God vs Science

God is sitting in Heaven when a scientist says to Him,"Lord we don't need you anymore. Science has finally figured out a way to make life out of nothing. Just like what you did it in the beginning." "Oh, is that so? Tell me..." God replies. "Well," says the scientist, "we take dirt and form it into a form of a man and breathe life into it, thus make life." "Show me" So the scientist bends down and picks up dirt and molds the soil. "Oh, no no no!" interrupts God. "Make your own dirt." 

From John Homer, Rochester, Minnesota

Herb Gart
Sent from Polymail

Awful joke

A guy walks into a bar with a slab of asphalt under his arm. "What'll it be?" asks the bartender. "One for me and one for the road." 

Herb Gart
Sent from Polymail


if we reject the worst of the possible explanations for Trump’s behavior, what are we left with?
How do we explain the overtly pro-Russian behavior of Trump and his surrogates? If they’re not Russian puppets, why do they work so hard to defend Putin and Russia against American investigators and reporters? Why do they divert blame to other countries and victims of the hack? Why, instead of targeting the Russian intelligence agencies that infiltrated us, do they attack the American intelligence agencies that exposed the Russians?
Slate published this on Friday, and the questions have only grown more serious since.

Yesterday, for example, Trump sat down with two European newspapers for an interview in which he dismissed NATO as “obsolete”; criticized German Chancellor Angela Merkel for assisting Syrian refugees (whom Trump referred to as “illegals”); said the United States “should be ready to trust” Russian President Vladimir Putin; and endorsed the further unraveling of the European Union.

Not to put too fine a point on this, but if the Kremlin had literally written a script and handed it to Trump to read during the interview, it would’ve sounded exactly like this.

For eight years, Republicans have accused President Obama of encouraging U.S. enemies and discouraging U.S. allies. America’s longtime friends, GOP politicians have said, are no longer sure they can count on support from the United States as a result of Obama’s foreign policy. The bizarre argument has always been wrong, but ironically, it’s poised to become true in the Republican administration that takes power on Friday.

For Team Trump, any suggestion that the president-elect is being blackmailed by Russia, that Putin has damaging dirt on Trump, or that Trump feels the need to pay Russia back for helping him win the presidency is outlandish and offensive. But what Trump’s aides and allies haven’t been able to explain is why in the world the incoming U.S. president keeps going out of his way to do precisely what Putin wants him to do.

No puppet, no puppet.

A Craig's list winner!

I have an extra bedroom in my 2 bedroom apartment that I am willing to let someone stay in for completely free. The only stipulation is that I would like to be in a servant-type role for my roommate. What this means is that I would want to do my roommate's chores (dishes, laundry, etc), run errands for him, and basically treat him like a king. I want NOTHING sexual at all from this. I have simply always wanted to be in a servant-role so I figured this could be a way to do it.

I am a 30-year old white, single male with a good job. I'm sure this ad seems strange, but I am not crazy/weird and I am not looking for anything besides what this ad says. 

Herb Gart
Sent from Polymail


a plurality of Democrats believe, accurately, that more Americans have health insurance, while a plurality of Republicans believe the opposite. A clear majority (61%) of voters who backed Hillary Clinton answered the question correctly, while an even larger majority (74%) of voters who backed Donald Trump got it wrong.

The persistence of the “reality gap” continues to be a problem.

A national Public Policy Polling survey found Trump voters believing all sorts of wrong things, on issues ranging from unemployment (Trump voters believe it went up under Obama, which is the opposite of the truth), to the stock market (Trump voters believe it went down under Obama, which is the opposite of the truth), to the popular vote (Trump voters believe it went in the Republican’s favor, which is the opposite of the truth).   the “reality gap” isn’t altogether new: for years, many Republicans have told pollsters they believe border security has weakened under Obama (it’s actually strengthened), the deficit has gotten bigger (it’s actually shrunk by a huge margin), and the nation’s uninsured rate has gone up (it’s actually at an all-time low).       
Rachel Maddow blog                                                                           


By all accounts, Ivanka Trump will not be a typical presidential daughter. She’ll reportedly have a White House office, which she’ll be able to use to advocate for policies – a step she’s already taken with preliminary calls to Republican members of Congress. This follows a series of meetings Ivanka Trump has joined with her father, foreign leaders, domestic business leaders, and prospective cabinet members.

With this in mind, when Ivanka auctioned a lunch with her for tens of thousands of dollars, it raised eyebrows. Though the charitable auction was eventually scrapped, for a time, it appeared Donald Trump’s daughter was putting a high price on access to an influential member of the incoming president’s orbit.

This week, it’s apparently Ivanka’s brothers’ turn. Time magazine, among others, reported:
A new Texas nonprofit led by Donald Trump’s grown sons is offering access to the freshly-minted president during inauguration weekend – all in exchange for million-dollar donations to unnamed “conservation” charities, according to interviews and documents reviewed by the Center for Public Integrity.

