Feedback and Notes

We are a worldwide social network of freethinkers, atheists, agnostics and secular humanists.

Violence in Motion

Notions of violence coming from the Christian right if Trump is impeached, and actual violence from the right and the left, seems to be a thing these days. The continued rants from our insane president are apparently having an effect on our basic moral fiber as a country. The racist nonsense walks hand in hand with the rising tide of hate crimes. We withdraw from the world leaving China to take over our leadership, and even our geopolitical strategies are in peril as China moves into countries that we have withdrawn from. Disregarding science and embracing pretend is this administration’s mantra. America is failing.

Disgraced felon Jim Bakker is crowing about Christians starting a second civil war if President Trump is impeached. Pretty doubtful that the faithful are going to rally around this ass wipe, but still another example of the Conservative Christian right once again blatantly exposing their lack of morals. Evangelical leaders all over are on Trump’s side, the insane being followed by the insane. Televangelist Paula White, a prosperity pastor which is just another name for shyster, states Trump has been raised to the position by God. 

According to the religious right, Trump is God’s chosen and we should all bend a knee. If that doesn’t trouble you, there’s plenty of Trump’s horrors to choose from. 

White nationalists are showing their faces, feeling the immunity granted them by our racist-in-chief. There are over nine-hundred white nationalist groups in America according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, a number that has been rising quickly through President Obama’s administration, and racing up with President Trump. As White Nationalists try to grab the spotlight, AntiFa is gearing up as well. Violence from both sides will continue, Anti-Fascist organizations have been around since the 1920s-1930s, and will always rise up to meet the threat. 

Here is the problem. Media is trying to equalize the groups, just like the president in the aftermath of Charlottesville. And this has been a constant discussion on many social networks, one that is argued back and forth without being resolved. White Nationalists are racists, not much more. Their existence stands for European purity and if they had the numbers we’d be Nazi Germany in a heartbeat. AntiFa only exists because of this, and without Nazis parading around they’d disappear. 

Here is the debate about hate being met with violence. One side argues that when Nazis rally that we should not counter-protest in the same area. They should not be met with violence because it gives them a stage. The other side believes every day should be “punch a Nazi” day. AntiFa groups failed in stopping the rise of the Third Reich due to the fact they were, as now, a small group. Without the support of the populace, they can not stop the rise of fascism. 

So this is it, is it better to hold opposing protests away from the White Nationalist protests, or to directly confront them? This is a debate that’s been going on since Charlottesville, confront or ignore. I will admit that I’m into punching Nazis, I’m an aggressive guy. I look at every move towards an authoritarian government and it is worrisome. I’m on the side that thinks if you sit back, stay out of the fray, that we’ve lost. I’m in the minority of friends and family when this discussion comes up, and I have no doubt that the argument being presented to me is valid, it just hasn’t convinced me. I still have the too-oft repeated quote, “First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out,” playing over and over in my head,

  

Views: 205

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Our grocery stores still use both actually.

Sunday Review | EDITORIAL

President Trump’s War on Science

 

The news was hard to digest until one realized it was part of a much larger and increasingly disturbing pattern in the Trump administration. On Aug. 18, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine received an order from the Interior Department that it stop work on what seemed a useful and overdue study of the health risks of mountaintop-removal coal mining.

The $1 million study had been requested by two West Virginia health agencies following multiple studies suggesting increased rates of birth defectscancer and other health problems among people living near big surface coal-mining operations in Appalachia. The order to shut it down came just hours before the scientists were scheduled to meet with affected residents of Kentucky.

The Interior Department said the project was put on hold as a result of an agency-wide budgetary review of grants and projects costing more than $100,000.

This was not persuasive to anyone who had been paying attention. From Day 1, the White House and its lackeys in certain federal agencies have been waging what amounts to a war on science, appointing people with few scientific credentials to key positions, defunding programs that could lead to a cleaner and safer environment and a healthier population, and, most ominously, censoring scientific inquiry that could inform the public and government policy.

Even allowing for justifiable budgetary reasons, in nearly every case the principal motive seemed the same: to serve commercial interests whose profitability could be affected by health and safety rules.

The coal mining industry is a conspicuous example. The practice of blowing the tops off mountains to get at underlying coal seams has been attacked for years by public health and environmental interests and by many of the families whose livelihoods depend on coal. But Mr. Trump and his department heads have made a very big deal of saving jobs in a declining industry that is already under severe pressure from market forces, including competition from cheaper natural gas. An unfavorable health study would inject unwelcome reality into Mr. Trump’s rosy promises of a job boom fueled by “clean, beautiful coal.”

This is a president who has never shown much fidelity to facts, unless they are his own alternative ones. Yet if there is any unifying theme beyond that to the administration’s war on science, apart from its devotion to big industry and its reflexively antiregulatory mind-set, it is horror of the words “climate change.”

This starts with Mr. Trump, who has called global warming a hoax and pulled the United States from the Paris agreement on climate change. Among his first presidential acts, he instructed Scott Pruitt, the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, to deep-six President Obama’s Clean Power Plan, aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants, and ordered Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to roll back Obama-era rules reducing the venting from natural gas wells of methane, another powerful greenhouse gas.

Mr. Trump has been properly sympathetic to the victims of hurricanes Harvey and Irma, but the fact that there is almost certainly a connection between a warming earth and increasingly destructive natural events seems not to have occurred to him or his fellow deniers. Mr. Pruitt and his colleagues have enthusiastically jumped to the task of rescinding regulations that might address the problem, meanwhile presiding over a no less ominous development: a governmentwide purge of people, particularly scientists, whose research and conclusions about the human contribution to climate change do not support the administration’s agenda.

