Wednesday morning links

re: Free College

Louisiana provides a great case study for advocates of similar federal policies.

Yes indeed it does - it's a great case study in what happens when you don't have the right Top Men in charge of the Free Stuff program. If you think for one second it's going to be taken as a case study in the laws of economics and unintended consequences and how markets work and TANSTAFL, you're sadly mistaken.

Not to mention which, the idea of a free college education is stupid when you realize that a lot of them don't want a college education at all, they just want a college diploma. (If you want an education, any decent library has the best teachers in all of history sitting on the shelves waiting to teach you and they don't charge a nickel.) But the demand for that piece of paper puts a huge pressure on schools to deliver it even at the cost of lowering their standards so much that the paper becomes worthless.

Higher price for lower quality and you get more government to boot - there's your free stuff.

#1 Jerryskids on 2016-02-24 06:33 (Reply)

"Not to mention which, the idea of a free college education is stupid when you realize that a lot of them don't want a college education at all, they just want a college diploma. (If you want an education, any decent library has the best teachers in all of history sitting on the shelves waiting to teach you and they don't charge a nickel.)"

Brings to mind an incident from my university days in Canada in the late Seventies.

In one of my French literature courses, we were discussing some theme in the novel we were studying. In discussion, I remarked to our prof that a similar theme was evident in another book by the same author.

The student next to me looked at me and quipped, "You read a book that it wasn't part of the course material? Why would you do that?"

At that point it became clear to me that French literature in its own right - as worthy of intellectual effort for its own sake - meant nothing to her. She was studying only precisely what she had to study to get the course, the degree and then her Ontario teaching certificate.

Pity the class that ended up with her for their teacher!

#1.1 JJM on 2016-02-24 08:59 (Reply)

School helplessness is a a great epidemic in the US.

I've had the experience and now my niece does as well of someone asking how you know something and you reply, "I read it". They inevitably lean their head over like your dog does when he's confused.

The idea one might read, and learn, from books is so alien these day, especially among college students.

#1.1.1 JK Brown on 2016-02-24 13:39 (Reply)

"If you want an education, any decent library has the best teachers in all of history sitting on the shelves waiting to teach you and they don't charge a nickel."

Yep, and now we also have the Internet, a really big library! You might even find opposing opinions so you can become educated in debate and not your professor's biases. Or go to Khan Academy where you can take the same class over and over again until you "get it" without all the embarrassment of being at 101 level in your senior year!

#1.2 jma on 2016-02-24 11:01 (Reply)

I more and more think, at least at upper university level, that the goal of the person teaching is to curate and guide students to the material that doesn't send you down irrelevant paths. They get their money's worth in time efficiency, as well as (for now) the credential that still has some residual value (at least for getting past HR screening of resumes).

#1.2.1 DOuglas2 on 2016-02-24 11:43 (Reply)

If they think Hover-boards are unsafe, they should be keeping an eye on Boston Dynamics. Now you know why those Terminator robots were so pissed off...we poked their fore-fathers with hockey sticks!

http://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/the-new-atlas-robot-is-incredible-and-its-definitely-go-1760908062

#2 Karl Horst (Germany) on 2016-02-24 06:47 (Reply)

Re: Trump would be a bigger disaster,

He's dead-on right about the Trump side. I've said as much, almost verbatim. He's the great administrator, able to get things done better than any previous president. It's the central theme of his campaign.

If I felt that he would follow through with his rhetoric about border control and a reflective pause on immigration, he might work as a worst case GOP candidate. But, then I think about him considering judicial appointees, running a state dept., or being able to admit his ignorance on topics such as international finance. Does he really believe that he'll go over to China and negotiate the hell out of 'em? Tariffs? Forcing companies to not set up overseas? Increased corporate taxes and regulations?

On the other hand, the author is wrong to assume that the GOP would hold back the worst of a Clinton office. For one thing, they meet her halfway on many of her ideas. And how well have the GOP resisted our current president? Not enough to give me any hope for change.

If Trump wins, I certainly won't vote for the D, but I could turn in a blank ballot and still have a clear conscience. I don't know if that is the right decision.

My last hope is that these first four states are so unusual in their primary processes as to not be true indicators of any national patterns. Closed primaries and conservative voters might make a difference.

