High for Today - 84 Degrees

Perfect beachcombing weather to make frozen landlubbers jealous. Remember, there are two zones on any given beach: The Swash Zone (where waves break upon the sand – the zone of turbulence and emergence) and the Wrack Line (where flotsam collects at the high tide line). Just in case any of you decide to head south and visit your intrepid Captain Fogg or your fishy and slimy cephalopod, here is a Wrack Line poster to keep you busy:

Click on image to enlarge

So what does it mean

Not to "love" America?  The question is unanswerable without asking what is meant by love, because in the era of accepted error, of laissez faire definitions, it can mean anything. So why ask? Certainly the intended audience of the assertion that Mr. Obama does not "love" the country that elected him aren't asking because their reasoning is circular, or perhaps because their ability to question things has been eroded by the linguistic dumbing down of our speech. In the mouth of Rudy Guiliani, I'm deducing that love means something rather nebulous and involves jingoistic nationalism, selective memory, denialism, a dash of megalomania and a psychopathic lack of conscience. 

During the Vietnam years, the trope: 'loving America,' became a euphemism for blindly supporting the war, its conduct, it's stated goals, it's dishonest reasons against any and all criticism. It included defamation of all those who did not blindly follow. It included death threats, sometimes implemented against those who had doubts.  According to a large number, you either "loved" America or you were advised to leave the country. Some of us did. 

Many of us who were raised in the post war atmosphere of America as the savior of freedom and the leaders of the "free world" began to smell something as the flag marched by and the bombs fell and a generation was decimated and thought of Orwell.  Love is hate, war is peace and freedom is slavery.  Indeed, when people fling loaded words around like irritated apes fling dung, that famous quote from 1984 seems less cynical than it once did and more of a sad acceptance of hopelessness. Language has to change as the needs and wants of the oppressors and exploiters require it.  Freedom fries, pre-owned cars, processed foods, assault weapons: define and conquer.

Indeed anything can mean anything and so language no longer guides our thoughts or acts as a structure or armature upon which to build and with which to communicate the truth. Perhaps it never has been otherwise.  Arbeit macht frei, after all and it's our manifest destiny to take whatever we can get away with taking.


"Obama doesn't love America" is a statement without reference to evidence, dependent on idiosyncratic and plastic definitions and without any hint of supporting evidence.  It's so much like statements insisting he's a Muslim, or that he's just like a king or that he hates white people.  Such things depend on what the meaning of is is and nobody is asking.  Is is as likely to mean isn't as bad is to mean good.

Of course Rudy and many of his compatriots simply have so little in the way of valid criticism that they must keep their maledictions on the level of the subliminal. The half-unconscious associations that words are surrounded by become definitions. Just ask your kids' English teacher. Ask the people who tell you pornography is rape, who call a trailer an "estate Home" who call that package of bread mix artisinal.

Murdering two million civilians becomes a noble cause and we do it out of love. We love America, the greatest country that ever was, is or will be! We kill, exploit, deport and impoverish under the rubric of love and freedom.   Freedom?  Well it's what we support in any military activity. Hence  anything done to make our country safer, healthier more decent or anything else we associate with a loving attitude is by accepted definition: Not Loving America. No real explanations are needed, because love means anything the abuser intends it to mean. Language just has to change and if you question that?  Why, like that colored fella in the White House, you just don't love America!

So?

Back in the 1930's, it seems to have been common to start one's sentences with "say," sometimes drawn out for emphasis as we do with words and tropes we use to emphasize our own connectedness with the segment of popular culture we have chosen, consciously or unconsciously. Picture Jimmy Cagney as a gangster: "saaay, you  dirty rat. . ."  Hey, don't laugh. Do you drop the R in gangster or whore and think it makes you hip?  Tell the truth, white boy.

Perhaps you've observed the phenomenon in the way we use the word "selfie" with  gleeful ostentation -- the way my dog runs up and down the hall with a stolen sock. "I'm using it!  I'm saying Selfie!" It's the word, not the picture. The very first pictures take were self portraits. But try to find a CNN.com home page in the last year or so that doesn't display the word and a list of the week's best selfies.  Haven't you been trying to work it into your conversations so that people will know you're no outsider to the hip world, the hip-hop world, the world of constant contact, constant entertainment and  Cell Phones -- the real world, that is?

