Sponsored' Attack On Oil Facilities

September 18, 2019

BILL CHAPPELL

Saudi Arabia's military displayed pieces of missiles and drones Wednesday, saying the wreckage is proof the recent attack that crippled Saudi oil production was "unquestionably" sponsored by Iran.

At a news conference in Riyadh, Saudi military spokesman Col. Turki al-Malki said Saturday's strike came from the north — not from Yemen, where Houthi rebels have claimed responsibility for the attack. Both Iran and Iraq are to the north of Saudi Arabia.

"This attack did not originate from Yemen," al-Malki said, "despite Iran's best efforts to appear so." He accused Iran of working with its Houthi allies to generate a "false narrative" around the strike on two oil facilities.

"Secondly, the attack was launched from the north," al-Malki said, "and was unquestionably sponsored by Iran."

The display took place shortly before U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo arrived in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, to meet with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman on ways to deter Iran.

Pompeo blamed Tehran for the attack, calling it "an act of war" against the kingdom. "The Saudis were the nation that was attacked," he said. "It was on their soil. It was an act of war against them directly."

President Trump has said that while the U.S. is ready for war, he wants to avoid it. On Wednesday, he announced that he had ordered the Treasury Department to "substantially increase" sanctions on Iran, and later said details would be announced in the next 48 hours.

Iran has insisted that it had nothing to do with the attack that knocked out more than half of Saudi Arabia's oil-exporting capability. On Wednesday, Iranian Defense Minister Brig. Gen. Amir Hatami reiterated that denial, saying, "These accusations are wholly, seriously and firmly rejected. It's easy to accuse someone without providing any proof."

As al-Malki sought to provide that proof, he said the drones and cruise missiles used against Saudi Arabia had originally come from Iran. He added that some of the weapons deployed don't have sufficient range to fly from rebel-held areas in Yemen to the targets in Saudi Arabia.

But the spokesman stopped short of directly accusing Iran of launching the attack from its own soil — something recently implied by U.S. officials. On Tuesday, two Defense Department officials told NPR that U.S. spy satellites had spotted drones and missiles being prepared at sites in Iran prior to Saturday's attack, which they called "circumstantial evidence" that Iran had launched the strike from inside its borders.

Al-Malii described the attack as part of a pattern of Iranian aggression.

"This attack was not against the kingdom [of Saudi Arabia]," al-Malki said. "It was an assault to the international community — an elaborate attempt to disrupt the global economy and the energy industry."

Speaking before a large international contingent of journalists and diplomats, al-Malki said a total of 25 drones and missiles struck the Abqaiq processing plant and Khurais oil field on Saturday.

"The direction of the attack is coming from the north," al-Malki said, as a large screen showed images of impact points at the Abqaiq facility. He also showed what he said were surveillance videos from the early morning hours that showed the weapons approaching from the north.

Standing amid tables where rows of scorched and fragmented drone and missile wreckage had been laid out, al-Malki said, "This is the kind of weapon the Iranian regime and Iranian [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps], they are using" against civilian targets.

He said the weapons ranged from an Iranian delta-wing unmanned aerial vehicle to "Ya Ali" cruise missiles.

Independent experts note that the weapons displayed Wednesday in Riyadh look similar to known Iranian designs.

The cruise missile resembles a small Iranian-derived design known as the Quds-1, according to Fabian Hinz, a research associate at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at Monterey, Calif.

And Adam Rawnsley, a reporter with The Daily Beast who closely tracks drone technology, quickly identified the delta-wing drones arrayed at the news conference as being Iranian in origin.

Saudi Arabia has rushed to restore capacity to its oil infrastructure, pledging to fulfill orders despite the attacks.

On Tuesday, Saudi Aramco President and CEO Amin Nasser said the company plans to restore production to full capacity by the end of the month. "These synchronized attacks were timed to create maximum damage to our facilities and operations," Nasser said at a news conference in Jeddah.

NPR's Geoff Brumfiel contributed to this report.

oil
Saudi Arabia
Iran

This was posted on this blog on December 10, 2010. Richard Dawkins wrote a very long article about religious violence: "Things are different after September 11th. Let's stop being so damned respectful!" I recommend click all the links.

"Let's stop being so damned respectful."

"The great unmentionable evil at the center of our culture is monotheism. From a barbaric Bronze Age text known as the Old Testament, three anti-human religions have evolved —Judaism, Christianity, and Islam."

