The Anti Science Left...Exhibits 291 A & B

Wind Farm
.
.

.

"Trump Says Wind Turbine Noise Causes Cancer (It Does Not)"
(https://nymag-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/nymag.com/intelligencer/amp/2019/04/trump-says-wind-turbine-noise-causes-cancer-it-does-not.html?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCCAE%3D#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=http%3A%2F%2Fnymag.com%2Fintelligencer%2F2019%2F04%2Ftrump-says-wind-turbine-noise-causes-cancer-it-does-not.html)

"We Fact-Checked President Trump’s Dubious Claims on the Perils of Wind Power"
(https://www-nytimes-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/04/03/climate/fact-check-trump-windmills.amp.html?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCCAE%3D#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2019%2F04%2F03%2Fclimate%2Ffact-check-trump-windmills.html)

I hate doing this (OK, actually, I don't), but pointing out the Western Left's Science Illiteracy has become a bit of an obsession with me. The reason for that, is that our media is predominantly Leftist reliably feeds into that anti science mentality, because our media is overwhelmingly comprised of people who neither like nor understand much science and less math.

That said, Trump's wind turbine noise/cancer claims are speculative, at best...but they're actually LESS unscientific then those of his critics, who claim they are patently false.

The truth is, WE DON'T KNOW the impact of noise on cancer, BUT it's being studied.

A 2017 study published in the Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, titled, "Environmental noise and breast cancer risk" states, "The causes of breast cancer have been explored during many decades, and especially sex hormones play a pivotal role in the most established risk factors such as early menarche, late menopause, nulliparity, late first pregnancy, oral contraceptives, and hormone replacement therapy. Overall, however, these and other established risk factors for breast cancer explain only a minor fraction of the diseases. Non-hormonal avenues of potential risk factors for breast cancer have also been pursued. Recently, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified shiftwork that involves circadian disruption (DISRUPTED SLEEP PATTERNS) as a probable cause for human breast cancer, and the evidence for this association is mounting. Further, even exposure to ill-timed light-at-night beyond night work, ie, social jetlag and living in highly lit urban areas, may be associated with breast cancer. (PROBABLY ALSO DUE TO THEIR EFFECT ON SLEEP PATTERNS)

"It has recently been suggested that exposure to AMBIENT NOISE may also be involved in breast cancer risk. Noise is defined as unwanted and unpleasant sounds, and apparently evolution has programmed humans and animals to be aware of high sounds as possible sources of danger. Thus, TRAFFIC NOISE from AIRCRAFTS, CARS, RAILWAYS and TRAINS are relatively NEW ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTANTS, which have expanded after World War II and are now widespread especially in urban areas and around airports. It is well documented that loud noise can cause hearing loss. IT IS ALSO WELL KNOWN THAT NOCTURNAL NOISE DISTURBS BOTH THE LENGTH AND QUALITY OF SLEEP..." (EMPHASIS mine)
(http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=3681)

According to another 2013 study (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3653647/), 2013 study, these are some adverse effects associated with wind turbines: “People who live or work in close proximity to IWTs have experienced symptoms that include decreased quality of life, annoyance, stress, SLEEP DISTURBANCE, headache, anxiety, depression, and cognitive dysfunction. Some have also felt anger, grief, or a sense of injustice,” says the study. It says also that these effects may be caused by “turbine noise, infrasound, dirty electricity, ground current, and shadow flicker.” But there is no evidence to support cancer risk coming from wind turbines." (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3653647/#__sec2title)

The actual scientific literature claims disrupted sleep patterns and "ambient noise" (ie. traffic noise from aircrafts, cars, railways and trains are relatively new environmental pollutants, etc.) may well be related to cancer.

So, the noise issue is NOT the means to "scientifically" attack Trump's claim here, as that's still being studied.

What is undeniable is that there appear to be much higher cancer risks from burning coal, the use of traditional fossil fuels.

THAT much is undeniable.

This mocking hysteria over Trump's oversimplified speculation amounts to the weaponizing of science by those who don't understand it.

