Saturday, September 03, 2016

Regina Taylor Wins Best Actress TV Series Drama - Golden Globes 1993


Nixak*77*  9 days ago
Beyond ‘mere’ ‘Blindly Religious’ Faith- Why it’s quite Logically Reasonable to Believe in God!
One Could point out the fact that 85% - 90% of Earth’s people believe in spirituality in some form- w fully 57% of Earth's people being of the Abrahamic Faiths Tradition [IE: Jews / Hebrews, Christians, & Muslims, etc...] –vs- just 5% to Less than 10% of the World's people are atheists / agnostics. Of course that in & of itself is NOT necessarily a scientifically sound reason to believe in God. So below I list 6 good scientific reasons why it’s logical to believe in the God of the Universe [aka The Creator of the Heavens & the Earth]:
1} The ‘Birth’ of the Universe: The Big Bang shows that the Universe indeed had a beginning, which prior to that there WAS NO such thing as Time, space, Nor matter- IE: NOTHING in the [strict] Material sense! So how can you even get an entire Universe from absolute nothingness??? This is such a vexing problem that either scientists avoid talking about what’s the ultimate source of the Big Bang, or strict materialists minded ‘scientists’ ‘fudge the real definition’ of ‘nothing’. Note: Big-Bang Theorists say the Universe burst into existence as a burst of light energy. Genesis says the Universe began as ‘Let There be Light’ shined thru the ‘Darkness’.
- 2} Fine Tuning of the Universe: There’re a number of fundamental universal parameters & constants, that seem precisely fined-tuned to allow even the possibility of life in our Universe. Such that should just a few of these many fundamental universal parameters & constants be even slightly changed, not only would life as we know it be impossible, but chemistry & even the formation of stars, solar systems & galaxies would / could NOT have even occurred. Note: Cosmic ‘inflation’ theory was proposed to try to skirt one aspect of the Fine tuning ‘problem’, even though it violates Einstein’s speed of light [C] as the absolute cosmic speed-limit for matter & energy traveling in space!
- 3} Origin of Life [OOL]: According to top molecular chemist James Tour, NO-One has the slightest idea how, via random forces in nature alone, even the simplest microscopic organism could be formed from inherently inert / non-living matter. The ‘famed’ Urey Miller experiment was/is hyped as a big-step in ‘solving’ the OOL ‘problem’, but in-fact there were several key issues w Urey-Miller that effectively invalidate it re: the real-World. But even if it were valid on its own terms, Urey-Miller at best shows how a few amino-acids might have formed via random forces in nature, but can NOT show how these few amino-acids then became assembled into functional proteins, let alone how those proteins then became assembled into simple but LIVING Self-replicating microscopic [let alone complex macroscopic] organisms. – Note: The Fine tuned Universe & OOL ‘problems’ have even led to strict materialists to hype the pseudo-scientific so-called ‘multiverse’ {non}’Theory’ as a phony ‘solution’ to these vexing ‘problems’! Also note that Darwinists kinda-sorta ‘punt’ on the OOL issue- even though NO OOL = NO Darwinian evolution!
- 4} The Cambrian Explosion [aka Big Bang of Life]: Marks the sudden advent of a wide variety of complex macroscopic life-forms. Even Darwin himself understood the real-risk that the issues re: the Cambrian Explosion could eventually SINK his theory. Darwin dismissed this issue by insisting that numerous missing-links [to explain the Cambrian Explosion via a Darwinian mechanism] had NOT been found in the fossil-record during his day. Well its over 150 yrs later & the Cambrian challenge to Darwinism NOT only still exists, it’s actually gotten even worse! The Cambrian shows there was a sudden [unexplained] quantum-leap in biological info, w little if any real precursors [see Stephen Meyer’s ‘Darwin’s Doubt’]!
- 5} Haldane’s Dilemma: Shows via population genetics & mathematics that for mammals in general, & especially Humans & primates in particular- a Darwinian evolutionary mechanism can NOT work / does NOT explain how our alleged so-called ‘ape-like’ ancestor could have genetically ‘evolved’ into humans- NOT in 6 million yrs [the standard time given], NOR 60 million yrs [standard time of dino extinction leading to the rise of mammals & birds], nor 600 million yrs [just prior to the Cambrian Explosion], nor 6 Billion Yrs [= even before the formation of the Sun & Earth], NOR Even 60 BILLION YRS [= 4Xs – 5Xs the estimated age of the Universe]. This is so even when one focuses on the supposed ‘mere’ 2% difference between humans’ & chimps’ genome [which in the wake of ENCODE will likely be shown it’s significantly MORE than just a 2% difference].
- 6} The Development of Human Language: Famed MIT Linguist Noam Chomsky has recently coauthored a scientific paper saying the current fad of studying apes in the wild to try to explain the ‘evolution’ of human language, is just a waste of time [& resources]- which IMO should be blatantly obvious since wild apes Neither talk NOR read & write!! IMO it just shows that Darwinists do NOT really have a clue how human language [which also implies the human mind too] could have ‘evolved’ via strict Darwinian means.
These 6 cases show such [dare I say seemingly 'MIRACULOUS'] quantum-leaps of information re the ’real’ material world, that IMO they're likely impossible to fully account for via strictly materialistic means & explanations. Such that IMO the basic idea re: the ‘God Hypothesis’ is NOT only justified, but is entirely reasonable. Atheistic strict materialists & Darwinists give a ‘Whole Lotta’ sciency sounding ‘Huff & Bluff’ to try to skirt &/or dismiss these issues, which IMO is what you do when you really don’t have a clue [yet refuse to admit it]- about how to really deal w them!!