#3 Jack Walter on 2016-02-24 07:19 (Reply)

Unfortunately, not voting for the pubbie is a vote for Hillary. I am not a Trump guy and there are lots of reasons why I hope he's not the nominee (no apparent political philosophy, juvenile temperament, seems to accept the fact that business needs to suck up to politicians to get things done to name a few), but I think you're kidding yourself if you think Hillary would in any way better on any level. There is no evidence that she's running for anything more than personal gain, she's dismissive of security procedures and the armed forces, her economic and social positions are insane...

Some people don't seem to get it. You don't get to vote for the best person for the job, you can only vote for the best one that's running. You can pout that the pubbie isn't a real pubbie or he's this or that but if you don't vote for him, then in the end, you're voting for the demoncrat. Hasn't eight years of Obummer been more than enough?

#3.1 mudbug on 2016-02-24 09:53 (Reply)

Hillary's out for Hillary. She's owed, dammit... or so she thinks.

She'd really prefer to be a cult-of-personality dictator, a psychopathic smiling Red Queen striking off people's heads with impunity. Vote for her only if you're certain of your untouchable position - and understand that no position is untouchable as a lot of the intelligentsia and Party members learned in the USSR to their sorrow.

#3.1.1 JLawson on 2016-02-24 11:20 (Reply)

Wait until the general. You are seeing 'primary' Trump right now. He is genius. Never had a political candidate like him. Probably never will again. He knows to be loud and to stand out and be brash in order to get all attention on him. If you believe this is who Trump is day in and day out in his business and normal life, you are so wrong. Just look at his children. Accomplished, well-spoken people.

I am looking forward to when he brings his family out on the road for the general election. Eric Trump especially is fantastic when he talks about his father and what his Administration would be like. You will probably see more of that happening to show that Trump is presidential material.

I am also looking forward to more about how Trump will prosecute Hillary when he's president. This was a brilliant move. Why?

1) Obama is helping Hillary by sitting on the case and keeping the DOJ off her back. Probably hoping that she can win the election and the presidency and this 'little problem' can go away.

2) With Trump now talking about prosecuting her when he wins, she is between a rock and a hard place. If she stays in the race, she has to be absolutely certain she wins. If not, she is going to face charges and possible jail time with Trump.

3) Expect that this statement by Trump at some point may force her out of the race, if she is truly worried he might win.

Maybe it is fantasy thinking...

My dream is to see Trump on stage at the presidential debate telling Hillary to her face that he will prosecute her once he's elected and that she is a criminal. It will be awesome!

#3.1.2 MissT on 2016-02-24 11:29 (Reply)

I know you're right, but I'm getting tired of saying in frustration "Bush is the last progressive I'm voting for, McCain is the last progressive..., Romney is the last..." Is there no end?

I'm ready for the GOP to divide and fall. Maybe if Trump wins he can be the final straw comb-over to break the elephant's back.

#3.1.3 Jack Walter on 2016-02-24 11:57 (Reply)

I hear you. I would much prefer to vote FOR someone rather than against someone else. Even so, I've always found something to vote for. I long for the Republican party to actually be a conservative party. The only thing to do is to vote for the most conservative guy running.

#3.1.3.1 mudbug on 2016-02-24 12:17 (Reply)

I forgot to mention that the next president will likely choose at least two Supreme Court Justices. Do you REALLY think that Hillary will choose better justices than Trump?

#3.2 mudbug on 2016-02-24 09:56 (Reply)

Do you really think choosing the lesser of two evils isn't a choice for evil? What you're describing is codependency, not rationale.

The right squandered its choices way back when it stopped remembering what the right was. The rest is just waiting.

#3.2.1 Ten on 2016-02-24 14:41 (Reply)

Choosing the "lesser of two evils" is just that, choosing the least bad option. Not choosing is choosing for the greater of two evils.

Discussing how we got here is a worthwhile exercise, but it doesn't change the facts as they are now.

#3.2.1.1 mudbug on 2016-02-24 15:14 (Reply)

That makes as much sense as thoughts about partaking in a corrupt casino system's profits because you didn't create the corrupt system. You're saying that no vote for evil is a vote against evil?

Let me re-explain a principle I'm sure any astute capitalist will recall at a moment. You and the missus enjoy a meal out from time to time. You shop for the best deals, the best food, the best service. You read reviews and you try options. This is because this is important to you. You're invested in it.

