The Obama administration has spent at least $18.5 million to fly “unaccompanied children” caught crossing into the country illegally to parents and relatives inside the United States, according to newly obtained figures.
A 69-year-old illegal immigrant living in Phoenix, Ariz. has been busted for assuming the identity of a deceased veteran to get heath and social security benefits over the last four years.
The #Republican Party has set a party record this year in pre-convention state #election#turnout with over 28 million votes to date which is 136% of the record high voter turnout in 2008. That’s four million more votes than the Democratic primary race this year.
We all know how modern, dependent upon further funding in perpetuity so we have jobs, ‘#science‘ goes. One week a #study will be released showing one result, and the next week another study showing the opposite result gets published. It’s been that way for years. Coffee is healthy, coffee is unhealthy. Eggs are healthy, eggs are unhealthy. It’s become so predictable that I routinely mock ‘studies’ like this on the program.
#Cell phones are one of those study subjects that I mock on a regular basis. For years, ‘scientists’ have been saying that cell phones cause various forms of cancers, infertility, and even psychological disorders. The following week, a counter-study will release the exact opposite results. That’s what happened this week again with cell phones, and the risk of you getting #cancer.
A study of 30 years’ worth of data has concluded that no link exists between mobile phones and brain cancers.
The study, out of Australia, pores over the prevalence of brain tumors since 1987, reports the Daily Mail.
During this 29-year period — a time when mobile phone usage has increased dramatically — there was no corresponding increase in cancerous brain tumors.
Going through 30 years worth of data seems like a good baseline to start drawing conclusions, don’t you think?
[Tweet theme=”basic-full”]Going through 30 years worth of data seems like a good baseline to start drawing conclusions, don’t you think? http://snip.ly/ewt5b [/Tweet]
It’s the news everyone has been dreading: That little cell phone that people use all the time could cause cancer.
However, before you throw your phone across the room, the authors of the study have not said how the study’s findings on #rats can compare to effects on humans.
The National Toxicology Program study exposed rats to radiation emitted from our cell phones for two and a half years.
The rats exposed to the radiation developed more tumors in the brain and heart that could be linked to cancer than the control group, which was not exposed.
This study was released this week. About 20 days after the first study. The headlines on this study all state that the government says cell phones may or will cause cancer. They use the word ‘government’ to give the results heft and legitimacy. When, in fact, the opposite should be true. US government studies are often the most biased, least scientific studies that get published. They are frequently used as vehicles for new legislation. That legislation almost always is designed to elicit new tax revenue of some sort.
[Tweet theme=”basic-full”]They use the word ‘government’ to give the results heft and legitimacy. When, in fact, the opposite should be true. http://snip.ly/ewt5b [/Tweet]
So which of these studies should you believe is more accurate?
One uses 29 years worth of data, and finds no increase in cancer tumors though cell phone use has obviously spiked in human beings. The other exposed rats to cell phones, only the males developed cancer, and the researchers themselves admit they can’t draw a conclusion to these results with human beings. So who do you believe has the better conclusion?
No let’s look at the way the propaganda machine works in the American media industrial complex … better known as the MSM (main stream media).
Remember, these two studies were released in the same month, only weeks apart. So let’s do a Google search for ‘cell phones cancer’ and filter the results to only include the last month.
Page 1 of Google results. Notice anything?
On the first page of Google, only one link seems to challenge the narrative that a government study had shown a link between cell phones and cancer … a Twitter user.
In a sea of journalists, news outlets and agencies, an individual on Twitter is the only person pointing out the great flaw of this ‘study.’
Aaron is a fairly known health researcher who likely only made the front page of Google because he has over 22k Twitter followers. He’s the one beacon of hope on page 1.
Page 2 of the results gives us three links highlighting the far larger, more legitimate study saying there’s no link between cell phones and cancer. Of those three, none are major media outlets, and one attempts to discredit the study in its title when it says “experts not sure.”
Furthermore, we learn that the study linking cell phones to cancer … in rats … well, only male rats … cost taxpayers $25 million! For $25 million we got a study where the researchers put cell phones next to rats, and the researchers literally said they cannot say how their findings would compare to effects on humans. Why are we funding this exactly?
At this point, I’d like to pause to remind you the National Toxicology Program is a program within the Health and Human Services department. As is the National Institutes of Health. The same people who spend tens of millions of dollars in largely silly research endeavors like if birds slur when they chirp after drinking alcohol. The same people who want $2 billion in new funds to fight the zika virus.
But wait … there’s more!
No research is worth anything unless it’s peer reviewed, and its results upheld.
Peer reviewer Dr. Michael S. Lauer doubted the findings, saying he was skeptical of the study’s claims.
“I suspect that this experiment is substantially underpowered and that the few positive results found reflect false positive findings,” he wrote.
