Monday, March 2, 2015
Barack Obama Is the 21st Century Neville Chamberlain..
Chamberlain was British prime minister between 1937 and 1940, and is closely associated with the policy of appeasement towards Nazi Germany.
Arthur Neville Chamberlain was born on 18 March 1869 in Birmingham into a political family. His father, Joseph, was an influential politician of the late 19th century and Neville's older half-brother Austen held many cabinet positions in the early 20th century and won the Nobel Peace Prize.
.jpg)
CPAC 2015 Straw Poll: Rand Paul wins again — but Scott Walker is surging
The activist leaders at the Conservative Political Action Conference also sent a message to Republicans on Capitol Hill, saying that Congress should use its power of the purse to halt President Obama’s deportation amnesty.
More than 3,000 activists voted in the straw poll, taken Thursday through....
Trey Gowdy Introduces States’ Rights, “Undo Obama Destruction And Liberal Idiocy” Immigration Enforcement Bill
Rep Trey Gowdy (R-SC) has a solution for the current problem America faces with a lawless “president” who bends the law and rewrites it to his own political ends, at least to the extent that White House criminality is applied in the circumvention of immigration law.
He’s authored a bill that contains specific language which prevents the very methods through which the law is currently being violated by the Obama regime. It also allows states the rights which should already be theirs under the Constitution, to defend their own sovereignty and enforce immigration law in the absence of or as a supplement to federal enforcement.
The bill, “The Michael Davis, Jr. in Honor of State and Local Law Enforcement Act,” is named after the brave Placer County California Sheriff Deputy Michael Davis, Jr, who was killed in October of last year by a twice deported illegal alien who had returned across the wide-open southern border with Mexico. Oddly, Deputy Davis’ father was a police officer who was also killed in the line of duty, on the same date, exactly 26 years before.
In introducing his bill, Rep Gowdy, the chairman of the House Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee, said, “For decades, Americans have been promised a secure border and an immigration system that works for all Americans. Those promises have not been kept and both political parties bear responsibility for that. This legislation allows state and local governments to assist in the enforcement of our federal immigration laws. By doing so, we remove the ability of this or future Presidents – of either party – to systematically...
SCIENTISTS ARE WRONG ALL THE TIME, AND THAT’S FANTASTIC
ON FEBRUARY 28, 1998, the eminent medical journal The Lancet published an observational study of 12 children: Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive development disorder in children. It might not sound sexy, but once the media read beyond the title, into the study’s descriptions of how those nasty-sounding symptoms appeared just after the kids got vaccinated, the impact was clear: The measles-mumps-rubella vaccine can cause autism.This was the famous study by Andrew Wakefield, the one that many credit with launching the current hyper-virulent form of anti-vaccination sentiment. Wakefield is maybe the most prominent modern scientist who got it wrong—majorly wrong, dangerously wrong, barred-from-medical-practice wrong.
But scientists are wrong all the time, in far more innocuous ways. And that’s OK. In fact, it’s great.
When a researcher gets proved wrong, that means the scientific method is working. Scientists make progress by re-doing each other’s experiments—replicating them to see if they can get the same result. More often than not, they can’t. “Failure to reproduce is a good thing,” says Ivan Oransky, co-founder of Retraction Watch. “It happens a lot more than we know about.” That could be because the research was outright fraudulent, like Wakefield’s. But there are plenty of other ways to get a bum result—as the Public Libary of Science’s new collection of negative results, launched this week, will highlight in excruciating detail.
You might have a particularly loosey-goosey postdoc doing your pipetting. You might have picked a weird patient population that shows a one-time spike in drug efficacy. Or you might have just gotten a weird statistical fluke. No matter how an experiment got screwed up, “negative results can be extremely exciting and useful—sometimes even more useful than positive results,” says John Ioannidis, a biologist at Stanford who published a now-famous paper suggesting that most scientific studies are wrong.
The problem with science isn’t that scientists can be wrong: It’s that when they’re proven wrong, it’s way too hard for people to find out.
Negative results, like the one that definitively refuted Wakefield’s paper, don’t make the news...
Sunday, March 1, 2015
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)