There is an irony in that the predominantly English Lit, History and Social Studies majors in our media, generally people who did everything they could to avoid taking math and science in College, are the ones now trying to weaponize a field of study they don't understand.

Even MORE ironic, is that their attempts to weaponize science, puts them in the SAME boat as Donald Trump, who also oversimplifies things to make personal points.

That's why this ongoing debunking and undermining of our national media is so vital. Their consistently anti science stance is dangerous.
.

Can Trump Win?

This is being written the night before the Election of 2016, but I’ve been mulling this over this past week.

Can Donald J. Trump actually win this election?

This is an unprecedented and historic election precisely because it seems to have delivered exactly what America’s electorate deserves; a “Reality TV Election!”

That’s what we’ve had, a year-long Reality TV election with the most outrageous candidates from BOTH major Parties winding up in this “steel cage death match” that will mercifully end tomorrow...or maybe within the following week...or month...or?

Donald Trump has taken on the mantle of the prototypical “In-Your-Face New Yorker.” He’s a billionaire businessman and real estate developer who talks like and connects with Blue Collar Americans.

As a result, he’s alienated both “cheap-labor” (Pro-In-Sourcing) Republicans and “cheap vote” (Pro-ILLEGAL-Immigration) Democrats...and rightly so. BOTH of those groups are and have long been solidly anti-American.

The Clintons are not merely “dishonest political opportunists who’d sell out their own families for a buck,” they embody virtually everything wrong with our existing pro-globalist, anti-American political-media class.

Meanwhile Donald Trump seems an absurd choice to represent the “America 1^st, anti-globalist” American working class. He’s also let his mouth and his late-night tweeting take him off message. By mid-September, Trump’s chances seemed very dim, at best.

However, as America’s globalist (fully owned, bought and paid for by global conglomerates) media openly campaigned for Hillary, with CNN’s Jake Tapper sitting on the Board of the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), while CNBC’s chief Washington correspondent John Harwood collaborated with the Clinton team on what to ask GOPe candidate Jeb Bush. WikiLeaks released emails from John Podesta that showed Harwood asking the Clinton campaign to help him brainstorm interview questions to ask Jeb Bush.

On Sunday morning, a newly-released email from Wikileaks, dated September 21, 2015, showed Harwood consulting Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta on questions to ask former Florida Governor Jeb Bush. “What should I ask Jeb in Speakeasy interview tomorrow?”

John Harwood insists he “did nothing wrong.” (http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/11/06/wikileaks-cnbcs-john-harwood-asked-podesta-interview-jeb-bush/)

That’s an outright LIE!

That collusion is very WRONG.

What he most likely meant is that he didn’t do anything that hasn’t been routine for a very long time, which only shows how nefarious and underhanded our Corporate media really is.

It’s hard to put much faith in the many media-manipulated polls, changing day-to-day depending on the sampling they use, more Democrats here, more independents and unaffiliateds there, etc.

BUT now, on the eve of the Election, Nate Silver who predicted a perfect 51/51 (all 50 States + the District of Columbia) in 2008 and 50/51 in 2012, now says that Hillary Clinton is “Just one state away from losing the election.” Of course, this is the SAME Nate Silver who claimed that Trump had absolutely no shot at winning the GOP Primaries back in January of 2016.

Silver says, “We show a three-point lead nationally for Clinton, 2-1 favorite. The electoral college map is less solid for Clinton than it was for Obama four years ago, where four years ago we had Obama ahead in states totaling 320 some electoral votes. Clinton has 270 so one state away from potentially losing the Electoral College...” (http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/11/06/nate-silver-clinton-one-state-away-losing-electoral-college/)

The problem with this year’s polling is that there seems to be a hidden Trump vote, with many Trump supporters reluctant to divulge their choice and subject themselves to media’s ridicule.

Is that phenomenon real?

If it is, will it be enough?

The “Only poll that counts” starts tomorrow morning.

We’ll know soon enough.

Arrogance and the Presidency

A friend recently remarked, “We need an arrogant President to deal with ISIS. Obama is too nice. The DONALD is arrogant but too thin skin to be President. Vote Hilary 2016.”