But for whatever reason, one day you and the rest of the nation drop the obsession with nice lifestyling - the foodie movement, the travel, the generally Epicurean philosophy of life and signalling the ostensible right has devolved into - and you start dropping into the local McDees. You and forty million of your countrymen do this thing because it's no longer important to you.

How does the market respond?

That's like voting. American can't even identify its original, structural principles, much less support a candidate capable of articulating them. Proof? The last 28 years straight, and the last hundred with only rare exceptions.

You've all decided to eat at the McDees of politics. And that's what you've been sold.

So kindly stop insulting your intelligence and mine with the completely worn-thru trope that a vote for a Bush or a Dole or a McCain or a Trump is anything other than what it is: A vote for demise.

There is no justification for the nation's state of affairs than the nation itself. It's vastly more important for the average "conservative" to enjoy a nice life while it lasts than it is to do the work, write three congressmen, and actually put forth candidates that will maintain even a 1950's political vaguely rightist status quo.

Of course a vote for bad brings bad. There's nothing else it could do. What, do you think they're going to serve you a nice filet when you stopped asking for one way back when when you were 23? It's your kind that directly put us in this mess.

#3.2.1.1.1 Ten on 2016-02-24 16:06 (Reply)

What, do you think they're going to serve you a nice filet when you stopped asking for one way back when when you were 23? It's your kind that directly put us in this mess.
In the first place, I don't expect a filet when the choice is hamburger or sh*t burger. I expect one of those. In the second place, do you see any evidence that not voting has gotten us better candidates? Bush? Dole? McCain? Romney?

The reality is we have basically two options. One that stinks and one that is putrid. The fact that you don't want either of them is irrelevant. Whether you want it or not, you are going to get one of them. Which one do you want? You would choose not to participate. Fine. I think we both agree the demoncrats aren't going to worry about the fact that their rotting corpse won over the merely smelly homeless guy. Do you think the pubbies are going to think, "We really like these smelly homeless guys, but gee, they're not winning. Let's get a real well dressed, intelligent guy that we don't like to run next time." I don't see any evidence of that.

One reason Trump is winning is because the pubbie establishment has promised us rainbows and delivered a sh*t sandwich and said that's the best they can do. The answer is to put up candidates with less sh*t (0% if possible) and vote for them. The only time we have to influence who we vote for in the general election is in the primary. Another reason Trump is winning is because there are so many anti-Trumpsters that split the vote. Whatever the reason, we may end up with Trump and the demoncrats may end up with Hillary (if she doesn't get indicted). At the time of the general, all the reasons, the primary opponents, and everything else that went before no longer matters. You can vote for Hillary or Trump. You will get one so which would you RATHER because that is the extent of your influence. You don't get to choose (other than with a write in) the best person - only the best of the available options.

If you don't vote, your message isn't "these are crummy candidates", it's "I don't care which one wins."

My principle is to choose my favorite combination of conservative/libertarian available in the primary. In the general, I again choose the guy with my favorite combination of conservative/libertarian values. In 2008, we ended up with McCain - decidedly NOT my guy but as bad as he would have been are you actually making the argument that Obummer was the better choice? Was Obummer really a better choice than Romney?

Now, if you want to discuss blowing up the Republican party and remaking it into something that is actually conservative/libertarian instead of a watered down demoncrat party, I'm with you. If you want to get better candidates, I'm with you, but not voting doesn't accomplish either of those things. And while you're teaching those stupid pubbie elites a lesson and letting the demoncrat win, the Supreme Court ends up with 8 lefties. But I guess you showed them!

I know you're not alone, but it astounds me that this has to be explained to anyone!

#3.2.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2016-02-24 23:41 (Reply)

Likewise: It astounds me that explaining that the market always seeks its mean has to be explained to anyone. To risk sounding like Team of Zees, all your handwaving hasn't - and shall never - obscure that central fact.

The notion that voting for the lesser of two evils will push a stake in the ground against the erosion of any former essential ideal is preposterous, and in fact it has instead led directly to the wholesale erosion of American principles. How that visible fact staring you in the face is so mysterious to comprehend is remarkable.

As long as you'll vote for an establishment progressive surrender monkey GOPe candidate is precisely how long you'll get one! The entire Trump phenomenon, as wrong as it'll inevitably turn out to be, is a perfect illustration of this completely obvious fact: DJ is mopping up because people think he's an alternative, only after they've become sick and tired of supporting the otherwise endless parade of deceptions!

