We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Monday, March 12. 2012
AVI: Family Tradition
What You Need To Know About “Pink Slime”
Britain's Shed of the Year 2012 entrants
Britain again: Christians have no right to wear cross at work, says Government - Christians do not have a right to wear a cross or crucifix openly at work, the Government is to argue in a landmark court case.
There is a deep confusion there. The government does not dispense or remove rights. Government is supposed to be there to protect freedom.
If China is to excel at innovation, the state must give entrepreneurs more freedom
Forced unionization is pretty bad. But also, who knew you could get paid for taking care of your own kid?
Another EU Greenfail As Poland Blocks Carbon Targets
Detroit Nears Bankruptcy. From a commenter there:
World can use power of the Internet to destabilize Iran's regime
NOW President Terry O’Neill Calls Rush Limbaugh a “Godsend” For Giving Dems an Issue to Distract Voters
Tracked: Mar 12, 07:25
Cameron's conservative government will argue Christians have no right to wear cross at work.
At the Farm, Maggie makes an essential point that should be blazoned in neon Britain again: Christians have no right to wear cross at work, says Government - Christians do not have a right to wear a cross or...
Weblog: Business of Life
Tracked: Mar 13, 07:51
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Bird Dog: Another EU Greenfail As Poland Blocks Carbon Targets
Tragedy of the Commons.
How much power to influence does one graphic have you might ask? Take a look here and then tell me how you feel about "Security".
In the end, the customer is always right.
But. The other side.
"To reduce waste and increase protein, BPI did its own research and development and came up with a proprietary process.
The BPI grinding process is built around a centrifuge that removes beef fat, resulting in a product that is 90 percent or more lean beef. The process includes the use of an ammonia and water bath (ammonium hydroxide), which has proven to be one of the beef industry's most successful interventions against harmful bacteria -- microbes that can sicken and kill.
It works as an antimicrobial agent by slightly increasing the naturally occurring ammonium hydroxide levels in beef and by doing so eliminates harmful pathogens. The use of ammonium hydroxide is not uncommon in food manufacturing.
It is used as a leavening agent in baking, to produce caramel, and in drinking water. It's used in grains, baked goods, condiments, pancakes, chocolates, puddings and cheeses.
On Wednesday, ABC World News Tonight reported that 70 percent of the hamburger sold in America contains the BPI ingredient as a "filler," which the network incorrectly said is not meat."
Perhaps consumers don't want their meat pureed before they eat it? The market will decide. It is a matter of preference, but it disappoints me to see Maggie's Farm take the side of the Food Police without showing the other side.
Even the Huff Po has done that.
"Some of the claims of safety are belied by the 2009 New York Times piece that first discussed the issue of "pink slime" in depth. Still, if you're one of the many Americans who's been quick to pounce on the "disgusting" nature of "pink slime," it's worth pausing to make sure you're acting out of a rational assessment of its pros and cons and not just trial by brand name."
It's disgusting, that's all.
I am told it is mostly used in frozen beef patties.
It looks disgusting.
The question of whether it's good for you or not is another question entirely.
It's safe, and in the current consumer food environment (E. Coli, Salmonella outbreaks here and there), I think it's hardly a threat to society that Jamie Oliver and other detractors make it out to be. (I had a friend get E.Coli from some organic farm she insisted was 'safe')
The only meaningful question is whether it's nutritionally useful. I'd guess (though it's only a guess, I don't know) it's not that much worse than a hunk of filet mignon wrapped with bacon (my meal tonight).
Since the process used to make it uses ammonia (I investigated the process after reading the post), it's the ammonia that people are fearing. However, it's merely a puff of ammonia which purifies the product. So from that standpoint, I don't see the issue.
Particularly if you consider how much silicone is used in medicine. While I know the truth about silicone (dad having been a plastic surgeon), I know it's not the deadly element we've been told.
I agree, it looks horrid. But as long as it's safe, as long as there's some nutritional value, I have no issue with it and let the market decide. I'll admit, I loves me a Big Mac every once in a while. I know it's not 'good for me'. But I do get a craving for the old pink slime every now and again.
