Saturday Night Radio Drama - Daniel Lawrence Taylor - Black Boy Fly

Black Boy Fly 

Writer and star of the BAFTA-nominated comedy series Timewasters, Breakthrough Brit winner Daniel Lawrence Taylor writes two original plays for Radio 4.

This sly family comedy takes a look at the costs of gentrification.

At the Peckham Branch of "So Woke" Coffee, street artist Sommore is painting a community artwork on the wall.

But Sommore has moved out of Peckham. And moved her son out too, to a private school in West London.

So what exactly is her message for the community?

Sommore ..... Nadine Marshall
Michael ..... Michael Ajao
Ashley ..... Don Gilet
Tom ..... Christopher Harper
Luke ..... Ronny Jhutti
Mrs Thomas ..... Clare Corbett
Pearl ..... Carolyn Pickles
Other parts played by Joseph Ayre and Tony Turner.


Produced and directed by Jonquil Panting.

To Hell With The Double Standard

Democrats should make it a rule that none of them resigns for things that Republicans don't have to resign over.

Democrats should make it a rule that none of them resigns over accusations of things that Republicans don't have to resign over with evidence of guilt provided and tested.   

I don't think anyone in Virginia should be resigning just yet, I don't think anyone should resign for having been a stupid kid when they were a stupid kid, not while Brett Kavanaugh is on the Supreme Court with evidence he was an attempted rapist and a public sexual assailant not being enough to keep him off the court and Donald Trump is in office with him having bragged about being a sexual assaulter.  

Democrats should stop accepting a double standard that is used to hold us to impossible to defend from tactics.   We have to reject alleged Democrats and liberals who insist on those standards when no one holds Republicans to them or even anything close to them. 

Walk Away

I didn't plan this when I wrote the piece below this morning but I just listened to a mildly humorous Majority Report piece about some dweeb named Brandon Strata who thinks he can take on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (she'd crush him).  The segment contained this exchange which is interesting from my point of view.

Jamie Peck:  Is he going to run as a Democrat or a Republican, do you think?

Sam Seder:  I. . . I . . . He's already walked away from the Democratic Party. 

Matt Lech and Michael Brooks:  Yeah, he walked away.

Matt Lech:  You can't walk back . . . 

Michael Brooks:  You can't walk back to what you walked away from. 

To which, of course, my question is?  Why doesn't that apply to Bernie Sanders who has walked away from the Democratic Party he did so much to screw over even as you enthusiastically support him coming in to try to steal its presidential nomination?    I think "steal" is an accurate term in that the nomination of a party should only ever be given to an actual member of a party. 

Democrats should disqualify anyone who hasn't been a party member for the two entire presidential cycles previous to the election from being eligible for the nomination of the party.  This kind of bullshit has got to stop.

What Bernie Sanders Has In Common With Donald Trump

Consider the odd fact about Bernie Sanders that, after being an independent politician for decades, he briefly joined the Democratic Party in 2016 to run a campaign for the nomination of a party he wasn't a member of until he joined for purposes of utility, then, after the election was over, he dropped out of the Democratic Party instead of remaining in the party whose nomination he and his inner circle claimed he had a right to.   Oddest in that is that even as the wreckage of the 2016 election was smoking, Sanders' cult like supporters were talking about him running again, in 2020 (when, by the way, he will be 79 years old) FOR THE SAME PARTY THAT HE JUST DROPPED OUT OF.

In thinking about that passage from his call in show appearance in 1989, it occurred to me why Sanders didn't want to be part of a political party, why he hadn't taken his own advice and started or taken over a third party, it is because he isn't so much an independent as the central figure in a political cult, one which worked well for him in the offices and state he has been elected in, one which can work to take advantage of the anti-democratic caucuses that so many states have stupidly kept instead of going to far more democratic primaries.  I believe he is hoping that in the crowded field of Democrats already announced for 2020 that his cult will carry him to the nomination where he figures he'll have no trouble knocking off Trump.  I think the peculiarities of Bernie Sanders' career as the head of a cult have given him both too much confidence and too much arrogance.  That's one thing that can happen when, instead of having to compete with other party members, you're the head of your own political cult.

