The St. Louis Post Dispatch reports that scientists at the Washington University Genome Center have decoded the genetic structure corn.  Researchers hope that this will allow them to develop corn that is sturdier and more efficient to grow.  The Department of Agriculture and National Science Foundation provided the 29.5 million dollars for the project. 

The findings are available for any scientist to use.  Here is an example of government spending that will lead to private sector benefit.

And that’s the problem.  Over the past year many in Congress and the administration have taken a punitive stance against executives of the large federally assisted financial institutions.  They demanded  retro-actively taxing 90% of the income of executives who received bonuses, holding that those payments were accountable to the TARP funding.  

The administration has also directed a pay czar to designate limits on executive pay in these firms.   The justification is that these executives are being benefitted by government money, there the government has the right to decide how much they are paid.

Many people, including some conservatives, agree with the pay limits because they resent te ideal of CEO’s making millions of dollars when they are being supported by taxpayer money.

We absolutely agree with that premise, multi-billion dollar investment banks should not be financially rewarded for poor performance.   The TARP bailout should have never happened.

However, the Washington University discovery is also a publicly funded project that will benefit highly paid individuals.  Farmers, food companies, and 150 researchers will be conduced by the nearly $30 million of federal spending.

Should we start reducing the salaries of professors, scientists, and administrators at Washington University.  We applaud the great work of the scientists, but we also point out that our tax money went to an institution where many students disrespected Phyllis Schlaffly, a woman we greatly respect.

The point is that if you use the notion that the government has the right to cap people’s salaries because it give them money, that opens the door for them to use that to control everyone’s salary.

What about if they spend money to put extra lighting for a dangerous store front, or conduct special infrastructure repair that ads value to a particular private investment.  The government, especially this administration, can find a way to attribute almost every business gain at least partially to government spending. 

Very easy, when that government is spending  $3.5 trillion in a single year.  The limitations for executive pay is only the  beginning  for the progressive authoritarian move toward “fundamental changing this nation”.

NOT ON OUR WATCH.

150 years ago a man published a book putting forth a theory that man, instead of coming from one creator, evolved over millions if not billions of years into what we are today.  Since this book the battle has been on, Creation VS. Evolution.

Sadly some have been swayed by the mindless logic of the evolutionist, their lies, and their boldness in spouting false as if it were true.  Fast Forward 150 yrs, The world nearly worships the man who wrote the book “Origin of Species”, Evolution is taught as fact to grade school kids, and God has been forced out the door of the school, out of the public, and kept locked behind the doors of Christians, and churches.

Yesterday Christians burst forth from their locked doors, and hiding places and reclaimed ground lost to the enemy. Yesterday thousands of Christians united on college campuses across the nation, to distribute the truth which exposes the lie. My wife and I were lucky to be able to work with a team of Christians God had truly brought together.

At 9:00 am Christians from various denominations braved the cold, and rain because we care about those students and faculty. They’re being taught a lie, they’re being taught a lie is indeed fact. For the most part yesterday was a blast, regardless of their beliefs it was a pleasure talking to folks.

I saw a post where an atheist said “arguments” were everywhere, which is sadly a mistake. I had one or two conversations with some VERY intelligent people who presented their case very well, sadly my communications skills were not such that I could properly convey my questions to them. My question was “how can evolution cause everything to evolve at the exact same rate? Where are the monkey/men and the blob/monkeys? For evolution to be true it would have to be a continual process.. However it seems to have stopped, even in the species alive today” the “best” answer I got was directed at theistic evolution, which isn’t what the Bible teaches. I have the utmost respect for the people we spoke to, I am certain they think we’re delusional, and we think they simply MUST not know the truth. I think they have had evolution thrown at them from the time they were old enough to watch TV, and taught it is fact. And sadly the parents, even most of the Christian ones don’t make the effort to combat that lie. Christians depend on the church to do it, when it’s not the churches job. It’s ours…. But that’s a rant for another day!

One conversation my wife had concerned her greatly, she handed a man a book, he walked away reading it, and then he returned with concern in his voice inviting her to an evolution class he was in. It touched her a lot. Sadly we didn’t have the time…I am sure she’ll post more at a late date.

The top things we heard:

• OH! We thought this was a Bible, THANKS!
• OH! We thought you were Evangelicals (Thats a bad thing?)
• I am calling security!
• HA HA HA HA HA HA
• (Security) Stay where you are, I’ll check to see if it’s our property, if so just move up a bit!
• THIS IS CREATIONISM, I AM CALLING SECURITY!!
• This is free? THANKS
• and one… no thanks, I am a creationist.

  Luckily hundreds of people got the gospel into their hands. We’re praying for each and every one of them. Overall WashU was awesome, beautiful campus, brilliant students and faculty, and kind and open to people with opposing view.

I want to thank the team I was with, what an amazing group of dedicated Christians. Each one a blessing and an asset, without them this would have never happened. Thanks Guys, and Gals.

to know more please click here

Written by Will Fischer, student leader at Washington University in St. Louis

The students have spoken!

In response to demonstrated student outcry over the naming of the “Consortium for Clean Coal Utilization” and with momentum from last week’s flash mob protest, on Wednesday the Wash U Student Union Senate unanimously passed a resolution urging the administration to change the Consortium’s name. More details in the Wash U student newspaper Student Life article.