DB

.

.

My response is: No DB, arrogance is ALWAYS a flaw, NEVER a virtue. I'll admit that Trump earned some of his arrogance (“It ain’t bragging IF you can back it up,” even though no amount of arrogance is very pretty), along with his billions, but Bill and Hillary did nothing more than win a few popularity contests (elections).

Bill Clinton got into Harvard on a "geographic preference" (he was, "The smartest hillbilly in the hollers"), Hillary (gender preferences), Obama (race and national origin preferences...yes, he applied to at least Occidental College as a student from Indonesia) and yes, G W Bush (Donor Preferences)...the SAME. All of them were on the receiving end of various preference programs.

Hillary, like Obama, is wholly unable to deal with the ISIS threat. Benghazi proved that.

I don't think many Democrats really understand the actual appeal of BOTH Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders (his AIN'T "socialism”). They were BOTH "Thumbs in the eye" of our failed political class.

Sure, Bernie turned out to be a fraud...hell, he was tossed out of a commune in New Hampshire for failing to pull his weight, so who couldn't see that coming?

Trump is NOT popular because he’s widely seen as a great leader, merely because he’s NOT "one of them"...the political class.

For many, right now, that's enough.

Hi Anti-Trumpers...and Buh-Bye!

Sad! Pathetic even!

The diehard "Never-Trump" movement skidded to a faltering halt last night (Thursday 7/14/16). "A long-shot, last-ditch attempt by a few Republican delegates to prevent Donald Trump from securing the GOP nomination failed by an overwhelming margin late Thursday night." (https://theconservativetreehouse.com/…/never-trump-campaig…/)

"Some anti-Trump delegates on the Republican National Convention Rules Committee sought a strategy to unbind convention delegates, allowing them to vote their conscience against Trump even if they were bound to him by primary results. Delegates loyal to Trump and the Republican National Committee fought back by proposing a counter-measure to clarify that all delegates are bound to vote based on the primary results.

"The votes came near the end of a marathon 14-hour session of the rules committee to set any changes ahead of next week’s convention to officially nominate Trump as the Republican presidential candidate. The first vote, on the pro-Trump measure to keep delegates bound, passed easily, 87 to 12..."

"...Kendal Unruh, a Colorado delegate who has led the efforts to unbind the delegates, offered her highly anticipated amendment. She gave a speech beforehand calling the ability to vote one’s conscience a “God-given right.”

“The right to conscience is not just something that we’ve decided is a cool idea. It’s something that is the very basis of our nation,” Unruh said. “It is why the pilgrims came here and founded our nation. It is a God-given right to why we have the Bill of Rights.”

"Immediately after that, however, Michigan delegate Matt Hall moved to end debate on the measure, and more than two-thirds of the committee, 77 to 21, voted to cut off all debate while some anti-Trump delegates, including Utah Sen. Mike Lee, were still waiting to speak on the matter.

"The committee then voted against Unruh’s amendment by voice vote, with the opposition so clear that a recorded vote was deemed unnecessary."

I hope that these folks choose to follow George Will's lead and leave the GOP. Maybe they could follow the leads of those who plan on leaving the U.S. "If Trump wins."

AGAIN, the reason we have the 2 remaining major Party candidates we do is because the Democrats rigged their system with "Super-Delegates" that never gave Bernie Sanders a real shot. That and because fewer Dems are sick of a government that has continuously let down Americans and especially American workers.

The GOPe TRIED to rig their system and thought it was rigged, but early on they didn't "get the hint." Even when the top 4 vote getters in their early Primaries were "political outsiders, Carson, Cruz, Fiorina and Trump. The GOPe proved none too swift on the uptake.

For those of either Party who want to vote NEITHER, there IS a viable 3rd option, Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate.

Not too sure how sound he is on anti-terror, or In-Sourcing cheap labor via "undocumented workers," and the abuse of the H-1B Visa system, but at least he's "NOT one of them."

Me, I'm probably pulling the lever for Trump, primarily because I revile politicians and our broken political system.

