Monday, November 17, 2014

Winning Tips





Today's Winning Tip







Attacking Cosby

                        
    Liberal Culture                   

The Attack on Bill Cosby                    



[...] Barbara Bowman, a woman who claims that while she was under the tutelage of Cosby, he drugged and “raped” her, aired her unproven allegations by penning an op-ed in the Washington Post headlined: “Bill Cosby raped me. Why did it take 30 years for people to believe my story?”

Maybe it’s because you never filed a police report. Or could it be because you waited 30 years to make your allegations known?

Unproven allegations against Cosby are being aired during primetime on CNN.

But why now?

First, Cosby has made national news for publicly airing black America’s “dirty laundry.” And black people hate for other blacks to criticize them in front of whites.

In 2008, he told a black audience, “We’re killing ourselves. We’re making fools of ourselves.” He took black parents to task who spend more money on sneakers than they do on their kids’ education, and allow them to bring “street-corner” language into their homes.

And Cosby ripped black “leaders” who took issue with the blunt manner in which he delivered his message.

The liberal elite power brokers in the Democratic Party can’t allow Cosby’s call for responsibility to get a foothold in the black community because it threatens the powerful grip they have on black voters.

Since the professional blame merchants want to keep the focus off black failure and blame white America, Cosby has been scapegoated as a “sell-out.” But now they’ve found another issue they can use to try and discredit and destroy the man – and, therefore, the message – of black responsibility.

Radical feminists are notorious for accusing American men of supporting a “rape culture.” They automatically accuse anyone who questions or challenges a woman’s allegations as “blaming” or “shaming” the victim. Therefore, it’s almost impossible for men to discuss or effectively defend themselves against accusations of rape.

Bill Cosby has been fighting accusations of sexual assault for more than three decades. Cosby has never been charged with rape in a court of law, but settled a civil lawsuit out of court in 2004.


[Full]

After 30 years there is no way to prove or repute the charge.  But, there is not a word of fabrication or falsehood in the above argument questioning Bowman's charges.  So, was Ed Schultz speaking for the A-Team when he said on his radio show,"'I'd Cheat To Keep These Bastards (Conservatives) Out'" Of course he was. And so too is Bowman acting, I wager.

By the by, I looked this up; (Bloomberg) How Many Rape Reports Are False?  Feminists say 2 percent; others say up to 40 percent.

“ The number of false accusations is what statisticians call a “dark number” -- that is, there is a true number, but it is unknown, and perhaps unknowable. ... I commend you to Cathy Young’s new piece at Slate, in which she details all the problems that confound investigations into false rape accusations.

Here’s what we do know: The 2 percent number is very bad and should never be cited. ... The 41 percent number beloved of men’s-rights activists is better; it involves a peer-reviewed study by Eugene Kanin of a police department in some unknown small city.


Ahem.

GE's New CT Scanner




That generated by GE's state of the art CT scanner that allows doctors to image the entirety of your innards in the span of a single heartbeat. Literally.

I know what you're thinking.  How will this what we showed earlier play out using that new technology?  Pass the popcorn. 

HAND OF GOD SUDDENLY REVEALED?

It's Scientific 
Gary Larsen
            
'Everything we think we know about our universe is wrong?'




In the late 1800s, Albert A. Michelson, the first American to win the Nobel Prize in the sciences, devised an experiment to prove the Earth is moving through space, through a medium for bearing light called the “aether.”

If he could show that light was slowed down by being fired into an aether headwind, like a swimmer swimming against a stream, Michelson reasoned, it would prove the Earth’s motion through space.

But the experiment didn’t work the way he expected. In fact, it proved the opposite.

The world of science was baffled. Was the Earth not moving?

Eventually, however, another Albert, with the last name of Einstein, developed a theory called special relativity to explain Michelson’s results.

It wouldn’t be the last time, a startling new documentary called “The Principle” suggests, that scientists had to scramble to make their theories about space fit observable facts and experiments that didn’t jive with their prevalent understandings.

Increasingly, bizarre and unproven theories such as the mysterious “dark matter,” “dark energy,” “multiverses” and the creation of “everything from nothing,” the moviemakers claim, have been thought up to try to make the hard data fit with an underlying assumption science has accepted since the 16th century.

But what if instead of dreaming up wild theories to explain away inconsistencies, the moviemakers suggest, scientists allowed the facts to challenge the underlying assumption itself? What if everything science believes about space … is wrong?

“The Principle,” which is opening now in select cities around the U.S., boldly challenges the widely accepted Copernican Principle, named after Renaissance astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus. He famously argued Earth revolves around the sun and went further to suggest Earth is in no central or favored place in the universe.

We inhabit, in famous cosmologist Carl Sagan’s words, “an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people.”

Hogwash, the makers of “The Principle” say.

“Everything we think we know about our universe is wrong,” the movie’s trailer asserts.

Citing Isaac Newton, various current astronomers, Einstein himself and even defenders of the Copernican Principle, the documentary makes the case that the data science is discovering indicate the entire known universe is pointing directly at Earth.

“We are in a special place,” argues one of the voices quoted in the documentary. “I do believe that the universe was created by God.”

Rick DeLano, writer and producer of “The Principle,” declares the “question of our place in the cosmos is the greatest scientific detective story in all of history.”