Mr. Pruitt, for instance, is replacing dozens of members on the E.P.A.’s scientific advisory boards; in March, he dismissed at least five scientists from the agency’s 18-member Board of Scientific Counselors, to be replaced, according to a spokesman, with advisers “who understand the impact of regulations on the regulated community.” Last month the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration dissolved its 15-member climate science advisory committee, a panel set up to help translate the findings of the National Climate Assessment into concrete guidance for businesses, governments and the public.

In June, Mr. Pruitt told a coal industry lobbying group that he was preparing to convene a “red team” of researchers to challenge the notion, broadly accepted among climate scientists, that carbon dioxide and other emissions from fossil fuels are the primary drivers of climate change.

Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric science at Texas A&M University, called the red team plan a “dumb idea” that’s like “a red team-blue team exercise about whether gravity exists.” Rick Perry, the energy secretary, former Texas governor and climate skeptic, endorsed the idea as — get this — a way to “get the politicians out of the room.” Given his and Mr. Pruitt’s ideological and historical financial ties to the fossil fuel industry, it is hard to think of a more cynical use of public money.

Even the official vocabulary of global warming has changed, as if the problem can be made to evaporate by describing it in more benign terms. At the Department of Agriculture, staff members are encouraged to use words like “weather extremes” in lieu of “climate change,” and “build soil organic matter, increase nutrient use efficiency” instead of “reduce greenhouse gases.” The Department of Energy has scrubbed the words “clean energy” and “new energy” from its websites, and has cut links to clean or renewable energy initiatives and programs, according to the Environmental Data & Governance Initiative, which monitors federal websites.

At the E.P.A., a former Trump campaign assistant named John Konkus aims to eliminate the “double C-word,” meaning “climate change,” from the agency’s research grant solicitations, and he views every application for research money through a similar lens. The E.P.A. is even considering editing out climate change-related exhibits in a museum depicting the agency’s history.

The bias against science finds reinforcement in Mr. Trump’s budget and the people he has chosen for important scientific jobs. Mr. Trump’s 2018 federal budget proposal would cut nondefense research and development money across the government.

The president has proposed cutting nearly $6 billion from the National Institutes of Health, the nation’s single largest funder of biomedical research. The National Science Foundation, a government agency that funds a variety of scientific and engineering research projects, would be trimmed by about 11 percent. Plant and animal-related science at the Agriculture Department, data analysis at the Census Bureau and earth science at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration would all suffer.

It is amazing but true, given the present circumstances, that the Trump budget would eliminate $250 million for NOAA’s coastal research programs that prepare communities for rising seas and worsening storms. The E.P.A.’s Global Change program would be likewise eliminated. This makes the budget director, Mick Mulvaney, delirious with joy. He complains of “crazy things” the Obama administration did to study climate, and boasts: “Do a lot of the E.P.A. reductions aim at reducing the focus on climate science? Yes.”

As to key appointments, denial and mediocrity abound. Last week, Mr. Trump nominated David Zatezalo, a former coal company chief executive who has repeatedly clashed with federal mine safety regulators, as assistant secretary of labor for the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration. He nominated Jim Bridenstine, a Republican congressman from Oklahoma with no science or space background, as NASA administrator. Sam Clovis, Mr. Trump’s nomination to be the Agriculture Department’s chief scientist, is not a scientist: He’s a former talk-radio host and incendiary blogger who has labeled climate research “junk science.”

From the beginning, Mr. Trump, Mr. Pruitt, Mr. Zinke and Mr. Perry — to name the Big Four on environmental and energy issues — have been promising a new day to just about anyone discomfited by a half-century of bipartisan environmental law, whether it be the developers and farmers who feel threatened by efforts to enforce the Clean Water Act, oil and gas drillers seeking leases they do not need on federal land, chemical companies seeking relaxation from rules governing dangerous pesticides, automakers asked to improve fuel efficiency or utilities required to make further investments in technology to reduce ground-level pollutants.

“The future ain’t what it used to be at the E.P.A.,” Mr. Pruitt is fond of saying of his agency. These words could also apply to just about every other cabinet department and regulatory body in this administration. What his words really mean is that the future isn’t going to be nearly as promising for ordinary Americans as it should be.

Are we going to see what Americans will do to get a government that works for the general welfare? Instead of for billionaires and corporations?

Kind of a repeat from Junior's administration. Censoring science was also on his agenda. 

White Nationalists are racists, not much more. Their existence stands for European purity

Are they serious? What is pure about Europe? Apart from not having Trump.

What the hell is so damn wonderful about pure anyway? I don't buy that ''pure'' anything exists!

your right Mrs.B. Take me for instance if I was a dog they would call me a mongrel. Scottish, Irish and English. who wants to be pure anyway. 

I'm Canadian, English, Scottish, & American if it comes right down to it.

My grandfather came up to Canada from Utah, by wagon train, & was part of settling Cardston Alberta, & was in on the building of the temple there.

Cardston is now under evacuation order.....our BC fires have spread out of province.

No, I agree that purity isn't in anything either, a nonsense. I think it's a curious thing to suggest about anywhere though, let alone Europe in particular. It frankly makes me cringe at the thought that white supremacists are acting as though Europe is in any way aligned with their twisted ideals. 

Sorry to hear about the fire spreading.

The worst wildfire season ever!

If you don't stand up before shit hits the fan, there will be nowhere to stand when shit does hit the fan. And one cannot be a moderate. A stand must be taken, and that stand must and should be on the side of what is true and what is just. Not what is convenient

Absolutely, couldn't agree more. 

RSS

© 2017   Created by Atheist Universe.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service