The real world, not that stuffy world where the discomfiture of Napoleon at Waterloo sounds like his boots were pinching his toes and  not that he was routed. We don't want you reading that slop anyway when the interests of this or that special interest group are what matters. We will tell you how to think about the very, very rich by proclamation, by definition, by calling them either plutocrats or "job creators."  We'll tell you whether you're a racist, an antisemite, a Communist, misogynist or a fascist by fiddling with the terms. And they do tell me.  I've been chastised recently for calling one of those conical straw hats a 'coolie' hat. Perhaps in India, Hindi speakers are racists for calling day laborers coolies, the Hindi word for it or perhaps not. Perhaps Joe Biden is a racist for using the word Orient  to describe Singapore, perhaps not. It all depends on what and to whom we're selling and to what purpose and not on the feelings or intentions of the user. After all, we're the police and we'll tell you what you are, punk.

I digress.  My intention was to point out that there is a fairly sudden and fairly recent tendency to start sentences with  "so." So I'm just pointing it out, and perhaps you'll notice it too.  So perhaps your grandchildren will, if it persists, giggle about the dated idiom:  "so I'm like" instead of  "I said" So have you noticed? So I'm just sayin'. Language gotta change and so everything you say will mean something else by Thursday next and everything you write down will be laughed at or called communist or fascist or something else depending on what the language police are yelling about.

So there he goes again, old Fogg, harping on the way language changes and spitting in the eye of the "language gotta change" school of English that encourages you to ignore and accept in the same way as one might encourage another not to get out of bed in the morning -- because after all, "people gotta die."

People like me: people who love language and the freedom available to those who master it are not appreciated by the "lets let the dog choose what we have for dinner" school of rhetoric and perhaps it's because such arguments feed the dogs of  commerce, propaganda and mind control.  Those who control definitions control minds.  So isn't it strange that the people who sneer at "language police" will beat you as  senseless as Rodney King if  you question the definitions of words like sex and gender?  So isn't it strange that we can sternly be told that making a joke about Chinese speakers not being able to pronounce the letter R is racist  as though speaking Chinese made one Chinese?  The language actually uses a harder R than American English, but that's beside the point.   Not strange when you consider the goal of defining nearly everything as racism in order to bully the populace into supporting your fight against racism.

So is it that precise language, as Orwell told us, is the enemy of  verbal manipulation? 

Hell no!

Brian Williams -- seriously?  6 months suspension with no pay for "misremembering" an incident from the early days of the Iraq war.  Bush's war, the one based on blatant and documented lies.  Did they actually fire at Williams' helicopter 12 years ago or not?  That's what matters. Sure, it was a bit of braggadocio on Williams' part, he should be ashamed to be no better than most politicians with padded resume's and he will be punished. 

Fox News will not be punished for reportage that according to those who supply facts to back it up, supply us with an estimate of  40% outright lies about substantive matters  Another 38% are partly false. Less than 25% of their reportage is really true and the electorate makes their decisions based on damned lies.  They're still on the air.  Is this a double standard?   Is this a country where any use of the term ethics is ironic enough to make the Devil giggle with delight?

Is Brian Williams to be compared with an entire network of burning pants sociopaths?

Stuart Varney:  "It will cost $50,000 per enrollee in Obamacare over the next 10 years."  

Steven Emerson:  "There are actual cities" like Birmingham, England, "that are totally Muslim where non-Muslims just simply don’t go in."

  

Megyn Kelly: A new Colorado law "literally allows residents to print ballots from their home computers, then encourages them to turn ballots over to ‘collectors.’ " 

George Will:  Some doctors say Ebola can be transmitted through the air by "a sneeze or some cough.

Brit Hume:  President Barack Obama is "sending a much larger (force) " to deal with Ebola "than ISIS is getting."  

  

Ann Coulter: A friend’s sister "died from Obamacare" because Blue Shield "completely just pulled out of California."  (they're still there)  

Lyin' Bill O'Reilly:  "The 'Denver Post' has actually hired an editor to promote pot." (Oh really?  No, O'Reilly)  

Sean 'Insanity' Hannity is in a league of his own.

Are there any standards at all when it comes to promoting the interests of the bigots, plutocrats, and the deranged?   Hell no!

Typhoid Mary's Revenge

Reductio ad absurdum.  Its a common tool used in informal debate both properly or improperly, but although I won't say it's more common with the arguments we hear from the self styled Right, arguments such as this one seem to need no assistance from any opposition to reduce themselves to the ridiculous.  Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) told us this week that the government has no business demanding that the people who handle our food should wash their hands after using the toilet. If you don't see this as ridiculous, you probably shouldn't read further because I'm going to insult you. In fact I mean to insult everyone who considers himself rational but, like all of us, is not. 

