Saturday morning links

Federalism, as enshrined in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, is an essential bulwark against despotism. In America, we don’t usually talk about “collective rights” and for good reason. But it’s important to understand that we have them. Blacks, Jews, Hispanics, gays, or whites (sorry alt-right), etc. don’t have collective rights — but communities do.

Specifically, the states. Vermonters have the right to live the way they want to live, so long as they don’t violate the constitutional rights of the Americans who live there. So, no slavery or Jim Crow (again, sorry alt-right). But that still leaves an enormous amount of wiggle room for Vermont to do things the people running the federal government at any given time may or may not like. And that’s good, because states, and the communities that make them up, have a better idea of how they want to live — and what will work for them — than people in Washington do. This is why federalism, within constitutional restraints, is the greatest system ever conceived of for maximizing human happiness.

Most readers can probably surmise that I think liberals have good reason to worry that Donald Trump’s fidelity to the Constitution is at best rhetorical. And even here the commitment is flimsy. Trump prefers to think in Nietzschean terms — Strength! Winning! — than in Lockean terms. But it’s worth bearing in mind that if the Constitution is an afterthought for Trump, it is a dangerous relic for most Democratic politicians.

Greenfield on Immigration Can Kill the Democrat Party:

The specter of identity politics is haunting the left. It shows up at teary-eyed election parties in Berkeley, debates over craft beers in Williamsburg and the editorial pages of the big opinion shaper papers.

...

Democrats have to choose between identity politics and the working class. Abandoning identity politics would be a painful process while abandoning the working class has proven to be painless and disastrous. But identity politics without mass migration and social transformation is unworkable. Immigration determines the future of the Democrats. This election is forcing Democrats to make a choice.

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 05:25 | Comments (52) | Trackback (1)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

PingBack

Weblog: www.thepiratescove.us
Tracked: Dec 11, 09:08

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

re The top 10 Christmas songs written by Jews

One wonders if the authors of songs such as Winter Wonderland and Sleigh Ride really had Christmas in mind when they were written?

They are songs about Winter and have no more to do with Christmas than songs about Summer have to do with the 4th of July. There is no mention made of Christmas, baby Jesus or Santa Claus in these songs. For whatever reason the public has adopted them as secular Christmas carols.

#1 feeblemind on 2016-12-10 09:20 (Reply)

Exactly. They're about winter, not Christmas.

#1.1 DrTorch on 2016-12-10 09:58 (Reply)

Christmas Season songs. Good tunes.

#1.1.1 Bird Dog on 2016-12-10 12:42 (Reply)

Yes. They are good songs. No doubt.

#1.1.1.1 feeblemind on 2016-12-10 14:54 (Reply)

It's in line with the conversion of Christmas into the Winter Festival. They have pretty much prevailed in the public square because Christian Christmas carols have effectively been banned and can no longer be sung in public.

Think about it, when was the last time you heard something like "God Rest Ye Merry, Gentlemen" on the radio, at the mall, or anywhere else?

#1.2 Jim on 2016-12-10 15:01 (Reply)

That was hard.

Anyway, if you want to sing Christmas Carols in public, go for it. Let your Jesus freak flag fly. It's up to you to raise your own voice, not complain because you can't hear others raise theirs.

#1.2.1 Zachriel on 2016-12-11 09:25 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Fake News/TDS: Trump Has Blocked Women From Protesting Day After Inauguration

That would qualify as fake news, as the information to debunk it was readily available, but ignored due to conceptual bias.

QUOTE:

Hillary Clinton: Censor the Internet or People Will Die

Fake news. Again, the information to debunk this claim is readily available.

#2 Zachriel on 2016-12-10 09:21 (Reply)

That's been debunked. (See how easy that was?)

And now on to the actual debunking, in the traditional sense of providing specific facts: what Clinton said was "One threat in particular that should concern all Americans [is] the epidemic of malicious fake news and false propaganda that flooded social media over the past year. . . . It's now clear that so-called fake news can have real consequences. . . . Lives are at risk, the lives of ordinary people."

I'll grant you she didn't say we needed to censor the Internet in order to address the fake news that overwhelmingly is alleged to occur on the Internet, as opposed to in the NYT or on CBS. It's possible she thinks we all simply need to "visualize genuine news," or let private institutions deal with the problem instead of bringing in government censors. That's a fake possibility, by the way, for those of you keeping score.

#2.1 Texan99 on 2016-12-10 12:11 (Reply)

Texan99: I'll grant you she didn't say we needed to censor the Internet

That's correct. The purveyors of fake news just filled it in with their favorite boogie man.

#2.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-12-10 12:37 (Reply)

Except she did say lives are at risk. You keep leaving out parts that are inconvenient.

#2.1.1.1 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2016-12-10 13:18 (Reply)

Assistant Village Idiot: Except she did say lives are at risk.

Sure, but that's not the contention at issue, but that she called for censorship.

#2.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-12-10 14:37 (Reply)

truthy

why don't you ever read the bullshit you post here?

#2.2 Will Bithers on 2016-12-10 22:51 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Pruitt to Dismantle EPA Climate Agenda ... And according to the EPA, emissions from power plants declined by 10%. CO2 emissions in the U.S. have actually declined by 12% since 2007

While U.S. emissions have dropped, the U.S. is still adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

QUOTE:

… while average global temperatures have been flat since 1998.

That is incorrect. The Earth's surface is still warming.

HADCrut4, 0.139 ±0.113 °C/decade
NOAA, 0.166 ±0.105 °C/decade

Meanwhile, ocean heat content continues to climb.

#3 Zachriel on 2016-12-10 09:32 (Reply)

* temperatures trend since 1998

#3.1 Zachriel on 2016-12-10 09:37 (Reply)

Zzzzzzzz..ack. Using your extensive scientific background, a data model of 18 years is how significant in geological time and natural climate trends?

