Archive for August, 2013

The REAL ‘Stuff White People Like’

September 8th, 2010 by Christian Rudder

What is it that makes a culture unique? How are whites, blacks, Asians, or whoever different from everybody else? What tastes, interests, and concepts define an ethnic group? And is there any way to make fun of other races in public and get away with it?

These are big questions, and here’s how we answered them.

We selected 526,000 OkCupid users at random and divided them into groups by their (self-stated) race. We then took all these people’s profile essays (280 million words in total!) and isolated the words and phrases that made each racial group’s essays statistically distinct from the others’.

For instance, it turns out that all kinds of people list sushi as one of their favorite foods. But Asians are the only group who also list sashimi; it’s a racial outlier. Similarly, as we shall see, black people are 20 times more likely than everyone else to mention soul food, whereas no foods are distinct for white people, unless you count diet coke.

Using this kind of analysis, we were able find the interests, hobbies, tastes, and self-descriptions that are specially important to each racial group, as determined by the words of the group itself. The information in this article is not our opinion. It’s data, aggregated from the essays of half a million real people.

So here’s the real stuff white people like.

Click on the icons to toggle between men/women.

/
tom clancyvan halengolfingharley davidsonghostbustersphishthe big lebowskisoundgardenbrewboatingnofxgroundhog dayhockeyjeepblazing saddlesthe red soxthe dropkick murphysmegadethgrillingccrrobert heinleinboatsskiingzappanascarmotorcyclessoftwaredark towerthe hitchhiker’s guide to the galaxybreaking badband of brothersburn noticecoen brothersmichael crichtonbad religiontenacious dmostly rocki’m a country boybuilding thingsqueens of the stone agemountain bikingi can fix anythingthe offspringa few beersapocalypse nowlock, stock, and two smoking barrelshunting and fishingmost sportsworld war zguitar

In general, I won’t comment too much on these lists, because the whole point of this piece is to let the groups speak for themselves, but I have to say that the mind of the white man is the world’s greatest sausagefest. Unless you’re counting Queens of the Stone Age, there is not even one vaguely feminine thing on his list, and as far as broad categories go we have: sweaty guitar rock, bro-on-bro comedies, things with engines, and dystopias.

As for the interests of white women, you have romance novels, some country music, and a broad selection of Good Housekeeping type stuff. It’s also amazing the extent to which their list shows a pastoral or rural self-mythology: bonfires, boating, horseback riding, thunderstorms. I remind you that OkCupid’s user base is almost all in large cities, where to one degree or another, if you find yourself doing much of any of these things, civilization has come to an end.

If I had to choose over-arching themes for white people’s lists, for men, I’d go with “frat house” and for women, “escapism.” Whether one begot the other is a question I’ll leave to the reader.

Stuff black people like.

/
soul foodi am coolespnplaying basketballmenace to societytall, dark, and handsomegod-fearingmos defrappinglupe fiasconasgucci manecalmthe rootskanye westbasketballboondockshollau arenfltrynatrey songzladiesalicia keysa tribe called questjay zoutkastafricanwwechillin’more moneydenzelif urgod and familyxbox 360playstationjamaicanmaking musictryin’ toa good womanmy godtalib kwelibusta rhymesfootballbibleno kidshitchstationedlaid-back guy2pac

Hopefully it’s been obvious that the font-size of a phrase indicates the relative frequency with which it appears. So, toggling between black men and black women above, you can see that while soul food is important to both, it’s really, really important to the women. In fact, soul food and black women is the single strongest phrase/group pair we found.

The above lists also make it clear that, regardless of whether Jesus himself was black, his most vocal followers definitely are. Religious expressions weren’t among the top phrases for any of the other races, but they’re all over the place for black men and (especially) black women, for whom 13 of the top 50 phrases are religious. Black people are more than twice as likely than average to mention their faith in their profiles.

Finally, it’s worth noting that of the four lists we’ve seen so far, black women’s is the only one to explicitly include someone of another race: Justin Timberlake.

Double finally, how bold is it that I am cool is the second most typical phrase for black men?

OkTrends Racial Stereotype #1

In the course of researching this article and, in particular, comparing white guys to black guys, a handy shortcut occurred to me:

If you’re trying to figure out if white dudes like something, put fucking in the middle, and say it out loud. If it sounds totally badass, white dudes probably love it. Let’s see this principle in practice:

Stuff Latinos like.

/
merenguebachatacolombianhispaniclatinodominicanstationedperuvianreggaetonfamiliacubanmusicasalsasocceramigosperuboxingautomotivebaseballholamarinesmmahip hopufci’m a funny guyrespectfulmars voltasome drinkswhat usportsu wannaxbox 360of mice and menchillcomedyart of warvery funnysaving private ryani’m a simple guyhip hopfull metal jacketdown to earth guyworld war zlaw enforcementoutgoing and funnybarsattending collegeforrest gumpthe strokesall sports

Music and dancing—merengue, bachata, reggaeton, salsa—are obviously very important to Latinos of both genders. The men have two other fascinating things going on: an interest in telling you about their sense of humor (i’m a funny guy, very funny, outgoing and funny, etc.) and an interest in industrial strength ass-kicking (mma, ufc, boxing, marines, etc.) Basically, if a Latin dude tells you a joke, you should laugh.

OkTrends Racial Stereotype #2

El chiste de knock-knock:

Latinas’ interests are fairly typical for a dating site: you got friends, career, education, movies, music, a few physical details, and, oh yeah…morbid fear. We dug further into I’m terrified of (on their list at #42) and found which words typically came next. It’s mostly insects and “the dark”, though one expert tautologist is “terrified of being scared” and another woman is “terrified of Martians.”

Stuff Asians like.

/
taiwani’m a simple guykoreaasianssingaporephokoreansoftware developermandarinplaying basketballnoodlevietnamcricketfreakonomicsmechanical engineerthe rocktrying out new thingsa foodiean engineertom clancycalvin & hobbesbay areamuay thaisurfing the nettennisbadmintongadgetsentourageasian foodthe bayentrepreneursashimil.a. confidentialanalystsnowboardingswingersmalcolm gladwellfinancechinaaccountantvancouverpursuing myinvestinggladiatorelectrical engineeringcantoneseinvestmentcurrently studyingdifferent culturescomputer games

As you can see, both Asian men and women choose I’m simple as their go-to self-description. Contrast this to black men’s I am cool and Latinos’ I’m a funny guy. It’s also interesting that Asian men very often mention their specific heritage (taiwan, korea, singapore, vietnam, china) while Asian women don’t.

OkTrends Racial Stereotype #3

Combing through these lists, you can see the different ways women use cosmetics:

  • White women show off their eyes (mascara is #5 on their list).
  • Black women show off their lips (lip gloss, #7).
  • Latinas show off both (mascara, #18 / lip gloss, #22).
  • Asian women, however, show off their practicality (lip balm, #48).
. . .

So far, I’ve gone through racial groups in order of their prominence on OkCupid. For brevity (I know this is the internet), I’ll present the remaining lists without foolish commentary. You can click any of the links to reveal them inline.

Stuff Indians like…
Stuff Middle Easterners like…
Stuff Pacific Islanders like…
. . .

We’ll be revisiting race later this month, with a statistical investigation of interracial dating, and we’re almost finished with the article on (bi-)sexuality we promised last time. Thanks for reading, everyone.

The REAL ‘Stuff White People Like’ « OkTrends.

 

Langs_N.Amer.png (PNG Image, 1290 × 1170 pixels).

 

 

From Stillwater: Who are the Mysterious Bearded Indians 2.

 

 

Expansion of oil & murder in the Ecuadorian Amazon | SELVA- Vida Sin Fronteras.

 

“Korubo” Indians

via KORUBO.COM to learn about “lost tribes”.

 

Mashco-Piro Indians

The Amazon Pink Dolphin’s Voice: The Huaorani People of the Amazonia, self-isolation and forced contact | SELVA- Vida Sin Fronteras.

 

Associated Press

FILE - This Nov. 2011 file photo, shows members of the Mashco-Piro tribe, photographed at an undisclosed location near the Manu National Park in southeastern Peru. More than 100 Mashco-Piro appeared across a river from the remote community of Monte Salvado in Madre de Dios state, says Klaus Quicque the president of the regional FENAMAD indigenous federation on Monday, Aug. 19, 2013. The Maschco-Piro first appeared in May 2011 after more than two decades in voluntary isolation. (AP Photo/Diego Cortijo, Survival International, File)

.

View gallery

FILE – This Nov. 2011 file photo, shows members of the Mashco-Piro tribe, photographed at an undisclosed …

LIMA, Peru (AP) — Members of an Indian tribe that has long lived in voluntary isolation in Peru’s southeastern Amazon attempted to make contact with outsiders for a second time since 2011, leading to a tense standoff at a river hamlet.

Authorities are unsure what provoked the three-day encounter but say the Mashco-Piro may be upset by illegal logging in their territory as well as drug smugglers who pass through. Oil and gas exploration also affects the region.

The more than 100 members of Mashco-Piro clan appeared across the Las Piedras river from the remote community of Monte Salvado in the Tambopata region of Madre de Dios state from June 24-26, said Klaus Quicque, president of the regional FENAMAD indigenous federation.

They asked for bananas, rope and machetes from the local Yine people but were dissuaded from crossing the river by FENAMAD rangers posted at the settlement, said Quicque, who directed them to a banana patch on their side of the river.

The incident on the Las Piedras is chronicled in video shot by one of the rangers and obtained Monday by The Associated Press.

“You can see in the images there was a lot of threatening — the intention of crossing. They practically reached mid-river,” Quicque said by phone from Puerto Maldonado, the regional capital.

The video shows Mashco-Piro of all ages and sexes, including men with lances, bows and arrows. In one image shot during a moment of tension, a man flexes his bow, ready to shoot.

Quicque said the estimated 110-150 people living in Monte Salvado “feared for their lives.” He credited the ranger, Rommel Ponciano, for keeping a cool head.

He said 23 Mashco-Piro appeared on the first day, 110 on the second and 25 on the third. The clan left and hasn’t returned.

