#MakeAmericaSmartAgain Black widow virus results from evolution, not genetic engineering

This is really cool. The process of natural selection is remarkable (and by the way doesn't care if you believe it or not) and underscores how living things find new (and often unexpected) ways to evolve to survive in changing surroundings.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/161206_blackwidow

A pet peeve regarding stupidity

I saw an exchange yesterday between a trump supporter and someone that was encouraging rational thought. The trump surrogate said something along the lines of-

It's all hillarys fault that she lost. The Russians didn't hack anything, that's a lie. You can't brief the electors about anything because they don't have security clearance. The recount failed. Just accept it and move on.

What lays bare here is this persons ignorance. The CIA, as well as the Russians themselves, have said there was an effort to interfere with the election. Let's see what they find before we snap to judgement. That's the American fucking way.

The electors, it is true, don't have high level security clearance. But how about if agents of the CIA present publicly available and relevant facts of the case in a summary to them? Don't filter it through the media or the party. Let them hear it from the source and ask relevant questions. I know why. Because that's rational thinking! Can't have that.

And as for the recounts. Yes, they did Peter out. But do you know why? Because each of the states in question (along with many others) has absurd rules about how a recount works, who pays for it, what triggers it, and if the state supervisor of elections agrees to it. It's a myriad of complex legal questions that aren't easily addressed by just anyone. It goes along with the notion that the elections themselves - from the equipment to the methods used and even ID requirements - are a weird mix that seem ineffective.

The fact that they petered out doesn't mean that they didn't find anything. In fact the anecdotal and early finding suggest otherwise. It is a matter of legal hurdles not being cleared.

As always, educate yourself. Don't open your pie hole to say stuff unless you have an informed position. And don't blindly follow anything.

#Stupidity is today's thought for the day

I consider myself to be a rational, free thinking person. I don't ascribe to one ideology. I don't blindly follow anything. I think. I question.

What I can't tolerate is stupidity. I can't accept that anyone follows things blindly and never questions anything.

You can start the discussion with sports. Some people just follow "their" teams and wind up hating some other team because they're a rival. Doesn't matter if the team is bad, there's always hope for a better tomorrow, a better player or coach, a new owner. Never mind what you pay to be there - after all you give your money and get really nothing in return, other than entertainment. And worse, you're willing to have a verbal or physical altercation with anyone who doesn't see things through your lens.

Next up is religion. I have no issue with anyone believing whatever they want. And following your beliefs in an organized fashion is just fine. But when it dominates everything, then it becomes an issue for me. Don't tell me how I should live. Don't sell me on why your belief is better than someone else's. Don't describe yourself as a [insert religion here] when you are presenting yourself. Be a good person. Follow your beliefs with humility. And most importantly, don't just follow along blindly. Too many wars have been started in the name of religion. Too many people have gotten sucked in and told to give more (financially of course) or to "pray harder" for something...and when it doesn't work out they don't give up the belief, they double down.

And then to politics. I find it frustrating when people from each main party say the other has to be wrong. They label each other (as if it's a dirty word no less) and can't see another point of view. What's the purpose? Aren't we all Americans? Can't we rally around *that*?

To be fair, I admit that I despise the Donald. But it's not because of his party. It's because of HIM. I've detailed that many times. But I find that one party just accepts him blindly - even though he only represents himself and not the party - and the other party is looking for a glimmer of hope and a recognition by the other party to see him as evil.

As I continually remind people, switch roles in your mind. How would you feel if you were on the other side?

I suggest you look at things critically and question everything.

Be reasonable. Stop. Think. Listen. And help yourself by continually learning. Cut out the shit and the noise. Don't follow blindly.

Don't be stupid.

Electors #VoteYourConscience

While there are still some legal angles to explore, the electors still have to vote in under a week. I'm hoping/suggesting that they vote their conscience and don't give the Donald the requisite 270 votes to win. Look, I know for many electors it's about party and how they feel about their obligation to it against the constitution.