Putting principle above survival and practical necessity seems to be a widespread form of  communicable idiocy, for when I mentioned this bit of crepuscular wisdom in jest to some friends last night I got no laughs but rather some grim recitations of the formula "we have too much regulation."  It's the same reaction although from different people, that I got when mentioning that the disastrous BP oil spill would not have resulted if regulations had been followed.  "We have too much regulation."  If you've been listening to the yapping from the Republican kennel for as long as I have, you'll see it as new bullshit in old crocks -- or from old crocks if you prefer. We want law and order but without the law. That absurdum enough for you?

If we assume that in fact we do suffer under excessive regulatory burden, I should think it would be obvious that the gap between that debatable observation and a valid attack on any specific regulation isn't easily leaped with anything but blind faith or the kind of stupidity that removes all obstacles. "All laws reduce freedom -- this is a law -- this reduces my freedom."  Do we really need to ask Aristotle to explain such sophistical refutations? CAn you honestly proceed from a false statement to a valid one? Do laws facilitate freedom? Without law, how do we protect life and liberty?  Who decides what is excessive without laws providing us with the power to do so?  Principle!  it's the defense against having to answer such impertinences.

 Sometimes freedom needs to be reduced, else I could show Mr. Tillis, inter alia, just how much the laws restricting my freedom might be useful to his health.  Getting from the proposition in question to eliminating any particular regulation requires dismissal of the specific need, benefit and effectiveness thereof.  Since I'm sure that regulations against poisoning him wouldn't be on his list of excessive regulation, we can assume that he does give regard to his own safety if not to yours and mine.  Is that dishonest?  Does that reveal some unmentioned contradiction in his logic?  Does it matter when people, all of us, steadfastly believe what suits us to believe irrespective of any native intelligence?

I won't waste much time waiting for Tillis to explain his temerity however.  His audience isn't asking for one, a false syllogism being satisfying enough and as is so common and in line with our ancestry and ancient habit, we put principle above survival, follow it up with brandy and a cigar and call it an evening.  Things will turn out in the end, the invisible hand of the market spreading pestilence more effectively than it spreads wealth and opportunity and justice.  "Restaurants that kill customers will eventually go out of business," is the fallacious foundation of the Tea Party argument -- unless they remain unaccountable in the absence of all regulatory agencies. I wonder too, how much he worries about FAA regulations when he gets on an airplane, or whether his doctor or his cook washes his hands but sure -- consistency and hobgoblins and little minds and besides when it's his ass on the line it's different.

48 million Americans get sick from food born illnesses and 3000 die every year, yet the government has a very hard time doing anything to stop it:  principle, you see and the inviolate rights of corporations.  But Tillis at least is standing up for the little guy, the right of individual free and sovereign citizens to wipe their asses with your lunch.  Principles matter, you know and it's good we have him standing up for freedom.

Trotsky, White Supremacists, and the Origins of "Racism"

As I am wont to do, I was skulking around the dark back alleys of the internet, and accidentally stumbled across a newly-revived myth, one that I hadn't heard in over a decade. It was such a ridiculous idea, even at the time, that it didn't make much of an impression on me.

To be honest, I couldn't tell you when, exactly, it started. I first ran across the idea shortly around the turn of the century. Somewhere around 2005 or so, I came across a concept on some white supremacist websites, where they were claiming that the word "racism" was coined by Leon Trotsky as a term to browbeat dissenters in the Communist party, and has now been adopted by the "radical left." The year that he was supposed to have done this ranges from 1927 to about 1934, depending on where you find the claim. In fact, I'll let some reprint of a reprint from the white supremacist website Stormfront explain it.

The word "racist" has for a long time been the single most effective fear-word in the leftist and neoconservative arsenal. For decades, they have successfully used it in the political arena to slander traditionalists, shut down debate, and leave opponents running for cover. In the social arena, they have caused even more damage by using it to brainwash impressionable children and young college students, and to teach people to hate their nation, their cultural traditions, and worst of all, themselves.

What surprisingly remains almost totally undiscussed, even on the hard core traditionalist Right, is the word's origin. Did it come from a liberal sociologist? A 60's Marxist college professor? Perhaps a politician in the Democratic Party? No. It turns out that the word was invented by none other than one of the principal architects of the 74-year Soviet nightmare, the founder and first leader of the infamous Red Army, Leon Trotsky.

Take a look at this document if you would, dear reader.

