"Your success and happiness lies in you. Resolve to keep happy, and your joy and you shall form an invincible host against difficulties." -- Helen Keller

The conflicts between religion and science have existed and been well studied for generations, yet many people deny they exist at all.
As someone who studied religion in college, I’ve seen both sides of this. On one hand, it’s true that many people apply religion and science in different ways, meaning they don’t always conflict. But on another hand — a much bigger hand — it’s impossible to ignore the war that has been waged between science and religion throughout human history.
Jerry Coyne, who literally wrote the book on this subject in Faith Versus Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible, has a piece up at the Conversation pointing out how science and religion actually “represent incompatible ways of viewing the world.”
In contrast to the methods of science, religion adjudicates truth not empirically, but via dogma, scripture and authority — in other words, through faith, defined in Hebrews 11 as “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” In science, faith without evidence is a vice, while in religion it’s a virtue. Recall what Jesus said to “doubting Thomas,” who insisted in poking his fingers into the resurrected Savior’s wounds: “Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.”
And yet, without supporting evidence, Americans believe a number of religious claims: 74 percent of us believe in God, 68 percent in the divinity of Jesus, 68 percent in Heaven, 57 percent in the virgin birth, and 58 percent in the Devil and Hell. Why do they think these are true? Faith.
Coyne goes on to point out that, while science works to unify all people behind testable theories, religions make completely different (and often contradictory) claims.
There are over 4,000 religions on this planet, and their “truths” are quite different. (Muslims and Jews, for instance, absolutely reject the Christian belief that Jesus was the son of God.) Indeed, new sects often arise when some believers reject what others see as true. Lutherans split over the truth of evolution, while Unitarians rejected other Protestants’ belief that Jesus was part of God.
And while science has had success after success in understanding the universe, the “method” of using faith has led to no proof of the divine. How many gods are there? What are their natures and moral creeds? Is there an afterlife? Why is there moral and physical evil? There is no one answer to any of these questions. All is mystery, for all rests on faith.
The “war” between science and religion, then, is a conflict about whether you have good reasons for believing what you do: whether you see faith as a vice or a virtue.
I see blind faith as a vice, and one I’d rather live without. Being able to deduce the truth through research and inquiry, however, is certainly a virtue. Instead of reconciling the two by compartmentalizing each one in our lives, we’re much better off sticking with the inevitable winner of this war: science.
Many Biblical scholars have argued from time to time that December 25th was not the actual birth date of Christ. It was just adopted as a day to celebrate the birth of Christ as a Christian substitute to the Roman festival Saturnalia in the third century. Saturnalia was celebrated as the Feast of Sun and was actually considered the birth date of the Sun God of the Romans. Catholic priests held a special mass that day for Christ and thus, it came to be known as 'Christ-mass' or 'Christmas'.
Along with the date, several other pagan traditions, rituals and customs followed the way to become associated with Christmas such as decorating fir trees and burning yule logs. According to these scholars, Christ was most probably born on September 11, 3 B.C., which was Wednesday, according to the Bible. Source:
WASHINGTON — Representative Nancy Pelosi is nearing a deal with dissident Democrats to limit herself to four years as speaker, according to two senior Democratic officials with knowledge of the emerging plan, her most consequential move to date to put down a rebellion in her ranks and clinch the votes she needs to win the gavel in January.
The agreement, which if finalized and adopted would also bind the other three top Democratic leaders, would almost certainly clear the way for Ms. Pelosi, the Democratic leader from California, to reclaim the mantle of first woman to serve in the post that is second in line to the presidency. It would also signal a major shift for Democrats, who despite the striking diversity and demographic shifts within their party, have governed for more than a decade with the same trio at the helm. That trio, Ms. Pelosi, 78, Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, 79, and Representative James Clyburn of South Carolina, 79, must now prepare to cede power to a new generation, even as they move to take the House majority next month.
