Two more cannibal cases:
☢ Canadian Gay Porn star who cut off man’s torso, and ate his body parts was bullied as a schoolkid
☢ Kenyan immigrant in U.S. attending university in Maryland, kills and dismembers other man, eats his body parts in Baltimore suburb
Do not click the photo of the victim to the right UNLESS you wish to see a photo of the aftermath taken from the emergency room in Miami from that cannibalism attack.
The Daily Mail has the best story on this, they write some bullet points that should get the person who enjoys real life crime stories drawn in:
Revealed: Victim of ‘Miami Cannibal’ was star student at elite New York high school – as shocking new video shows he was STILL conscious during EIGHTEEN-minute attack
- Rudy Eugene, 31, tore into victim’s face with his teeth and growled
- Police believe he may have taken ‘bath salts,’ a potent new drug
- Images have been released of Ronald Poppo, 65, recovering in Miami hospital
- 75 per cent of victim’s face chewed off in ‘some of the most horrific injuries staff have ever encountered’
- Was still conscious when he was stretchered off to hospital
- Investigators trying to piece together last hours of Eugene’s life
The homeless man whose face was eaten off by the ‘Miami cannibal’ during a horrific, 18-minute attack was a star student at a prestigious New York school before he became a down-and-out.
A yearbook picture of Ronald Poppo was obtained by the New York Daily News, who reported the victim was in the Latin Club and worked in the guidance office at Stuyvesant High School before he became homeless.
According to his long record of petty arrests, he spent the last four decades in Florida and nothing is yet known about how his tragic fall from grace from top student to a life on the streets.
The Daily Mail article has a pixelated version of the graphic photo I offer on my Live Leak account.
See full story at WUWT:
He’s not just any Democrat. This is a guy who gave a seconding speech for O’s nomination four years ago at the convention and was the southern regional co-chair for the DCCC. With those credentials, the PR value to the GOP of having him dump his old party to become a Republican would be huge under any circumstances. Factor in the symbolism of a young black Harvard-trained pol abandoning the Dems in the middle of Obama’s reelection campaign and you’ve got a GOP folk hero in the making. From his blog post announcing his party switch:
Remember these stories… well this trend has continued! For example:
A sheriff in central Mississippi said Wednesday he’s switching from Democrat to Republican because of President Barack Obama’s support of same-sex marriage.
During a news conference at the state Republican headquarters in Jackson, Leake County Sheriff Greg Waggoner said he has run as a Democrat since 1999 but voted for Republicans for president and governor. He said he has nothing against local Democrats, but he decided to switch parties after Obama and Vice President Joe Biden recently said, within days of each other, that they support same-sex marriage.
“In the past few years, as we have heard and as we know, the Democratic Party has taken an extreme left turn – and the things that have come out the last few weeks when our national Democratic leaders have endorsed same-sex marriage,” Waggoner said. “I’m Christian, and my first allegiance is to Jesus Christ. There comes a time when you have to stand on what you believe in. And I can no longer have any connection with the Democratic Party if that’s the route that they’re going to take.”
Several people at the news conference said “Amen” as Waggoner spoke. Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves, House Speaker Philip Gunn and Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann were among those who applauded the sheriff’s statement.
Republican U.S. Sen. Roger Wicker, who’s seeking re-election this year, said after the news conference that he agreed with Waggoner’s criticism of Obama on same-sex marriage.
“I think that the sheriff today represented grass-roots America in what he said,” Wicker said.
State Republican Party chairman Joe Nosef announced during the news conference that Waggoner and Newton County Sheriff Jackie Knight are among seven local officials switching to the GOP. The others were a Justice Court judge and a constable from Jones County and the coroner, a supervisor and a Justice Court judge from Leake County.
The Daily Caller has this:
The defection of a prominent Pennsylvania Democrat to the Republican Party is raising some eyebrows.
Jo Ann Nardelli, a state committeewoman and founding president of the Blair County Federation of Democratic Women, has switched her political affiliation to the GOP, citing her Catholic faith and President Obama’s embrace of gay marriage as reasons.
During a press conference last week, Nardelli cited President Obama’s recent announcement in support of gay marriage as a central reason for her defection, endorsed Mitt Romney for president and changed her party registration to Republican, The Altoona Mirror reported.