On 9/11/2001 3,000 Americans were murdered thanks to religion. Thanks to this religious atrocity, the United States is still wasting thousands of lives and billions of dollars in the two longest wars of our history. The problem is not just the terrorists. All superstitious idiots, also known as theists, are responsible for the daily suicide bombings the world has had to endure since the 9/11 attacks. How can Americans tell the terrorists they're insane when virtually all of us share the same cowardly belief in a magical heaven that makes terrorism possible.

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

Richard Dawkins wrote "Time to stand up" after the 9/11/2001 terrorists attacks.

Time to stand up. Stop respecting religion and start submitting it to the same scutiny as any other idea or argument, says Richard Dawkins. And September 11th 2001 makes this scrutiny more urgent than ever.

Richard Dawkins

"To blame Islam for what happened in New York is like blaming Christianity for the troubles in Northern Ireland!" Yes. Precisely. It is time to stop pussyfooting around. Time to get angry. And not only with Islam. Those of us who have renounced one or other of the three 'great' monotheistic religions have, until now, moderated our language for reasons of politeness. Christians, Jews and Muslims are sincere in their beliefs and in what they find holy. We have respected that, even as we have disagreed with it. The late Douglas Adams put it with his customary good humour, in an impromptu speech in 1998 (slightly abridged):

Now, the invention of the scientific method is, I'm sure we'll all agree, the most powerful intellectual idea, the most powerful framework for thinking and investigating and understanding and challenging the world around us that there is, and it rests on the premise that any idea is there to be attacked. If it withstands the attack then it lives to fight another day and if it doesn't withstand the attack then down it goes. Religion doesn't seem to work like that. It has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. What it means is, "Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not? — because you're not!" If somebody votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it. But on the other hand if somebody says "I mustn't move a light switch on a Saturday," you say, "I respect that."

The odd thing is, even as I am saying that I am thinking "Is there an Orthodox Jew here who is going to be offended by the fact that I just said that?" But I wouldn't have thought, "Maybe there's somebody from the left wing or somebody from the right wing or somebody who subscribes to this view or the other in economics," when I was making the other points. I just think, "Fine, we have different opinions." But, the moment I say something that has something to do with somebody's (I'm going to stick my neck out here and say irrational) beliefs, then we all become terribly protective and terribly defensive and say "No, we don't attack that; that's an irrational belief but no, we respect it."

Why should it be that it's perfectly legitimate to support the Labour party or the Conservative party, Republicans or Democrats, this model of economics versus that, Macintosh instead of Windows — but to have an opinion about how the Universe began, about who created the Universe... no, that's holy? What does that mean? Why do we ring-fence that for any other reason other than that we've just got used to doing so? There's no other reason at all, it's just one of those things that crept into being, and once that loop gets going it's very, very powerful. So, we are used to not challenging religious ideas but it's very interesting how much of a furore Richard creates when he does it! Everybody gets absolutely frantic about it because you're not allowed to say these things. Yet when you look at it rationally there is no reason why those ideas shouldn't be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow between us that they shouldn't be. (http://www.biota.org/people/douglasadams/index.html)

Douglas is dead, but his words are an inspiration to us now to stand up and break this absurd taboo. My last vestige of 'hands off religion' respect disappeared as I watched the "Day of Prayer" in Washington Cathedral. Then there was the even more nauseating prayer-meeting in the New York stadium, where prelates and pastors did their tremulous Martin Luther King impersonation and urged people of mutually incompatible faiths to hold hands in homage to the very force that caused the problem in the first place. It is time for people of intellect, as opposed to people of faith, to stand up and say, "Enough!" Let our tribute to the September dead be a new resolve: to respect people for what they individually think, rather than respect groups for what they were collectively brought up to believe.

Notwithstanding bitter sectarian hatreds over the centuries (all too obviously still going strong), Judaism, Islam and Christianity have much in common. Despite New Testament watering down and other reformist tendencies, all three pay historic allegiance to the same violent and vindictive God of Battles, memorably summed up by Gore Vidal in 1998:

The great unmentionable evil at the center of our culture is monotheism. From a barbaric Bronze Age text known as the Old Testament, three anti-human religions have evolved —Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. These are sky-god religions. They are, literally, patriarchal — God is the Omnipotent Father — hence the loathing of women for 2,000 years in those countries afflicted by the sky-god and his earthly male delegates. The sky-god is a jealous god, of course. He requires total obedience from everyone on earth, as he is not just in place for one tribe, but for all creation. Those who would reject him must be converted or killed for their own good.

