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
Friday, August 17. 2012
Dogs Can Shake 70% of the Water from Their Fur in 4 Seconds, Here's How
Helen Gurley Brown Revisited
Sale at Sippican Cottage Furniture
Psychopaths: The Intelligent, Charming Variant
Watch a Plane Crash From Inside the Cockpit - Don't worry - everyone survived and is recovering but this is still rough to watch.
Marketing Meets Higher Ed
Christianity & gun owners in the crosshairs: Chilling tactic exposed
McCotter: Serial Fraud Kept Congressman in Office
GM could be heading for bankruptcy again
Expert on Mental Illness Reveals Her Own Fight
Pension Envy - A glimpse into the public-union mind-set
Europe: "The Disease Is Incurable"
Chicago Erects Memorial Marker to Commemorate Site of Obamas First Kiss at Baskin-Robbins… A Company Saved By Bain
Gone with the Wind - Green energy firm sacks two-thirds of American workforce days after receiving $32 million government loan
Archeology and war: Are we willing to die to save the past?
From Kimball's Mitt’s mea culpa & Obama’s Waterloo:
It's a choice election
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
There is only ONE reason the people of MA elect a republican governor. Someone has to take the blame when the idiot liberals' plans fail and that would be a REPUBLICAN governor. During Romney's term, our totally liberal legislature made all the rules and told romney to shut up and sign. And that is what he did. In the beginning he tried to govern, but soon realized that the inmates were running the asylum....with the staunch approval of the citizens of MA.
Anyone in doubt: interesting document from UN. Scroll down to page 126.
That's the scariest damn thing I expect to read all week. I barely got halfway through page 126 before my mind started to fog over with visions of the new One World Order. Man, socialists are scary.
re "Christianity & gun owners in the crosshairs: Chilling tactic exposed"
It sounds basically like the same tactic as "SWATing', the anonymous phone call to set the police on innocent people.
Like turning in a false fire alarm, I do not understand why SWATing is not a crime.
In the tactic mentioned in the article, why isn't this at the very least grounds for a civil suit?
Is there no legal avenues a person can utilize to defend themselves from such attacks?
There is a case locally (Texas) where "someone" reported a person as being mentally unstable. A warrant was issued and the person was arrested at work. He was taken to the area mental hospital and held for about 5 days. I looked at the warrant on line and it shows the complainant as "name withheld." I would be interested in a Maggie's Farm lawyer discussing the implications of these kinds of cases. How can the name of the person accusing be withheld? How can one be held for observation in a mental institution with no recourse? What is to stop a mad neighbor or whatever from filing such a complaint if they can remain anonymous?
One thing I know based on news reports of other incidents, which Mr. Egroff evidently did not know, is that you never open the door of your house at the request of a policeman and step outside (even onto your own porch) to "talk" to him. You stay INSIDE your house, well out of reach if possible, and ask to see a warrant first. You never cross the threshold, because once you do, you open yourself to being taken into custody. Apparently standing on your own front porch is legally considered the same as being "in public". I don't understand the reasoning behind this, but this is not the first time I've read of the police taking advantage of such tactics. Treat it the same way you would if a cop asks out of the blue to search your car at a simple traffic stop: always say no because agreeing to cooperate will only get you into trouble. Be suspicious. Something is up; you just don't know what it is, and until you do, be extremely wary because in all innocence and in ignorance of the law you might be agreeing to surrender your civil rights.
If you REALLY want to start cleaning up academia--get rid of "The Greek System". If young people wish to join lifelong cults they should do it of their own volition. These networks are truly evil, beginning with the system of "personal tutoring". Every woman in every sorority surrenders a copy of her tests, and the notes taken from the lecturer regarding these correct answers after the test is returned. You remember: when the teacher stands up in front of the class and take Q/A about "the right answer". Those tests and the "right answers" are turned into the sorority house and the next year's victims/members use those to prep for the exam. Of course those who do not belong to a sorority have to make it on their own. What is truly evil about these cults is what is truly evil about any cult--the demand for obedience to the leader; the demand to do things that are illegal, or immoral. These actions of course will be held over the individual's head for the rest of their lives--thus assuring that each individual will commit what ever action is deemed necessary out there in the real world--the evil doing, obedient female will once again commit another "slightly wrong" act in order to stay in the group, and in order not to be exposed. Why universities continue to support these cults is beyond me--but then again I am just . . .
The dogs make me wonder about apes, and then humans. Is our skin tight because we have so little hair?
"Study: Men Paying For Sex From Prostitutes Looking For True Love" I thought this meant the prostitutes were looking for true love.
