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, February 27. 2014
A reason to walk your dog: California couple finds $10 million in buried treasure while walking dog
Why are educated adults slim - Causation or selection?
Do Schools Need To Learn a Lesson about gender from... Facebook?
NY Middle School Girls Forced to Ask Classmates for “Lesbian Kiss” Pretend Like They Are On a Date
Why Our Nutrition Facts Need an Overhaul
Dem Candidate Admits Immigration Reform A Cheap Labor Import
Obama's New Asylum Decree Favors Muslims Over Christians
“Cow Sex” Pervert Judge Orders YouTube to Remove “Innocence of Muslims” Trailer
The Period Of No Global Warming Will Soon Be Longer Than the Period of Actual Global Warming
Increased domestic spending may be behind proposed military cuts, CBO report suggests
Obama Asks Court To Make NSA Database Even Bigger
Ed. by Podhoretz: The New War on Israel: And How to Fight Back
France's Reckoning: Rich, Young Flee Welfare State:
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Farrow/Cronkite award - well, why not? Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize pretty early on too...how'd that work out?
Goes to show what little real meaning is behind awards these days. Everything is cheapened.
Interesting letter. Models aren't based on science. They are based on an opinion what is assumed to be the correct ways something operates. A model may have elements of scientific thought applied, but the model itself is not science, nor is it based entirely on science.
You can tweak models. You can't tweak scientific results. At least, you're not supposed to.
The amazing thing to me about these models and those "scientists'" love of them is that they don't appear to have ever back tested them. It should be fairly easy to take data from 1900 for example and see if the models predict the "climate" in 2000.
Who said models actually have to work to make predictions valid? They are assumed to be valid, and that's all (ALL, you denying bas****!). (OK, sarc off.)
I was unfortunate enough to be in the Sacramento airport this past Monday morning and got an earful of this same stuff on CNN being played in the monitors in the waiting area. I don't know if it was the same lady, it was a couple of folks going on and on about the "settled science." I actually suspect a lot of this ""science" is written up in the White House and distributed to friendly propaganda agents throughout the mainstream media. But it was all, "99 percent of scientists agree," and "we're in the warmest period ever," and "no one in their right mind could disagree."
And the fact is no one ever asks what data actually confirms the model.
For example, the substantiation of increases in CO2 levels. If you will do a little Google research, you will find that the "data" showing escalated CO2 levels is based entirely off of readings from a NOAA station located on the Big Island of Hawaii.
The problem with this? The station is located right next to an active volcano. All the data is contaminated by volcanic emissions and must be adjusted to take out the effects of volcanic contamination; or as they put it, "recalibrated." Obviously, you can adjust the data in any way you want to get the result you want, and the "data" is adjusted to conform with the model. As they say, "Garbage In, Garbage Out."
Do a little more Google research, and you will be surprised to find out when the volcanic eruption began and has been going on continuously since then. Essentially, perfect correlation with the pattern of "global warming." Do a little further research, and you will discover how great the adverse effects of volcanic-created air pollution have been in Hawaii, to the extent that air quality standards in the city of Honolulu are sometimes worse than the worst day you might see in LA. We even have a term for it, "vog." The air contamination results in some of the highest asthma levels in the US, as well as all sorts of other breathing ailments, and eye and nasal problems. The "scientists" don't tell you any of this.
Sounds like Sink committed the unpardonable sin of speaking the truth. No doubt she won't do that again.
Defense cuts to increase domestic spending sounds like the idea of endless deficits is ending. Don't bet the farm on it, too many at the feeding trough and those votes/donations are needed.
Why is climate change still debated? Democracy.
A new war on Isreal? Its the same old war since 1948, just revived with the cooling of the 9/11 ashes.
NY Middle School Girls Forced to Ask Classmates for “Lesbian Kiss” Pretend Like They Are On a Date
Can I go back and repeat middle school? I couldn't even imagine half the stuff the do as class activities when I was there.
In a sane world that teacher would be arrested for child abuse and the sexual perversion of minors.
This effort is obviously to correct an inequality. Apparently, heterosexual female teachers have more opportunity for sex with their students than lesbian teachers. This exercise will condition more girls to be receptive to future advances.
As the Marxist/Progs say, you got to get them young in order to condition their minds.
For: The Barrister
Here is an example of what I have been proposing.
You could start law centre focused on protecting the whistleblowers from academia. How else do you think the process will begin--you think Eric Holder is going to do anything? Did Janet Reno? How about the Republican (?) AG in WA State. You know the one--he was questioned for corruption then cleaned up his act and now strongly supports legalizing marijuana. Ya think this guy is gonna help "clean up academia"?
