An Imperfect Storm — my thoughts about the call heard around the world:
We found out the wife of Sgt. La David T. Johnson was friends with Rep. Frederica Wilson, so, my assumption then is they are a bit left leaning in their politics. In other words, since the Congresswoman is a family friend I can suppose that their political positions that Trump is a racist, white supremacist who is a woman assaulting misogynist is a closely held view;
for obvious [and right] so reasons, the newly widowed wife is very heart broken and wanting more answers for a serious loss. In other words, people react differently to tragedy. Some forge ahead to make a stable environment for their kids in the face of such a loss… Others allow the situation to overcome them. This is our humanity at work;
being a close friend of the family, the Congresswoman who calls Trump Racist, saying he needs to be impeached, and thinks the worse of him || she can easily sway an already emotion situation to be viewed one way;
within 10-minutes of the call the Congresswoman was on the horn with a main person to share the story (POLITICISE IT) at CNN… 10-minutes!, this seemed pre-planned;
I bet Trump — although sincere — and meaning to communicate his thoughts on this [and other matters] with good intentions, is known not to be the best communicator. In other words, he does not always express his thoughts well. AND, if you already thoroughly dislike someone, attributing the worst of humanity to that person, and are put in an extremely emotional situation with a politician egging you on, I bet you can easily hear and attribute the worst intentions to that situation.
ALL THIS I think contributed to the idea he may have been, or came across as, disrespectful. Here is a call by President Trump to a new widow who’s husband (another American hero) lost his life serving our country. This loving wife released her call to share how Trump respected her family. (TAKE NOTE that if you disdain Trump you could probably misinterpret Trump’s style in passing along heartfelt condolence.
Gold star widow Natasha De Alencar has released the audio of a phone conversation she had with Trump in April about the death of her husband who was killed in Afghanistan. The audio speaks for itself, as does the fact that Ms. De Alencar released it amidst the controversy that the ridiculous Rep. Wilson ginned up:
(More at POWERLINE) This is my bottom line in the whole situation… and I shared the below on a friend’s FB page (adapted a bit):
One thing I noticed in the video [above] that made me think of the differences between Ms. Johnson and Ms. De Alencar… If you already think Trump is a racist, misogynist bigot, you could take his call with every bad intention. That is our natural human bent. And the wife who is in this video above took what Trump meant his thoughts to be… with good intentions, with good will. When President Trump was told about the excellence of the older child by Ms. De Alencar, his acceptance to college on an academic scholarship, he acted surprised (interested, wanting to hear more, sharing in the mother’s pride, allowing her to lead the conversation) that it wasn’t due to his football excellence which she had just relayed to the President. He then asked if he was the standout kid compared to his siblings. The mother took this perfectly (attributing the best of intentions during this tough but honoring call) — even catching the humor in it and she joked back about there always being “one” — and then she shared the passions of each child. Awesome, what a great mom. Her children will be able to look back at THIS moment and remember or hear the best of their country and father.
…NOW…
If you already think Trump is a racist, out to make white supremacy mainstream, who is a serial crotch grabbing misogynist with a politician in the car with you manipulation an already tragic moment for a young woman without kids to be a rock for yet…. Yep, I bet you can read into Trump’s words the worst of intentions since you ALREADY attribute the worst of humanity to him.
Was Trump telling that mom, Ms. De Alencar, he was surprised a black kid would get an academic scholarship, calling the rest of her kids dumb? If you hated Trump as deeply as that younger, more inexperienced, recently widowed, pregnant mom, with a politician whispering in her ear (literally), calling CNN within minutes to politicize the event… Yep, that’s how you would take it. And her child will hear the worst of the nation and the father’s service will be lost in the political hoop jumping. Sad.
BLACK & RIGHT has a great post on the Congresswoman. The Congresswoman also throws around the “race card” like a Black-Jack dealer in the Old West under pressure to make back money for the whore-house owner:
…The Florida Democrat also accused Kelly of using a ‘racist’ epithet against her during a White House news conference on Thursday afternoon, where he compared her to an ’empty barrel.’
Wilson said that after looking it up in the dictionary, she had concluded that ’empty barrel’ is a ‘racist term.’ ….
The Left takes a serious word and uses it and uses it till it looses any meaning! “Racist,” or “Nazi,” or “bigot,” simply now mean a person who disagrees with the Left. What a diminution of thought and grammar and the seriousness these words once relayed to each other when making points. Now these words are just static floating around in the ionosphere like TV shows from the 50’s. As an insightful post in the DAILY CALIFORNIAN notes, “…if everything is racist, nothing is racist.”
POWERLINE says that “America has no sympathy for those who, when losing an argument they started, reflexively accuse their adversary of racism.” To end they say, “The act has become tired.” The DAILY CALLER notes however that “…liberals have pounced on the idea that Gen. Kelly’s criticism is due to Wilson’s race and gender.” Dumb!