The vote came after a week of intense lobbying by students, during which senators received an extraordinary number of emails from constituents in support of the resolution. The resolution originated in last week’s session, but the vote was postponed until after a drafting session could be held to address senators’ concerns. Wednesday’s senate session was packed with supportive students who applauded after the resolution was passed in the first 15 minutes of the meeting.

A truncated version of the resolution reads (full version available here):

“Whereas, The term “Clean Coal” is an industry marketing term intended to obscure the negative effects of coal extraction, combustion, and disposal;

Whereas, The use of said term may invite doubt regarding the integrity of the research the Consortium conducts;

…

Whereas, The Student Union supports the research being done by the Consortium to develop safer and more effective coal utilization technology; and therefore be it

Resolved, That the Student Union strongly urges the Washington University administration to change the name of the Consortium for Clean Coal Utilization; and be it further

…

Resolved, That the Student Union urges that the Consortium’s research into future uses of coal include studies of the social and environmental effects of its extraction, combustion, and disposal.”

We look forward to open dialogue with the administration and invite any concerns and comments.

Viva la Resolution!

The story slowly made its way around the nation, via a crafty combination of a viral internet campaign and word of mouth.

If you hadn’t heard, six Washington University students were recently refused entrance to a Chicago bar (Mother’s) supposedly for violation of its “baggy pants” dress code.  Chicago media has covered the story extensively, often highlighting the historical racial overtones which are invariably embedded in the subtext.

Click HERE.

Chicago and racism aren’t exactly mutually exclusive, it’s fair to say.

In fact, one of the students denied entrance traded pants with a thinner white student, making the pants seem even more “baggy,” and putting the dress code to a seemingly less difficult test.  The same bar faced with the same “baggy” pants…failed miserably.  The white student was admitted without incident.

There is more than one lesson to be learned from this story and little of it has to do with any specific bar in Chicago.  Some people walked away from this story thinking only that bars on Rush Street in Chicago have a propensity for discrimination against African-Americans through their dress codes.  And there’s evidence to support such a conclusion.  But let’s not though be so superficial and go deeper.

Here in The Mo’Kelly Report, it’s about looking beyond the obvious to examine a situation from a number of angles, to best learn from a particular set of circumstances.

The discriminatory nature of the Rush Street bars in question has less to do with the dress code itself and much more to do with its “racialized” application.  Meaning, it’s not the dress code, it’s the haphazard enforcement that’s the problem.  If it were determined that students, irrespective of color were denied entrance in violation of the dress code, all is well.  I simply don’t subscribe to the theory of dress codes being either “culturally insensitive” or “racially biased.”  Many came away from this story concluding or having their belief reinforced that dress codes are inherently racist against African-Americans.

I simply do not agree.

It may be true that a majority percentage of our African-American youth feature baggy or oversized clothing as part of their wardrobes.  But it is also true that private businesses are not public democracies.  It’s more than acceptable for a business to regulate the attire of its employees or even its customers.  To implement a dress code is not a priori racist or culturally insensitive, but a right of the business owner.

It is true that a disproportionate number of African-American males relative to other ethnicities “sag” or wear their pants below their waistline.  But it’s also true that as a business owner, I’m free to regulate (save race and gender) what is tolerated within the confines of my business.  Of course, such dress codes disproportionately impact the “population demographic,” but it is not inherently racist.  The moment White males who “sag” are granted admittance it is, but not a moment before.  Until that time, pull up your pants or patronize elsewhere.  Just because you have no good sense in terms of attire, it doesn’t mean I as a business owner must lower myself to meet your lack of standards.  You are free to spend your money elsewhere.  Such is the nature of a free market society.

No shirt, no shoes, no service…pretty much the same.

Night clubs have long disallowed jeans or t-shirts.  This is neither novel nor revolutionary in nature.  Here in the Los Angeles area, it’s very common for bars of various types and economic strata to forbid oversized, white T-shirts or any other attire which could be construed as gang paraphernalia.  Are the overwhelming majority of gang members in the Los Angeles area either Black or Latino?

Absolutely.

Is there an overwhelming amount of Black and Latino males who aren’t gang-affiliated yet dress in this popular manner?

Absolutely.

But citizens/patrons do not have a “right” to wear whatever they want into someone else’s place of business.  It’s not a public facility and therein lies the difference.

This is not to push aside the underlying intent behind the implementation of some of these dress codes.  I’m not naïve, I get it. But we as African-Americans must not confuse these issues.  Businesses don’t have a responsibility to accommodate anyone and everyone who may wish to spend money.  Being willing to spend money doesn’t automatically grant and guarantee one entrance.  Conversely, being turned away because a dress code offends one’s sensibilities doesn’t necessarily make it racist.  More times than not, it’s just good sense.

Standards are always good sense.

When businesses such as Mother’s cross the color line in the application of a dress code; by all means cast aspersion upon them.  At the same time, do not allow a singular instance such as this with the Washington University students to somehow placate the desire of some to scream racism over dress codes in general.  Dress codes are a good thing, ask the overwhelmingly African-American NBA.

http://twitter.com/mrmokelly

Subscribe to The Mo’Kelly Report HERE

Written by Will Fischer, student leader at Washington University in St. Louis.