“As the Democratic Party has taken the stand for same-sex marriage, then I must make a stand on my faith that marriage is between a man and a woman. God’s principles for life never change. His guidelines, given in Scripture, produce fruitful lives when you follow them,” Nardelli, a pro-life Democrat for more than 40 years, said at the Blair County Courthouse.
In an interview with the National Catholic Register, Nardelli claimed to not know any Republicans. She asserted, like the party-switching Ronald Reagan in 1962, that the Democratic Party had strayed from values with which she could agree.
“I thought I could make a difference to change our party. It didn’t work,” she said. “I noticed that it’s been going more and more to the left. This is not my father’s party. I did not leave the party; the party left me.”
Burt Rutan, in case any of my readers are unaware is the guy that designed and built the Spaceship one spacecraft, and designed and built the voyager airplane that flew nonstop around the world. He is an absolute genius, pioneer, and generally a hero of the mind. So when I heard that he had taken a stance on a thing, I am inclined to pay attention, this is a guy that does things that work.
I started reading, and the first thing that jumped out at me is the title. “An Engineer’s Critique of Global Warming, Science” Now, this is something that I have been struggling with for decades. As many of you know, I am a civil engineer. In engineering, things have to work, so we are far far more parsimonious with what we accept as valid. We do not have the luxury of simply saying “well, the science should work out”, no, people die when engineers do that, so we accept only theories that have survived extensive testing, models that have proven exhaustively that they predict accurately, etcetera.
Anyway, this powerpoint is worth the perusing if anyone’s interested in why a well-educated intelligent person remains a skeptic on AGW.
The WSJ article about this war shows just how “fascistic” this movement is:
My April 9 Cross Country column commentary in The Wall Street Journal (California Declares War on Suburbia) outlined California’s determination to virtually outlaw new detached housing. The goal is clear: force most new residents into multi-family buildings at 20 and 30 or more to the acre. California’s overly harsh land use regulations had already driven housing affordability from fairly typical levels to twice and even three times higher than that of much of the nation. California’s more recent tightening of the land use restrictions (under Assembly Bill 32 and Senate Bill 375) has been justified as necessary for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
It is funny that a friend of mine loves classic cars but wholly endorses this movement:
…”68 percent of new housing in Southern California by 2035 would be condos and apartments,” despite the fact that census data shows that 80 percent of that region’s housing increase between 2000 and 2010 were single-family homes, indicating a clear preference for less dense housing. Planners believe that forcing people into a high-density housing will alleviate global warming by reducing the use of cars (Tulsa beacon)
Here is a 6-part presentation by Burt:
“If you look back, the thing that strikes you, if you’ve got any sensitivity, is that extinction is the most common phenomena,” Leakey says. “Extinction is always driven by environmental change. Environmental change is always driven by climate change. Man accelerated, if not created, planet change phenomena; I think we have to recognize that the future is by no means a very rosy one.” Any hope for mankind’s future, he insists, rests on accepting existing scientific evidence of its past. ~ Richard Leakey (The Blaze)
This is another reason that many on the right distrust liberals/liberal scientific predictions about the environment. That is, they believe it okay to lie in order to produce a social response. Marxists called this propaganda. From exaggerating the Greenland Ice melting by almost 50-times, to this example:
“The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders. . . . Dr. Lal’s admission will only add to the mounting furor over the melting glaciers assertion, which the IPCC was last week forced to withdraw because it has no scientific foundation.” (David Rose, The Daily Mail, January 24, 2010)
✔ Krugman: scientists should falsely predict alien invasion (motls.blogspot.com)
✔ Krugman: Scientists Should Falsely Predict Alien Invasion So Government Will Spend More Money (newsbusters.org)
✔ Krugman : Scientists Should Lie – To Force The Country Further Into Debt(stevengoddard.wordpress.com)
Nature Journal hits it on the head, here-and-there. Here is a “there”
Alarming cracks are starting to penetrate deep into the scientific edifice. They threaten the status of science and its value to society. And they cannot be blamed on the usual suspects — inadequate funding, misconduct, political interference, an illiterate public. Their cause is bias, and the threat they pose goes to the heart of research.