“As a vessel is known by the sound, whether it be cracked or not; so men are proved, by their speeches, whether they be wise or foolish” — Demosthenes (384-322 BC)
“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.” — Plato (420’s-340’s BC)
I never heard so loud a voice issue from such an empty heart. It’s true what they say: “THE EMPTY VESSEL MAKES THE GREATEST SOUND.” Bardolph and Nym had ten times more courage than this roaring stage villain, whose nails any Joe could cut with a wooden dagger, but they are both hanged. So would this man if he had the nerve to steal anything bravely. I have to stay with the servants, who are with our camp’s luggage. We’re sitting ducks for the French, if they only knew it, for there is no one guarding it but boys. — William Shakespeare (AD 1564-1616)
…During an interview Friday on CNN, Wilson claimed she had looked up the term “empty barrel” in the dictionary and found it to be a racist term.
“That’s a racist term,” said Wilson. “We looked it up in the dictionary because I had never heard of an empty barrel. And I don’t like to be dragged into something like that.”
But The DCNF found no evidence that the term has racial connotations. The phrase originated from the proverb “empty vessels make most noise” that dates back to at least the 15th century.
According to the Oxford Dictionary of Word Origins, the proverb means that “foolish people are always the most talkative.” Similarly, the Oxford Dictionary of Proverbs defines it this way: “Shallow people with nothing valuable to say are the most talkative or noisy.”
The DCNF also found no informal use of the term that would suggest a racial connotation. Even Urban Dictionary, a crowdsourcing website for slang terms, did not list any definitions of “empty barrel” or “empty vessel,” as of Friday morning.
Famous writers have used the expression over the centuries. Playwright William Shakespeare used it in Act 4 of “Henry V.” “I did never know so full a voice issue from so empty a heart: but the saying is true ‘The empty vessel makes the greatest sound,’” wrote Shakespeare.
The famous author Jonathan Swift wrote, “I have always observed that your empty vessels sound loudest.”
Writers have even attributed the phrase to Plato, although there’s no evidence he actually said those words. “An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers,” Plato allegedly said.
Being called an “empty barrel” is by no means a flattering term, but it’s not a racial slur as Wilson claims.
I bet Sarah Huckabee Sanders saying Rep. Frederica Wilson is “all hat, no cattle,” will be magically pronounced racist. AND AGAIN, the Congresswoman politicized and used this poor woman’s husband as a “chip” on the political table. Shame on her!
In 1871 a fire nearly destroyed the entire city of Chicago, yet, the city rebuilt itself with virtually no government assistance.
The mayor of Chicago put a nonprofit agency, the Chicago Relief and Aid Society, in charge of accepting and distributing the charitable contributions that poured in from all around the country. The police maintained order and attempted to keep looting to a minimum. But this was about the extent of the government’s role.
Just two weeks after the fire, 0. C. Gibbs of the Chicago Relief and Aid Society issued a circular to all Society personnel. The contents of that memo are worth quoting at length:
Every carpenter or mason can now earn from three to four dollars per day, every laborer two dollars, every half-grown boy one dollar, every woman capable of doing household work from two to three dollars per week and her board . . . Clerks, and persons unaccustomed to outdoor labor, if they cannot find such employment as they have been accustomed to, must take such as is offered or leave the city. Any man, single woman, or boy, able to work and unemployed at this time, is so from choice and not from necessity…
Give no aid to any families who are capable of earning their own support, if fully employed….
No aid should be rendered to persons possessed of property, either personal or real, from which they might, by reasonable exertions, procure the means to supply their wants, nor to those who have friends able to help them.
The Society received some criticism for its arguably bureaucratic way of administering aid, but most observers called its work outstanding. The organization’s meticulous record keeping and careful investigation of applicants helped to detect fraud, making sure beneficiaries truly needed assistance, unlike the “get-in-line, here’s-a-check” mentality of today.
If the city of Chicago, now the nation’s third-largest city, could rebuild itself without government assistance, why assume government is required for individuals to rebuild themselves?
The right to bear arms isn’t just a constitutional issue — it’s a women’s rights issue. Author and commentator Katie Pavlich explains why guns are the great equalizer between men and women.
Tuesday I wrote about actress Reese Witherspoon who told a “Women in Hollywood” event held in Beverly Hills that she had been sexually assaulted several times in her career, starting at age sixteen. Actress Jessica Chastain was at the same event and she offered her own take on the scandal, suggesting that Hollywood was full of complete and utter hypocrites. From the Hollywood Reporter:
“This is an industry rife with racism, sexism and homophobia,” she said, speaking to a room full of women including Laura Dern, Riley Keough and Aaron Sorkin. “It is so closely woven into the fabric of the business that we have become snowblind to the glaring injustices happening every day.”
She continued, “Oh we’re very quick to point the finger at others and address the issue with social action and fundraising. Yet there is a clear disconnect between how we practice what we preach in our industry.”…
[….]
…“We rally against the presidential candidate who slants a narrative of his sexual assault as mere locker room talk, but at the same time we ignore the stories and warnings of sexual predators in our offices.”
