William M. Briggs

Statistician to the Stars!

Page 2 of 693

Showdown At The National Academy of Sciences Corral

Ok_corral_1882

I’ve been asked by pals to promote this event, which happens today. This is a repost from this site.

Steve Milloy, Dr. John Dunn & and Dr. Stan Young versus EPA before the National Academy of Sciences over EPA’s illegal human experiments.August 24 at 1pm ET via webinar. You can listen in. Instructions below.

Summary of Event

EPA secretly hired the National of Sciences (NAS) to whitewash its program of illegal human experimentation. When Milloy learned of the EPA’s plans, Milloy exposed them and compelled the NAS to re-open the virtually concluded process and have a public meeting, which will take place on Aug. 24 at 1pm ET. A more detailed explanation is in Milloy’s July 24 commentary in the Washington Times (also reprinted below).

What Will Happen at the NAS Meeting?

Steve Milloy, MHS, JD, LLM, John Dunn, MD, JD and Stan Young, PhD will each make a 30-minute presentation to the NAS Committee about the EPA human experiments. This will all be new, incriminating-to-EPA information that the NAS Committee has never heard before.

How Can You Listen to the Meeting?

The NAS web page for the meeting is here. The meeting is August 24 at 1pm ET. It will be held by webinar so everyone can listen in and even ask questions or make comments. Listening or participating in the webinar requires that you download/install WebEx software. It’s very easy to do. Please contact Orin Luke at the NAS (oluke@nas.edu) and he will set you up.

If you have questions or are media and want to contact me, please do so here.

The EPA’s secret whitewash: The agency enlists an elite group of scientists to rubber stamp illegal experiments

By Steve Milloy

July 24, 2016, Washington Times

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is trying to use the prestigious National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to cover-up the agency’s illegal science experiments on humans.

Four years ago I broke the story in this paper that the EPA was conducting illegal toxicity experiments on human beings. In short, the EPA intentionally exposed hundreds of humans in a gas chamber to exceedingly high levels of air pollutants like diesel exhaust, soot and smog in hopes of causing serious health effects that the agency could point to as justification for its costly and stringent outdoor air quality standards. Study subjects included the elderly (up to age 80), asthmatics, diabetics and people with heart disease — the very people EPA claims are most susceptible to air pollution. EPA failed to tell these study subjects it believed the experiments could cause death.

The experiments were fundamentally unethical and illegal as federal law prohibits treating humans as guinea pigs, especially for the mere purpose of advancing an agency’s regulatory agenda. Extra illegality was added by the agency’s failure to inform its human guinea pigs that it believed the experiments could kill them.

After a series of articles in this paper, Freedom of Information Act requests and a federal lawsuit, Congress got involved by asking the EPA inspector general to review the allegations. The EPA inspector general eventually issued a March 2014 report in which it confirmed my allegations, including that the EPA had failed to inform the study subjects that EPA believed the experiments might kill them.

Fast forward to this summer when I received a startling tip from a source that the National Academy of Sciences had undertaken a review of the EPA’s human experiments. As it turns out, however, the NAS process isn’t really a review — it’s an EPA-instigated effort to whitewash EPA’s illegal conduct. Worse, the whitewash has been conducted, like the EPA’s experiments, pretty much in secret.

The EPA was undoubtedly stung by the inspector general report that produced major media headlines such as the Associated Press’ “EPA Fails to Disclose Risks in Human Tests” and The New York Times’ “EPA Faulted for Failure to Report Risks. To erase its wrongdoing, the EPA went the only place where it could control the outcome, the NAS.

Established in 1863 to advance science in America, the NAS has become a prestigious honorary membership group for America’s elite scientists. While the NAS and its membership aren’t directly for hire, the NAS operates an affiliate called the National Research Council (NRC) that is. The NRC gets itself hired by federal agencies in need of independent- and authoritative-appearing reports. So that’s what EPA did. It commissioned the National Research Council to review and paper over its illegal human experiments — in secret.

