Thursday morning links

"You could also hope for the continued spread of cougars in the United States. As we wrote recently, researchers have determined that if the big cats repopulated the eastern United States, they could kill and feast upon enough deer to prevent about five deer-vehicle collision fatalities in the region each year."

-from the deer article.

Yeah, and also your cats, your dogs, your livestock, your toddlers in the backyard.

Just talked to an insurance guy who said almost 95% of the claims that he'd gone out on n the past 6 months were deer damage and the cars were totalled. Because they are mostly aluminum.
And this wasn't even in the rut season or hunting season when deer are on the move.

#1 fjord on 2016-10-06 10:06 (Reply)

A guy who worked for me 40 years ago ran into a deer with his Volvo. $700 damage. I've been fortunate, having deer living in the woodlot across the street.

#1.1 Sam L. on 2016-10-06 12:51 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Is “Implicit Bias” Real?

Implicit bias is very real, and has been demonstrated by many different types of tests and studies.

Humans are tribal, and naturally use social clues to determine group status. Consequently, implicit bias isn't learned, but can be unlearned. The article conflates implicit bias with bigotry. The Yale study shows implicit bias, but doesn't address the issue of bigotry.

#2 Zachriel on 2016-10-06 10:14 (Reply)

Implicit Bias is becoming one of those catch-all terms, useful so that whenever it is questioned, people can subtly change the subject to something else that does exist and pretend they are talking about the same thing. The Yale study does not show implicit bias, unless you mean something like a learned implicit bias that keeps running. The participants were already preschool instructors, so we don't know what bias they showed before they started working with actual children. Now that they have the experience of working with children, they have certain expectations. We cannot discern anything about what part of that was original and which learned.

#2.1 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2016-10-06 10:54 (Reply)

Assistant Village Idiot: Implicit Bias is becoming one of those catch-all terms, useful so that whenever it is questioned, people can subtly change the subject to something else that does exist and pretend they are talking about the same thing.

Some people, on both left and right, often confuse implicit bias with bigotry. Some on the left will accuse people of bigotry because of implicit bias, while some on the right will say anyone who discusses the clear fact of implicit bias are raising an accusation of bigotry.

#2.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-10-06 11:29 (Reply)

Assistant Village Idiot: The Yale study does not show implicit bias

"Implicit bias refers to the automatic and unconscious stereotypes that drive people to behave and make decisions in certain ways."

#2.1.2 Zachriel on 2016-10-06 11:31 (Reply)

Unlike explicit bias (which reflects the attitudes or beliefs that one endorses at a conscious level), implicit bias is the bias in judgment and/or behavior that results from subtle cognitive processes (e.g., implicit attitudes and implicit stereotypes) that often operate at a level below conscious awareness and without intentional control.

#2.1.3 Zachriel on 2016-10-06 11:34 (Reply)

The real question is, why would anyone want to unlearn it?

#2.2 DrTorch on 2016-10-06 15:21 (Reply)

DrTorch: The real question is, why would anyone want to unlearn it?

Intrinsic biases were advantageous in the evolution of primitive human society: Being able to quickly size someone up as kin or foe could be important for survival. Such biases are no longer functional in the modern world of mixed cultures and large social structures, such as cities and nations. Intrinsic biases often deceive rather than enlighten, and that results in injustice and social friction.

#2.2.1 Zachriel on 2016-10-06 16:04 (Reply)

It is awfully presumptive of y'all to say that such biases are no longer functional. When did we stop evolving?

#2.2.1.1 arcs on 2016-10-06 16:21 (Reply)

arcs: It is awfully presumptive of y'all to say that such biases are no longer functional. When did we stop evolving?

Humans have not stopped evolving, but cultural evolution is much faster than biological evolution. Cues, such as skin color, no longer reliably indicate whether someone is in-group or out-group. Someone may speak perfect American English, and be completely American in culture, but not have English ancestry.

Do you think the 14th Amendment was a mistake?

#2.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-10-06 16:32 (Reply)

QUOTE:

John McCain Grills Media For Twisting Trump’s Words About PTSD

Good for McCain. Trump was actually showing empathy. (Is he okay?)

#3 Zachriel on 2016-10-06 10:22 (Reply)

QUOTE:

VIDEO= Eric Trump Goes on CNN After VP Debate and OWNS Liberal Panel

Actually, he seems to keep ducking the questions.

#4 Zachriel on 2016-10-06 10:24 (Reply)

Actually, the CNN hostess was badgering him about taxes. He answered her question about whether Trump had paid federal income taxes four times.