So. Will Dems go for voter ID with evidence of Repub misconduct? Or will they presume they have the numbers advantage?
SPLC: I donated money to an organization that I thought worthy. I still do think them worthy, but will not donate because I started getting SPLC and NAACP donation requests.
Pensions in Cali: The taxpayers may not outnumber the voters who don't (and I suspect they don't), but the the state workers' unions hold greater sway with the media, regardless.
Still, Prop. 13 passed, but how long ago...?
The Daily Beast likes Ryan? Have they joined the VRWC? Was Tina Brown deposed in a coup? Or did someone sneak this in?
Die to save the past? Well, the Muslims do, to bring back the 7th century. Or so it seems.
Pensions in Cali: It's ironic to me how many of the pensioners from California end up in Texas and try to pass themselves off as conservatives while drawing their outrageous California pensions.
What were they expecting with Romneycare, A miracle? In Tennessee they passed tenncare, their version of Hillarycare, in the early 1990s. In a few years it became the largest line item in the state budget and was well on the way to bankrupting the state. Tenncare still exists but it is really reduced from the original version. Evidently, the only thing we learn from history is that nobody learns anything from history.
Bird Dog: From Kimball's Mitt’s mea culpa & Obama’s Waterloo
What mea culpa?
Roger Kimball: We all make mistakes. The important thing is that Mitt Romney has recognized his mistake and has credibly outlined a plan to make amends by repealing and replacing ObamaCare.
Nope. Not a mea culpa.
Roger Kimball: And people wonder why I predict Romney/Ryan will win by a landslide.
So, let's get this right. RomneyCare is a disaster, so Romney will win the election.
Bird Dog: How Bad Data Contribute to Global Warming Hysteria
Bad rehashing of long discarded arguments.
John Hinderacker: Satellite data show no net warming for as long as such data have been collected, i.e., back to 1979.
John Hinderacker: Ocean measurements show no net warming over that period, either
John Hinderacker: But the accuracy of land measurements depends on proper siting and maintenance of weather stations. One obvious factor is the urban heat island effect: many weather stations are located in cities, which grow warmer as more people and buildings accumulate.
"There were issues of data changes. Some of the prior groups had adjusted the data and lost all record of how they had adjusted it. So we went back to the raw data and used only that."
"Then, there's the urban heat island effect [the criticism that weather stations sited in urban areas give artificially high temperature readings]. That was something I think we studied in a clever and original way," Muller says. This involved examining only the data from rural stations to see if the temperature rise was still there - and it was. "We got the same answer," he says.
John Hinderacker: We all know that the urban heat island effect is real–”chance of frost in outlying areas”–yet the data that alarmists rely upon do not take it into account.
Nope. Scientists do take it into account.
"Scientists do take it into account."
We agree. That is why the work done by certain well-known global warming alarmists is not considered science by the skeptics. So, instead of grandly stating a broad generalization as if you've successfully contradicted Hinderacker's claim, perhaps you can point to a specific example or two that might actually refute what he wrote. I've got no dog in this fight. I'm just wondering if you can back up what you claim is an error on his part. I wouldn't be surprised or disappointed however you respond.
Agent Cooper: That is why the work done by certain well-known global warming alarmists is not considered science by the skeptics.
Not sure what you're asking. Climatologists do account for the heat island effect. There are various statistical methods, but the Berkeley study simply ignored urban sites, and looked only at rural sites, and it still showed the warming trend.
So we have,
1) Hinderaker said satellite radiometrics don't support tropospheric warming. That is incorrect.
2) Hinderaker said ocean temperature measurements don't support sea warming. That is incorrect.
3) Hinderaker said the urban heat island effect was skewing the conclusion about surface warming. That is incorrect.
We provided the links above.
Feebles, mary, agent cooper, the model:
Zach, if i send you a list of links, will you take a day or two to read them, and report back with a detailed analysis? Nah, you won't do it, will you, but you will keep asking others to do it, won't you.
So let's zoom out a bit, and ask the question of why it is,
1) with the data on weather/climate empirically so incomplete and inconclusive that we need weather reports to forecast the next hour but
2) that leftists to a person, and regardless of any expertise or lack of expertise in the field or even in the classic scientific method, somehow are able to all agree vehemently that
3) the science is so difficult that even though two scientists can disagree, any leftist layman can automatically know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, which one of them is right and which is wrong politically and therefore, since
4) this one certain particular segment of scientists is producing the actual science, and since
5) this segment by happy coincidence also happens to be the leftist political activist segment, is
6) pure coincidence nothing more,
7) and that the fact the the above circumstances proceed from such a welder's junkyard of artful premise ("know the scientist to know the science to know the scientist") that the only thing ''proved'' is that man is first a political animal, and so it is important for him to hew to certain hard-won and (until recently) universally understood principles regarding the scientific method.
