Peter (Bayou Renaissance Man)
posited thusly (in part)…
Donna Laframboise asks, “How many scientific papers just aren’t true? Enough that basing government policy on ‘peer-reviewed studies’ isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.”
We’re continually assured that government policies are grounded in evidence, whether it’s an anti-bullying programme in Finland, an alcohol awareness initiative in Texas or climate change responses around the globe. Science itself, we’re told, is guiding our footsteps.
There’s just one problem: science is in deep trouble. Last year, Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, referred to fears that ‘much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue’ and that ‘science has taken a turn toward darkness.’
It’s a worrying thought. Government policies can’t be considered evidence-based if the evidence on which they depend hasn’t been independently verified, yet the vast majority of academic research is never put to this test. Instead, something called peer review takes place. When a research paper is submitted, journals invite a couple of people to evaluate it. Known as referees, these individuals recommend that the paper be published, modified, or rejected.
If it’s true that one gets what one pays for, let me point out that referees typically work for no payment. They lack both the time and the resources to perform anything other than a cursory overview. Nothing like an audit occurs. No one examines the raw data for accuracy or the computer code for errors. Peer review doesn’t guarantee that proper statistical analyses were employed, or that lab equipment was used properly. The peer review process itself is full of serious flaws, yet is treated as if it’s the handmaiden of objective truth.
And it shows. Referees at the most prestigious of journals have given the green light to research that was later found to be wholly fraudulent. Conversely, they’ve scoffed at work that went on to win Nobel prizes. Richard Smith, a former editor of the British Medical Journal, describes peer review as a roulette wheel, a lottery and a black box. He points out that an extensive body of research finds scant evidence that this vetting process accomplishes much at all. On the other hand, a mountain of scholarship has identified profound deficiencies.
. . .
Politicians and journalists have long found it convenient to regard peer-reviewed research as de facto sound science. Saying ‘Look at the studies!’ is a convenient way of avoiding argument … We’ve long been assured that reports produced by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are authoritative because they rely entirely on peer-reviewed scientific literature. A 2010 InterAcademy Council investigation found this claim to be false, but that’s another story. Even if all IPCC source material did meet this threshold, the fact that one academic journal — and there are 25,000 of them — conducted an unspecified and unregulated peer review ritual is no warranty that a paper isn’t total nonsense.
If half of scientific literature ‘may simply be untrue’, then might it be that some of the climate research cited by the IPCC is also untrue? Even raising this question is often seen as being anti-scientific. But science is never settled. The history of scientific progress is the history of one set of assumptions being disproven, and another taking its place.
There’s more at the link. Ms. Laframboise’s full report may be read here (the link is to an Adobe Acrobat document in .PDF format).
This is precisely why I profoundly distrust any politician who tries to tell us that ‘the science is settled’. All too often, it’s far from settled. It may even be actively and deliberately fraudulent, producing results tailor-made to satisfy the objectives of those who’ve funded the research. Too many ‘researchers’ begin with a goal in mind, their conclusions already identified, and then seek evidence that will substantiate what they want to prove. Anything to the contrary is ignored or discarded, or flagrantly manipulated to achieve the desired result (as in this example, to cite just one – there are many more).
That’s not research at all. It’s pseudo-scientific sleight of hand. It’s a shell game.
I used to believe in SCIENCE. After all, having been taught The Scientific Method, along with the histories of Newton, Curie, Tesla, Edison, Einstein and others, I believed hard work, documentation, reproducing results and guts did it.
The idea that scientists were bending or fabricating their results toward a financial end didn’t even cross my mind. (think Galileo!)
I used to believe in GOVERNMENT. The blueprint the Founding Fathers left us was damn near perfect. Persons who sought government service would swear to uphold the principles espoused in The Constitution.
But, there was an assumption those who chose public service would be MORAL and ETHICAL!
The fact such persons would commit perjury by swearing falsely never even crossed my radar.
The scales have indeed dropped from my eyes.
And scientists and politicians will have to reach a high bar to gain my trust ever again.