When I was in school (1949, not so long after WW II) history blamed the U.S. decision to "disarm" as a major cause of WW II. Our military was old, too small and our military equipment was too old. Both Japan and Germany had built up their military to levels that were 4-6 times more powerful then ours was. Ironically the reason we choose to disarm and put ourselves at risk are eerily similar to today's reason; to allow a Democrat government to have more money for crony politics and vote buying. There is a very important difference between then and now. That is at the time of WW II militant countries had barriers to projecting their military might across wide oceans to stop our industrial ability to rearm our military. Today even North Korea has the ability to deliver a nuclear device and while North Korea certainly is not capable of delivering enough nukes to devastate our country certainly China and Russia are capable of doing this. If any enemy decides that our unilateral disarmament is sufficient reason to attack us you can be sure they will attack our homeland and make it impossible to rearm or build up our military. WW III will be fought with the weapons and the military that exist on the day war begins. There won't be any chance to hold off the big invasion until we can prepare. This decision to weaken our military defense may well be the biggest anti-American decision Obama has made so far.
Moral: Those who do not learn from history, won't be so lucky the next time.
“Guard, protect and cherish your land, for there is no afterlife for a place that started out as Heaven.”
I am mystified by this enduring idea that China or Russia or North Korea might be tempted to invade the U.S. In the far-fetched event they might like the idea, how on earth would they do it? Float troops over on hot air balloons? You are quite correct about one thing GW, once any nukes are unleashed, it's all about the retaliatory strike. Or, as you said, using the weapons we have at the time. Thing is, we have a heck of a retaliatory strike capability and that doesn't look to change any time soon. I hope that soothes your invasion fears a bit.
Invasion? What invasion? I think they would settle for elimination.
As for our "retaliatory strike capability" in every major war in history both sides had "retaliatory strike capability" and yet someone still won and someone lost. It would be a mistake to sit on our over confidence and assume nothing bad will happen.
One thing is for sure; one day an enemy will conquer and or destroy this country. To believe otherwise would be to deny history and lack common sense. I simply prefer this happen later rather then sooner. When you look at all the things our federal government spends money on very few of them are mandated by the constitution. Defence is mandated and it is more important then welfare, SS, the EPA, farm subsidies, 2,000,000 plus federal civilian employees, illegal aliens, unions, etc. The federal budget must be cut. But common sense would be nice and crony politics and subsidies should be the first thing to be eliminated.
"There won't be any chance to hold off the big invasion until we can prepare."
Clearly the confusion was my fault, I was too subtle. My reference to invasion was that in 1945 an invasion of our country was the only way Japan or Germany could prevent us from rearming and continung the war indefinitely. That is there was no barrier to our continuing to build our war machine so the lack of sufficient military power at the start ofthe war merely prolonged WW II but didn't assure our defeat. As opposed to today when two of our enemies have the capability to destroy our manufacturing capability (and our society) within hours and whatever defense we could offer would be based on what we had on the ground at the start of the war. This changes everything not the least of which is it changes the incentive that a potential enemy has attack our homeland with a massive nuclear attack. In other words a invasion is no longer necessary.
"WW III will be fought with the weapons and the military that exist on the day war begins. There won't be any chance to hold off the big invasion until we can prepare. This decision to weaken our military defense may well be the biggest anti-American decision Obama has made so far." Is this the proper context of your comment, or isn't it? The sentence preceding your comment about an invasion contains a direct reference to WW III (three). Not WW II (two). Your difficulty, I would suggest, is not about being too subtle or too clever. I would look elsewhere.
Your continued determination to obsess about the ability of China and Russia to obliterate the homeland is nonsense. What preparation do you suggest would be sufficient to prepare us for nuclear annihilation? Did you skip the duck and cover lessons we practiced during the cold war? About the only thing new about the potential results of a nuclear war is your recently unearthed interest in it, your delusional idea that we must be prepared, can be prepared or that some form of preparation will make us all less dead. To repeat, our retaliatory strike capability is intact. It will remain intact. It has kept our enemies from nuking us and it will continue to do so. Or it won't. In which case, we all die.
It would be foolish and short sighted to believe that a nuclear war is unthinkable sothereforeit will not happen. Years ago Russia built huge underground manufacturing and survival bunkers. They did this in prepartion for a nuclear war. More recently China has outdone the Russians and not only built underground cities capable ofwithstanding a nuclear attack but they have created a massive tunnel system that both connects these cities and provides bomb proof storage for their massive military machinery. Why? Given history's lessons It is a mistake to think there will not be a nuclear WW III. There will be. The tippngpoint is when the major super power chooses to disarm to the point that a sudden and massive nuclear sneak attack might just prevent any retaliation or allow only minimal retaliation. When China or Russia determines that they can win decisively they will do it.