“The world has been shaped by two great assertions: One places us in the center of it all, and the other one relegates us to utter insignificance. Amazingly, ‘The Principle’ is the first documentary to examine this persistent puzzle at the heart of modern science.”

The film traces the “persistent puzzle” from the ancient astronomer Ptolemy, centuries before Copernicus, to today. But rather than assuming science is at odds with religious faith, as in Galileo’s day, “The Principle” assumes the two dovetail.

“I have great respect for science,” DeLano said. “Where I become offended is when people ignore the evidence. They haven’t proven that something can come from nothing.

“Strong evidence shows there is a special direction in the cosmos, and it points toward Earth. This is a serious claim that could indicate that perhaps the Bible was true in its account of creation … and they’re ignoring it,” he continued. “Experimentation is supposed to be the acid test of an assumption. Experiment trumps all. In the universe, we are told there are no special places – no up, no down, no left, no right. But every experiment tells us we are indeed in a special place, which the scientific community sees as impossible.

“For them to even remotely consider that the Bible could be true is a laughable joke. It’s beyond ignorant,” DeLano said. “The arrogance of the scientific atheist is unbelievable. But as the Bible says, ‘Pride [goeth] before a fall.’

“What they don’t understand is that science and theology have the same author: ‘In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth,’” DeLano concluded. “We have the distinct advantage of having the truth on our side.”

“The Principle” opened Oct. 24 in select theaters in Chicago with plans to expand to Los Angeles and then to various theaters around the country. Those interested in the film can learn more at its website, ThePrincipleMovie.com.


WND

Your mileage may differ, but I've long felt that the nutrition, earth and cosmos sciences are like women's fashion; changing with the weather.  Plus, I believe in God. 

Ross meets Moe and Curly; hillariy ensues







                                                                                       
Ross, Moe, and Curly
who doesn't belong here?



Here's a clip from Ross Douthat's "The Great Immigration Betrayal" from Sunday's New York Times:
IN the months since President Obama first seem poised — as he now seems poised again — to issue a sweeping executive amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants, we’ve learned two important things about how this administration approaches its constitutional obligations.

First, we now have a clear sense of the legal arguments that will be used to justify the kind of move Obama himself previously described as a betrayal of our political order. They are, as expected, lawyerly in the worst sense, persuasive only if abstracted from any sense of precedent or proportion or political normality.

This is where the administration has entered extraordinarily brazen territory, since part of its original case for taking these steps was that they supposedly serve the public will, which only yahoos and congressional Republicans oppose.

This argument was specious before; now it looks ridiculous .... there is no public will at work here. There is only the will to power of this White House.
Second, we now have a clearer sense of just how anti-democratically this president may be willing to proceed.
The legal issues first. The White House’s case is straightforward: It has “prosecutorial discretion” in which illegal immigrants it deports, it has precedent-grounded power to protect particular groups from deportation, and it has statutory authority to grant work permits to those protected. Therefore, there can be no legal bar to applying discretion, granting protections and issuing work permits to roughly half the illegal-immigrant population.

This argument’s logic, at once consistent and deliberately obtuse, raises one obvious question: Why stop at half? (Activists are already asking.) After all, under this theory of what counts as faithfully executing the law, all that matters is that somebody, somewhere, is being deported; anyone and everyone else can be allowed to work and stay. So the president could “temporarily” legalize 99.9 percent of illegal immigrants and direct the Border Patrol to hand out work visas to every subsequent border crosser, so long as a few thousand aliens were deported for felonies every year.

The reality is there is no agreed-upon limit to the scope of prosecutorial discretion in immigration law because no president has attempted anything remotely like what Obama is contemplating. In past cases, presidents used the powers he’s invoking to grant work permits to modest, clearly defined populations facing some obvious impediment (war, persecution, natural disaster) to returning home. None of those moves even approached this plan’s scale, none attempted to transform a major public policy debate, and none were deployed as blackmail against a Congress unwilling to work the president’s will. (continued)


Here's the lede from Thomas "Moe" Friedman's "Who Are We?"

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — THE 9/11 suicide attack, spearheaded by 19, mostly Saudi, young men in the name of Islam, ignited a debate in the Sunni Arab world about religion and how their societies could have produced such suicidal fanatics. But it was quickly choked off by denial, and by America’s failed invasion of Iraq. (Huh?)


Here's the lede from Nicholas "Curly" Kristof's When Whites Just Don’t Get It, Part 3

SOME white Americans may be surprised to hear Archbishop Desmond Tutu describe Bryan Stevenson, an African-American lawyer fighting for racial justice, as “America’s young Nelson Mandela.”

Huh? Why do we need a Mandela over here? We’ve made so much progress on race over 50 years! And who is this guy Stevenson, anyway?

Yet Archbishop Tutu is right. Even after remarkable gains in civil rights, including the election of a black president, the United States remains a profoundly unequal society — and nowhere is justice more elusive than in our justice system.

Must I explain anything?  I didn't think so. You're wel ... Whats that? Yes, Ross Douthat is the lone conservative. Is that it...  Jack from Anchorage, what's your question? ...  Okay; I can't begin  to explain Friedman's "America’s failed invasion of Iraq." Nobody can.  Anyone else? Yes, you, in the back.  Explain Kristof's blanket charge of white racism?  Who let you in?  Read this; then  write a 500 word synopsis.  And ditch the CHE tee-shirt.  Sheesh.