Thursday, September 01, 2016


rosa roja • 4 hours ago
"The shutdown of Flint’s auto industry and the economic devastation visited on the city as a consequence was part of a wholesale assault on the working class as a whole." Absolutely true!

"Structural racism played no role". Absolutely false!

Prof. Hammer covers up the former, wsws covers up the latter. God only knows why.


On the small chance that it will do any good, I will repeat the following for the umpteenth time. Your claim that black people are incapable of implementing racist policies is so indefensible (not to mention worn out and predictable) that it puts you in the same category as a colonial apologist.

I can prove that the Ethiopian invasion of Somalia has nothing to do with European domination, because it's all done by African soldiers!

I can prove that the police cannot be agents of the capitalists, because they all come from the working class!

Can't you see the inanity of this sort of "proof"?

What you should have -- and so easily could have -- written in this article is: It requires a political struggle to unify all sections of the working class, of all races, in a common fight against unemployment, poverty, inequality, RACISM, IMPERIALISM, and the capitalist profit system. But I guess you would have choked on those words. Instead you wrote: "it is clear that broader issues are involved—bound up NOT with racial divisions".... Oy gewalt. Queue the mindless attacks from the usual suspects.... I don't intend to answer them any more.


Jon Geene • 16 days ago
Racism cannot be separated from class rule in the United States. American society, despite the enormous gains made in the Civil War and the Civil Right movement, of historical necessity, drags the chains of history behind it. This manifests itself in ongoing racial inequalities.

The epidemic of police violence in the US - far in excess of what we see in any other advanced country - is a product of the crisis of the particular form of the crisis bourgeois rule. As US history is marred by especially violent and repressive forms of racism, the contemporary expressions of class conflict cannot help but have a racial component.

The collective "white guilt" suggested by some bourgeois commentators is an attempt to disguise the responsibility of the growth of US capitalism, as an entire socio-economic system, for the racist outrages of American history. No-one outwith the Fox News studios would claim that this racism does not linger in many facets of contemporary American life. This history and legacy of racism must be contextualized within the glaringly obvious fact that US capitalism today is responsible for a generalized impoverishment and brutalization of broad swathes of society of all races.

There are certain facts about police violence in America that must be examined, including facts relating to race. Attention to such phenomena does necessarily box one into the category of "identity politics" - a phrase that I have problems with, as being black or a woman or disabled, for examples, is not just an "identity" but an objective fact that often brings with it very real problems with discrimination.

Almost all the victims of police killings in the US are poor or low-income. This is class war, make no mistake. Black people are more likely to be poor than white people, another unavoidable legacy of US history that is perpetuated by ongoing (albeit less egregious) racial discrimination today. About 25% of African Americans are poor - a shockingly high level (just slightly higher than the percentage of Hispanics who are poor, though this figure may underrepresent the problem due to non-reporting by undocumented immigrants.) About 10% of non-Hispanic whites are classed as poor, which should also be an affront to any decency society.

African Americans make up about 13% of the US population. White people, around 64%. Now, look at the police killing stats (which are incomplete due to the deliberate refusal of authorities to document and analyze these killings). According the the Washington Post's police killings tracker, 1500 people have been killed by the police so far this year. An utterly disgusting figure in and of itself. Just less than half of those killed by the police this year were recorded as being white and just less than a quarter of those killed were identified as black. This means that an "average" black person is 2.5 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than an "average" white person.

But it is not a statical average that's being gunned down by cops. It's poor/low-income people. And we can see from the poverty figures is that African Americans are 2.5 times more likely to be poor than white people.

Therein might lie, in large part, the racial difference in police killings.

As I said, the disproportionate percentage of black people who are poor is itself a legacy of the peculiar racial brutality of class rule in the US. This increased prevalence of poverty among African Americans must surely be buttressed in countless ways today. And there are of course racist cops, as well as general racial biases - including biases among African American officers.

I don't claim to have any special knowledge - all these stats are readily available. But it seems that one must first acknowledge: 1. that the legacy of racism is real; 2. that this manifests itself in particular in poverty for black people; 3. that the poor are way more likely to be killed by cops, and therefore black people are disproportionately likely to be killed; 4. that while there must be many examples of black people being targeted and then killed by cops because of present day racism/bias in police forces, this does not appear to have a major impact on the statistical correlation between poverty and police violence.

What conclusions to draw from this? Police violence is the sharpest expression of class war in America. That black people get the rawest deal in terms of both poverty and police violence is a tragic but unsurprising product of hundreds of years of American history. A fightback against this bourgeois class warfare must unite people across racial lines, focusing on a war on poverty and inequality from below (as opposed to the LBJ version that quickly floundered, though not without certain gains for the poor). There can be no effective fight against poverty and social inequality for one race but not another, a fact recognized by Dr King.

Finally, please let's avoid any counterposing of "All Lives Matter" against "Black Lives Matter", something I saw in an editorial a while ago. It seems like an obvious statement: well, all lives matter, don't they? But that's a rather sterile argument. And the phrase is associated with attacks on Black Lives Matter from the right. Grey is theory, and we must theorize based on the evidence. Nonetheless, millions of black people vividly experience police violence in their neighborhoods, where both poverty and state brutality are more likely to be concentrated. Therefore appropriate language to address that living experience needs to be developed.

Colin Kaepernick Is Righter Than You Know: The National Anthem Is a Celebration of Slavery