As the person who instigated the EPA inspector general’s report and is most familiar with EPA’s human experiment skullduggery, I only inadvertently learned of the NAS review in June 2016, more than one year after the NAS committee’s first meeting on June 1, 2015 and about two months after the committee’s fifth and last meeting in April 2016. Of the five committee meetings, only one, the first, is now described by the NAS as open to the public. But it really wasn’t.

There was no public announcement of the June 1, 2015 meeting and the only party to supply the committee with information at the meeting was the EPA. The June 1, 2015 meeting isn’t even listed in the NAS’ daily calendar for that date. When I asked the NAS staff about the lack of notice, I was told that there was notice on the committee’s web page. But of course, there had been no notice that the committee had been formed in the first place, so how would anyone know to check its web page?

I was able to obtain the materials made available to the committee by the EPA. None of these materials provide any context to the committee concerning the origins of the inspector general report or the context of the EPA human testing scandal. The material in the public docket is both incomplete and much of what’s there is misleading. Even assuming that committee members are acting in good faith, they are certainly acting in the dark.

When I found out about the committee, I contacted NAS staff and was told the committee was already working on its final report. But I was welcome to submit comments to the docket, which I hurriedly did. But I also asked for something else — for the opportunity to make a presentation to the committee. The controversy surrounding EPA’s experiments is complex and summary words appended to the docket just don’t do it justice. I have also written to all committee members asking for the opportunity to make a presentation. But as of yet, I have not even received an acknowledgment of my request.

But I have heard from a reliable source close to the NAS committee that the “fix is in” and EPA is likely to get the clean bill of health for which it is paying.

Now I have dealt with the EPA for over 25 years. As detailed on this page many times, I have come not to expect good faith or honesty from the agency. The NAS on the other hand is a different matter.

The NAS holds itself out as “nation’s pre-eminent source of high-quality, objective advice on science, engineering, and health matters.” If that is true, the NAS is certainly doing itself and its elite membership no favors by being paid to conduct a secret and ill-informed whitewashing of EPA’s illegal conduct.

Steve Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and is a senior legal fellow at the Energy and Environmental Legal Institute.

The True History Of College Sports Under Title IX

15978349692_1c8247b3ae_o

Here is the true history of college sports under the Federal Title IX mandate. Some events have not yet come to pass.

In 1972, the Most Beneficent Government of the once United States noticed that its citizens preferred spectating at and participating in male rather than female college sports. This produced a disparity, and disparities must needs be corrected.

President Richard Nixon thus decreed Title IX, “a comprehensive federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any federally funded education program or activity.”

The immediate effect of the Decree was silence. It was thought by many that the Government was kidding, that the Decree was meant to placate critics who saw any evidence of Inequality as manifest intolerable injustice. The many were wrong: the Government was in earnest.

It was soon understood that strict Equality was demanded. Although it was not seen at the time, one particular ruling based on the Decree was to have far-reaching consequences: “Whether the selection of sports and levels of competition effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of members of both sexes”.

By 1996, lawyers were growing fat on suits fed by Title IX, the Grove City case being illustrative. “In 1996, a federal court referenced Title IX in ruling that LSU violated the civil rights of female athletes by refusing to fund a trip to a women’s volleyball tournament in Hawaii, when earlier in the year, travel for a men’s basketball tournament was funded.” That citizens preferred men’s basketball over women’s volleyball was not to be considered. Note the ominous phrase “civil rights”, a highly amorphous term which was then defined as the amount of money a potential offender could be expected to cough up if sued.

Many colleges, previously free to to decide just which sports they, their donors, and their students wanted, were forced under pain of the withdrawal of Government funds to create programs for females to meet mandated Equality quotas. By roughly 2000, a kind of balance was reached where enough programs for women were available that demands for new ones slowed to a trickle.

It was at that point that Gender Ideology hit. No longer would science, biology, or logic be used as the basis for human sexuality; instead, desire was all. If a man wanted to call himself a woman, then not only was he allowed to call himself a woman, but everybody else had to call him a woman, too, or suffer Draconian penalties. If a woman wanted to call herself a gay man, she was encouraged to do so. By 2016, any manner of fanciful redefinition was allowed. The species boundary was breached: one man called himself a yak.