I think it would be a good idea for someone to look very hard at the financial side of the Bernie Sanders campaign in 2016 and his ongoing cult, I would look, especially, at Jane O'Meara Sanders' finances and Jeff Weaver's.  The same level of scrutiny that is needed in the Trump regime should be applied to Sanders and his inner circle.  I think there are considerable financial attractions to run another campaign, look how many perennial candidates have been grifting off of our corrupt political system while getting nowhere in the past. 

As stated yesterday, I have, in the past, respected Bernie Sanders while learning that his actual record of political achievement has been a lot less than advertised. Barack Obama's campaign fueled on the Aaron Sorkin style rhetoric of aspiration was one thing coming from a relatively young man, though the actual achievement he accomplished in office makes it sound empty and hollow now.  For a man in his late 70s who has spent a lifetime in politics, if that's all there is to his campaign, you have every right to look at the past record of achievement. And that doesn't match the hype. 

The Sanders campaign in 2016 was based on working the caucuses, something which it's clear he already understood the potential of in that 1989 statement.  I expect that's still what he's hoping to do.  You can do that on the basis of a cult centered on a single figure, I don't think you can win the presidency on that basis, certainly not without the aid of billionaires foreign and domestic.  Trump had the mass media to do the same thing for him, Sanders will not.  He is deluded if he thinks they will let him get anywhere near the presidency, it will be worse than what the media did to George McGovern when he ran against the, then, most corrupt president in our history, something which was already obvious by the election in 1972.  Such delusion is not uncommon among cult figures.

What I Learned From Blogging

Every once in a while I get a comment on one of the old pieces from my archive and, not understanding the comment, I'll go back to see if it really had anything to do with what was said or if it was some kind of auto-spam that I, for the life of me, can discern no motive for.

One followed up this afternoon was attached to part of the epic series of Darwin War brawls, with the atheists who trolled me but who will not be posted here, anymore.  I don't know when it was that I first suspected, then concluded that atheists are unusually prone to lying, no matter what level of evidence you present them with, no matter how detailed, no matter how obvious it becomes that your knowledge of what is being brawled over is superior to their argument out of ignorance, bigotry and copied, previous atheist diatribes.  The post-war Darwin cult is essentially one big lie of that kind.

I will say it again, I have come to the conclusion that atheism, which not only denies the reality of God but, also and for the same reason, the reality of sin, leads many atheists to be flagrant liars.  If not liars themselves then supportive of their fellows.   That is one of the strongest conclusions I've come to from writing blogs.   I have come to see that insight is also a revelation into looking into the position of atheism and "secularism" in politics and society and even in science.  If people want to know where "post-truth" started, it's never been rare and it's certainly never been absent from formal even academic discourse.  It's certainly never been absent from politics.  Not to mention the media and the law.  I was surprised to find so much of it in science and academia and among the graduates of reputable universities.  Ours is a dark age, brought farther into the darkness by the belief that it is not a sin to tell a lie.

I doubt people try harder to avoid lying unless they believe it is a sin.  A real sin which will have real consequences, for them.  You don't get that with "secularism" for which you can read "atheism" or "materialism."

The Dizzyingly Complex And Diverse World Of The Determination of Sex Difference

If you ever want to look for information on species around which an industry has arisen that isn't directly connected to their economic utility online, good luck trying to find it.  I used my, I'm immodest enough to say, not inconsiderable skill with search terms to try to find out what scheme of sex determination exists in lobsters if there's even just one, and have not been able to find it.   Too bad, I really could use some Jordan Peterson mockery to divert me as I cough and hack and try one expectorant after another to try to avoid dying.

That said, this is an excellent introduction to the wide range of schemes that nature has for determining sex in different species, ignorance of which I recall encountering during the Darwin wars, though the exact context doesn't come to mind.   I don't remember ever writing anything formal about it so I suspect it was in comments somewhere.    Anyway, here's Judith Mank in a Royal Institute video giving a lot to think about.  I would call your attention to the chart of pie graphs that show that among different classes of animals there is an incredible range of different schemes of sex determination, that variation even occurring within classes and it not being closely related to closeness of relatedness in evolutionary distance.

I look at this and wonder if the way we talk about gender and sex among different species, with such different mechanisms and results and wonder if the concept, so obviously derived from our experience of our own species isn't foolish.  Clearly, the meaning of gender and sex that is so radically different has, sometimes, analogous aspects that make them like human sex difference but, often, there are also extreme differences that makes those less than the whole picture.   Remember this the next time they write about "lesbian" penguins at a zoo.  What does that even mean?