In the Guardian of September 15th (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/sep/15/september11.politicsphilosophyandsociety1), I named belief in an afterlife as the key weapon that made the New York atrocity possible. Of prior significance is religion's deep responsibility for the underlying hatreds that motivated people to use that weapon in the first place. To breathe such a suggestion, even with the most gentlemanly restraint, is to invite an onslaught of patronising abuse, as Douglas Adams noted. But the insane cruelty of the suicide attacks, and the equally vicious though numerically less catastrophic 'revenge' attacks on hapless Muslims living in America and Britain, push me beyond ordinary caution.

How can I say that religion is to blame? Do I really imagine that, when a terrorist kills, he is motivated by a theological disagreement with his victim? Do I really think the Northern Ireland pub bomber says to himself, "Take that, Tridentine Transubstantiationist bastards!" Of course I don't think anything of the kind. Theology is the last thing on the minds of such people. They are not killing because of religion itself, but because of political grievances, often justified. They are killing because the other lot killed their fathers. Or because the other lot drove their great- grandfathers off their land. Or because the other lot oppressed our lot economically for centuries.

My point is not that religion itself is the motivation for wars, murders and terrorist attacks, but that religion is the principal label, and the most dangerous one, by which a 'they' as opposed to a 'we' can be identified at all. I am not even claiming that religion is the only label by which we identify the victims of our prejudice. There's also skin colour, language, and social class. But often, as in Northern Ireland, these don't apply and religion is the only divisive label around. Even when it is not alone, religion is nearly always an incendiary ingredient in the mix as well. And please don't trot out Hitler as a counter-example. Hitler's sub-Wagnerian ravings constituted a religion of his own foundation, and his anti-Semitism owed a lot to his never-renounced Roman Catholicism (see http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/murphy_19_2.html)

It is not an exaggeration to say that religion is the most inflammatory enemy-labelling device in history. Who killed your father? Not the individuals you are about to kill in 'revenge'. The culprits themselves have vanished over the border. The people who stole your great-grandfather's land have died of old age. You aim your vendetta at those who belong to the same religion as the original perpetrators. It wasn't Seamus who killed your brother, but it was Catholics, so Seamus deserves to die 'in return'. Next, it was Protestants who killed Seamus so let's go out and kill some Protestants 'in revenge'. It was Muslims who destroyed the World Trade Center so let's set upon the turbaned driver of a London taxi and leave him paralysed from the neck down.

The bitter hatreds that now poison Middle Eastern politics are rooted in the real or perceived wrong of the setting up of a Jewish State in an Islamic region. In view of all that the Jews had been through, it must have seemed a fair and humane solution. Probably deep familiarity with the Old Testament had given the European and American decision-makers some sort of idea that this really was the "historic homeland" of the Jews (though the horrific stories of how Joshua and others conquered their Lebensraum might have made them wonder). Even if it wasn't justifiable at the time, no doubt a good case can be made that, since Israel exists now, to try to reverse the status quo would be a worse wrong.

I do not intend to get into that argument. But if it had not been for religion, the very concept of a Jewish State would have had no meaning in the first place. Nor would the very concept of Islamic lands, as something to be invaded and desecrated. In a world without religion, there would have been no Crusades; no Inquisition; no anti-Semitic pogroms (the people of the diaspora would long ago have intermarried and become indistinguishable from their host populations); no Northern Ireland Troubles (no label by which to distinguish the two 'communities', and no sectarian schools to teach the children historic hatreds — they would simply be one community.)

It is a spade we have here, let's call it a spade. The Emperor has no clothes. It is time to stop the mealy-mouthed euphemisms: 'Nationalists', 'Loyalists', 'Communities', 'Ethnic Groups', 'Cultures'. 'Civilisations'. Religions is the word you need. Religion is the word you are struggling hypocritically to avoid.

Parenthetically, religion is unusual among divisive labels in being spectacularly unnecessary. If religious beliefs had any evidence going for them, we might have to respect them in spite of their concomitant unpleasantness. But there is no such evidence. To label people as death-deserving enemies because of disagreements about real world politics is bad enough. To do the same for disagreements about a delusional world inhabited by archangels, demons and imaginary friends is ludicrously tragic.

