It turns out that growing up poor can actually affect brain structure according to a paper published in Nature Neuroscience. A comprehensive study which considered such variables as age, sex, genetic ancestry and even parental education found a logarithmic association between income and brain surface area in children between 3 and 20 years of age.
Among children from lower income families, small differences in income were associated with relatively large differences in surface area, whereas, among children from higher income families, similar income increments were associated with smaller differences in surface area. These relationships were most prominent in regions supporting language, reading, executive functions and spatial skills; surface area mediated socioeconomic differences in certain neurocognitive abilities. These data imply that income relates most strongly to brain structure among the most disadvantaged children.
Now that is the best reason yet to undo the damage of Michelle Obama’s school lunch program instituted in the name of a war on child obesity.
A trio of views and news this week.
National Review Online takes apart the liberal’s attack on Judge Hanen’s injunction:
There was a bunch of boring legal stuff “blah blah blah Scalia blah Supreme Court blah blah …” wrapping up with this:
Reading through the professors’ letter one finds a total lack of description of the actual case they put so much stock into. Instead of case law or statutory and regulatory provisions, they mostly cite each other’s law journal articles. It is the work of immigration anarchists in academia, and not Judge Hanen’s 123-page opinion, that should be seen as “deeply flawed.”
The New American states the obvious:
A mix of history and conjecture, with this money quote:
The showdown between the 26 plaintiff states and the Obama executive branch in New Orleans on April 17 may not settle this issue for good. Whichever side loses may be expected to appeal to the Supreme Court. And in addition to what the federal courts may decide to do, other questions include whether Congress will continue to allow the president to rule by decree in violation of the U.S. Constitution, and if states exercise the authority they possess to protect their own borders.
Meanwhile, Journal.US pins some leftist hope on a related ruling made this week by the aforementioned New Orleans Court:
In what seems to be an improbable coincidence, the same 5th Circuit court, on the same day, issued a ruling on another immigration executive order case. This decision concerned Obama’s first executive action on immigration, announced in 2012 called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Certain people who came to the United States as children and meet several guidelines may request consideration of deferred action for a period of two years, subject to renewal. They are also eligible for work authorization. The conservative-leaning bench dismissed an objection to DACA because it found that the state of Mississippi, which brought the lawsuit did not have the legal standing to sue the federal government.
This decision indicates that the Obama administration may yet be successful in continuing with the executive orders of 2014.
In a lengthy decision, Judge W. Eugene Davis opined that neither the agents nor Mississippi “demonstrated the concrete and particularized injury required to give them standing to maintain this suit.”
But of course the best news and one that should cost some people their jobs (but won’t) and perhaps even their license to practice law (but certainly won’t) is covered by Politico:
“This Court expects all parties, including the Government of the United States, to act in a forthright manner and not hide behind deceptive representations and half-truths,” Hanen wrote in one of two orders he issued Tuesday night. “Whether by ignorance, omission, purposeful misdirection, or because they were misled by their clients, the attorneys for the Government misrepresented the facts.”
… Hanen’s order imposed an unusual sanction for what he deemed to be the government’s misdeeds: a complete disclosure of who was involved in drafting the March 3 advisory about the three-year grants, including the details of when and how they were involved. The judge’s demand intrudes into material the Justice Department would ordinarily consider privileged from disclosure under several different legal theories.
However, Hanen — a George W. Bush appointee — ordered all such information preserved and said that if it is privileged it should be produced to him “in camera” for private review.
Here’s hoping Hanen will actually get enough material to hang some crooked lawyers. Or at least severely censure. Then maybe the Department of “Justice” will quite lying.
Well let’s see … a WH National Security Council spokesman poo-pooed the CNN report, calling it speculation about a previously disclosed breach.
“Any such activity is something we take very seriously. In this case, as we made clear at the time, we took immediate measures to evaluate and mitigate the activity,” said spokesman Mark Stroh.
Really? Because it turns out that to access the White House servers, the Russian hackers used an exploit from an earlier hack in which the State Department’s network was breached.
My oh my. Where were the evaluation and mitigation activities then? And have these so-called activities increased in efficacy over time?
The White House does not believe its classified systems, which contain national security information, were compromised, White House Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes told CNN in an interview.
Color me cynical, but I am not convinced.
Background: Junk science, engineered to support job killing, far left legislation that places draconian rules on the use of diesel. A respected university that loads a panel with ideologues like Roosevelt packing the Supreme Court with leftist New Deal supporters. One scientist that didn’t toe the line:
As the environmentalist Left pushed new, job-killing regulations in the interests of “public health,” Dr. Enstrom took his own look at the data and determined that the health threat from diesel emissions was being wildly overstated. As he looked further, he discovered that the lead researcher pushing the new regulations actually possessed a fraudulent degree, purchased from “Thornhill University,” a shady, long-distance diploma mill. Moreover, members of the state’s “scientific review panel” tasked with evaluating the science had in some cases overstayed term limits by decades. At least one was a known ideological radical. (He was a member of the infamous “Chicago Seven.”)
Dr. Enstrom did what a scientist should do. He exposed public corruption, called out fake scientific credentials, and worked to save California from onerous and unnecessary regulations.
So UCLA fired him. After more than 30 years on the job.
