Republicans, jobs and upcoming elections

Let alone causing the second most devastating crisis in the history of the USA, the last republican era (Bush Jr's dominion) resulted in the rich getting disgustingly richer and the middle class unacceptably poorer:

According to Harvard Magazine "... 66% of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans".

And NOW brainless FOX NEWS and fellow right-wing conservatives are blaming it on Obama that the middle class is struggling so much? HA! What nonsense.
Can anyone reasonable really expect for the SH*T from 8 years to be wiped out by magic in only 2?
During the upcoming elections on Nov 2nd, we really ought to consider if we want to go back to the BS that got us here in the first place.

The rotten system

"The current system is not capitalism but a form of state sponsored cronyism for banks. Most of us can understand that if you have a good product then by all means make a profit. This is the essence of any small business and their survival. But the banking system operates under perverse rules. They created inordinate amounts of debt products that serve no purpose and assured destruction of those taking on the product. Think of option ARMs that actually grew the balance of the mortgage! Horrible products that have destroyed large portions of the real economy and have pushed many off the middle class path. How many foreclosures could have been avoided over the past decade with more prudent banking? Yet this isn’t what the system wants. Banks wouldn’t mind if all you did was work and had to open your beat up leather wallet and pull out 99.99 percent of your net pay to service your debt. In fact, this is probably their ultimate wish..."

http://www.mybudget360.com/american-middle-class-debt-serfdom-only-path-to-middle-class-through-giant-amounts-of-credit-card-housing-debt-loans/

On the origin of life on earth

Panspermia, bajo la suposición de que la vida es tan "constante" en el universo como la materia/energía misma. Hm.
En algún lugar había oído algo al respecto antes...

Será Chandra Wickramashinghe algún imbécil tipo Tom Bearden, nomás que mejor maquillado?
Chandra sí tiene PhD, es profesor universitario en Inglaterra, ha publicado cientos de artículos en peer-reviewed journals, incluído Nature, la "revista" más leída y de mayor "influencia" en ciencia (en general).

[ ... ]
"It would seem significant that life appears in an instant, geologically speaking, almost at the very first moment the Earth possessed a quiescent crust, an atmosphere and oceans, at the very first moment in fact that life was able to survive."
[ ... ]
"We agree that successive copying would accumulate errors, but such errors on the average would lead to a steady degradation of information. It is ridiculous to suppose that the information provided by one single primitive bacterium can be upgraded by copying to produce a man, and all other living things that inhabit our planet. This conventional wisdom, as it is called, is similar to the proposition that the first page of Genesis copied billion upon billions of times would eventually accumulate enough copying errors and hence enough variety to produce not merely the entire Bible but all the holding of all the major libraries of the world. The two statements are equally ridiculous. The processes of mutation and natural selection can only produce very minor effects in life as a kind of fine tuning of the whole evolutionary process. There is above all an absolute need for a continual addition of information for life, an addition that extends in time throughout the entire period for the geological record."
[ ... ]
"Frequent and massive gaps in the fossil record and the absence of transitional forms at the most crucial stages in the development of life show clearly that Darwinism is woefully inadequate to explain the facts."
[ ... ]
"... the extreme radiation resistance of certain types of bacteria, e.g. micrococcus radiodurans fall into this category. These bacterial types can withstand doses of radiation of 100,000 rem, far in excess of the radiation doses resulting from any naturally occurring sources on our planet. This glaring incongruence is in strict defiance of Darwinism. So also is the property that insects respond to ultraviolet light of wavelengths too short to be found on our planet, now or at any time in the past when life was possible."

"We cannot accept that the genes for producing great works of art or literature or music, or developing skills in higher mathematics emerged from chance mutations of monkey genes long ahead of their having any conceivable relevance for survival in a Darwinian sense..."