Славянофильство, мессианизм отсталости, строило свою философию на том, что русский народ и его церковь насквозь демократичны, а официальная Россия -- это немецкая бюрократия, насажденная Петром. Маркс заметил по этому поводу: "Ведь точно так же и тевтонские ослы сваливают деспотизм Фридриха II и т. д. на французов, как будто отсталые рабы не нуждаются всегда в цивилизованных рабах, чтобы пройти нужную выучку". Это краткое замечание исчерпывает до дна не только старую философию славянофилов, но и новейшие откровения "расистов".

This is Leon Trotsky's 1930 work, "The History of the Russian Revolution", from which shown above is a passage. The last word in that passage is "расистов", whose Latin transliteration is "racistov", i.e., "racists". This work here is the first time in history one will ever find that word.

Almost sounds intellectual, doesn't it? Like he did his homework? Maybe knew what he was talking about, right?

Yeah, it sounds that way. It's total crap, of course, but it sounds really smart.

See, this is a basic ad hominem fallacy, where you "shoot the messenger" instead of taking on the argument itself. "This is a concept created by a monster from the old Soviet Union! Nobody ever used it before him! It's evil and tainted and can never be used!"

Except for one little problem. A quick look at the etymology of the word shatters the very premise of the argument.

See, right around the turn of the century, the English-speaking world was using terms like racialism, or sometimes race hatred or race prejudice (one of my personal favorites, dating back to the 1800s, was negrophobia). Around that same time, the French were using raciste or racisme (particularly, a few decades later, to refer to the Germans and their philosophies).

For example, the terms pensée raciste (racist thought) and individualité raciste (racial individuality) appear in La Terro d’oc: revisto felibrenco e federalisto from 1906.

The Oxford English Dictionary cites Richard Henry Pratt in 1902 for the first use of the word "racist" in English.

There are probaly earlier versions in both languages, but who needs them? We've already destroyed the basic premise of the argument.

Once again, the Right (and in this case, the Extremely Far Right) is trying to create a little revisionist history to give cover to their sins.

"Arbeit Macht Frei"

By Jeffrey Berger

These days the sunlight almost seems total.  A few men and women, trees,

stand between heaven and earth.  In the light of their shadows

we others are reading, still, messages the dead have stopped sending,

these days of almost fatal sunlight.  (Henry Braun, The Vergil Woods)

Seventy years have passed since the liberation of Auschwitz.  This post remembers a maternal great-grandfather who perished in the Holocaust.  It honors missing persons of a family tree whose fates will never be known. It commemorates innocent victims of persecution whose life possibilities were cut mercilessly short.

The exact death toll at Auschwitz remains elusive. Many inmates were undocumented, and large amounts of incriminating evidence were destroyed in the final weeks of war. The Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum sets the official record:

1.1 million - total victims

960,000 - Jewish victims

438,000 - Hungarian Jews

300,000 - Polish Jews

69,000 - French Jews

60,000 - Dutch Jews

55,000 - Greek Jews

75,000 - non-Jewish Poles

21,000 - Romani

15,000 - Soviet POWs

15,000 - disabled and other

The Red Army liberated Auschwitz on January 27, 1945. Only 7,500 emaciated prisons were found alive among 600 corpses, 370,000 men's suits, 837,000 women's garments, and 8.5 tons of human hair.  Among the survivors who recovered and resumed full and productive lives:

Elie Wiesel (awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986), Simone Veil (served as President of the European Parliament), Rudolf Vrba and Alfréd Wetzler (escapees who saved an estimated 120,000 to 200,000 inmates), Thomas Buergenthal (judge of the International Court of Justice), Imre Kertesz (writer and Nobel Laureate in Literature for 2002), Joel Lebowitz (mathematician and physicist who won the prestigious Max Planck award), Vladek and Anja Spiegelman (parents of American cartoonist Art Spiegelman), and Jack Tramiel (founder of Commodore International) ...

Little is known of my great-grandfather.  He was an author, a philosopher and college professor living in Prague when the Nazi army occupied Czechoslovakia.  No letters or literary works survive apart from anecdotal accounts handed down by word of mouth – until the trial of Adolph Eichmann in 1961 revealed his fate.

According to trial testimony, Eichmann ordered the SS to stop a deportation train headed for Auschwitz.  Aboard that ill-fated train was a 'nettlesome agitator' for human rights. Eichmann ordered his execution by firing squad. This man was my great-grandfather. 

Everyday in 1961, my mother and grandmother watched the Eichmann trial on TV.  I recall their stunned silence when the name of my great-grandfather — and his final fate — was revealed during trial testimony. A family chapter was finally closed.