We get precisely what we deserve. There's no magical passive ingredient that'll hold things together against chaos. Rust never sleeps. You can't point to an exception (because it simply doesn't exist) and therefore voting for a monkey from the same old barrel has, obviously, put us in the very position where we see so much wrong that we think we have to make a radical course correction in 2016 (regardless of how badly President Trump will do, which he will, which is baked into the cake for other reasons.)

What you're describing is codependency to a bizarre political Stokholm Syndrome. I did that at the polls precisely twice in forty years. I am not responsible for voting in a lackey except the one time my pathetic choice actually won. After which point he went on to run things into the toilet.

In other words, lesser evils are evil, and moreover, their success engenders more of the same. It's called markets and it's called the just desserts of squandering principle birthrights. It's never worked and actively enabling this negative is the height of political sloth.

#3.2.1.1.1.1.1 Ten on 2016-02-25 07:47 (Reply)

The the available choices are hamburger and sh*t sandwich. You and enough people like you don't choose either (because you feel you deserve steak) so the sh*t sandwich wins. So now everybody is eating the sh*t sandwich. You say the market seeks its mean so the mean is now closer to the sh*t sandwich. How does this get us closer to being able to choose steak?

The same thing happens next time except it's between a ham sandwich and diarrhea soup. You and like minded people refuse to choose (you still deserve steak and your choices are even worse now) and the soup wins. This is better?

There are people who really want the sh*t sandwich and the soup. They keep winning. There must be a market for it!

It's worse than that actually since we're talking about people who make policy, not inert menu options.

#3.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2016-02-25 08:45 (Reply)

How obtuse. If all you demand are these so-called shit sandwiches because you keep consuming them, what incentive do your providers have to offer you a real choice?

That's the question you continually avoid.

Worse, when a valid alternative is offered, the ostensible rightist - in his decidedly, demonstrably, visibly, irrefutably anti-right habit - invariably destroys that choice. We've seen that happen virtually every cycle since at least Goldwater.

What's that mean? That the right can't even identify classical liberalism anymore. Proof? The trail is littered with genuine choices who never survived as much as a primary while Trump is going all Charlie Sheen on the GOPe before being just another statist once elected, assuming he is electable. #winning!

It's a disgrace, all borne along forever because the sloth on the right has actively created and maintained it. You're honestly claiming to be victim of the GOPe? Hardly. You created it. You get the candidates you deserve.

Your entire premise is rooted in enabling fraud.

#3.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Ten on 2016-02-25 09:30 (Reply)

You miss my point completely. The sh*t sandwich is Hillary, the hamburger is whoever is running against her. You can say I'm settling for hamburger but there is no way you can say I'm demanding the sh*t sandwich.

You and I can rail about the fact that we aren't given the choice we would prefer and we can debate why that choice is not available (he may have been a poor/unskilled/inarticulate candidate, the voters are too stupid to recognize how good he was, whatever) but the fact remains that for whatever reason, he isn't available. Get over it.

You say my voting for the lesser of two evils means I'm settling or even demanding more crappy choices. What does your not voting say? That you don't like either of those choices? Maybe. It could also mean that you just don't care enough to make a choice or you're happy with either choice. You are not demanding anything. You're silent in the process.

#3.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2016-02-25 10:42 (Reply)

Actually, you miss your own point completely. First you said that in a fraudulent system, not participating was somehow enabling the fraud - that old every-vote-counts canard. Then you claimed the other side of that same coin, which is that actively settling for a fraud was not enabling the fraudulent system it was part of.

Aside from conveniently excluded the rational middle - which is that voting is virtually peripheral at this phase to a responsible electorate hiring public servants beholden to responsible structural originalism - you've actually stated two obvious untruths. First that not participating is participating, and second, that participating was not participating.

Get over it.

Get over this fraud? The degree of codependency that calls for is almost as breathtaking as the denial that that's what it really is.

You are not demanding anything. You're silent in the process.

Pay closer attention: I'd said that this vote-or-die bullshit comes from from the very statist right that brought us to this point, and that it's only defeated by political activism - you have three congressmen and innumerable opportunities to change a system utterly unresponsive to what you think your principles are.

This odd religious demand for joint codependency - the codependency whereby you actually loudly demand that others share in the dysfunction - is not just practically doomed, which I and at least the last 28 years easily illustrate, is also philosophically wrong; morally corrupt. It's like the Farmer who actually claimed awhile back that it's moral to partake in the casino known as the stock market to milk a kind of opportunistic usury off the investments of others because he didn't personally build the casino.