Hu? Claro que RAZONAR representa una ventaja evolutiva en el sentido Darwiniano. Te puedes chingar un tigre con una lanza racionalmente diseñada. Puedes administrar los recursos mejor con nociones matemáticas. ETC, ETC. La infelicidad, baja calidad de vida (carencia de recreación, que pudiese incluir al arte) y la sugestión (de creer/saber que la vida es una mierda, y no querer por ello vivirla) pueden predisponerte a la enfermedad y acelerar tu paso hacia la muerte.

"There is also a serious difficulty to understand how any re-shuffling of amino acids could occur at all in the context of a canonical terrestrial-style primeval soup. To link two amino acids together requires the removal of a water molecule and the supply of some 150 times more energy than heat in the Earth's oceans could supply. In the absence of a joining enzyme used by biology or without an excessively large flux of ultraviolet light at the ocean surface, no new arrangements could be achieved. But even if chemical barriers for the linkages are artificially and miraculously removed, the really vast improbability of 1 in 10 ^40,000 poses a serious dilemma for the whole of evolutionary science. Life could not be an accident, not just on the Earth alone, but anywhere, anywhere at all in the Universe. The facts as we now see them point to one of two distinct conclusions: an act of deliberate creation, or an indelible permanence of the patterns of life in a Universe that is eternal and boundless."
[ ... ]
"The notion of a creator placed outside the Universe poses logical difficulties, and is not one to which I can easily subscribe. My own philosophical preference is for an essentially eternal, boundless Universe, wherein a creator of life somehow emerges in a natural way... "
[ ... ]
"In the present state of our knowledge about life and about the Universe, an emphatic denial of some form of creation as an explanation for the origin of life implies a blindness to fact and an arrogance that cannot be condoned".

http://www.panspermia.org/chandra.htm

AMERICANS WANT "SOCIALISM"! They just don't know it...

Many Americans have been brainwashed to the point of mistaking LIBERALISM for SOCIALISM, or even worse, thinking SOCIALISM is FASCISM.
This ignorance has lead to the misinformed, prejudicial and damaging reluctance to embrace liberal policies (proposed mainly by Democrats), which would otherwise be happily accepted by the majority.
Not a surprise considering how prone conservatives (most of them Republicans) are to cuts in the education budget to have some extra bucks for the army, or their own bank accounts.

Evidently the dirty work of mislabeling and defamation has worked so well that conservatives themselves really want what they incongruously claim to abhor :
Based on surveys and studies by professors at Duke and Harvard, THIS REPORT showed that over 90% of AMERICANS WOULD PREFER A COUNTRY WITH THE WEALTH DISTRIBUTION OF SWEDEN, and that people are highly IGNORANT regarding the degree of inequality of today's wealth distribution in the USA.
Concepts haven been so muddled up ("...the far right, for instance, has succeeded in promoting the myth that **liberalism equals socialism equals big government**", Steve Kangas), that people fanatically argue against what they don't even understand. The country is full of people who "...only embarrass themselves by attacking an ideology, only to discover they can't even define it" (Steve Kangas).

"In general, the only thing that unites liberals and socialists is the belief that corporate totalitarianism should be avoided. But they differ on how to make businesses more socially responsible, and uninformed critics who lump the two together should not be taken seriously" (Steve Kangas).

The difference between socialism and liberalism was magnificently expressed by Winston Churchill in a speech LONG time ago, but that's hardly an excuse for our society to have forgotten it:
"... Liberalism is not Socialism, and never will be... there are immense differences of principle and of political philosophy between the views we put forward and the views they put forward ... Liberalism has its own history and its own tradition. Socialism has its own formulas and its own aims. Socialism seeks to pull down wealth; Liberalism seeks to raise up poverty. Socialism would destroy private interests; Liberalism would preserve private interests in the only way in which they can be safely and justly preserved, namely, by reconciling them with public right. Socialism would kill enterprise; Liberalism would rescue enterprise from the trammels of privilege and preference. Socialism assails the pre-eminence of the individual; Liberalism seeks, and shall seek more in the future, to build up a minimum standard for the mass. Socialism exalts the rule; Liberalism exalts the man. Socialism attacks capital; Liberalism attacks monopoly".