The flying pet store of death returns

Russians recovered a furry crew that spent a month in microgravity this week, only to confirm most arrived back on earth dead. Sad, but not as bad as it sounds:

Arstechnica — A Russian spacecraft containing 45 mice, 8 gerbils, and 15 newts returned to Earth on Sunday. The spacecraft, a modified Bion-M life sciences satellite, was launched in April 2013 and was intended to study the biological effects of long-term weightlessness. However, due to a combination of equipment failure and what scientists referred to as “the stresses of space,” fewer than half the mice (and none of the gerbils) remained alive after their month in space. The newts were fine, though.

That most organisms, including humans, undergo physical changes in prolonged microgravity is already well-understood; the United States and the Soviet Union (and later Russia) have been conducting long-duration manned space flights as far back as the early 1960s, and there is a plethora of data on the subject. However, conducting detailed experiments on the biological deficits incurred through long exposure to microgravity—including skeletal and muscular deterioration—is ethically difficult because at least some amount of the damage could be irreversible.

Let’s put scandals & austerity in crystal clear context

A trillion dollars blown on a non-existent threat, by the party that now whines non-stop about big government waste, a huge chunk of which went to the firm where VP Cheney was the most recent CEO. And that’s merely the tip of the iceberg. Tax cuts, oil subsidies, war profiteers, bank bail outs, anti-science lunacy, union busting, you name it.

Yes, democrats may be fractured, unreliable, at times spineless. The modern GOP on the other hand is much more united and it has nothing to do with principle or ideology of any kind: they’re solely focused on shoveling truckloads of money, from any source no matter who gets hurt or killed, into the bloated coffers of their already fabulously wealthy pals by any means necessary. Everything they do and say and try is centered on that singular goal in one way or another, and they’re good at it, especially when they get in real power. To really rake it in like they did in the Bush days, it helps a lot to hold the executive branch — a Presidential veto is an obstacle. Keep that in mind when hearing about the worst scandals ever, or the good ole both sides do it crap.

A Nooner unscrewed by the happy Professor

 

Peggy Noonan rides again, this time whining that conservatives were painted and hit by a certain unnamed — possibly Kenyan but we won’t say that — WH executive, or the very least he set the critical arrogant tone (Yet he was somehow also meekly passive, in her wide ranging attack) in the “worst scandal since Watergate”. Her evidence? Four conservatives were audited. Nate Silver points out it was probably a hell of a lot more than four! [Read more…]

Atheist op-ed

Found this on a local South African news site. It’s an op-ed on the user-generated section titled A study of Atheism – Untwisting the knickers. I’ve seen worse. Long excerpt below:

Link — Are atheists then Satanists? After all, they reject the notion of the God of Abraham, therefore they must be Satanists, right? Wrong – you were not paying attention. Atheists reject the notion of ALL gods/God – this includes Satan/Lucifer/Baal and whoever else you might care to throw in the mix.

Right, so what about babies? They do not believe in any gods/God, do they? No, they do not, or at least not until they are taught to believe in gods/God. Does this mean they are atheists? No, it does not – to be an atheist one must reject the notion of gods/Gods, and the only thing I have seen a baby reject is a feed – usually all over one’s shoulder. I am not permitted to say that babies are irreligious – I got well and truly chastised last time I said that – so I will try for “babies are non-religious”, and hope I am not soundly rebuked for using that term.

OK, so God/gods are out – but they must believe in something, surely? It must be Science! No – wrong again. For starters, one does not “believe” in Science. One understands it, (or in my case, tries to understand it), accepts it – but never does one BELIEVE in Science. In any event, neither Science, nor any of the great Scientists, are or were gods. Nothing whatsoever to do with atheism. It is simply Science. Some atheists are into Science, some are not. Then again, some religious folk are into Science too, so it cannot be the exclusive property of the atheists, can it now?