Now, I’m relegated to a bunker (in an unknown location) and tin-foil hat (at least philosophically).
If you don’t know the access password, watch out!
The Nation yawns…
from Brock Townsend:
The conservative nonprofit group Project Veritas has released an undercover video of a Manhattan Democratic representative on the city’s Board of Elections lamenting “all kinds” fraud, including voter fraud.
Commissioner Alan Schulkin unwittingly spoke to a member of Project Veritas last December at a United Federation of Teachers holiday party. Footage released Tuesday in conjunction with a piece by the New York Post shows him blasting fraud that New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s municipal ID program has cultivated in the city.
“He gave out ID cards, de Blasio. That’s in lieu of a driver’s license, but you can use it for anything,” Mr. Schulkinsaid Dec. 15. “But they didn’t vet people to see who they really are. Anybody can go in there and say, ‘I am Joe Smith, I want an ID card. It’s absurd. There is a lot of fraud. Not just voter fraud, all kinds of fraud … This is why I get more conservative as I get older.”
Mr. Schulkin added that “certain neighborhoods in particular” have unregistered voters bused around the city to vote multiple times. He would not say which neighborhoods, but when prompted on minority areas he replied, “Yeah, and Chinese, too.”
I don’t know about you, but I’m tiring of the whole ‘poor people are being disenfranchised if they are ID’d’ thing. And the registering of dead folks to vote, and people who have voted multiple times, and illegal aliens and felons being allowed to vote. The fact this seems to be heavily skewed in the direction of one party is not the issue. It’s shouldn’t happen – period! And I’m tired of seeing stories about such things.
In fact, I’m tired of the whole $%!^%^*&)%# election!
And the fact the ‘best’ we can choose from are a loudmouth demagogue populist, a card-carrying socialist, and a couple of minor league whack jobs.
We get the country we deserve. Perhaps The Republic has run her course.
(from TFB, in part)
It appears that those field tests for meth might not be as reliable as we all might have thought. A Flordia man was jailed after a loose flake of icing from his bi-weekly Krispy Kreme glazed doughnut tested positive for methamphetamine.
I know Krispy Kreme’s doughnuts are good, but test positive for drugs good?
When police pulled Dan Rushing over for speeding, they found a small piece of icing on the floor of his car during a search. The little piece of icing wasn’t even large enough to cover a pinky nail, officers then used a Safariland field test to determine if it was meth or not. According to an article by WFTV 9, the icing tested positive as meth not once, but twice.
Rushing was held for around 11 hours as well as strip searched as a result of the icing testing positive. There was no mention of if the charged were dismissed or he was released on bond, but shortly after The Flordia Department of Law Enforcement tested the icing in a lab, determining that the “meth” was in fact glaze.
No word at this time from Safariland as to why they tests failed to identify the icing as not meth or how they plan to respond to being sued. My question is how did these officers mistake doughnut glaze for meth, given their profession they should be familiar with the substance. It had to be said folks.
Click HERE for more on WFTV 9’s website.
Yeah, no eating doughnuts in my car, anymore. I don’t need the hassle.
Besides, I’m diabetic, and should minimize consumption of such things!
Peter, aka Bayou Renaissance Man addresses this ongoing sticky issue. Included in his post are things from Zero Hedge showing incriminating campaign behaviors (from Wikileaks) in my home State of Arizona (which polls indicate is up for grabs between Blue and Red camps)
I’m sure that by now, most of my readers have learned about the incriminating e-mail sent by the Clinton campaign as long ago as 2008, and just revealed by Wikileaks. In case you missed it, here’s the salient excerpt.
I also want to get your Atlas folks to recommend oversamples for our polling before we start in February. By market, regions, etc. I want to get this all compiled into one set of recommendations so we can maximize what we get out of our media polling.
There’s more at the link.
