Processed Meat is "bad" for You & everything else !

You’ve probably seen Week's headlines, about the fact that  (***)>> processed meat has been classified as a ‘definite’ cause of cancer. And red meat is a ‘probable’ cause. FOR me this news it not new news,Haven't we known this for like 20 years? And guess what-- What to avoid: .. and any suggestion about nutrition from the government.  it's just another bunch of stuff that later will be proved as "wrong" . Simply this report seems to target meats that are related to  (1)>> pork. ANYHOW do any of you remember how a few bureaucrats can try to control what you eat . Do you remember the nonsense about eggs ? They used to tell you that eggs were bad for , the government (USA) spent over a billion dollars in the decades of the 1990's with propaganda as I would call it.warning about our egg consumption . Most of the dietary recommendations were made before the science could verify. However, the politicians did not want to wait because of the length of time good nutrition research takes. Also, a lot of the old science and recommendations were based on nutrition questionnaires of the subjects. As a report by an international World Health Organization describes the relationship between processed food in specific and red meat in general and various kinds of cancer. The headlines, of course, have been blunt. CNN Money phrases it this way: “Processed meat causes cancer, says  (3)>>WHO.” The results of the majority of popularly-published American food studies have been proven false after the fad fades away: saturated fats are bad, eggs and cholesterol are bad, red meat is bad for you, etc.... all of it is pure bunk. What is bad? lots of salt and lots of sugar-- two thing that are normally hard to find in our natural food sources. Yes, today American meat is bad for you: beef is fed corn and other grains, which cattle don't eat-- they eat grass. As a result, bad fat ratio (omega-3:6) and same with soy-fed chickens. Industrial meat and food is just bad for you. Do we really need to swear off bacon?You get, “Red wine is good for you.” Then, “You know what? Maybe antioxidants aren’t so good for you.” Or, “Eggs are terrible for you.” Then, “Maybe eggs aren’t so terrible for you.” but  I still am confused regarding the definition. beef jerky, smoked turkey breast and salt cod, for example, are processed according to the text I've read. but it isn’t mentioned in any news. are they included in the report or not? are the harmful chemicals added to the meat in the process, or are they naturally synthesized by the process itself? From what I understand; these figures come from the UK. How does the UK compare to other countries with high processed meat consumption like Germany (Sausages) and France (Saucisson)?How do these countries compare to low pork diet countries such as Israel and Arab countries? Is there a significantly lower percentage of bowel cancer cases in predominantly Kosher and Halal consumer populations?Could you tell me how fresh sausages cause cancer? Mince meat itself is not classed as processed meat so presumably there is no risk associated with fresh sausages in artificial casing (mince meat, herbs and spices). Is it because toxic preservatives are used to prevent bacteria growing on the hog, sheep or beef casings used for sausages? Therefore do you, Cancer research, recommend using artificial casing instead of natural ones, or simply could you suggest a less (2)>>  carcinogenic preservative to use?Is there another way of curing meat without using Nitroso compounds (Sodium or Potassium Nitrates)? From what I have read the Sodium Nitrites are much less toxic than using saltpeter, are they also less cancerous? The other thing to follow going forward is how the information will be polarized. You’ll get the vegan and vegetarian community using this in their arsenal of why we should avoid meat. And to be fair, there are more arrows in that quiver. And you’ll see people who love their meat and love their bacon cherry-picking, saying it’s all just one study. It will be interesting to see that polarization, because it’s certainly happened in the past.

Everything is "bad" for YOU!

All of us in  this  ( 4)>> MODERN WORLD are now subjected to "processed food" no mater what it is exactly . You can't just look at salami , and bacon as bad for you , if you take the fear mongering WHO report that processed meats caused cancer . Remember that The WHO has come to the conclusion on the advice of its International Agency for Research on Cancer, which assesses the best available scientific evidence. It has now placed processed meat in the same category as plutonium, but also alcohol as they definitely do cause cancer. Just more stating of the obvious, we've been told for decades that large amounts of processed and red meat is bad for us. Processed meats are cheaper than healthy alternatives for some strange reason. You can say how cheap it is to make a salad, but lettuce ain’t gonna give you anything but water, and you’re gonna have to eat like 24 cups of broccoli to get the same amount of protein as 10 oz hamburger meat. There is little doubt why the present controversies around processed meat as much "food" in our diet . Because the average person, including politicians, is not trained in the science they are often fooled into believing the results of these publications. The vast majority of these non-credible science publications report on inappropriately conducted experiments or research. As a group they suffer from an assortment of inadequacies. My conclusion is All foods carry some risk to some people.

So Starve ...............