WHY Can't Leftists Help Themselves?

This week, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg chose to deliberately politicize the Supreme Court.

In taking on Presidential candidate Donald Trump, she not only pulled away any pretense of that court's political impartiality, she also pretty much made it imperative that she recuse herself should any action involving Trump come before Court down the line.

I'm hardly surprised any more when I see some Left-wing politician assail the Constitutional principles that made America great.

What's more, it shows that Justice Ginsburg is a committed Leftist, who puts her far-Left socialist principles above our free market/property rights-based Constitution.

Such people are dangerous precisely because they ignore the facts (like multiculturalism's utter FAILURE in Europe) and they ignore the facts because, simply put, they can't do the math.

Worse still, her abuse of her office was most likely all for naught. At this point the American electorate is so polarized, that there's little anyone can do to sway those committed to the other side. What we have are probably best described as, visceral ideologies, that is, ideologies that need no words to be understood and identified by proponents.

Consider that among Independents, Hillary Clinton is now running 3rd behind Trump & the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson. This is a "Brexit Election."

That probably won't change, so WHY would Ruth Bader Ginsburg compromise the Court?

Because like most Leftists, she can't help herself.

THIS is...Interesting

Gary Johnson (L) and William Weld (R)...CAN These Guys Gain Traction?

I think everyone knows that the current race for President is about as popular as a contest between a rat and a snake.

BOTH major Party candidates have what appears to be serious personality disorders.

Beyond that, much of the electorate is hopelessly polarized. Many, like myself would never even consider voting for Hillary Clinton, any more than I would consider voting for Jeb (or any other) Bush.

So, today, we have a very different electorate than we did a quarter century ago...and the major political Parties haven't caught up.

They probably don't WANT to "catch up," because none of the news is good for them.

Today, a large (at least 35%) and growing segment of the electorate is Independent...NOT aligned with either major Party.

According to a recent Politico poll, "Fifty-five percent favor having an independent candidate challenge the Democratic front-runner and presumptive Republican nominee for president. An unprecedented 91 percent of voters 28 or younger favor having an independent on the ballot, and 65 percent of respondents are willing to support a candidate who isn’t Clinton or Trump.

"According to Data Targeting’s ballot test, an independent candidate would start off with 21 percent of the vote."

A Fox News survey released Thursday found Clinton leading overall with 39 percent support, followed by Donald Trump at 36 percent and Johnson at 12 percent, but among independents, Trump leads, at 32 percent, followed by Johnson, at 23, and Clinton, at 22. So, according to some polls Gary Johnson (the Libertarian candidate) has a real shot at gaining ground as they garner more media attention. (http://www.zerohedge.com/…/libertarian-candidate-gary-johns…)

Many voters haven't made up their minds yet and it seems that as many Democrats revile Hillary as Republicans detest Trump. Where will such voters go?

Will they "Hold their noses and vote Party," OR will they look elsewhere?

Libertarian candidates are also surging in some Senate races, most notably Missouri and Minnesota. (http://editions.lib.umn.edu/…/libertarian-candidates-surgi…/)

Personally I HAVE and would love to vote Libertarian, BUT I'd have to (1) See that candidate as having a good chance to actually win (this election is too important) and (2) I would NOT vote in any manner that might aid Hillary Clinton. How many others feel that way...or the reverse? How many others just couldn't vote for either major Party candidate?

THAT is Gary Johnson's and William Weld's opportunity. I sincerely hope they make the best of it!

Trump’s Combative Approach Baffles Some and Appeals to Others

Donald J. Trump

Donald J. Trump is no politician. For many, that’s refreshing, for others it’s frightening. I’m among the latter on that score.

BUT both supporters and opponents alike often wonder how his naturally combative style will work long term.

Two recent spats have made clear how that could prove problematic.

Trump’s ongoing feuds with Jeff Bezos of Amazon and New Mexico’s Republican Governor, Susana Martinez have even Trump supporters worried about his chances going forward.

Jeff Bezos and Donald Trump seem to be on opposite sides of two major issues, online taxation and whether law enforcement has the right to compromise corporate encryption technologies.

