Maggie's Farm

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

Much Sorry with Delays
Birth, Death and All That Stuff in Between
How to Honor Labor Day, Every Day
My Yom Kippur Miracle (Repost from 2010)
Good intro to fly casting
Peach update, with pie
NYC update
Easy for you to say: To the elites on mass immigration
For NYC on 9/11, Sailors' Snug Harbor
Pickled Peaches
Water Shoes
Labor Costs in U.S.
Your "identity"
Good news about The Great Courses
Uses of Hot Pepper Jelly/Sauce, Chutneys, and Jams
A Saturday Drive to Litchfield County, CT
How to Pick a Kayak
Civilized: Fruit forks and knives
Loads of kayaking on Cape Cod
Psychology Experiments' Questionable Results

Categories


All categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Add to Google

Subscribe with Bloglines

Wednesday, July 3. 2013

Weds. morning links

Mick looked ready for more, Keith looked in need of a warm malt
drink: Glastonbury's night of the living dead as Rolling Stones rock the
festival


Mapping Little Round Top: A Cutting-Edge Second Look at the Battle of Gettysburg


How the GOP stopped worrying about Latinos and learned to love the base


Rush Limbaugh warns GOP could lose House in 2014


California Democrats Celebrate New Hispanic Plurality in State


Pelosi: This Independence Day, Let's Celebrate Obamacare


Our President Needs a Science Lesson


CO2 does not cause asthma. I blame the speechwriter.


Steyn:  Nigel vs the Lunatic Mainstream


The Utter Chaos of the Obama Administration’s Egypt Policy


Woops. White House delays employer mandate requirement until 2015


But here's the real story:  ObamaCare employer mandate delayed until after 2014 midterms


Walter Williams:  Distrusting Government: It’s a Good Thing


Lots Of Women Fantasize About Being Prostitutes.


Bestiality brothels in Germany


Just to be accurate, George Zimmerman is black and Peruvian.


How does that get him to "white Hispanic"? Are Peruvians Hispanic? Or Indians? Peruvians usually look like Indians. Why not describe Zimmerman as a "black Indian"?

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 05:11 | Comments (40) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Our President Needs a Science Lesson

Our President needs a lot of lessons - sadly, he thinks he's smarter than everybody else in the entire world - his ego knows no limits or has any boundaries.
#1 Tom Francis on 2013-07-03 08:10 (Reply)
To believe you are smarter than everyone else belie your education. For no person who has sought to become educated can ever settle back to the belief that they know anything for certain. To "know" is to believe, to be educated is to know that there is always one more question to be examined. The educated do the best they can with what they know but are ever ready to adapt when reality provides them with a rough schooling.


QUOTE:
The senior on his graduation day is not an educated man; he is an ignoramus. However, if he has learned enough to know that he is an ignoramus, some day he will probably attain something like culture, have enough knowledge to be called educated--as education in this world goes.
#1.1 JKB on 2013-07-03 10:33 (Reply)
QUOTE:
Steve Maley: Our President Needs a Science Lesson

Bird Dog: CO2 does not cause asthma.

It's not the strongest argument, but "the American Lung Association have warned us that carbon pollution threatens our health and the air our children breathe" is an accurate statement.

American Lung Association: “Power plants should not be allowed to emit unlimited amounts of carbon pollution into the air. Scientists warn that the buildup of carbon pollution will create warmer temperatures which will increase the risk of unhealthful smog levels. More smog means more childhood asthma attacks and complications for those with lung disease.”
http://www.lung.org/press-room/press-releases/carbon-pollution-standards.html
#2 Zachriel on 2013-07-03 08:12 (Reply)
Carbon pollution? Really?

They just can't bring themselves to specify the dioxide?

But Carbon pollution, I am made of carbon, supposedly so are you, Zach, assuming you aren't silicon based. Are we pollution? What about our decaying bodies after death? Is that carbon pollution?

And what of the most diverse kingdom in all the world, the flora? They are decidedly PRO carbon pollution. In fact, they thrive upon it. Breathing it in as deeply as we animals do oxygen. Oxygen being the pollutant excreted by plants after they've stolen all the carbon pollution.

It's like there is a symbiotic relationship. They exploit us, we exploit them and in the end, we all end up as a great big pile of carbon "pollution".

Wait, that sounds a lot like a compost pile, which if hippy gardeners are correct, is not pollution at all but a rich natural resource.