8) So, to close my intro, why is all that?
barry larsen: if i send you a list of links, will you take a day or two to read them, and report back with a detailed analysis?
Be happy to look at them. Please try to provide scientific citations. However, if it polemics from the usual suspects, we're probably already familiar with them.
barry larsen: 1) with the data on weather/climate empirically so incomplete and inconclusive that we need weather reports to forecast the next hour but
Weather is not climate. For instance, we can predict with some certainty that it will be warmer on average in Paris in July than in December, even though we may not know whether it will rain or not next July 14.
barry larsen: 2) that leftists to a person, and regardless of any expertise or lack of expertise in the field or even in the classic scientific method, somehow are able to all agree vehemently that
Not concerned with 'leftist' opinion, but scientific findings.
barry larsen: 3) the science is so difficult that even though two scientists can disagree, any leftist layman can automatically know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, which one of them is right and which is wrong politically and therefore, since
Actually, there is a strong consensus within the scientific community; including scientists from many different institutions, countries and cultures; that significant anthropogenic climate change is occurring.
Zeke, is there a consensus to de-define scientific method? Was there a vote? Was incentive weighted in that consensus ballot or poll, whicheewhatever twas?
Also, canoe and aircraft carrier are not the same thing, but if a person cannot manage to canoe across a mill pond, he's not likely to be an aircraft carrier commander.
Also, if you'll forgive my confusing you with a WWII Mitsubishi A6M "Zeke" (better known as the 'Zero') Japanese single-engine carrier fighter,
... then i'll forgive you for confusing me with dead-ringer lookalike the young Ryan O'Neil:
buddy larsen: is there a consensus to de-define scientific method?
You had suggested there was not a consensus. That was incorrect.
"Climate change is real ... It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities. This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate." —National Academies of Science, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan Russia, United Kingdom, United States.
1) 'consensus' is a word that belongs in a different system, Zach. What you are trying to say is that the mentioned spokesgroups have polled themselves on the question of "Will you agree to say that you feel like the yea evidence negates the nay evidence?"
These bureaucracies compete for scarce rewsources. The first rule of any bureacracy is to grow. Ask a GM exec if his product in so n so category is better or worse than the same vehicle by another maker. He'l;l say 'yes'. Now ask him to answer the question via objective performance statistics. There'll be a problem with that data --maybe there's reason to believe that one of the ex-Ford engineers at Road and Track may be a plant, and there's other examples. One of the labs buys supplies from the Koch brothers.
"However, the consensus is, our styling is clearly superior!"
But here's the real deal, Zach: You and people like you are playing a political parlor game that is doing damage to economic growth in third world nations full of people who would like a little slice of first world, someday, if possible.
How many investors, over the last 30 years, have been --by your hand and those like you --redirected away from these poor people?
To me, if i were you, that sort of stat would be one of the items of my intense interest.
That the first-world left wing is both ready to apply draconian totalitarian solutions to what the independent science world has already decided as,
"the problem is not the issue, the issue is the problem", while at the same time the same first-world left wing (hyper-vigilant & super-observant re Gaia's imagined maladies) is either totally blind to or utterly antinomian concerning, the entropy of frantic green idolaters and their hard-edged totalitarian brain trust's effect on the quarter to third of humanity living hand-to-mouth on the edge of catastrophy, is very, very telling.
buddy larsen: 'consensus' is a word that belongs in a different system
You introduced the topic when you suggested there wasn't a consensus.
buddy larsen: You and people like you are playing a political parlor game that is doing damage to economic growth in third world nations full of people who would like a little slice of first world, someday, if possible.
Thus far, we have only discussed whether anthropogenic climate change is supported by the scientific evidence. However, long term growth does depend on addressing climate change, just as it does on controlling conventional pollution.
Boilerplate. Let's talk about what you want to do to Joe Thirdworld now in this lifetime.
Issued 7 June 2005, by the national science academies of the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, Germany, Japan, Italy, Canada, Brazil, China and India ...
The Climategate scandal erupted on November 19, 2009, when a collection of email messages, data files and data processing programs were leaked from the University of ...
2005 came before 2009
buddy larsen: The Climategate scandal erupted on November 19, 2009, when a collection of email messages, data files and data processing programs were leaked from the University of ...
That's the whole point, of course. The results don't depend on a single scientist or a single research center. The findings are supported by scientific communities working in different countries, under different political systems, with different cultures, and across many disciplines.