“They spoke a variant of Yine,” Quicque said, but Ponciano understood only about two-thirds of the words.

The Mashco-Piro live by their own social code, which includes kidnapping other tribes’ women and children, according to Carlos Soria, a Lima professor and former head of Peru’s park protection agency.

Peruvian law prohibits physical contact with the estimated 15 “uncontacted” tribes in Peru that together are estimated to number between 12,000 and 15,000 people living in jungles east of the Andes. The main reason is their safety: Their immune systems are highly vulnerable to germs other humans carry.

Anthropologist Beatriz Huertas, who works with Peru’s agency for indigenous affairs, says the Mashco-Piro are becoming increasingly less isolated. The tribe is believed to number in the hundreds in several different clans.

It is not unusual for them to appear where they did during a season of sparse rainfall when rivers are low, and they tend to be itinerant, she said.

“What’s strange is that they came so close to the population of Monte Salvado. It could be they are upset by problems of others taking advantage of resources in their territories and for that reason were demanding objects and food of the population,” Huertas said.

Naturalists in the area and national park officials say the tribe’s traditional hunting grounds have been affected by a rise in low-flying air traffic related to natural gas and oil exploration in the region.

Quicque said the Mashco-Piro were victimized by “genocide” in the mid-1980s from the incursion of loggers, and subsequently engaged in battles with mahogany-seekers.

Members of the group reappeared in May 2011 on the banks of a different river after more than two decades in voluntary isolation.

After those sightings, and after tourists left clothing for the Mashco-Piro, authorities barred all boats from going ashore in the area.

Mashco-Piro were blamed later in 2011 for the wounding of one forest ranger and the killing of a Matsiguenka Indian who had long maintained a relationship with them and provided them with machetes and cooking pots.

 

Isolated Mashco-Piro Indians appear in Peru – Yahoo! News.

On May 31st, president Barack Obama strolled into the bright sunlight of the Rose Garden, covered from head to toe in the slime and ooze of the Benghazi and IRS scandals. In a Karl Rove-ian masterstroke, he simply pretended they weren’t there and changed the subject.

More Taibbi: The Last Mystery of the Financial Crisis

The topic? Student loans. Unless Congress took action soon, he warned, the relatively low 3.4 percent interest rates on key federal student loans would double. Obama knew the Republicans would make a scene over extending the subsidized loan program, and that he could corner them into looking like obstructionist meanies out to snatch the lollipop of higher education from America’s youth. “We cannot price the middle class or folks who are willing to work hard to get into the middle class,” he said sternly, “out of a college education.”

Flash-forward through a few months of brinkmanship and name-calling, and not only is nobody talking about the IRS anymore, but the Republicans and Democrats are snuggled in bed together on the student-loan thing, having hatched a quick-fix plan on July 31st to peg interest rates to Treasury rates, ensuring the rate for undergrads would only rise to 3.86 percent for the coming year.

Though this was just the thinnest of temporary solutions – Congressional Budget Office projections predicted interest rates on undergraduate loans under the new plan would still rise as high as 7.25 percent within five years, while graduate loans could reach an even more ridiculous 8.8 percent – the jobholders on Capitol Hill couldn’t stop congratulating themselves for their “rare” “feat” of bipartisan cooperation. “This proves Washington can work,” clucked House Republican Luke Messer of Indiana, in a typically autoerotic assessment of the work done by Beltway pols like himself who were now freed up for their August vacations.

Not only had the president succeeded in moving the goal posts on his spring scandals, he’d teamed up with the Republicans to perpetuate a long-standing deception about the education issue: that the student-loan controversy is now entirely about interest rates and/or access to school loans.

Obama had already set himself up as a great champion of student rights by taking on banks and greedy lenders like Sallie Mae. Three years earlier, he’d scored what at the time looked like a major victory over the Republicans with a transformative plan to revamp the student-loan industry. The 2010 bill mostly eliminated private banks and lenders from the federal student-loan business. Henceforth, the government would lend college money directly to students, with no middlemen taking a cut. The president insisted the plan would eliminate waste and promised to pass the savings along to students in the form of more college and university loans, including $36 billion in new Pell grants over 10 years for low-income students. Republican senator and former Secretary of Education Lamar Alexander bashed the move as “another Washington takeover.”

The thing is, none of it – not last month’s deal, not Obama’s 2010 reforms – mattered that much. No doubt, seeing rates double permanently would genuinely have sucked for many students, so it was nice to avoid that. And yes, it was theoretically beneficial when Obama took banks and middlemen out of the federal student-loan game. But the dirty secret of American higher education is that student-loan interest rates are almost irrelevant. It’s not the cost of the loan that’s the problem, it’s the principal – the appallingly high tuition costs that have been soaring at two to three times the rate of inflation, an irrational upward trajectory eerily reminiscent of skyrocketing housing prices in the years before 2008.

More Taibbi: The Biggest Price-Fixing Scandal Ever

How is this happening? It’s complicated. But throw off the mystery and what you’ll uncover is a shameful and oppressive outrage that for years now has been systematically perpetrated against a generation of young adults. For this story, I interviewed people who developed crippling mental and physical conditions, who considered suicide, who had to give up hope of having children, who were forced to leave the country, or who even entered a life of crime because of their student debts.

They all take responsibility for their own mistakes. They know they didn’t arrive at gorgeous campuses for four golden years of boozing, balling and bong hits by way of anybody’s cattle car. But they’re angry, too, and they should be. Because the underlying cause of all that later-life distress and heartache – the reason they carry such crushing, life-alteringly huge college debt – is that our university-tuition system really is exploitative and unfair, designed primarily to benefit two major actors.

First in line are the colleges and universities, and the contractors who build their extravagant athletic complexes, hotel-like dormitories and God knows what other campus embellishments. For these little regional economic empires, the federal student-loan system is essentially a massive and ongoing government subsidy, once funded mostly by emotionally vulnerable parents, but now increasingly paid for in the form of federally backed loans to a political constituency – low- and middle-income students – that has virtually no lobby in Washington.

Next up is the government itself. While it’s not commonly discussed on the Hill, the government actually stands to make an enormous profit on the president’s new federal student-loan system, an estimated $184 billion over 10 years, a boondoggle paid for by hyperinflated tuition costs and fueled by a government-sponsored predatory-lending program that makes even the most ruthless private credit-card company seem like a “Save the Panda” charity. Why is this happening? The answer lies in a sociopathic marriage of private-sector greed and government force that will make you shake your head in wonder at the way modern America sucks blood out of its young.

In the early 2000s, a thirtysomething scientist named Alan Collinge seemed to be going places. He had graduated from USC in 1999 with a degree in aerospace engineering and landed a research job at Caltech. Then he made a mistake: He asked for a raise, didn’t get it, lost his job and soon found himself underemployed and with no way to repay the roughly $38,000 in loans he’d taken out to get his degree.

Collinge’s creditor, Sallie Mae, which originally had been a quasi-public institution but, in the late Nineties, had begun transforming into a wholly private lender, didn’t answer his requests for a forbearance or a restructuring. So in 2001, he went into default. Soon enough, his original $38,000 loan had ballooned to more than $100,000 in debt, thanks to fees, penalties and accrued interest. He had a job as a military contractor, but he lost it when his employer ran a credit check on him. His whole life was now about his student debt.

More Taibbi: The Scam Wall Street Learned From the Mafia

Collinge became so upset that, while sitting on a buddy’s couch in Tacoma, Washington, one night in 2005 and nursing a bottle of Jack Daniel’s, he swore that he’d see Sallie Mae on 60 Minutes if it was the last thing he did. In what has to be a first in the history of drunken bullshitting, it actually happened. “Lo and behold, I ended up being featured on 60 Minutes within about a year,” he says. In 2006, he got to tell his debt story to Lesley Stahl for a piece on Sallie Mae’s draconian lending tactics that, curiously enough, Sallie Mae itself refused to be interviewed for.

From that point forward, Collinge – who founded the website StudentLoanJustice.org – became what he calls “a complaint box for the industry.” He heard thousands of horror stories from people like himself, and over the course of many years began to wonder more and more about one particular recurring theme, what he calls “the really significant thing – the sticker price.” Why was college so expensive?

Tuition costs at public and private colleges were, are and have been rising faster than just about anything in American society – health care, energy, even housing. Between 1950 and 1970, sending a kid to a public university cost about four percent of an American family’s annual income. Forty years later, in 2010, it accounted for 11 percent. Moody’s released statistics showing tuition and fees rising 300 percent versus the Consumer Price Index between 1990 and 2011.

After the mortgage crash of 2008, for instance, many states pushed through deep cuts to their higher-education systems, but all that did was motivate schools to raise tuition prices and seek to recoup lost state subsidies in the form of more federal-loan money. The one thing they didn’t do was cut costs. “College spending has been going up at the same time as prices have been going up,” says Kevin Carey of the nonpartisan New America Foundation.

This is why the issue of student-loan interest rates pales in comparison with the larger problem of how anyone can repay such a huge debt – the average student now leaves school owing $27,000 – by entering an economy sluggishly jogging uphill at a fraction of the speed of climbing education costs. “It’s the unending, gratuitous, punitive increase in prices that is driving all of this,” says Carey.

As Collinge worked to figure out the cause of those cost increases, he became focused on several highly disturbing, little-discussed quirks in the student-lending industry. For instance: A 2005 Wall Street Journal story by John Hechinger showed that the Department of Education was projecting it would actually make money on students who defaulted on loans, and would collect on average 100 percent of the principal, plus an additional 20 percent in fees and payments.

Hechinger’s reporting would continue over the years to be borne out in official documents. In 2010, for instance, the Obama White House projected the default recovery rate for all forms of federal Stafford loans (one of the most common federally backed loans for undergraduates and graduates) to be above 122 percent. The most recent White House projection was slightly less aggressive, predicting a recovery rate of between 104 percent and 109 percent for Stafford loans.

