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
Thursday, April 18. 2013
Global warming causing huge storms on Mars
The Top 5 Most Irritating Terms In Evolution Reporting
Nanny Bloomberg very pissed that his $ can't buy the US Senate
Top Democrat Baucus Sees 'Huge Train Wreck' for Obamacare
For-profit Higher Ed is Fine - Government Funding is the Problem
President blames the NRA
The NRA represents millions of good Americans
Obama's Preschool Push Is Backed By Faulty Evidence
Tuition fees well-spent
The End of Full-Time Work in the American Retail Service Sector
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
"... it isn't really the survival of the fittest organism that drives evolution. It's the death of the least fit organism.
Okay somebody is going to have to explain that one to me.
"Survival of the fittest" doesn't really say anything about the less fit. "death of the less fit is more informative" Death of the less fit prior to procreation as compared to the more fit is even more informative.
The first is catchy and avoids thoughts of all that death. By definition, brutal, violent, diseased or some other death than quietly slipping away as a grandfather.
If you consider that "the fittest" could describe a range of fitness and "the least fit" could define a range of less fit, then I'm not sure I see the difference.
Oliver Knevitt: It's the death of the least fit organism.
That's not quite right either. Evolution depends on reproductive success, not death. A variant that leaves more viable offspring will eventually dominate the population.
Marvels of The Science - The Real Reason They Don't Want Evolution Taught In Schools. this will help explain.
President blames the NRA
Here's the simple truth - President Obama has never been told no - you can't have that. So he plays "Father Figure" and scolds - the Supreme Court, American people, Senate, House - anybody it doesn't matter. He's been thwarted and he's mad about it because everybody is ignoring his "authority". He's never been part of the real America - those people outside the cocoon of big city politics.
He's a petulant and petty little man and apparently not very bright.
Global warming causing huge storms on Mars
Well, yeah - if the temperature differential is 100°, there's bound to be tight pressure gradients once in a while which would cause huge storms.
Same thing happens here on Earth, but the mechanism is less severe and moderated by our huge heat sinks.
Bloomberg very pissed that his $ can't buy the US Senate
Another insular big city politician who just doesn't understand that top down politics doesn't work.
PS: He's also a moron.
Barry rails against the "NRA" but won't acknowledge that "I" am the NRA along with 4.5 million other upstanding Americans.
We will fight you tooth and nail Barry, suck it.
I love the way politicians and media, and I repeat myself, talk about the NRA as some monolithic organization that's somehow run by evil men bent on destruction when in reality it is a reflection of a huge conglomerant of normal American citizens exercising their 1st amendment rights. It is actually a great sample of Americans in that its members come from both political parties, both genders and a broad spectrum of socio-economic segments and occupations. Their common interest is the enjoyment for various lawful purposes of firearms and the protection of the right to continue to enjoy firearms as minimally restricted as reasonable.
Obama's problem is that the segment of the population pushing for more restrictive gun laws are a minority segment of white urban liberals. So lashing out at the NRA is lashing out at a large segment of US voters. Good job.
President blames the NRA
I know I've been inspired to compromise with all these people who have been declaring I should be killed or that I am mentally defective just because they couldn't push through gun control legislation. Yes, I'm convinced.
It is quite sad to see the ignorance revealed. Over at OTB, I had to explain to a commenter that cops and FBI do not have rights, beyond that as citizens. But as cops and FBI, in official duties, they have not rights. Citizens have rights, government and its official actors do not. They have authorizing legislation, regulations and judicial decisions but they do not have rights.
I think the difference is pretty important.
The reasons kids leave the church is nothing new. Been seeing these excuses for several years.
It's also somewhat disingenuous. Doesn't get into some of the harder issues, much of this is superficial terminology that can be applied anywhere as desired.
This author wants to return to more traditional services. I happen to prefer those too, so I can relate. But that's not why kids are leaving the church.
Storms on Mars: DAMN them Martians driving SUVs! Idjits!
Bloomie: Mayors Agin Illegal Guns are more likely to violate gun laws, I've read.
