Rand Paul wins! Victory for Tea Party, Libertarian Republicans

Posted on by

BREAKING NEWS!!

Final results:

Rand Paul - 59%

Trey Grayson - 36%

Reached for a comment on-scene at the Wayne County Courthouse in south central Kentucky, monitoring the returns, Wes Messamore, Webmaster for Libertarian Republican and Publisher of Humble Libertarian had this to say:

This is a spanking... This is an embarrassment for the establishment. This is a slap in the face to Mitch McConnell. Hey Mitch we don't like your politics. We don't like bail-outs. We don't like TARP. The Tea Party movement has won!

On the Democrats Messamore continued:

With [Jack] Conway winning [over more moderate Democrat Mongiardo] Obama and the Democrats will get trounced in November. He's the best the Rand Paul camp could hope for.

More Good News for the Tea Party… Marco Rubio moves back into the lead

Posted on by

From Eric Dondero:

Now with a comfortable lead, Tea Party favorite Marco Rubio has moved back into the lead in Florida, over Governor Charlie Crist.

MIAMI (CBS4) ? In what's arguably the hottest U.S. Senate race in the nation, a new poll is showing a new leader in the race. According to Rasmussen, a telephone survey gave Republican Marco Rubio a 39 to 31 lead over Independent Charlie Crist.

While Rasmussen polls have been criticized by pollsters for having a slight conservative tilt, the new numbers show Rubio is surging again. Democrat Kendrick Meek trails both candidates at 18 percent and another 12 percent of the electorate remained undecided.

Rand Paul identifies himself as Tea Party standardbearer in Paducah

Posted on by

From Eric Dondero:

Republican candidate for US Senate Rand Paul proudly identified his campaign with the nationwide Tea Party movement yesterday at a rally in Paducah.

The event was held downtown right across from City Hall in the Dolly McNutt park. About 70 people attended. The crowd included a mix of conservative Republicans, Constitutionalists, Independents, libertarians, and even a few interested Democrats.

The event got started on time, despite the light rain, and thunder clouds. Paul, the opthamologist, arrived decked out in sunglasses. He was accompanied by members of his family from as far away as Texas.

Campaign volunteers handed out "I'm a Rand Fan," stickers, bumper stickers, and yard signs.

Some media showed, included one television station and the local newspaper.

Before the event I had the opportunity to interview a few attendees.

Jamie Smith (photo with black t-shirt) of West Paducah is a Vietnam Veteran and self-described "conservative Democrat" now leaning independent.

I really just want to hear what he has to say. Heard he's for smaller government. Anti-Nanny State. Some of his other views I don't know about. I know of his father's [Cong. Ron Paul] and his views. I want to ask him [Rand] about his views on military issues, Iraq, Afghanistan, if he wants to win or surrender.

My other big issue is the border. They already have the money to build the fence. They need to get it done.

Smith also expressed his hopes that Rand Paul would support repeal of the "health care debacle."

I also interviewed Taylor Harbin, (photo) a self-described "independent" and "libertarian-conservative." He is a recently graduated student of Western Kentucky Univ.

I'm just a young guy wondering about what the future is going to hold: Status of the 2nd Amendment, transparency from the federal Ggovernment, and all the while the government keeps expanding. I followed Ron Paul in his 2008 Presidential race. I like what I've heard and seen so far from Rand Paul. It's more than likely I will vote for him tomorrow. I wish him the best of luck.

As the crowd expanded the emcee took the stage and introduced the candidate.

Excerpts from Rand Paul's remarks:

This is the Tea Party movement!

This Tea Party movement is about getting our government back. It's not just Republicans or Democrats. It's about balanced budgets. And Term Limits... That's the Tea Party message.

They need to read the bills. Is that too much to ask? And every bill should have a provision outlining where they get the authority in the Constitution.

The 9th and 10th Amendments are clear. If it's not in the Constitution the power is left to the States.

The mood of the Nation is ripe for a candidate who is an outsider. We've been lucky enough to get Senator Bunning's endorsement... Sarah Palin.

This is a movement that's not about me. This Tea Party movement is about taking the Republican Party back and the Nation.

After the event I interviewed one more attendee. Erica Weise lives in Paducah. She's a single mom. She has a mixed race young son. She describes herself as a "poor white girl."