And the donors’ identities may never be known.

Prospective million-dollar donors to the “Opening Day 2017” event – slated for Jan. 21, the day after inauguration, at Washington, D.C.’s Walter E. Washington Convention Center – receive a “private reception and photo opportunity for 16 guests with President Donald J. Trump,” a “multi-day hunting and/or fishing excursion for 4 guests with Donald Trump, Jr. and/or Eric Trump, and team,” as well as tickets to other events and “autographed guitars by an Opening Day 2017 performer.”
The prices aren’t cheap. For $250,000, donors can receive a “private reception and photo opportunity” with Donald Trump himself. To hunt with Trump’s adult sons, donors should expect to write a check for $500,000.

The details are murky, but according to the event management company helping oversee the fundraising, the money will go towards “conservation efforts.” There would be no legal requirement to disclose the donors’ names to the public.

In other words, on Jan. 20, Trump will be inaugurated. On Jan. 21, you can pony up some big bucks to hang out with the new president’s adult sons – who will apparently oversee Trump’s business empire – and no one will know it was you who bought the access.

All of this, of course, comes on the heels of additional fundraising – and additional access-at-a-cost efforts – from Trump’s inaugural committee. The Washington Postreported a few weeks ago:
The committee raising money for President-elect Donald Trump’s inaugural festivities is offering exclusive access to the new president, Cabinet nominees and congressional leaders in exchange for donations of $1 million and more.

For seven-figure contributions, Trump’s richest supporters will get a slew of special perks during the inauguration weekend, including eight tickets to a “candlelight dinner” that will feature “special appearances” by Trump, his wife, Melania, Vice President-elect Mike Pence and his wife, Karen, according to a sheet detailing “underwriter package benefits” obtained by The Washington Post. The 58th Presidential Inaugural Committee confirmed the authenticity of the donor brochure, which was first reported by the Center for Public Integrity.

Other million-donor benefits include an exclusive lunch “with select Cabinet appointees and House and Senate leadership,” four tickets to “an intimate dinner” with the Pences, eight tickets to a lunch with “the ladies of the first families,” eight tickets and premier access to the inaugural ball and priority booking at “Premier Inaugural Hotel(s).”
You can just hear the water being drained from the swamp, can’t you?

Trump’s team and its allies tend to respond to criticisms like these by pointing out that every modern president, from both parties, has had an inaugural committee that has done fundraising like this, and it’s just how things tend to work in Washington, D.C. And as pro-Trump arguments go, this defense at least has the benefit of being true.

But let’s not miss the forest for the trees: Trump ran on an anti-establishment platform, vowing to undo the business-as-usual norms in the nation’s capital. Trump, positioning himself as a faux-populist, said he was disgusted by what he saw as routine corruption, and the crushing influence of special interests, who could buy access with a hefty check. “Pay to play,” Trump effectively told voters, was one of the ugliest phrases in the political lexicon.

Paul Waldman added this morning, “You may recall how outraged Trump and pretty much every other Republican were at the idea that the Clinton Foundation – which actually does good work – could receive a large contribution from a donor who might at some later point have a meeting with the secretary of state. They described this as the absolute height of corruption, insider dealing so vile as to demand that Clinton be jailed at the earliest possible opportunity.”

And yet, here we are, watching leading members of Team Trump put a generous price on access to themselves, and engaging in the exact behavior the president-elect condemned as a candidate in the very recent past.


Scientists prepare to fight for their work during ‘the Trumpocene’

By Sarah Kaplan December 15 at 9:49 AM 

SAN FRANCISCO — Activism wasn't originally on the agenda for Stephen Mullens, a meteorologist at the University of Oklahoma. He'd come to the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union — the first major gathering of the world's earth and climate scientists since the election of Donald Trump — to do what one usually does at these sorts of conferences: meet with colleagues, browse posters, listen to panel discussions, wait in long lines for free coffee.

But the dawn of what one researcher called “the Trumpocene” has everyone at AGU reckoning with their role in this new era.

For Mullens, that meant attending his first-ever protest Tuesday. Standing in a crowd of fellow researchers, he listened as Beka Economopoulos, the director of the Natural History Museum, a mobile museum based in New York, implored them to get “out of the labs and into the streets” in response to the president-elect's positions on climate change.

The protest, organized by the activist group ClimateTruth.org and the Natural History Museum, drew several hundred people from the massive AGU conference happening a few blocks away. Some of the scientists donned white lab coats distributed by the organizers. Others held up signs that read “Science is not a liberal conspiracy,” “Ice has no agenda — it just melts” and “Protect science.” A few looked nervous when a speaker led the crowd in a chant of “Stand up. Fight back.” But they gamely joined in.