Now, I'm confused. Where does the carbon pollution come in again? And what of the dihydrogen monoxide pollution which causes extreme overheating and if becomes saturated can cause one to literally drown within its confines?
#2.1 JKB on 2013-07-03 10:47 (Reply)
I think what he's saying is the president is being accurate, if not wholly correct.

It's fair to argue that the American Lung Association has taken a huge leap to issue a statement like this. But at least the president has a "source" which is considered "reliable" to fall back on in his claim that he was at least "accurate".

Still doesn't make him right, and to some degree shows him to be significantly less well educated than many believe.
#2.1.1 Bulldog on 2013-07-03 10:52 (Reply)
Citing bad science and then misrepresenting it is the very definition of needing a science lesson.
#2.1.1.1 JKB on 2013-07-03 11:47 (Reply)
JKB: What about our decaying bodies after death? Is that carbon pollution?

Animals are generally carbon neutral. The carbon in their bodies was originally fixed from atmospheric carbon by plants.

JKB: And what of the most diverse kingdom in all the world, the flora? They are decidedly PRO carbon pollution.

Plants fix net atmospheric carbon.

JKB: It's like there is a symbiotic relationship. They exploit us, we exploit them and in the end, we all end up as a great big pile of carbon "pollution".

That's right. It's called the carbon cycle. However, fossil fuels are in addition to the natural flow of carbon in the environment.
#2.1.2 Zachriel on 2013-07-03 12:20 (Reply)
CO2 does not cause asthma. I blame the speechwriter.

Remember, presidential speech writers are usually some of the best and brightest out famous universities have to offer. Weep for humanity, weep for Harvard and Yale.


Zimmerman - black indian?

The media had their story when the report that a guy named Zimmerman had killed a black teenager. The dusted off their 1968 racial profiling and thought they had gold with a perfect racial crime. Never ones to let the truth interfere with the narrative, they had to roll with the punches when it turned out this guy named Zimmerman was not of Germanic origins but rather a delightful mix of protected classes.

This to me implies something that might be useful to Sen. Durbin. If you can't tell the truth from your bias, you might be a journalist. If you write about things you know and research, you might be a blogger.
#3 JKB on 2013-07-03 10:21 (Reply)
Re: Durbin

BINGO!
#3.1 jma on 2013-07-03 10:24 (Reply)
Unfortunately, even the truth of a delightful mix of protected classes does not deter the media from it's meme.

The media is like Hollywood in a way. Hollywood will re-write a story to fit it's meme (see Bonfire of Vanities or The Manchurian Candidate), where the press just ignores facts they prefer not to concern themselves with if they cause actual critical thought to occur.
#3.2 mudbug on 2013-07-03 10:49 (Reply)
"even the truth of a delightful mix of protected classes does not deter the media from it's meme. "

They should take that as their new motto. Not as catchy as the Post Office's, but informative still the same.
#3.2.1 JKB on 2013-07-03 11:43 (Reply)
I wuz jus wonderin--do you remember Carter? The man who decided the Panama Canal was his to give away. The man who decided to be the first president to support the people who believed that our world should be without borders; the pseudo intellectual coward/jerk who . . .that was the last time I voted democratic! I hope he feels so good about himself when he looks at what he did to California--Christian men who do not go into the military need to learn what courage feels like--what it is and what it is not. I have no compassion for castratos--zip, zero!!
#4 Apple pie on 2013-07-03 11:07 (Reply)
The New York Journal of Commerce, writing on Jan. 12, 1861, that a coerced Union changes the nature of government from "a voluntary one, in which the people are sovereigns, to a despotism where one part of the people are slaves."

But we still make rope, too.
#5 Leag on 2013-07-03 11:19 (Reply)
'Hemp, Hemp, Hooray!'
#5.1 buddy larsen on 2013-07-03 12:11 (Reply)
Hemp works well for yankee carpetbags; Pro-Lincoln historian Lee Kennett wrote in "Marching Through Georgia" that, had the Confederates somehow won, they would have been justified in "stringing up President Lincoln and the entire Union high command" as war criminals. http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo44.html
#5.1.1 Leag on 2013-07-03 14:17 (Reply)
I find the article about Hispanics vs whites for the GOP fascinating.

I am in agreement w/ the emerging consensus on the GOP: Hispanics will never vote for them. Never.