NOTES AND COMMENTS:

(***)>> processed meat . Processed meats include bacon, sausage, hot dogs, sandwich meat, packaged ham, pepperoni, salami and virtually all red meat used in frozen prepared meals. They are usually manufactured with a carcinogenic ingredient known as sodium nitrite.2 This is used as a color fixer by meat companies to turn packaged meats a bright red color so they look fresh. Unfortunately, sodium nitrite also results in the formation of cancer-causing nitrosamines in the human body. And this leads to a sharp increase in cancer risk for those who eat them.A 2005 University of Hawaii study found that processed meats increase the risk of pancreatic cancer by 67 percent.3 Another study revealed that every 50 grams of processed meat consumed daily increases the risk of colorectal cancer by 21 percent.4 These are alarming numbers. Note that these cancer risks do not come from eating fresh, non-processed meats. They only appear in people who regularly consume processed meat products containing sodium nitrite.(1)>> pork .For a long time, people were cool with bacon. They put it in BLTs, they dipped it in their egg yolks, they laid it across their baked beans. They liked bacon, but they did not worship it. It was just another tasty foodstuff. Then, the anti-fat diet craze of the 1980s happened, and all of a sudden people were not cool with bacon, because people (wrongly, it turns out) believed that bacon's fat content (it's like 60 percent fat) made it a particular nutritional hazard.This damaged the pork industry, because suddenly pork belly What kind of red meat? The discussion and blaming of red meat for cancer is meaningless unless you specify whether its grass-fed or corn fed beef, which are night and day different in their fatty acid composition. It is quite clear that 98% of the beef consumed in this country is unhealthy corn-fed, antibiotic and synthetic estrogen-laced. Grass fed beef that I eat and my parents and grandparents ate is associated with better health due to its high omega 3 fatty acid composition. They all lived into their 90's and I am in my mid-60's in excellent health, cancer free despite eating a LOT of red meat my entire life. Classifying beef with bacon, pastrami and hot dogs as "processed" is only true for the inhuman CAFO operations so prevalent in this country. Cattle grazing on grass is hardly "processed" and certainly NOT carcinogenic. (2)>>carcinogenic.  The World Health Organization maintains classes of carcinogenicity. 1A means it is a known human carcinogen, it does not give any information about how carcinogenic it is. There are categories like, suspected human carcinogen, known animal carcinogen, and it goes on.All they did was officially put processed meats into 1A, known human carcinogen. The only reason this matters is that there are US Regulations based on these categories. For example, California Prop 65 requires labeling of all products "Known by the state of California to cause cancer". You guessed it, this is one of the lists cited in the regulation. Bacon will be labeled in California  (3)>>WHO. The meat industry will definitely suffer if red meat is labeled probably carcinogenic. Last year, sales of sugar fell after the WHO warned that eating too much sweet was hazardous to health. They evaluated over 800 studies analyzing associations between more than a dozen forms of cancer with the consumption of processed or red meat in different countries and among populations with diverse diets. ( 4)>> MODERN WORLD. Woody Allen demolished all this healthy eating bollocks definitively in his 70s comedy Sleeper, where Allen wakes up far in the future to find that everything he had been told was bad for him in 70s America had been discovered to be, in fact, just the ticket for a healthy mind in a healthy body.

Mrs.CLINTON. Congressional hearings revisited .

Besides Mrs. Clinton's gaze , her coughing
shows why this hearing was
uncalled for.

It was an interesting week . Mrs. Clinton again was called to testify again . The 11-hour Benghazi committee hearing on Thursday revealed that Hillary Clinton knew immediately that the violence at the embassy was not about a video, however, but a pre-planned terrorist attack immanent. Republicans have forced Hillary Clinton release all the emails from her time as Secretary of State in the hopes that somewhere in among them might be something they could turn into a scandal and derail her campaign for President. That never materialized, as her emails have been mundane. More than a few facts got mangled as a showdown between Hillary Rodham Clinton and her Republican questioners turned into an 11-hour slog. It's a great puzzle to me that the Republicans did not get it the first time . Speaking in front of the House Select Committee on Benghazi Thursday afternoon, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attempted to claim she didn't blame the September 11, 2012 attack on a YouTube video. "Where did the false narrative start? It started with you, Madame Secretary," Ohio Republican Jim Jordan pressed Clinton."I referred to the video that night in a very specific way. I said some have sought to justify the attack because of the video. I used those words deliberately, not to ascribe a motive to every attacker but as a warning to those across the region that there was no justification for further attacks," Clinton said.  So I am going to explain the "tactic" . Yes, despite all the attention drawn to Clinton , the Republicans have missed an opportunity to slam (1)>>  Pres. Obama , the Commander in Chief who should have sent the troops into protecting the embassy in Benghazi . Mrs. Clinton became the "fall guy" for the Obama administration obviously

Sen Trey Gowdy is re-investigating
what was already re-investigated .

.  With Hillary Clinton in the witness chair, the 2016 election season in full swing, and Benghazi on the docket, it seemed inevitable that someone on the Republican side would let their passions and partisanship get the better of them and eagerly throw themselves down a rabbit hole. That did end up happening, and the culprit turned out to be the one Republican I was sure would not do it: Benghazi committee chairman Trey Gowdy. Gowdy claims that "new evidence" was now being presented .Gowdy, more than anyone else, is sensitive to the allegations of partisanship surrounding his committee and claimed to be personally hurt by the attacks on its credibility. So it seemed like he would go to great lengths to keep the rest of the members in line, if for no other reason than to demonstrate in public that he is running, as he so often declares, a “serious investigation.”But, alas, Gowdy went completely off the rails when his turn to interrogate Clinton rolled around. He started off his questioning by angrily responding to Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and loudly denying that the Benghazi committee was a “prosecution” of Clinton or the Obama administration. “I’ve reached no conclusions,” he declared. Watch the video here to get a sense of how very agitated Gowdy was. BUT ALAS , Gowdy missed the mark . The History of Mrs. Clinton ,  (2)>> the e-mails and the last time she faced a Congressional committee about Benghazi . The Tea Party Republicans were are the full swing . My speculation is that the fist time she testified before Congress was that the GOP was after Obama . Now her second time she now faced Gowdy with virtually the same accusations , is by far a Political stunt by the Republicans who now are after Mrs. Clinton because she is running for President . There is nothing far this .