When Rolling Stone reached out to the DOE to ask for an explanation of those numbers, we got no answer. In the past, however, the federal government has responded to such criticisms by insisting that it doesn’t make a profit on defaults, arguing that the government incurs costs farming out negligent accounts to collectors, and also loses even more thanks to the opportunity cost of lost time. For instance, the government claimed its projected recovery rate for one type of defaulted Stafford loans in 2013 to be 109.8 percent, but after factoring in collection costs, that number drops to 95.7 percent. Factor in the additional cost of lost time, and the “net” projected recovery rate for these Stafford loans is 81.8 percent.

Still, those recovery numbers are extremely high, compared with, say, credit-card debt, where recovery rates of 15 percent are not uncommon. Whether the recovery rate is 110 percent or 80 percent, it seems doubtful that losses from defaults come close to impacting the government’s bottom line, since the state continues to project massive earnings from its student-loan program. After the latest compromise, the 10-year revenue projection for the DOE’s lending programs is $184,715,000,000, or $715 million higher than the old projection – underscoring the fact that the latest deal, while perhaps rescuing students this coming year from high rates, still expects to ding them hard down the road.

But the main question is, how is the idea that the government might make profits on defaulted loans even up for debate? The answer lies in the uniquely blood-draining legal framework in which federal student loans are issued. First of all, a high percentage of student borrowers enter into their loans having no idea that they’re signing up for a relationship as unbreakable as herpes. Not only has Congress almost completely stripped students of their right to disgorge their debts through bankruptcy (amazing, when one considers that even gamblers can declare bankruptcy!), it has also restricted the students’ ability to refinance loans. Even Truth in Lending Act requirements – which normally require lenders to fully disclose future costs to would-be customers – don’t cover certain student loans. That student lenders can escape from such requirements is especially pernicious, given that their pool of borrowers are typically one step removed from being children, but the law goes further than that and tacitly permits lenders to deceive their teenage clients.

Not all student borrowers have access to the same information. A 2008 federal education law forced private lenders to disclose the Annual Percentage Rate (APR) to prospective borrowers; APR is a more complex number that often includes fees and other charges. But lenders of federally backed student loans do not have to make the same disclosures.

“Only a small minority of those who’ve been to college have been told very simple things, like what their interest rate was,” says Collinge. “A lot of straight-up lies have been foisted on students.”

Talk to any of the 38 million Americans who have outstanding student-loan debt, and he or she is likely to tell you a story about how a single moment in a financial-aid office at the age of 18 or 19 – an age when most people can barely do a load of laundry without help – ended up ruining his or her life. “I was 19 years old,” says 24-year-old Lyndsay Green, a graduate of the University of Alabama, in a typical story. “I didn’t understand what was going on, but my mother was there. She had signed, and now it was my turn. So I did.” Six years later, she says, “I am nearly $45,000 in debt. . . . If I had known what I was doing, I would never have gone to college.”

“Nobody sits down and explains to you what it all means,” says 24-year-old Andrew Geliebter, who took out loans to get what he calls “a degree in bullshit”; he entered a public-relations program at Temple University. His loan payments are now 50 percent of his gross income, leaving only about $100 a week for groceries for his family of four.

Another debtor, a 38-year-old attorney who suffered a pulmonary embolism and went into default as a result, is now more than $100,000 in debt. Bedridden and fully disabled, he accepts he will likely be in debt until his death. He asked that his name be withheld because he doesn’t want to incur the wrath of the government by disclosing the awful punch line to his story: After he qualified for federal disability payments in 2009, the Department of Education quickly began garnishing $170 a month from his disability check.

“Student-loan debt collectors have power that would make a mobster envious” is how Sen. Elizabeth Warren put it. Collectors can garnish everything from wages to tax returns to Social Security payments to, yes, disability checks. Debtors can also be barred from the military, lose professional licenses and suffer other consequences no private lender could possibly throw at a borrower.

The upshot of all this is that the government can essentially lend without fear, because its strong-arm collection powers dictate that one way or another, the money will come back. Even a very high default rate may not dissuade the government from continuing to make mountains of credit available to naive young people.

“If the DOE had any skin in the game,” says Collinge, “if they actually saw significant loss from defaulted loans, they would years ago have said, ‘Whoa, we need to freeze lending,’ or, ‘We need to kick 100 schools out of the lending program.'”

Turning down the credit spigot would force schools to compete by bringing prices down. It would help to weed out crappy schools that hawked worthless “degrees in bullshit.” It would also force prospective students to meet higher standards – not just anyone would get student loans, which is maybe the way it should be.

But that’s not how it is. For one thing, the check on crappy schools and sleazy “diploma mill” institutions is essentially broken thanks to a corrupt dynamic similar to the way credit-rating agencies have failed in the finance world. Schools must be accredited institutions to receive tuition via federal student loans, but the accrediting agencies are nongovernmental captives of the education industry. “The government has outsourced its responsibilities for ensuring quality to weak, nonprofit organizations that are essentially owned and run by existing colleges,” says Carey.

Fly-by-night, for-profit schools can be some of the most aggressive in lobbying for the raising of federal-loan limits. The reason is simple – some of them subsist almost entirely on federal loans. There’s actually a law prohibiting these schools from having more than 90 percent of their tuition income come from federally backed loans. It would seem to amaze that any school would come even close to depending that much on taxpayers, but Carey notes with disdain that some schools use loopholes to go beyond the limit (for instance, loans to servicemen are technically issued through the Department of Defense, so they don’t count toward the 90 percent figure).

Bottomless credit equals inflated prices equals more money for colleges and universities, more hidden taxes for the government to collect and, perhaps most important, a bigger and more dangerous debt bomb on the backs of the adult working population.

The stats on the latter are now undeniable. Having passed credit cards to became the largest pile of owed money in America outside of the real-estate market, outstanding student debt topped $1 trillion by the end of 2011. Last November, the New York Fed reported an amazing statistic: During just the third quarter of 2012, non-real-estate household debt rose nationally by 2.3 percent, or a staggering $62 billion. And an equally staggering $42 billion of that was student-loan debt.

The exploding-debt scenario is such a conspicuous problem that the Federal Advisory Council – a group of bankers who advise the Federal Reserve Board of Governors – has compared it to the mortgage crash, warning that “recent growth in student-loan debt . . . has parallels to the housing crisis.” Agreeing with activists like Collinge, it cited a “significant growth of subsidized lending” as a major factor in the student-debt mess.

One final, eerie similarity to the mortgage crisis is that while analysts on both the left and the right agree that the ballooning student-debt mess can be blamed on too much easy credit, there is sharp disagreement about the reason for the existence of that easy credit. Many finance-sector analysts see the problem as being founded in ill-considered social engineering, an unrealistic desire to put as many kids into college as possible that mirrors the state’s home-ownership goals that many conservatives still believe fueled the mortgage crisis. “These problems are the result of government officials pushing a social good – i.e., broader college attendance” is how libertarian writer Steven Greenhut put it.

Others, however, view the easy money as the massive subsidy for an education industry, which spent between $88 million and $110 million lobbying government in each of the past six years, and historically has spent recklessly no matter who happened to be footing the bill – parents, states, the federal government, young people, whomever.

Carey talks about how colleges spend a lot of energy on what he calls “gilding” – pouring money into superficial symbols of prestige, everything from new buildings to celebrity professors, as part of a “never-ending race for positional status.”

“What you see is that spending on education hasn’t really gone up all that much,” he says. “It’s spending on things like buildings and administration. . . . Lots and lots of people getting paid $200,000, $300,000 a year to do . . . something.”

Once upon a time, when the economy was healthier, it was parents who paid for these excesses. “But eventually those people ran out of money,” Carey says, “so they had to start borrowing.”

If federal loan programs aren’t being swallowed up by greedy schools for expensive and useless gilding, they’re being manipulated by the federal government itself. The massive earnings the government gets on student-loan programs amount to a crude backdoor tax increase disguised by cynical legislators (who hesitate to ask constituents with more powerful lobbies to help cut the deficit) as an investment in America’s youth.

“It’s basically a $185 billion tax hike on middle-income and low-income citizens and their families,” says Warren Gunnels, senior policy adviser for Vermont’s Sen. Bernie Sanders, one of the few legislators critical of the recent congressional student-loan compromise.

unnels notes with irony that a few years ago, when Obama moved to eliminate private-lender middlemen from the servicing of federally backed loans, much hay was made out of the enormous profits private industry had long earned on the backs of students. The Congressional Budget Office issued a report estimating that Obama’s program would save $86.8 billion over a 10-year period by eliminating private profits from the system. Obama said taxpayers were “paying banks a premium to act as middlemen,” adding that it was a “premium we cannot afford.”

The outrage over profits, however, was short-lived.

“It was wrong when banks were making an $86 billion profit on students, but somehow it’s OK when the government makes a $185 billion profit on them,” says Gunnels.

One of the reasons the money has kept flying out the government’s door over the years is that data about student-loan-default rates has been carefully concealed from the public and from Congress. For years, when it reported statistics about student defaults, the DOE relied upon a preposterous arbitrary calculation called the “cohort default rate,” which essentially measured the rate of default only within the first two years of graduation. In 2008, Congress passed a law forcing the DOE to switch to a theoretically more accurate three-year measurement, which it sent to Congress for the first time last year. Overnight, the picture looked a good bit grimmer. The 2009 number, based on the old two-year 2009 “cohort” rate, was 8.8 percent. When the new three-year number came out, the rate had jumped to 13.4 percent.

The Department of Education refuses to release more accurate default numbers. But outsiders think the DOE is lowballing it. The Chronicle of Higher Education charges that the government “vastly undercounts defaults.” In 2010, it estimated that one in five had defaulted on their loans since 1995, that 31 percent of community-college students default and that an astonishing 40 percent of students attending for-profit schools end up defaulting. A report by the Inspector General of the Department of Education has come to similar conclusions about the reliability of the absurd and arbitrary “cohort” figure.

However high that default number really is, what’s clear is that the state is still able to turn billions in profit on its lending, and expects to continue to do so for the next 10 years. The reason for that, again, lies in something everyone who has a student loan understands implicitly – the state and its collectors are not ­squeamish collecting the money they’re owed. The government is in the pain business, and business is good.

