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 14. 2015
Yellowstone park officials euthanize bear that killed hiker
You are in the bear's house...so it's a home invasion
How Killing Elephants Finances Terror in Africa
Federal court throws out scheme allowing windmills to kill bald and golden eagles for the next 30 years
Fat chance, dreamer
Are You an Introvert — Or Are You Maybe an Undercover Narcissist?
Pathways to Upward Mobility
Could You Handle These Interview Tasks? (Some Are Pretty Crazy)
Tests of thinking speed and problem-solving
Milton Friedman interview from 1991 on America’s War on Drugs
"Politics is thick with plotting and scheming. It’s all they do..."
"... profit is a price paid for efficiency."
And innovation, as Coyote notes
The coming perfect storm on American college campuses — one that feminists and other professional victims will hate
Kasich defends immigrants as 'contributing significantly'
Maybe so or maybe not. That's not the point.
Record 42 Million Immigrants in US Today – 1 in 10 Americans
Arizona State Hikes Tuition Dramatically, Yet Pays the Clintons $500,000 to Make an Appearance
Al Gore´s Friends and Former Aides Eyeing 2016 Race
Will Huma be the fall guy?
Hillary’s best case scenario gets worse
Ron Fournier on Hillary Clinton: The Elites Don’t Trust Her and the Low Information Voters Don’t Like Her
Why Scott Walker has dropped to third in Iowa
Donald Trump Talks Like a Third-Grader
Trump: To Be Coarse, But Compelling
Congress Can Rewrite the Iran Deal
Tracked: Aug 16, 09:43
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Re: the Yellowstone bear
Euthanasia is the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering..
The bear was not in pain (that we know of) so he was not euthanized. She was killed.
Also, I don't understand why she was killed. It's my understanding that it isn't surprising that a grizzly bear would attack and eat a human. Apparently, there is an issue of the bear hiding the body indicating that it wasn't a defensive killing. It can't be that the park officials wanted to teach the bear a lesson since they killed the bear. Could they have been trying to teach the rest of the bears a lesson?
I think they were afraid the bear might develop a taste for people
I don't know. It seems like the bear had pretty good taste in people. After all, who can say anything bad about a nurse?
The bear had apparently acquired a taste for human flesh, as indicated by how it ate part of the victim, hiding the rest for later consumption. If the bear was only defending her cubs, it would not have eaten the victim.
don't fixate on a definition.
the bear was killed because she had a taste for human flesh, and would have passed on the practice of killing people to her cubs.
Yeah, I've learned a lot more about grizzly bears from reading comments today! :-)
Good God Almighty..."in the bear's house"..."I don't understand why she was killed".
Walt Disney sure has a lot to answer for. The man who was killed, partially eaten and cached was a Park medical employee who was taking a short walk on a MARKED TRAIL before going to work.
Do you people honestly believe that in God's creation bears, pigs, hyenas, chickens, sharks, etc. have more right to live on planet Earth than human beings? Welcome to the high Church of Greenie Granola.
I'm pretty sure the "It's the Bear's house" was a reference to this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boV0t-riFuw which went viral earlier this week.
"Immigration Is Great"
For who? Sure it's great forthe immigrant who immediately qualifies for thousands a month in welfare and other benefits. But is it "great" for the taxpayer? And why? Is there a crying need in America for more welfare bums and people who cannot speak English and don't want to assimilate? Are we runing short of welfare bums so we need more?
"But we libertarians believe that people trapped in horrible countries deserve a chance at a better life and that free trade in labor, not just products, is a good thing."
Sounds like the typical do-gooder who wants to do good with your money. Fine, let them step up and if there is a majority of citizens who want more immigration then lets have a special tax that they pay tocover the costs.
Here is my proposed solution to the immigration problem:
1. A complete moratorium on all immigration until 100% of illegal immigrants are tracked down and deported and 100% of legal immigrants have been assimilated (that means they speak good English, are self supporting and do not have multiple passports and citizenships.
2. During this period those groups and individuals who lobbied for and supported legal immigration would replace the taxpayers in supporting those immigrants who needed assistance.
3. After all the illegals have been removed and all the legal immigrants have properly assimilated a national referendum should be held to decide IF we want legal immigration. Let the people decide not the chamber of commerce.
"Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
'Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!' cries she
With silent lips. 'Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!'"
Guess you'll be removing the Statue of Liberty too then.
You are aware that the poem on the statue of liberty was added years later and has nothing at all to do with the intent of the statue of liberty.
Is there an antonym for presentism? There should be, but I couldn't find one. Presentism, in this context refers to the fallacy among historians of projecting the morality, pov, and knowledge based on hindsight onto the people of the past. From the dictionary: It is the application of contemporary perspectives in explaining past events rather than placing these events in their historical context.
It seems to me that citing the Lazarus poem is the reverse. It is taking a romanticized notion from the past and projecting it into the hear and now, as though nothing has changed over the last hundred and forty years, as if America was still an empty frontier with wide open spaces and more jobs than people, and a viable path to the American dream.
I know you've got problems with the Constitution when it comes to the rights of people who aren't you, but you've outdone yourself here.
I am pro constitution and wish we would return to it and eliminate our unconstitutional laws.