Bias is an inescapable element of research, especially in fields such as biomedicine that strive to isolate cause–effect relations in complex systems in which relevant variables and phenomena can never be fully identified or characterized. Yet if biases were random, then multiple studies ought to converge on truth. Evidence is mounting that biases are not random. A Comment in Nature in March reported that researchers at Amgen were able to confirm the results of only six of 53 ‘landmark studies’ in preclinical cancer research (C. G. Begley & L. M. Ellis Nature 483, 531–533; 2012). For more than a decade, and with increasing frequency, scientists and journalists have pointed out similar problems.
Early signs of trouble were appearing by the mid-1990s, when researchers began to document systematic positive bias in clinical trials funded by the pharmaceutical industry. Initially these biases seemed easy to address, and in some ways they offered psychological comfort. The problem, after all, was not with science, but with the poison of the profit motive. It could be countered with strict requirements to disclose conflicts of interest and to report all clinical trials.
Yet closer examination showed that the trouble ran deeper. Science’s internal controls on bias were failing, and bias and error were trending in the same direction — towards the pervasive over-selection and over-reporting of false positive results. The problem was most provocatively asserted in a now-famous 2005 paper by John Ioannidis, currently at Stanford University in California: ‘Why Most Published Research Findings Are False’ (J. P. A. Ioannidis PLoS Med. 2, e124; 2005). Evidence of systematic positive bias was turning up in research ranging from basic to clinical, and on subjects ranging from genetic disease markers to testing of traditional Chinese medical practices.
How can we explain such pervasive bias?
To top it off, this “flawed thinking’ is the best evolution has to offer us, never reaching truth (see also my recent Serious Saturday post):
Morality, as Kant pointed out, hinges neither on success nor on failure. The moral law transcends the material world. The evolutionist’s sophomoric response is that morality evolved and so therefore is not absolute, but rather is relative. That’s like saying water is not wet. And while they’re at it, evolutionists, at least those in the atheist wing, not only deny values, they also deny truth. That’s right, evolutionists—who are constantly making religious truth claims and casting judgments on those who don’t go along with their mandate that evolution is a fact—deny the existence any real morality and truth. You can see the obvious dilemma they have constructed. If there is no morality or truth, then how can evolution be known to be a fact, and how can doubters of this modern mythology be such bad people?
All of this is painfully obvious at the New Scientist which today explains that evolution has bequeathed us with a clouded, flawed thinking process. And just why did we evolve such an apparently flawed instrument?
Our confidence is not helped by the evolutionist’s selective use of evidence and, yes, confirmation bias.
But if we evolved to be argumentative apes, then the confirmation bias takes on a much more functional role. “You won’t waste time searching out evidence that doesn’t support your case, and you’ll home in on evidence that does,” says Mercier.
Sound familiar? The article which reveals evolution’s circular logic finally comes around to a precise description of evolutionary thought: “You won’t waste time searching out evidence that doesn’t support your case, and you’ll home in on evidence that does.”
In their value-laden world where they deny the existence of values, evolutionists insist they know the truth which is that, ultimately, we cannot know the truth.
So Paul Krugman is merely spreading untruths in a fashion that fit with flawed evolutionary “confirmation bias,” causing science to merely be used as a power tool, thus making it fascistic:
“Everything I have said and done in these last years is relativism by intuition…. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and men who claim to be bearers of an objective, immortal truth… then there is nothing more relativistic than fascistic attitudes and activity…. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable.”
Mussolini, Diuturna pp. 374-77, quoted in A Refutation of Moral Relativism: Interviews with an Absolutist (Ignatius Press; 1999), by Peter Kreeft, p. 18.
Which is why Prager mentions that whatever the left touches is destroyed:
It is the
not the preacher,
who has given us freedom of religion.
not the reporter,
who has given us freedom of the press.
not the poet,
who has given us freedom of speech.
not the campus organizer,
who has given us freedom to assemble.
not the lawyer,
who has given us the right to a fair trial.
not the politician,
Who has given us the right to vote.
who can at times lay
us down in green pastures.
not the televangelist,
Who can get people out of wheelchairs.
(Also See Tribute Video for all the kids who lost their loved one)
Never Forget Their Sacrifice