Something loud is afoot on our sleepy campus in St. Louis. Washington University students are beginning to re-discover what connects them. Students that have never worked together before have just executed the largest direct action on our campus. The target: big coal’s influence on our institution.

At the end of this summer, Washington University appointed two new members to its board of trustees, Gregory Boyce, CEO of Peabody Energy, and Steven F. Leer, CEO of Arch Coal. As you most likely know, they are the one-two of coal mining who together preside over 13 billion tons of proven coal reserves.  They are both deeply involved in mountaintop coal mining, destroying communities and ecosystems across Appalachia. For years they have lobbied against positive protective legislation, including the Clean Air and Clean Water acts. Now, they check our chancellor’s every action and shape the future of our institution. This comes in the wake of the formation of the Consortium for Clean Coal Utilization (CCCU) last December. This research group, funded by (guess) Peabody, Arch Coal, and the local utility Ameren, plans to build a 1 megawatt demonstration carbon capture & sequestration plant on our campus.

And this last Monday, our administration organized “America’s Energy Future,” a symposium to which Steven F. Leer of Arch Coal and Fred Palmer of Peabody Energy, among others, were invited to discuss our energy “future.” It was a five-hour-long symposium culminating in a reception in the new student center (to see a program description, see here). We saw presentations on “Green Coal” where earth movers the size of houses were depicted moseying through fields. There were a couple champions of reality, but the overarching theme was deceit. There was nearly zero representation from renewable energy companies. What is the “future” according to our administration? Well, it looks a lot like our present: coal, oil, and nuclear. This is not OUR Energy Future.

To coincide with the conference, we held a rally, a press conference, an alternate symposium titled “OUR Energy Future,” and executed a silent flash mob and banner-drop to challenge Big Coal on campus!

We had unsuccessfully lobbied to change the name of the Consortium for Clean Coal Utilization and remained silent since the appointing of the trustees. We really couldn’t take it anymore. We saw an opportunity- and they just made it so easy.

A coalition of student groups, including the student-run farm The Burning Kumquat, Students for Endowment Transparency, and Green Action planned a direct action to challenge our university’s failure to recognize the legitimacy of renewable energy. During their plush reception in our student center, over 100 students entered the building and dispersed themselves among the assembled crowd. Along the balconies lining the reception were five two-person banner drop teams. On a signal, four teams dropped their banners over the balcony, baring messages including “Coal Is Never Clean” and “Our Energy Future.” At the same time, the 100 assembled students raised their fists to display yellow wristbands made of global warming crime scene tape and held up yellow signs with the “Beyond Coal” logo. The final banner was dropped over the main staircase bearing the words “Power Beyond Coal” painted among students’ signatures. A student addressed the silent crowd with a megaphone, “We present to you a banner bearing our signatures as a petition on behalf of this and future generations. We will not stand aside while executives from Arch Coal and Peabody paint a dirty energy future for our school and our nation.  We believe that America’s real energy future uses renewable, socially responsible energy sources,” and invited them to our alternate symposium.  It was fantastic- ethereal- and it’s all on tape.

Where do we go now? Our Student Union Senate plans to pass a resolution denouncing Washington University’s use of the “clean coal” marketing slogan, supporting Monday’s direct action, and demanding the university change the name of the Consortium for Clean Coal Utilization. We will maintain the alliances we have developed and work on involving more students to feed off of the energy we have created. We will push forward, gaining momentum in our rally against the unjust actions and policies of our administration.   This is the beginning- AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO KICK ASH!

Roberts on left with "baggy jeans", Murayi on right with "baggy jeans"

For over 200 Washington University seniors, a night out at Original Mother Bar was supposed to be a memorable night of celebration. For six African American men, the night was ruined due to alleged racism. The Chicago bar was accused of denying them access because of their race. The bar blamed it on dress code violation, saying baggy jeans were not allowed. However, a white student, Jordan Roberts, switched pants with the alleged dress code violator, Regis Murayi. The manager let Roberts into the bar with the pants on, even though they were baggier on him because of a three inch height difference. The event occurred on Oct. 17, but an agreement is expected by the end of the week.

Stories like this puzzle me. It is 2009 and race should no longer be an issue. Racism is a term that is constantly plaguing our society. Stories in the news consistently surface with people using defamatory words, unfavorable actions and committing hate crimes toward minority races. This type of behavior must stop now, with this generation. We are the ones who grew up in a country of freedom, where all citizens are equal. Yet some people feel the need to discriminate against others. Such actions reveal a person’s intolerance and superiority. It is not right for one group to judge others. Instead, it is unmoral and unnecessary.

Second of all, a dress code in a bar cannot be so selective. If you allow jeans in a bar, you cannot pick and choose whose jeans are the right fit. From the picture, Murayi’s jeans clearly are around his waist region and not terribly baggy. Dress codes should require jeans not to be ripped, bleached, light, showing underwear or dirty. To regulate jeans in terms of the amount of extra fabric on the leg is just ridiculous. Furthermore, to use a dress code as the excuse for not wanting a certain type of people in the bar is cowardice. If the bar did not want African Americans inside, they should own up to it, instead of hiding behind a weak excuse.