“They called me at work, sometimes two to three times a day, doing all the stuff they aren’t supposed to do: threats, et cetera,” says 41-year-old Shawn FitzGerald, who owes $300 a month and says he expects to be paying off education loans into his sixties. “They told the receptionist at my job that I was in legal trouble. . . .”

“Sallie Mae has started sending letters to my deceased mother,” says Thomas Daggett of Chesterfield, Massachusetts, who left school in the Nineties and owes $35,000.

“I have been told I made the wrong decision going to college, as well as being told I was a failure, an idiot and a mooch,” says Larissa, a young woman from a blue-collar town outside Chicago. “I’ve had ex-boyfriends that I never even lived with contacted by collection agents, my childhood friend’s distant relatives contacted by them, as well as distant relatives of my own. . . .”

“I try not to look at the balances because the prospect of paying them off with my shit salary is so goddamn depressing it makes me want to chug vodka until I pass out,” says Robert Boardman, a proud but underemployed owner of a doctorate from the University of Michigan.

There’s a particularly dark twist to the education story, which is tied to the collapse of the middle class and the overall shittening of our economic landscape: College degrees are actually considered to be more essential than ever. The New York Times did a story earlier this year declaring the college degree to be the “new high school diploma,” describing it as essentially a minimum job requirement. They found an Atlanta law firm that requires even clerks, secretaries and runners to have four-year degrees and cited research that everyone from hygienists to cargo agents needs to have graduated from college to get hired.

You can look at this development in one of two ways. One way is to see a college degree as a better investment than ever, which was the conclusion of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which noted that the difference in earnings between the poorly and well-educated has risen in recent years with the worsening economy.

But another way to look at this new truth is that, because of the poor job market, young people may have less of a chance than ever to actually get a good job commensurate with their education. If they don’t have the degree, then they have no chance at all. So if they even want a clerking job, they must dive face-first into the debt muck and take their chances that they won’t end up watching the federal government take bites out of disability checks while their law degree gathers dust downstairs somewhere. So, yes, a college education is a great thing, and you probably need one now more than ever – the problem is that it may very well be mandatory, may have less of a chance of ever getting you a job, and you may still be paying for it on your deathbed no matter what.

There are powerful reasons for both the left and the right to be willfully blind to the root problem. Democrats – who, incidentally, receive at least twice as much money from the education lobby as Republicans – like to see the raging river of free-flowing student loans as a triumph of educational access. Any suggestion that saddling befuddled youngsters with tens of thousands of dollars in school debts is somehow harmful or counterproductive to society is often swiftly shot down by politicians or industry insiders as an anti-student position. The idea that limitless government credit might be at least enabling high education costs tends to be derisively described as the “Bennett hypothesis,” since right-wing moralist and notorious gambler/dick/hypocrite Bill Bennett once touted the same idea.

“It is wrong to suggest that student aid is a cause for growing college costs, in any sector,” David Warren, president of the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, wrote in The Washington Post last year, bemoaning the “re-emergence” of the Bennett theory. “To argue so is counterproductive to the goal of making higher education accessible and affordable.”

Conservatives, meanwhile, with their usual “Fuck everybody who complains about anything unless it’s us” mentality, tend to portray the student-loan “problem” as a bunch of spoiled, irresponsible losers who are simply whining about having to pay back money they borrowed with their eyes wide open. When Yale and Penn recently began suing students who were defaulting on their federal Perkins loans, a Cato Institute analyst named Neal McCluskey pretty much summed up the conservative take. “You could take a job at Subway or wherever to pay the bills,” he said. “It seems like basic responsibility to me.”

But conservatives most of all should hate the current system for any number of reasons – for being a massive hidden tax, for being a market-defying subsidy artificially keeping ineffective and poor-performing institutions in business, and for being an example of arbitrary government power seizing not just money borrowed plus interest, but billions in additional fees and penalties from ordinary people.

Progressives should hate the predatory tactics of lenders and the sleazy way universities rely upon loan-shark collection methods to keep themselves in fancy new waterfalls, swimming pools and tenure-track jobs.

But nobody hates it enough, except for the people actually trying to pay the bills with increasingly worthless degrees. Instead, the credit keeps flowing and the debt bubble keeps expanding, thanks to leaders like John Boehner (whose daughter reportedly works at Sallie Mae’s student-collections firm, General Revenue Corp.) and Dianne Feinstein (who introduced legislation to increase limits on Pell grants while her husband was heavily invested in for-profit colleges).

In a way, America itself is violating the Truth in Lending Act. It’s cheering millions of high school graduates toward college every year, feeding them into the debt grinder under the banner of increased opportunity, when full disclosure would require admitting that there isn’t a hell of a lot waiting for them on the other side, where the middle class has nearly vanished and full employment is going the way of the dodo.

We’re doing the worst thing people can do: lying to our young. Nobody, not even this president, who was swept to victory in large part by the raw enthusiasm of college kids, has the stones to tell the truth: that a lot of them will end up being pawns in a predatory con game designed to extract the equivalent of home-mortgage commitment from 17-year-olds dreaming of impossible careers as nautical archaeologists or orchestra conductors. One former law student I contacted for this story had a nervous breakdown while struggling to pay off six-figure debt. It wasn’t until he tapped into one of the few growth industries open to young Americans that his outlook brightened. “I got my life back on track by working for a marijuana delivery service in Manhattan,” he says. “I’ve had to compromise who I am . . . because I started down a path that I couldn’t turn away from. Student loans aren’t hope. They’re despair.”

This story is from the August 29th, 2013 issue of Rolling Stone.

The College-Loan Scandal: Matt Taibbi on the Ripping Off of Young America | Politics News | Rolling Stone.

She got famous and rich off of ratings due to lazy women watching TV in the middle of the day instead of bettering themselves.

As the Icon of fat and lazy she doesn’t have the initiate to whip out the “black card” (the American Express Black Card only available to the super rich) but instead decides to play the black card.  Hey Oprah; not everyone on planet earth worships you, set the fucking card on the counter and ask to see the purse.

Oprah apologizes for Swiss racism comments that sparked uproar — MSNBC.

Cops fucking little children because they get away with it almost every time.

Besides general thuggery and lawlessness this is why cops join the force.

Tribute to survivors of child sexual assault by law enforcement officers. | Facebook.

How to Renounce Your Citizenship

How to Renounce Your Citizenship.

The problem is the executive branch has come to act like all three branches  in one and now defies any control whatsoever.  What did Jackson say about the veto power of the public?

 

Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz: Obama Suspends the Law. What Would Lincoln Say? – WSJ.com.

Stolen and preserved from here:

Opinion: 99 must-reads on income inequality – CNN.com.

1. “The Price of Inequality,” by Joseph Stiglitz

 

2. “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man,” by John Perkins

 

3. “Player Piano,” by Kurt Vonnegut (Vonnegut’s first novel; according to the back cover, it’s a “chilling tale of engineer Paul Proteus, who must find a way to live in a world dominated by a super computer and run completely by machines.”)

 

4. “Economic Growth and Income Inequality“, by Simon Kuznets

 

5. “Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else,” by Chrystia Freeland

 

6. “The Unwinding,” by George Packer

 

7. “A Tale of Two Cities,” by Charles Dickens (Heard of him?)

 

8. “Atlas Shrugged,” Ayn Rand (“I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”)

 

9. “How Class Works,” animation, by Richard Wolff

 

10. “Random Family,” by Adrian Nicole LeBlanc

 

11. “Behind Beautiful Forevers,” by Katherine Boo (The Pulitzer-winner explores inequality in Mumbai’s “undercity.”)

 

12. “Highly profitable companies …” by Matthew Yglesias, Slate

 

13. “In Climbing Income Ladder, Location Matters,” NYTimes.com map (National map shows a poor kid’s odds of climbing to the top of the income ladder, by location.)

 

14. “A Framework for Understanding Poverty,” by Ruby Payne

 

15. “The Big Sort,” by Bill Bishop

 

16. The Bible (James, Chapters 2 and 5, and the books of Job and John were recommended. From James: “Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in filthy old clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, ‘Here’s a good seat for you,’ but say to the poor man, ‘You stand there’ or ‘Sit on the floor by my feet,’ have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?”)

 

17. “The Other America,” by Michael Harrington

 

18. “The One Percent,” documentary by Jamie Johnson (The Johnson & Johnson heir is pretty good at biting the hand that feeds him.)

 

19. “Progress and Poverty,” by Henry George

 

20. “Winner Take All Politics,” by Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson

 

21. “The Haves and the Have-Nots,” by Branko Milanovic

 

22. “A Theory of Justice,” by John Rawls

 

23. “Park Avenue” documentary, by Alex Gibney (New York’s Park Avenue is home to enormous wealth and excruciating poverty.)

 

24. “Wealth Inequality in America,” YouTube video

 

25. “Inequality and New York’s Subway,” by The New Yorker (This is fascinating in its minimalism. See median household incomes mapped by subway stop.)

 

26. “Nickel and Dimed,” by Barbara Ehrenreich (Just read it. The author tries to live on low-wage jobs and finds it’s nearly impossible. Heartfelt and so well-written.)

 

27. “The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger,” by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett

 

28. “Wealth of Nations,” by Adam Smith

 

29. “The Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism and Capitalism,” by George Bernard Shaw

 

30. “740 Park,” by Michael Gross (Gross examines one of the richest buildings in the world.)

 

31. “Savage Inequalities,” by Jonathan Kozol

 

32. “The Jungle,” by Upton Sinclair

 

33. Podcast on the “Economics of Enough

 

34. “America the Beautiful,” by Ben Carson

 

35. Nick Hanauer’s TED Talk on income inequality

 

36. “The Case for Happiness-Based Economics,” by Kentaro Toyama

 

37. “Superclass,” by David Rothkopf

 

38. “Love and Capital,” by Mary Gabriel

 

39. “Why the rich don’t give to charity,” by Ken Stern, The Atlantic (“One of the most surprising, and perhaps confounding, facts of charity in America is that the people who can least afford to give are the ones who donate the greatest percentage of their income. In 2011, the wealthiest Americans — those with earnings in the top 20% — contributed on average 1.3% of their income to charity. By comparison, Americans at the base of the income pyramid — those in the bottom 20 percent — donated 3.2% of their income.”)

