Friday morning links

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Friday, January 22. 2016

The clean eating delusion:

... there is a tendency to believe that existing in the natural state of every person would mean their body functions perfectly. In reality the human body is a kluge, a series of evolutionary compromises that functions well enough to breed, and exists in a constant state of decay, barely staving off entropy for seven or eight decades until finally succumbing to the inevitable.

Don’t get me wrong, the human body is also a marvel of evolutionary complexity. Biology is subtle and powerful. But it is also messy and imperfect. Everything that can go wrong, does (in someone). I think most people intellectually know this, but just don’t want it to be true.

Boys Explained: If It’s Fun, Let’s Make It Dangerous

Bowra on friendship

The nun is a beggar

Sipp on home heating

Libertarians on porn

Harvard just proposed a radically new approach to college admissions in America

Many Climate Economists Reject Climate Models and Turn to Ethical Judgments

Harsanyi: America 2016: Burn It All Down!

‘13 Hours’: It’s Political

Obama Spends $10 Million Traveling To Vacations And Fundraisers In 2015 Alone…

The Right To Tell The Government To Go To Hell (In An Age Of Bullies, Censors, And Compliants)

Many Americans Don’t Seem All That Upset about Big Government

Trump vs. Sanders? Get Ready for a Populist Disaster

Conservatives against Trump

The IG Had to Get His Clearance Level Upped Just to Read Hillary's Secrets-Soaked Private Email

Kirsten Powers: Can Hillary take '13 Hours' of truth?

Hinderaker: For President, Marco Rubio

Sorry, Hillary: Women care more about their president than his (or her) agenda.

Hollande’s Socialist Wonderland

Swedish Police Banned From Describing Criminal Suspects by Race

Merkel Lectures Austria: Cap on Migrants NOT HELPFUL for European Solution

WH: “Entirely Likely”, “Even Expected” That Iran Will Use Money We Released For Terrorism

Iran's elite Guards to gain regional, economic power in post-sanctions era

Afghanistan: When Money Can’t Buy An Army

A book; Putinism: Russia and Its Future with the West

Palestinians: Western Media's Ignorance and Bias

Swedish
Police Banned From Describing Criminal Suspects by Race - See more at:
http://moonbattery.com/?p=67809#sthash.QodkAyMI.dpuf

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 04:16 | Comments (38) | Trackback (1)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

PingBack

Weblog: www.thepiratescove.us
Tracked: Jan 24, 09:20

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Painful start to the day: a science blogger who spends too much time treating semantics as science, and a mommy-blogger explaining boys.

The nun article was a nice piece though.

#1 DrTorch on 2016-01-22 09:20 (Reply)

The Harvard story is very touchy feely but makes no sense. Do they only want community organizers and Mormons in their school? The better way to fix college and college admissions is to require some tough classes for the first year to allow those students who aren't serious about college to discover it early and save themselves years of wasted time and money. Everyone, regardless of their educational goals takes calculus, physics and a rigorous English Comp. End the hate studies and basket weaving courses and make it a school for adults. Who gives a frig if the student made "meaningful contributions to others, community service, and engagement with the public good." Seriously is that the standard we want for higher education?

#2 GoneWithTheWind on 2016-01-22 09:40 (Reply)

My Dad went to Cal Berkeley in the 1940s after serving in the Navy in WWII. Back then the rule was that any graduate of a California public high school could attend Berkeley, but there was no assurance that you would be able to stay there. My Dad said that 1/3 of the entering class would flunk out at the end of the first semester. At the Berkeley train station they would put on extra cars in order to accommodate the students who didn't make the cut.

#2.1 Jim on 2016-01-22 17:45 (Reply)

When we were married, we decided that spouse would go to university to obtain degree (already had tech school diploma) in his preferred field. Spouse duly enrolled, took "entrance exam", and attended orientation (at which speaker said something to the effect of "look to your left and to your right: they won't be there when you graduate" - serious logic flaw, but know what he meant). Then spouse went off to student counselling where was advised the "entrance exam" said should not be there. Spouse pointed out said exam was meant for students fresh out of high school, not older students. Spouse graduated with First Class Honours, on of four in the class.

#2.1.1 Frances on 2016-01-23 01:48 (Reply)

One place I agree that universities discriminate against disadvantaged minorities is in their treatment of AP courses. Often, GPAs give increased weight to grades in AP courses. Thus, an "A" in a normal course is given a 4.0, but if it is achieved in an AP course it is given a 4.3. Schools in disadvantaged areas don't have the AP offerings that schools in advantaged areas do. So that puts kids from disadvantaged areas at an unfair disadvantage for admission.

#2.2 Jim on 2016-01-22 17:53 (Reply)

QUOTE:

the survey shows that fully 50 percent of these experts do not think climate change requires “immediate and drastic action.”