When I spent time traveling abroad in Europe, it was disheartening to see the separation between the groups of people. In Italy, the African, Italian and Albanian people were segregated. Each kept to their own groups in some sort of class system. It gave me a heightened appreciation for the United States because I think it overall is an integrated country. Stories like this break my heart because these people give our country a bad image and exclude our valued citizens. I look forward to hearing how the event is settled and hopefully some people can learn a lesson from the ordeal.

What do you think about this situation?

Students from Washington University say they have complained to state and federal agencies that a Chicago, Illinois, nightclub barred six African-American members from their senior class trip celebration while admitting nearly 200 white classmates. The bar cited dress code violations although many of the white patrons were dressed the same as the black patons refused entry. Watch video of this story below:

http://www.letstalkhonestly.com/blacknewsblackviews.html

Mother’s, a popular night club in Chicago, appears to be reinstating Jim Crow laws as they recently barred entry to six African-American patrons. The six students were part of a senior class trip of 200 students from Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri and had made plans to visit the establishment. Upon trying to entering the venue, the Black students were denied entry and were told it was because their pants were too baggy.

Not believing the hype, a white student switched pants with one of his classmates and tried the entry process again. Lo and behold, the white student was still allowed in while the Black student was left outside.

The students have filed complaints with the Chicago Human Rights Commission, the Illinois Attorney General and the U.S. Department of Justice.

The management of Mother’s has stated that there is an internal investigation but racism was not the cause. Their concern was reportedly safety issues.

Holding a sheaf of Chicago police gang intelligence reports and pointing to security video of two black members of the group with backward ball caps,

I am guilty of ignoring knocks on the door, both literally and metaphorically speaking.  Often times I don’t have time for new visitors or I simply don’t want to be bothered.  Laziness is to blame.  It is so much easier to just ignore it. 

But what if that is Ed McMahon at my door with my million dollar prize?  If I knew that were the case I am sure I would not mind sprinting to the door and being inconvenienced by the disturbance, even if it means showing the world my bunny slippers.

To reveal our inner cores, we have to be inconvenienced.  Yes.  Sometimes we just want to stay in our comfort zones and not risk the chance that the world will see us for who we really are, bunny slippers and all.  But if we don’t answer, then we may miss that million dollar chance…to discover what really makes us happy.  I don’t how many times I have missed out on an opportunity to try something new by simply stating, “I don’t know how to do that” or “I don’t have time” or even “Maybe next week”.  Opportunities to try something new are always out there knocking at our doors but do we answer the knock?

Case and point, last week I was presented with the opportunity to go to a book club discussion down the street and I excused myself because I did not like someone who was going to be there.  Truth is, it was an excuse and possibly a missed opportunity.  Maybe I would have learned something about myself from the discussion, maybe I would have met someone new or even a business contact.  Maybe I would have discovered that I like group discussions and start-up my own interest group.  But I guess I will never know. 

How many times do we pass up opportunities?  If we keep saying no, then we cannot change.  Opportunities can be disguised, rolled up if you will in another form.  In the case of book club, I know I have absolutely no interest in reading but maybe I would have met some new people.  Maybe these people would have introduced me to some new ideas which would lead to hidden interests.  Or maybe the discussion could have encouraged my mind’s wheel to spin into a direction leading to an undiscovered talent. 

In the case of Tammy Shirley at Washington University, she took a chance on a french course which led to a summer internship in France, and in return, discovered a profound interest in pediatric medicine as well as the importance of communication skills in that field. 

NOTE TO SELF - take a chance on something new.  Drop your weapon, step away from the comfort zone and while you are up…ANSWER THE F-ING DOOR ALREADY.

A Washington University study finds that brain changes caused by drinking before age 15 could predispose adolescents to a lifetime of alcohol dependency.

Arpana Agrawal, Researcher for the Washington University School of Medicine, stated that early drinking “may induce changes in the highly sensitive adolescent brain, which may also modify an individual’s subsequent genetic vulnerability” to addiction.”  Also found in the study was evidence that the age of first alcohol use correlated with a higher number of alcohol dependency symptoms.

Click here for more information and to view the full article.

But it’s not just cookies. 

Oh sure, there’s chewy oatmeal cookies . . . baked locally in Ferguson, Missouri using high quality ingredients, like certified gluten-free oats and mesquite flour.

But there’s also bread. 

Since my mother was diagnosed with cancer I have not have much time or energy to go out and see many art exhibitions. In addition to that, there hasn’t been much time for even working in the studio. Other than the small drawings I have done I have been sort of out of the art loop.

In saying that, Monday I was able to make it over to the Mildred Lane Kemper Art Museum on the campus of Washington University. I also what to state that I like going there to see contemporary art than I like going to the Contemporary Art Museum St. Louis. I think the exhibitions at the Kemper are more varied and I like that the museum is free and being in the situation I am in, free is great. I honestly have not been too interested in the recent exhibitions at CAMSTL.

The exhibitions I saw were Chance Aesthetics and Metabolic City. I will separate the two into separate posts. I was interested in Chance Aesthetics because in my own art I have used elements of chance to develop my work. I tend to use it as a starting point such as dumping ink or paint, using drip patterns and allowing “mistakes” to happen and worked with the unexpected things that come up when making art.

Historically, art has been a skill in which an artist demands exceptional control to achieve a great work. This means works were planned endeavors obsessive perfection. In the 20th century some artists decided to work in opposition to this. The exhibition starts with the Surrealists and Dada, which makes sense to me. What I think is so great about using chance as a basis for a work is that it becomes playful and fun instead of being an intellectual and dry assignment that a lot of art has become.