Initially, Gender Ideology was applauded by the same people who supported Title IX, for it seemed that this would increase Equality. But in mid-2016, an infamous blog frequented by malcontents, geezers, and contrarians made the suggestion that if one were to be consistent, any recognition of differences in sex must be eliminated. This was reluctantly agreed to.

Starting in 2017, colleges eliminated all distinction by sex in athletics. There was no more “male football” and “female lacrosse”, but just football and lacrosse. Entry onto teams was based solely on merit and ability and not on any notion of sexuality, because basing decisions on any notion of sexuality was recognized as Discrimination.

By 2021, a horrible truth dawned. The vast majority of teams were comprised of majorities of men identifying as men (MIM). Some teams, notably football programs (colleges’ true moneymakers), had only MIMs. Such was the curse of merit and ability. MIMs recognized that it would be easy to gain scholarships in sports (such as field hockey) which were previously designated for woman identifying as women (WIW). WIW in sports were soon found at rates far below those before Title IX was passed.

The near complete absence of WIWs was a disparity, and, as always, disparities must needs be corrected. It was then the hitherto unnoticed clause of Title IX came into play. In order to “accommodate the interests” of WIWs and redress the imbalance, all sports programs that evinced an MIM/WIM imbalance were eliminated or were amended to mandate Government-designated sexual category quotas. Unwilling to accept the removal of their football programs, the majority of colleges accepted the mandatory quotas.

Historians agree that the football match between the University of Oklahoma and Notre Soignant (this was the previously named Notre Dame) in August of 2026 represented the final stage of Equality in sports. The game was tied before the match began, and it was decided after the pre-game Official Dialoging that it would remain a tie.

Trophies were handed out to both sides before the match, and the teams took to the field. Notoriously, a MIM from Oklahoma was witnessed tackling a MIM from Notre Soignant, after the latter found a football lying in midfield, picked it up and began running toward the end zone. The tackle was penalized as “He shouldn’t do that” and the offender was sentenced to three weeks of Diversity Training. The remaining players sat in loose groups on the unmown organic weed-and-grass mix and discussed their feelings. The game was finally called after six hours when it was realized the stands had been empty for some time.

Stream: Our New Satanic Moment

Screen shot from TV news report on Oklahoma City Satanic Mass.

Screen shot from TV news report on Oklahoma City Satanic Mass.

Today’s post is at The Stream: Our New Satanic Moment: A seemingly paradoxical trend of “enlightenment” and brutality. See below for important caveats.

These once United States have had Satanic moments before. Considering only the last half century, in 1966, Anton Szandor LaVey, a.k.a. Howard (‘Howie’?) Stanton Levey, founded the Church of Satan, borrowing ideas from Aleister Crowley’s Thelema “Do what thou wilt” religion and, judging by its effects, from comic books.

Howie’s was a theatrical Satanism…

Now Polanski’s wife was actress Sharon Tate, a woman who was ritually murdered by Charles Manson’s “family”. As one source reports:

One of the killers, Susan Atkins, had danced as a topless vampire in a LaVey show called the Witches’ Sabbath before joining the Manson family.

Another of the victims of that bloody night was celebrity hairdresser, Jay Sebring, who had attended LaVey’s church around the same time as Davis. The sad aftermath of the murders left the church looking pathetic rather than dangerous. While LaVey continued his work and publicity efforts, expansion slowed, and the free-wheeling Sixties attitudes that had tolerated and even welcomed satanism seemed to vanish.