Erica came to the rally with her friend, already a Rand Paul backer. But this was Erica's first chance to hear Rand Paul speak. She was turned on to him through Glenn Beck.

Rand Paul is not a politician, and he's a Doctor. He knows what the health care bill will do. It's going to be a tough fight for him [to repeal it]. For everyone of him, there are 30 others who are against the Constitution.

I cannot believe we have a President that apologizes for the country. The President of the United States should be proud of the country.

It is absolutely despicable that what the Founding Fathers did is not taught for a full year in school.

I have a bi-racial kid. Not liking Barack Obama has nothing to do with his color. I just don't want to keep supporting others with my tax dollars. All this class envy is disgusting.

Paul and his entourage headed for Bowling Green, homebase for the campaign for a final rally later in the day.

(Memeo link WaPo)

Supreme Court ruling on Sex Offenders could be used for Political Opponents of the Regime

Posted on by

by Michael W. Dean

You might think I’d be happy about this 7-2 ruling that came down yesterday:

Supreme Court: Sex offenders can be held indefinitely

But I’m not. Here’s why. The ruling:

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday the federal government has the power to keep some sex offenders behind bars indefinitely after they have served their sentences if officials determine those inmates may prove “sexually dangerous” in the future.

“The federal government, as custodian of its prisoners, has the constitutional power to act in order to protect nearby (and other) communities from the danger such prisoners may pose,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the 7-2 majority….

Note - Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia were the dissenters.

Seems good on the surface, in a “think of the children!” way, but could be expanded to anything. This means they could probably put citizens in prison if they thought you might be a danger to the government, but had no proof. If they just “feel it’s a good idea” in a “think of the children!” sort of way. (Like if you vote Republican or Libertarian….)

I think that a problem a lot of libertarians and Republicans have is relying too heavily on the Constitution (and on its interpenetration by the guys in dresses. Letting those guys make up the rules as they go along was never the plan of the Founding Fathers.) The Constitution does not GRANT rights, it only tries to ENFORCE rights THAT YOU WERE BORN WITH. It’s all about NATURAL RIGHTS, not what Nanci Pelosi or Harry Reid or even Ron Paul says. It’s what is RIGHT, not what some lawmakers or law interpreters SAY is right.

If you live your life with integrity, you KNOW what’s right, and you don’t need some guy in a dress to tell you so. And Natural Rights (and the Constitution) only include negative rights (which are actually good things), like the right not to be killed for no reason, the right not to be tyrannized and taxed to death. And Natural Rights (and the Constitution) do NOT include and “positive rights” (positive rights are bad things), like the right to “free heath care”, the right to “a good job with benefits”, etc. Because positive rights can only be obtained by stealing from others.

Governments cannot earn money, they can only steal it, borrow it or print it. And none of those help honest people, and none of those are included in Natural Rights. And arrogant and sociopathic thuggish goons like Nanci Pelosi, Harry Reid, Obama, and now apparently the Supreme Court, do not understand Natural Rights. And Governments only have power if YOU give it to them.

I’m not telling people not to vote. I’d say vote for the least statist person who has a chance to win…usually a Republican, put the breaks on the Obama regime Cloward and Piven crap, and after that’s taken care of, we’ll work from there.

Article by Michael W. Dean. http://www.libertarianpunk.com/

Article exclusive for the Libertarian Republican. Michael W. Dean works for a living in Wyoming, makes protest music, and refuses to buy into the notion that academics in DC can tell him what to do in Wyoming, and he will not pay for the health care of other musicians.

Indiana congressman Mark Souder to resign over affair

Posted on by

WASHINGTON — Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind., plans to resign from CongressFriday because of what he called a mutual relationship with a part-time aide.
“I sinned against God, my wife, and my family,” Souder said in prepared remarks he planned to deliver today in Fort Wayne.
Read the full article on Indystar.com

R.I. boating accident: Cause of death for Kaylee Therrien, Alesia DeSa is … – Examiner.com

Posted on by

Turn to 10.com
R.I. boating accident: Cause of death for Kaylee Therrien, Alesia DeSa is ...
Examiner.com
Cromwell, who also owns Freedom Boat Club, says they hit the rocks in Narragansett Bay early Sunday morning so fast that the boat went airborne and flipped. ...
Blunt force trauma cause of death of two Mass. women in RI boating accidentProvidence Journal

all 222 news articles »