Some of the works are sloppy and dirty but some are totally obsessive, clean and systematic. The latter still retain an element of surprise and engagement.

Some notable artists and works. I like Ellsworth Kelly’s gridded, cut-up and reassembled drawings.

Ellsworth Kelly

There is Mimmo Rotella’s decollages of advertisements that you might see on the streets where posters are layered and ripped apart. Sort of like a defaced pop art.

Mimmo Rotella

Similar to Rotella’s is Jacques Villegle’s work. Something is very subversive and punk about these works. I like that.

Jacques Villegle

I did love the simplicity of Duchamp’s readymade, “hatrack”, that was hanging from the ceiling. I think most people would see the spider-like look of this work and I think most would enjoy this one cause of its playfullness and it is non-confrontational.

Marcel Duchamp

I enjoyed William Anastasi’s subway drawings. I was doing stuff like this when I was in London. I am not saying I did it first but I feel a connection to this cause of my own personal experience with this mindless exercise. Fun and surprising to make.

William Anastasi's Subway Drawings

There is the systematic digital looking Francois Morellet’s telephone directory works. By just looking at it, it looks like a non-objective minimalism. There is the white one that has the layer of varnish on some areas…white on white…so when you look at it at certain angles you see the differences. I think of Ryman’s white paintings. With the black one’s I think of Ad Reinhart’s black paintings. Those ones are definitely more quiet and subtile. Some of them use hot and sometimes competing color schemes that are more challenging. His work can seem like a combination of a Sol LeWit type of work and op-art. The grid seems to be a very important part of the structure of his work.

A telephone directory work by Francois Morellet

In addition to those works there is Arman’s work in which he collect Claes Oldenburg’s trash. Interesting in an invasion of privacy kind of way. There was a osmotic work by George Maciunas in which spills ink onto a canvas ans lets it spread a soak into the canvas. Marcel Jean and Andre Breton’s drawings were similar. There was Ray Johnson’s mail art and game-like works. There were some exquisite corpse drawings, John Cage compositions and a Nam June Paik’s blank films…well except dust scratches and whatever happened to interfere with the film. Plus there were Deiter Roth’s rotting works.

In an ER environment, patients are often given standard doses of antibiotics regardless of their weight and other factors, a study has found. As a result, many obese patients are not receiving high enough doses of antibiotics, which means their infections are not being sufficiently treated. That in turn can lead to antibiotic resistance, a major problem in the realm of healthcare.

The study specifically looked at how doctors at Washington University Medical School treated emergency room patients with BMIs over 40. For the three antibiotics they focused on, researchers found that proper dosing guidelines were followed less than 10% of the time among obese patients. If those numbers of indicative of how emergency departments across the nation are functioning, then we really need to implement stronger guidelines for this. Considering how many Americans are obese, this poses a real danger, both to the patients themselves and to the public, who will have to deal with more resistant strains of bacteria in existence.

To read more about this study, read this article from ABC News.

Mollie Katzen, the author of Moosewood Cookbook and The Enchanted Broccoli Forest, will be spending this Tuesday, Oct. 6 at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri.  Here’s a schedule for the day -

Mollie speaks on how cuisine has evolved & how the center of the plate has changed
10-11am
Washington University Campus Store
Mallinckrodt Center
6465 Forsyth Blvd
St. Louis, MO 63105

Farmer’s Market/Book Signing
12:30-2:30pm
Danforth University Center (East Courtyard)
6465 Forsyth Blvd
St. Louis, MO 63105

Farm Party
4-8pm
The Burning Kumquat – Student Garden on Wallace Drive, just south of Forsyth
Raw Food Iron Chef Competition at 5pm.

Hang with Mollie until 6pm.  Farm Tours &  Bluegrass Music.  See you there.

-Linda

The universe is an amazing place even in simulation and informed guesswork. Sounds like this planet requires a ultra-duty umbrella.

From the link:

Not so the atmosphere of COROT-7b, an exoplanet discovered last February by the COROT space telescope launched by the French and European space agencies

According to models by scientists at Washington University in St. Louis, COROT-7b’s atmosphere is made up of the ingredients of rocks and when “a front moves in,” pebbles condense out of the air and rain into lakes of molten lava below.

The work, by Laura Schaefer, research assistant in the Planetary Chemistry Laboratory, and Bruce Fegley Jr., Ph.D., professor of earth and planetary sciences in Arts & Sciences, appears in the Oct. 1 issue of The Astrophysical Journal.

Astronomers have found nearly 400 extra-solar planets, or exoplanets, in the past 20 years. But because of the limitations of the indirect means by which they are discovered, most are Hot Jupiters, chubby gas giants orbiting close to their parent stars. (More than 1,300 Earths could be packed inside Jupiter, which has 300 times the mass of Earth.)

COROT-7b, on the other hand, is less than twice the size of Earth and only five times its mass.

It was the first planet found orbiting the star COROT-7, an orange dwarf in the constellation Monoceros, or the Unicorn. (This priority is designated by the letter b.)

Infowars
September 4, 2009

Update: Cornell University in New York is also reporting a possible H1N1 breakout, according to the Associated Press.