Last Note to this:
 The State Department has yet to turn over any documents from the secret email accounts of Hillary Clinton and other top State Department officials.“These documents are jaw-dropping. No wonder we had to file more FOIA lawsuits and wait over two years for them.  If the American people had known the truth – that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other top administration officials knew that the Benghazi attack was an al-Qaeda terrorist attack from the get-go – and yet lied and covered this fact up – Mitt Romney might very well be president. And why would the Obama administration continue to support the Muslim Brotherhood even after it knew it was tied to the Benghazi terrorist attack and to al Qaeda? These documents also point to connection between the collapse in Libya and the Islamic State war – and confirm that the U.S. knew remarkable details about the transfer of arms from Benghazi to Syrian jihadists,” stated Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch president.  “These documents show that the Benghazi cover-up has continued for years and is only unraveling through our independent lawsuits. The Benghazi scandal just got a whole lot worse for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.”

NOTES AND COMMENTS:

(1)>> Obama administration officials claimed the 2012 Benghazi terror attack was a spontaneous act fueled by the release of a U.S.-made film mocking the Prophet Muhammad, even though then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had been informed by an ex-aide that the attack was the work of a terrorist group with ties to al-Qaida, planned months ahead of time. A Defense Department document from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), dated September 12, 2012, the day after the Benghazi attack, details that the attack on the compound had been carefully planned by the BOCAR terrorist group “to kill as many Americans as possible.”  The document was sent to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Obama White House National Security Council.  The heavily redacted Defense Department “information report” says that the attack on the Benghazi facility “was planned and executed by The Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman (BCOAR).”  The group subscribes to “AQ ideologies:”   (2)>> The e-mails. The secret emails in question date back to 2002. Colin Powell and George W. Bush are shown to have been conspiring to work with British Prime Minister Tony Blair to mislead the American public into believing that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, as a pretense for tricking the nation into supporting an invasion of Iraq. It’s been long established that there never were any such weapons in Iraq, but to some extent the Bush administration had the deniability of claiming that it had made an error. However this email trail suggests that Bush, Powell and Blair spent an entire year laying the groundwork for deceiving the public. Lying to congress in order to get it to approve a war is considered treason.Whether or not the email trail is solid enough evidence to get anyone convicted of a crime, it’s certainly enough to lead Americans to conclude that the Iraq war was even more of a sham than previously believed. This email exchange might never have surfaced if not for the fact that the republican party forced Hillary Clinton to turn over everything she had. So while the republicans have failed to do any serious damage to Clinton’s chances, they may have just made it that much harder for any 2016 republican candidate to explain away their party’s culpability in Iraq.

Dyson Sphere hype.

Scientists , Astronomers are still trying to decipher  a strange astronomical anomaly .   A Dyson sphere or Dyson swarm may have been sighted in orbit of star KIC 8462852 .  Whatever it is be it natural or of intelligent design it is big enough to dim the star’s light by 22%, and is not orbiting periodically. When I read online the many articles posted on the subject , I find that not a single scientist made any critical judgement before saying that "they" found something of  (***)>>>intelligent design in outer space. It's important to note that the actual scientists studying the star aren't the ones screaming "ALIENS!" - that's the journalists who misreport and distort things to make them "sell better".Actually these are the actual scientists studying the star, they aren't screaming aliens but they do seem to be saying something like "we can't figure out how to model this with any natural phenomena so lets see if non-natural hypothesis fit".Is this as in like that star trek episode,where they build a wall around a solar system and it's sun? and capture all the energy let out? I really don't think this could happen.Your looking at creating matter out of nothing to make the panels....I thought the Dyson sphere was pretty much laughed about as a possibility There certain criteria that many have missed on this concept , so in this paper I will try to clear a few things.

The Criteria :

1st . A Dyson Sphere would require it's designers to be "humanoid" . It means that would have to have two arms , two legs , etc . 

2nd. Darwinian Evolution tells us,  that evolution can take many paths . "intelligent life"  may not look like us .

3rd. The Concept of a Dyson Sphere is a totally Human Concept .

4th.  ( ***)>>  We would detect radio signals , radiation .

The "problem" :

Completely impossible for the thing they discovered to be a Dyson sphere. A Dyson sphere envelops the entire star so we would not have seen the star If they had a Dyson sphere. If they have a Dyson sphere like this picture the whole ide of the sphere is useless since it would not capture the entire energy of a star. Now a Dyson ring or a Dyson Web is something else which is more likely.