On the one hand, Jeff Bezos has said that his company is wholly aligned with Apple in its fight against government investigators, who asked Apple to break its own encryption programs so they could gain access the iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino, Calif., terrorists.

While Trump hasn’t addressed Amazon’s position on encryption, he has openly criticized Apple’s policy of non-cooperation. On February 17, 2015 Trump said, “Who do they think they are?” adding, “We should use common sense...we should open it up.”

Ultimately the FBI made that issue moot when it cracked Apple’s encryption codes without Apple’s assistance.

The other major point of contention is taxes. The record suggests that Amazon pays just a tiny fraction of the statutory corporate tax rate of 35 percent - according to The New York Times, Amazon pays just six percent (these data are from 2007 to 2012) although it seems unlikely that Amazon’s tax rate has gone up since.

Despite the fact that Donald Trump has called for a dramatic cut in the US corporate tax rate, which is the highest in the world, down to a more competitive 15 percent. Yet even a Corporate tax rate of 15 percent, if collected, would wind up being a huge tax increase for Amazon, as well as many other global tech giants, such as Google and Facebook.

THAT seems to be the crux of Jeff Bezos’ issue with Donald Trump. I like Amazon and greatly admire Jeff Bezos and what he’s done with the world’s largest online retailer, however, on this score, Amazon and other global tech giants HAVE NOT been responsible American corporate citizens. They SHOULD BE paying more of their fair share.

It should also be troubling that today the Washington Post (now owned by Jeff Bezos) has become a corporate mouthpiece for Amazon. Sure, ALL of America’s media is compromised in exactly that SAME way...all of it owned and controlled by various corporate conglomerates.

His more recent feud with New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez is seen as more troubling, given Trump’s problems polling with women and Hispanics.

It’s important to note that their “feud” began in mid-April, when the New Mexico governor Martinez issued a strongly worded rebuke to Trump, when Governor Martinez spoke at a GOP fundraiser in the home of David Koch in Palm Beach, Florida. Governor Martinez, according to the Washington Post, "did not mince words. She told the crowd of about 60 wealthy GOP backers that, as a Latina, she was offended by Trump's language about immigrants. Noting her years working as a prosecutor on the Mexican border and now as a border-state governor, Martinez said Trump's plan to build a wall and force Mexico to pay for it was unrealistic and irresponsible, according to multiple people in attendance."

Trump’s response was, "The governor has to do a better job. She's not doing the job"

Something to keep in mind is that Governor Martinez’ views on immigration are opposed by a large majority of Hispanics. According to National Review, “A majority of Hispanic voters think legal status to illegal immigrants should be granted only after a goal of stopping 90 percent of future illegal immigration has been achieved, according to a new survey by GOP pollster John McLaughlin. By a margin of 60 percent to 34 percent, registered Hispanic voters said they supported granting legal status to illegal immigrants “only when the 90% goal is reached.” Hispanic adults backed the proposal by a nearly identical margin — 60 percent to 32 percent.” (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/352903/poll-60-percent-hispanics-back-enforcement-first-approach-immigration-reform-andrew)

The idea that Hispanic-Americans support illegal immigration, or even increases in illegal immigration seems to be a myth. The primary supporters of increased migration are multi-national corporations who want cheaper labor.

Last September (2015) showed that only 34 percent of U.S.-born Hispanics, and 33 percent of foreign-born Hispanics, want an increase in the amount of legal immigration, said the Gallup report. (http://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2015/09/10/two-out-of-three-hispanics-oppose-immigration-increase/)

Sixty-four percent of each group of Hispanics want migration to be reduced or leveled, said Gallup, which released the report under a misleading headline, “U.S. Support for Increased Immigration Up to 25%.” (http://www.gallup.com/poll/184529/support-increased-immigration.aspx)

Twenty-six percent of self-identified Hispanics born in the United States, all of whom can vote, want legal migration to be reduced. However, the percentage of Hispanics opposing increases may be much higher, partly because a growing number of Hispanics now identify themselves as core white Americans.