The New World Order’s planned flu pandemic has grabbed headlines with an outbreak of the relatively mild H1N1 virus at Washington State University. “More than 2,000 students at Washington State University have come down with swine flu symptoms in just the first week of classes, school officials said Friday,” AOL News reports this afternoon. The incident, according to AOL, is an example of “how quickly the H1N1 virus can spread.”

Engineered pandemics usually begin in crowded conditions. The 1976 Swine flu outbreak used as a pretext to inoculate millions of with a deadly vaccine responsible for numerous deaths and the neurological debilitation of possibly hundreds of thousands of people began at Fort Dix. Earlier this year, the government and corporate media hyped the H1N1 virus outbreak that spread in the crowded conditions of Mexico City and environs.

WHO and the U.S. government warn that half or more of the U.S. population will come down with H1N1 later this year.

The incident at Washington State University will be exploited by the government and the corporate media in the days ahead in the effort to convince the American people they are at risk and need to submit to the experimental vaccine now under development by the vaccine cartel and Big Pharma.

Last month the press in England reported that the British government’s Health Protection Agency said in a letter to neurologists that they needed to look out for increases in Guillain-Barré syndrome in people subjected to the so-called immunization program. “The vaccines used to combat an expected swine influenza pandemic in 1976 were shown to be associated with GBS and were withdrawn from use,” Prof. Elizabeth Miller, head of the HPA’s immunization department, wrote in the letter sent last month to neurologists. The corporate media in the United States virtually ignored the story.

The experimental vaccine the government will insist we take — and depending on the severity of the coming pandemic may force us at gunpoint to take — is a documented cocktail of toxins designed to attack the human immunological system. It contains mercury and squalene, the latter used to stimulate the immune system to respond to the vaccine. Squalene is linked to autoimmune illnesses including multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis and lupus. The oil-based adjuvant is largely responsible for Gulf War syndrome, a deadly and debilitating disease that has claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of U.S. service personnel since the conclusion of Bush Senior’s war against Iraq.

In the days ahead, there will likely be other H1N1 outbreaks around the country and these will be exploited with much fanfare by the government and the corporate media to push the H1N1 eugenics vaccination.

If the relatively mild virus “mutates” (i.e., if the government releases a more virulent and deadly strain) and increasing numbers of people become sick and die, the government will most certainly demand vaccination or short of that quarantines imposed by the military. It is the perfect scenario for the high-tech police state the elite are itching to impose on the American people. It will also signal the beginning of a eugenics campaign against those of us the global elite consider useless eaters.

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/beginning-of-engineered-pandemic-2000-infected-with-h1n1-at-washington-university/

Friday!  It’s the beginning of the Labor Day Weekend.  We’re on our way to South Dakota for LifeLight Festival. We have been in Washington University of St. Louis on Wednesday, and then  Dallas City, IL last night. College shows, high school shows, love em!  These have been cities that we’ve never played in and it’s really great seeing new parts of the U.S.

How are you spending your Labor Day Weekend?  What do you have planned?

Dan

ST. LOUIS — A Washington University School of Medicine surgeon and researcher has resigned amid allegations that he falsified results of a study.

The university says in a statement that Dr. Timothy Kuklo submitted a resignation letter effective Sept. 30. He will have no clinical, research or educational duties during his remaining time at the university.

Kuklo has been the subject of federal inquiries into allegations that he falsified results of a study about a bone growth drug used to treat wounded soldiers. He performed the study before coming to Washington University.

The Army has contended Kuklo overstated the benefits of the drug, Infuse. Medtronic, the maker of Infuse, has paid Kuklo more than $800,000 in consulting fees in recent years.

Related reading

• Senate probe targets ex-Army surgeon

When you consider that our campus paper runs three editions each week, features breaking news updates online between editions, and has put out some wonderful special editions centered around events like the Vice Presidential Debate, we’re quite lucky. Or at least we were. Even as recently as March 2009, Student Life was a publication that had quality standards commensurate with our peer institutions, displayed respect for core journalistic values, and fostered a free and open culture that made involvement both simple and pleasurable. But, with the staff change that took place in April 2009, none of this can be said anymore with a straight face. There has been a noticeable decline in quality, a reckless disregard for journalistic standards and values, and a regression to secrecy and power politics.

Though I do not want to paint too rosy a picture about the operations and content of Student Life prior to this staffing change (such as the horrid coverage of Dr. Daniel Pipes), as somebody who has worked at other student papers and for a range of more professional sources too, I feel able to say that on the whole, the previous standards of operation were generally commendable, and the results often praiseworthy.

First and foremost among what made Student Life function as a credible vehicle that was more newspaper than sub-tabloidal misallocation of paper (as is presently the case) was that, rather than choosing governing sentiments as fit the agenda of those in charge, they upheld journalistic standards, chief among them free speech. It is understood that, especially as it pertains to editorial columns, the writer is given sufficient discretion to not only choose their topic, but write about it in a tone and with a slant of their own choosing. For their part, the editor is generally expected only to make alterations to grammar and syntax, and if need be, removing statements that qualify as libel. And that was the position taken by my editor, and insofar as I am aware all others, up until the staff shift. Not a single article I wrote between September of 2008 and April of 2009 was censored, including an article where I advocated applying an obscure Israeli law that would make the vast majority of its government eligible for life imprisonment and another article decrying Gandhi and the undue popularity he continues to enjoy postmortem. The new staff however, was quick to abandon this standard. Or rather, Kate Gaertner was. Being the new Senior Forum Editor, she has the ability to override the decision of the daily editors. And, at least in my experience, said group was not actively inclined to follow Gaertner’s reckless lead. Rather, they were just a bit too green behind the ears to challenge her abuse of authority, meaning that from day one, she could censor articles whose viewpoint she disagreed with, altering the tone, or making changes that made the article less coherent (as happened with my Fujimori article), thereby making the author seem less competent.

I was greatly concerned when, within a week or so of assuming power, she overrode the daily editor and made drastic changes to an article about the Federal Reserve written by fellow CLA member Phil Christofanelli. While some of her changes were legitimately necessary to enhance the readability of his column, having seen both the original version submitted and that which ultimately ran, I can say with confidence that she grossly distorted Christofanelli’s position, and left out crucial details that supported or qualified his position, and which were contextually critical. Alas, this was not the last example of her flagrant disregard for the opinions of the few non-liberals who had opted to lend the paper credence by letting it cite us as examples of a balance that never truly existed. The very next week, my article about the famed Peruvian politician Alberto Fujimori was savagely butchered.

Length was obviously not the issue, for it was among the shortest columns I turned in last year, and was nearly three hundred words shorter than the column I’d run the previous week about US-Israel relations. Indeed, the version she decided to run without my consent was a mere 19 words more brief. The real changes she made were not to length, but message. My article was unabashedly supportive of Fujimori, who many conservatives hold as hero based on the stellar results he generated while in power, especially as compared to the job done by those who preceded and succeeded him. In her mind however, that was unacceptable. After the column ran, I met with her to discuss my profound anger over the rape of my column. Her justification was that because I was the only Student Life columnist whose focus was on international affairs, she felt the need to moderate my tone, given that I had no left-wing counterpart. Never mind that with the arguable exception of Christofanelli, who covered various domestic policy issues every other week from a qualified libertarian position, every other writer for the section had a pronounced left-wing orientation. Yet at no time did she ever feel that balance was needed there. After all, the views of said columnists aligned generally with her own, so she felt no need to restrict their speech. In that particular exchange her seeming fetish for censoring conservatives was re-iterated throughout, as she issued various proposals that involved cutting, marginalizing, or balancing my column and no others. We ended with me making rather clear that should my column ever again be censored, I would cease to write for Student Life, as I now have.

Censorship though is not limited to those writing, as such policies just as readily apply to those wishing to join the staff. One individual wishing to write for Forum sent Gaertner an email detailing their desire to write for her section. She did not ask for a writing sample or details of the writer’s credentials. She did however make certain to confirm that their political position was one consistent with her own. She stated, in reference obviously to me, that the paper already had a writer who is “very neo-conservative in his stance [ed - this is grossly inaccurate], very pro-Israel” and that she was not looking to hire another such writer in the name of the “balance,” which consisted of me on the right, and most of the rest of the staff on the far left. It wasn’t until she was sufficiently ensured she wouldn’t be adding another conservative to the staff that she granted the applicant a column.

Of course, once granted a column, even if a Forum writer is not subject to censorship as a result of their ideological sympathies, it all but certain they will suffer from the ill-effects of mismanagement and/or power politics. For instance, it was not until shortly after I attempted to submit my Srebrencia column (now run elsewhere) during the first week of class this academic year that a clear word limit was ever stated, being set at a meager 700 (which, in turn, has caused a decline in quality perhaps moreso than any other singular action since the staffing change). Problem was, what your limit was would vary depending which editor you asked, and who you were. Under the old regime, if there was a word limit, it was perhaps a soft 1000, and I ran at least four articles that were between 800 and 1000 words without so much as a suggestion that I consider writing shorter submissions. Under the new regime, the limit is a hard 700. But, and here’s the catch, it applies selectively. I had run multiple columns longer than that in the short reign of the new governing regime. And indeed, I was told by my editor that the submitted article would run, but that in the future, I should keep articles under 800 words. A friend of mine writing for Forum was told to keep his columns under 550 words by a different editor. Presumably these were not arbitrary decisions, but rather the result of mismanagement by Gaertner, as applied to her subordinates.

I am especially inclined to believe the fault lies exclusively with Gaertner based on her inability to relay simple information to her staff in a timely fashion. After the last minute rejection of my Srebrenica article for being longer than a limit I was never told about, and other issues to be detailed below, I resigned from Student Life on August 30, 2009. From what I have been told, even though the article was in her hands well in advance of that time, she did not bother cutting it until printing day, keeping the Friday Forum Editor in the dark. Likewise, he was not even told of my resignation until the next week, at which time he was tasked with finding a way to fill column inches he had come to expect were already accounted for, being that I had a weekly column.