KIC 8462852 is 1.480 light years away, that image the telescope is having was the light produced by that star 1.480 years ago, literally that happened when we haven't even discovered the new continent and we were still fighting with swords and arrows, I just imagine how would it look in the next 1.480 years?....

What The  Theorists are saying :

Many readers have openly questioned why the behavior of the light from the star KIC 8462852 is so unusual, and they centered on the sci-fi theory of a Dyson Sphere of alien superstructures encircling the star in order to harness its energy. But if anything, a Dyson Swarm—a loose collection of a structures rather than a solid sphere—is far more likely, given the immense amount of material needed to encapsulate a star from an immense distance. And while some are saying that this star could be harboring a giant structure built by an advanced alien civilization, the scientists behind the hype are saying otherwise. Right now, the only scientific information astronomers have for star KIC 8462852 is its light curves, which is an estimate of how much light Earth receives from the star over a given period of time. Right now, the only scientific information astronomers have for star KIC 8462852 is its light curves, which is an estimate of how much light Earth receives from the star over a given period of time. These light curves reveal that something giant, about half the width of the star, is blocking the light but in bizarre bursts that are anything but periodic. If the obstruction were a planet eclipsing the star, it would block the light with a predictable pattern as the planet orbited the star.But "the eclipses have very strange shapes in the sense that whatever is blocking it is not a circular object," And there's lots of them — lots of things blocking the star. When you put all that together, there's nothing like that [anywhere else] in the sky. It's unique and very very strange." If it were a literal Dyson’s Sphere, then the star’s light would be blocked entirely, or constantly. If it were a Dyson “swarm,” the objects collecting solar energy would likely be too small and too few in number to obfuscate the star’s light in a manner detectable 1480 light years away. Also, Dyson’s “swarm” would cause the star to blink in a recognizable pattern due to the uniform spacing of each satellite in orbit.

Dyson Spheres : More Fiction than Fact.
 Freeman J. Dyson first explored this idea as a thought experiment in 1960. Dyson’s two-page paper in the journal Science was titled Search for Artificial Stellar Sources of Infrared Radiation because he was imagining a solar-system-sized solar power collection system not as a power source for us earthlings, but as a technology that other advanced civilizations in our galaxy would, inevitably, use. Dyson proposed that searching for evidence of the existence of such structures might lead to the discovery of advanced civilizations elsewhere in the galaxy, and indeed, in 2013, several groups of astronomers have begun a search for the telltale signs of Dyson spheres.  (2)>>Star Trek : TNG episode, "Relics" was large enough to support the life of 4 million earth sized planets, if you do some rough math, that's billions upon billions of people (potentially 24 quadrillion people), and 3,999,750 more planets than all the member planets of the federation, yet, they find it uninhabited, abandoned, and somehow have no clue who built it, or where they went. You could have literally fit the entire population of the federation of planets inside this sphere (if the star inside the sphere had not been unstable and emitting deadly amounts of radiation), and they would only have occupied about 0.0000375% of it's surface area. How is it possible that no one in the known galaxy knows about this megastructures history, or it's former inhabitants? The starship Enterprise, responding to a distress call, drops out of warp to discover a nearby Dyson sphere. They trace the distress call to the USS Jenolen, a Federation transport ship that has been reported missing for 75 years, and which has crashed intact on the sphere's outer hull. Commander Riker, Chief Engineer La Forge, and Lt. Worf transport to the Jenolen while the Enterprise investigates the sphere. La Forge discovers that the Jenolen‍ '​s transporter has been jury-rigged to sustain two life signals within its pattern buffer indefinitely, though one has degraded too far to be recovered. La Forge reverses the process and restores the remaining life form, which turns out to be former Starfleet officer Captain Montgomery Scott. Originally, some envisioned a Dyson sphere as an artificial hollow sphere of matter around a star, and Dyson did originally use the word shell. But Dyson didn’t picture the energy-collectors in a solid shell. From an engineering perspective, a Dyson Sphere sounds pretty wild. And it is: As an immense, hollow ball, the structure is impossible. "An actual sphere around the sun is completely impractical . Another problem: The Sphere would not gravitationally bind to its star in a stable fashion. This is perhaps counterintuitive; you might think that a perfect sphere around a star would be stable. But if any part of the sphere were nudged closer to the star—say, by a meteor strike—then that part would be pulled preferentially toward the star, creating instability.


So what "really" is KIC 8462852 ?

My Possible explanation of the
KIC 8462852 phenomenon .
This is a artists rendition to
the object I believe is being
called a "Dyson" sphere.