One Year Ago An Astronaut Walked Into The Jet Stream – And To The Summit of Mt. Everest

Posted on by

Keith's note: Exactly one year ago I had the profound and life-altering privilege to live at Everest Base Camp at an altitude of 17,500 feet for a month so as to watch - and listen - and report - as my friend Scott Parazynski walked up into the Jet Stream to the summit of Mt. Everest. In the ensuing year, not a week goes by without one of us sending an email to the other noting that we still think about this epic part of our lives every day. Together with our friends Miles O'Brien and Bob Jacobs and the good folks at NASA HQ PAO, we sought to bring this experience to as many people as we possibly could using all manner of Internet, social media, and satellite toys - er tools.

Yes, if you look at the photo closely (larger view) you will see that Scott carried my first NASA badge from 1990 and a picture of astronaut Suni Williams' famous space dog Gorbie to the summit - all held together with authentic NASA duct tape.

The video below captures a moment in time shortly after Scott reached the summit. Our fervent hope in this era of "participatory exploration" and "citizen science" is that we helped to set the standard for how NASA will document and relay its future accomplishments to the world.

FWIW Charlie Bolden, you are not the only person who gets misty-eyed.

More information on the summit bid is online here. For those of you in the Houston area, Scott will be making a presentation on his climb at the Houston Museum of Natural Science on Thursday, 20 May. Please try and stop by. No doubt he will continue to spread utter lies about my experiences with the yaks of Nepal.

I carried an Apollo 11 Moon rock with me from America to Nepal and then to Everest Base Camp. Scott then carried it to the summit of Mt. Everest. We're still arguing as to which one of us has a world record for the amount of time that a Moon rock was in intimate proximity to our body. In either case, this year the Moon rock and a piece of the summit of Everest was carried into orbit on STS-130 to the ISS where it resides now.

Multiple historic and exploration resonances abound - just as they should since Neil Armstrong and Edmund Hillary were friends.

Ad astra y'all.

Exclusive Video: Scott Parazynski on Summit of Mt. Everest

“Medical Voices” on vaccines: Brave, brave Sir Robin…

Posted on by

About a week and a half ago, the ever-ascerbic Mark Crislip applied his dry and devastating wit to a particularly silly bit of anti-vaccine propaganda from an anti-vaccine website, Medical Voices Vaccine Information Center (MVVIC). The anti-vaccine propaganda was entitled 9 Questions That Stump Every Pro-Vaccine Advocate and Their Claims and was written by a naturopath named David Mihalovic. The article was an incredibly — shall we say? — target-rich environment full of logical fallacies (including straw men built to Burning Man dimensions at which Mihalovic aimed a flamethrower of burning ignorance and let loose with napalm-grade flaming nonsense), misinformation, and cherry picking. Dr. Crislip entitled his rejoinder, appropriately enough, Nine Questions, Nine Answers, and his methodical, oh-so-sarcastically complete deconstruction of Mihalovic’s deceptive and disingenuous “nine questions” showed that these questions stump no one who knows what they are talking about when it comes to vaccines. These “nine questions” also reveal an ignorance of vaccines so deep that the strongest bathysphere probably couldn’t withstand the pressure at that depth. After reading Dr. Crislip’s post, truly, I had to bow to the master. I may be capable of some fairly awesome insolence at times, but I’m hard-pressed to keep up with him when he’s on.

Being the ever-benevolent editor that I am and, as such, very proud of Mark’s effort, I decided that common courtesy would suggest that it would be a good idea to send a friendly note to those behind Medical Voices, you know, to let them know that their article had been appreciated for its entertainment value. Well, maybe it wasn’t so friendly. I do recall using the words “nonsense,” “pseudoscience,” “misinformation,” and “despicable” somewhere in the mix. Antivaccine pseudoscience tends to bring that out in me, and it wasn’t a blog post, at least not on SBM. Be that as it may, over a week went by with no response, and I thought that we were being ignored. Oh, well, I thought, no big deal and nothing unexpected. Then, Monday morning, I found this e-mail in my in box from someone named Nick Haas:

Hello Dr. Gorski,

Would you like to debate on vaccines live and publicly over the Internet? You just need a computer and a headset. We could have two medical doctors on each side. We’ll figure out a moderator together.