SOOPERMEXICAN has this video and commentary on this new detail to the uncovering of information regarding some private — legal mind you — conversations in the Trump administration:
…What it comes down to is this – Comey had a memo talking about how he was thinking of not charging Hillary, but that was before he had interviewed two dozen witnesses, including Hillary herself. Gowdy says he wants to straighten this out, and that might include making Comey testify again and explain the order of events…
POWERLINE has a good short post on the subject as well:
It has been reported that Samantha Power, while serving as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, requested or initiated a request for more than 260 unmaskings of Americans whose conversations were picked up during surveillance. But today, according to Rep. Trey Gowdy,Power denied making anything close to that number of unmasking requests.
Here is what Gowdy told Fox News’ Bret Baier:
BAIER: You are also looking, and have talked to the former Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power. We reported that she requested or her officer requested 260 plus efforts to unmask, in other words, get who was talking about picked up in surveillance. How did she answer that question? Why so many?
GOWDY: Well, I’ll tell you broadly, Bret, I think if she was on your show, she would say those attempt to unmask may have been attributed to her. But they greatly exceed, by an exponential factor, the number of requests that she actually made.
I assume Gowdy is accurately characterizing Power’s testimony. I don’t assume Power is telling the truth, but she may be.
If she is, I agree with Gowdy who also told Baier, “We’ve got to get to the bottom of that.”….
NEWSBUSTERS comments on the situation followed by the excellent legal reporting by Greg Jarrett:
…It’s a scandal that the Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) network evening shows have gone out of their way to shun, spending only 3 minutes and 1 second on the story in over two years.
On October 17The Hill’s John Solomon and Alison Spann reported that “Before the Obama administration had approved a controversial deal in 2010 giving Moscow control of a large swath of American uranium, the FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States, according to government documents and interviews.”
Additionally, The Hill reported that the FBI had “obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill.”…
Attorney and FOX News Contributor Gregg Jarrett joinedSean Hannityto discuss the illegal money laundering and bribery of the Clinton Foundation.
It was reported earlier today that the FBI uncovered Russian bribery of the Clintons in 2009 and the Department of Justice and the FBI sat on this for four more years.
Worse yet, from today’s report we discovered the investigation was supervised by then-U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein, who is now President Trump’s Deputy Attorney General, and then-Assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who is now the deputy FBI director under Trump.
ROSENSTEIN AND MUELLER ALSO SAT ON THE CFIUS COMMITTEE THAT APPROVED THE SALE OF 20% OF US URANIUM RESERVES TO RUSSIA DESPITE KNOWING RUSSIA HAD BRIBED THE CLINTONS FOR THE ILLICIT SALE.
This further tarnishes this respected organization’s good name….
The Senate Judiciary Committee has launched a probe into a Russian nuclear bribery case, demanding several federal agencies disclose whether they knew the FBI had uncovered the corruption before the Obama administration in 2010 approved a controversial uranium deal with Moscow.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the committee chairman, gets his first chance to raise the issue in public on Wednesday when he questions Attorney General Jeff Sessions during an oversight hearing.
Aides said the committee had sent requests for information to 10 federal agencies involved in the Russian uranium approvals.
[….]
The senator also specifically conveyed in the latest letters he no longer accepts the Obama administration’s assurances from 2015 that there was no basis to block the Uranium One deal.
“I am not convinced by these assurances,” Grassley wrote the Homeland Security Department last week. “The sale of Uranium One resulted in a Russian government takeover of a significant portion of U.S. uranium mining capacity. In light of that fact, very serious questions remain about the basis for the finding that this transaction did not threaten to impair U.S. national security.”
[….]
He also questioned whether the documented corruption that was uncovered posed a national security threat that should have voided approval of the uranium deal.
“It has recently come to the Committee’s attention that employees of Rosatom were involved in a criminal enterprise involving a conspiracy to commit extortion and money laundering during the time of the CFIUS transaction,” Grassley wrote in one such letter addressed to Sessions.
“The fact that Rosatom subsidiaries in the United States were under criminal investigation as a result of a U.S. intelligence operation apparently around the time CFIUS approved the Uranium One/Rosatom transaction raises questions about whether that information factored into CFIUS’ decision to approve the transaction,” the chairman added.
Grassley has been one of the few congressional leaders to have consistently raised questions about the uranium deal, and in 2015 agencies told his committee they had no national security reasons to reject the Moscow approval.
Those representations, however, made no mention of the FBI probe or the national security issues uncovered by agents, including the fact that Russian officials had compromised an American trucking firm that transported uranium….
THE DAILY WIRE makes note of the political contributions:
….According to The Hill, there are strong ties between the high-level officials who were involved in the allegedly undisclosed investigation on the Russian bribery scheme and the current investigation into whether Trump campaign officials “colluded” with Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign:
The investigation was ultimately supervised by then-U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein, an Obama appointee who now serves as President Trump’s deputy attorney general, and then-Assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe, now the deputy FBI director under Trump, Justice Department documents show.