Are some people more predisposed to obedience than others - willing to follow even the most heinous orders?  Yale University research psychologist Stanley Milgram tested this hypothesis, with disturbing results:

The percentage of test subjects willing to inflict pain on command was constant across all population groups – ranging from 61 to 66 percent regardless of ethnicity, gender, nationality, or circumstance.

Milgram’s experiment reveals a grim truth about human nature: Everywhere in the world are people innately capable of unspeakable savagery.  Genocide did not end with World War II.  It happened again in Tibet (1959-1966), in Cambodia (1975-1979), in Bosnia-Herzegovina (1992-1995), and in Rwanda (1994).  Even today, atrocities continue unabated in Darfur, Iraq, and Syria.  The record of human history is long and grim:

Wars of aggression and oppression; true believers versus infidels, Christians against Christians, Muslims against Muslims; vainglorious empires, colonialism, greed; whites enslave blacks; Nazis murder Jews, Hutus slaughter Tutsis; inquisitions, persecutions, pogroms, endless cycles of retribution and revenge and unrelenting violence … since the beginning of time.

Yet, there are deniers and revisionists who still dispute the indisputable, and madmen who target innocent civilians. Is one massacre worse than another? Does the tragic history of one people invalidate the tormented history of another?  Either no account is valid, or every account is valid and deserving of remembrance.

Consider the diversity of life that has evolved on Earth over eons of time.  Here is a single species united in time but divided in language, culture, customs and tribe.  ‘Ecce homo.’  Behold the lot of humankind constantly at war, each committing acts of violence upon another.

‘Arbeit macht frei.’  Perversely cynical words intended to exterminate, not liberate. Words more aptly inscribed above the Gates of Hell: 'Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.'

How will humanity ever find peace?  Shall we segregate people by geography, by race, religion, and custom?  Shall we end all commerce and cultural exchange?  Shall we prevent the free migrations of people and the free exchange of human invention?  Or …

Shall we learn how to integrate and tolerate – even appreciate – the diversity and rich cultural heritage of all humankind?

There will be no peace, no hope, no freedom from tyranny and war until people come to terms with their darkest impulses.

© February 1, 2015

Are We Done With "Muslim No-Go Zones" Yet?

Fox "News" recently had to apologize for their idiotic support of the the idea that "Muslim No-Go zones" were flourishing: places where white people couldn't enter because they'd be killed by the scary Allah-worshippers.


In a reasonable world, when you're shown to be totally wrong on a subject, you shouldn't be called an expert. (And when the Prime Minister of England calls you an idiot, your career should be over.) But Fox "News" would not exist in a reasonable world.

It wasn't just that isolated incident, either. The concept was repeated multiple times, with one guest even expanding on the idea, to say that we should put razor wire around these mythical "no-go zones" and turn off the water, to drive them out and register them.

In Paris, at least one popular TV show (and much of social media) roundly mocked Fox "News."

The mayor of Paris didn't take it in such good humor: she considered suing them.

The myth of "no-go zones" is nothing new. They started cropping up after the 9/11 terrorist attack in 2001; you can even find maps of supposed "no-go" zones in America. These tend to be less common, though - it's too easy debunk. A simple road trip will show you the truth, so American racists prefer to place their scary "no-go zones" in far away places where their ignorant audience will never visit, like England or France.

It's just when they accidentally get quoted on the international stage, and those pesky Limeys and Frenchies point out that you're an idiot, that this strategy backfires on them.

So then, career racists like Mark Steyn desperately try to justify their lies, despite the fact that these are all questions that were settled years ago.

All of which leads to Bobby Jindal, apparently aware that his election requires him to mobilize the brain-dead racist wing of the party, doubling down on the racist myth, even though he can't substantiate it when confronted with facts.



Of course, will the bigots and low-information voters be willing to vote for a dark-skinned son of Punjab like Bobby Jindal? That's a tricky question, and one that Jindal might want to consider before he goes too far into the weeds on this.

Mega Donors Buying Politicians and Influence...

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

Thinking pro business and pro growth makes sense for everybody; after all economic growth, or an expanding economy (added demand)creates jobs which are in turn filled by folks looking for work, and it gives businesses the opportunity to increase their income (the result of increased demand for goods or services)and provide those extra jobs that get filled by folks looking for work.