KIC 8462852 is a  F-type main-sequence star located in the constellation Cygnus approximately 454 parsecs (1,480 ly) from Earth. In September 2015, several astronomers published a paper, as part of the Planet Hunters project, analyzing the unusual light fluctuations of the star as measured by the Kepler space telescope, which observes changes in the brightness of distant orbiting stars in order to detect exoplanets. KIC 8462852 is likely just a pair of eclipsing binaries stars in a very eccentric orbit. In the original article they assume these dips are a periodic, Another possibility is the self-emission of disk material from the star itself, as in the case of Be-stars. Be stars are rapidly rotating (almost near breakup) stars that are usually of spectral class O and B, but sometimes A, and exhibit irregular episodic outbursts. Usually these outbursts are in emission, but in some cases it can also result in dimming (see Hubert & Floquet 1998). Be stars also often exhibit quasi-periodic oscillations in the range of ∼ 0.5−1.5 days. This also fits the bill for what we see in the FT of KIC 8462852 (§ 2.1). It has been hypothesized (e.g., Rappaport & van den Heuvel 1982) that most, if not all, Be stars

Another artist concept that matches
KIC 8462852

have a binary companion which originally transferred mass to the current Be star to spin it up to near breakup (the remnant of that star is sometimes found to be a neutron star). The periods of these binaries range from a couple of weeks to thousands of days (perhaps longer). If KIC 8462852 is a Be star, we would get an unprecedented look into the inner disk behavior, and that in fact might explain the broad peak in the FT at frequencies just below the 0.88 d periodicity. This could be ejected material in a so-called “excretion disk” that is moving outward but with roughly Keplerian velocity. The lack of observed IR excess does not support the existence of an excretion disk. There is also an absence of Hα emission in the star’s spectrum, however, as noted above, Be star Hα emission is known to be variable and turn off and on with timescales from days to years. However, the temperature of KIC 8462852, Teff = 6750 K, is too cool to be a Be star. It is also unlikely to have been spun-up by a close donor star because an RV shift is absent between our two spectra. This likely rules out most remnant stars of a progenitor donor, but not necessarily a progenitor in a very wide orbit where mass transfer occurred while the companion progenitor was a giant. It is also worth noting that the imaged companion star. l armchair astronomer on you but there is a section in the paper that mentions the possibility of a companion. In the into to the paper they say:"We discover a wide M-dwarf companion to the system and argue that with the data sets we have in-hand, we can exclude the presence of an additional gravitationally bound companion nearby."The section where they actually discuss that is pretty dense beyond my armchair astronomy knowledge but it seems convincing to me  (See : http://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.03622v1.pdf ) . THERE ARE CONVINCING CLUES that KIC 8462852 is orbited by at least 5 small sub- stars , or "brown dwarf" star which could explain the 22 % dip in KIC 8462852's light . The Answer is vary similar to this star called J1407b , The planet orbits star J1407, located approximately 434 light-years from Earth. Astronomers first identified the ring system – the first of its kind to be found outside our solar system – in 2012. A new analysis of the data, published in the Astrophysical Journal, shows that the ring system consists of more than 30 rings, each of them tens of millions of kilometers in diameter. Furthermore, the analysis found gaps in the rings, which indicate that satellites (“exomoons”) may have formed. One is that perhaps a wandering star pulled foreign comets into orbit around the star. Such a phenomenon is probably rare. "It's a bit of a stretch," says Andrew Siemion, a scientist with Berkeley's SETI center. The mysterious object(s) are blocking up to 20 percent of the star's light, which is much, much more than even a Jupiter-sized planet would block. Siemion and two other astronomers have suggested an alternate explanation that may be even less likely than comets, but still very intriguing: Perhaps the star's light is being blocked by huge pieces of alien architecture. It’s important to note that Tabby’s Star ie: KIC 8462852 is 1480 light years away- which means that the light that we are observing is 1480 years old. Essentially, what we see in 2015 using telescopes and radio arrays is what was happening at Tabby’s Star during 535 CE on Earth.

NOTES AND COMMENTS:

(***)>>What radio signals could be expected from KIC 8462852 assuming a best reasonable case scenario?  To be brief, not much.  What we should look for is even a hint of non-thermal spectrum radio noise.  A thermal noise profile would be randomly distributed.  If it is detectably nonrandom then maybe there MIGHT be/have been intelligent life behind the anomalous light curves from that star. There is reason to be optimistic.  A simple assumption is that the amount of radio noise produced by a civilization would increase with the amount of energy it has available.  With at least 22% of the output of a star at their disposal whoever could be living around KIC 8462852 could be putting out exponentially more radio noise than a civilization on our level.  The hardest part may be knowing just what we are seeing if we see it. (2)>> STAR TREK. A small footnote: The researchers estimate that a Dyson sphere surrounding a white dwarf would be roughly 10 ^6 kilometers in radius. As pointed out by an astute commentator, this puts the newly proposed Dyson sphere within an order of magnitude of the one featured in Star Trek: The Next Generation. It may be new to science, but it seems Star Trek figured this all out loooong ago. Now let’s have a care here. The paper doesn’t mention aliens, and it doesn’t even imply aliens. Not directly, at least. But the astronomers found a star so odd, with behavior so difficult to explain, that it’s clear something weird is happening there. And some of the astronomers who did the work are now looking into the idea that what they’ve found might (might!) be due to aliens. Straight away, we know we’re not dealing with a planet here. Even a Jupiter-sized planet only blocks roughly 1 percent of this kind of star’s light, and that’s about as big as a planet gets. It can’t be due to a star, either; we’d see it if it were. And the lack of a regular, repeating signal belies both of these as well. Whatever is blocking the star isbig, though, up to half the width of the star itself!