Lauer had a particular issue with the fact that male rats in the control group, and therefore not exposed to the cell phone radiation, had a low survival rate. Only 28 percent survived the length of the study, and the average survival rate of rats in National Toxicology Program studies is 47 percent.
Researchers said they did not know how to explain that low rate.
Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/news/nation-world/national/article80271547.html##storylink=cpy
Um … what?
Not only are the ‘study’s’ peer reviewers calling the results into question, there seems to be an unexplained issue with the survival rates of the rats involved in the research.
So, essentially, we paid $25 million (so far) to study a potential link to cell phones and cancer, we found no link, there’s massive problems with the study’s methodology and subjects, the researchers admit they can’t draw comparisons with their results and humans, but the media is peddling a false-narrative that a link has been found. Yep, another day in the pseudoscience industrial complex that is US government ‘research.’
[Tweet theme=”basic-full”]Yep, another day in the pseudoscience industrial complex that is US government ‘research.’ Via @CaseyTheHost http://snip.ly/ewt5b [/Tweet]
FYI, page 3 of the Google results yielded recognizable names in media reporting on the results of the 29 year study showing no link between cell phones and cancer, but none of these sources (while popular, and recognized) are what we’d call major media outlets. It wasn’t until page 6 of the results that a major media outlet’s reporting of the 29 study was presented. Research shows that 91% of internet searchers do not go past the first page of search results. Even though the study showing a link between cell phones and cancer is essentially garbage, 91% of people searching for information on the subject will assume a positive link had been made between the two simply because of the search results.
[Tweet theme=”basic-full”]Research shows that 91% of internet searchers do not go past the first page of search results. Via @CaseyTheHost http://snip.ly/ewt5b[/Tweet]
#Ole Miss thought it would be a good idea to invite #Tom Brokaw to be the commencement speaker this year. I think it was to show kids that huffing too much smug is bad for your brain.
For years now on my show, on my blog, in my public speeches, and TV appearances, I’ve pointed out that the media often bares large responsibility for #violence in the United States. Every time they peddle false reports of discrimination, police abuse, hate crimes, and even threats of death, they cause fear, animosity, and hatred.
[Tweet theme=”basic-full”]Every time media peddles false reports of discrimination, & hate, they cause fear, & hatred. http://snip.ly/o18sd[/Tweet]
The media is largely responsible for anti-police violence by peddling a proven false narrative that police are systematically killing young black boys. The media’s lies led to the violence and rioting in Baltimore and Ferguson. As well as several police ambush murders.
The media’s insistence that there is common anti-LGBT hatred and abuse has led to people’s livelihoods being taken away from them for no reason. Might that lead to some negative feelings Tom?
The media peddling another false narrative that Americans hate Muslims, and are bigots against them leads to radicalization of young impressionable Muslims. This is gang recruitment 101.
[Tweet theme=”basic-full”]Media peddling false narrative that Americans hate Muslims leads to radicalization of Muslims. http://snip.ly/o18sd[/Tweet]
When the media constantly puts down a group of people, paints them as evil, violent, and dangerous … people treat them as such. Those people then respond in kind, and become radicalized themselves. All because of media sensationalism based on lies.
I saw news anchors in my own community post on social media that Michigan’s RFRA bill would literally lead to gay people being allowed to die in the streets because paramedics don’t want to treat homosexuals. The fear and anger that caused in the gay community led to them lashing out at religious people minding their own business. One side thinks they are defending themselves while attacking innocent people who are then forced to defend themselves. Now we have escalation. All because some asshat in the media legitimized a proven lie to their audience.
You can’t hammer into people on a daily basis that white Americans are racist, and not expect minorities to respond with things like the knockout game. Which in turn leads whites to be on edge about becoming the victim of a violent crime. Here’s one for ya … the largest #study ever done on the subject found that Americans are among the least racist people in the entire world. You wouldn’t know it from watching the news every day.
He’s a member of the media. He’s one of the media’s elites. Yet he just peddled a debunked, proven lie that more #guns leads to more crime. In fact, he doubled down on his baseless fear-mongering and said more guns lead to more #terrorism. Inanimate objects don’t cause terrorism Tom Brokaw, ideology does. People don’t become terrorists because they have access to guns. Nor do they decide not to become terrorists because they don’t have access to them. What a monumentally stupid statement. Only the worst kind of idiot would ever give that statement credence. Besides, I thought not having jobs was why we have terrorists. Someone should also tell Tom Brokaw that 81% of all weapons used in terrorist attacks are explosives or incendiary weapons. Not guns. An elite member of the media should be well versed in tracking down this #research, don’t you think?
[Tweet theme=”basic-full”]Inanimate objects don’t cause terrorism Tom Brokaw, ideology does. http://snip.ly/o18sd Via @CaseyTheHost[/Tweet]
[Tweet theme=”basic-full”]81% of all weapons used in terrorist attacks are explosives or incendiary weapons. Not guns. http://snip.ly/o18sd[/Tweet]
So let’s look at the media’s influence on #extremism shall we?