This we call "earning", just like voting you'd call "duty". Voting, you mean between two pro-choice candidates, for example?

The vote is at best all but meaningless anyway. Its you up in the cheap seats, tickets proudly in hand, stalwartly insisting that virtue lies with four of you and your closest friends simply refusing to catch the bread being thrown to you out of the sheer magnitude of your principles.

#3.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Ten on 2016-02-25 11:45 (Reply)

If you are suggesting something outside the political process, you should say so and what.

I read a lot about how much of a fraud the system is but beyond not voting, nothing about what to do about it.

#3.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2016-02-25 12:14 (Reply)

Projecting demands onto others to excuse our own participation is another fallacy, and because it's impacted denial - the last resort defense for that participation - it's probably an even more offensive fallacy. I've heard "conservatives" legitimize a dozen hugely onerous, progressive status quos by demanding alternatives to them that they themselves - as I indicated above and you ignored - refuse, the unnaturalness and offense of each of which are deployed in the nation by force.

By force. Are you forced to vote badly? You say you're voting badly and you expect others to follow your example. Are you forced to throw away good candidates because you've divined they can't win with your peers? How are both not willful, active codependency? Shouldn't there be a rational justification for both phenomenon?

Slothful participation is participation, just as codependently enabling an alcoholic because s/he's so much worse dry is still codependent enabling participation.

We have alternatives to any and all bad behaviors. There are more taxis in town than the one that dropped you at the casino, somehow against your free will in a free market. You can't hail one of them and go home instead?

#3.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Ten on 2016-02-25 13:11 (Reply)

Are you suggesting something outside the usual political process (voting in primary and general elections)? If so, what?

#3.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2016-02-25 13:45 (Reply)

Had I suggested anything like that? What I said was that the right was effectively anti-right and likely couldn't even identify its former principles anymore. The resulting conundrum and system are therefore predictable and the solution to them is impossible as it is opaque to these people.

#3.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Ten on 2016-02-25 14:15 (Reply)

I didn't suggest you said anything. I'm trying to find out what your solution is.

#3.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2016-02-25 14:22 (Reply)

What my solution is to your problem? Isn't that your responsibility? It's certainly not mine.

Look, we can't not address each of the steps you've either ceded or tacitly admitted: The nation is a wreck, some of us are voters in the obvious, evident method of that ruin, some of us demand others join us in the method of that ruin, and eventually we get way down here to an inference - without basis in fact or reason - that these ruinous methods are perpetually justified unless someone else solve their ruin for us.

Seriously? You need to be told not to drive down to the liquor store or the casino for another positive fix in a dysfunction that's already passed through the nineteenth or thirty-fifth or sixty-third instance? As rational adult humans we can't work out an alternative to that? How does that thinking pass scrutiny, exactly?

I assume you've been reading my comments. Are we somehow unaware that out of habit, blindness, and ignorance, "conservatives" have become active progressives on a score of major issues? And now we're going to vote around that by selecting a "shit sandwich" all over again? The onus is on you to defend that method, not for me to solve the national crisis that method actively caused.

How do you propose solving this problem? By your own admission, is it somehow not doing what you have been doing, each time at least tacitly expecting it turn out differently?

#3.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Ten on 2016-02-25 15:39 (Reply)

No, I'm not interested in your solving my problem, thank you.

Let's try this again in a different way. You say the nation is a wreck. I agree. What is your solution to that problem? Since you don't think voting for the less bad candidate is the answer. How do you get another Reagan or Goldwater? How do you turn the nation around politically or otherwise? Or have you given up? Are you ready to go to another country? If so which one?

#3.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2016-02-25 16:41 (Reply)

And is this final canard how you avoid taking responsibility for being part of the problem and asking others to join you?

#3.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Ten on 2016-02-25 23:08 (Reply)

Do you live in another country?

#3.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2 mudbug on 2016-02-25 16:45 (Reply)

This may seem off topic (if indeed this thread has a topic), but it isn't. A giant step towards solving the problem of progressives and poor excuses for republican presidents is to repeal the 17th amendment.