The First Democratic Debate Overview..

Who won the debate is a matter of conjecture . Most Polls say it's  (***)>> Barnie Sanders, even conservative (1)>> Glenn Beck had a few words of praise for the man .Bernie Sanders by all objective measures  may have "won" the debate. Here is my next big observation of both the GOP debate and the DEM debate . It has to do with "quantity" not as much of quality . Yes , the Democrats have fewer runners , the  few in number is suspicious to me .  It's like (3)>> comparing the GOP number of candidates who numbered about 10 . If you count the DEM , they have only 5 which includes their most strongest (2)>>  Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders . Clinton remained unflappable throughout the debate, showcasing her political experience and her command of the issues -- all the while deftly handling criticism of her flip-flops and displaying a humor that put a more human face to her oft-criticized candidacy.Clinton was asked whether she is a progressive or a moderate — an early question that in many ways got to the heart of the Democratic race."I'm a progressive, but I'm a progressive who likes to get things done," Clinton answered.She went on to say she knows how to find common ground and knows how to stand her ground, "even dealing with Republicans who never had a good word to say about me, honestly." As Clinton ended a response about her email controversy, Sanders jumped in, "I think the secretary is right — that is, that the American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails." The crowd cheered, and he got a partial standing ovation."Thank you. Me, too," Clinton responded. Now with Hillary simply on the incorrect notion that she's the only one who could win in a General election is just not good enough. Sanders climbing popularity highlights on the left, what is happening on the right with Trump. America is done with the status quo corporate sponsored politicians. Sanders showed his limits. As deep as his convictions are and as eloquent as he can be on his core issues--money in politics, inequality--he simply doesn't have that same depth on questions about foreign policy or even, surprisingly, family leave.The ultimate arbiter of who won the debate will, of course, be the public, not the pundits. But we won’t get a reliable reading of public opinion until we see some scientifically conducted surveys based on random samples of Democratic voters. The post-debate online polls weren’t of this type: their samples were self-selecting, and you would expect their results to be skewed toward the candidate with the most-committed supporters. In this race, without a doubt, that is Sanders.

NOTES AND COMMENTS:

(***)>> A trustworthy CNN Poll has : " Hillary Clinton proved without a doubt Tuesday night why she is the Democratic Party's presidential front-runner" . If you take here for face value , she came out vary strong . Firstly, it’s important to point out that online polls, and to a lesser extent focus groups, are obviously not scientific. But it’s also important to point out that the echo chamber musings of establishment liberal pundits is far, far less scientific. It wasn’t that the online polls and focus groups had Sanders winning, it’s that they had him winning by a lot. And it wasn’t just that the pundit class has Clinton winning, it’s that they had her winning by a lot. (3)>> comparing to a number of candidates for me is like a analysis , you can see the the Democrats have fewer choices . It's either Barnie or Hillary . My suspensions are that it's rigged for Mrs. Clinton . Also that Barnie Sanders is just a 3 party candidate among the Democrats as much as Trump is to the Republicans . Their just wolves in sheep's  clothing. In Theory Trump should run as a Independent not as a republican . Bernie Sanders should run as a Socialist . 

(1)>>Beck’s assessment of Sanders: “Good for you. I could be friends with that man, because he tells me who he is. If we can just get past all of the bull crap, and just [say], ‘This is who I am, like me, don’t like me, agree with me, don’t agree with me,’ that’s fine.” Stelter, the host of CNN’s “Reliable Sources,” asked Beck about his sometimes controversial persona, and Beck responded by urging unity and recounting personal friendships he had developed with those who might disagree with him.“I will make friends with anybody on any side,” Beck said, before saying something unexpected about one of the most progressive members of Congress.“You know who I really respect — and this is going to come as a shock — in Congress is Bernie Sanders,” Beck said. “Never met the man, but he’s a Socialist, and he says, ‘I’m a socialist that’s just the way it is, I’m this close to a communist and that’s how it is and that’s what I believe.’”(2)>> Hillary has slipped more and more on those same polls that say she's winning. She slips while Bernie rises. Six months later, who do you think will be in the lead if the trend continues? Any rational person who sees a pattern like this, won't place bets against its likely outcome.Clinton is more electable in the general election than Sanders. Personally, I prefer Sanders over Clinton, but I think Clinton has a better chance at winning the presidency. Sanders has good ideas for domestic policy to roll back the control of the 1% that now owns our government, but BOTH  seems are  very weak on international issues.

Obama bombs out on 60 minutes .

President Obama's weakness
leads to a heated 60 Minutes .