For the most part, tax returns are just a way to claim that he's using some unfair loophole when there are no loopholes, there is only the tax law.

But then, maybe Hillary is unfamiliar with deductions like the capital loss deduction. That's understandable since even when trading cattle futures, she'd never had a loss.

#4.1 mudbug on 2016-10-06 11:32 (Reply)

mudbug: Actually, the CNN hostess was badgering him about taxes. He answered her question about whether Trump had paid federal income taxes four times.

She wanted to make sure he was explicit acknowledging that Trump has paid federal income taxes, as that would be an important scoop. Then she wanted to know how he knew he paid federal income taxes; had he seen the returns.

mudbug: For the most part, tax returns are just a way to claim that he's using some unfair loophole when there are no loopholes, there is only the tax law.

Trump has complained repeatedly about people not paying federal income taxes, so it's fair to ask if he has paid federal taxes. More important, there are questions about Trump's financial transparency, and whether he is debt to foreign oligarchs.

mudbug: But then, maybe Hillary is unfamiliar with deductions like the capital loss deduction.

Actually, the Clintons have taken capital loss deductions, but not on the order of a billion dollars, nor were these losses that were actually taken by banks, but used on their personal taxes.

#4.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-10-06 11:42 (Reply)

Z: She wanted to make sure he was explicit acknowledging that Trump has paid federal income taxes

She asked the same question four times and got the same answer each time. That is badgering.

If Trump did something illegal, that would be one thing. This seems unlikely since he is audited every year. If he took billions of dollars of legal deductions, so what? They were legal deductions. Of course we hear so little from the MSM about the tax issues the Clinton Foundation has had or the shady accountants they hired to do their taxes. And let's not forget about when the Clinton's took Bill's underwear as a deduction.

#4.1.1.1 mudbug on 2016-10-06 12:10 (Reply)

mudbug: She asked the same question four times and got the same answer each time. That is badgering.

No, they're not the same answer.

QUOTE:

Q1: Has your father paid federal income tax?”
A: We pay a tremendous amount of taxes.

Not an answer, and clearly evasive. Why?

QUOTE:

Q2: Federal income taxes?
A: Yes. And beyond taxes, we employ tens and tens and tens of thousands of people.

He gives a positive answer, but then diverts? Why?

QUOTE:

Q3: has he paid federal income taxes over the last 18 years? Yes or no?
A: Of course, yes. Absolutely. My father pays a tremendous amount of tax.

Again, he answers, but then diverts.

QUOTE:

Q4: And he's paid federal taxes?
A: My father pays a tremendous amount of tax.

Not an answer. Again, why the diversion?

It's unseemly to criticize poor people for not paying federal income taxes, when Trump all but admitted he didn't pay federal taxes. ("That makes me smart.") But the real issue is how entangled he might be with foreign oligarchs.

#4.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-10-06 14:16 (Reply)

I'm not going to go back and watch that video AGAIN, but we agree that he answered to the affirmative three times and yet that still didn't seem to placate the hostess. How do you divert from a question after directly answering it?

"That makes me smart" was probably hypothetical, but even if it wasn't - did he break the law? Are you arguing that somebody shouldn't take every legal deduction available to him? Would it make you feel better if he had taken a deduction for his used underwear?

#4.1.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2016-10-06 14:37 (Reply)

mudbug: I'm not going to go back and watch that video AGAIN, but we agree that he answered to the affirmative three times and yet that still didn't seem to placate the hostess.

He answered twice in the affirmative, diverting all four times he answered.

mudbug: "That makes me smart" was probably hypothetical,

So you mean he's not so smart, after all. He basically admitted he didn't pay much if anything in federal income taxes.

mudbug: but even if it wasn't - did he break the law?

It was presumably a legal deduction. We have no problem with him taking legal deductions. However, to then decry those, primarily the poor, who don't pay federal income taxes would be unseemly.

But the real issue is how entangled he might be with foreign oligarchs, which should be apparent when he releases his tax returns (which will be never).

#4.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-10-06 14:49 (Reply)

Z: He answered twice in the affirmative, diverting all four times he answered.

You are a very confused person. You can't divert from a question you answered directly.

Z: So you mean he's not so smart, after all. He basically admitted he didn't pay much if anything in federal income taxes.

What???

Z: It was presumably a legal deduction. We have no problem with him taking legal deductions. However, to then decry those, primarily the poor, who don't pay federal income taxes would be unseemly.