No. It requires decisive action soon. Slow and steady progress on the issue is the best response. Ignoring the problem, the effects of which have a lag of decades, is a recipe for disaster.

#3 Zachriel on 2016-01-22 10:09 (Reply)

Spoken like a true progressive.

The last progressive era was marked by the same kind of hubris - everything had already been invented, we could build ships that would not sink, we could outlaw war. Man was all powerful. How'd that work out?

Now, with AGW/Climate Change/whatever man can control the weather. The same people have ruined the schools, run Detroit, NYC, and Chicago into the ground, run the UN, promote peace and justice by funding terrorists, (and on and on) are jetting all over the world to tell us that THEY know how to control the climate. Right!

#3.1 mudbug on 2016-01-22 11:19 (Reply)

mudbug: The last progressive era was marked by the same kind of hubris - everything had already been invented, we could build ships that would not sink, we could outlaw war.

The article is based on the presupposition that the findings of climate science are sound. The question then turns to what is the appropriate response.

As there is significant lag in climate change, it's important to start mitigating the problem sooner rather than later. On the other hand, revamping the energy sector, while also allowing developing nations to enjoy the fruits of modern civilization, requires healthy economic growth and the development of new technologies. A well-reasoned plan would be to implement those changes over time. A methodical process that harnesses the power of markets would be the best solution.

#3.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-01-22 11:25 (Reply)

I agree with a fair amount of what I've heard from Patrick Moore and although I don't agree with Bjørn Lomborg about AGW, I appreciate his thoughtful and reasonable approach to what he considers a problem.

However from where I sit, this is just another progressive idea where man can do anything (the corollary is that he is responsible for everything). So when it seems to be getting warmer, man is responsible and man must fix it - as though it has never gotten warmer before with or without man.

Mark Twain lived too long ago. Everybody talks about the weather and didn't use to do anything about it. By God we going to do something about it now!

#3.1.1.1 mudbug on 2016-01-22 11:55 (Reply)

mudbug: However from where I sit, this is just another progressive idea where man can do anything (the corollary is that he is responsible for everything).

Sure. There's always that tendency among progressives. However, the science has only become more certain concerning climate change as evidence has accumulated.

#3.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-01-22 13:12 (Reply)

Among progressive scientists.

#3.1.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2016-01-22 13:18 (Reply)

Meaning the vast majority of scientists working in the field.

#3.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-01-22 13:37 (Reply)

There are plenty who dispute it, too. Usually those scientists are not supported by government grants so they aren't influenced by who pays them.

#3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2016-01-22 14:07 (Reply)

mudbug: There are plenty who dispute it, too. Usually those scientists are not supported by government grants so they aren't influenced by who pays them.

There's a few. Sometimes they even do valuable research, sometimes with government grants. But they rarely publish much of anything in terms of empirical studies that undermines the consensus. We'd be happy to look at a specific research paper, though.

#3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-01-23 14:32 (Reply)

Reality is: climate change has happened, is happening, and will happen in the future. Were it not for climate change, I would be trying to type this from under 2 km of ice.

Is the current climate change we are seeing "man-made"? Fossil fuel consumption may well be a contributor, but how much is an issue. After all, climate change drove the Vikings out of Greenland (and - I suspect - Newfoundland/Labrador) long before industrialization. And it is industrialization - and the harnessing of fossil fuels - that has allowed the world's population to increase and given many people a good life far beyond the dreams of the richest and more powerful a few hundred years ago.

#3.2 Frances on 2016-01-23 01:54 (Reply)

The clean eating delusion. As a marvel of complexity, the human body can't hold a candle to that quote.

#4 BillH on 2016-01-22 10:15 (Reply)

That quote can't hold a candle to logic. Clean eating is a real thing regardless of what it can be labeled and regardless of the pros, cons, benefits, or detriments. It's a thing because it's possible to subsist on Oreos, nitrited bacon, and Cheese from a can.

In other words, the assertion that it's delusional is delusional. Nothing like leading with a bias and ending on an obvious fallacy. "The free market delusion". "The delusional white male". You can remodel anything into a delusion if you rob definitions and first limit the parameters.

This article is just another a potboiler aimed at appealing to folks appealing to their lifestyle pecularities but asserting science and convention because it sounds serious and sways arguments.

#4.1 Ten on 2016-01-22 12:15 (Reply)

QUOTE:

When Money Can’t Buy An Army

When for every two bullets you buy, one ends up in the hands of the enemy. The same thing happened in Vietnam.

#5 Zachriel on 2016-01-22 10:19 (Reply)

QUOTE:

The IG Had to Get His Clearance Level Upped Just to Read Hillary's Secrets-Soaked Private Email

Rightly or wrongly, Clinton was probably assured by her IT department that the emails were secure. Based on that, it's very unlikely that her actions were criminal.

