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, June 3. 2016
Steyn may not live to see the conclusion: Trial of the Century Update
Shock research finding: Mars has experienced massive climate change
I blame the Mars Rover
The Worst Airport in the U.S. for Delays Is...
Knives used far more often for murder than firearms
Preppiest man alive
Obamacare’s 13th Co-Op Is Closing. Why More Could Follow.
Just as intended
Students say they’ll have mental breakdown if Johns Hopkins stops hiding their grades
Too late. They already have had one.
Thanks to EPA and Army Corps of Engineers, American farmers are a newly endangered species
Regulated to death, like banks, insurance companies, doctors, and every small business
Working for the union
3.1 Million New Immigrants Arrived in US Over the Past 2 Years
Who voted for that?
The Donald Trump Conversation: Politics' "Dark Heart" Is Having the Best Time Anyone's Ever Had
Majority of Fortune 500 CEOs Prefer Clinton over Trump
Hillary's Habits of Haughtiness - The email controversy recapitulates themes from Clinton's handling of health care reform.
A strange speech
Clinton School Appearances Are Totally Scripted, Controlled
More Z-man, on election math:
Why Trump's Attacks on the Media Work Every Time
Israeli novelist David Grossman: The Dissenting Patriot
Pic below of the High Line last Sunday. I was one of the people who thought the whole idea was stupid. The entire length of the old elevated railroad is now open, from the distant view of the Statue of Liberty in the meatpacking district up to the Javits Center.
A few more pics below the fold -
Million New Immigrants Arrived Over the Past 2 Years - See more at:
Tracked: Jun 05, 10:01
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Steyn may not live to see the conclusion: Trial of the Century Update
It's Steyn's co-defendants that have tied the case up in appeal.
National Law Review: The defendants, except for Steyn, appealed. Judges Corinne Beckwith, Catharine Easterly and Vanessa Ruiz heard arguments.
you've got to stop screeching about things you know nothing about. the appellate court is holding up the appeal by not issuing a ruling, its been one and a half years.
Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz: the appellate court is holding up the appeal by not issuing a ruling, its been one and a half years.
The point was that the appeal was put forth by Steyn's co-defendants. They want the case tossed before trial. Steyn wants to move to trial.
"Overall, irrespective of the type of case, the median time to complete a case in the D.C. Court of Appeals was 423 days, and the average time on appeal was 476 days."
the point is that rulings on anti-SLAPP motions are routinely reviewed by appeal or writ and that these reviews cannot possibly take a year and a half especially when the case has been ordered expedited unless there's judicial misconduct. this is why Mann's lawyer was asking that the court do its job.
when you pretend to be an expert on everything you expose yourself as an expert on nothing.
so, no, its not the defendants who are delaying this case.
Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz: the point is that rulings on anti-SLAPP motions are routinely reviewed by appeal or writ and that these reviews cannot possibly take a year and a half especially when the case has been ordered expedited unless there's judicial misconduct.
The question before the court isn't the anti-SLAPP motion, but the procedural issue of whether anti-SLAPP decisions are immediately appealable. Immediate appeal seems more in keeping with the intent of the law, but it isn't necessarily an obvious result. The appeal was by Steyn's co-defendants. If they drop the appeal, the suit would immediately move to trial.
A median time to issue an appellate decision of 423 days is a disgrace, whether Steyn's case is over or under that benchmark. The 9th and D.C. Circuits are the slowest in the country, as well as the most heavily politicized.
The 9th and D.C. Circuits are the slowest in the country
Actually, the D.C. Court of Appeals "decided more cases than any of these other jurisdictions in 2010... The court has been handling its heavy caseload despite a vacancy that has remained open for some time."
"in the past five years the D.C. Court of Appeals has resolved an average of 1,900 cases each year. In addition to deciding cases, the court handled nearly 6,000 motions and petitions for rehearing in 2014. One reason the D.C. Court of Appeals has such a heavy workload is that there is no intermediate appellate court in the District."
If he limits himself to things he actually knows about, he'll disappear from the forum........we can only hope.
Jarndyce v Jarndyce
don't worry, someone will be along later to explain the reference to you.
Shock research finding: Mars has experienced massive climate change
What will those crazy climate scientists come up with next!
The major loss involved the fact that correlation is not cause and effect.
Climate science is not mere correlation, but based on causative mechanisms, including the greenhouse effect.
What's it like to be wrong?
Oh, and please share with us your sloshing model of thermodynamics.