The study, published in July the journal PLOS ONE, found evidence that school shootings and mass killings — defined as four or more deaths — spread “contagiously,” and 20% to 30% of such killings appear to be the result of “infection.” The contagion period lasts about 13 days, researchers found.
[Tweet theme=”basic-full”]Study: 20-30% of mass shootings caused by media sensationalizing mass shootings. http://snip.ly/o18sd @CaseyTheHost[/Tweet]
Hmm … no mention of guns causing #homegrown violence. Just the media’s sensationalist coverage.
Violence, so the saying goes, begets violence. Now evidence is emerging that suggests even the reporting of violence can trigger further attacks. Research has found that sensationalist media coverage of acts of terrorism results in more such acts being committed.
[Tweet theme=”basic-full”]Study: Media’s sensationalist coverage of terrorist attacks leads to more terrorist attacks. http://snip.ly/o18sd[/Tweet]
Well, well, well … media’s coverage of mass shootings leads to more mass shootings. Who’d have thought? More media coverage of acts of terror will lead to more acts of terror Tom Brokaw.
The report, Mixed Messages: How the Media Covers “Violent Extremism” and What You Can Do About It, reviewed more than 600 news items from 20 major U.S. news outlets. Articles were sampled during April-June 2015 from 15 national media outlets such as the New York Times and NPR, and five “influencer” outlets such as Politico and CQ Weekly that reach audiences of policymakers and government staff.
While that last study left some things out about terrorism, it still makes the valid point that sensationalist MEDIA coverage leads to more extremism. Something that is undeniably true.
Tom Brokaw says more guns leads to more violent extremism. Research shows more sensationalist media coverage leads to more extremism. It’s the media fueling hate Tom Brokaw, not inanimate objects like guns. The media whips people into a frenzy. The media radicalizes people. The media gives them the fame they seek. Then, and only then, do they choose to pick up a gun and use it. If they choose a gun at all.
[Tweet theme=”basic-full”]It’s the media fueling hate Tom Brokaw, not inanimate objects like guns. http://snip.ly/o18sd Via @CaseyTheHost[/Tweet]
[Tweet theme=”basic-full”]Media gives them the fame they seek. Then, & only then, do they pick up a gun and use it. http://snip.ly/o18sd[/Tweet]
Remember when commencement speeches were about encouraging and inspiring the graduating class? You know, the good old days when being a speaker wasn’t an excuse to hop on your soap box after a few drinks, and lecture a captive audience.
The proposed casino for the southeast side of South Bend will benefit the city after the Common Council voted unanimously in favor of an agreement with the Pokagon Band of the Potawatomi Indians.
Opponents of casinos and gambling will often claim that casinos cause terrible problems. In a way, the opposition to gambling makes for strange political alliances. For example, the right-wing organization Focus on the Family claims gambling “is morally bankrupt from its very foundation.” They also quote the Bible in their opposition. Many on the left also oppose gambling, but for different reasons. For example, some on the left who oppose gambling claim that gambling is like a tax on the poor and uninformed. Others claim that people who gamble are exploited by casinos, which are large corporations. The opponents of gambling think if a new casino moves into an area, it only hurts society. They’re wrong.
In fact, drug crimes and residential burglary actually decreased in that neighborhood — which the authors attribute to an increased police patrol around the area. Vehicle crime did increase in the next neighborhood over, though, suggesting that it may have been displaced rather than reduced. Regardless, it seems that an uptick in “alcohol violations or kids being left in cars while their parents gamble,” which the group protesting the casino warned against, has not materialized in the years since SugarHouse opened.
“I can’t speak to any misguided attempts at humor,” Earnest, who has not seen video of the controversial comedy skit, told reporters during a daily press briefing. “I can only speak to their commitment that they’ve shown over the course of their career to justice and civil rights.”
The Interaction Lab’s diversity demos are designed to transport users into unfamiliar and unsettling realms. In one scenario, a user is represented by an African-American female avatar who is being angrily harassed by a white avatar. When the user reflexively lifts his or her arms in self-defense, the hands feature black skin.
It should not be a pro-gun-versus-anti-gun argument. It is not an argument about our Constitution. The Second Amendment protects the right of a United States citizen to bear arms. But a gun is a machine.
“I had went up to her and asked her does she have a unisex bathroom? She replied ‘no’, and pointed at the men’s restroom and forced me to go to the men’s restroom,” On assess said.
Whether the fans crossed the line or not, I’ll leave to you. However, the players need to grow the hell up. This coddling of feelings because someone says something mean has got to stop. It’s weakness, pure and simple.
At this time we can confirm that three elementary aged students who were sitting near Beloit fans said “Trump, build a wall”. Later in the game two high school students stated back and forth “Trump” four to five times. It has been reported that the game was stopped.