Having the Senate revert back to its original purpose would do several things. First, it would increase the division between the Senate and the Executive. Likewise, it would decrease the division of party and ideology within the Senate. Also, the states are seemingly divided along the two-party system. But really, red and blue states have much in common and a lot to gain by uniting against an overbearing executive. A strong senate that represents the state governments would be much more willing to oppose the president, any president, than a Senate where half of them support one president for eight years and the other half supports the next president for eight years. Currently, the Senate is not much more than a review committee that votes yay or nay on a president's requests based on party affiliation. Our government isn't designed to have a Senate elected by the same sway of emotions that elects our President. When a president is checked and balanced his influence becomes less significant.

#3.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2 Jack Walter on 2016-02-25 17:23 (Reply)

The subject was lost long ago. He is either unable or unwilling to offer a practical course of action other than not voting for the lesser of two evils. I hope you didn't waste too much time reading that thread!

I agree with you about repeal of the 17th Amendment. State legislatures choosing the Senators for their state is a vestige of States Rights which has eroded drastically over the last 150 years. About the closest we get to Senators looking out for their state seems to be when they are up for election and they complain that their state gets back only x% of the tax dollars they send to Washington. Neither Republican nor Democrats seem to understand the obvious solution is to stop sending so much money to Washington and keep it in their state to spend as they see fit.

#3.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1 mudbug on 2016-02-25 23:24 (Reply)

Harsanyi class that a Clinton presidency would galvanize the right - a supposedly we would therefore elect a conservative in 2020.

The problem with that thinking is that when the right is "galvanized", we see a handful of conservatives step up to run in the presidential primary against a RINO and the RINO (McCain, Trump) wins because the conservatives split the conservative vote.

Until we stop being the insanity party - doing the same thing and expecting a different result - we'll continue to end up in this same spot: facing the dilemma of not voting (and allowing the Democrat to win) versus voting for a RINO.

If the right doesn't have the willingness and ability to galvanize and elect a conservative after two terms of Obama, it won't after one or two terms of HRC. And given the likelihood of her appointing a socialist to the SCOTUS, it may not have the ability.

One of two things must happen: (1) We have ONE conservative run in the primary, or (2) Independents and/or moderates turn away from the socialist policies of the left - we may need to see much more pain before they figure it out.

#3.3 Mike M on 2016-02-24 15:02 (Reply)

"This won’t end well for the boy, for the girls in the school, or for the use of the law as a rational instrument of justice."

it's not supposed to end well. That's the whole point. They are pushing and pushing until it all comes crashing down.
I'm just wondering at what point does the straw break the camel's back?

#4 fjord on 2016-02-24 07:22 (Reply)

The camel has bolted for Trump, Cruz and Sanders. It bucked off the straw, which is now strewn all over the ground. The straw merchants are dumbfounded.

#4.1 BillH on 2016-02-24 09:58 (Reply)

Don't worry, most of this will simply fade away after the election.

It's just more interest-group pandering by the Democrats.

#4.2 JM01 on 2016-02-24 13:12 (Reply)

“Does a tree in the city do more or less than a tree outside the city?” Hutyra asks."
{Urban backyards contribute almost as much CO2 as much as cars and buildings}

Somebody needs a real job. And a life.

Enjoy the decline.

#5 fjord on 2016-02-24 07:26 (Reply)

Yes, I read the article this morning and didn't understand the point. Then I just read it again after work and seriously don't understand where it's going. Acres of concrete and blacktop do much damage to air quality, but trees, bushes and plants rock!

#5.1 jma on 2016-02-24 18:23 (Reply)

Questioning the science behind gravity wave hysteria, which is a artifact of the same relativistic dogma that dominates the big bang faith.

https://youtu.be/45BGbnJykPo

https://youtu.be/J3Hoax81rkI

#6 Ten on 2016-02-24 08:10 (Reply)

re An Island of Rattlesnakes: What Could Go Wrong?

This scheme has as much chance of going awry as the introduction of the wolves.

Once you decide to reintroduce dangerous species such as wolves into the environment, this should be expected.

#7 feeblemind on 2016-02-24 09:34 (Reply)

Before you criticize the reintroduction of wolves, read and watch this article. There are multiple such studies, but this will explain the basics:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/grrlscientist/2014/mar/03/how-wolves-change-rivers

#7.1 jma on 2016-02-24 11:08 (Reply)

I would expect as much from George Monbiot. He makes the article as credible as the global warming propaganda.

1) Man has been altering the environment since we set foot on the planet. Wolves were eliminated to help secure our food supply and make us safer.