I find the GOP to be still afraid of the Washington/NY political/media narrative, so I have stopped donating money except to particular candidates. I strongly suspect that this feeling is pretty universal amongst conservatives. I have a feeling that the national GOP is going to experience an enormous decline in their financial situation. Which they "richly" deserve.

I'm not sure if there will be a new political party soon, but I wouldn't be surprised. Sarah Palin's trial baloon reflects what I sense amongst most conservatives.

Either the GOP stops being afraid of the liberal media, or they lose their financial lifeblood. If they want proof of this theory, just look at the fact that Charles Schumer keeps urging them to vote for immigration reform "for their own good." I'm so glad he cares.
#6 Park Slope Pubby on 2013-07-03 12:26 (Reply)
"Hispanics will never vote for them." Um, did you not see the poll yesterday between a Hillary and Rubio 2016 match up, where Rubio garnered 29% of the hispanic vote?

Maybe you can declare that Republicans will not receive the majority of the hispanic vote, but to declare they will receive none is pretty extreme.

The key is to pull away enough percentage points of hispanic votes to make a difference for the Democrats. With the right candidate we can do it.

FWIW, I wish the GOP would just go for it...ONLY nominated candidates for 2016 who are minority or female. Why not eliminate the argument that Republicans are the party of old, white men? Or that the one minority candidate is the GOP "token." If ALL candidates are minorities, and we have plenty of qualified minority candidates, then we in effect shut down the media attacks and the dem attacks about being anti-minority, anti-woman.

In the end, no matter who was eliminated from the running through the primary process, we'd end up with a minority candidate, and then we can stop being distracted by the typical liberal arguments.
#7 MissT on 2013-07-03 13:13 (Reply)
MSNBC on GOP: Yes, take advice from one's enemy.

Rush: GOP can be the party of Dumb. Especially if it takes advice from the likes of MSNBC and the PuffHo.

Part of that Cali Hispanic plurality is smart folks moving out.

Benghazi Barry needs much more than a science lesson.
#8 Sam L. on 2013-07-03 13:24 (Reply)
If the racists at the NYT feel the need to parse George Zimmerman's racial make-up so they can label him a white Hispanic, why don't they classify Barack Hussein Obama as a white African-American? For the record, Obama is 16 times more white than Elizabeth Warren was allegedly (in her own mind) part Cherokee.
#9 Agent Cooper on 2013-07-03 13:45 (Reply)
Black white or indifferent, Zimmerman stalked the boy with a weapon and nees go down for manslaughter, at least, even if the boy was el husna presidente's son.
#9.1 Leag on 2013-07-03 14:45 (Reply)
So the idea of self-defense is lost on you? If you are to believe Zimmerman's account, which has not wavered, which is substantiated by evidence (phone recording, neighbor witness, police, physical injuries) then you must agree he shot in fear for his life. He did not start the altercation...Martin did. And Martin did not need to. He had already gone in the direction of home...why did Martin feel the need to circle back and confront Zimmerman? Martin threw the punch. It just so happened Zimmerman was armed, was worried the kid would reach for his weapon, and defended himself.
#9.1.1 MissT on 2013-07-03 16:06 (Reply)
MissT: So the idea of self-defense is lost on you?

Yes, Martin had a right to defend himself after being chased in the dark by a man with a gun.
#9.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-07-03 17:05 (Reply)
Sissy, if he stalked a boy with a weapon he's a coward.

He was told to back offf but his pursuit in defiance suggests he wasn't afraid but a cold blooded killer.

He needs to be put in a box.
#9.1.1.2 Leag on 2013-07-03 17:44 (Reply)
From the evidence, it seems Zimmerman was far from a cold-blooded killer. Rather, it was miscalculation then fear in the dark. Zimmerman was the responsible party, being the adult, and being armed. Martin was just trying to get home when he was confronted.
#9.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2013-07-03 18:11 (Reply)
"Yes, Martin had a right to defend himself after being chased in the dark by a man with a gun."

Rubbish. That's another Zachriel deception. At the time, Martin did not know and could not know that Zimmerman had a gun. That he had a gun became known only AFTER the shooting. As far as is known, Martin thought Zimmerman was unarmed, and since Zimmerman was physically smaller than Martin, he may have believed Zimmerman was an easy target for a vicious MMA beat down. Unfortunately for Martin, Zimmerman DID have a gun and defended himself with it.