It's based on theories of causative mechanism, but unfortunately models based on those theories fail to predict outcomes in real life. Normally that would cause proponents to change their theories until they matched data, but in this case political agendas override such a healthy impulse.
That leaves climate alarmists with nothing but correlation--and what's worse, the correlation seems to trail a bit in time, suggesting (if anything) reverse causation. Add to that some totally unsubstantiated theories about positive feedback, when the data actually suggest negative feedback, and you have the makings of a total fantasy that anyone with scientific training should be embarrassed to endorse.
The troposphere and surface have warmed while the stratosphere has cooled, consistent with greenhouse warming.
Still not sufficient.
And your references are not authoritative.
DrTorch: your references are not authoritative.
The graphs are based on multiple sources, including HadAT2, HadCRUT4, UAH, and RSS.
You've been making these vague references to the troposphere online for years, but they never make any sense, and you never attempt to explain yourself when challenged. It's time to stop using that word as a talisman--or, more accurately, as squid ink.
Texan99: You've been making these vague references to the troposphere online for years
Referencing observational data from HadAT2, HadCRUT4, UAH, and RSS is hardly vague.
Texan99: but they never make any sense,
What part doesn't make sense? That greenhouse warming results in a warming surface and lower atmosphere? Or that the stratosphere will cool? It's the combined effect that is a signature of greenhouse warming. If orbital variations or solar irradiance (of which climate scientists are quite aware) were the cause, then the stratosphere would also warm. However, the greenhouse effect, simply put, holds the heat near the surface so that the lower stratosphere cools.
(1) Average temperatures, whatever we take that to mean, may well have been increasing somewhat for 100-200 years. That has nothing to say about the problem of whether this blip is within normal variability. The first response to the problem, the IPCC's infamous pushing of Mann's "hockey stick," was to falsify the long-term historical trend so that current temperatures appeared to be outside the norm. When that failed, climate alarmists produced models of future temperature changes so extreme that they might more plausibly be called unprecedented--if they ever happened. The problem then because that the models predict hypothetical future temperatures that don't, in fact, happen. This has been going on for decades. Repeating the word troposphere doesn't solve this problem; it only shows that if you look hard enough, you can find a location that arguing matches the models. So what? Other people can find locations that don't. If the model didn't specify troposphere temperatures (while admitting that ordinary weather down here would be fine as usual), this is mere cherry-picking and goalpost-shifting--fundamentally dishonest.
(2) The models that produce alarming projections all depend on an assumption of a positive feedback mechanism (i.e., a spiraling out of control beginning with an initial greenhouse effect). There is neither a plausible physical explanation for a positive feedback mechanism in the greenhouse effect nor any empirical support for it; the actual data are a better match for an assumption of a negative feedback mechanism (i.e., a settling back towards equilibrium). Again, repeating the word troposphere doesn't solve this problem. It only shows you don't have much of a grasp of what assumptions drive the models.
You really should dispense with the argument that people who aren't convinced by climate alarmism disagree with the basic notion of greenhouse gases. We understand the greenhouse effect perfectly well, in many cases better than you--well enough, at least, to do more than blurt out magic words.
Texan99: That has nothing to say about the problem of whether this blip is within normal variability.
You asked about the reference to tropospheric and stratospheric temperature trends, then ignored the answer.
Texan99: Repeating the word troposphere doesn't solve this problem; it only shows that if you look hard enough, you can find a location that arguing matches the models.
The charts provided cover most of the globe.
Texan99: If the model didn't specify troposphere temperatures (while admitting that ordinary weather down here would be fine as usual), this is mere cherry-picking and goalpost-shifting--fundamentally dishonest.
If greenhouse warming is occurring, then we expect to see a general positive trend in surface and tropospheric temperatures, and a negative trend in lower stratospheric temperatures. And that is what we observe.
Texan99: (2) The models that produce alarming projections all depend on an assumption of a positive feedback mechanism (i.e., a spiraling out of control beginning with an initial greenhouse effect).
Not "spiraling out of control", but an overall positive feedback.
Texan99: There is neither a plausible physical explanation for a positive feedback mechanism in the greenhouse effect
A doubling of CO2 will lead directly to about 1°C increase in equilibrium surface temperatures. This causes water vapor in the atmosphere to increase, leading to an overall increase in equilibrium surface temperatures of about 2-4°C. This is called climate sensitivity.
Texan99: nor any empirical support for it
There is substantial literature on climate sensitivity. Using a variety of different methods, scientists have converged on a value of 2-4°C, with 3°C the most likely value, but with significant uncertainty on the upper limit. Here’s a smattering:
Wigley et al., Effect of climate sensitivity on the response to volcanic forcing, Journal of Geophysical Research 2005.