“A lot of us are INTJs; we're engineer people,” Mullens said afterward. “Science is very grueling work, and we have personalities that are more introverted. We're not people who get out there.” He also noted that most researchers are wary of engaging in politics, lest they give the appearance of promoting a particular ideology, rather than the facts.

But the rally organizers were right, he continued: “This is about climate change, but it is also about evidence-based policy . . . With this presidential election, I am motivated to be more of an activist.”

The annual AGU meeting in San Francisco draws more than 20,000 researchers from the earth, atmospheric and space science communities to discuss their research on the natural world. But this year, the shock waves from the political earthquake of the past month touched every part of the conference.

Shortly after the election, the AGU — which represents some 60,000 scientists worldwide — posted a petition urging Trump to swiftly appoint a science adviser (he hasn't yet). The group also scrambled to add a special session to the meeting discussing the prospects for science under the new administration.

“Ever since the election we've been hearing a lot of concerns, anxiety, uncertainty about what this will mean for our members,” said AGU's executive director Christine McEntee. “We thought it was really important to provide a session to be able to say, what do we know today, and also provide an opportunity for some tips and ideas of what they could do to help make sure the voice of science is heard and amplified.”

Often, prominent speakers at AGU referred only obliquely to the fears earth science researchers have about the incoming administration: that funding will be cut, research disregarded and environmental regulations dismantled.

But on Wednesday, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell gave a keynote lecture encouraging government scientists to “fight disinformation” and “speak out” if they feel scientific integrity is being undermined in the new administration.

“Make your voices heard and make them relevant to the people you are talking to,” she said.

During a walk through the conference just before her speech, Jewell stopped at the posters of several researchers with the U.S. Geological Survey. One half-jokingly implored her not to send in her resignation letter. Another asked what she will be doing after inauguration; Jewell said she wasn't sure yet. “But,” she added, “I won't be quiet about the importance of science.”

In the vast poster hall, where scientists present their recent research in a school-science-fair-type setting, there was a current of fear running under the conversations about tree rings and sediment layers.

“Everyone's scared. Everyone's afraid we're going to lose our funding,” Gianna Pantaleo, who studies aquatic biology at the University of California at Santa Barbara, said Monday. Her poster depicted declines in coral reef diversity due to ocean acidification.

“We're at this pivotal point where we really need to worry about our oceans,” she said. “And it's kind of heartbreaking because you know you're not going to have support” from the government.

A few rows away, Adam Campbell, an American researcher studying the imperiled Ross Ice Shelf of Antarctica at New Zealand's University of Otago, worriedly recapped the events of the past few days with a friend from graduate school. News had just emerged that the transition team sent a questionnaire to the Energy Department asking the agency to provide the names of employees involved in climate science (the DOE rebuffed the request and the Trump transition team has since said it was “not authorized”), and the previous day Trump said that “no one really knows if climate change is real,” on national television.

“You just don't know what's coming,” Campbell said.

“It's a roller coaster,” agreed the friend, an Antarctic researcher at NASA who asked not to be named out of concern for her job. “You can sense it at work. Every week we have meetings and you just think, do we even bring up the scary thing that just happened now?”

As young scientists, their biggest personal concern was funding for research — both rely on NASA's Earth Science program to do their work, and a Trump adviser has suggested that the new administration could cut this part of the space agency.

But they also echoed a worry that's been stated again and again at this conference: Will Trump, who has made statements on climate change and vaccines that contradict the overwhelming scientific evidence, be not just anti-climate, but “anti-science”?

The NASA scientist said the election has made her question not just her engagement with politics, but how she communicates her research with her fellow citizens. “We didn't do a good enough job of making sure people knew this is real,” she said. “I feel responsible.”

She added, “I'm hoping this is a call to arms.”

Already, several groups that represent researchers are gearing up for a fight.

Representatives from the Union of Concerned Scientists, which took part in the rally, offered advice to researchers facing political scrutiny. Last month, the group issued an open letter to Trump urging him to respect scientific integrity. The letter was signed by more than 2,000 scientists, including nearly two dozen Nobel laureates.

The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, which provides legal assistance to climate researchers, organized a symposium on legal issues facing scientists, and held one-on-one sessions with researchers who needed advice. The group's executive director, Lauren Kurtz, said she had 10 of these meetings on the first day of the conference — almost as many as she has during a whole week in other years.

The group is also handing out pamphlets titled “Handling Political Harassment and Legal Intimidation: A Pocket Guide for Scientists.”

“We literally thought about it the day after the election,” said Kurtz. “I have gotten a lot of calls from scientists who are really concerned . . . so it’s intended in some ways to be reassuring, to say, 'there is a game plan, we’re here to help you.’ ”

The 16-page guide contains advice on what to do if you're the target of an open records lawsuit (a strategy commonly used by opponents of climate research), who to contact if you're a government researcher who thinks that your work is being suppressed, and how to react if you get hate mail or death threats.