2) Wolves eat baby calves. That's a problem. People don't worry where their next meal is coming from. They should. People like George Monbiot would like to curtail food production in this country.

3) The same arguments can be made for rattlesnakes and their place in the ecosystem. Snakes control rodents.

4) So when are we going wipe the Mustangs feral horses off the western range? That would help return the environment to its 'natural' state, yes?

5) Government can't manage anything well, least of all something as complex as an ecosystem. They need to stay out of the wilderness.

#7.1.1 feeblemind on 2016-02-24 12:53 (Reply)

Trump a disaster?

And Bush wouldn't have been? Or Rubio or Kasich? How about Bernie or Hillary? Are these good candidates? Could Trump possibly be a worse disaster than Obama?

#8 GoneWithTheWind on 2016-02-24 09:38 (Reply)

That's what I'm wondering. Why is no one addressing that any of the GOP leaders would be disasters.

Walker and Paul were the only legit statesmen on the list. And they got zero play from these talking heads.

#8.1 DrTorch on 2016-02-24 09:44 (Reply)

+1.

With 28 straight years of elected buffoonery come 2017, America long ago lost the ability to honor original principles, or even to remember what they are.

#8.1.1 Ten on 2016-02-24 10:02 (Reply)

You've just defined codependency, that interesting phenomenon when doing something is verifiably worse than doing nothing: The right is effectively anti-right.

#8.2 Ten on 2016-02-24 10:04 (Reply)

Re: Why President Trump Would Be A Bigger Disaster Than Hillary

QUOTE:

There is little question Trump would abuse power. In some way, it’s the point of his candidacy. The thing that gets his admirers excited. “Finally, someone who will use the IRS for us. Someone who will circumvent Congress for us. Obama gets everything; why shouldn’t we?”

Assuming the author is correct about Trump, in what way is Hillary better? Does he seriously think that Hillary won't abuse power and abuse it in a way that is directly detrimental to us?

Trump has promised to take illegal seriously and prosecute Hillary. If he only does those two things, it would be a great thing for the country.

#9 mudbug on 2016-02-24 10:14 (Reply)

I would like to know if Trump is hedging his bet of winning the presidency by contributing to Clinton's campaign. In a Trump vs Clinton general election, Trump wins either way.

#9.1 Jack Walter on 2016-02-24 12:25 (Reply)

That seems unlikely to me, but this year is so far away from the norm that you probably shouldn't rule it out.

#9.1.1 mudbug on 2016-02-24 12:44 (Reply)

Re: Why Democrats Should Beware Sanders’ Socialism

QUOTE:

...despite what Republicans may say, there’s a big difference between socialism and liberalism.

Republicans should be excused for confusing the two since no Democrat has been able to articulate the difference.

QUOTE:

While Roosevelt experimented with different strategies in the New Deal, he did not undertake any large-scale nationalization...

He probably wanted to but for any number of reasons (potential push back from Congress, SCOTUS, population at large) he didn't. He did try small scale collectivist programs that were patterned after programs in Russia that were a failure.

That being said, it is a very good column written by a self described 'liberal'. I recommend it!

#10 mudbug on 2016-02-24 10:31 (Reply)

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of “liberalism,” they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform.”

― Norman Mattoon Thomas
This was in 1942

There is no difference between "liberalism" and socialism.

True Liberalism is what the Founders intended. The word has been perverted, as many other words have by the modern Marxists.

#10.1 DanK on 2016-02-24 12:31 (Reply)

Agreed. That's why Debbie Schultz, Hillary Clinton, et al can't tell you the difference - there isn't any other than how fast to get there. For that matter you could add Republican establishment to that list as the slowest in that race.

#10.1.1 mudbug on 2016-02-24 12:52 (Reply)

Lol quite true. It's not called the stupid party for nothing!

#10.1.1.1 Dan K on 2016-02-24 13:17 (Reply)

An Island of Rattlesnakes: What Could Go Wrong?

why is it that when a species is not adapting to it's surroundings (survival of the fittest) man has the hubris to think they can bring it back and "save it'. Like the panda bear. In a completely controlled environment the panda bear still refuses to comply and reproduce in replacement numbers. There's a reason for this.

we shouldn't "feed the wild animals' because it makes them dependent but if there's an exploitation side (to humans),
gvt will run with it.

#11 fjord on 2016-02-24 15:40 (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

Wednesday, February 24. 2016

Wednesday morning links