Earth Radiation Budget Experiment
Forster & Gregory, The Climate Sensitivity and Its Components Diagnosed from Earth Radiation Budget Data, Journal of Climate 2006.
Schmittner et al., Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum, Science 2011.
Annan & Hargreaves, On the generation and interpretation of probabilistic estimates of climate sensitivity, Climate Change 2008.
Knutti & Hegerl, The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature to radiation changes, Nature Geoscience 2008.
you people can't predict the weather a week from now.
where's the Coming Ice Age you asshats promised?
your predictions made 20 years ago failed.
according to several iterations of your "science" the world has ended, has passed the point of no return, will end soon.
I've never seen a "science" that's been infected by prevaricating, self interested lying frauds as yours. if there were a "science of Hillary" ... but there isn't.
Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz: you people can't predict the weather a week from now.
If you heat a kettle to boiling, because the system is chaotic, you can't predict where the next steam bubble will form, but you can predict the overall change in heat.
it is impossible to predict which radioactive atoms in a sample will decay next, but predictions over time as to the percentage that do decay are very accurate.
unlike your weather fetish, where short term predictions are accurate, long term predictions, like your false teapot analogy routinely fail at an embarrassing rate.
Where is the Ice Age you promised?
you offer nothing but ad hoc excuses. psychic hotline frauds have a better track record than you people.
Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz: it is impossible to predict which radioactive atoms in a sample will decay next, but predictions over time as to the percentage that do decay are very accurate.
Only when averaged over large numbers of events. For small numbers of events, they form a Poisson distribution.
Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz: unlike your weather fetish, where short term predictions are accurate, long term predictions, like your false teapot analogy routinely fail at an embarrassing rate.
Temperature trends are well-within the predicted ranges.
More particularly, overall heat continues to increase, most of which is absorbed by the oceans.
"Majority of Fortune 500 CEOs Prefer Clinton over Trump"
Of course they do! Clinton has already been bought and paid for!
You really don't think those Clinton speeches (Hil and Bill), which cost the CEOs hundreds of thousands/millions of dollars, were stirling examples of conscience-raising or business morale-building, do you?
It's a step deeper than that. Big businesses like big government because it is easier and more cost effective to compete with your competitors and avoid disruptive technologies that challenge your market share by influencing a few regulators than by influencing the entire population.
It may indicate a too cozy relationship.
However, the amount of money involved is comparable to other celebrity speaking fees. Jon Stewart, for instance, gets $500k or more.
Knives used far more often for murder than firearms
Homicide victims total, 11961
Homicide victims by gun, 8124 or 68%
Homicide victims by knife, 1567 or 13%
Actually, over 60% of those 30,000 are suicides. Suicide is a serious problem, but it is not a problem of “gun violence.” If a person hangs himself, is that rope violence?
Studies show that easy access to guns increases the rate of suicide. In fact, easy access to pills increases the rate of suicide. Britain found that by simply putting quantities of pills in blister packages, lowers the suicide rate. See Hawton et al., Long term effect of reduced pack sizes of paracetamol on poisoning deaths and liver transplant activity in England and Wales: interrupted time series analyses, The BMJ 2013.
easy access to water leads to drowning. easy access to straws leads to eye poking. placing people in bubble wrap leads to a dramatic decrease in windburn. easy access to Kingsford leads to the planetary collapse of the ecosystem.
because for libtards, correlation always equals causation.
Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz: easy access to water leads to drowning.
Which is why people should learn to swim.
Wait, so appliances expressly intended to defend an individual by his own hand actually increase the lawlessness most likely to get a perpetrator stopped with said deadly force? Is that kinda like how defenseless individuals and populations never ever induce said lawlessness?
That's remarkable. Sarcastic, but remarkable. Why, there's no need for law whatsoever.
Sarcasm aside, is this like how legalizing illicit drugs dramatically decreases associated crime? Because it does. Because given control of one's choices, we have to primarily conclude that folks act in their own best interest and generally not in favor of self-destruction and chaos.
Or are we a doomed species, forever locked into the nearest suicide pact, rushing off cliffs and swallowing charcoal starter by the glass?
Or is it more attractive - using the UCLA shooting as our handy, recent example - that in a gun-free environment in a gun-free state an illegal gunslinger made a bunch of legal official gunslingers ensure the public safety? I ask you how and why many millions of private legal carriers are so automatically assumed to have no capacity to act in that mutual interest whatsoever, they and their legal self-defense appliances.