The resilience of this form of hereditary delusion is as astonishing as its lack of realism. It seems that control of the plane which crashed near Pittsburgh was probably wrestled out of the hands of the terrorists by a group of brave passengers. The wife of one of these valiant and heroic men, after she took the telephone call in which he announced their intention, said that God had placed her husband on the plane as His instrument to prevent the plane crashing on the White House. I have the greatest sympathy for this poor woman in her tragic loss, but just think about it! As my (also understandably overwrought) American correspondent who sent me this piece of news said:

"Couldn't God have just given the hijackers a heart attack or something instead of killing all those nice people on the plane? I guess he didn't give a flying fuck about the Trade Center, didn't bother to come up with a plan for them" (I apologise for my friend's intemperate language but, in the circumstances, who can blame her?)

Is there no catastrophe terrible enough to shake the faith of people, on both sides, in God's goodness and power? No glimmering realisation that he might not be there at all: that we just might be on our own, needing to cope with the real world like grown-ups? Billy Graham, Mr Bush's spiritual advisor, said in Washington Cathedral:

But how do we understand something like this? Why does God allow evil like this to take place? Perhaps that is what you are asking now. You may even be angry at God. I want to assure you that God understands those feelings that you may have.

What an honour, to be licensed to speak for God! But even Billy Graham's patronising presumption now fails him:

I have been asked hundreds of times in my life why God allows tragedy and suffering. I have to confess that I really do not know the answer totally, even to my own satisfaction. I have to accept, by faith, that God is sovereign, and He is a God of love and mercy and compassion in the midst of suffering. The Bible says God is not the author of evil. It speaks of evil as a "mystery".

Less baffled by this deep theological mystery were two of America's best-known televangelists, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. They knew exactly where to put the blame. Falwell said that God had protected America wonderfully for 225 years, but now, what with abortion and gays and lesbians and the ACLU, "all of them who have tried to secularise America... I point the finger in their face and say you helped this happen." "Well, I totally concur," responded Robertson. Bush, to his credit, swiftly disowned this revealing example of the religious mind at work.

The United States is the most religiose country in Christendom, and its born-again leader is eyeball to eyeball with the most religiose people on Earth (the Taliban's religion-inspired laws include draconian penalties for men whose beard is too short — Monty Python could not have dreamed it up.) Both sides believe that the Bronze-Age God of Battles is on their side. Both take risks with the world's future in unshakeable, fundamentalist faith that God will grant them the victory. J.C. Squire's famous verse on the First World War comes to mind:

God heard the nations sing and shout

"Gott strafe England" and "God save the King!"

God this, God that, and God the other thing —

"Good God!" said God, "I've got my work cut out!"

Incidentally, people speak of Islamic Fundamentalists, but the customary genteel distinction between fundamentalist and moderate Islam has been convincingly demolished by Ibn Warraq in his well-informed book, Why I am not a Muslim. See also his statement at the website for 
Secular Islam: https://centerforinquiry.org/blog/category/secular-islam/

The human psyche has two great sicknesses: the urge to carry vendetta across generations, and the tendency to fasten group labels on people rather than see them as individuals. Religion fuels both. All violent enmities in the world today fuel their tanks at this holy gas-station. Those of us who have for years politely concealed our contempt for the dangerous collective delusion of religion need to stand up and speak out. Things are different after September 11th. Let's stop being so damned respectful!

-- Richard Dawkins

Aghast: filled with horror or shock.

Tuesday, September 17, 2019

More cousins of the human ape species discovered in Central Europe.