 

40. The Poverty Clinic, by Paul Tough, The New Yorker

 

41. “The House I Live In,” documentary by Eugene Jarecki

 

42. “Screwed,” by Thom Hartmann

 

43. “Richistan,” by Robert Frank

 

44. “You Call This Democracy?” by Paul Kivel

 

45. “The Conscience of a Liberal,” by Paul Krugman

 

46. “The Wretched of the Earth,” by Frantz Fanon

 

47. “Reckless Endangerment,” by Gretchen Morgenson and Joshua Rosner

 

48. “Ill Fares the Land,” by Tony Judt

 

49. “The FairTax Book,” by Neal Boortz (Wanna get rid of the IRS? Here’s your book.)

 

50. “Taxes and the Economy: An Economic Analysis of the Top Tax Rates Since 1945” by Thomas Hungerford, for the Congressional Research Service

 

51. “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts,” by Karl Marx

 

52. “The Grapes of Wrath,” by John Steinbeck

 

53. “The American Way of Eating,” by Tracie McMillan

 

54. “Animal Farm,” by George Orwell (“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”)

 

55. “How much inequality is necessary for growth,” by Fuad Hasanov and Oded Izraeli, Harvard Business Review (“Although our findings suggest that modest increases can generate growth, other data indicate that heightened inequality shortens growth spells and may halt growth. Reducing inequality, though, has clear benefits over time: It strengthens people’s sense that society is fair, improves social cohesion and mobility, and broadens support for growth initiatives. Policies that aim for growth but ignore inequality may ultimately be self-defeating, then, whereas policies that decrease inequality by, say, boosting employment and education have beneficial effects on the human capital that modern economies increasingly need.”)

 

56. “The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions,” by Thorstein Veblen

 

57. “Orange is the New Black,” Netflix series

 

58. “Wage Inequality and the Rise in Returns to Skill,” by Chinhui Juhn et al

 

59. “Rules for Radicals,” by Saul Alinsky

 

60. “Mayday for America’s Middle Class,” by Hedrick Smith (“If America is going to get beyond paralyzing gridlock and dangerous brinkmanship in the budget battles this fall, what’s needed is a shift in the economic mind-set that has dominated Washington for three decades. To paraphrase what Albert Einstein reportedly said at the dawn of the Atomic Age in 1945: You cannot solve a problem with the same thinking that created it.”)

 

61. “Why Nations Fail,” by Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson

 

62. “Income Inequality in the United States, 1913-2002,” by Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez

 

63. “Unequal Democracy,” by Larry Bartels

 

64. “Wealth and Poverty,” George Gilder

 

65. “Rich Schools, Poor Schools,” by Arthur Wise

 

66. The Catechism of the Catholic Church – Social Justice (A reader suggested Chapter 2, Article 3. One excerpt: “Socio-economic problems can be resolved only with the help of all the forms of solidarity: solidarity of the poor among themselves, between rich and poor, of workers among themselves, between employers and employees in a business, solidarity among nations and peoples. International solidarity is a requirement of the moral order; world peace depends in part upon this.”)

 

67. Dorothea Lange‘s photography (Think Dust Bowl.)

 

68. “The Working Poor: Invisible in America,” by David Shipler

 

69. “All You Can Eat: How Hungry is America,” by Joel Berg

 

70. “Targeting the Wealthy Kills Jobs,” by T.J. Rodgers, Wall Street Journal

 

71. “If You’re an Egalitarian, How Come You’re So Rich?” by G.A. Cohen

 

72. The Inequality Issue of The Economist

 

73. “The Capitalist Revolution,” by Peter L. Berger

 

74. “Getting Rich: America’s New Rich and How They Got That Way,” by Lisa A. Keister

 

75. “13 Bankers,” by Simon Johnson and James Kwak

 

76. “The Status Syndrome: How Social Standing Affects Our Health and Longevity,” by Michael Marmot

 

77. “Worlds Apart: Why Poverty Persists in Rural America,” by Cynthia Duncan

 

78. “America: What Went Wrong,” by the Philadelphia Inquirer (This 1990s newspaper series really stuck one reader, who wrote in an e-mail to me that “it took my breath away when I read it as a young man in my late 20’s; and it continues to have a profound impact on my thinking today – particularly about concerns over the American middle class.”)

 

79. “Out of this furnace,” by Thomas Bell

 

80. “Equality and Efficiency: The Big Trade Off” by Arthur Okun

 

81. “The New Good Life,” by John Robbins

 

82. “Workonomics” section of Upworthy.com (Engineered for clickability, with headlines like, “Hey Broke People: This Statistic Will Piss You Off.”)

 

83. “The United States of Inequality” video, BillMoyers.com

 

84. Monty Python clip on “Constitutional Peasants” (“Oh, there you go, bringing class into it again …”)

 

85. “The Other Wes Moore,” by Wes Moore (From an online book description: “Two kids named Wes Moore were born blocks apart within a year of each other. Both grew up fatherless in similar Baltimore neighborhoods and had difficult childhoods; both hung out on street corners with their crews; both ran into trouble with the police. How, then, did one grow up to be a Rhodes Scholar, decorated veteran, White House Fellow, and business leader, while the other ended up a convicted murderer serving a life sentence? Wes Moore, the author of this fascinating book, sets out to answer this profound question.”)

 

86. “Moral Man and Immoral Society,” by Reinhold Niebuhr

 

87. “The Politics of Rich and Poor,” by Kevin Phillips

 

88. “A Modest Proposal,” by Jonathan Swift

 

89. “Class War? What Americans Really Think about Economic Inequality,” by Benjamin I. Page and Lawrence R. Jacobs

 

90. “Five American Authors on Wealth Poverty and Inequality,” by Ichiro Kawachi and Philippa Howden Chapman

 

91. “Caesar’s Column,” by Ignatius Donnelly

 

92. “The Time Machine,” by H.G. Wells

 

93. “Debt: The First 5,000 Years,” by David Graeber

 

94. “The Great Gatsby,” by F. Scott Fitzgerald (“The loneliest moment in someone’s life is when they are watching their whole world fall apart, and all they can do is stare blankly.”)

 

95. “How Unequal Can America Get,” YouTube of Robert Reich

 

96. “Twilight of the Elites,” by Christopher Hayes

 

97. “Third World America,” by Arianna Huffington

 

98. “It’s the inequality, stupid,” by Dave Gilson and Carolyn Perot, Mother Jones (“A huge share of the nation’s economic growth over the past 30 years has gone to the top one-hundredth of one percent, who now make an average of $27 million per household. The average income for the bottom 90% of us? $31,244.”)

 

99. “The Maximum Wage,” by Sam Pizzigati

Well schools are indeed doing what they say; preparing children for their future.  They will go from one institution where they have no rights at all (school) into another (prison).

The ONLY way to fix this is to have zero tolerance for public schools.  Vouchers instead of vultures!  Get your kids away from the union protected pedophiles.

Boys are Bad, Girls are Good.

Men are Monsters, Ladies are lovely.

Fucking femi-nazis

Christina Hoff Sommers: School Has Become Hostile to Boys | TIME.com.

Copper and Alzheimer’s disease Link?

BBC News – Copper linked to Alzheimer’s disease.

One says it helps another says it hurts.  A better journalist would compare the studies side by side.  Should that be me?

There is hope if the bugs go up your nose.  but Heaven knows just stay out of the shallows.

 

Experimental drug apparently beats brain-eating amoeba in Florida – CNN.com.

Health care rises and doctors get lazier and lazier.

Well there is nor more charges we can levy on this patient so let’s move on….

Son yells at Dad to not die today and he comes back from the Dead!

Patient Wakes Up Right Before Doctors Remove Organs – ABC News.

 

And of course the answer is and always has bee the proposed Supreme Pundit solution: health insurance and Life insurance is the same thing.  If that person on the table dies the same company pays out big time.

Well is this the result of Obama care or legalizing gay / incest / anything goes marriage?

 

UPS to end health insurance for working spouses – The Washington Post.

Picasso Les Enfants

The older woman is giving fellatio to a very young boy. This is pedophilia. This was apparently normal enough everyday activities that it warranted being documented by the painter.   The very X-rated Picasso painting soon to be shown at the Metropolitan Museum (which owns it).

Gary Tinterow, the Met’s curator in charge of 19th-century, modern and contemporary art, told Carol that the work hadn’t previously been shown “not because of its subject matter or because of questions of its

authenticity, but because it’s not very good.” But 13 years ago, another Met curator (who requested anonymity) had told me (scroll down) that the painting was in storage because the 20th-century galleries were populated “by so many school children.”

And we do not want any of those boys to think they can receive a cock sucking from anyone at any time in their lives.  For gods sake his career has not even started yet.  What if he is never able to provide for all her needs?

 

via CultureGrrl | NY Times Timing: Last on Picasso, First on Panza.

The Rude Pundit

(Never) Forget 9/11:

Here’s a picture that’s being made public for the first time:

But the real question is why are there so few?  Don’t you remember?  It went out over the news.  If you did not turn in your photos and videos of the attack then you could be charged with withholding evidence and other crimes.  Cheney and his devils were brilliant!

 

There are tons of personal pictures of September 11, 2001 and of the ruins left behind by the terrorist attacks of that day. This one, dated October 6, 2001, when body recovery was still going on in the pit at Ground Zero, shows the jagged remains of one of the towers of the World Trade Center. The Rude Pundit doesn’t know who took the picture. It was given to him by a photo lab employee/friend a few years back. She said that someone brought a digital card in to get some snapshots developed, took one look at the pictures, and told the employee that she could keep them.

It is dusk, and the wreckage and the buildings behind it give it the feeling of the ruins of a gothic estate, as if you were wandering among the moors and came across a fallen castle, something so mighty destroyed by the barbarians with their primitive weapons.

There’s many things we can talk about today. The worker who took that picture was in the pit. He was involved in digging through the debris, with its spice mix of poisons coursing through the air. If he doesn’t have cancer or some lung disease yet, well, good on him. But at least a thousand others who do have 58 kinds of cancers can now get some monetary relief from the 9/11 health fund, from the Zadroga Act, if the bureaucracy ever gets moving faster than its current glacial pace.