The AGU has its own policy on promoting unpoliticized science and protecting research from political interference, and McEntee said that the group will respond to incidents as they come up.

“I don't think we can just yet say it's all gloom and doom,” she said. “But we're watching. We're concerned, and we're watching.”

Read more:

Trump taps Montana congressman Ryan Zinke, who frequently votes against environmentalists, as Interior secretary

Trump has picked the most conservative EPA leader since 1981. This one will face much less resistance.

What will President Trump mean for science?

Herb Gart
Sent from Polymail

Garrison Keillor on the BUBBLE(s)

Trump voters — it’s not me, it’s you

By Garrison Keillor November 21

Garrison Keillor is an author and radio personality.

So we have split up. Democrats and Republicans. Mutual loathing. So Thanksgiving is ruined, maybe Christmas. We Hillarians look at strangers in the airport and think, “You did, didn’t you? Yes, you did.” And they know who we are. If I were drowning and calling for help, they would throw me a large rock. If they were drowning, I’d toss them an anvil. Scripture says to love your enemy but it doesn’t say exactly when or how.

Broadway shows will now feel obliged to give lectures on diversity to any prominent Trumpist in the audience. Trumpists will explain, as one woman did, “My vote was my only way to say: I am here and I count.” (People who shoot up theaters may feel the same way.) The Trump faction will boycott chamber music concerts, wine tastings, lectures on Byzantine art and poetry readings, and Hillarians will boycott NFL games, casinos, gun shows and demolition derbies. 

I have relatives who claim to be Christians who voted for Trump, though God clearly told them not to, but my relatives aren’t good at Aramaic. How do I feel about them? I don’t know. I’m thinking, I’m thinking. How would you feel if your favorite cousin told you he believes that white people should be able to live in all-white communities with all-white schools? (They can. Just go to North Dakota.) 

The future of the Supreme Court under President-elect Donald Trump

Play Video2:56
Who will Donald Trump nominate as Justice Antonin Scalia's successor? Washington Post reporter Robert Barnes identifies potential Trump nominees for the Supreme Court. (elyse samuels/The Washington Post)

President Obama, in his role as national sixth-grade civics teacher, believes the office will change the man. Ha. The man is 70. He has no ideas, no beliefs. His philosophy is simple: When he itches, he scratches. 

So let’s talk about dividing the country. Why spend four years glaring at each other? A house divided against itself cannot stand, so let’s make a duplex. The experiment lasted for 150 years after Appomattox and in the end it failed. So let’s bind up our wounds and have an amicable divorce. 

Democrats get the Northeast and the West Coast, plus a few miscellaneous states, and the Democratic cities — the District, Dallas, Houston, New Orleans, Miami, Raleigh-Durham in North Carolina, Cleveland and so forth. Call it the “Union.” Our capital will, of course, be New York City. Trump takes the former Confederacy and the Corn Belt, and his capital is the bunker deep under the Greenbrier resort in White Sulphur Springs, W.Va., where the federal government planned to go in the event of a catastrophe, which is basically what we have now. Call that country “Trump Country.” Divvy up the military. Equal access to holy sites. They can come to Arlington Cemetery, the Reagan Library and Trump Tower. We get to go to wildlife refuges, Gettysburg and the birthplaces of authors. We’ll sell the White House for a hotel and make the Capitol a museum, and rent out the office buildings. You take your Supreme Court justices, we’ll take ours.

You can have the flag since you invested so much in flag pins and decals. We’ll make a new flag, blue, with the planet Earth on it. 

This is not that hard, people. Others have done it. Pakistan split from India, Norway from Denmark, Lennon left McCartney. 

Our country believes in competition and free enterprise and now it’s time to create a competition between the Union and Trump Country to see which offers the better life to its people. My money is on the young people flocking to the cities, the centers of economic hustle and bustle such as Seattle, Boston, Washington and Austin, where people seem to thrive on ferment, divergence, multiplicity and a culture of mutual respect and toleration.

But I could be wrong about that. Hitler led Germany out of the confusion of democracy, created good jobs, built up the military and united the country as never before. Germany had lost a war and Hitler made it great again. When he staged Kristallnacht in November 1938 and went after the Jews, it was a huge success, on time and under budget. When he wanted to take over Czechoslovakia, he just went and did it. No problem. Looking back, one can see that his invasion of Poland in 1939 was a bad move, but it might have succeeded. Had Britain sued for peace, the United States was in no mood to intervene. Europe and Russia might be united under one swastika today, and China and Korea united under the rising sun of the emperor of Japan. And us. Three world powers. The United Nations could meet in a breakfast alcove. No journalists present, just three men making deals. Very simple. Tremendous efficiency. Just tremendous. Totally. You better believe it.