#6 Zachriel on 2016-01-22 10:54 (Reply)

If she directed an alternative email system be set up to get around the restrictions of having it go through the already secure Government IT service...

She's responsible.

It doesn't matter how you parse it or attempt to excuse it - what she wanted was illegal as it opened up top secret and compartmentalized info to open scrutiny.

#6.1 JLawson on 2016-01-22 11:17 (Reply)

JLawson: If she directed an alternative email system be set up to get around the restrictions of having it go through the already secure Government IT service...

Other Secretaries have used private email, though not to the extent as did Clinton.

The situation is sometimes compared to Petraeus. However, Petraeus knowingly engaged in unlawful conduct, which is not the case here. "Gross negligence" could be the standard, but if she reasonably thought the email was secure, then it's not clear the charge would work.

#6.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-01-22 11:33 (Reply)

And I'm sure they instructed their underlings to strip off security markings so classified documents could be sent via insecure channels, right?

That's been documented.

She knew. She was responsible for it. She KNEW classified material was being sent insecurely.

It wasn't inadvertent, it wasn't 'negligence'.

It was deliberate.

#6.1.1.1 JLawson on 2016-01-22 12:27 (Reply)

JLawson: And I'm sure they instructed their underlings to strip off security markings so classified documents could be sent via insecure channels, right?

The email seemed to refer to talking points, so probably didn't include classified information.

JLawson: She KNEW classified material was being sent insecurely. It wasn't inadvertent, it wasn't 'negligence'. It was deliberate.

There was a security certificate issued early in her term as Secretary of State.

#6.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-01-22 13:19 (Reply)

If by her IT department you mean the 22 year-old staffer who set the thing up, then she listened to her IT department.

There are three basic rings of information security: physical security, encryption, and data integrity. Her setup failed to meet any kind of standards on all three levels.

#6.2 Another guy named Dan on 2016-01-22 12:10 (Reply)

Another guy named Dan: There are three basic rings of information security: physical security, encryption, and data integrity. Her setup failed to meet any kind of standards on all three levels.

Perhaps, but that probably doesn't constitute a criminal violation. The most highly classified information is typically sent by secure fax, not through by email.

#6.2.1 Zachriel on 2016-01-22 13:25 (Reply)

Once again commenting on those things you know absolutely nothing about.

#6.2.1.1 DrTorch on 2016-01-22 14:04 (Reply)

First of all, she is the one who said there were no emails marked classified on her server. That implies that she wants us to believe that she expected to do State Department business without passing classified information via email (does anybody believe that?) In other words, in effect she is saying that her server was not a security threat because since there wasn't any classified information on it (at the UN, she even said she knew how the classification system worked), it didn't need the robust security of the State Department servers.

But now we know that there was highly classified (above 'Top Secret') information on her server so we know that she actually did send and/or receive classified information on her server. You're telling us that even though her server didn't need the security of the State Department systems, she thought "her IT department" (one - or was he all of it - was employed by State) was as competent as the whole State Department IT department? She thought her hardware and software infrastructure was as secure as the State Departments? That her server was being monitored as well as State Department servers?

You want us to believe that she is stupid rather than corrupt. So does she. She is hanging her defence on the claim no email on her server was marked classified. We know there was email on her server that was more sensitive than 'Top Secret' so that must mean that she is too stupid to recognize sensitive information. The more likely scenario is that she is both stupid and corrupt. Stupid because she thought she wouldn't get caught and obviously corrupt.

#6.3 mudbug on 2016-01-22 12:31 (Reply)

mudbug: she is the one who said there were no emails marked classified on her server. That implies that she wants us to believe that she expected to do State Department business without passing classified information via email (does anybody believe that?)

The most sensitive information is typically sent by secure fax. However, we're in a period of technological change. People tend to have discussions via email.

mudbug: But now we know that there was highly classified (above 'Top Secret') information on her server so we know that she actually did send and/or receive classified information on her server.

The State Department disputes that. In any case, that doesn't necessarily mean it's a criminal case.

#6.3.1 Zachriel on 2016-01-22 13:29 (Reply)

Z: The State Department disputes that [that there was sensitive information on the server].

The Intelligence Community Inspector General (appointed by Obama) is the source of that information. State is just covering their ass.

Z: In any case, that doesn't necessarily mean it's a criminal case.

18 U.S. Code § 2071

QUOTE:

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

Was Petraeus guilty of a crime (knowing that they allowed him to plead for a misdemeanor). What Hillary did was way worse since the classified information was available to just about any hacker.

The criminality doesn't matter as much legally since it is unlikely she'll be indicted, especially by this JD.