Funny. Philosophize the popular dogmas and you'll always find their holes.
Ten: Because given control of one's choices, we have to primarily conclude that folks act in their own best interest and generally not in favor of self-destruction and chaos.
The problem with that the proliferation of guns can lead to unstable social situations — even assuming everyone acts in their own best interest (which is not necessarily the case).
Ten: I ask you how and why many millions of private legal carriers are so automatically assumed to have no capacity to act in that mutual interest whatsoever, they and their legal self-defense appliances.
We make so such presumption. We made two points: the author was grossly mistaken on the prevalence of gun vs. knife homicides; suicides are more likely in the presence of guns.
Zachs: Guns account for most homicides by far.
Zachs: More guns means more suicides.
Zachs: Guns can lead to unstable social situations.
Normal People: I see. There's an implied correlation, even if you can't or won't thoroughly define it. So you're just stating that guns track with deaths; up for up and down for down.
Normal People: How'd' yer' statistics pertain then, exactly, given 1) the greatly expended population in general along with all sorts of cultural and even legal variables (see: Chicago as a trend or the UCLA thing as an immediate test case) and, many would argue, commensurate social decay over any statistical period sufficient enough to show the influence thereof, 2) guns being legal appliances for self defense within an express right to defend self, making them irrelevant as abstract perpetrators - as sole drivers of statistics - 3) guns magically appearing in gun-free zones 100% of the time gun violence occurs in gun-free zones, and 4) that official guns are what's inevitably called for when gun violence occurs? Seems you're saying guns track with deaths; up for up and down for down regardless of any other of all these circumstances. Given that circumstance flavors every other similar assumption and given these three assertions of yours, it appears you have quite a challenge reconciling whatever it is you're on about.
Zachs: WE [sic] MADE TWO ASSERTIONS! WE [sic] MADE NO SUCH ASSUMPTION!
Normal People. And?
Normal People. waiting...
Normal People: It appears your programming prevents your answering direct questions put to it. Is there a way to reach your coders to discuss further?
I have had it up to HERE with folks calling Hillary a shriveled hag! No such thing!
She is a bloated hag.
Homicides in the U.S. are down from 23,326 in 1994 to 14,196 in 2013. At the same time population went from 260 million in 1994 to 316 million in 2013. During this time the total number of guns increased every year and now average about 10 million more guns in private hands every year for a total of well above 300 million guns in citizens hands and homes. You would think that if there was a correlation between guns and homicides that the statistics would be reversed.
But there is a correlation between homicides and drugs. Over 80% of homicides are committed by people who are drug/alcohol dependent and/or drug dealers. Now THAT is a correlation that cannot be ignored.
There is also an overwhelming correlation between homicide and race. But we're not allowed to talk about that.
Jim: There is also an overwhelming correlation between homicide and race. But we're not allowed to talk about that.
Sure you can. You just did. In fact, the government collects statistics on race and crime.
Z-man: Having a shriveled hag as your candidate makes the task impossible.
Sure. No sexism there.
Not completely true; there's WAAAAAAY too much of her to call her shriveled.
re Thanks to EPA and Army Corps of Engineers, American farmers are a newly endangered species
Sounds like a problem that is so far limited to California. Yes, farmers are hassled outside of California but it is not yet widespread.
There is an ilk in Government that would like to shut American agriculture down. They say we would have no problem importing all of our food. American farmland could then be returned to wilderness.
I would suggest that Trump is a bit more conservation than Reagan, who, for example, ventured into Federal interference with education and supported the CIA's meddling in small nations (or perhaps that was simply his inability to get H.W. Bush to lay off his former job). The rioters against Trump's appearance, who were allowed free rein in San Jose last night, only attract more voters to the Trump campaign as they are very tired of the social and monetary ramifications of supporting hordes of illegals in a nation that used to have laws. Once upon a time…police didn't just cross their arms and watch the chaos rain down on those simply attending a speech.
I kind of like those preppy guy photos. It's like "what would life be like if we all lived inside a Brooks Brothers catalog?" He's really pushing the line on self-parody. I would nominate him for some kind of absurdist art award.
Zwangswirtschaft (German) is an economic system entirely subject to government control. "Zwang" means compulsion, "Wirtschaft" means economy. The English language equivalent for Zwangswirtschaft is something like compulsory economy
Now, our economy isn't entirely controlled, but it is entirely subject to government control and is increasingly regulated, in a highly interventionist manner, i.e., by arbitrary government edict. It is given the polite name, regulatory economy.
