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.
During the American Revolution, it was, "Give me Liberty or give me death." Today it's, "Give me Universal Health Care or give me death." And the alternative to death is a nanny state that controls every aspect of our lives, only for us to die anyway. Fighting for Liberty may occasionally make men immortal, but fighting for government bureaucracy just makes them slaves.
To win re-election, Obama has "gone rogue," boldly going where no Democrat has gone before. Obama in essence has said, screw it. I am not going to masquerade as a moderate. I am going to campaign as a full blown anti-capitalism, anti-Constitution progressive/socialist!
While global warming alarmists cloak themselves in the mantle of science, the truth is that there is nothing scientific about their enterprise. The models that are the sole basis for global warming alarmism have been proved conclusively to be wrong. That really is all that needs to be said about the matter. The fact that alarmists and their supporters in the media and in politics continue to try to foist discredited theories onto the public shows that their real interest is not science, but politics and power.
Watching President Obama flop around like a fish out of water, careening from gaffe to desperation to dishonesty, I find myself searching for ways to put his troubling behavior into historic perspective.
Is this The Unmaking of a President? Or is it The Unmasking? Perhaps we are witnessing an American Tragedy. Or maybe we’re seeing final proof his election was The Great Mistake.
All those fit the facts, and lead to a shared conclusion. So far, the 2012 election has almost nothing to do with Mitt Romney. Even the GOP doesn’t love its choice, but the race is a dead heat because Obama is so disappointing.
Weblog: www.thepiratescove.us Tracked: Jun 17, 09:53
Thoughts On A Sunday
It's been quiet around The Manse, with BeezleBub at the farm haying (a sunrise to sunset operation), and Deb off to the Big-E in Springfield, Massachusetts to attend a classic car show with one of her friends. Not that their...
I'm not sure about this evolving to need coercion. Human history is a history of coercion and our evolution is finding peaceful means to get along without all this coercion.
So the question is, have we evolved so that future coercion won't be met by the deep evolutionary trait of coercing them to stop their coercing.
Seems to me, Herr professor, has his evolution backwards or he's just a thug in academic clothing.
On the offchance that I am perhaps the senior women commenting today, let me pose a question. I am baffled at folks who feel justified in telling someone else what they should or should not invest in. Yet there are people out there in our great country who feel justified in criticizing Ann Romney, who has a chronic disease which is palliated by riding a dressage horse, for even having a horse. It can't be because she can't afford to buy and keep a horse, even an expensive one. Her husband and she have ample funds to buy and keep several horses. Surely these thoughtless folks who criticize her for investing in a horse, can't seriously believe that it's any of their business what the Romneys buy. Or not buy, as long as it's honestly acquired. Surely those liberals who have this abiding need to tell us other people what we can or can't do "because it's fair". can't be foolish enough to think they have any right at all to dictate what the Romneys, and the Matthews can buy and support or not. That would be very close to dictatorship, wouldn't it?
Maybe it's that faction of our population who aren't as rich as the Romneys and are trying to float the concept that if they can't afford to buy and support a horse, nobody else should have the right of choice what to do with their legally acquired and frugally increased funds.
This is what occurs when irresponsible politicians promulgate misty-eyed concepts like "it's not fair that he or they should have more than you or I do." It fits in with the same folks who say about stay-at-home Moms that they're not doing anything, even if the Mom in question has raised five healthy, rambunctious sons to useful manhood. Any Mother can agree that this is sometimes work to do, and very rewarding when done right.
So we are left with the false concept that the Busybody Brigade, headed by Mr. Obama, is trying to force us to accept: business success is "just not fair."
Generally, Americans are too smart to accept this stricture. We believe in ourselves, and we want the elbow room to make our own successful lives, without the Government intervening and scolding us for making a profit.
I've not understood this attack on Romney. Horses? Perhaps that seems privileged from the beltway looking toward Fairfax county but out in America. Horses are not just for the very rich. Rodeo is not for the elite. Sure they are expensive, but middle class parents make the expense for their kids. And the ones who don't buy a belly to throw money into, pay lessons, rentals, etc.
Liberals need to get out of the city on occasion and give some real thought to why those large fields of grass are grown, cut and baled. Do they think those farmers just grow really really big lawns out along the freeway? Herbicide them, fertilize them, hay them, seed them, for aesthetics? Here's a tip, those big rolls of grass you see sitting in the field or lined up and covered along the fence line, that's not going to the compost pile, that is going to feed the horses and the cattle over the winter.
It can't be because she can't afford to buy and keep a horse, even an expensive one.
My Montana cousins are far from wealthy, but have owned horses for decades. Back in the 1960s another cousin bought a horse- half paid by her babysitting earnings and half paid by her parents.
You don't have to be filthy wealthy to have a horse.
I don't recall the Busybody Brigade having any problems with the Kennedy family expenditures...nor, for that matter, Obama's travels at taxpayer expense when he is apparently worth over $10 million.
Powerline: A scientific hypothesis is tested by its predictive powers. Scientists reason: if this theory is correct, then X should be the case. They test for X; if they find X to be true, it tends to confirm the theory. If X is not the case, the theory is disproved.
Or that the one of the premises are wrong, or that the observation is in error, or that the prediction isn't properly entailed; or in this case, not reading the paper carefully.
Watts Up With That: Figure 1: Temperature forecast Hansen’s group from the year 1988. The various scenarios are 1.5% CO 2 increase (blue), constant increase in CO 2 emissions (green) and stagnant CO 2 emissions (red).
That is incorrect. The scenarios are based on trace gas growth, that is, atmospheric CO2, CH4, N2O, CFCs and stratospheric aerosols (See appendix B, Hansen et al. 1988).
When adjusting for the various forcings, the Earth is close to Scenario B. Hansen used a sensitivity of 4.2°C per doubling. If we adjust the sensitivity to match the data, the result is 3.6°C, which is close to the currently accepted median value of ≈3°C based on a number of separate measures.
In any case, the data clearly shows the Earth's surface is warming.
Tracked: Jun 17, 09:53
It's been quiet around The Manse, with BeezleBub at the farm haying (a sunrise to sunset operation), and Deb off to the Big-E in Springfield, Massachusetts to attend a classic car show with one of her friends. Not that their...
Tracked: Jun 17, 13:01
Tracked: Jun 17, 14:30
Tracked: Jun 17, 21:35
Tracked: Jun 17, 21:36