#6.3.1.1 mudbug on 2016-01-22 13:57 (Reply)

I forgot to add that even the Daily Kos believes she's committed a felony.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/8/28/1416309/-Hillary-Clinton-s-Felony-The-federal-laws-violated-by-the-private-server

#6.3.1.1.1 mudbug on 2016-01-22 14:01 (Reply)

Zachriel: The State Department disputes that {that there was highly classified (above 'Top Secret') information on her server}. [/i]

mudbug: The Intelligence Community Inspector General (appointed by Obama) is the source of that information.

NBC News is reporting that the 'Top Secret' emails were "innocuous" discussions of drone strikes. Keep in mind that the U.S. classifies the fact that it conducts drones strikes as 'Top Secret', even though the entire world knows that the U.S. is conducting drone strikes, and is a topic that is widely discussed in the media, including by those with access to 'Top Secret' information.

By the way, there is no level of security above 'Top Secret'.

mudbug: 18 U.S. Code § 2071

That just means she has to turn over government records in her keeping. Furthermore, it is the employee's responsibility to determine which records are personal and which are government, though that is subject to oversight.

mudbug: Was Petraeus guilty of a crime (knowing that they allowed him to plead for a misdemeanor).

Obviously. Petraeus broke the law by knowingly providing information he knew was not to be provided to that person.

mudbug: What Hillary did was way worse since the classified information was available to just about any hacker.

There's no evidence of a hack, and it turns out that the State Department has experienced multiple attacks on its email system. In any case, even if it were "worse", you stilll haven't justified a criminal prosecution.

#6.3.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2016-01-23 14:23 (Reply)

Zach your ignorance of the regulations around classified material is showing. If you do not want to make a fool of yourself you need to study this issue. If anyone who has access to classified material breaks any of the rules around that classified material they have committed a felony. It doesn't matter if your IT guy says your server is secure especially if you are a high level government employee and a lawyer to boot. She knew what she was doing was wrong and because of the way the laws are written it matters not if you know you are wrong. No one gets a government security clearance without knowing that they are obligated to protect classified material and that there are serious consequences for even the smallest breech. What Hillary has done would be a slam dunk in court and she would get about 1000 years in a federal slammer. Any other outcome implies political interference in the investigation and prosecution and THAT would also be a felony. The ONLY legitimate thing that can save her is a presidential pardon.

#6.4 GoneWithTheWind on 2016-01-22 20:19 (Reply)

GoneWithTheWind: If anyone who has access to classified material breaks any of the rules around that classified material they have committed a felony.

Waving your hands in the general direction doesn't constitute a criminal indictment. You have to point to specific law and specific acts.

#6.4.1 Zachriel on 2016-01-23 14:29 (Reply)

How foolish. Do you really think Clinton's lawyers will say that to the judge or the prosecutor? Your honor waving your hands in the general direction of my 1300 classified emails on an open server doesn't constitute an indictment so dismiss the case. Or maybe you got that from your trolls handbook. I think your fallback position is if you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with bullshit.

#6.4.1.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2016-01-23 22:06 (Reply)

Zachriel: Waving your hands in the general direction doesn't constitute a criminal indictment. You have to point to specific law and specific acts.

GoneWithTheWind: Do you really think Clinton's lawyers will say that to the judge or the prosecutor?

If the prosecutor can't point to specific law and specific acts that would substantiate a criminal charge, then there would be no prosecution. It's called the Great Writ.

#6.4.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-01-24 10:08 (Reply)

Sounds like you are praying for a miracle. I don't think there will be one. I think Hillary will finally get a trial for her crimes.

#6.4.1.1.1.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2016-01-24 18:37 (Reply)

re Merkel Lectures Austria: Cap on Migrants NOT HELPFUL for European Solution

One wonders how much worse it will get?

“Look how many countries in Africa, for example, depend on the income from oil exports,” Schwab said in an interview ahead of the WEF’s 46th annual meeting, in the Swiss resort of Davos. “Now imagine 1 billion inhabitants, imagine they all move north.”

http://www.vdare.com/posts/davos-boss-a-billion-african-refugees

#7 feeblemind on 2016-01-22 12:02 (Reply)

This kind of mass immigration was inevitable, predicted as were the inevitable consequences. Africa and the ME is a enormous baby factory and their people do little to nothing to become self sufficient and self supporting. It was inevitable that at some point masses from third world countries would rush the borders of the first world. This is about the 'free stuff', the money, the goods and services that these people are unable to produce for themselves. This is about coveting what your neighbors have and making the decision to take it.

What we are seeing in Europe is phase one in this invasion. The Europeans are dazed, unsure and being kept in the dark about what is really happening. Phase two will involve the great awakening and push back. Once this starts it will likely end in civil war. In fact the only way that civil war can be prevented is for the government to reverse course and actively seek out these refugees/immigrants and relocate them far from the country where they ended up. The problem is the government leaders are clueless or complicit and therefore I don't think they will consider a change in policy until actual hostility breaks out.

#7.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2016-01-22 20:31 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
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. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Friday, January 22. 2016

Friday morning links