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, June 10. 2013
Manliest Father's Day Pie
Once dying, Birmingham is suddenly hot
Why Ray Harryhausen's stop-motion effects were more real than CGI
Is Big Pot on the way?
Philly crane operator was stoned
HHS Website For Girls, 10 to 16, Informs Youth About Birth Control, Gay Sex,
Professors Are About to Get an Online Education
Believe What People Think is the Leading Cause of Poverty in America -
See more at:
Believe What People Think is the Leading Cause of Poverty in America -
See more at:
Believe What People Think is the Leading Cause of Poverty in America -
See more at:
Global Warming Alarmism In Twilight
Homeschooling Growing Seven Times Faster than Public School Enrollment
Temp staffing jobs hit record as firms dodge ObamaCare costs
Why Schumer-Rubio is a fraud — the nutshell version
Few options for online users to avoid spying, experts say
Here's a site: SueTheIRS.com
Stealth Edit: The New York Times Has Now Lost all Credibility
NSA Obtains Data from 50 Companies
China and Hong Kong Hold Edward Snowden's Fate
Snooping Concerns Emerge Over Congressional Blackberries Serviced By Verizon
Allah wants you to try it.
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/06/07/193356/few-options-for-online-users-to.html#storylink=cpySueTheIRS.com
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Unless they changed it real fast, I can't find anything in that HHS website's index linking to mutual masturbation, gay sex, or anal sex - there is a link to a section talking about birth control.
The glossary doesn't have anymore information on those topics than you would find in a dictionary
anal sex (say: AYN-uhl seks) = sex that involves putting the penis in the anus, or butt.
Heck there isn't even a definition of homosexuality or lesbianism in the glossary let alone an entry on "gay sex"
Though there is one for "mutual masturbation".
Leno is just destroying - I wonder if that is why the NBC suits keep trying to get rid of him?
"When did the government become our psycho ex-girlfriend?"
When yall elected extraordinary girl of mystery, el husna presidente.
Re: The New York Times has lost all credibility
I know that it's a reference to the phrase that was edited after it was published but really, did the New York Times have credibility in the first place?
For those of you who want to work toward a more ethical university -- write your congress person and organize a campaign to require that all federal research monies to universities have a ceiling as to the amount of the fund that can be automatically absorbed by the university itself. In other words: if a professor gets $100,000 to study sex in the bathtub in today's environment $50,000 of that grant goes immediately to the university for doing nothing! Ohh, they claim they provide printers, secretarys, etc. But, too many times that $50,000 goes nowhere and does nothing except . . . The professor in charge (principal investigator) decides how that other $50,000 gets spent: they can call in experts for $1,500 each, or they can hire part time students to do secretarial work, OR they can pay themselves the entire $50,000, or they can pay their wives something. Of course they will have to buy the rubber duckies and the tubs! But, MOST IMPORTANTLY that professor will have to pay his department's 'research co-ordinator' -- the facilitator. You know-- the woman in charge of deciding who gets to submit which grant to the school's upper administration for approval before being sent to the federal government. Here is a relatively new twist: the heads of other departments are now being named as "managers". So for example at the UW if you want to send a proposal to the NSF (National Science Foundation) for money to study computers and you work in the engineering department, you will have to hire the woman the dean of information science to head up your project. That means she will get a big chunk of that $50,000 just for passing it on up the administration's ladder. Yes Barrister if you really want to stop the waste in federal research monies go back in and start to clean up the process. There should be no more than 35% to the university off the top. ANYONE already in a decision making administrative position should not get paid for "oversight" unless they are actually doing the research (principal investigator). You just cut 30% out of the NSF budget and nobody would even notice!
If the Fed Gov just HAS to fund any research, than the only research it should fund must be hard science related. There should be absolutely no Fed Gov funding for any humanities related research. Those tend to be easily politicized and most often tend towards the vapid in topic and conclusions.
Never gonna happen.
It should be noted that the District of Columbia has the largest concentration of graduates from the illegitimate, I mean, social sciences, your political science, government, ??? studies, etc., at 26% of all college grads. Far outstripping the next largest, wait for it, Virginia at 11% and Maryland at 10.6%.