Nobody has been making that argument. The supposed outrage was that he wasn't paying any taxes to contribute to... whatever. It's an attempt to smear Trump just like Reid smeared Romney.

Z: But the real issue is how entangled he might be with foreign oligarchs, which should be apparent when he releases his tax returns (which will be never).

He'll probably release his tax returns before Hillary will release the transcripts of her speeches to Wall Street companies or the 30,000 deleted emails. As for foreign oligarchs, let's shine a light on her associations while she was Sec. of State.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/12/emails-show-clinton-ties-to-russian-oligarch-under-investigation.html
http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/how-ukrainian-oligarch-ny-times-and-clintons-toppled-trumps-campaign-manager/ri16071
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2009/01/more_than_a_good_feeling.html
http://thehaitianblogger.blogspot.com/2015/04/clinton-foundation-in-haiti-poverty.html

#4.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2016-10-06 19:59 (Reply)

mudbug: He'll probably release his tax returns before Hillary will release the transcripts of her speeches to Wall Street companies or the 30,000 deleted emails.

QUOTE:

Fitzpatrick (May 2014) "You questioned his citizenship during his campaign, and you said afterwards if he produced that long-form birth certificate, you’d produce your tax returns. But you didn’t do it, did you?" asked TV3’s Colette Fitzpatrick.

"Well I don’t know, did he do it?" Trump said. "If I decide to run for office, I’ll produce my tax returns, absolutely and I would love to do that."

QUOTE:

Lauer (Feb 2016): “When are you going to release your tax returns?”
Trump: “Probably over the next few months. They’re being worked on now.”

mudbug: You can't divert from a question you answered directly.

Of course you can. It's so you can pretend you were answering a different question. Look at the first exchange again.

QUOTE:

Q1: Has your father paid federal income tax?”
A: We pay a tremendous amount of taxes.

That's avoiding the question, and framing it so that he can later claim he was talking about "we pay a tremendous amount of taxes". (Very Clintonesque!) Because of the way he framed his answer, the media is not treating this as definitely answered.

Zachriel: He basically admitted he didn't pay much if anything in federal income taxes.

mudbug: What???

QUOTE:

Clinton (Sep 2016): Or maybe he doesn't want the American people, all of you watching tonight, to know that he's paid nothing in federal taxes ...

Trump: That makes me smart.

He is clearly congratulating himself on paying little or no federal income taxes.

Zachriel: We have no problem with {Trump} taking legal deductions. However, to then decry those, primarily the poor, who don't pay federal income taxes would be unseemly.

mudbug: Nobody has been making that argument.

Trump has. Many times. How many citations do you require?

QUOTE:

Trump (Jul 2011): I don’t mind sacrificing for the country to be honest with you. But you know, you do have a problem because half of the people don’t pay any tax.

mudbug: {bunch o' links}

Most of the links make exaggerated claims through innuendo. Of course the Clintons have ties to the rich and powerful. Duh. They work in government. They run an international foundation. Bush has a close relationship with the Saudi royal family. They both hit up their friends for their favorite charities.

What this shows is that there is a close nexus between money and politics. Some of this is avoidable through regulation that Republicans have stymied, while some of this is just the natural course of things. Of course these ties matter, and should be made public, which is why Trump's tax returns should be made public.

#4.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-10-07 09:41 (Reply)

Trump: That makes me smart.

Of course, by implication, that makes those who do pay taxes suckers.

#4.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-10-07 09:43 (Reply)

Let's play Feed The Paid Troll!

#5 Ten on 2016-10-06 11:36 (Reply)

I'd say he does it for fun, but he takes days off. Where does he go?

#5.1 Sam L. on 2016-10-06 12:53 (Reply)

Programming updates or battery charging.

#5.1.1 mary on 2016-10-06 13:12 (Reply)

Reprogramming. Hard drive swaps. Have to change out out the old Nixies.

At any rate, Z-Bot has plenty of willing codependents. Keeps them coming back week after week. The Z-Bots, I mean.

Z-Bot: [Something tangential and meaninglessly provocative.]
Willing Codependent: But what you don't understand [Etc]
Z-Bot: We were referring to [some meaningless diversion]
Willing Codependent: [Immediately moves sights to new target, repeats the same basic protest in Z-Bot's new context.]
Z-Bot: We were referring to [some other meaningless diversion]
Willing Codependent: [Immediately moves sights to new target, repeats the same basic protest in Z-Bot's third new context.]