Both men now play a key role in the current investigation into possible, but still unproven, collusion between Russia and Donald Trump’s campaign during the 2016 election cycle. McCabe is under congressional and Justice Department inspector general investigation in connection with money his wife’s Virginia state Senate campaign accepted in 2015 from now-Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe at a time when McAuliffe was reportedly under investigation by the FBI.
The connections to the current Russia case are many. The Mikerin probe began in 2009 when Robert Mueller, now the special counsel in charge of the Trump case, was still FBI director. And it ended in late 2015 under the direction of then-FBI Director James Comey, whom Trump fired earlier this year.
Mueller has come under fire after it was revealed that the attorneys on his staff made previous political donations to the Democratic Party, including to presidential candidate Hillary Clinton while making none to then-candidate Donald Trump.
….And yet on the ground, in the real world, Trump is methodically pushing ahead with the agenda he campaigned on. That includes:
Nominating judges and justices who can be counted on to interpret and enforce the law but do not endeavor to use the law to promote their social agenda;
Addressing the problem of illegal immigration and securing the borders of the United States;
Developing America’s vast energy resources;
Rolling back the regulatory state, especially the administrative overreach of agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency;
Pursuing policies that put America, and American workers, first, not to the detriment of our relationships with our international partners but through a recognition that strength and sovereign independence make nations more reliable actors;
Restoring the combat readiness and morale of the United States military;
Simplifying the U.S. tax code, making it more competitive for U.S. businesses and more equitable for individuals;
Getting a handle on the unconstitutional and shockingly inefficient monstrosity ironically called the Affordable Care Act;
Putting a stop to the obscene violation of due process that Title IX fanatics brought to college campuses across the country.
And many other initiatives large and small.
In all of these areas, Trump is proceeding not as a wrecking ball but as a deliberate, if often voluble and sometimes exasperating, agent of change.
On the campaign trail, Trump promised that, if elected, the American people would start “winning” again. “You’ll have so much winning,” he said, “you’ll get bored with winning.”
Now, almost nine months into his first term, how is he doing? Real unemployment is on the wane. The stock market is at an historic high. So is consumer confidence. Illegal immigration is down nearly 70 percent. America is now a net exporter of energy. Just a few days ago, Trump declined to re-certify the malevolent nuclear deal that Obama made with Iran, winning from Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu this commendation: “I congratulate President Trump for his courageous decision today. He boldly confronted Iran’s terrorist regime. . . . If the Iran deal is left unchanged, one thing is absolutely certain—in a few years’ time, the world’s foremost terrorist regime will have an arsenal of nuclear weapons and that’s a tremendous danger for our collective future.”
Just a couple of days ago, Trump, having been disappointed by a supine Republican Congress, issued an executive order that will make it easier for people to band together to obtain health insurance tailored to their needs (instead of being forced into federally defined, one-size-fits-all plans) while also ending the unconstitutional federal subsidies (unconstitutional because the money wasn’t appropriated by Congress) to big insurance companies, amounting to some $7 billion per year (the price of getting those companies on board with Obamacare in the first place).
In any normal world, these would be called significant accomplishments. But in the NeverTrump bubble, none of these victories can evade the protective refracting mirrors that intercept and distort the message. For months, the Huffington Post ran the following disclaimer after every article about Trump: “Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims—1.6 billion members of an entire religion—from entering the U.S.” Even now, according to the Pew Research Center, only 5 percent of news stories about Trump are positive…..
“One of the biggest things we can do is identify what our problem is. We have a problem which we have a white Marxist organization that has indoctrinated our kids the last 15 years with anti-white, anti-flag, anti-American — everything you see on the sidelines today has been flooded into our community — the liberal filth for 15 years — it’s called Black Entertainment Television [BET].
It’s not owned by black people It’s white people with a black facade, black employees with a message that is anti-American. So you have all these kids growing up in this environment, they’ve become millionaires, they’re going to believe what they were taught to believe.
We are up against a very evil ideology, guys. And understand that and we pull these guys from behind their corporate boardrooms. Have them stand in front of the American people and explain what they are doing to us.”
…It’s the opinion of the courts, as the LA Times reported back in May of 2016–it’s unconstitutional:
House Republicans won Round 2 in a potentially historic lawsuit Thursday when a federal judge declared the Obama administration was unconstitutionally spending money to subsidize health insurers without obtaining an appropriation from Congress.
Last year, U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer broke new ground by ruling the GOP-controlled House of Representatives had legal standing to sue the president over how he was enforcing his signature healthcare law.
On Thursday, she ruled the administration is violating a provision of the law by paying promised reimbursements to health insurers who provide coverage at reduced costs to low-income Americans.
The judge’s ruling, while a setback for the administration, was put on hold immediately and stands a good chance of being overturned on appeal.
[….]
Josh Blackman elaborated on this subsidy provision in National Review back in July:
In 2014, a federal judge concluded that with the so-called OPM fix, the “executive branch has rewritten a key provision of the ACA so as to render it essentially meaningless in order to save members of Congress and their staffs.” Allowing the administration to rewrite the law, he wrote, “would be a violation of Article I of the Constitution, which reposes the lawmaking power in the legislative branch.” However, because the plaintiffs in the lawsuit (Senator Ron Johnson and one of his staffers) were not personally injured by OPM’s policy — indeed they benefited — the case was dismissed for lack of standing. While the Obama administration was content to make these illegal payments, the Trump administration should halt them.