…The next Satanic moment was a reversal of the Sixties’ libertinism. In 1973, The Exorcist scared the bejesus out of the nation, the very effect hoped for by the book’s faithful Catholic author William Peter Blatty. In the movie, certain dialog from a demon was spoken backwards, a haunting effect revealed when a recording of the speech was played in reverse…

The next phase began in the 1980s and swelled to panic levels in the 1990s, when it was believed systematic, widespread abuse of children (and some women) was being carried out by Satanic cultists. The most gruesome fantastical horrific crimes were reported, many plainly rumors but others conjured from “recovered memories” of Satanic Ritual Abuse (SRA) “survivors”…

There has always been a “background level” of Satanism, taken more or less seriously, in popular culture. What’s notable is that in the 1960s, Satanism was hip and sexy, at least among trend setters, until it became serious. With backmasking Satanism became a joke, such that belief in Satan was seen as something only for hicks and zealots. Then with the Satanic Panic, belief in Satan was perceived as actively harmful.

Our new Satanic moment is Janus-faced. Facing right, we have the Satanic Temple, which is using freedom of religion legal arguments to insinuate itself into public life. [Summarized in “Satanism and Religious Freedom“, which as an earlier draft of this current article.] …

Facing left is the eerie increase in foul “entertainment”. Movies like Walk Among Tombstones (focusing on “snuff films” and sadistic child murderers), The Witch (Ask your Satanic goat if witchcraft is right for you); TV shows like True Detectives (revolving around Satanic ritual killing), Lucifer (the ultimate anti-hero); web content like “Don’t Hug Me I’m Scared” (mind control, gore, and worse)…

What are we to make of this new Satanic moment? The previous moments have discouraged belief in a real Satan. The new moment wants us to share the skepticism that Satan is an evil personage. Instead, our new Satan is an enlightened humanist, a good guy, he’s there but not there, an entity more in line with a Masonic Lucifer, a symbolic bringer of light.

Simultaneously, grotesque imagery assures us that human life is cheap and subject to whim, so embrace pleasure when you can. We are told attractive powerful occult forces control (some) events, that if you go along you’ll probably be fine, that anyway you can’t do much about it. There is a distinct ‘them’ and ‘us’ feel in these cultural artifacts, a notion that dreadful changes are coming…

It is a moral imperative to go to The Stream and read the rest.

Caveats. I had less than 1,000 words to tie in all main historical moments of Satanism and also describe what is happening now and what it means. This is not enough, not by far. If you have not clicked over to Stream and are commenting only on the excerpt here, you are doing yourself (and us, if you comment) a disservice.

Above, I do not—I most certainly do not—claim that no children or women were abused. I only say, what is true, that plentiful direct unambiguous public evidence tying self-named Satanists to ritual abuse was lacking. Worse, around that same time many men “oriented” towards young men and boys engaged in systematic abuse (though not, ostensibly, in the name of Satan; and no, I don’t only mean gymnastic coaches). And so on. Summarizing the “Satanic Panic” in one paragraph is no easy job.

There are also no words on the culture of death, abortion and such forth, which are obviously Satanic, but (of course) not always seen that way. I concentrated only on the outward visible admitted incidents. I have the backward masking flap but not the Dungeons & Dragons scare. And so on.

It’s also not only the USA, of course. In Mexico, the Satanic “Santa Muerte” is worshiped. The Church of Satan (Howie’s creation) teeters along here and in Canada. England has the “The UK Church of Rational Satanism“, which is similar to the Satanic Temple. The Left Hand Path has been picking up steam. France? Things like this Vogue issue dedicated to the Satanic. Germany? “German satanic couple held after ritual murder“.

And so on and so on and so on. Look for more of this topic in the future.

Summary Against Modern Thought: Intellect & Free Will

This may be proved in three ways. The first...

This may be proved in three ways. The first…

See the first post in this series for an explanation and guide of our tour of Summa Contra Gentiles. All posts are under the category SAMT.

Previous post.

More on the intellect, the good, and what precisely free will means.

Chapter 48 The intellectual substance are of free-will in acting (alternate translation)

1 FROM this it is clear that the aforesaid substances are of free-will in acting.

2 That they act by judgment is clear, since through their intellective knowledge they judge of things to be done. And they must needs have freedom if, as proved, they have dominion over their action. Therefore the aforesaid substances are of free-will in acting.