Still, it may not merely have been an issue of incompetence and limited communication skills on Gaerner’s part, as her apparent love for instigating petty conflicts in an inexplicable quest to ensure that her authority was never challenged, even though hierarchically she was never in any danger, manifested itself regularly. This is perhaps best evidenced by her fear of openness, and the associated reliance on secrecy, witnessed clearly in her management of the Executive Board. Made up officially of senior staff, its job is to select the topics for the staff editorials, as well as the position that will be taken therein. Whatever the connotations of her name, the staff in charge before her held that such meetings should be open to all Forum writers interested in attending, and that when there, participants were equal in status to those who were official members of it. They recognized that there was no negative consequence to this approach, as only those genuinely interested would attend if not obligated. At the same time, there was tremendous benefit that came with it, including helping to determine who would be offered promotions at the next staff roster adjustment, encouraging interaction between junior and senior staff, fostering an open atmosphere that instilled faith the paper, and allowed for a diversity in opinion to be given voice that might otherwise be sorely lacking. Gaertner however, would have none of this. Though she herself had attended several such meetings before being made an editor, unsure in power based on her underwhelming experience and leadership skills, she sought to keep the meetings closed, limiting them only to the newly appointed editors, all of whom had the same or less experience than her, and were disinclined to challenge her authority. Or rather, she almost did.

Having regularly attended such meetings previously, and moreover having both written a Staff Editorial (about University College access by undergrads) and having introduced a piece of software still widely used by Student Life staff to collaboratively edit articles (Writeboard), I continued to attend the meetings without issue. And at first, there was no apparent problem, for she had not announced a policy switch, and no other non-editor besides me made a point of attending such meetings. One week however, I suggested to a friend of mine that also wrote for Forum that he experience an Executive Board meeting, as they sometimes featured rather interesting debate. He agreed, and we went together to the next such meeting. Shortly after leaving, he received an email from Gartner, wherein she said stated he was not welcome at said meetings in the future. She said, “One thing that I wanted to address with you is that the editorial board meetings are technically open only to senior staff members, and we invite Caleb, as a columnist, to come to our meetings because we feel he helps us to strike the appropriate political balance of opinion that an editorial board for our campus community should reflect.” That she even allowed me to continue attending for the remainder of the academic year was a bit shocking, for her actions detailed earlier in this article make clear she had no true allegiance to balance. But this was to be short lived.

Just before the start of the academic year, and prior to my resignation from the paper, I sent Gaertner an email inquiring as to when and where the Executive Board meetings would be held this year, thinking that it might have changed from last year. In response to my inquiry, she informed me that “the scope of eboard has changed this year, and in keeping with our goals, it will be limited to editors.” Now, insofar as I can tell, that policy was not any different from the preceding year since her assumption of power, with one notable exception. And that is the concern for balance. It seems that over the summer, she lost any interest in even pretending that her section enjoyed any. Not being one to avoid confrontation, I responded to her, stating as much, albeit with a somewhat nicer tone. She of course ignored this, as she often did emails I sent where the answer would invariably require that she either concede something to me, or put her foot in her mouth. While other writers would hear back from her in hours, I would never get a response as soon as the circumstances forced her hand, even if I sent two or three emails on the same topic over the course of a week or two. To do otherwise would require that she be less paranoid about protection authority nobody ever sought to challenge. And that inclination seems absent from her DNA.

Ultimately, I do not believe that the sad state Forum, and to a lesser extent other sections of the paper, currently find themselves in is necessarily a permanent condition. Past leadership has demonstrated that within our student body there are a perfectly sufficient number of capable individuals to run a high quality campus newspaper. But those presently in power, especially Gaertner, have done considerable damage in the present to our paper’s quality and reputation. If, when the next staff re-assignment comes around serious changes are not made, with more qualified individuals being given greater authority, I fear that what is presently just a dark period for the paper will become something more permanent and more destructive. Its longterm viability, if present conditions persist, is questionable. And, even if it were to continue on, in its present capacity that would serve only as a blight on this fine institution.

If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:

Your blog does not currently have any published posts.

Poster for the 2008 edition of the International Conference “South by Midwest” organized by the Latin American Studies Program of Washington University in Saint Louis. Client: Mabel Moraña & Bret Gustafson

Latin America’s political and cultural upheavals in recent years are in large measure attributable to a flourishing renaissance of knowledge production and innovation – intellectual, cultural, literary, grassroots, and artistic projects that have exploded from a multiplicity of social settings and in new media, new movements, and new political expressions. Rethinking Intellectuals in Latin America captures these unfolding processes and cultural politics through a comparative lens examining both historical precursors and contemporary dynamics. Prominent Latin American and Latin Americanist scholars and activists engage here key themes of transformation and the paradoxes of ambiguity and uncertainty, the dilemmas and challenges presented by durable structures of inequality and coloniality, and the intense, sometimes violent struggles to redefine the future in this key world region. This work offers an inter-disciplinary tour de force, combining perspectives from history, literature, anthropology, linguistics, politics, and law, and will be an indispensable source for those who want to capture – in all of its plural complexity – the past and the future of cultural and intellectual shifts transforming the Americas.

MABEL MORAÑA is William H. Gass Professor of Arts and Sciences and Director of Latin American Studies at Washington University in St. Louis. Her latest books include Crítica impura (2004), and the co-editions Coloniality at Large: Latin America and the Post-colonial Debate (2008), Colonialidad y crítica en America Latina (2008) and Revisiting the Colonial Question in Latin America (2008).

BRET GUSTAFSON is Assistant Professor of Anthropology at Washington University in St. Louis. He is the author, most recently, of New Languages of the State: Indigenous Resurgence and the Politics of Knowledge in Bolivia (2009).