BarryCare Train Wreck: Not just a regular train wreck, but a hugely expensive High-Speed-Train wreck.
yup, the NRA is a terror. But not so much them, as the many millions (and millions) of non-NRA-members who also own firearms.
Cho's radical sex needs to be on YouTube for higher transgressiveness.
I was raised Southern Baptist in an 'old fashioned' church around people who lived their faith 7 days a week, not just on Sunday. Went to Sunday morning and Sunday evening services, Wednesday night prayer service, and many revival services. I haven't set foot in a church, except for funerals and weddings, in 20 years.
I don't know why kids leave the church, I can't tell you why I left other than to say that I feel little to no connection to church, religion, or (most distressingly) to God. I wish I knew why.
President Pinocchio accuses opponents of the proposed gun legislation of LYING? Really? This from a guy who's lied to virtually everyone almost from Day 1, the day he took his first breath in this world? The guy who Roger Ailes says lied to his face at a private meeting held between the two prior to the 2008 election? The guy with made-up girl friends, the guy whose classmates can't remember him at Columbia, the faux "author" who used a former terrorist as his ghostwriter? Noooo, tell me it is not so.
Global warming on Mars.
Someone at weather dot com needs to learn to write or to edit.
“… what the sky would look like if a planet circled the Earth instead of the moon …” says “What if a planet circled the Earth instead of circling the moon?” Initial confusion soon corrected to, “Oh. Somebody doesn’t understand basic grammar.”
RE: For Profit Education Report
MY DH says that if you back away from a problem you are not able to see where you are going. Rather you should focus on the ideal and drive forward to that goal.
Having said that let me point out a little piece of history that the liberals, nor the conservatives want to acknowledge. One of the most politically powerful and corrupt institutions is THE most liberal non-profit university. Back in the 1960's it was loosing enrollment and income. The solution was to open "store front" schools. Twenty seven of which were closed down due to fraud, academic corruption, and even in some states the legislature crafted laws against this type of learning. Yet, the conservatives never prosecuted !!
The idea of "distance education" was original to the true problem of distance. However, the fact that someone did not want to suffer the rigor of a traditional university (in the old university system) should never have been hidden behind the guise of distance education. I know faculty in non-profit universities who earned their "degree" at "distance learning" institutions and they lived only 3 miles away from a major university, into which they most likely would not have been accepted.
Distance became an excuse for fraud. The conservatives never challenged it and the major universities dropped their standards to compete with the "new thinking".
Until such time as both liberal and conservative sit down to create a plan to work toward an academic ideal, i.e. integrity, ethics, and rigor, there will be mass confusion in academia. Never forget that every truly talented and well educated HR person knows EXACTLY what is going on in the university departments pertinent to their industry! They may not be able to do anything with regard to the application of that knowledge, but the good ones do know where the best training, or education (two different things) is going on.
We MUST be able to acknowledge that the old classroom rigor offered an education experience to the student that no one is getting now. We must have the courage to require that online learning degrees state clearly on the front "online", or that distance learning degrees state clearly "distance learning program". If we do not even have the courage to make this simple demand on the system there is no point in having this conversation around "for profit education" vs. "not for profit education".
While I agree that the specific problems this researcher examined do exist, I do not see that he has made the case for "for profit" universities. He has simply stated that they are able to create new training programs according to this year's need of industry, or the fashion of the season. He has not addressed the issues of truly educating a citizen; someone capable of critical thinking, reasoned debate, or mathematical and scientific skills. The scope of his research is narrow and should not be applied to the problem of the whole system. Until we have the courage to enforce ethics, rigor, integrity, and transparency--nobody is getting the education we should not be surprised to see evil prevail in academia.
Adaptionism and other irritating terminology regarding evolution.
One of the worst offender is the natural science popularizer, David Attenborough. Though I always enjoy watching any nature series on television in which he appears, with him no behavior or trait in a creature, however odd or bizarre, just "is." There must always be a scientifically supportable "explanation" for it, if only we can comprehend the process by which wild creatures adapt to nature. The more peculiar the trait, the harder Attenborough works to rationalize it. This has become a running joke between my wife and me, as we now apply it to all manner of things in our lives that we find strange or difficult to believe.