Nick

A “live” debate. What is it with “live debates”? It seems that cranks always want to challenge those who criticize their misinformation and pseudoscience to “live debates.”

I perused the MVVIC website and quickly figured out who Nick Haas is. He’s listed as the president of something called the International Medical Council on Vaccination, which counts on its board of directors such anti-vaccine luminaries as Sherri Tenpenny, DO; Mayer Eisenstein, MD, JD, MPH; and Harold Buttram, MD, among others. Of note Buttram is the doctor who claims that shaken baby syndrome is a misdiagnosis for vaccine injury. Nick Hass, it turns out has this background:

Nick’s background is in sales and logistics. He is president of Medical Voices Vaccine Information Center. Nick earned his Bachelor of Arts degree from Carthage College in 1998, majoring in both business administration and Spanish. Nick became interested in vaccines when he and his wife became pregnant. He was shocked as he learned about the true risks of vaccines, that their efficacy is grossly overstated, and that vaccines in fact are not responsible for disease eradication. After studying thousands of pages on vaccines and deciding he needed to get involved, Nick founded MVVIC, with all medical doctors on its boards. The organization gladly claims responsibility for sparking the interest of physicians and the public alike, leading them to the truth they did not learn in medical school or from their doctor. Nick and his wife Ana are parents of one unvaccinated son and live in southeast Wisconsin. Nick is not a healthcare provider.

Interestingly (to me at least), there was nothing there about Mr. Haas having a child with autism and viewing the autism as due to “vaccine injury,” which is the usual case for activists of this type. Still, it would appear that Mr. Haas is, like Jenny McCarthy, a graduate of the University of Google who thinks his Google knowledge trumps the science, epidemiology, and the knowledge of scientists who have spent their entire professional lives steeped in immunology and vaccine science. In any case, I had a hearty chuckle after reading the above and forwarded Nick’s message to the rest of the SBM crew, proposing a response. While I waited a day or so, apparently Mr. Haas was growing impatient, because a mere 13 or 14 hours after the first e-mail, I found this in my e-mail in box:

Greetings:

I am CCing all of you to respect your privacy. Each of you has contacted International Medical Council on Vaccination apparently because of the request Dr. David Gorski made that you do so in the comments section of an article published at sciencebasedmedicine.org. One of those who contacted us – and who is included on this e-mail – is Dr. David Gorski himself. While we’ve written off past attacks, we feel we have to respond to the direct challenge made (comment by David Gorski on 07 May 2010 at 8:17 am).

We would like to do much better than provide a refutation of one article on our site. I have sent Dr. Gorski an e-mail (see below) asking that he participate in an open debate via Internet. We would provide the forum and it would be open to the audience without charge, using a mediator both parties agree on.

I am sending this e-mail to all of you so as to provide further incentive for Dr. Gorski to acknowledge that we have responded and to further provide incentive that the sciencebasedmedicine.org crew accept the invitation to a public debate. We also ask that sciencebasedmedicine.org immediately post an acknowledgement of this offer in the comments section of the article. Please feel free to e-mail Dr. Gorski (gorskon@gmail.com) and ask him about his intentions.

Nick Haas

International Medical Council on Vaccination

I particularly like the part about wanting to do “much better” than providing a refutation on the MVVIC website. In actuality, the demand for a “public debate” is a favorite ploy of cranks everywhere. In fact, I’ve seen it used by every variety of crank I’ve ever encountered online, including alternative medicine supporters, anti-vaccinationists, HIV/AIDS denialists, Holocaust deniers, 9/11 Truthers, and believers in ghosts and the paranormal. In particular, I remember a woman named Casey Cohen trying to convince me to take part in a debate with Christine Maggiore a couple of years ago and then declaring victory when I declined.