Congress is not the only beneficiary of such illegal largess. The ACA employed two strategies to make health insurance more affordable. Section 1401 of the law provides for the payment of subsidies to consumers to reduce premiums. Section 1402 provides payments to insurers to offset certain “cost sharing” fees, such as deductibles and co-pays. But while the ACA funds the subsidies under Section 1401 with a permanent appropriation, to date, Congress has not provided an annual appropriation for the cost-sharing subsidies under Section 1402.
Once again, where Congress would not act, President Obama did so unilaterally. The executive branch pretended that the ACA had actually funded Section 1402 all along, and it paid billions of dollars to insurers. Once again, Mr. Trump is exactly right that this is a “BAILOUT.” And, once again, the payments are a violation of the separation of powers.
Now, we have Jonathan Turley, a constitutional scholar at the George Washington University Law School, reiterating the point that the Obamacare subsidy provision was unconstitutional with Fox News’ Bret Baier last Friday…..
Before posting what I did on Facebook as part of a response to a conversation regarding the below graphic… I want to say that by showing vestiges…
a rudimentary structure in humans corresponding to a functional structureor organ in ancestral animals
…in no way undermines Intelligent Design, or somehow PROVES evolution. Let me explain.
Darwin said he didn’t see an issue with whales evolving from bears, or some bear like creature. In his first edition of Origin of Species, Darwin said this:
“I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths,” Darwin concluded, “till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.”
ARCHAEOPTERYX
This does not involve “devolution,” a loss of specificity which the below picture captures… but rather, evolution demands an increase in specificity in gene and DNA specificity in the creation of whole new organs and how they act. Similarly, the Archaeopteryx is proffered as an example of evolution, but evolutionists themselves would say that this is only an example of “devolution,” and not an increase of specificity in a species (a clipping from my post: “Was Archaeopteryx Devolving? Thus Losing It’s Ability to Fly?“):
Since other feathered “birds” have been found around the same time or earlier than Archaeopteryx, causing Alan Feduccia to quip, “You can’t be older than your grandfather” (Creation.com)… NATURE has published an article pointing out that Archaeopteryx is JUST LIKE modern flightless birds. And so it could have been losing its ability for flight (like modern birds have).
“We know Archaeopteryx was living on an archipelago during the Jurassic. And with its feathers and bones looking so much like modern flightless island birds, it just makes me wonder,” says…. Michael Habib, a biologist at the University of Southern California….
[….]
“Just because Archaeopteryx was the first feathered dinosaur found, doesn’t mean it has to play a central role in the actual history of the origins of birds,” says palaeontologist Thomas Holtz of the University of Maryland in College Park. “We have to remember it appears 10 million years or so after the oldest known bird-like dinosaurs and so our famous ‘first bird’ may really be a secondarily flightless one.”…
There is just as much [at best] evidence for this proposition as the next. “Devolution” — a loss of specificity/use, may be a more reasonable position to take via observed evidence. We see this all the time (directly below is an example from Lee Spetner’s new book), and EVOLUTION NEWS says that “looks like Archaeopteryx may have to be reclassified as a different sort of icon — symbolizing evolution by loss of function.” Oops.
So these types of examples ACTUALLY COUNT AGAINST the main idea that neo-Darwinism proposed… that I came from a rock.
I find it interesting that people think this whale bone pictured above is a vestigial organ. Very similar to the list of a 180 vestigial structures said to be in the human body in the late 1800’s dwindling to effectively zero, and the damage and laziness such thinking cost lives and sciences advancement (see more here):
TONSILS
In the 1930’s over half of all children had their tonsils and adenoids removed. In 1969, 19.5 out of every 1,000 children under the age of nine had undergone a tonsillectomy. By 1971 the frequency had dropped to only 14.8 per 1,000, with the percentage continuing to decrease in subsequent years. Most medical authorities now actively discourage tonsillectomies.[1] Many agree with Wooley, chairman of the department of pediatrics at Wayne State University, who was quoted in Katz: “If there are one million tonsillectomies done in the United States, there are 999,000 that don’t need doing.”
Among the first medical doctors seriously to question the wisdom of tonsillectomies was Albert Kaiser. For ten years he kept complete records of the illnesses of 5,000 children. They were divided into two groups – those who had tonsils removed and those who did not. Kaiser found: “…no significant difference between the two groups in the number of colds, sore throats and other upper respiratory infections.”[2]
Tonsils are important to young people in helping to establish the body’s defense mechanism which produces disease-fighting antibodies. Once these mechanisms are developed, the tonsils shrink to almost nothing in adults, and other organs take over this function.[3] In the Medical World News,[4] a story stated that although removal of tonsils at a young age obviously eliminates tonsillitis (the inflammation of the tonsils) it may significantly increase the incidence of strep-throat and even Hodgkin’s disease. In fact, according to the New York Department of Cancer Control: “…people who have had tonsillectomies are nearly three times as likely to develop Hodgkin’s Disease, a form of cancer that attacks the lymphoid tissue.”[5]
THE POINT
My point is this, the Tonsils were once included in a list of 180 vestigial (“useless, or nearly useless”) organs.[6] And because the assumption was first made that these were organs left over from a previous genetic ancestor (ape, dog, early-man, whatever), that they were deemed useless – ad hoc – because science did not know at that time what their functions were.