Ms. Pelosi handily won an internal vote among Democrats this month to be nominated as speaker, a post she held from 2007 to 2011. But a small group of defectors who have agitated for new leadership at the top of the party have been threatening to withhold their votes when the new Congress convenes Jan. 3 for a formal vote on the House floor. Ms. Pelosi would need a majority of those present and voting in the chamber — as many as 218 — to be elected.
The rebels demanded that Ms. Pelosi either step aside or give a date when she would do so, something she had refused to do, arguing that it would weaken her hand as a bulwark against President Trump.
SKIP
The agreement would also apply to the other three top Democratic leaders: Mr. Hoyer, who is in line to be the majority leader; Mr. Clyburn, who is set to be the whip; and Representative Ben Ray Luján, the assistant Democratic leader.
Under the agreement being discussed, which was first reported by Politico, the four leaders would be limited to three two-year terms, with the possibility of a fourth if they could garner the support of two-thirds of the Democratic Caucus. Given that Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Clyburn, all in their 70s, have already served two terms in the top three posts, it would put a hard cap on their tenures, forcing them out of their posts by 2022.
SOURCESince the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump’s aides and advisers have tried to convince him of the importance of tackling the national debt.Sources close to the president say he has repeatedly shrugged it off, implying that he doesn’t have to worry about the money owed to America’s creditors—currently about $21 trillion—because he won’t be around to shoulder the blame when it becomes even more untenable.The friction came to a head in early 2017 when senior officials offered Trump charts and graphics laying out the numbers and showing a “hockey stick” spike in the national debt in the not-too-distant future. In response, Trump noted that the data suggested the debt would reach a critical mass only after his possible second term in office.“Yeah, but I won’t be here,” the president bluntly said, according to a source who was in the room when Trump made this comment during discussions on the debt.
Destructive Destruction
Apologies to John Prine…
Silverfiddle Rant!
Daddy won't you take me back to Muhlenberg County,
Where good jobs are boomin' and men get good pay.
I'm sorry my son but you're too late in askin'
Mr. Jeff Bezos' website done hauled them away.
You can’t bring those Sears jobs Back
Is retail dead, destined for the obituaries along with the whale blubber industry that was replaced by kerosene lamps, which were replaced by the lightbulb?
What kind of new economy will give people meaningful work as technology ends up doing so much of what humans used to earn their living doing?
Is free money for everybody a solution? How would that work if nobody is working and paying taxes to fund it?
Will the world end up Silicon Valley’s vast domain, with the giants handing out monthly vouchers for us to shop at their company stores?
Bust the Trusts?
SOURCEPresident Trump recently tweeted: “Did you ever see an investigation more in search of a crime?”
It is usually a bad idea to raise a rhetorical question when the answer is both obvious and unfavorable. In the investigation by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, there are at least three offenses that could lead to indictment or impeachment. There is obstruction of justice — which Trump seems to attempt persistently, publicly and shamelessly. There is possible financial corruption concerning Russia on the part of Trump and the imperial family — about which the recent plea deal with Michael Cohen hints. This is likely to be interesting reading in Mueller’s report. And there is the initial matter of collusion with a hostile foreign power to influence a presidential election. This is hardly a fanciful charge, given that Trump, while a candidate, publicly invited Russia to hack into Hillary Clinton’s emails as a way to influence a presidential election.
What else do we know related to this charge? We know that Trump adviser Roger Stone allegedly told associates he was in contact with WikiLeaks, the conduit for emails hacked by Russian intelligence. (Stone denies this.) We know that Stone contacted conservative author and conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi, encouraging him to gather information on hacked Clinton emails. We know that Corsi responded to Stone: “Word is friend in embassy plans 2 more dumps . . . Impact planned to be very damaging.” (The “friend” in this email — amazingly and disgustingly — appears to be the anti-American cybercriminal Julian Assange.) We know that Stone issued the tweet, “Trust me, it will soon the Podesta’s time in the barrel,” six weeks before WikiLeaks began releasing 50,000 emails that Russian agents had reportedly stolen from Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta. And we know, from Corsi himself, that he and Stone conspired to lie about the motivation of this tweet.Trump is left to claim — which he has now apparently done in written testimony — that he never discussed these matters with Stone or Corsi. This would have required candidate Trump to adopt a strategy of plausible deniability — in this case, encouraging Russian hacking in public but carefully avoiding the topic in private conversations with Stone.