Who would have known that when you need a teleprompter on hand , you then  realize that you don't have it with you when you are getting a TV interview . Such a case with President Obama. President Obama was grilled on TV by the liberal media . President Barack Obama exchanged testy words with "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft on Sunday over Russian President Vladmir Putin and the Syrian conflict.Steve Kroft's handling of his "60 Minutes" interview of President Obama has drawn high marks from his media peers — much higher than those awarded to the commander in chief. (1)>> I often wonder did the liberal media wake up all of a  sudden ?  He is defensive and has absolutely no answers to tough yet very legitimate questions. He is exposed for the empty suit that he always has been.But it was Kroft's insistence that Obama explain his administration's plans for dealing with the brutal and (2)>> deadly civil war in Syria, which has claimed the lives of more than 200,000 people, and displaced thousands more, that seemingly drew the most media commentary. Many said Obama appeared to be "irritated" and curt during that exchange.   What struck me most in the interview

I am in shock . Obama made
no "sense" ?

was when Obama blamed Putin for the failing economy of Russia, as if the US economy is exemplary under Obama. Everything Obama said on 60 Minutes was choppy and vary confusing . I had a hard time trying to make my self stay calm while listening to him. When asked about the effectiveness of his administration's strategy in the ongoing Syrian civil war, a defensive Obama admitted he was initially skeptical about training and arming moderate rebels against Syrian President Bashar al Assad -- a $580 million program the Pentagon pulled after generating only 60 trained fighters instead of the expected 5,400. Obama is

And no straight answer ....

getting totally used and pwned in Syria. He has had the CIA there for the sole purpose of unseating Assad with no jurisdiction to do it.Now, the Syrian government invites Putin in to kill terrorists, and we complain???We are a complete laughing stock, and our Saudi friends are not happy. We know we have crazy leaders in our American system . You can't blame Mr. Obama being so  flip flopped , Obama had long ago suggested Invading Syria to remove Assad and push back Isis. The  GOP Congress threatened to impeach him if he did. So he backed off. Any perceived failure is strictly on the GOP's shoulders. They have obstructed everything he's tried to do for 7 years now. Obama's foreign policy has led to a direct face off with Russia in Syria and has put the United States in jeopardy of going to war with Russia. If war does ensue the devastation will be enormous.It's clear Putin has drawn the line on Obama and there's no possibility Putin will back down.Obama owns this perilous situation and should be condemned for. 

NOTES AND COMMENTS:

(1)>>the liberal media wake up all of a  sudden ? As far as the "political" wake up call that honor goes to Donald Trump. Here is what Mr. Trump said that I agree with : "Now they're supposedly hitting ISIS, which is a positive thing," Trump said Tuesday on CNN's "New Day," referring to Russian airstrikes against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (IS). “We just get bogged down in the Middle East and Russia will get bogged down in the Middle East," Trump added.Donald Trump wants to flip the U.S. strategy against ISIL on its head, drawing down the America's involvement in fighting the militant group in Syria in favor of a greater Russian presence.While most of his fellow Republican presidential hopefuls are calling for a bigger military effort to destroy the group, Trump said the U.S. should reduce its already small footprint in Syria. And in Iraq, Trump said he would be willing to send round forces to fight the radical militant group.Donald Trump wants to flip the U.S. strategy against ISIL on its head, drawing down the America's involvement in fighting the militant group in Syria in favor of a greater Russian presence.While most of his fellow Republican presidential hopefuls are calling for a bigger military effort to destroy the group, Trump said the U.S. should reduce its already small footprint in Syria. And in Iraq, Trump said he would be willing to send round forces to fight the radical militant group."Now let me just say this: ISIL in Syria, (Syrian President Bashar el) Assad in Syria, Assad and ISIS are mortal enemies. We go in to fight ISIL. Why aren't we letting ISIS go and fight Assad and then we pick up the remnants?" Trump said in a "60 Minutes" interview that aired Sunday on CBS.Alternatively, the GOP front-runner said the U.S. should let Russia take the lead in battling ISIL in Syria, where the Russian government is allied with the Assad regime."Russia wants to get rid of ISIL. We want to get rid of ISIL. Maybe let Russia do it. Let them get rid of ISIL. What the hell do we care?" Trump said. (2)>> deadly civil war in Syria. Netanyahu started all of this you realize? Wiki leaks showed that in 2006, the US was supposed to create turmoil in Syria for regime change and/or remove Assad so a puppet could be inserted. ISIS is "our" proxy army now as Assad could not be deposed as quickly as they envisioned. Now enter Russia, who is serious about removing ISIL and getting Assad back in shape to run his country, and notice Netanyahu is frantically running around meeting with Putin trying to put a strop to this. AIPAC is also busy here turning public opinion against Putin. It's amazing really.The United States is at war in Syria. An unauthorized war at the direction of Obama. There have been thousands of American fighter bomber attacks in Syria and hundreds of American missile attacks launched into Syria. Who the hell is Obama to decide that the duly elected president of a sovereign country has to be removed from office and makes an unauthorized war to bring about the removal.

Obama doesn't have any lawful authority at all to make war in Syria.

Exit McCarthy , Exit Paul Ryan. Speaker(s) of the House.