All that makes sense; right? It does if viewed from the perspective that all businesses are, to a great extent, concerned with the importance of a growing vibrant middle class. But we all know this is not the case and mega wealthy corporations spend mega millions financing political campaigns of candidates they believe will be most favorable to their interests, not yours or the country's at large.

Very wealthy individuals and corporations spend the millions they do on political campaigns for one purpose and one purpose only, TO BUY INFLUENCE and CONTROL POLIT0ICIANS who make laws and regulations. In short they are attempting to insure their own special interests are protected. Whether that has a positive or negative impact on the larger picture is really of little consequence to the wealthy corporations or wealthy individuals.

So, in looking out for your own self interests be sure to do the research and learn if mega dollar donors are supporting a candidate you are considering voting for, whether they be a congressional, senate, or presidential candidate. Because if they are being bankrolled by big money the chances are the candidate will be looking out after the interests of the corporation or individual(s) whose money bought them.

POLIICO - The Koch brothers’ conservative network is still debating whether it will spend any of its massive $889 million budget in the Republican presidential primaries, but the prospect of choosing a GOP nominee loomed over the network’s just-concluded donor conference in the California desert. 

In an informal straw poll of some conference donors, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida came out ahead of four other would-be GOP presidential candidates who had been invited, according to an attendee familiar with the results. The poll was conducted by Frank Luntz, a veteran GOP pollster, during a break-out session of the conference, which wrapped up Tuesday after a long weekend of presentations and discussions at the Ritz-Carlton in Rancho Mirage, Calif.  

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul — who received the least enthusiastic response from donors during a Sunday night forum of prospective candidates that also featured Rubio and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz — finished last in Luntz’s poll, the source told POLITICO.  

The poll is by no means a definitive assessment of the feelings of the hundreds of wealthy business leaders who comprise the vaunted network created by billionaire industrialist brothers Charles and David Koch. But it does provide an early glimpse into the leanings of a pool of megadonors who are being hotly courted by the field of would-be candidates, and whose checkbooks could go a long way toward determining who emerges with the GOP nomination — regardless of whether the Koch network decides to formally back a candidate.  

The network has thus far steered clear of endorsing specific candidates in primaries, but it is coming under internal and external pressures to do so. It hopes to raise $889 million from wealthy backers like those who gathered in Rancho Mirage to push its agenda in 2015 and 2016, more than double what it spent in the 2012 election cycle.  

In addition to Cruz, Paul and Rubio, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker paid a visit to the Ritz meeting, though he was not present for the forum.  

The three-day conference was organized by Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, a nonprofit outfit that oversees the vast political and policy network created by the Koch brothers.

More BELOW THE FOLD.

Via: Memeorandum

MORE DOOM AND GLOOM!

Just when you thought news of the world could not possibly be any worse, this report today in the Washington Post caught my attention, Human activity has pushed Earth beyond four of nine ‘planetary boundaries’:

At the rate things are going, the Earth in the coming decades could cease to be a “safe operating space” for human beings. That is the conclusion of a new paper published Thursday in the journal Science by 18 researchers trying to gauge the breaking points in the natural world.

The paper contends that we have already crossed four “planetary boundaries.” They include the extinction rate; deforestation; the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; and the flow of nitrogen and phosphorous (used on land as fertilizer) into the ocean [my bold].

“What the science has shown is that human activities — economic growth, technology, consumption – are destabilizing the global environment,” said Will Steffen, who is the lead author of the paper.

These are not future problems, but rather urgent matters, according to Steffen, who said that the economic boom since 1950 and the globalized economy have accelerated the transgression of the boundaries. No one knows exactly when push will come to shove, but he said the possible destabilization of the “Earth System” as a whole could occur in a time frame of “decades out to a century.”

Today, the National Climate Data Center released this finding: 2014 was the hottest year on record. Global land temperatures reached 1.80 F above average, while ocean surface temperatures were 1.03 F above average. Land temperatures alone were the fourth warmest on record, but ocean temperatures were the warmest, which made 2014 the warmest - and the worst - year to date. Furthermore, the rate of sea level rise is approximately 25% higher than previous estimates, according to this reassessment reported in Nature.

In other news this week, the anti-science, anti-climate change senator from Texas, Ted Cruz, was named chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Space, Science and Competitiveness, which oversees NASA and all science programs. Fellow climate change denier Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) will chair the Senate Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and the Coast Guard. 

Ecce Homo!  Behold the most destructive species that has ever walked on Earth.  And behold the new stewards of science - emperors without clothes.  Humanoids are determined to doom themselves ... and cephalopods shall inherit the Earth.

Also sprach der Krakken.