How likely is this? On the evidence of two matters, not likely at all.
“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.”
A federal judge ruled in favor of CNN on Friday, allowing the network’s star reporter Jim Acosta to temporarily regain access to his White House press credential.tRump got thumped for now. Because freedom of the press is a bedrock value of our democratic republic we're sure tRump will lose entirely at the end of the day. As the would be tyrant should.
"I will grant the application for the temporary restraining order I order the government reinstate the pass," U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly ruled from Washington.
SKIP
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
“I want to thank all of my colleagues in the press who supported us this week and I want to thank the judge for the decision he made today. Let’s go back to work,” Acosta said outside the U.S. District Court.
"And then they remind me that there’s a lot of liberal folks in those other schools who maybe we don’t want to vote. Maybe we want to make it just a little more difficult. And I think that’s a great idea."
It’s unclear which “other schools” Hyde-Smith referred to in the video. There are several historically black colleges and universities in the state.
Retiring Republican Sen. Jeff Flake said Wednesday that he will not vote to confirm the Trump administration's judicial nominees on the Senate floor or advance them in the Senate Judiciary Committee if legislation to protect special counsel Robert Mueller does not receive a Senate floor vote.
SKIP
"We have been told that the bill that Sen. Coons and I will move to bring up shortly is not necessary, as there have been no indications that the independence of Mr. Mueller's investigation is in jeopardy. That may have been an arguable position before last week. But it is not arguable anymore."
SKIP
"The President now has this investigation in his sights, and we all know it,"
SKIP
"The President has said that he's not going to move on the special counsel. But that's not enough. And perhaps that's what gives comfort to the majority leader. ... But it doesn't give comfort to me."
Ex-White House counsel John Dean believes history will view former President Richard Nixon's protracted Watergate scandal as "a brief idyllic daydream" following President Trump's "evil" administration.
"Trump’s is making the long nightmare of Nixon’s Watergate seem like a brief idyllic daydream," Dean tweeted late Saturday night. "History will treat Nixon’s moral failures as relatively less troubling than Trump’s sustained and growing decadence, deviousness and self-delusive behavior. Nixon=corrupt; Trump=evil."
![]() |
The Capitol at sunset on Election Day 2018.CreditCreditSarah Silbiger/The New York Times |
![]() |
A participant in the march in memory of the victims of the Pittsburgh shooting holds a sign that reads: 'President hate, leave our state' on October 30, 2018.\ CATHAL MCNAUGHTON/ REUTERS |
Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Ron Dermer joined Trump, First Lady Melania Trump and top White House officials as they landed in Pittsburgh.
While Dermer agreed to join the president, other big names in Washington turned down the honor – House Speaker Paul D. Ryan, House Majority and Minority Leaders Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority and Minority leaders Mitch McConnell and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer, all turned down invitations.
A list of local officials, including Pittsburgh mayor, Bill Peduto, also declined their invitations to meet with the visiting president. The mayor had publicly advised the president to delay his visit so that the community’s attention could be focused on embracing the victims.
SKIP
Members of Pittsburgh's Jewish community said earlier Tuesday that they would protest against Trump if he came to Pittsburgh. In an announcement for the protest to be held on Tuesday afternoon, organizers said, "President Trump, words have consequences."
SKIP
The announcement also echoed an open letter from a group of local Jewish leaders who told Trump: "You are not welcome in Pittsburgh until you fully denounce white nationalism."
More than 43,000 people have signed the letter, organized and posted online by the Pittsburgh chapter of Bend the Arc, a Jewish organization opposed to what it calls "the immoral agenda of the Trump administration and the Republican Party."
![]() |
Members of the community protest President Trump's visit in the wake of the synagogue shooting, Pittsburgh, October 30, 2018Amir Tibon |