There are three highest offices in the UNITED STATES government . The President , the Vice President , and the (3)>> SPEAKER of THE HOUSE . It many not be royalty in a line of succession , but in a way the Constitution finds in case of any "emergency" who takes over the Oval Office . If the President and Vice President are rendered incapable  of their duty , that office is to be filled by the Speaker of the House . With the exit of John Boehner it left a serious vacancy . It has the GOP scrambling to replace Boehner . So , the best man in the (4)>> GOP / Tea Party brains should and could have been (1)>> Rep. Kevin McCarthy. That OBVIOUSLY the  problem is McCarthy is a (2)>> hardliner who emerged in California politics under former GOV. Schwarzenegger . The House Republicans are in a mess .  House Republicans are in a historic state of chaos, torn between two ideological poles with no clear sense of who will serve as their next leader, and no idea of their governing agenda with several legislative battles in the coming weeks.What I wonder here writing this at a late Saturday afternoon is, why are any Democrats jumping in to get the Speaker position? It's politically worrisome , that no one in either party would take on the job . Yet, the GOP is trying hard to throw in another hardliner

(5)>> Paul Ryan of of Wisconsin . The courtship of Representative to be speaker of the House escalated on multiple fronts Friday, and Mr. Ryan, the powerful chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, signaled that he was headed home to Wisconsin to reconsider his repeatedly stated position that he does not want the job. It's really interesting that the Republicans don't have at the moment a person . Here is another "theory" , This whole sequence of events has been Paul Ryan manipulating from behind the scenes, to get rid of Boehner & McCarthy, secure his (Ryan's) position as Speaker, and then set himself up as a presidential candidate ? Sounds politically creepy. The Republicans hold a substantial majority in the House. Therefore, on any given issue, the Republicans should prevail. However, for the last twenty years, the House Republicans have been a single issue party. Their issue is to eliminate the House Democrats from any role whatsoever. So long as they are successful on that issue, they don't care to pass any significant legislation. A group of about 40 hard-right House conservatives announced on Wednesday night that they would support Mr. Webster, making it clear that Mr. McCarthy would have had to accede to their demands as he struggled to assemble 218 votes over the next three weeks. (While only Republicans choose their nominee, a majority of the whole House, including Democrats, elects the speaker.)The Republicans who participated in the revolt were jubilant over the turn of events.That Republicans are having trouble finding a new speaker is not all that surprising considering the last several years.Being the Speaker of the House in 2015 means dealing with President Obama, who disagrees with Republicans on nearly issue, and the House Freedom Caucus, a band of very-conservative members who view any bill that Obama could sign as suspect and nearly every Republican leader as part of the hated establishment. 

NOTES AND COMMENTS:

(1)>> Rep. Kevin McCarthy abruptly dropped out of the race for House speaker, Rep. Renee Ellmers stood before her GOP colleagues Friday to denounce as “bats- -t crazy” rumors they were having an affair.Republicans had been inundated with daily emails from a GOP donor in Chicago, Steven Baer, claiming the two married legislators were romantically involved.In a closed-door meeting, Ellmers took the microphone to deny the allegation, calling it “bats- -t crazy.”McCarthy has brushed off the affair allegation. After announcing that he would not seek the speaker's post on Thursday, he was asked about Wednesday's cryptic letter from Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), which asked that "any candidate for speaker of the House, majority leader, and majority whip withdraw himself from the leadership election if there are any misdeeds he has committed since joining Congress that will embarrass himself, the Republican conference, and the House of Representatives if they become public." I don't remember Clinton stepping down when he was actually caught red handed. I think maybe this guy is a bit more moral in comparison. At least if the rumor is true, he did the right thing, not like Clinton.(2)>> Just how difficult can it be to find someone in their midst who fits the bill to be speaker, someone who is xenophobic, homophobic, unkind to seniors, anti-women's rights, regulation-lite, white and male? Oh, and by the way, aren't these the same individuals who complain over and over ad nauseam about the Democrats wasting the taxpayers' monies? And what have they been doing for the past few weeks? (3)>> The Speaker is second in the United States presidential line of succession, after the Vice President and ahead of the President pro tempore of the U.S. Senate. Unlike some Westminster system parliaments, in which the office of Speaker is considered non-partisan, in the United States, the Speaker of the House is a leadership position and the office-holder actively works to set the majority party's legislative agenda. The Speaker usually does not personally preside over debates, instead delegating the duty to members of the House from the majority party. The Speaker usually does not participate in debate and rarely votes.Aside from duties relating to heading the House and the majority political party, the Speaker also performs administrative and procedural functions, and represents his or her Congressional district. (4)>> GOP.Maybe they should listen to the people whom they are supposed to represent and stop thinking about making headlines instead of doing the job that they were elected to do. Novel concept, I know but something that should seriously be considered. This is about the American people, not self involved politicians who don't bother to hide their disdain for the American people and the current President. Shameful. (5)>>Paul Ryan represents one of the absolute worst outcomes for conservatives.  There is nobody in modern politics whose record and true priorities are more divorced from their rhetoric and public perception.  Unlike McCarthy or some of the other choices, Ryan’s ascendancy to the speakership would be hailed as fresh change.  In fact, it would serve nothing more than putting the prettiest face on the ugliest policies. Just take a look at his Liberty Score for a rundown of some of the worst policies Ryan has supported. Despite being widely acclaimed as a social conservative and a devout catholic, Ryan was one of only 35 House Republicans to vote for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).  This bill infringed upon religious liberties and promoted liberal values, including the sexual identity agenda.