Rare 10 million-year-old fossil unearths new view of human evolution

Rare 10 million-year-old fossil unearths new view of human evolution
Rudapithecus was pretty ape-like and probably moved among branches like apes do now -- holding its body upright and climbing with its arms. However, it would have differed from modern great apes by having a more flexible lower back, which would mean when Rudapithecus came down to the ground, it might have had the ability to stand upright more like humans do. Credit: John Siddick
Near an old mining town in Central Europe, known for its picturesque turquoise-blue quarry water, lay Rudapithecus. For 10 million years, the fossilized ape waited in Rudabánya, Hungary, to add its story to the origins of how humans evolved.
What Rudabánya yielded was a pelvis—among the most informative bones of a skeleton, but one that is rarely preserved. An international research team led by Carol Ward at the University of Missouri analyzed this new pelvis and discovered that  bipedalism—or the ability for people to move on two legs—might possibly have deeper ancestral origins than previously thought.
The Rudapithecus pelvis was discovered by David Begun, a professor of anthropology at the University of Toronto who invited Ward to collaborate with him to study this fossil. Begun's work on limb bones, jaws and teeth has shown that Rudapithecus was a relative of modern African apes and humans, a surprise given its location in Europe. But information on its posture and locomotion has been limited, so the discovery of a pelvis is important.
"Rudapithecus was pretty ape-like and probably moved among branches like apes do now—holding its body upright and climbing with its arms," said Ward, a Curators Distinguished Professor of Pathology and Anatomical Sciences in the MU School of Medicine and lead author on the study. "However, it would have differed from modern great apes by having a more flexible lower back, which would mean when Rudapithecus came down to the ground, it might have had the ability to stand upright more like humans do. This evidence supports the idea that rather than asking why  stood up from all fours, perhaps we should be asking why our ancestors never dropped down on all fours in the first place."
Modern African apes have a long pelvis and short lower back because they are such large animals, which is one reason why they typically walk on all fours when on the ground. Humans have longer, more flexible lower backs, which allow them to stand upright and walk efficiently on two legs, a hallmark characteristic of human evolution. Ward said if humans evolved from an African ape-like body build, substantial changes to lengthen the lower back and shorten the pelvis would have been required. If humans evolved from an ancestor more like Rudapithecus, this transition would have been much more straightforward.
"We were able to determine that Rudapithecus would have had a more flexible torso than today's African apes because it was much smaller—only about the size of a medium dog," Ward said. "This is significant because our finding supports the idea suggested by other evidence that human ancestors might not have been built quite like modern African apes."
  • Rare 10 million-year-old fossil unearths new view of human evolution
    A Rudapithecus pelvis fossil, center, overlain on a skeleton of a siamang, compared with a macaque on the left and orangutan on the right. Credit: University of Missouri
  • Rare 10 million-year-old fossil unearths new view of human evolution
    A fossil pelvis from Rudapithecus. The pelvis is among the most informative bones of a skeleton, but one that is rarely preserved. Credit: Carol Ward
  • Rare 10 million-year-old fossil unearths new view of human evolution
    Carol Ward, a Curators Distinguished Professor of Pathology and Anatomical Sciences in the MU School of Medicine, and her team used new 3D modeling techniques to digitally complete the fossil's shape, then compared their models with modern animals. Credit: University of Missouri
  • Rare 10 million-year-old fossil unearths new view of human evolution
    A Rudapithecus pelvis fossil, center, overlain on a skeleton of a siamang, compared with a macaque on the left and orangutan on the right. Credit: University of Missouri
  • Rare 10 million-year-old fossil unearths new view of human evolution
    A fossil pelvis from Rudapithecus. The pelvis is among the most informative bones of a skeleton, but one that is rarely preserved. Credit: Carol Ward
Ward teamed up with Begun to study the  along with MU alumna Ashley Hammond, Assistant Curator of Biological Anthropology at the American Museum of Natural History, and J. Michael Plavcan, a professor of anthropology at University of Arkansas. Since the fossil was not 100% complete, the team used new 3-D modeling techniques to digitally complete its shape, then compared their models with modern animals. Ward said their next step will be to conduct a 3-D analysis of other fossilized body parts of Rudapithecus to gather a more complete picture of how it moved, giving more insight into the ancestors of African apes and humans.

President Fucktard Trump is a stupid fucking asshole.

A comment somebody wrote at the New York Times:

"The stupid part of all this is that California’s emissions control plan has resulted in a substantial and indisputable improvement in air quality in Southern California. Why don’t we now also dispense with sanitary standards and throw human effluent in the streets, middle-age style? Get rid of littering standards. Let’s go back to tossing it out the car window. Absolutely disgraceful, reckless and irresponsible."

••••••••••••••••••••

"Get rid of littering standards. Let’s go back to tossing it out the car window." Actually, that's the way it already is in Idiot America. Millions of stupid fucking assholes throw their garbage food, garbage drinks, and cigarette butts out their car window. I pick this stuff up from my front yard every day.

••••••••••••••••••••

New York Times - Trump to Revoke California’s Authority to Set Stricter Auto Emissions Rules

By Coral Davenport

September 17, 2019

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is expected on Wednesday to formally revoke California’s authority to set auto emissions rules that are stricter than federal standards, taking a major step forward in its wide-ranging attack on government efforts to fight climate change.