I will use this to make fun of Jordan Peterson, the meat-headed (literally) pseudo-science peddling guru of slacker, screen-based male resentment.  But not only him but the evolutionary psychology which I am not unhappy to say, gets saddled with his pronouncements as it gradually decays and tumbles into the boneyard of discontinued science.  I wonder if Peterson was ever challenged on his theory that women shouldn't be paid as much as men because something about lobsters and our common ancestor 500,000,000 years ago.  If you hadn't read me pointing it out before, we share exactly the same common ancestor with lobsters that we share with preying mantis - that fun group in which it's known for females to pull the head off of males who come to copulate with them, eating it as his headless body completes the act before going on to eat the rest of him.  And, also, the black widow spider.   I think someone should tell those incel losers about that fly in the lubricant.  Their man-god is a total, psychology based fraud.  Oh, yeah, and psychology gets to wear Jordan Peterson, too.  If the human species has a future, I predict that what is called "psychology" will be noted for the pseudo-science it is and always has been with very, very little exception.  Jordan Peterson might serve as a text book example,  I hope they mention lobsters.  And his families' all beef diet scam.

OK, I was determined to get that out of this.  Back to the steam kettle.

Update:  I found this online resource to get an idea of how much more complex the situation is, specifically in the group that lobsters are a part of:

The Decapod Researcher’s Guide to the Galaxy of Sex Determination

which is incredibly confusing, especially to someone like, I suspect, Jordan Peterson who doesn't have a clue about what they're talking about when they talk about "sex roles" in lobsters.  To make comparisons with human sex and gender roles and patterns is as absurdly naive a practice that gets called science as any before us, now.  That is Ken Ham level, meathead stupidity only secular, which makes it OK (see relevant post of the other day below).  Only no one calls what he does "science".

"We're not Democrats " . . . " for ONE NIGHT in Vermont we did go into the Democratic Party"

The crew at Majority Report posted a clip that some twitter account has posted of him on a call in talk show in 1989 that they don't see what the problem is, concentrating on Bernie Sanders saying something nice about The Reverend Jesse Jackson and the Rainbow Coalition as they continue to miss what is obviously problematic about what he said about what the Burlington Bernie Sanders cult were up to by way of phony, temporary status as Democrats for purposes of ratfucking Democratic caucuses for ends other than those of actual Democrats, exactly what Bernie Sanders and his cult did in 2016, to such likely catastrophic results and which the old asshole and his ship of fools, including the Majority Reporters, are talking of doing again in 2020.   I have decided that this is going to be a decisive parting of the ways because I've seen the asshole, play-left do this kind of thing in 1968, 1972 (George McCovern's self criticism on his role in changing the rules for that year is well worth reading) in 1980 in 2000, in 2004, and in 2016.  And now, after seeing Trump in full effect, they're talking about another Bernie hijacking attempt in 2020.   Assholes and idiots all of them- what are they all trustifarians or something?

I have transcribed what Sanders said,  you can just imagine the internal debates in the Bernie cult in some small room in Burlington strategizing how to take over the Democratic Party for one night, using the anti-democratic process of the caucuses.  I will bet you that some of the same people said some of the same thing while they plotted his attempted hijacking in 2016 as Sanders depended on non-Democrats doing what his crew did in 1988

In Burlington we had a real debate about our attitude toward Jessie Jackson's campaign.  I think many of us were impressed by the positions that Jackson was bringing forth.  We Were were deeply impressed by the concept of of the Rainbow Coalition which I believe is exactly what has to be done in this country. And we were impressed by Jackson's charisma and his going into the ghettos and into the poor areas and speaking for the family farmers who were being thrown off of their land.   And that moved us very much.  The problem that we had is that, of course, Jackson was functioning within the Democratic Party and we're not Democrats.  So we had a discussion within our own organization and we ended up saying, yeah, we're not Democrats but we think that what  Jackson was doing was so important that we are going to support him.  And for one night in Vermont we did go into the Democratic Party and in fact Jackson ended up winning the Democratic caucuses.  So I was sympathetic to Jackson I agree with the concept of the Rainbow Coalition, I do disagree with Jesse in terms of whether the Democratic Party can be the real vehicle for social change.  I believe it should be a third party. 