In those cases, I'm not suggesting they vote for Hillary. But I am suggesting that they should NOT vote for the Donald. Vote for another person, say Rubio or maybe Kasich, or even a fictional one like Captain Kirk. And if you're okay voting for Hillary, then I urge you to do that.

I know some of you may think the election hack is a made up conspiracy. I will continue to argue that it's not. That should be enough to end this debate, but let's say you're right. Look at some of the actions the Donald has taken since winning the "election" - quotes are intentional based on the hack,

* he has gone out of his way to antagonize china
* his embrace of pakistan undermines the relationship with India (a key trading partner)
* his original pick for Secretary of State, one mr patreus, was found guilty of actually having mishandled classified information - the exact crime for which Hillary was accused of, but no evidence supported this claim
* his national security advisor (Flynn) was also convicted of mishandling classified documents.
* his pick for secretary of defense has not been out of the military for more than 7 years, so he is ineligible to hold this position. Unless the senate grants a waiver, which will never happen. So essentially he's wasting time and effort here.
* his new pick for Secretary of State comes with a new set of challenges, primarily related to his business dealings
* most of his cabinet picks are the least qualified people for that particular job; people whose life it was to undermine the agency they have now been picked to represent. I'm not saying some shaking up is bad, but destroying the agencies? Wow. Just wow.
* his potential for conflict of interests re vast and varied and can lead to nowhere good
* he already brokered a deal for his daughter in Japan, and he apparently is working on one in Taiwan for a business of his
* he has created another problem in turkey where his praise for a businessman got the man arrested; and the Turkish government appears to be playing a game to get an Imam extradited in exchange for the release of this guy. Do you honestly think that will ever stop?
* he is down to 73 pending lawsuits. Seventy three.
* he has shown a lack of knowledge about the constitution, and very likely could trample it on day one. It's our most sacred document and one he will swear to uphold and defend.
* there was a sham of a deal for carrier, that got the owners some nice profit in exchange for....raising the stock price, in which the Donald holds a stake...and as for those poor people who lost their jobs they got a "you should have worked harder" message. And the union boss got bullied.
* minutes before he announced his "plans" to cancel the F35, which is made by Lockheed, someone dumped large numbers of shares in the company. A similar occurrence happened weeks ago with Boeing. The SEC will investigate, but there surely has to be a connection.
* he's embraced 140 character attacks and has nothing of substance to say.
* he has told us he's smart, and won't listen to intelligence briefings, but will listen to conspiracy theories because they're interesting to him.
* he is bullying and threatening anyone who opposes him, or his vision. He has even threatened the electors. That can not be acceptable to any rationale person. He simply can not lead this way.
* he has shown no interest in the 330 million people he will represent; rather he spends his time holding self-aggrandizing rallies.
* And oh yeah, he plans to run his companies and executive produce a tv show. Because how hard could it be to run the country?

Stop him. Vote your conscience and keep America great. He is in it for himself and nothing more. We can not let him hold the highest office. And we can not let stand the election interference. You can argue that we do it all the time "so what?" But it is the single. It's important part of our democracy, and we must hold that dear.

Here's my issue for the day

When did we suddenly become friends with Russia? Look I'm not saying we can't be friendly, or we can't find ways to work together. And certainly - as Hillary demonstrated when she was Secretary of State - there needs to be a reset. But clearly W was wrong when he gazed into Putins eyes and saw a good man.

Now there's information about a hacked election that benefited the Donald. Those who back him or the republican agenda brush it off as "something made of nothing" and rush in with name calling. And I can see in this age of disinformation (again thank you Russian hackers!) its hard to get to the truth.

But no matter where you fall in this issue consider for a moment: how would you feel if it were on the other side? Suppose a hack benefited Hillary. Would you feel different?

Now back to the larger issue. There is a shift in our stance with Russia. But not in a way that necessarily supports US interests. Look at the people the Donald has put around him. From Manaford to Tillson. Many have strong ties to Russia. And either have or would benefit from allying us more closely with Russia.

Then listen to the (ever changing) words of the Donald. While some of his positions have changed, his position on following Russia's lead in foreign policy has not. Leave NATO? Not protect Europe? Support Assad in Syria? Antagonizing china?