Zero Hedge points out:
The email even includes a handy, 37-page guide with the following poll-rigging recommendations. In Arizona, over sampling of Hispanics and Native Americans is highly recommended:
Research, microtargeting & polling projects
- Use Spanish language interviewing (Monolingual Spanish-speaking voters are among the lowest turnout Democratic targets)
- Over-sample the Native American population
For Florida, the report recommends “consistently monitoring” samples to makes sure they’re “not too old” and “has enough African American and Hispanic voters.” Meanwhile, “independent” voters in Tampa and Orlando are apparently more dem friendly so the report suggests filling up independent quotas in those cities first.
- Consistently monitor the sample to ensure it is not too old, and that it has enough African American and Hispanic voters to reflect the state.
- On Independents: Tampa and Orlando are better persuasion targets than north or south Florida (check your polls before concluding this). If there are budget questions or oversamples, make sure that Tampa and Orlando are included first.
Meanwhile, it’s suggested that national polls over sample “key districts / regions” and “ethnic” groups “as needed.”
- General election benchmark, 800 sample, with potential over samples in key districts/regions
- Benchmark polling in targeted races, with ethnic over samples as needed
- Targeting tracking polls in key races, with ethnic over samples as needed
Again, more at the link.
This absolutely confirms the recent revelation that the Clinton campaign was up to shady tricks (to put it mildly) in major media polling of potential voters. They’ve been doing it for years – don’t forget that the e-mail quoted above dates back to 2008!
It also explains recent triumphalist claims by the Clinton Campaign, for example: ‘Hillary Clinton is so far ahead of Donald Trump in the race for the presidency that she no longer even feels the need to pay attention to the Republican nominee.‘ As is now clear, she’s mainly ahead in polls that have been deliberately skewed in this way, so as to portray her as so far ahead that the election is effectively a ‘done deal’. I suppose that’s to try to persuade potential Trump and Republican voters not to bother to cast their vote, as there won’t be any point. Instead, they should stay home on election day and let events take their presumably inevitable course.
Thing is, of course, they’re not inevitable. Other polls (for example, this one) portray the race as much, much closer. All of us have a voice, and every voice (and every vote) counts. It’s up to us to use them.
Courtesy of Jeffery @ The Feral Irishman
hoplophobia (n.) an irrational fear of weapons (or this from Col. Jeff Cooper) instrumentalities.
The Art of Manliness (a blog to which I sometimes refer) not only addresses etiquette, style and proper behavior, but also delves into ‘manly’ things such as camping, hunting, shooting, unarmed combat and other esoterica. (Of course, many of these subjects may be of interest to women, as well!) 🙂
A recent guest post was entitled as above. I’m posting it below, in it’s entirety, not just to entertain and inform, but to show those who do carry behaviors and appearances which may bring to them unwarranted attention.
By A Manly Guest Contributor on Oct 21, 2016 02:10 pm
The following is an excerpt from 100 Deadly Skills: Survival Edition — . A follow-up to Clint’s first bestseller — 100 Deadly Skills: The SEAL Operative’s Guide to Eluding Pursuers, Evading Capture, and Surviving Any Dangerous Situation — this new survival edition offers primers on any survival situation imaginable, from wilderness scenarios, to terrorism and kidnappings, to natural disasters.
CONOP: Concept of Operations; COA: Course of Action; BLUF: Bottom Line Up Front
Individuals who carry a handgun professionally are well attuned to the range of mannerisms that can indicate the presence of a concealed weapon within their vicinity. Civilians, too, can learn to familiarize themselves with these signs and signals. When combined with suspicious behavior, the suspected presence of a concealed weapon should put bystanders on high alert.
Body Language: People carrying handguns tend to subconsciously telegraph the location of the weapon via their body language. They may reflexively palpate the gun to make sure the weapon is still safely in its holster, subtly re-position the weapon prior to sitting or standing, or shift their weight away from nearby bystanders to avoid accidental contact with or theft of the weapon.
Asymmetry: Another telltale sign is asymmetry in clothing. Guns are heavy and bulky, and thus will betray signs of their presence to anyone who’s paying attention. An outside-the-waistband holster may cause a visible midline bulge, while an ankle holster may cause a bulge or tightening of the fabric at the lower leg. A gun held in a jacket pocket will weight down one side of the jacket unevenly.