And instead of starting a third party or taking over one - generally not hard to do considering almost all of them are Potemkin false fronts for fools to play with - he did what he did in 2016.

Of course there was all the difference between what Jackson did and what Sanders did is that Jackson was and remained a Democrat who had a legitimate right to run for the Democratic nomination.  Sanders is a phony who joins and drops out and will join again but is too much of a conceited egoist to remain in the party.

I used to have enormous respect for Bernie Sanders, we supposedly agree in almost all of the big issues, only I don't believe he really believes what he says since 2016.  I think it's all about him and his vanity.  If he runs in 2020 he will confirm that.

As for Majority Report, I draw the line at Republican-fascist and Trump enablement.   I think they're in it for what they figure will get them the most clicks.  They won't be getting them from me.

Watch For Susan Collins To Pull Her Susan The Suckered Routine Out Of Her Treadbare Acting Kit

Slate magazine notes that perjurer-sex-criminal member of the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh declared war on Roe v. Wade in his dissent in the Louisiana attempt to ban abortion, John Roberts, probably understanding that overturning Roe would cause a fire storm that could destroy the Republican-fascist stranglehold on power and make radical change on the Court far more popular, voted with the non-fascist four, this time. 

On Thursday night, the Supreme Court blocked a stringent Louisiana abortion law by a 5–4 vote, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the liberals to keep the measure on hold. Roberts’ vote is surprising, but not a total shock: The Louisiana statute is a direct violation of the Supreme Court’s 2016 ruling in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, and until the court overturns that decision, the Louisiana law cannot take effect. To Roberts, this precedent matters. To Justice Brett Kavanaugh, it does not. Kavanaugh so disagreed with the majority that he wrote a dissent explaining why the Louisiana law should be allowed to move forward—an opinion that should not be taken as anything less than a declaration of war on Roe v. Wade.

You can read the rest of the piece to get that end of it.  I'm going to concentrate on the woman who put Kavanaugh on the Court, Susan Collins who lied through her teeth that she believed he would not vote to ban abortion, something she knew very well he would.  She lied through that whole disgusting episode, telling the majority of her own constituents to go to hell as she shored up her Republican support and got money for her campaign out of it.  Susan Collins is and always has been a fraud, as I've tirelessly pointed out to people she's gulled - with the help of the Maine and national media which lied on her behalf - she always has been a mainstream Republican which, these days, is hard right.  She was always right of even the "moderate" Republicans of Maine of which I don't believe any really exist anymore.  Republicans are fascists, I'm not Rachel Maddow, I don't need to pretend that's not the case for network purposes. 

Susan Collins is probably hoping that John Roberts saves her from having to face the firestorm that having Roe overturned before he next election will be, though I wouldn't count on that if I were in her position, but, then, I never would be in her position.  She should be exposed for the lying fraud she is even as she plays her patented Susan the Suckerd act, as she played with Mitch McConnell and Trump over ACA repair legislation in order to vote for the billionaire bonanza the skank always wanted to vote for.  

Susan the Suckerd is just one of her acts, she's got a rather tacky little trunk of routines, her Ritual Dance of Indecision the other major one.  The woman is a total fraud and a disgrace, she should be ridiculed and exposed and driven from office, though I am hoping that she is driven out by the voters, I'll take hounding her from running again as a second choice.  

Oh, Good Lord, I Just Found Out Margaret Atwood Has Written A Sequel

Last night, going to read a blogger who I have a lot of respect for but who doesn't post nearly as much as I wish she would these days, a passage in her post made me realize that Margaret Atwood's "Handmaidens" concept, what was so effective in her fantasy novel back when it was first published, has proliferated and it now obscures the motivation in most oppression of most women which is purely economic exploitation and financial bondage and enslavement and not based on their reproductive systems.   Neither is the sexual enslavement of women based on any motives of reproduction but of sex, women sold to men to have their vaginas and mouths and anuses rented out for sex and not for reproduction. 

The extent to which the make believe anti-religious "Handmaidens" image is focused on is the extent to which the very real exploitation of women under very secular economic systems is ignored.  While there are certainly horror cult-criminal gangs like the Fundamentalist LDS which should be prosecuted, that is hardly even a significant part of the oppression of women.  Even in those the focus isn't as much reproductive as to provide degenerate gangsters with women to have sex with, they certainly don't seem to care much for the welfare of the children that result except as sex partners, especially the boys who are dumped on the side of the road so as not to compete with the old goat gangster-pedophiles.