Notes Which is plain, since you yourself used your intellective knowledge to judge that it would be well to read this article.

3 Again. The free is that which is its own cause. Wherefore that which is not the cause of its own acting is not free in acting. Now whatever things are not moved, nor act except they be moved by others, are not a cause of their own acting. Therefore self-movers alone have liberty in acting. These alone act by judgment: because the self-mover is divided into mover and moved; and the mover is the appetite moved by intellect, imagination, or sense, to which faculties judgment belongs. Of these then those alone judge freely which in judging move themselves. Now, no judging power moves itself to judge unless it reflect on its own action: for if it moves itself to judge it must needs know its own judgment: and this belongs to the intellect alone. Hence irrational animals have, in a sense, free movement or action, but not free judgment: whereas inanimate beings, which are moved only by others, have not even free action or movement; while intellectual beings have freedom not only of action, but also of judgment, and this is to have free-will.

Notes The italics in the translation for “The free is that which is its own cause” are original and important, especially considering arguments against free will are causative (molecules, atoms, and whatnot act by strict unbreakable “laws” so free will cannot occur). Now “no judging power moves itself to judge unless it reflect on its own action…and this belongs to the intellect alone.” Only the intellect can apprehend. Apprehension is greater than sensation or imagination. Apprehension is what you yourself are doing now by understanding these sentences.

4 Further. The apprehended form is a moving principle according as it is apprehended under the aspect of good or fittingness: because the external action in self-movers comes from the judgment whereby it is judged that something is good or fitting through the aforesaid form. Accordingly, if he who judges moves himself to judge, he must needs, by some higher form, move himself to judge. And this form can be no other than the idea itself of good or fittingness, whereby one judges of any determinate good or fitting thing. Wherefore those alone move themselves to judge who apprehend the common notion of goodness or fittingness. And these are intellectual beings alone. Therefore intellectual beings alone move themselves not only to act, but also to judge. Therefore they alone are free in judging, and this is to have free-will.

Notes We move towards what we think is good in the moment, even though, Lord help us, we often realize some movements were better not made. This says our momentary notions of the good are not accurate apprehensions of the good.

5 Moreover. Movement and action do not follow from a universal concept save through the medium of a particular apprehension: because movement and action are about particular things. Now the intellect is naturally apprehensive of universals. Wherefore, in order that movement and action of any kind follow from the apprehension of the intellect, it is necessary for the universal concept of the intellect to be applied to particulars. But the universal contains many particulars potentially. Hence application of the intellectual concept may be made to many and divers things. Consequently the judgment of the intellect about matters of action is not determined to one thing only. Therefore all intellectual beings have free-will.

Notes And we know “the intellect is naturally apprehensive of universals” because you yourself understand universals. Even claiming not to understand universals would be to claim apprehension of a universals (that there aren’t any), which is self-contradictory. The rest follows easily from choosing among potentialities.

6 Further. Certain things lack liberty of judgment, either because they have no judgment at all, as plants and stones; or because they have a judgment determined by nature to one thing, as irrational animals, for the sheep by its natural estimate judges the wolf to be harmful to it, and as a result of this judgment flies from the wolf; and the same applies to others.

Whatever beings therefore have a judgment that is not determined to one thing by nature, must needs have free-will. Now such are all intellectual beings. For the intellect apprehends not only this or that good, but good itself in general. Wherefore, since the intellect moves the will by the form apprehended; and since in all things mover and moved must needs be mutually proportionate; the will of an intellectual substance will not be determined by nature otherwise than to the good in general. Hence, whatever be offered to it under the aspect of good, it is possible for the will to be inclined thereto, since there is no natural determination to the contrary to prevent it. Therefore in all intellectual beings the will’s act resulting from the judgments of the intellect is free: and this is to have free-will which is defined as the free judgment of reason.

Notes And there you go. Free will is the apprehending and choosing what seems good, the rest following by physics and chemistry, of you like. And this reinforces the ancient notion that the most important thing we can do is know what the good is.

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2016 William M. Briggs

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