With so many fellow travelers in the drone ranks of government, it is impossible to shift the funding going to support graduate degrees in the easy arts to useful purposes.
Government is a jobs program for liberal arts majors.
College liberal arts teaching posts and administration jobs are jobs programs for aging hippies and younger folk suffering from arrested development.
BTW, here is a couple showing the delightful social science/humanities memes collapsing under reality
First up, a review of a book on the plight of the working class during early industrialization. Taken from the personal blogs (of the time), whose archives have lain dormant for 200 years, of those very exploited workers. Seems they did not find the factory work so bad compared to the poverty of their "idyllic" life on the farm. Don't worry the review does reiterate the plight of the children, so all is not lost.
I just came across [url=http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/06/how-critical-are-the-early-years-of-life.html] this at Marginal Revolution[//url] on a recent paper showing that a poor start in childhood isn't the terrible disability the Progs like to crow about. If you can get into a better situation after a rough start, e.g., Chinese orphanage, the differences are statistically significant.
Oops, the sacred cows are being slaughtered.
"Homeschooling Growing Seven Times Faster than Public School Enrollment"
I read an interesting observation at Penelope Trunk's homeschooling blog. She pointed out, that homeschooling is big with the Hollywood parents. Brad and Angelina do it, although with 6 tutors, and Jennifer Garner does it when she goes on location.
With homeschooling the Hollywood trend, "it's not just for scary religious people anymore". Ah, Buffy, she was always ahead of the trend.
Vox: Keep in mind that I'm more intelligent than you are.
Vox: The fact that you can't understand the way I think doesn't make my brain wrong, it merely means you aren't keeping up.
Vox: Since women's rights are very strongly correlated with demographic decline, they are not sustainable and are, in fact, societally deleterious.
Pity the poor Americans.
Vox: The one and only thing both society and the human race actually need from you is for you to marry and raise children.
There's more to raising chicks than just laying the eggs.
Vox: If you're not going to do that, then it really doesn't matter if you're going to become a human resources manager with an engineering degree or drop out of school and become a stripper.
Really, no difference at all. Not to her. Not to her children.
Vox: If you're only going to do what any man of similar capabilities can do, then you are an evolutionary dead end and as unimportant to society as the average man is.
No point in old people then.
The comments are even more so!
Now that you've been outed, it should be noted that one thing you obviously haven't learned about Americans is that we honestly could give a shit what non-Americans such as yourself have to say about us. Even worse are the ex-patriots, like Cory Doctorow and Andrew Sullivan, who become citizens of this great nation only to make a living off of criticizing it.
Just thought I'd mention it.
It continues to amuse me that you think snark is some sort of meaningful response.
John Hinderaker: Global Warming Alarmism In Twilight
Um, no. The scientific consensus remains unchanged, and the political environment is moving towards action on the issue.
As for Spencer's graph of the tropical mid-troposphere, it incorrectly averages two different measures. The historical data for the tropical mid-troposphere just isn't sufficient to reach his desired conclusion.
'Consensus' just means everyone grab your wallet cause they're going to demanding money.
"Money for Nothing" is now about government spending.
"The scientific consensus remains unchanged"
Climate science is an active field of study. - Zachriel, 5/9/13
"Active", in this usage, is the opposite of "static", or "unchanging". So your claim in the quote is that the field is still changing.
Yet now it "remains unchanged".
You might want to work on that.
Dr. Mercury: "Active", in this usage, is the opposite of "static", or "unchanging". So your claim in the quote is that the field is still changing.
Active is not the opposite of consensus. It's no more inconsistent than saying that gravity is an active field of study while noting that gravity is the consensus explanation for planetary orbits.
Here's another one from Chicago 1968 (you do remember the riots at the democratic convention don't you?) This gal is best friends with Bill (the bomber)Ayers, the man and woman who wrote the fundamental course book on community organizing and numerous others from that group of committed communists. I wonder now--d'ya suppose she was part of designing Obamacare?