"Martin was just trying to get home when he was confronted."

Actually, from what I remember (perhaps hazily) of various press reports, Zimmerman told the police dispatcher on the phone that he had lost track of Martin and so he went back to sit in his truck to wait for the police to show up. In the meantime, according to that scenario---which has not been disproved BTW,---Martin circled back. He then confronted Zimmerman, who was still at his parked truck. Instead of going "home" Martin returned and began the fatal struggle. That makes Martin the real stalker. Instead of taking flight (which he surely ought to have done if, according to you, he thought he was being stalked in the dark by a man with a gun), Martin began a fight. That's not "self-defense," not even according to Florida law; it's assault and battery.

If the prosecution's evidence doesn't fit, the jury must acquit.
#9.1.1.2.1.1 Agent Cooper on 2013-07-03 21:22 (Reply)
"Martin was just trying to get home when he was confronted."

On Anderson Cooper's TV show on CNN today, the Martin family attorney stated on air during his interview that it was Martin who approached Zimmerman, not Zimmerman who confronted Martin. Martin wasn't the "confrontee"; he was, in fact, the "conftronter."
#9.1.1.2.1.2 Agent Cooper on 2013-07-04 01:43 (Reply)
Zipperhead was told to stand down.

He stalked the boy regardless.

That is calculating and cold but muslim will not understand.

Perhaps, yall are a muslima but nevertheless morally deficient.
#9.1.1.2.1.3 Leag on 2013-07-05 08:40 (Reply)
You err only one factor. Zimmerman's account has been supported by almost all the prosecution's witnesses. I don't know what the defense witnesses might say but they'll have to work hard to be more supportive Zimmerman's account of the events on that night than the prosecution's witnesses.

The prosecution was supposed to rest today but now will call one more witness, supposedly Trayvon's mother. An odd witness given she was in another city when the altercation happened and has no facts to offer.
#9.1.1.3 JKB on 2013-07-03 21:58 (Reply)
"she was in another city when the altercation happened"

I read, I think, that up to this point in the trial she has been sitting in the audience in the courtroom. I wonder why that isn't sufficient to bar her as a witness. IANAL, but in other jurisdictions, at least, witnesses in a trial are not allowed to be in the courtroom where they can hear the testimony being given by earlier witnesses. Might this be grounds for an appeal by the Zimmerman defense team in the event of a guilty verdict? I suppose it depends on what she testifies to. As you say, she wasn't an eye witness...or even an ear witness.
#9.1.1.3.1 Agent Cooper on 2013-07-03 22:39 (Reply)
From what I've heard, the "confrontation" went like:

Martin: You got a problem?

Zimmerman: No

Martin: You got one now!
#10 mudbug on 2013-07-03 21:17 (Reply)
Agent Cooper: He then confronted Zimmerman, who was still at his parked truck.

Except that Martin wasn't killed where the truck was parked. We can therefore disregard your theory.

JKB: Zimmerman's account has been supported by almost all the prosecution's witnesses.

That doesn't change the dynamic. Zimmerman had already indicated his frustration that 'these as*holes, they always get away'. He stalked Martin in the dark. A confrontation ensued. It was a miscalculation on both their parts, but the adult with the gun has a greater responsibility than the unarmed teen.

mudbug: From what I've heard, the "confrontation" went like:

Martin said, "Get off! Get off!" before his cell phone went dead.

Zimmerman claimed that Martin said "You're gonna die now". That may have made sense from Zimmerman's perspective when he thought Martin was a criminal, but clearly suggests a fabrication once we understand that Martin was just trying to get home.
#11 Zachriel on 2013-07-04 09:07 (Reply)
once we understand that Martin was just trying to get home.

Wrong...again.
#11.1 Garry on 2013-07-04 09:30 (Reply)
Garry: Wrong...again.

Martin went to the store, bought Skittles as his little step-brother's requested, and an Arizona Iced Tea, then headed home. It's pretty clear that was his destination.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/trayvon-martin-evidence-photo-689234
#11.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-07-04 09:51 (Reply)
You assume he was just trying to get home. Why didn't he walk down the sidewalk instead of behind and between houses.

There's no evidence that Z was on top of Martin and other than a gunshot wound, Martin was unharmed while Z had a broken nose and the back of his head was scraped up. That somebody said Martin said "Get off" was not substantiated.