Environment: Hot or inclement weather can make concealed weapons easier to spot. Rain, wind, or sweat can reveal the outline of a gun, which will generally be much easier to hide under multiple layers of cold-weather clothing.
Negligence: Weapons are also frequently exposed due to temporary negligence, flashed or inadvertently dropped as a gunman reaches for his wallet. Dropped weapons are an all-too-common scenario at public urinals, where inexperienced perpetrators may thoughtlessly unzip their pants — thereby releasing the tension that was holding up the holster.
The post How to Spot a Concealed Handgun appeared first on The Art of Manliness.
I posted a while ago three examples of voter fraud (or potential fraud). One of the examples was shown to be a spurious claim. This, of course, doesn’t mean that the other two are invalid, or that other claims don’t exist.
For Immediate Release
October 21, 2016
Contact: Pat McDonough
Phone: 410-238-0025 or 410-303-8864
Massive Voting Fraud In Upcoming Maryland Election
Pat McDonough, candidate for U.S. Congress in Maryland’s Second District, is charging that Maryland will be a victim of massive voter fraud in the upcoming election.
A few years ago, members of “Voter’s Alliance,” a volunteer group, conducted an investigation in Frederick County that uncovered a large number of non-citizens voting in Maryland’s elections. The group discovered that these non-citizens were called in for Jury Duty. When the non-citizens arrived at the Jury office, they admitted that although they were registered voters, they were not citizens. They confirmed they were violating the law by signing a required legal document at the Jury office.
Under present Court rules and state law, the information contained in the documents confirming a non-citizen is registered to vote is to be forwarded to the State Election Board. Step 2 requires the Election Board to remove this individual from the voting list and provide the information to the State Prosecutor for future action.
None of these mandated actions are being initiated at this time. This means the law is not being enforced and the violators are not being punished. The system is broken and some public figures may need to be called on to provide answers. Remember, at the federal level, these violations are a felony.
Multiplying the number of non-citizen voters discovered in Frederick County by the other 23
sub-divisions brings us to the conclusion that the number of non-citizen voters could be in the thousands in Maryland. This scandal is not a Democrat, Republican or partisan issue. This challenge is about great leaders like Dr. Martin Luther King and Susan B. Anthony who put their lives on the line to maintain equality and integrity in the voter process.
It is hard to believe in this day and age with modern technology, the non-citizens are voting unlawfully. It is even more difficult to believe that these unlawful voters are getting away with this violation and are remaining on the voter’s rolls.
This scandal is a form of suppression of voters’ rights. Our votes are being cancelled or diluted by a non-citizen who is voting at the same time.
Pat McDonough attempted to remedy this situation with legislation in the 2016 session of the Maryland General Assembly. The Delegate’s House Bill 1122, the “Voter Disclosure Act,” would introduce a common-sense chain of actions that would protect the voting rolls of Maryland.
The State Jury system would be compelled to forward any information discovered about non-citizens voting within five business days to the Election Board. The Election Board would then be required to remove the violators’ names from the voting lists and forward their information to the State Prosecutor for appropriate actions. House Bill 1122 failed in committee by a vote of 12 to 8, along partisan lines.
McDonough is now demanding that several key actions must be initiated in order to protect Maryland voters during the upcoming election. He is taking the foll wing actions:
• He is sending a letter of complaint to the State Prosecutor’s office requesting that they summon information from all Jury clerks in every sub-division requiring them to provide any information related to non-citizens being called to Jury Duty and rejected.
• In the spirit of bipartisanship, McDonough will be providing this information to Congressman Dutch Ruppersberger contact Maryland U.S. Attorney Rosenstein to investigate this matter because it is a violation of federal law.
Delegate McDonough stated, “I am asking Congressman Ruppersberger to join me in a partnership to protect the voting rights of Maryland’s citizens.”
from Free North Carolina (in part)
AND, from Breitbart:
Many are even older than 110. In fact, it seems that NC has an awful lot of voters that are 112, too. The Carolina Transparency project did a review of the voter rolls this year and found that there are 631 Democrats who are 112 or older. By contrast, the Republicans can only find 229 over 112 voters in the state (and “unaffiliated” found 39).