My guess is that a lot of those who watch the TV show - and the, certainly, the far smaller number who read the first book or will read the sequel, aren't really greatly bothered by the very real trafficking in women, for economic exploitation, both as formal slave labor and wage slavery and as disposable raw material in the sex industry.   I think most of it, frankly, is more like the zombie mania that sprang up as the Living Dead franchise decayed and spawned or, in a perverse way, like the Pride and Prejudice mania that . . . I wonder if anyone has done a comparison of Jane Austin and "Handmaidens".  Certainly some masters candidate needs some unimportant concept for a thesis.

I wish there were some way to know if that's the case.  I certainly can't imagine that's what Atwood intended or intends but that's how it strikes me. 

Who Does "Growth" Go To, Who Doesn't Get Any Of It: Winnie Byanyima On Attaining Economic Dignity

I've Decided To Give Winnie Byanyima This Platform

I haven't been given an answer as to why what Winnie Byanyima said at Davos was being ignored.  I knew that she was the head of Oxfam International but when I heard the video down below, I hadn't known that there are videos of her making the same point to elites at elite institutions for years, now.   She has been saying the same things that the new wave of American politicians are now saying.   Here she was two years ago at the International Monetary Fund, pointing out how we have to destroy the death hold the worlds billionaires have on the world. 

Why Isn't Everyone Talking about Winnie Byanyima?

Since she was on the same panel as Rutger Bergman was when he made the statement that made him instantly famous,  I'm wondering why the compelling words of Winnie Byanyima haven't made her as famous.  It's not to take anything away from what he said but what she said was important and brutally frank about the brutality that our economic system imposes on the working poor.

Ken Goldman is, of course, billionaire scum. 

Majority Report At Its Deluded Worst

As I've said, I like a lot of what they say on Majority Report, I mostly like their staff, though I think Jamie Peck is a harmful idiot.   I realized the other night, after writing what might be the last farewell to my previous experimental example that they might be my new example of what is wrong with the left.  At least in their case there's also some there which is what's right with the left, too.

That said, this segment with "Virgil Texas" that was posted as "The Difference Between Elizabeth Warren And Bernie Sanders" contains such a high bullshit to substance level that it's pretty much what's wrong with the New York City style left than which there are few lefts in the country more prone to fatally flawed delusion.

To start with, I don't know much of anything about "Virgil Texas" who is listed as Gamer, Co-Host Chapo Trap House, which for all I know is the kewelest of kewel current things but the guy seems to be more firmly based in gamer delusion than in any real reality.  I wouldn't say he's much less of an idiot than Jamie Peck.

I may go into details about this later but wanted to post this and point out a few things, SUCH AS THE FACT THAT FUCKING BERNIE SANDERS ISN'T A DEMOCRAT HE HAS NO BUSINESS TRYING TO GET THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION FOR PRESIDENT.  Given the damage that his campaign, his wife, his manager, his cult did the last time, GIVEN THE FACT THAT HE'S THE POLITICAL EQUIVALENT OF 148 YEARS OLD, he shouldn't be running for president under any identity.   The same goes for Biden and Bloomberg who, as well, are the political equivalent of 148 years old, though Biden, at least, has the fact that HE HAS BEEN A DEMOCRAT HIS ENTIRE POLITICAL CAREER to make him the least unqualified of all of them.

Elizabeth Warren has what none of them has much of a chance of being, a Democratic President who might take enough seats in the Congress to end Republican-fascist domination.  She's not the only one but Bernie Sanders has absolutely no chance of doing that, the extent to which the Majority Report team promotes his candidacy is the extent to which they are doing exactly what Howard Schultz was accused of doing by that guy at Barnes and Nobel.

Jamie Peck should go read that trusty old history of the American left, The Long Detour by James Weinstein, in which she would see that the biggest enemy that the one and only successful Socialist Party had were the Marxists.  Though there are other socialisms that have been terrible for the reputation of socialism, the Marxists have been fatal to socialism being acceptable to an effective margin of voters in the United States.  We saw Marxism with power all during the 20th and into the 21st century.  The paper on that experiment is written in blood.  There is no prospect of a Marxist or Marxist influenced socialism ever gaining power OR ELECTIVE OFFICE in the United States.  And "socialism" the word, itself, has been irretrievably damaged by that association.  The old Socialist Party was more successful at the ballot box in Oklahoma and Kansas than it was the industrial North East, back then.  But that was on the power of the old Socialism, not least of which was Christian socialism,  before it was so discredited.  It has no prospect of ever succeeding anywhere under that name and with those associations.