So for many years, doctors and scientists that accepted the evolutionary paradigm did not investigate the possible functionality of these organs. Many people suffered and died needlessly due to this philosophical assumption that evolution is true. You will see this assumption play out again and again where medical science and the evolutionary issue intersect. You see, if you come to the table with an understanding that we were created, then these structures serve a purpose, or are a neutral combination of the possible male/female outcome of the fertilized egg (for instance, male nipples[7]). If the assumption is made that these structures are designed, then the medical world would strive to investigate and understand the organ in question, not simply state that it is useless.
[1]Robert P Bolande, “Ritualistic Surgery – circumcision and tonsillectomy,” New England Journal of Medicine, March 13 (1969) pp. 591-595; Alvin Eden, “When Should Tonsils and Adenoids be Removed?” Family Weekly, September 25 (1977), p. 24; Lawrence Galton, “All Those Tonsil Operations: Useless? Dangerous?” Parade, May 2 (1976), pp. 26ff; Dolras Katz, “Tonsillectomy: Boom or Boondoggle?” The Detroit Free Press, April 13 (1972), p. 1-C; Samuel Lipton, “On the Psychology of Childhood Tonsillectomy,” found in: The Psychoanalysis Study of the Child (International Universities Press, New York: 1962). [2]Galton, p. 26. [3]Martin L. Gross, The Doctors (Random House, New York: 1966); Simpson Hall, Diseases of the Nose, Throat and Ear (E. and S. Livingston, New York: 1941). [4]N. J. Vianna, Peter Greenwald, and U. N. Davies, September 10, 1973, p.10 [5]Galton, p. 26-27. [6]This is an important issue, for instance, during the famous Scopes trial in 1925 – which allowed evolution to be taught alongside creation – zoologist Horatio Hacket Newman, a defense witness, stated: “There are, according to Wiedersheim, no less than 180 vestigial structures in the human body, sufficient to make of a man a veritable walking museum of antiquities.” [7]Also, if created by a personal God who has created sex to be pleasurable, then the nipples have a purpose other than the neutral canvas of the fertilized egg.
Jerry Bergman and George F. Howe, Vestigial Organs Are Fully Functional (Creation Research Society Books, Kansas City: MO: 1990).
WHALE TALES
SIMILARLY, the laziness in neo-Darwinian evolutionary propositions in this “example” of a vestigial organ shows the laziness in thought, and, the stalling of advancing science in understanding nature. Now, we know, and even the secular world acknowledges this fact in “discovering” [yet again] that pronouncements made by the evolutionary community of scientists is woefully wrong. Here is an example via THE DAILY MAIL – take note how I and the researches end the article:
Whale Sex Revealed: ‘Useless’ Hips Bones Are Crucial To Reproduction – And Size Really Matters, Study Finds
Whales and dolphins have pelvic bones, which are evolutionary remnants from when their ancestors walked on land more than 40 million years ago
Scientists from the University of Southern California and the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, analysed pelvic bones for four years
Muscles that control a cetacean’s penis attach directly to its pelvic bones
They found the bigger the animals’ testis, the bigger their pelvic bone
Males from more promiscuous species evolve larger penises, so larger pelvic bones are necessary to attach bigger muscles for penis control, they said
Study changes the way we think about vestigial structures
[…..]
They wrote in the journal Evolution, the muscles that control a cetacean’s highly flexible penis, attach directly to its pelvic bones.
The scientist theorised that the pelvic bones could affect the level of control over the penis that an individual cetacean has, perhaps offering an evolutionary advantage.
To test their idea, they examined hundreds of pelvic bones and used a 3D scanner to make digital models of the curved bones in order to gain an unprecedented level of detail about their shape and size, as well as to compare them.
They then gathered data about testis size relative to the mass of whales. In the natural world, more ‘promiscuous’ species where females mate with many males, create a more competitive mating environment and the males develop larger testes as a way of attracting females.
[…..]
The experts compared the size of pelvic bones to the size of an animal’s testes, relative its body size, and found that the bigger the testes, the bigger the cetacean’s pelvic bone.
Males from more promiscuous species also evolve larger penises, so larger pelvic bones appear necessary to attach larger muscles for penis control, they said.
‘Our research really changes the way we think about the evolution of whale pelvic bones in particular, but more generally about structures we call vestigial,’ Professor Dean said.