Mailvox: writing back to a young female engineer
It is not often that I agree with Zach - well, actually that's not true - I don't agree with Zach on anything.
Except for this one time - the exception that proves the rule.
Talk about ignorance - it's one idiot calling the other idiot an idiot. And the funniest part is that neither one presents a cogent case to the other promoting their review. Yes, one was more lengthy and weighted with what seemed logical arguments, but was really a vapid and somewhat misogynistic view while the other was a somewhat emotional and equally vapid rant that just didn't hold together. That whole post was a waste of time.
However, it was in the comments that I found the most ignorance from supposedly intelligent, trained "STEM' engineers who obviously don't have a clue with regard to a general sciences subject like Environmental Engineering.
In most engineering schools, study of environmental engineering is almost always adjunct to the Civil or Chemical Engineering departments. In fact a lot of the courses needed to obtain a Civil or Chemical Engineering degree are concurrent with the syllabus of those departments. There are variations and additional courses in addition for the specialized designation, but both are closely related if not 90% identical.
We need competent and capable engineers of all kinds and telling somebody they aren't going to make it based on their gender is ridiculous and frankly, 5th Century thinking.
CORRECTION: This is what I get for allowing my brain to run ahead of my fingers.
What I meant to say in the last paragraph is that Environmental Engineering degrees are 90% compatible with Chemical and Civil Engineering degrees with the appropriate variations that allow for specialization.
It has already been "one of those days" and it's threatening to continue until late evening. :>)
I can't speak to all engineering schools, but I stand by my comment made on that board: the Env Engineering candidates I interviewed (and the one I worked with) were woefully underqualified compared to other engineers.
I once hired three electrical engineering graduates from MIT, Wake Forest and Georgia Tech. Guess which one never made it out of the probationary period. 3.8 gpa, working on a Masters, seemingly smart on paper but had the common sense of a box of rocks.
I've worked with Environmental Engineers on several projects over the years and found them to be well rounded, willing to research solutions, work through problems and their general engineering education served them well.
We all have lousy experiences with co-workers and those we seemingly don't want to work with or deem worthy for various reasons. To make a blanket statement that Environmental Engineers aren't worthy of engineering status is absurd.
Given their course of study, I don't find it absurd. I don't think it's anywhere near as rigorous as you suggest.
Vox reminds me of the guys I use to work for (and professors) back in the '80's. Those were the pinch your butt, go make coffee days of engineering. Anyhow it was easy to politically out maneuver those guys - I could drive a bus through their blind spot. Yes I probably have gotten breaks by being a woman and I also have been held back (and experienced some good ol' fashioned offensive unwanted touching). I was hired (on the spot) for my first job after graduating with the opening line from my first boss "I still don't believe women should be engineers but I'm old fashioned...". So what, that's the way it was then. Life isn't fair and who hasn't gotten breaks and experience obstacles. Vox certainly shouldn't be throwing rocks before holding up a mirror.
I wouldn't discount every thing he said. It's true about feelings. I also don't understand why we didn't just stop at "you and me are free to be you and me". Seems to me we are now pressuring young women to eschew marriage, kids, "lesser careers" and men with unequal career status and we are pressuring boys to be girls. I feel like I lived through the perfect window, even with it's imperfections. I had a friend that dropped out to be a nurse and one that dropped out to get married- to a carpenter, have a dog and some kids. What's wrong with that?
I haven't seen in action what he said about women not sticking in engineering. I have seen it as a trend for scientists and those with advanced STEM degrees working in research and I think it was due to subtle bias around what is "better" for a woman's career ("they are better at that people stuff"- oh look and that job pays more too...). Also if you look at how people get to those upper level technical jobs it's through sponsorship. A Sr. male scientist (who is usually so smart, and valuable and always right that he has risen to the rarefied circle in-spite of being really really bad with the people stuff) is much more likely to sponsor someone that reminds him of a young himself (need I point out the obvious). It's not mean spirited so much as human nature and good intentions. It was also a snap shot in time. Will this be the same trend for the next 10-20 years? Probably not.