Young Jamie might feel all brisk and frisky and lefty over the frisson of scandal and worry and excitement that having a real, officially named "Socialist Party" might be, as opposed to the Democratic Party, but she should look up how many of those there are and have been in the United States in the last century, especially since the Marxists destroyed the old and moderately successful Socialist Party in the late summer of 1919.  The assholes who were at the center of that, Katterfeld and Wagenknect never produced anything of any importance for any working person anywhere, they were party hacks and, in Katterfeld's case, an ineffective anti-religious yahoo latching onto science.  My guess is any political effectiveness he had would have been in enhancing the power of fundamentalists in the coming decades.  The guy was a putz.

My guess is that both of them acted at the direction of Lenin and Trotsky as much as Trump does at the direction of Putin, and to pretty much the same end, the attempted enhancement of Russian dictators and gangsters.   And that's not to mention that total asshole, John Reed.

"Socialist" parties, after the one destroyed by them in 1919, can't even be called dime a dozen because none of them were ever worth even a fraction of a cent.

The word "socialist" is a hindrance to the idea of economic justice and an aid to capitalism of the worst kind.  It might make the Jamie Pecks of the world feel all brisk and frisky but anyone who doesn't realize there are more important things at stake are idiots and should be dumped.

Democrats Should Strike At Republican Fascism Now

I hope that Congressional Democrats meet Donald Trump's threats over investigations into him with immediate issuance of subpoenas for things like Donny jr's phone records and that they immediately vote to send the official transcripts of hearings to Mueller.   Trump sounded more like the two-bit dictator he aspires to be than ever last night - and I only listened in clips because I couldn't stand wading through the lies.  

I don't know how the House could hold the feet of the Republican-fascists on the Supreme Court to the fire but they should start to address the likelihood that they will try to enable Trumpian fascism, it's been their fondest dream to have the country under a Republican-fascist strong man for decades.  Kavanaugh is certainly a weak link in that because of his outrageous perjury and the refusal of Grassley to release his entire record during the Bush II regime.  I think he should be under investigation. 

The Lengths To Which Atheists Will Go To Try To Keep People From Believing In God Are Not Astronomical, They Are Of A Far Greater Magnitude

In that list of atheist ideologue generated "science" to get by problems that materialism encounters around questions of origin, of the universe and of life, I should have included the several odd flavors of "panspermia" which attempts to get by the insuperable problems of improbability of life arising spontaneously on Earth by random chance events, the creation and preservation of complex molecules, the random chance concentration of such molecules, their interaction, the even harder to explain matter of them happening to find themselves in a containing membrane, etc. by just saying well, all that happened somewhere else and the resultant organisms just happened to come here.  Apparently they give such powers of interstellar travel to organisms that their fellow atheists ridicule people for believing that ETs have and, since their motives are to preserve atheism, that makes it all OK.

After the discovery of the background radiation in the 1960s and their steady-state universe model was discredited, Hermann Bondi admitted that, though Thomas Gold and Fred Hoyle held out for decades after that.

In the meantime both Gold and Hoyle joined in the panspermia fashion among such atheists as wanted to avoid the embarrassing problem of the incredible improbability life arising on Earth by random chance.  Hoyle, my notes say, estimated the chance of that happening by random events was in the order of  10 ^40,000  and the estimated number of atoms in the universe is believed to be 10 ⁸⁰ .  Obviously the chances of atoms on Earth, in such numbers required to construct even a very simple organism capable of sustaining its life and, without any precedent or knowable motivation, reproducing successfully, both or the resultant organisms surviving, is of an order so incredibly small that even Hoyle, a committed idological atheist came to the conclusion that intelligent design had to be involved.  He favored organisms on other planets - though the question of where and how they arose, so improbably on their home planet, didn't seem to trouble him.