‘AS A PARALLEL, WE ARE NOW LEARNING THAT OUR APPENDIX IS ACTUALLY QUITE IMPORTANT IN SEVERAL IMMUNE PROCESSES, NOT A FUNCTIONALLY USELESS STRUCTURE,’ he added….
(emphasis added)
AMBULOCETUS NATANS
In conversation about the above, the person I was speaking with posted a series of evolution from creature-to-creature proving the evolution of the whale.
I have already refuted this clean progression, HERE, but I noted something that this person was not aware of. As most people are not. You see, when you bring your kid to the Natural History Museum, you see this picture of the RED OUTLINED creature in the evidence for whales evolving:
The problem with this evidence is that it is based primarily on an artists rendition. Here is the actual bones all this Ambulocetus Natans is based on — see #3:
I merely commented that his believing and passing along graphics showing full skulls by artists, or the above “skeletal” sequence, reminds me of the movie scene from the Matrix:
In similar fashion, this artistic rendition used in the Scopes “Monkey” Trial was used as evidence proving evolution:
However, this was based off a single tooth. NOT ONLY THAT, but the tooth put forward as hominid, ended up being an extinct pig’s tooth.
APPENDIX
In similar form, many people still think the APPENDIX is a vestigial organ. Here is my response (since updated) to one of my son’s teachers in high school dealing with what was being taught as FACT… that is, that the appendix had no known use:
FULL UPDATED PAPER
Context this short paper was written:
This paper evolved over many years. It was one of the first subjects I debated at a science discussion board on the Internet many years ago prior to the NetZero days. Then I updated it to respond in writing to a Discover magazine article (a much larger paper, of which this takes up two pages).
Finally, as my son has been studying science in seventh grade, his science textbook states many “facts” wrongly, this being only one of the many I have since written about (peppered moths, embryos going through stages of a fish, homology, and the like).
I like to think that the teacher’s role is to not just teach what the “state” requires – this reminds me of the novels 1984, or Animal Farm – but to allow updated information into the classroom that will best challenge these students to become that medical doctor, chemist, or physicist. In other words, I want my son to have the best information that may spark the interest to become, say, a medical doctor. This is all that I argue for.
As it so happened, the teacher merely regurgitated what the “state” wanted her to (even after reading such a cogent and well laid response to her saying “there is no use for the appendix in the human body”). Much like when the dog cubs were taken and “educated” in the novel Animal Farm.
Much thought – and enjoy the read – SeanG!
THE APPENDIX
Dr. Kawanishi,[1] showed that human lymphoid cells in the appendix are immunologically functional as T helper cells and antibody-producing B cells, making IgA molecules in response to immunological challenges. He noted that:
“The human appendix, long considered only an accessory rudimentary organ, could posses a similar antigen uptake role prior to replacement by fibrosed tissue after repeated subclinical infections, or at least in early childhood when it is most prominent.”[2]
The appendix is also rich in argentaffin cells, which can be identified with the use of silver salt staining. The function of these cells has long been obscure, but the evidence suggests that they may be involved with endocrine gland function.[3] Many sources (encyclopedias, textbooks, etc.) still erroneously state that the appendix is useless. Interestingly, the Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia states in one place: that “In humans the cecum and appendix have no important function,” and in another place that “the appendix is now thought to be one of the sites where immune responses are initiated.”
Dr. Howard R. Bierman… studied several hundred patients with leukemia, Hodgkin’s disease, cancer of the colon and cancer of the ovaries. He found that 84% [of his sample] had [their] appendix removed…. In a control group without cancer, only 25% had it removed.[4]
Bierman himself had concluded that the appendix may be an immunological organ whose premature removal during its functional period permits leukemia and other related forms of cancer to begin their development.[5] Bierman and his associates realized that the lymphoid tissue located on the walls of the appendix may secrete antibodies which protect the body against various viral agents.
While high school and college textbooks today will mention the appendix as vestigial, specialists in their field have for many years stated the necessity of the appendix as useful.
“There is no longer any justification for regarding the vermiform appendix as a vestigial structure.”[6]
“For at least 2,000 years, doctors have puzzled over the function of… the thymus gland…. Modern physicians came to regard it, like the appendix, as a useless vestigial organ which had lost its original purpose, if indeed it ever had one. In the last few years, however,… men have proved that, far from being useless, the thymus is really the master gland that regulates the intricate immunity system which protects us against infectious diseases…. Recent experiments have led researchers to believe that the appendix, tonsils, and adenoids may also figure in the antibody responses.”[7]
“The appendix is not generally credited with significant function; however, current evidence tends to involve it in the immunologic mechanism.”[8]
“The mucosa and submucosa of the appendix are dominated by lymphoid nodules, and its primary function is as an organ of the lymphatic system.”[9]
The appendix is in fact part of the G.A.L.T. (Gut Associated Lymphoid Tissue) system. The lymphoid follicles develop in the appendix at around two weeks after birth, which is the time when the large bowel begins to be colonized with the necessary bacteria. It is likely that its major function peaks in this neonatal period. Making it anything other than vestigial!