The formal abolishment of one of California’s signature environmental policies — tailpipe pollution is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States — will be announced Wednesday afternoon at the Washington headquarters of the Environmental Protection Agency, according to two people familiar with the matter. Mr. Trump at the time will be traveling in California, where he is scheduled to attend fund-raisers in Los Angeles and Silicon Valley.

Lawyers said the action takes the administration into uncharted legal territory in its battle with the state, which has vowed to fight the change all the way to the Supreme Court.

“This is unprecedented and a tremendously big deal,” said Richard L. Revesz, a professor of environmental law at New York University, noting that no administration has ever revoked a state’s authority to regulate its own air quality in the past.

In a speech on Tuesday, Andrew Wheeler, the head of the E.P.A., said, “We embrace federalism and the role of the states, but federalism does not mean that one state can dictate standards for the nation.”

The attack on California is only the latest in a broad array of efforts to weaken climate change regulations by a president who has repeatedly expressed skepticism about the scientific consensus that global warming is human-caused. The administration plans to weaken auto emissions standards nationwide, has rolled back rules governing coal-burning power plants and eased restrictions on energy companies governing leaks of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas.

A revocation of the California waiver would have national significance. Thirteen other states follow California’s tighter standards, together representing roughly a third of the national auto market.

Legal experts said that if Mr. Trump’s move was ultimately held up by the Supreme Court, it could permanently block states from regulating vehicle greenhouse gas pollution. If it was rejected by the Supreme Court, it would allow states to set separate tailpipe pollution standards from those set by the federal government.

The outcome could split the United States auto market, with some states adhering to stricter pollution standards than others. For automakers, that would be a nightmare.

Opponents of the move noted that weakening California’s authority on emissions is directly at odds with the administration’s position on other vital issues — such as gun restrictions and abortion laws — that individual states have the right to set their own rules. “Trump has married his administration-wide hostility to the environment to his personal vendetta against California,” said Dan Becker, director of the Safe Climate Campaign, an advocacy group.

A spokesman for the E.P.A. did not respond to an email requesting comment. In his speech to the National Automobile Dealers Association, Mr. Wheeler said the administration would soon be moving ahead with a single national vehicle pollution standard, suggesting that it would include the California revocation.

The move has been widely expected since last summer, when the Trump administration unveiled its draft plan to roll back the strict federal fuel economy standards put in place by the Obama administration. That draft Trump rule also included a plan to revoke the state’s legal waiver — granted to California under the 1970 Clean Air Act — allowing it to set tougher state-level standards than those put forth by the federal government.

Xavier Becerra, the attorney general of California, said the state intends to strike back with a lawsuit. “While the White House clings to the past, automakers and American families embrace cleaner cars,” he wrote in an email. He called the tougher standards “achievable, science-based, and a boon for hardworking American families and public health.”

In recent months, the administration’s broader weakening of nationwide auto-emissions standards has become plagued with delays as staff members struggled to prepare legal, technical or scientific justifications for it. As a result, the White House decided to proceed with just one piece of its plan — the move to strip California of its authority to set tougher standards — while delaying its wider strategy, according to these people.

The administration’s plans have been further complicated because major automakers have told the White House that they do not want such an aggressive rollback. In July, four automakers formalized their opposition to Mr. Trump’s plans by signing a deal with California to comply with tighter emissions standards if the broader rollback goes through.

Mr. Trump, who was blindsided and angered by that announcement, according to two people familiar with the matter, wanted to press forward with a policy that would punish California.

“It’s clear that the president felt very strongly about this,” said Thomas J. Pyle, the president of the Institute for Energy Research, a think tank that supports fossil fuels, who advised Mr. Trump’s 2016 campaign. “The actions of California and the other auto companies probably firmed up or hardened the president’s resolve on this issue, so here we go.”

The Obama-era tailpipe pollution rules that the administration hopes to weaken would require automakers to build vehicles that achieve an average fuel economy of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, cutting about six billion tons of carbon dioxide pollution over the lifetimes of those vehicles. The proposed Trump rule would lower the requirement to about 37 miles per gallon, allowing for most of that pollution to be emitted.

White House officials have been eager to move quickly to revoke California’s authority to set its own standards because they want the opportunity to defend the effort in the Supreme Court before the end of Mr. Trump’s first term. The thinking goes that if a Democrat were to be elected president in 2020, the federal government would be unlikely to defend revocation of the waiver in the high court.