I am 100% in preserving the rights of illegals. Deport them to their home countries where they can enjoy their rights.
no, you're not "pro-constitution". the only thing you're "pro" of is your own personal view/prejudices which are, frankly, about as unAmerican and unConstitutional childish as it gets.
you can't or won't accept the constitution where it's not what you want it to mean.
I love the sound of a hissy fit in the morning.
leave your wife out of this. or at least treat her better.
This is what happens when your government "smuggles" in new citizens. Why the secrecy if it is such a good idea?
"I am pro constitution and wish we would return to it and eliminate our unconstitutional laws."
How is that possible? I'm not a lawyer or a constitutional expert but surely it's a fundamental principle that you cannot enact a law which violates the constitution?
unconstitutional laws are enacted all the time. in the real world, they're challenged in courts.
on the internet, someone says "We The People agree with the me that whatever I don't like is unconstitutional."
concerning illegal immigration, who has standing to sue the feds?
True. And I would like a legal/illegal breakdown on that as well. I don't see how we can object to someone who followed the directions. Even if we decided it was a bad idea later, we own it. Illegal immigrants are an entirely different matter.
RE: Bear put down.
There is also the fact that bear cubs learn a lot from their mothers. It would not stand to have a mother bear teach her cubs that humans are food, and have them teach their cubs that humans are food, etc.
From this and other articles I've read about this case, it seems like the Park Service was trying their best to not blame the bear. That is they were looking to see if it was a case of the mother bear simply defending her cubs. (It wasn't.)
But, the eating (even just part) of the hiker, and caching his body for later is not good. And it is a behavior that cannot be allowed to spread.
Yes, I think it is a shame that the bear had to be put down, and perhaps it is a lesson to the rest of us hikers that it is better to not hike alone and without some sort of bear spray or air horn. But, I don't see this as a "well, it was a home invasion and the bear was defending her home."
There is also the fact that this didn't happen deep in the wilderness. It was on a clearly marked, albeit it not frequently used, trail near a village in the park. Public safety does need to come before the life of a single bear and her cubs. (since the cubs, it seems, also ate part of the hiker, they could have been put down too. But, lucky for them some places are willing to take them in)
People do know that bear country, like Puma country, lion country, African buffalo country, tiger country, etc is dangerous. Be armed or whatever.
Labeling wild places as "parks" is a misnomer.
in the mid '80s, a family went picnicking in an Orange County "Wilderness Park". a camera recovered from the scene produced a photo published in the LA Times along with the story. the photo was taken by a husband of his wife and baby, and, peaking through the foliage, the triangular shaped head of a mountain lion. I don't remember which of the three survived the attack, the lion was hunted down a few days later.
I take "park" to mean something more like "we haven't wrecked this area too much" rather than "this is a scenic spot for totally safe recreation."
>>>It would not stand to have a mother bear teach her cubs that humans are food, and have them teach their cubs that humans are food, etc.
Part of the survival mechanism for wild species is that "humans == Danger!".
momma bear just taught her cubs that humans == EASY take out food
I've also read a lot of bear attack stories, and the air horn, while it sounds nice, doesn't work, if that bear is intent on eating you.
Locally we are developing a problem with black bear, the ones that are 'supposed to be more afraid of humans, than you are of them'. I was talking to a guy who lives across the river in a very rural area and their F&W don't have any inclination to do anything about the increasing bear attacks on humans, dogs and humans AND dogs (going after the human that tries to protect the dog) including many that involve the bear breaking into the house through porch entry. And these attacks are not occuring only in that time after wakening from hibernation or pre-hiberating time period where the bear is desperate for enough calories to tide over for hibernation, although they are more frequent then.
He's a farmer and has ID'd more than 13 different bear that visit his barns/livestock for food.
Here's a poll to match you with a presidential candidate:
That was pretty interesting, mary. It said that Rubio was my candidate. I haven't made a final choice yet though Walker is my initial favorite. In reality, I'd take ANY of them over ANY demoncrat.
Arizona State Hikes Tuition Dramatically, Yet Pays the Clintons $500,000 to Make an Appearance
if the ASU event netted revenue, it was a success. that's all that counts. if you don't like capitalism, then keep complaining.
"Meanwhile, this is how university spokesman Mark Johnson justified the absurd expense:
Johnson went on to explain that ASU “co-invested in this educational and promotional opportunity, which was co-produced for our students, and for students from around the world. No state funds were used for this purpose.” "
Where, then, did that $500K come from? If admission to the speech was $50, it would lake 10,000 attendees. I posit it unlikely that 10K students would pay that much to listen to Hillary.
private donors often underwrite these speeches, but I haven't seen the ASU books.
Someone needs to research every paid appearance Hillary or Bill made on a college campus. They should then ask this question: “Mrs. Clinton given your commitment to corralling the costs of college, you charged $500,000 to give a speech at ASU. How do you feel accepting that money, which, if left in university funds, would have allowed 10, 15, 20 students (or whatever the tuition breaks down to), to attend 1 full year at ASU for free? Wouldn’t it be better if you waived those fees and allowed the university to use that $500,000 to relieve the burden on students and their families? ” It should be asked every time she appears and talks about college costs.