We could talk about what journalist Kurt Eichenwald wrote in the New York Times today, about other national security memos that the Bush administration ignored, something that not only confirms the depth of incompetence of our leaders in the first part of this century, but also the pathological intensity with which the neocons wanted to test their worthless ideology by going to war with Iraq. With Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld at the Pentagon, they “were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat.” What can you say to that but “Christ almighty. What else? What else?”

We could talk about the degradation of our nation, of drones and Guantanamo deaths, of wars fought, with one still ongoing for no good reason, even if it is winding down. We could talk about all the deaths in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, in Yemen, the civilians we don’t really talk about. We could talk about a nation that pretends it not only isn’t at war but that it hasn’t been. We could talk about our diminished civil liberties, at airports, at protests, on the fucking streets of our fucking cities and towns, and our blind and willing acceptance of all of it.

Instead, look at this other picture you’ve never seen before:

God, isn’t it strangely beautiful? That’s the sunrise, reflected off the damaged, not destroyed, buildings near the Twin Towers, piercing the ash and smoke. It’s so hopeful, as if there is a possible light in the future that can envelop all of us in its warm embrace. But that photo was taken on September 17, before the first one, in those mythical days of desperate hope and fake unity, a glow that faded so very quickly.

via The Rude Pundit.

Fellatio is: Loving affection

• Fellatio has been depicted in ancient artwork dating back to prehistoric cave paintings.
• According to Egyptian myth, the goddess Iris “blew” life into a clay penis by sucking on it.
• Cleopatra was once said to have blown dozens of soldiers in a single night. Other famous noblewomen allegedly adept at fellatio were Russia’s Catherine the Great and America’s own Nancy Reagan.
• Ancient Greeks referred to fellatio as “playing the flute.”
• The Kama Sutra (circa 100 A.D.) features an entire chapter of fellatio techniques, including “The Butterfly Lick” and “Sucking the Mango Fruit.”
• Declaring fellatio to be “the worst of all evils,” Theodore the Archibishop of Canterbury in 670 A.D. prescribed a lengthier punishment for sucking a cock than for murdering someone.

Apparently Catholic leaders only want to fuck little boys and despise the nuns for sucking their cocks at any time.  fucking faggots!
• A Japanese woman named Kaho claims that she’s able to tell a man’s fortune by sucking his penis. “It depends, I suppose, on what the member feels like when I first put it in my mouth, what shape it takes when it gets hard, the color and what it tastes like when (the client’s) finished,” says Kaho, who claims to have “told” over 1,000 such “fortunes” in a single year. “I take all these things into account, then read the fortune.”
• Fellatio is nearly unheard of in Eskimo culture. Fuck, they don’t even use their mouths to kiss.
• According to one estimate, fellatio is still illegal in more than a dozen states.

Google.

Folks near death from diarrhea with no more drugs to help are being cured within days with shit from a healthy person shot up their ass.  The ancient Chinese knew about this and practiced it but since it cannot be patented the drug companies see home treatment with your kids shit as lost profits.

RE-discovered by graduates from big pharma med schools it is now “investigational”  until big pharma can figure out how to outlaw it.

looks like washing your hands after taking a shit is not such a good idea after all.

Looks like that “un-holy” act of anal sex is what may actually kept human kind alive more than what has been spewed from some pontifs mouth.

A miracle cure, not for the squeamish – Health, Life – Macleans.ca.

Lying Journalists in Climate Science

Or they just so lazy they parrot the press Release and never read the papers.  Of course!

Fixing the Marcott Mess in Climate Science

 

 

In 1991 the National Research Council proposed what has come to be a widely accepted definition of misconduct in science:

 

Misconduct in science is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism, in proposing, performing, or reporting research. Misconduct in science does not include errors of judgment; errors in the recording, selection, or analysis of data; differences in opinions involving the interpretation of data; or misconduct unrelated to the research process.

Arguments over data and methods are the lifeblood of science, and are not instances of misconduct.

However, here I document the gross misrepresentation of the findings of a recent scientific paper via press release which appears to skirt awfully close to crossing the line into research misconduct, as defined by the NRC. I recommend steps to fix this mess, saving face for all involved, and a chance for this small part of the climate community to take a step back toward unambiguous scientific integrity.

The paper I refer to is by Marcott et al. 2013, published recently in Science. A press release issued by the National Science Foundation, which funded the research, explains the core methodology and key conclusion of the paper as follows (emphasis added):

Peter Clark, an OSU paleoclimatologist and co-author of the Science paper, says that many previous temperature reconstructions were regional and not placed in a global context.

“When you just look at one part of the world, temperature history can be affected by regional climate processes like El Niño or monsoon variations,” says Clark.

“But when you combine data from sites around the world, you can average out those regional anomalies and get a clear sense of the Earth’s global temperature history.”

What that history shows, the researchers say, is that during the last 5,000 years, the Earth on average cooled about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit–until the last 100 years, when it warmed about 1.3 degrees F.

The press release clearly explains that the paper (a) combines data from many sites around the world to create a “temperature reconstruction” which gives a “sense of the Earth’s temperature history,” and (b) “that history shows” a cooling over the past 5000 years, until the last 100 years when all of that cooling was reversed.

The conclusions of the press release were faithfully reported by a wide range of media outlets, and below I survey several of them to illustrate that the content of the press release was accurately reflected in media coverage and, at times, amplified by scientists both involved and not involved with the study.

Examples of Media Coverage

Here is Justin Gillis at the New York Times, with emphasis added to this excerpt and also those further below:

The modern rise that has recreated the temperatures of 5,000 years ago is occurring at an exceedingly rapid clip on a geological time scale, appearing in graphs in the new paper as a sharp vertical spike.

Similarly, at the NY Times Andy Revkin reported much the same in a post titled, “Scientists Find an Abrupt Warm Jog After a Very Long Cooling.” Revkin included the following graph from the paper along with a caption explaining what the graph shows:

Revkin’s caption:  A new Science paper includes this graph of data providing clues to past global temperature. It shows the warming as the last ice age ended (left), a period when temperatures were warmer than today, a cooling starting 5,000 years ago and an abrupt warming in the last 100 years.

Revkin concluded: “the work reveals a fresh, and very long, climate “hockey stick.”” For those unfamiliar, a hockey stick has a shaft and a blade.

Any association with the so-called “hockey stick” is sure to capture interest in the highly politicized context of the climate debate, in which the iconic figure is like catnip to partisans on both sides. Here is Michael Lemonick at Climate Central:

The study… confirms the now famous “hockey stick” graph that Michael Mann published more than a decade ago. That study showed a sharp upward temperature trend over the past century after more than a thousand years of relatively flat temperatures. . .

“What’s striking,” said lead author Shaun Marcott of Oregon State University in an interview, “is that the records we use are completely independent, and produce the same result.”

Here is Grist.org, which refers in the passage below to the same figure shown above:

A study published in Science reconstructs global temperatures further back than ever before — a full 11,300 years. The new analysis finds that the only problem with Mann’s hockey stick was that its handle was about 9,000 years too short. The rate of warming over the last 100 years hasn’t been seen for as far back as the advent of agriculture.

To be clear, the study finds that temperatures in about a fifth of this historical period were higher than they are today. But the key, said lead author Shaun Marcott of Oregon State University, is that temperatures are shooting through the roof faster than we’ve ever seen.

“What we found is that temperatures increased in the last 100 years as much as they had cooled in the last 6,000 or 7,000,” he said. “In other words, the rate of change is much greater than anything we’ve seen in the whole Holocene,” referring to the current geologic time period, which began around 11,500 years ago.

Back to more mainstream outlets, here is how Nature characterized the study, offering a substantially similar but somewhat more technical description of the curve shown in the figure above:

Marcott and his colleagues set about reconstructing global climate trends all the way back to 11,300 years ago, when the Northern Hemisphere was emerging from the most recent ice age. To do so, they collected and analysed data gathered by other teams. The 73 overlapping climate records that they considered included sediment cores drilled from lake bottoms and sea floors around the world, along with a handful of ice cores collected in Antarctica and Greenland.

Each of these chronicles spanned at least 6,500 years, and each included a millennium-long baseline period beginning in the middle of the post-ice-age period at 3550 bc.

For some records, the researchers inferred past temperatures from the ratio of magnesium and calcium ions in the shells of microscopic creatures that had died and dropped to the ocean floor; for others, they measured the lengths of long-chain organic molecules called alkenones that were trapped in the sediments.

After the ice age, they found, global average temperatures rose until they reached a plateau between 7550 and 3550 bc. Then a long-term cooling trend set in, reaching its lowest temperature extreme between ad 1450 and 1850. Since then, temperatures have been increasing at a dramatic clip: from the first decade of the twentieth century to now, global average temperatures rose from near their coldest point since the ice age to nearly their warmest, Marcott and his team report today in Science.

And here is New Scientist, making reference to the exact same graph:

Shaun Marcott of Oregon State University in Corvallis and colleagues have compiled 73 such proxies from around the world, all of which reach back to the end of the last glacial period, 11,300 years ago. During this period, known as the Holocene, the climate has been relatively warm – and civilisation has flourished.

“Most global temperature reconstructions have only spanned the past 2000 years,” says Marcott.

Marcott’s graph shows temperatures rising slowly after the ice age, until they peaked 9500 years ago. The total rise over that period was about 0.6 °C. They then held steady until around 5500 years ago, when they began slowly falling again until around 1850. The drop was 0.7 °C, roughly reversing the previous rise.

Then, in the late 19th century, the graph shows temperatures shooting up, driven by humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions.

The rate of warming in the last 150 years is unlike anything that happened in at least 11,000 years, says Michael Mann of the Pennsylvania State University in University Park, who was not involved in Marcott’s study. It was Mann who created the original hockey stick graph (see upper graph here), which showed the change in global temperatures over the last 1000 years.