What the Willing Codependent cannot get through its head is that the Z-Bots third line of code is the diversion routine. The second is the hijack routine.

The first is identifying a willing victim, or in some cases, whole blogs of them.

The nature of trolls is trolling. I know, huh?

#5.1.1.1 Ten on 2016-10-06 13:44 (Reply)

I'd say he does it for fun, but he takes days off. Where does he go?

Correction: "I'd say THEY do it for fun, but THEY take days off.Where do THEY go?"

Over a number of years at a number of blogs, the often fast and detailed responses of "Zachriel" indicate to me that there is more than one "Zachriel."
My guess is not paid.

#5.1.2 Gringo on 2016-10-06 13:19 (Reply)

I have called him/them The Gang Of Z.

#5.1.2.1 Sam L. on 2016-10-06 16:02 (Reply)

She runs away when new facts (e.g., wikileaks) come out that destroy her assertion and position. She comes back when things are a bit quieter and have been forgotten.

#5.1.3 DrTorch on 2016-10-06 15:23 (Reply)

DrTorch: She runs away when new facts (e.g., wikileaks) come out that destroy her assertion and position. She comes back when things are a bit quieter and have been forgotten.

We don't run, and we don't forget. Rather, when finding new information, we change our position accordingly. What do you do?

#5.1.3.1 Zachriel on 2016-10-06 16:07 (Reply)

From my comment above: "Z-Bot: [Something tangential and meaninglessly provocative.]"

#5.1.3.1.1 Ten on 2016-10-06 17:33 (Reply)

Our comment was directly relevant to DrTorch's comment the which we responded.

#5.1.3.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-10-06 17:42 (Reply)

Real human #1: Z-Bot(s) is an unreliable source of unreliable assertions.

Analysis, true.

Real human #2: Z-Bot(s) evaporates when refuted, returning later.

Analysis, true.

Z-Bot(s): We [sic] vary our position. What do Real Humans do?

Analysis, admits Real Human assertions, diverts the Real Humans' point.

Ten: [Having just predicting Z-Bot(s) routine as shown, exemplifies Z-Bot(s) programmed reaction] "Z-Bot: [Something tangential and meaninglessly provocative.]"

Z-Bot(s): [Misses point of Real Human #1, Real Human #2, and Ten, meaninglessly reasserts its non-existent factuality, provokes response from Real Human, just as programmed.] We [sic] addressed the point.

But as shown, Z-Bot(s) are challenged to address Real Human points. This may be impossible.

#5.1.3.1.1.1.1 Ten on 2016-10-07 07:02 (Reply)

is that the imperial, editorial or douche "we"?

#5.1.3.1.2 2...Nf3 on 2016-10-07 21:12 (Reply)

To have unfun.

#5.1.4 Texan99 on 2016-10-07 00:03 (Reply)

I'm not sure why he/she/they spend(s) so much time with us, since we are obviously pretty low on his/her/their IQ scale.

#5.2 Jim on 2016-10-06 21:55 (Reply)

re: Fannie & Freddie

part of a letter I sent to my congressman:
"The seizure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, under the rubric of “conservatorship”, is one of the most important Constitutional issues currently impacting the economy of the US. The US Treasury, acting through the FHFA, has stripped owners of all rights to direct and control the corporations. They have denied Shareholders the right to vote on any aspect of the companies; indeed, Howard Cayne (Counsel for FHFA and Melvin L. Watt) claims that FHFA does not have fiduciary duties to shareholders. They have been entrusted with conserving and protecting the companies, but they are doing it not for the benefit of the owners, but in service to their own philosophy of what housing finance policy should be.
These are privately owned companies, not an arm of the US government. Although they have been used to further government’s housing policy, they have not been directly compensated for that, other than by vague promises of an implicit guarantee on their MBS. When the financial crisis hit in 2008, certain actors in the Administration saw an opportunity to seize control, strip the assets, and deny the rights of the shareholder-owners, all without any compensation as required by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. (“….or be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”)
If we allow the seizure of these two companies to stand, in the future it will become a blueprint for the government to seize any private company, for virtually any reason. We cannot allow this to continue."

#6 steve sz on 2016-10-06 13:31 (Reply)

That 1 in 161 for NY is the whole state, which doesn't give a real idea of the risk. In Wayne County, and the other rural counties, the risk is MUCH higher. Every other driver I know has hit a deer. 4 of 7 family members. Me more then once. My risk is greater- I commute at night.

#7 Gospace on 2016-10-06 14:22 (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

Thursday, October 6. 2016

Thursday morning links