I find it interesting that the shift has gone that far. It doesn't support American exceptionalism.

So you can believe the hacking story or delude yourself there's nothing to it. His position on Russia should make you realize there's something to the connection.

And the day he takes the oath of office is the day that America stops being America.

We need to hold up and wait for the investigation to conclude. And really, a new vote is the only way out. And if he wins again, then so be it.

The way I see it....

The CIA shared that they found some anomalies in the election, based on Russian interference.  As they are precluded from working within the US, they have little to gain (or lose) by playing partisan politics. And if we're honest about things, they always get huge budgets to carry on work overseas, whatever that is. Doesn't matter who sits in the Oval Office. And because of various policies, they often do better with a Republican in the White House.

So what do they have to gain from meddling? 

The FBI is a different story. They solely work within the US, and are directly impacted by the person in charge.  They stand to gain (or lose), and their budgets get bigger and they have more latitude with Republicans - at least in general.  The FBI also shared that they saw interference from the Russians, but they didn't think it was a hack of the election itself and they didn't provide motive. 

But. A.  See my comment about their level of involvement and interest. And B. their primary focus is within the US.  Hacking occurring outside has an impact, but the CIA would be more likely to know the extent of the intrusion.

So here we are.  We're a week away from the Electors meeting to vote.  They "should" vote according to the allocation of electoral votes given by the wins in each state. But there is some wiggle room for them.  Sort of.  Its complicated.  But at the end of the day their job is to protect and defend the constitution of the United States.

There are a couple of possibilities regarding what happens next, so let me run through them.

Option 1: proceed with the electoral vote

Pros: it ends the debate and simply uses the votes from the election

Cons: it creates a constitutional crisis because it was not a free and fair election and we all have no idea if our votes counted.  The ship will have sailed, and from this point on we can never have a fair election again - even if some think we can.  At that point, you might as well start over with a new constitution.  And no, I am not kidding. This imperils our democracy.

There are a couple of possible outcomes here: Trump wins (the most likely result), and serves his term.  Trump wins and gets impeached (ether because of the hack or simply because of his business interests that violate the constitutions prohibition on taking foreign money) and then Pence serves the term (who none of us voted for!).  Trump doesn't get to 270 and it reverts to the congress or the courts for resolution.  Somehow Clinton gets 270 (least likely outcome) and she serves as president.

Option 2: The electors are delayed

Pros: more time to resolve everything

Cons: who makes that call? And in all likelihood challenging the date of their voite

will push us to option 3.

I don't think there is an outcome specific to this option.

Option 3: this heads to the courts to resolve .... something

Pros: at least we avert the constitutional crisis

Cons: this becomes messy and complicated, and delays the vote and could mean that we have to have someone serve as president while this all gets resolved (not Obama and not Biden, nor the cabinet; they are done on 1/20....but you might know this if you read the constitution - its covered as it lists the hierarchy)

There are a couple of possible outcomes here as well: the court orders the electors to delay, or just to proceed.  In either case, they could give the electors orders to unbind them from the original vote; they vote for who they want (note: this may create new problems). The court decides themselves.  They hand it back to congress to decide (again based on the pesky constitution).  They make everyone wait until the investigation ends so we know if Trump was complicit (avoiding the possibility of impeachment) and then proceeding.  And finally they could order a new election.

Option 4: Order a new election

Pros: it solves for the myriad of problems and restores free and fair to the mix

Cons: it becomes a do-over.  Its unclear who has authority to order it.  Its unclear what method we could use to ensure that there isn't another issue.  It will take time and will require a temporary person to fill the office, just like in option 3.  It will probably lead to a legal challenge, unless the supreme court orders it.

This is uncharted territory.  We have no idea what could happen.  And again, do you wait for the outcome to decide if Trump is okay to be included?

Donald Trump Is Gaslighting America | Teen Vogue

"Insist on fact-checking every Trump statement you read, every headline you share or even relay to a friend over coffee"

http://www.teenvogue.com/story/donald-trump-is-gaslighting-america