Over the Holocene, temperatures rose and fell less than 1 °C, and they did so over thousands of years, says Marcott. “It took 8000 years to go from warm to cold.” Agriculture, communal life and forms of government all arose during this relatively stable period, he adds. Then in 100 years, global temperatures suddenly shot up again to very close to the previous maximum.

It seems clear that even as various media took different angles on the story and covered it in varying degrees of technical detail, the articles listed above accurately reflected the conclusions reflected in the NSF press release, and specifically the “hockey stick”-like character of the new temperature reconstruction. Unfortunately, all of this is just wrong, as I explain below. (If you’d like to explore media coverage further here is a link to more stories. My colleague Tom Yulsman got punked too.)

The Problem with the NSF Press Release and the Subsequent Reporting

There is a big problem with the media reporting of the new paper. It contains a fundamental error which (apparently) originates in the NSF press release and which was furthered by public comments by scientists.

In a belatedly-posted FAQ to the paper, which appeared on Real Climate earlier today, Marcott et al. make this startling admission:

Q: What do paleotemperature reconstructions show about the temperature of the last 100 years?

A: Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.

Got that?

In case you missed it, I repeat:

. . . the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes . . .

What that means is that this paper actually has nothing to do with a “hockey stick” as it does not have the ability to reproduce 20th century temperatures in a manner that is “statistically robust.” The new “hockey stick” is no such thing as Marcott et al. has no blade. (To be absolutely clear, I am not making a point about temperatures of the 20th century, but what can be concluded from the paper about temperatures of the 20th century.)

Yet, you might recall that the NSF press release said something quite different:

What that [temperature reconstruction] history shows, the researchers say, is that during the last 5,000 years, the Earth on average cooled about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit–until the last 100 years, when it warmed about 1.3 degrees F.

So what the paper actually shows is the following, after I have removed from the graph the 20th century period that is “not statistically robust” (this is also the figure that appears at the top of this post):

Surely there is great value in such an analysis of pre-20th century temperatures. And there can be no doubt there will be continuing debates and discussions about the paper’s methods and conclusions. But one point that any observer should be able to clearly conclude is that the public representation of the paper was grossly in error. The temperature reconstruction does not allow any conclusions to be made about the period after 1900.

Does the public misrepresentation amount to scientific misconduct? I’m not sure, but it is far too close to that line for comfort. Saying so typically leads to a torrent of angry ad hominem and defensive attacks, and evokes little in the way of actual concern for the integrity of this highly politicized area of science. Looking past the predictable responses, this mess can be fixed in a relatively straightforward manner with everyone’s reputation intact.

How to Fix This

Here are the steps that I recommend should be taken:

1) Science should issue a correction to the paper, and specially do the following:

(a) retract and replot all figures in the paper and SI eliminating from the graphs all data/results that fail to meet the paper’s criteria for “statistical robustness.”
(b) include in the correction the explicit and unambiguous statement offered in the FAQ released today that the analysis is not “statistically robust” post-1900.

2) NSF should issue a correction to its press release, clarifying and correcting the statements of Peter Clark (a co-author, found above) and Candace Major, NSF program manager, who says in the release:

The last century stands out as the anomaly in this record of global temperature since the end of the last ice age,” says Candace Major, program director in the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Division of Ocean Sciences.

3) The New York Times (Gillis and Revkin, in particular), Nature and New Scientist as outlets that pride themselves in accurate reporting of science should update their stories with corrections. Grist and Climate Central should consider the same.

[UPDATE: Andy Revkin at DotEarth has updated his posts here and here to reference the “lost blade” from the hockey stick and link to this post. That was quick and easy. Others take note.]

Let me be perfectly clear — I am accusing no one of scientific misconduct. The errors documented here could have been the product of group dynamics, institutional dysfunction, miscommunication, sloppiness or laziness (do note that misconduct can result absent explicit intent). However, what matters most now is how the relevant parties respond to the identification of a clear misrepresentation of a scientific paper by those who should not make such errors.

That response will say a lot about how this small but visible part of the climate community views the importance of scientific integrity.

Roger Pielke Jr.’s Blog: Fixing the Marcott Mess in Climate Science.

3/4 cup flour

2 tablespoons cornstarch

1/4 teaspoon baking soda

1/4 teaspoon baking powder

1/4 teaspoon salt

3/4 cup waterDirections:

1 Sift dry ingredients. 2 Add water and mix well. 3 Use to coat fish or chicken filets. 4 Cover the fish completely. 5 Deep fry until a nice golden brown.

via Long John Silver’s Fish Batter Recipe – Food.com – 42780.

1.6 billion rounds of ammo would also give DHS the means to fight the equivalent of a 24-year Iraq War

But the DHS testimony did not provide an adequate explanation for the large amount of ammo it plans to procure, prompting a GAO investigation at approximately the same time as the introduction of the AMMO Act.

The new legislation, which was introduced in both the Senate and the House on Friday, would prevent government agencies from buying any more ammunition if its stockpiles are already larger than what they were in previous presidential administrations.

Proponents of the bill suspect that government agencies may be making large ammunition purchases to keep the supplies out of the hands of Americans at a time when the administration has been trying to reduce gun violence.

“President Obama has been adamant about curbing law-abiding Americans’ access and opportunities to exercise their Second Amendment rights,” US Sen. Jim Inhofe, who introduced the bill, said in a news release. “One way the Obama Administration is able to do this is by limiting what’s available in the market with federal agencies purchasing unnecessary stockpiles of ammunition… [DHS] has two years worth of ammo on hand and allots nearly 1,000 more rounds of ammunition for DHS officers than is used on average by our Army officers.”

Congressman Frank Lucas cited an ammunition shortage in Oklahoma and blamed the DHS for taking away Americans’ Second Amendment rights by removing ammo from the market.

The GAO investigation will attempt to determine whether there truly is a reason for the large ammo purchases, or whether DHS is simply buying large quantities to save money in the long run.

via Homeland Security under investigation for massive ammo buys — RT USA.

 

 

NRA Winning the Influence Battle Over Gun Control – Forbes.

snopes.com: SSA/DHS Arms Purchase

 

Social Security Administration 357 magnum hollow points 600 per person

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA 357 magnum hollow points 730 per person

Local Police agencies MRAP Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle 45 per city for 60 cities

 

Total bullets for federal agents 1,600,000,000

Complete Submission of USA citizens; right around the corner…..

snopes.com: SSA/DHS Arms Purchase.

It’s my genes not me!  Dammit!  Johnny’s little skull will pop back out as he grows older.

Some moms more likely to be abusive during recession due to gene: Study – CBS News.

Teenager Shot and Killed by an Officer on Foot Patrol in the Bronx (Finally!)

After a victim and witness stopped talking with the cops about this Hitman shooting one of them, AND after having another Gun confiscated from the “Hitman” The cops finally catch the punk wanna be killer (how bad a fucking shot was he?) in the act and put a bullet in him while he is chasing down another victim and this is the politically correct headline the SHITTY New York Times prints:

via Teenager Shot and Killed by an Officer on Foot Patrol in the Bronx – NYTimes.com.

HEY YOU FUCKING MASS MEDIA SHITS HOW ABOUT:

Homicidal Maniac put to death while in the act by our city’s finest!

Two Species of Humans exist today!

The two species of humans can not interbreed. Have different genitals and have separated into the haves and have not’s.

One Species is negative for Rhesus Monkey factor (indigenous earth DNA) RH-

The other Species is positive for Rhesis Monkey factor(alien DNA) RH+

Updated

http://dublinsmick.wordpress.com/2013/05/12/monkey-blood-rh-negative-blood-types-y-dna-haplogroup-e1b1b-blood-grouping-shared-by-royalty-and-dictators-alike/

http://www.aoi.com.au/bcw/neanderbasque.htm

This is an update and very important dealing with copper deficiency of the blood. Healthy cells cannot be formed when one is copper deficient. Researcher Boutillier  of the Unveiling, maintains that all blood was once AB and has been reduced to O which has a shorter lifespan due to copper depletion. This is done through vaccine, GMO and other factors. The theory is copper depleted blood can allow pathogens in vaccine to eventually go live. There is a reason the royals drink from silver, it is 15% copper.

http://www.unveilingthem.com/PoisoningOfMankindCopperDeficiency.htm

We have all seen various discussions concerning RH negative blood types. It seems to be the dominant blood group of European royalty who feel they have the right to rule through DNA and a relationship they claim through the Merovingian blood line. The shroud of Turin is supposed to verify this showing Jesus as RH negative but many insist it is a fake. There is no denying we have many former presidents with this blood type as well as fairly well publicized people. We read glowing reports that such people are sensitive and caring but I am not seeing this outside of possibly John Kennedy.

Possibly you have seen articles concerning the ability of royals to shape shift. It does seem a bit bizarre to me, but not something I could prove either way. We do know the human embryo does have a tail at about 3 months. It is called in Sanskrit the caudo draconis, in latin the dragon’s tail. Now the interesting part is we are told many RH negatives are born with the tail intact to varying degrees! They go through life with a small tail. I have never run into this but it is interesting.

I have left various links here concerning this topic, some of the propositions I don’t agree with.  Nevertheless it adds to the discussion.

The CAUDA EQUINA is the bundle of spinal nerve roots arising from the end of the spinal cord and filling the lower part of the spinal canal(from approximately the thoraco-lumbar junction down). Embryology : Caudally the tail region projects over the cloacal membrane.

The Basque are known as a maritime group and are the largest known RH negative group.  They do not seem to enjoy any special favors when it comes to the European movers and shakers. In fact at times they seem persecuted as do Palestinians, American indians,  Japanese Ainu, the white tribe which was pushed to almost extinction in Japan and have large percentages of RH negative blood.  They also have one of the highest percentages of rare AB blood type. Why would this be the case? RH negatives do seem to experience a high rate of disappearance. Is there a DNA or blood type needed for something we know little about?

Monkey Blood

Here is another theory.