Deborah Lipstadt, the renowned Holocaust expert who was sued by Holocaust denier David Irving back in 2000 for referring to him as a Holocaust denier in her book, Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory. Let me make one thing clear before I proceed: in using the example of Holocaust denial, I am not calling Mr. Haas or anyone associated with MVVIC a Nazi or anti-Semite. However, the techniques of dealing with evidence by anti-vaccinationists so resemble the techniques of Holocaust deniers that the comparison is hard to avoid, although difficult to make because of the toxic nature of even mentioning Holocaust denial. (In fact, I’ll also make a prediction: if Mr. Haas or anyone from MVVIC responds to this post, they’ll willfully misinterpret my use of the example of Holocaust denial as an example and complain that I’m calling them Nazis, bigots, or anti-Semites. I almost guarantee it.) In any case, Professor Lipstadt has stated clearly that she does not debate deniers and used the most apt simile I’ve seen about debating denialists, “Debating a denier is like trying to nail a blob of jelly to the wall.”

There are a number of compelling reasons why it is pointless at best and counterproductive at worst to debate a denier, denialist, crank, or whatever you want to call it. For one thing, for a debate to be an intellectually useful exercise, there should be two reasonable points of view being argued, points of view that have a sufficient amount of evidence to support them that it is not unreasonable to hold either view being debated. The evidence doesn’t have to be of equal quantity and quality on each side, of course, but it should at least be somewhere in the same ball park — or on the same planet. This isn’t a rule that is limited to just Holocaust deniers, either. Vaccine denialists (a.k.a. anti-vaxers), evolution denialists (a.k.a. creationists), scientific medicine denialists (a.k.a. alt-med mavens), HIV/AIDS denialists, or 9/11 Truthers, they all fall into this category. All of them desperately crave respectability. As much as they disparage mainstream thought in the disciplines that they attack, be it medicine, vaccines, history, or current events, they desperately crave to be taken seriously by the relevant disciplines. Being seen in the same venue, on the same stage, or on the same media outlet with relevant experts as an apparent equal gives them just what they want.

And some of them are really good at being the jelly that you can’t nail to the wall.

So, with the permission of Steve Novella and Mark Crislip, on Tuesday morning, I responded:

Mr. Haas,

You appear to have misinterpreted my intent. I was not challenging you or your writers to a public debate; I was simply making you aware of an excellent refutation by one of our bloggers of some egregious misinformation that one of your alleged “experts” has published on your website. We do not “debate” anti-vaccinationists. We use our blog to refute their misinformation. That is one reason why Science-Based Medicine exists.

Medical science is not decided by “public debates.” It is decided by evidence, experiments, and clinical trials. Fortunately, the vast preponderance of evidence is against the contentions that vaccines cause autism, that vaccines are somehow more dangerous than the diseases they prevent, that vaccines are loaded with “toxins,” or that they are ineffective, all arguments your “expert” made. Certainly your website does not provide any scientifically compelling evidence to refute what our blogger Dr. Crislip wrote. Even if we at SBM found publicly “debating” anti-vaccinationists to be anything other than a complete waste of our time, I have to be honest here: If your writer Mr. Mihalovic can’t even get some very basic scientific facts correct (or even find easily locatable studies using PubMed, as Dr. Crislip so amusingly showed), a “debate” with him would be even more pointless than usual attempts to debate anti-vaccinationists. (Google ‘Gish Gallop’ for one reason why.)

You or Mr. Mihalovic are, of course, more than welcome to respond in the comments of Dr. Crislip’s post or to try to refute him with evidence on your own website. We do not, however, feel obligated to give his views additional credence by doing an online debate.

David Gorski, MD, PhD
Managing Editor, Science-Based Medicine

Cc: Steve Novella, Mark Crislip

Mr. Haas was not pleased, and later on Tuesday I received this e-mail, again apparently sent to some sort of MVVIC mailing list and cc’d to Steve, Mark, and me:

Greetings: I have BCCed those of you who contacted International Medical Council on Vaccination regarding the Nine Questions article. Sciencebasedmedicine.org has declined giving us the opportunity to defend their attack via an open debate.

We consider ourselves to have done better than their and your request for a response. They have not done as much as acknowledge our reply where they have the article posted. They tell security to not let the other team in the arena and then pronounce themselves the winner to the fans.

This issue is closed; hence, for us. I won’t be replying to anything other than an acceptance on sciencebasedmedicine.org’s part — an acceptance that will never come — to debate the science live, open and fairly.