You may see this concern for our safety as "obsessing". I hope you are in the minority. If you make the connections between Obama AND the Democrat party with communists in America and overseas you might just suspect that both Obama and many Democrats are in fact maneuvering our country into a weakened defensive posture exactly so that we would have no choice but to accept Russia's terms or face a full nuclear attack. Some may laugh at this prospect but if you love Obama and think this is impossible, ask yourself what Obama would do differently toaccomplish this goal. If you believe he is American and on the side of Americans why would he be disarming us, firng top generals, reducing arms and military budgets while letting our military equipment become outdated and inoperable. If Obama wanted to destroy the U.S. and allow Russia to become the major superpower what would he do different from what he is doing today???
So, YES, if you are healthy and under 60 years old you will probably see a nuclear war unless we change course and maintain a viable deterrent. Sadly I do not think either party will do this. I think we have both feet firmly in a economic trap based on welfare and crony politics. We cannot run the federal government on the revenues we have so something must be cut and you cannot get elected running on cuts to welfare or farm subsidies. So disarm we will and when the math tells the Russian or Chinese general that they could destroy us while only enduring "acceptable" damage to their infrastructure they will pull the trigger. When this happens you will discover the difference between "obsession" and "wisdom".
Well, once you explain things as well you just have, I might tend to agree with you. Except the part about firing the generals. The more of them we fire, the better. Having never seen a problem a colonel could not resolve, I have little use for generals. But, that's just me.
Re: Military cuts (and coming Social Security cuts)
There is not enough money in the budget to pay those who willingly risk their lives (or who "paid into the Social Security system" but there is enough for welfare, food stamps, Title 9, farm subsidies... (the list goes on).
It always comes down to where and how to make the cuts. If you first accept the idea that government spending cannot be sustained. Which, most folks hereabouts seem to accept. As do I. Some have presented us with thumbnail outlines, such as yours Mud. Which is a good place to begin. Next, the policy changes, once fleshed out, need to be implemented. In order to implement them, they must have political support. This is the part where it's about building a winning political coalition. Even if the tea party had five million warriors, it would not be enough. A winning coalition is about bridging divides and bonding people together. Which probably means that "zero spending" or "50% cuts" will not carry the day. The question of the day is, how to construct a political platform that will win the most votes and that will cut spending in a significant manner? For today, I will assume that the leaders of such a coalition would emerge in the process. And they might. I hear Marco Rubio making some noises I don't hate.
I agree it isn't a trivial undertaking but it starts with somebody making a case and hopefully that case appeals to the logic that we can't have all the government spending we seem to want (judging by who we've elected) and hopefully, it will strike an emotional chord, too. Unfortunately, we only seem to hear about one side of the equation (or at best one side place small bits and pieces of another side). Nobody seems to be making those kinds of arguments. I agree with you that just saying we need to make cuts, balance the budget, etc. by themselves are not very effective. I would make the argument by asking why are we spending this money, does it work, and if not, how would it be better for the average Joe to not have the spending.
I agree with you about Rubio. Other than straying on amnesty, he seems to be making a lot of the right arguments.
The amnesty issue is fraught with error. Underlying this matter is the presently eroded concept and reality of citizenship. As it stands, U.S. citizenship is more of a disadvantage than it is an honorably earned right, privilege and duty. A nation that penalizes citizens who travel abroad or emigrate with arbitrary penalties and embraces those who bypass all citizenship requirements is a nation in decline. Such a nation is not to be relied upon because it has no self respect. Being a citizen needs to mean something. Once that base line is restored, a pathway to citizenship can and should be enunciated.
Do Schools need to learn from Facebook? No.
Whole Foods: Smart enough to con the gullible "intelligentsia" out of their money, and I congratulate them!
The treasure hoard story really captures the attention. What do you bet the sales of metal detectors gets a kick from this?
Once, in a particularly mad moment, I calculated the number of bodies necessary for a 'land' bridge across the Aleutian straits, average sea depth, so on an so forth. I don't remember the exact number, but it was a mere piffle population wise for China. It was an absurd thought, of course. But the actual mechanics behind it, communist government, gave it a somewhat realistic bent.
We suffer more damage when we're not prepared, needing time to prepare. Why not just stay prepared.
Let me see if we can connect the dots: just 2 months ago Eric Holder collected 13 B from JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs with the proviso that the top people stay out of jail. Now there is a new program for young black boys said program to be worth about $200 million. Geez who gets the rest? I think I heard him say he was going to look for new ways to make housing again affordable for unreliable blacks. Ka Ching Ka ching.