“The Reptilians are tracking those with Rh-Negative Factor Blood. Going back into time…. the Rh-Neg Hybrids came from the DRACO Caverns in the Carpathian Mountains. They were mostly RED Haired, with Green Eyes and Black haired, with Brown Eyes. They tried to infiltrate themselves into the Blond/Brown Haired, with Blue Eyes, Civilization. They wanted to Mate with those who were not Rh-Negatives. Most Rh-Negs have a Lower Body temperature and Blood pressure than Rh-Positives. Many Rh-Negs are born with a CAUDA(tail) or an Extra Vertebra (Tail Bone). Rh-Negs are Hybrids. They are Part Reptilian/part human. If two Rh-Negs try to have a baby it will usually die or be born a “BLUE Baby”, because it is Not processing oxygen properly. Thus “Blue-Bloods”, if they survive. 5% of the Earth’s population are currently Rh-Negatives. But, they are 15% of the population of the England and the USA.”

“Dr. Luigi Cavalli-Sforza from Stanford University wrote an article entitled “Genes, Peoples and Languages” (Scientific American, Nov.’91). He pointed out the high Rh-negative concentrations among the people of Morocco, the Basque country of Euskadi, Ireland, Scotland and the Norwegian islands.”

The only people among these still to speak their original neolithic language were the Basques…”

From http://www.islandnet.com/~edonon/intro.html

Those who originated in Samaria have a high percentage of RH negative blood, as do some American Indian groups. We have to wonder about the American Indian trait of  becoming blood brothers. Were they mixing antigens or what was going on? Were some of the native American hostilities based on blood type? The totem poles were carefully designed records of genealogy. We know that native Americans referred to some as “evil spirits”? The Greeks considered the blood of the Gods to be poisonous to mortals. The Chinese and Africans have almost no RH negative blood types.

Sumerian tablets, Vedas, the Atrahasis explicitly say the Nefilim were different from the subjects they created on earth. They were surprised when the initial humans had foreskins as they did not. We might assume this lead to the practice of circumcision as the earthlings wished to be as the Gods. There is a quote in Genesis where the Lord of the Universe says something to other Nefilim along the lines of, the earthlings wish to be like us. What is up with the story of Michael slaying the “reptilian” dragon?

 

Former U.S Presidents

Former President Eisenhower Type O-Neg
Former President John F. Kennedy Type AB-Neg
Former President Richard Nixon Type O-Neg
Former President Bill Clinton AB-Neg
Former President George W. Bush Sr. Type A-Neg

Monarchs

Pharaoh Ramses II Type B-Neg
Shroud Of Turin was AB-Neg is this correct?
Prince Charles Type O-Neg and his late Grandmother
Queen Elizabeth Type O-Neg
Prince William is also negative

http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/search/label/Bloodlines

Interesting Authors

Zacharia Sitchin Type Neg
Brad Steiger O-Neg
Erik Von Daniken Type O-Neg
Robert Anton Wilson Type Neg

Celebrities 

Mick Jagger Type AB-Neg (Of running with the devil fame)
Fox Mulder “X-files” Type O-Neg
Marilyn Monroe was Type AB-Neg
Dan Aykroyd Type O-Neg

High Profile Murders

O.J. Simpson is Type A-Neg “who killed”
Ron Goldman Type O-Neg
Laci Peterson Type O-Neg  (remember she was kidnapped and killed)

http://www.in5d.com/rh-negative-blood.html

“The researches of R. Frank, a scholar at the University of Iowa, suggest that the Basques were far-advanced in navigational skills and other aspects of technology long before the rise of the Roman Empire. The Basques, she believes, are the last remnants of the megalith builders, who left behind dolmens, standing stones, and other rock structures all across Europe and perhaps even in eastern North America.”

“Two facts set the Basque peoples apart from the other Europeans who have dominated the continent the past 3,000 years: (1) The Basque language is distinctly different; and (2) The Basques have the highest recorded level of Rh-negative blood (roughly twice that of most Europeans), as well as substantially lower levels of Type B blood and a higher incidence of Type O blood.”

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf085/sf085a02.htm?q=frontiers/sf085/sf085a02.htm

Southern France and Northern Spain is where you can find most of the RH-negative factor in the Basque people. Another group is the Eastern/Oriental Jews. In general, about 40 – 45% of Europeans have the RH-negative group. Only about 3% of African descendents and about 1% of Asian or Native Americans have the RH-negative group although in some groups it appears to be relatively high. Due to the larger European numbers, it is a safe bet that was where it was introduced into the human genetic code. Could this also be where the Caucasian was introduced? Is the introduction of the Caucasian related to the RH-blood factor? The caucasian is generally associated with Cromagnon man.  Is it a factor in bio specific weapon production?

It has been proven that the majority of mankind (85%) has a blood factor seen in the rhesus monkey. It is called rhesus positive blood. Usually shortened to Rh positive. This factor  is not related to the AB, A, B, O blood types. RH negative factor has to be a mutation or points out descendants from a different family tree. Negative blood types cannot be cloned. You can breed a horse and a donkey but the mule will be sterile.

From http://www.islandnet.com/~edonon/intro.html

http://politically-confused.blogspot.com/2009/12/beyond-pale-rh-neg-blood-type-mystery.html

Here’s a sciencey perspective on Rh- blood.   ”(The interesting bit is that no solid scientific explanation exists as to how or why Rh- blood came about. It is presumed to be the result of a random mutation.) What we know is somehow a mother will build up antibodies to reject an alien factor and this does not happen anywhere else in nature. This is the mother’s body rejecting her own offspring. It suggest cross breeding between different species. This does not lend credence to all of us being from the Noah family tree and suggests a control system whether through ignorance or by design.”

“Only 5 percent of the entire world were said to be Rh negative, when I first started researching it. Now, it is stated that the Rh negative factor is 15 percent of the world’s blood types. I think this may have come about due to more research that has been done in third world countries, and in areas of the world where scientists had no communications with data. The theories of the origins on the phenomena of the Rh negative blood types have been vast, strange and controversial. Some of these theories of which mostly, I truly don’t believe, but it is fodder for some bizarre coincidences, and hopefully enlightening into this mystery.”

“The Rh negative blood type is said to be of unknown origin. There is no one scientist that can give a single reason for its existence other than a mutation that occurred tens of thousands of years ago. I gathered a lot of pseudo, and actual details over the years of which are amusing, and contradictory to what I really think was the cause of this negative blood type factor.”

There are of  course theories of genes brought to earth by the Annunaki.  One was the Enki. The Enuma Elish indicates they came from heaven to earth in flying machines. It seems on further review this is where tales in the bible were first plagarized.

http://dublinsmick.wordpress.com/2012/05/10/who-are-the-nefilim-where-did-they-go-will-they-return/

The royal families of Europe claim to be descendants of the Gods and blue bloods as a result of their RH negative blood type. What if they are wrong and RH negative is not even the key factor in blood types? I don’t take it as a given they even know what they are talking about.

Peter whom Jesus had given the keys to heaven was quoted as saying that “we will be judging angels.”  Bear in mind however there is no evidence Peter or Jesus were RH negative.

The rarest of blood groups is AB. Individuals with the blood group AB contain both antigen A and antigen B. Thus, they can receive blood from individuals of all blood groups. Nevertheless, people with AB blood group can donate blood only to people who have the AB blood group. One researcher believes all groups were at one time AB and copper deficiency causes deterioration down to type O and reduces life span. So we really don’t know do we? It could be that AB is the original blood group. I tend to believe that might be the case, but what of the RH negative factor? I hardly think it is a mutation. Some say O is the strongest blood and others like Boutillier disagree and say AB is the original blood type. AB positive is almost as rare as AB negative. So there is much disagreement. Most all say never take a blood transfusion as there are over 5000 varying blood factors.

http://www.unveilingthem.com/PoisoningOfMankindCopperDeficiency.htm
Rh-negative women and men have several “Unusual Traits” that Rh-positives don’t. Some call them “Reptilian Traits”. I tend to think they may well be neanderthal traits. This may indeed trace back to the fall of Atlantis when some escaped to Egypt and other places. They may have come into direct contact with a separate species with different blood groupings. This group may just have been the one that stretched from the western caucasus to Spain and could account for the various forms of rejection we see in various blood groups.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Nuclear-DNA-Analysis-Proves-Neanderthals-Were-a-Different-Species-38036.shtml 

An EXTRA-Vertebra (a “Tail Bone”)….some are born with a tail(called a “Cauda”).
Lower than normal Body Temperature
Lower than normal Blood Pressure
Higher mental analytical abilities.
Higher Negative-ion shielding (from positive “charged” virus/bacteria)around the body.
High Sensitivity to EM and ELF Fields.

http://politically-confused.blogspot.com/2009/12/beyond-pale-rh-neg-blood-type-mystery.html

http://www.greatdreams.com/reptlan/rhneg.htm

http://www.energeticbalancing.us/rh-negative-blood

“Most do not know that as RHO-Neg individuals, they are tracked throughout their whole lives by world-wide governmental agencies interested in understanding the genesis of this group, and for other more complex societal purposes. (follow this line of thought in the new material to be posted as a continuation of Journey to the Absolute Elsewhere)

“Here are a few tidbits about this blood thing. In ALL blood groups there exists a common microbe that in essence is THE LIFE FORCE ITSELF. During experiments that our team conducted we heated the blood to 700 degrees F and also put it in Liquid Nitrogen. This microbe which is visible only with a highly modified dark field microscope that was custom built for us was STILL ALIVE. We have also tested this on ´mummy dust´. This microbe is STILL alive after 5000 years plus when the mummy dust is placed in a ph perfect solution the same as the “live blood”, it returns back to ´life´.”

And then we have the satanic vampire cult blood drinkers who seem to be convinced the “life is in the blood.”

http://www.maya12-21-2012.com/rh-negative-blood.html

http://the-red-thread.net/blood.html

Rare AB blood types are highest in the Japan’s Ainu white tribe, gypsies, Mongols, Thai, Kalmuks and Peking Chinese.

 

 

Monkey Blood, RH Negative Blood Types, Presidents And Royalty | Here Comes The Sun.

Your Computer May IS Already Be Hacked

 

The NSA has complete knowledge of everything you do from when you use the toilet to what porn you look at.

As everyone sits idly by and watches TV.

Your Computer May Already Be Hacked | Wall St. Cheat Sheet.