There is the Soviet pattern of all-round socialization of all enterprises and their outright bureaucratic management; there is the German pattern of Zwangswirtschaft, towards the complete adoption of which the Anglo-Saxon countries are manifestly tending; there is guild socialism, under the name of corporativism still very popular in some Catholic countries.
von Mises, Ludwig . Planned Chaos (LvMI) 1947
All this control is just more of the common slogan that FDR's New Deal shared with the Nazis
The slogan into which the Nazis condensed their economic philosophy, viz., Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz (i.e., the commonweal ranks above private profit), is likewise the idea underlying the American New Deal and the Soviet management of economic affairs. It implies that profit-seeking business harms the vital interests of the immense majority, and that it is the sacred duty of popular government to prevent the emergence of profits by public control of production and distribution.
von Mises, Ludwig Planned Chaos (LvMI)1947
But even as the alleged conservatives have done little to impede the Zwangswirtschaft, there is historical precedent.
At the time, as a result of William the Conqueror a century earlier, there’s a concept called the Royal Forest. A Royal Forest doesn’t necessarily have trees. It’s just a parcel of land. It could be heath or swamp or hills or forest. You’re not allowed to cause any damage to the animals or greenery of the Royal Forest unless you pay for the privilege.
That’s a nice little moneymaker, so what do you do if you’re John? That’s right. You expand the Royal Forest. By the time of the Magna Carta the Royal Forest is up to something like 20% of the land in England. What this means, essentially, is that if you own land that has been afforested by the crown, you now have to pay for the privilege to use your own land. If you own a bit of fenland that’s no good for anything but pigs, you have to pay pannage even though there’s no other use for it. If you want to heat your hovel in the winter, you’re paying estover for firewood and turbary for turf. If you want to keep a cow and that cow is going to eat grass, that’s agistment. That’s on land you theoretically own, mind.
This is King John riding o'er the sward. I've never been exactly sure what a sward is, but you can bet that if you owned one you were bloody well going to be paying swardage on it. I’ve never been exactly sure what a sward is, but you can bet that if you owned one you were bloody well going to be paying swardage on it.
There are instances of entire villages being burned out in advance of afforestation amounting essentially to seizure of land. The law of the forest was enforced somewhat arbitrarily and without due process. You could be blinded or mutilated or killed for poaching a deer. You could be severely fined for just about anything.
The Magna Carta and the companion document the Charter of the Forest are a rare example of what happens when you push Monarchic rights too far. The Magna Carta disafforests all of the land taken by the crown during John’s reign and basically ensures that it can never happen again. The Charter of the Forest basically establishes personal property law. In one fell swoop the Magna Carta gets rid of unreasonable taxation, unreasonable seizure, establishes due process of law and ensures a properly sized pint.
FORTUNE 500 CEOs SUPPORTING CLINTON a.k.a. the shriveled hag
There's a profound difference between pro-business (esp. big business) and pro-market. Big business favors Clinton because they recognize that her agenda and policies will make it difficult for competition to enter or remain in the market and enable them to sell inferior goods and services at higher prices.
Re:Clinton’s warnings about Trump actually describe … her
A strange speech? Not at all. I heard the same thing right after the speech - and have heard similar statements before - about how she's boxed in by Trump because bringing up certain issues leaves her open to attack on the same issue. But that's the same sort of reasoning applied to all Trump's "mis-steps" on the campaign trail, all the things he's done which violate the rules of campaigning and all the things that are, this time, going to be the end of him. Yet how many scandals have the Clintons somehow weaseled their way through when everybody seemed so confident this was the one that was going to get them put away? How many times has Trump dove into the pig slop and come out smelling like a rose? These people have no shame, no morals, no qualms about doing or saying anything so the normal rules about hiding your flaws and your weaknesses and transgressions simply don't apply to them. You can't attack them for lying or making obviously absurd and contradictory statements - so what? They just shrug off the criticism and move right on to the next lie, the next scam, the next "scandal" that's only scandalous for a normal non-sociopath.
It's going to be an interesting summer with these two attempting to score points off each other when the normal rules of scoring don't apply. Come up with whatever evidence you want that they're a liar, a crook, a fraud, a phony, a cheater, a con artist, a back-stabbing treacherous weasel - and none of it will matter a whit. As long as you can get away with it, doesn't that prove that it doesn't matter? Why are you obsessing about how the game is played when winning is all that matters? Rules are for little people with little minds who can't think outside the box and Trump and Clinton are two of the finest examples of people unconstrained by any rules.