California’s special right to set its own tailpipe pollution rules dates to the 1970 Clean Air Act, the landmark federal legislation designed to fight air pollution nationwide. The law granted California the right to receive federal waivers to set stricter rules of its own because the state already had clean air legislation in place before it passed.

Over the decades, California requested and received numerous federal waivers to set tighter state-level standards on the tailpipe pollutants that cause smog and respiratory problems, though the federal government didn’t always grant them.

The waiver in effect now was crafted in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, when the nation’s automakers were financially teetering. It was part of a deal struck by President Barack Obama to toughen emissions standards nationwide while aligning California’s rules with federal regulations. It was designed to remain in effect until 2025.

Coral Davenport covers energy and environmental policy, with a focus on climate change, from the Washington bureau. She joined The Times in 2013 and previously worked at Congressional Quarterly, Politico and National Journal. @CoralMDavenportFacebook

Always On My Mind - Piano

Always On My Mind
Maybe I didn't love you
Quite as often as I could have
And maybe I didn't treat you
Quite as good as I should have
If I made you feel second best
Girl I'm sorry I was blind
You were always on my mind
You were always on my mind
And maybe I didn't hold you
All those lonely, lonely times
I guess I never told you
I am so happy that you're mine
Little things I should have said and done
I just never took the time
You were always on my mind
You were always on my mind
Tell me
Tell me that your sweet love hasn't died
And give me
Give me one more chance to keep you satisfied
I'll keep you satisfied
Little things I should have said and done
I just never took the time
You were always on my mind (you were always on my mind)
You were always on my mind
You were always on my mind (you were always on my mind)
You were always on my mind

Knife fight

I seem to have run out of things to write that I haven't already written many times before. So instead of wasting my time here, I'm wasting time losing chess games at https://lichess.org/.

Even when I have an easy win I have repeatedly found a way to lose. Chess is very interesting but it's a very difficult game. The problem is everyone is trying to kill me. These people have no moral values.

My lichess.org profile

Monday, September 16, 2019

God-soaked morons are cowards.

"I believe when I die it will not end there."

Your problem is childish wishful thinking. Grow up and face facts. Dead people don't go anywhere because they're fucking dead.

"How does atheism change life for better?"

Atheism is an acceptance of reality. Theism is an acceptance of childish cowardly bullshit.

I prefer reality because it's interesting and because it's real.

You want to throw out reality because you're a coward.

This is something I wrote 8 years ago: Some friendly advice for Christian assholes.

Sunday, August 28, 2011

Some friendly advice for Christian assholes.

When you Christian tards are talking to a normal person (also known as an atheist) you should not waste your time and the normal person's time with quotes from your idiotic disgusting worthless Bible. When you thump your Jeebus Holy Book you are only providing evidence for your breathtaking stupidity and insanity. And when you use your Bible to insult normal people, you are only proving you're a fucking asshole.

Also, Christian morons, if you want to make some dishonest claim about evolutionary biology, don't bother because normal people will only laugh at your ignorance and your cowardly fear of reality.

You looney Christians should spend less time complaining about normal people and more time trying to understand them. You should ask yourselves why at least one billion people in the world don't share your childish supernatural fantasies. You should consider the possibility the normal people are correct and you have been wasting your life being a fucking idiot.

If you're an American voter and you want to completely destroy the environment and wipe out as many species as possible, then you should vote for Fucktard Trump in 2020.

It would take 75 minutes to read the whole thing. If there is something in the environment that could be destroyed or if an entire species could be wiped out, Trump is doing his best to make these atrocities possible.

To put it as nicely as possible, President Fucktard Trump is a stupid fucking asshole and he belongs in prison.

It's too much to copy & paste so please click the link:

National Geographic - A running list of how President Trump is changing environmental policy

75 MINUTE READ

Sunday, September 15, 2019

Tchaikovsky - 1812 Overture (Full with Cannons)

I asked a dumb question about the Magic Jeebus Man.

Why doesn't everyone in the world worship Jesus?

Best answer: "Not everyone is a moron, but don't give up, we're getting there."

This is a problem in Idiot America. Our idiots go out their way to know nothing.

"It would be so nice if those who oppose evolution would take a tiny bit of trouble to learn the merest rudiments of what it is they are opposing."
-- Richard Dawkins