And it gets worse. Two voters — and, yes, they’ve already voted in early voting — are over 150! One in Gaston County is 154 and another in Granville County is an astonishing 160!
This isn’t necessarily evidence of vote theft. It could be a massively failed voter registration system, although it is notable that the largest number of these voters just happen to be Democrats. But what ever is the case, it is highly unlikely to have this many centenarian voters still able to get out of their wheelchairs or retirement homes and have a run down to the polling place. Something certainly seems amiss in North Carolina.
It would appear North Carolina and Maryland have some ‘issues’ in this regard. I’m certain there are no problem in swing or more populous States, though. (/sarcasm font)
Growing up I was taught to believe this Nation’s Principles were sacrosanct. And, with them her institutions. Now, the scales have dropped from my eyes. The DOJ and FBI are corrupt. Voting in so many places is polluted. And many of the voters seem to think it’s okay to tamper with such things – the ends justify the means, and all that.
I weep for The Republic.
And, I am ANGRY.
Or, more correctly, I came back to …
Regular readers know I’ve had numerous issues with computer browsers. IE (in all her permutations, lastly 11), Chrome, Vivaldi, Ice Dragon, Blue Moon, ad infinitum ad nauseum…
I just cannot seem to get and use a browser without it eventually becoming buggy. (and yes, I have and use security and anti-malware software!)
Most recently, I was utilizing Blue Moon, but it seemed to be getting slower, and almost every time I wanted to leave a comment on someone’s blog, I got this lovely game:
Select all images with a store front.
Click verify once there are none left.
and had to page through store fronts, trees, grass, rivers etc. until the software was happy I was a human being!
SO, I went back to FF, updated to the latest version, and we are off to the races!
Until the next time…
And, don’t even get me started on Windows 10! I installed it (making security adjustments recommended by my good friend Borepatch, and others), and it has been working fairly well, for a Microsoft product.
Of late, daily, they attempt to download automatic updates. My machine goes through the motions, and restarts a number of times. Then, I get THIS message:
And everything works fine until the next day, when it begins all over again!
Attempts to contact Microsoft have been met with automatic responses making reference to Windows 8 (which I have never had nor used), so it appears I am doomed.
It’s Groundhog Day all over again!
Regular readers know I am not openly supporting any Presidential candidate (except, of course, Joe Maddon – the Chicago Cubs manager, on my sidebar! 🙂 – bumper stickers for charity! )
So, I’ve been observing the machinations and mewlings of the candidates as a distracted observer. With an airline barf bag at-the-ready!
An interesting side note on this (and most recent) elections, is the degree of partisanship that continues to appear. For example: YOUR candidate said “X” so many years ago (a crude statement), therefore they do not deserve to be President! Completely ignoring the high crimes and misdemeanors perpetrated by their own candidate! A crime being stronger than an inappropriate statement.
Now we have a recent debate (which, again, I refused to watch) wherein Mr. Trump made a number of provocative statements, including if he were President, Secretary Clinton would be in jail!
One would have to be wearing blinders and earplugs to not understand the meaning behind such a statement had to do with her alleged actions involving thousands of confidential government emails and perhaps non-actions involving the deaths @ Benghazi. (The sale of uranium to Russia and the misdeeds of The Clinton Foundation notwithstanding!)
But depending on your party affiliation, you might choose to make Mr. Trump dictatorial and conclude his statement was a blanket declaration to imprison all those who differ with his policies.
And ignore the crimes of your own candidate.
Of course, as oft repeated by Bill O’Reilly*, holding up another’s bad acts do not serve to justify one’s own!
“THEY did it!, so I get to!”
*I used to enjoy watching Mr. O’Reilly, until he began parsing the Second Amendment and stating ‘assault weapons’ (whatever THEY are) should be banned. Then, I stopped watching him. I view him as a populist, saying what ‘the people’ want to hear (not unlike Mr. Trump. Huey Long?). Except, O’Reilly has slightly better filter than Mr. Trump!)