Thank you for having contacted International Medical Council on Vaccination.

Nick Haas
IMCV

Bottom line: We denied Mr. Haas his preferred forum, and, because he can’t refute what Mark wrote, he and his merry band of anti-vaccine propagandists retreated in a most ignominious fashion. However, being the ever-benevolent editor that I am, I thought I’d be remiss if I didn’t acknowledge Mr. Haas’s reply where Mark’s article was posted, which is exactly what I’m doing now by writing this post. I’m acknowledging his “offer.” I’m also pointing out that his excuse not to respond to Dr. Crislip’s refutation of their propaganda piece is transparently obvious:

When science reared its ugly head, MVVIC bravely turned its tail and fled.

The issue of whether to debate cranks like anti-vaccine propagandists is a question that comes up perennially in skeptical circles. I personally come down on the side that it is a pointless, no-win exercise for skeptics, although some, even those who mostly agree with the contention that it is pointless to debate pseudoscientists, sometimes relent because a lot of pressure is put on them. It’s still a bad idea the vast majority of the time, and most skeptics who have participated in such “debates” (pseudodebates, actually) usually have at least an inkling that it’s a bad idea when they agree to do them. Some skeptics agree, but these are generally the ones so good at debate that they are not troubled overmuch by the Gish Gallop. Truly, though, these are the elite skeptics. Disagreements over tactics aside, as Steve Novella pointed out in our e-mail exchanges, live debates are a terrible forum for science. Written discussions are much better. That is what Mark Crislip did by writing his excellent detailed, question-by-question response to each of Mihalovic’s “nine questions” that supposedly “stump” everyone. That is how the published scientific literature works. Either Mr. Mihalovic, Haas, or any of the members of MVVIC are, of course, free to respond in writing as well, either in the comments of Mark’s original post or on the MVVIC website — or whatever website they desire.

I’ll finish by reiterating and expanding a bit on what I wrote in my e-mail to Mr. Haas: We do not “debate” pseudoscientists, anti-vaccinationists, and purveyors of dubious medical treatments. We use our blog to refute their misinformation and hopefully educate the public. That is one reason why Science-Based Medicine exists. Another reason is (sometimes, at least) to entertain while we educate.

Of course, it’s fun, too, particularly e-mail exchanges with readers like Mr. Haas. Who knows? Maybe he or one of his “experts” will now take a crack at refuting Mark’s post. In the meantime, I’ve encouraged my fellow SBM bloggers to pick an article from the MVVIC website and give it the Mark Crislip treatment.


[Slashdot]
[Digg]
[Reddit]
[del.icio.us]
[Facebook]
[Technorati]
[Google]
[StumbleUpon]

Humvee Rover Reaches Devon Island After Sea Ice Traverse

Posted on by

Mars Institute "Moon-1" Humvee Rover reaches Devon Island, High Arctic

"An international team of researchers led by Mars Institute scientist Dr. Pascal Lee successfully reached Devon Island, High Arctic, on Sunday, 16 May, 2010 after a 13-day, 150 km vehicular journey from Cornwallis Island to Devon Island, along the fabled Northwest Passage."

Driving to Devon Island Across Sea Ice, earlier post

Long-Term Aneursym Repair Survival Rates Similar But more reinterventions … – ModernMedicine

Posted on by

ModernMedicine
Long-Term Aneursym Repair Survival Rates Similar But more reinterventions ...
ModernMedicine
However, cumulative rates of freedom from secondary interventions were 81.9 percent and 70.4 percent, respectively. Reinterventions after endovascular ...
Long-Term Outcome of Open or Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic AneurysmNew England Journal of Medicine (subscription)
Dutch Randomized Endovascular Aneurysm Repair (DREAM)Cardiosource

all 9 news articles »

Baby blues can affect dads too – Sydney Morning Herald

Posted on by

CBC.ca
Baby blues can affect dads too
Sydney Morning Herald
Researchers from the Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk pooled data from 43 studies involving about 28000 participants that documented depression in ...
Study: Postpartum depression affects fathers tooLos Angeles Times
Dads get postpartum depression tooWashington Post (blog)
High Rate of Prenatal, Postpartum Depression Found in FathersMedscape
The Week Magazine -The Guardian -National Post
all 372 news articles »