All the facts as Z lays them out are not necessarily 100% accurate, but the ones for which there is evidence match up pretty closely while Martin's girlfriend has been shown to be a liar and not terribly bright since she willing gave up Martin as a racist - calling M a cracker - and didn't even know the racial implications of the term.
#11.2 mudbug on 2013-07-04 10:54 (Reply)
mb,

"Zackie" should stick to AGW where ALL the evidence is irrefutable...sigh.

TC
#11.2.1 Garry on 2013-07-04 10:59 (Reply)
mudbug: You assume he was just trying to get home. Why didn't he walk down the sidewalk instead of behind and between houses.

Because he was being approached by someone he had suspicions about. This is consistent with the physical evidence, and the testimony of Jeantel.

mudbug: That somebody said Martin said "Get off" was not substantiated.

We have direct evidence Jeantel was talking to Martin by cell phone at the time of the incident.

mudbug: All the facts as Z lays them out are not necessarily 100% accurate, but the ones for which there is evidence match up pretty closely while Martin's girlfriend has been shown to be a liar and not terribly bright since she willing gave up Martin as a racist - calling M a cracker - and didn't even know the racial implications of the term.

You apparently don't know what the term means. Nor does their vernacular mean her testimony is less credible.
#11.2.2 Zachriel on 2013-07-04 11:17 (Reply)
He was not walking down the sidewalk when he was approached. If you're just walking down the street just to get home and somebody comes up to you, do YOU say "You have a problem?" And if you do, then when the other guy says "No", do YOU say, "Now you do!"?

Zach: We have direct evidence Jeantel was talking to Martin by cell phone at the time of the incident.

So?

Zach: You apparently don't know what the term (presumably you're referring to 'cracker') means. Nor does their vernacular mean her testimony is less credible.

Let's see. From the Urban Dictionary:
Noun. Slang word used to refer to those of European ancestry. The word is thought to have either derived from the sound of a whip being cracked by slave owners, or because crackers are generally white in color.

That's pretty much what I thought it meant and certainly sounds racial in a black vs. white context. In fact from a black person, it is racist since it lumps whoever the cracker is with white slave owners. There are no black 'crackers'. What did you think it meant?

Does her racist remark make her less credible? Not any more than it did Mark Furhman when he testified against O. J. Simpson. When she gave a letter written in cursive to Martin's parents as a letter she wrote - and then can't read cursive (which obviously means she can't write it) - that makes her a liar.
#11.2.2.1 mudbug on 2013-07-04 15:20 (Reply)
mudbug: He was not walking down the sidewalk when he was approached.

Martin was first visible to Zimmerman from his truck. Meanwhile, Zimmerman's claim that Martin said "'You're going to die tonight" just doesn't make sense. It only makes sense when you understand that Zimmerman thought he had shot a dangerous criminal, rather than someone returning home from the store.

mudbug: So?

It means Jeantel has the most immediate evidence other than the defendant who isn't testifying, but did provide his version to police.

mudbug: The word is thought to have either derived from the sound of a whip being cracked by slave owners, or because crackers are generally white in color.

That's right. It implies Martin viewed Zimmerman as a threat. Both parties misread the situation, but it was Zimmerman who followed the other party while carrying a gun.
#11.2.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-07-04 21:18 (Reply)
Zach:
Martin was first visible to Zimmerman from his truck. Meanwhile, Zimmerman's claim that Martin said "'You're going to die tonight" just doesn't make sense. It only makes sense when you understand that Zimmerman thought he had shot a dangerous criminal, rather than someone returning home from the store.

No it make sense if Martin was going for Z's gun.

Zach: That's right. It implies Martin viewed Zimmerman as a threat. Both parties misread the situation, but it was Zimmerman who followed the other party while carrying a gun.
What was the threat from Martin's perspective? He didn't know that Z had a gun at the time?
#11.2.2.1.1.1 mudbug on 2013-07-05 00:55 (Reply)
mudbug: What was the threat from Martin's perspective?

He's being shadowed by a creep in the dark, who is between him and his home. That's a threatening situation.
#12 Zachriel on 2013-07-05 09:00 (Reply)

Add Comment
(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)

By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email
addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications.

Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u],
[url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here.

Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

BBCode format allowed
 
 
A Chris Southern Consulting website.