As Dr. Peter Faletra (Ph.D.), who is Senior Science Advisor Office of Science Department of Energy, says in response to a question on an online question-and-answer service for K-12 teachers run by the Argonne National Laboratories:
“As a histologist I see no reason to consider the v. appendix as having no function since it contains numerous lymphoid follicles that produce functional lymphocytes and a rich blood supply to communicate them. The general idea of vestigial organs is to me a measure of ignorance, arrogance and lack of imagination. Ignorance in that we label it as such because we do not know its function; arrogance in that we declare it of no value since we can see none; and lacking in imagination in so far as when we cannot see its function cannot imagine one. I call your attention to that other ‘vestigial organ’ the thymus without which, in early life, we would produce a severely compromised cell-mediated immune system as the ‘nude’ mouse and numerous thymectomized mammalian studies have shown. Although some general reference books still list the v. appendix as ‘vestigial’ most immunologists (I included) would strongly disagree!”[10] (emphises added)
UPDATE
Since the above was removed, I want to embolden the thinking by excerpting a SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN article:[11]
A study in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology finds that many more animals have appendixes than was thought, and that the appendix is not merely a remnant of a digestive organ called the cecum. All of which means that the appendix might not be so useless. Steve Mirsky reports.
Two years ago, Duke University Medical Center researchers said that the supposedly useless appendix is actually where good gut bacteria safely hide out during some unpleasant intestinal conditions.
Now the research team has looked at the appendix over evolutionary history. They found that animals have had appendixes for about 80 million years. And the organ has evolved separately at least twice, once among the weird Australian marsupials and another time in the regular old mammal lineage that we belong to.
Darwin thought that only a few animals have an appendix and that the human version was what was left of a digestive organ called the cecum. But the new study found that 70 percent of rodent and primate groups have species with an appendix….
While Scientific American still tries to relegate it to evolution, they do so by supposition. Almost by metaphysical statements. William Parker, Ph.D., assistant professor of experimental surgery, who conducted the analysis in collaboration with R. Randal Bollinger, M.D., Ph.D., Duke professor emeritus in general surgery – said this:
“While there is no smoking gun, the abundance of circumstantial evidence makes a strong case for the role of the appendix as a place where the good bacteria can live safe and undisturbed until they are needed”[12]
WIKIPEDIA has a decent section on the appendix’s function as well.[13]
PS – (from the original letter) This P.S. was to the teacher after she responded to my e-mail, I corrected her on something that any science teacher who isn’t guided by a presupposed philosophy – namely Naturalism – would have correctly defined.
Oh, I forgot, as I was falling asleep last night and running through the day in my head, something occurred to me. You mentioned that theories are, quote:
“Theories are well tested concepts scientists use to help explain something based on repeated findings.”
Yes, a great quick explanation of a proper theory. However, when the appendix was placed on the vestigial organ list along with 180 other organs by Ernst Haekel in the late 1800‘s – where it has stayed since – no repeatable tests were ever done to confirm the hypothesis that it was useless. In fact, every medical test done of the type of tissue found (argentaffin cells, and lymphoid cells) in the appendix shows that it has a use.
So I would say that the theory that it is useful is quite sound, where as the hypothesis that it is useless is waning and ill founded ~ un-scientific in other words.
FOOTNOTES
[1]H. Kawanishi, “Immunocompetence of Normal Appendiceal Lymphoid cells: in vitro studies,” Immunology, 60(1) (1987), 19-28.
[2]Ibid., 19.
[3] Marti-Ibanez (editor), “Tuber of Life,” M. D. Magazine (1970) #14, p. 240; William J. Banks, Applied Veterinary Histology (Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore: 1981), 390.
[4] Richard G. Culp, Remember thy Creator (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids,; MI: 1975).
[5]Howard R. Bierman, “Human Appendix and Neoplasia,” Cancer 21 (1) (1968), 109-118.
[6] William Straus, Quarterly Review of Biology (1947), 149.
[7]“The Useless Gland that Guards Our Health,” in Reader’s Digest, November (1966), 229, 235.
[8] Henry L. Bockus, Gastroenterology, 2:1134-1148 [chapter The Appendix, by Gordon McHardy], (W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, Pennslyvania: 1976).
[9] Frederic H. Martini, Ph.D., Fundamentals of Anatomy and Physiology, (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: 1995), 916
[10](Since removed) From the site Newton, which is an electronic community for Science, Math, and Computer Science K-12 Educators. Argonne National Laboratory, Division of Educational Programs, Harold Myron, Ph.D., Division Director. Quote: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/mole00/mole00225.htm Home page: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/
[11] “That’s No Vestigial Organ, That’s My Appendix,” Scientific American (8-24-2009), found at: http://tinyurl.com/ycb9dcnv
[12]Duke University Medical Center, “Appendix isn’t useless at all: It’s a safe house for bacteria,” EurekaAlert! (AAAS | 10-08-2008); found at: http://tinyurl.com/yadgop2l
[13] Appendix, Functions – found at: http://tinyurl.com/k245vmb