Of course, the improbabilities expressed in Hoyle's terms would have been the same for life arising anywhere.  And those improbabilities involve it happening once, it is far less likely that it would have happened twice or a jillion times by spontaneous random chance events. The chances of those entirely different organisms being biologically interactive would seem to me to be dependent on even greater improbabilities, though that's unknowable since we've never found "other life".    And added to the problems of those improbabilities were the ones involved in interstellar travel, the lengths of time in harsh, radiation ridden space and the unknowable improbability of such organisms just happening to land on an unseemingly incongenial Early Earthy environment and flourishing doesn't seem to bother such atheist-scientists.  As I recall Gold's theory was that life on Earth is the result of ETs leaving their garbage here.  Which, by the way, is no more absurd than that other hero of 20th century atheist-scientism, Francis Crick who seems to have had his own panspermia scheme which, for the life of me, sounds like what I remember of how Superman was sent here by his parents as their planet couldn't sustain life.  And these are some of the most respected scientists of the 20th, not the 17th century

Hoyle mixed in some really loopy theories that such pandemics as the swine flu epidemic of 1918-1920 were due to his interstellar traveling viruses.  How such viruses would survive such travel is a problem that pales to the improbability of such viruses, arriving for the first time into the history of life on Earth, finding hospitable hosts that would allow them to do what they are supposed to do doesn't seem to figure into Hoyle's calculations of improbability, but, then, he was a cosmologist who was probably extremely naive about biological topics.  I would like to know what Francis Crick's reaction to that would have been but, as can be seen, he was pretty loopy on that and many other topics,* too.

And atheists do this, much of the time AS SCIENCE and are held to be taken seriously AS SCIENTISTS without any evidence or even very good arguments to support their speculations and it is acceptable BECAUSE THEY ARE DOING IT FOR ATHEISM.

I do have to say that my disillusion with much of science, especially those fields which have been wide open to atheist ideological manipulation has been bitter and harsh but those guys have been getting away with stuff that no one else would be allowed to.

I have come to something like Hoyle's position in considering the problem of the origin of life, I don't think it could have happened by random chance events, I don't believe it would have arisen by chance anywhere.  Since Hoyle admitted that it was more reasonable to believe that "intelligence" was involved in the origin of life on Earth (he avoided it being necessary for life, elsewhere) it is an inescapable conclusion that the idea that God created life is more probably true than the random chance event improbabilities that atheists insist on.   But none of that is a matter of science, I've exhaustively shown why that question can't be a scientific question BECAUSE SCIENTISTS CAN'T OBSERVE THE ORIGINAL ORGANISM(S) FROM WHICH ALL LIFE TODAY IS DESCENDED.  Without that actual object, which will certainly never be had to observe, there is no possibility of scientists to theorize one into existence.  We will never know.  What we can know is that atheists have been allowed to put the most absurd speculations into science, on a formal level and, probably even more dangerously, into the popular understanding of what science is.  That bull shit should stop, right now.  Tell the atheists to take it somewhere else just as religion was centuries ago.

This has been another response.

*  Typical of Darwinists, Crick was a firm believer in scientific racism and a proponent of eugenics.   I have come to believe that such beliefs are all but inevitable in most of those who believe in natural selection.

Alternative To Listening To Trump Lie Radio Drama - Anthony Neilson - Twisted

Twisted 

A convicted killer is visited by a psychiatrist to be assessed for parole. He's been jailed for 9 years. Before she makes her assessment, she has a proposition to put to him...

Catherine Horne

Rufus Sewell 

How Should I Feel About This?

I just got a comment that that starts "I'll immediately grab your rss. . . "  I haven't had anyone try that that since the 1980s.  At my age it probably wouldn't be good for my heart.  Thanks for the sentiment, I guess. 

Haven't Felt This Crappy Since My Surgery

If I could give every Republican and every billionaire-oligarch what I've got, I'd do it. 

I might have to take tomorrow off, entirely.  

Hate Mail

I would put Grover Furr in the same category as Holocaust deniers, climate change deniers, flat Earthers, . . . He's a latter-day Stalinist kook, not reliable, especially on any topic surrounding his god, Stalin.   I'm not troubled that those American fascists who want to keep rehashing the Stalin era as an attack on the non-Stalinist liberals in the United States have called him out. Like the proverbial broken clock, by chance they have to get something right about 1/43,200th of the time.   I'm done with the anti-anti-commie fallacy, I can despise all of them.