Does it matter? A degree is just a step off point for starting life.
I don't know what all else this guy writes about, not interested. Also didn't bother with the comments.
The best student by far in my engineering class was a student of the female persuasion. Problem sets which would take us ordinary students hours to do- often in collaboration with others- she did in class in 20 minutes.
My sister. currently retired, was an engineer.
In the correct context I don't think VOX is either unfair or wrong. It is important to point out the young lady took the first cheap shots and got back cheap shots. To look at the VOX reply without considering what he was replying to does indeed make it seem a little over the top. Also On his site VOX touched on this subject again and his explanations of the most easily misunderstood part of his original reply shed some light on this not obvious in the first reading.
Offshore Wind: The Enormously Expensive Energy Alternative
This is why government should stay out of setting priorities and goals for industry and technology. MA pols have been pushing off-shore wind for a decade, before fracturing oil and gas technology changed everything.
Even through the period that the shortcomings of Wind/Solar were shown by the failures in the EU. Even after the reports from Spain and Germany that three jobs were being lost for every "Green" energy job created.
(This week stories in the WSJ report that the Spanish Government is withdrawing it's subsides from the Wind/Solar industry, dooming it and its investors.)
But the pols attitudes have hardened on supporting off-shore wind, as dogma will, and when these windmills go online and deliver power it will be the Death Nell of manufacturing in this state. Though the cost of electricity has been steadily following the declining costs of natural gas, due to the guaranteed prices (3X per Kw) Cape Wind will get (plus the right to start amortizing the costs of the construction, added on top) this trend will instantly reverse itself. Since the pols don't want the voters to see too big a jump, immediately, the structured rates will pile most of the increase on businesses.
Bye, bye Bay State!
A thought on global warming:
When we looked at yields from hybrid seed corn test plots, where the seeds from competitors are grown and compared, the seed corn reps are quick to point out that the yield differential has to be over 10% to mean anything. Otherwise it is just considered statistical noise.
To make the math easy, if you have one seed variety that yields 50 bushels/acre, a competing variety would have to yield over 55 bushels an acre before it could be judged to be the better seed.
So if you apply this type of statistical thinking to temperatures, why are we getting excited over changes of tenths of a degree?
Percentage wise, the change is nothing.
Stoned crane operator - well, presumably in a pot-legal society it will be just as unacceptable to work stoned as it is to work drunk, especially operating dangerous equipment. Anyway. I am ambivalent about legalizing pot. For one thing, Stoners are boring.
That Vox item - Gotta give the guy credit for putting together a densely compact pot-stirrer. Like the best cheap shots, it's not out-and-out true, but it stings like it is.
Trackingpoint item: Specifically: the kind of people who have both the funding and the passion for long-range precision rifles seem left out of the equation. Who is the buyer here? The system isn't cheap. Costs as much as some cars. Outside the issue of "dumbing down" accuracy - in terms of the shooter's skill, not the weapon's capability - this would seem to rhyme with the "printable gun" quandary & the idea that advancing tech may tend to make potentially destructive devices more accessible and cheaper to acquire. We are never not going to live in interesting times, it seems.
It didn't occur to me when I read the article a few days ago but this gun is for hipsters. For when they make their fortune selling quinoa muffins or someone finally buys their art. But hipsters are getting into shooting but this way they can "shoot well" without having to mix it up with all those gun people down at the range.
Muhammad's friend is certainly wierd.
No wonder leftists are so partial to islam's complete way of life.
Then he blew himself up, indeed.
Meself rests easier today, now that Amanda Hess assured society is off the hook cause everybody has low slut esteem.
Ready and willing some manly pie, now.
Folks who think US government should protect one's privacy ought take comfort in Leno's observation.
Boy in the White House must know it to protect it.
Allah wants you to try it.
Looks like the jihadis are copying the Democrat playbook. What with the anal sex and all.
You knew premiums would go up when they chose to name the program " Affordable Care Act". Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah...that's a good one...bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha