Archive for research

GOP Are Not Climate Control Scientists, But Play One On TV

Share

Climate Change

When I have a medical problem, I seek out a doctor.

When I have a plumbing problem, I seek out a plumber.

When I have a tax problem, I seek out an accountant.

Crazy, no? So when the world has a scientific problem -- global warming and climate change -- who do we seek out? Scientists?

Hell no. Those lab coat wearing geeks never agree on anything. They're still too hung up on totally unproven theories of things like gravity,  radiation is bad for us, and that whopper of whoppers, we're a product of evolution, not creationism.  The answers lie not in our stars (sorry Nancy and Ronald Reagan) but in faith-based ideologues who can be trusted. Seers. Prophets. Clairvoyants. We need to seek the truth from our elected officials -- GOP congressmen and GOP senators. If anyone understands ancient history, it's those who still live in it.

According to their right-wing, conservative agenda and their political party planks, we know that even God comes to them for guidance, and not the other way around. These climate guys in the GOP (sorry ladies, you're really only tokens under their tent) aren't like those crazy whacked out communist Democratic liberal egg-heads. Republicans don't waste their time with evidence, facts or even scientific theory. The GOP just plain knows. And when you know something comes from the GOP, that trumps every other form of evidence. Period.

So, grab your bible and your gun, sit down and listen to the real pros. Here's the true geniuses and guardians of our future, all in one video, assuring us we can relax. We're not in any danger. Nothing needs to be done. Phhhw. Damn, those scientists had me scared there for a minute:

Share

NYT's Maureen Dowd OD's On Marijuana And Blames The Candy

Share

cannabs edibles maureen dowd

There's nothing like trying something before writing about it. And that's what New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd did recently -- and not without some lingering effects. For an article she was writing on Colorado's legal marijuana culture, she decided to try some of the "edibles" which contain cannabis. So far so good.

So, she bought a caramel-chocolate flavored candy bar which she said looked so innocent, like the Sky Bars she used to love as a kid. After she took one bite, then another, she didn't notice anything happening. Perhaps she was disappointed but for whatever reason, she decided in her impatience to gobble down the rest of the bar.

She waited, and then it happened. The effects began. In her NYT article, she writes:

But then I felt a scary shudder go through my body and brain. I barely made it from the desk to the bed, where I lay curled up in a hallucinatory state for the next eight hours. I was thirsty but couldn’t move to get water. Or even turn off the lights. I was panting and paranoid, sure that when the room-service waiter knocked and I didn’t answer, he’d call the police and have me arrested for being unable to handle my candy.

Based on that experience, she's come to some conclusions. The biggest one being that the entire marijuana industry was set up for potheads, people who smoked frequently. This nascent business has to educate new or first time users prior to selling them the edible goods so people will know what to expect to feel.

That's not a bad idea. But her article goes on to condemn and point out the dangers of legalization, even trying to equate her unfortunate experience with people jumping off buildings and kids eating marijuana-laced goodies and ending up with irreparable harm. These are possible, but not probable. And the reason is, she OD'd because she lacked common sense.

The next day, a medical consultant at an edibles plant where I was conducting an interview mentioned that candy bars like that are supposed to be cut into 16 pieces for novices; but that recommendation hadn’t been on the label.

So in essence, she took 16 times the amount she should have taken. No wonder she got herself into a bit of a problem. If she had bought a fifth of scotch and drunk the whole thing, she would have gotten sick or drunk or both on that too. There's no suggested servings printed on a bottle of booze. So I find it a bit disingenuous that she faults the experience on her naivete. She's been around. She knows you don't go from one bite to the whole bar, just as you don't go from one shot glass of Glenlivet to the whole bottle.

Her suggestion that if this had been alcohol, she'd have known better doesn't really hold water. She claims in her article that people know you have to be careful in how much you drink, when only an idiot or the most simpleminded would think that taking too much of a marijuana laced edible wouldn't lead to some ill effects.

But that said, I do think the public has been so scared by lies and innuendos--the Reefer Madness syndrome--that more education of the public might not be such a bad thing. But Dowd's reckless accusations that it was the lack of full labeling or the implication that she needed more knowledge to safely ingest is a disservice to an industry. If she was new to this kind of purchase, why didn't she ask when she bought the candy bar how much she should take to feel some effects? The next day when she asked, she was told. A bad assumption on her part made an ass of her, not a better investigative columnist.

Share

Academic Boycott for Non-Academic Reasons. Stupid

Share

college classroom

I understand boycotts - they are a way to express our sadness or disappointment in another entities actions and behavior. The concept allows me a "voice" in another's decision making. We have seen all kinds of boycotts -- from companies that refuse to serve those of color to stores that stock items made of real fur. Our involvement with generally is an economic sense. We withhold our fiscal patronage unless an entity changes it's ways. Basically, we spend our money in places which don't violate our personal interests whether religious, sexual, or political.

Now Time Magazine reports:

(NEW YORK) — The American Studies Association has become the largest U.S. group of scholars to approve a boycott of Israeli universities.

The boycotts are in protest of Israeli policy toward Palestinians. The American Studies Association says their action aims to ban American academic groups and schools from working with Israeli universities and not a ban on work between individual Israeli and U.S. scholars.

Here's what seems peculiar to me. This group, the American Studies Association wants to withhold American cooperation with the Israeli education system? Really? Why?

Politics. This group of educators are taking one of our strongest allies and trying to exert their own conscience on whom? Students? Is that who should be targeted when it comes to "unconscionable" policies? Is this a joke?

If the ASA wants to use it's power for some good, how about boycotting interaction with emerging nations that shoot and kill female students just because they seek an education? That's murder. Ask Malala. Ask the other girls in her country. Anywhere in that region. Oh, and let's not forget Africa and it's denial of learning to young girls. Just look at Lawrence O'Donnell's K.I.N.D. program, kids in need of desks.

I'm all for boycotts, but they should be targeted where most necessary. Let's put a point in that. Attack ignorance, but economically. Don't use education and the sharing of ideas and thoughts as a threat. If anything, open the doors. Show the offenders what they're doing wrong. Don't hide your head in the sand. Keep the great inter-communications on high educational levels open. Maybe great scientific and economic inventions and theories and medical cures have come from Israel. They may have a horrible prime minister, but don't blame the kids.

Open the educational cooperation. Don't be a dropout. Don't be a dope. Face it, this boycott is s-t-u-p-i-d.

Share

Republicans Are Destroying Our Future - Carl Sagan Predicts in 1996

Share

solar system

Just over 17 years ago, one of the most respected pillars of the science world, Carl Sagan gave an interview to newsman Charlie Rose. Sagan was best known to the public for his very popular television series, Cosmos, where he explored the mysteries and science relating to the universe around us. It covered a wide range of scientific subjects, including the origins of life and a perspective of our place in the galaxies.

Sagan's show made us think, to probe the questions plaguing us and to look at the future through science. Cosmos was then and still is today, the most widely watched TV series ever on PBS, viewed collectively by over 500 million people in over 60 countries.

Even today, his name has quite a bit of cache as so much of what he projected for the future and spoke about has come true. Below is that very poignant and timely (today) caution about heeding science and education or becoming a victim of it. He's both optimistic and skeptical. In under two decades since his passing, less than a year after this interview, you can see how right on the mark he was with his projections that the Republican doctines would be harmful to our future growth and understanding of how to achieve a viable future.

Think about drones, the NSA spying, the EPA, global warming, education funding and most of all, the uprising of the clueless masses (today known as the Tea Party). Though these didn't exist when Sagan spoke out about them, the dangers they present are foreshadowed accurately -- and look at us now. Maybe it's better late than never that we consider his sage words.

What we're dealing with is, as the title of Sagan's most famous book foreshadows, Billions and Billions: Thoughts on Life and Death at the Brink of the Millennium. The new millennium is here. And what Sagan projected then is so real today. It's scary and hopeful at the same time.

Share