The only stance I can take after reading multiple media, blogs, e-mails, government sources, etc. is: we have so many rules, regulations, laws, executive orders, etc. that every city town, municipality, township, state and federal agency, department, branch, etc. should be required to take two years off to reduce their bureaucracy by 90% and, thereafter, use sunset laws that require such governances to review and diminish those rules, laws, regulations, executive orders, etc. by 20% so that:
we who must follow the above have the foggiest idea what we are supposed to be doing.
Mea culpa! ...have NOT the foggist idea...(to adhere to the rules our elists require of us so they may enhance their control...)
re crosses at work ...
there was a time when Christians would gladly be thrown to the lions and wolves in His name. now we're so much of this world that we must play by the Rules, and the Rules say get to permission from some court or government first -- or, and this is almost as bad in its own way -- to rely on the government to protect this right.
In my state the legislature meets every other year. I have long thought it might be a good thing to get the legislators AND the School Teachers to tie their salaries together. In other words if the "elected ones" increase their salary they increase the teacher's salaries. If the teacher's unions strike for more wages they up the pay of "the elected ones"! Dang I love that picture! How about you Buddy?
H-e-double L NOOOOOOOO! That's what happens now and there's nothing to keep the spending from spiraling out of control. It should be just the opposite, a zero-sum arrangement: if the legislators increase their own pay, then the teachers and other civil servants should have their pay reduced; if the teachers and other government workers get a pay raise, then the legislators should have their pay cut. Let them fight it out amongst themselves and prioritize as to which group is the more important or the more deserving.
Thank you for the link. And right up top, before readers get worn out and go for a walk, too!
Bird Dog: Monckton’s Schenectady showdown
Monckton convinced a number of students at a small liberal arts college. Now, he just has to convince experts in the field.
Are you able to be convinced? You seem a pretty consistent advocate ... of what exactly I'm not sure: GW, AGW, CAGW, and what if anything Should Be Done.
John A. Fleming: Are you able to be convinced?
Absolutely. But the scientific debate doesn't occur in seminars at liberal arts colleges, but within the relevant peer community. What little research being published by skeptics is mostly tangential or irrelevant. The debate is primarily relegated to the political and social.
John A. Fleming: You seem a pretty consistent advocate ... of what exactly I'm not sure: GW, AGW, CAGW, and what if anything Should Be Done.
The evidence indicates that the current warming trend is anomalous, is due to human activity, and will have deleterious effects on the Earth's environment.
Monckton is correct, though, when he dispenses with most of the so-called skeptical arguments. The key is climate sensitivity, which has been subject to intensive scientific study. Most findings have been between 2°C and 4.5°C with 3°C being the most probable. These papers use a variety of methods to estimate climate sensitivity:
Wigley et al., Effect of climate sensitivity on the response to volcanic forcing, Journal of Geophysical Research 2005.
Earth Radiation Budget Experiment
Forster & Gregory, The Climate Sensitivity and Its Components Diagnosed from Earth Radiation Budget Data, Journal of Climate 2006.
Schmittner et al., Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum, Science 2011.
Annan & Hargreaves, On the generation and interpretation of probabilistic estimates of climate sensitivity, Climate Change 2008.
Knutti & Hegerl, The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth’s
temperature to radiation changes, Nature Geoscience 2008.
Monckton's economic analysis resulting in a $1.5 quadrillion in costs is silly on its face.
What little is being published by skeptics.
It doesn't hurt to have one side controlling peer review and preventing any reasonable analysis. We know this is happening.
You say it's because it's tangential. Yet all you need to do is get someone like Heidi Cullen to say it's tangential and it becomes tangential, even if it isn't. Because most of the true believers merely parrot each other.
Bulldog: It doesn't hurt to have one side controlling peer review and preventing any reasonable analysis. We know this is happening.
There's just no there there. There just aren't such studies. It's just polemics. But if you point to an actual study that addresses the underlying question, then we'll take a look.
What I'd like to know is:
How did Arthur "Two Sheds" Jackson do in the Shed of the Year contest?