It took two and a half years, but with help from the ACLJ, Dr. Enstrom sued UCLA and won:
In 2012, the ACLJ filed suit on behalf of Dr. Enstrom alleging that UCLA officials unlawfully terminated his appointment as a Researcher in violation of his First Amendment rights and mishandled tens of thousands of dollars of his funding. Following multiple unsuccessful attempts to have the lawsuit dismissed and an extensive discovery process, which included the depositions of several key UCLA officials, the UC Regents agreed to a settlement of the case on terms extremely favorable to Dr. Enstrom. Not only did the Regents agree to pay Dr. Enstrom $140,000, but they also have effectively rescinded the termination, agreeing to Dr. Enstrom’s use of the title “Retired Researcher” (as opposed to acknowledgment as a non-titled terminated employee) and his continued access to UCLA resources he previously enjoyed during his appointment.
The university’s justification for firing Dr. Enstrom in the first place?
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) refused to reappoint an environmental health sciences professor, stating that his controversial research failed to accord with the department’s “mission.”
He dared to put forth a view that did not fit with the view of his employers. Politics over science, in the tradition of the Church’s persecution of Galileo. Shame!
Perhaps a by-product of the declining workforce participation rate? But wait, we’re supposed to be focused on the rising employment rate and ignore the fact that more and more people have completely given up looking for a job (not to mention the massive underemployment problem).
The power of this ejection would have raced across space to knock us back to the Dark Ages. It’s believed a direct CME hit would have the potential to wipe out communication networks, GPS and electrical grids to cause widespread blackout. The article goes on to say it would disable “everything that plugs into a wall socket. Most people wouldn’t even be able to flush their toilet because urban water supplies largely rely on electric pumps.” …
“According to a study by the National Academy of Sciences, the total economic impact could exceed $2 trillion or 20 times greater than the costs of a Hurricane Katrina. Multi-ton transformers damaged by such a storm might take years to repair.”
Whew! No worries now, right? Not exactly:
Physicist Pete Riley, who published a paper titled “On the probability of occurrence of extreme space weather events,” has calculated the odds of a solar storm strong enough to disrupt our lives in the next 10 years is 12 percent.
“Initially, I was quite surprised that the odds were so high, but the statistics appear to be correct,” says Riley. “It is a sobering figure.”
However, the CME that almost battered us was a bit of a freak occurrence as it was actually two ejections within 10 minutes of each other, plus a previous CME had happened four days earlier to effectively clear the path.
Sleep well, everyone.
I think not. How many times do we ignore threats and hope it doesn’t hit us?
Time to spend some of that money they keep printing on job-creating infrastructure improvements, don’t you think?
Another journalist questions why politics rather than science is driving debate on climate change, wondering, “Why are environmentalists and scientists so reluctant to discuss long-term increases in southern hemisphere sea ice?”
For years, computer simulations have predicted that sea ice should be disappearing from the Poles. Now, with the news that Antarctic sea-ice levels have hit new highs, comes yet another mishap to tarnish the credibility of climate science. Climatologists base their doom-laden predictions of the Earth’s climate on computer simulations. But these have long been the subject of ridicule because of their stunning failure to predict the pause in warming – nearly 18 years long on some measures – since the turn of the last century.
An adult chinstrap penguin jumps out of the sea at Port Lockroy, Antarctica
It’s the same with sea ice. We hear a great deal about the decline in Arctic sea ice, in line with or even ahead of predictions. But why are environmentalists and scientists so much less keen to discuss the long-term increase in the southern hemisphere? In fact, across the globe, there are about one million square kilometres more sea ice than 35 years ago, which is when satellite measurements began.
It’s fair to say that this has been something of an embarrassment for climate modellers. But it doesn’t stop there. In recent days a new scandal over the integrity of temperature data has emerged, this time in America, where it has been revealed as much as 40 per cent of temperature data there are not real thermometer readings. Many temperature stations have closed, but rather than stop recording data from these posts, the authorities have taken the remarkable step of ‘estimating’ temperatures based on the records of surrounding stations.
So vast swathes of the data are actually from ‘zombie’ stations that have long since disappeared. This is bad enough, but it has also been discovered that the US’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is using estimates even when perfectly good raw data is available to it – and that it has adjusted historical records.
Is climate change real? Does Man have an impact on global weather? We should at least be given facts to decide, not politically-driven junk science.
Received via email. Thank you, unnamed source, for making the start of each day a little happier for thousands.
Jupiter’s famed Great Red Spot has long been a defining feature for the gas giant, attracting many an astronomer’s eye and more than a few NASA flybys. But recently, the spot has been shrinking. What was once a huge area almost 25 thousand miles across has shrunk to a bare 10K across.
Obama is making the preservation of the Great Red Spot a pivotal centerpiece in his Climate Change strategy:
What we see happening on Jupiter is nothing short of a cataclysmic change that is just as serious as the retreat of the glaciers and rising of the oceans here on Earth. The Great Red Spot on Jupiter is smaller than at any point in history and the rate of shrinkage is accelerating; it may disappear altogether in as little as 17 years.
Just 400 years ago the Great Red Spot was 40 thousand miles across. Today, it is barely wider than the Earth. We cannot ignore the fact that the spot started shrinking as the industrial revolution began, and that the more carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that Man produces the faster the Red Spot shrinks.
The fringes of the scientific community have proposed that solar flares are responsible for the heating of the Earth. But it is now apparent that Mankind’s activities are having a devastating effect that extends outside of our own atmosphere. It may very well be that the larger our carbon footprint, the more unstable the sun’s activities, leading to more solar flares and shrinkage of Jupiter’s Great Red Spot.
No longer is Mankind’s disregard for the environment limited to the Earth. We must end our quest for resource consumption, pursuit of technology and creation of a viable economy in order to save the entire solar system.
Indeed, another case of correlation equating to causation.