#3.1.1 Dale on 2016-12-10 09:51 (Reply)

LOL.

For the rest of you, since Z-Bot(s) is a 'bot whose programming is hamstrung by intractable bias, watch for one of two phenomenon:

Z-Bot(s) will double-down and resort to repeating some variant or endless permutation on the already fraudulent claim, thereby potentially diverting the interlocutor, or;

2. Z-Bot(s) will not reply at all.

It will be one or the other.

#3.1.1.1 Ten on 2016-12-10 12:15 (Reply)

Dale: a data model of 18 years

The claim was "while average global temperatures have been flat since 1998." That claim was false.

Dale: a data model of 18 years is how significant in geological time and natural climate trends?

Humans don't live over geological times, the average human lifespan being only a few score years. Humans have lived in settlements for only a few thousand years.

If the only evidence climate scientists had was the change in temperature, then it would be difficult to determine if the current warming is natural or artificial. (The rapidity of the current warming trend is anomalous in recent geological history, though.) However, climate scientists have physical models which indicate that the current dramatic warming trend will continue due to anthropogenic emissions, raising temperatures far beyond anything experienced by humans since the advent of civilization.

#3.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2016-12-10 12:30 (Reply)

Aaand, it's reply routine #2: Double-down with an added fallacy to further divert from what humans already know, which is the truth actually related to reality!

Can I call em or can I call em?

#3.1.1.2.1 Ten on 2016-12-10 13:43 (Reply)

Notice the Z-bot always talks about "models," because the actual data contradict the global-warming hypothesis/hoax.

#3.1.1.2.2 Jim on 2016-12-10 15:06 (Reply)

Jim: Notice the Z-bot always talks about "models,"

Actually, we pointed to data, in particular, that the U.S. is still emitting greenhouse gases, that surface temperatures show warming, and that ocean heat content continues to rise.

#3.1.1.2.2.1 Zachriel on 2016-12-11 09:29 (Reply)

On a 4 billion year old planet, twenty years is not a trend. Twenty million, maybe.

#3.1.2 Jack Walter on 2016-12-10 10:54 (Reply)

Jack Walter: On a 4 billion year old planet, twenty years is not a trend. Twenty million, maybe.

Climate science is more than simple curve fitting, but is based on physical principles. The Earth can only gain or lose heat radiatively, so the greenhouse effect is an important consideration for surface temperatures.

#3.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2016-12-10 12:32 (Reply)

Zack...what is it you're actually afraid of? Can you be specific? What will life on Earth look like 10 years from now...what will be different?

#3.2 Dale on 2016-12-10 09:58 (Reply)

I can tell you exactly what Zach and the warmies are afraid of. They are afraid that in ten years they still won't have massive redistribution of middle class money into their coffers. They are afraid that in ten years that Democratic governments will still be under the control of voters and not warmies. This is the greatest scam in history with the potential to take over the free world and they can already feel the power that they will/should have if it succeeds. Just ten years ago it seemed that warmyism was going to win and they would seize power in a bloodless coup. Now the villagers are at the gates with pitchforks and torches and they fear that they are losing the prize.

#3.2.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2016-12-10 10:51 (Reply)

Dale: what is it you're actually afraid of?

No reason the fear. Humans are very adaptable organisms and will persevere.

Over the next several decades, if no action is taken to rein in greenhouse gas emission, the Earth will continue to warm. This will result in disruptions of agriculture, human migration with the attendant political instability, and irretrievable ecological losses. The sooner mitigation is undertaken, the lower the cost, and the fewer the losses.

#3.2.2 Zachriel on 2016-12-10 12:35 (Reply)

I sure hope so. Warm is nice.

#3.3 Bird Dog on 2016-12-10 12:43 (Reply)

Bird Dog: I sure hope so. Warm is nice.

Warming will benefit some areas, but at the expense of most others, e.g. desertification and coastal inundation.

#3.3.1 Zachriel on 2016-12-10 12:45 (Reply)

"coastal inundation"

Another total hoax. The federal government's own official tide information (used to determine the legal boundary between private fast land and public submerged land) shows that sea level rise has been the same for at least the past 100 years. This info has to conform to legal standards and be based on empirical data, so can't be cooked like all the other nonsense NOAA and NASA put out. But President Trump is going to de-politicize those agencies, which became Obama mouthpieces for the global warming hoax. No more of this "3-6 foot rise by 2050" nonsense, when the actual data shows a steady rate of increase of about 5-6 inches per century. Local variations are due to land subsidence.

#3.3.1.1 Jim on 2016-12-10 15:22 (Reply)

Jim: The federal government's own official tide information (used to determine the legal boundary between private fast land and public submerged land) shows that sea level rise has been the same for at least the past 100 years.

The problem isn't current sea level rise, but projected sea level rise due to continued anthropogenic warming.

#3.3.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-12-11 09:30 (Reply)

Again, no empirical evidence to support this, just "projections" from models that have already been shown to be wrong.

#3.3.1.1.1.1 Jim on 2016-12-11 18:55 (Reply)

Jim: Again, no empirical evidence to support this, just "projections" from models that have already been shown to be wrong.

That is incorrect. The greenhouse effect is a basic physical process. Increasing greenhouse gases will warm the surface, including the oceans. The complex question is how this heat will be distributed, including how long it will take to melt Earth's ice reservoirs.

#3.3.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-12-12 08:56 (Reply)

ANY shift of climate, regardless of the reason will have losers and winners. There is no particular reason to assume (unless you're Doctor Pangloss) that the particular climate we have now is in any an optimum, or a minimum. How much more food could be grown in Canada and Siberia, for example?

The headlines, though indicate a structural bias. When we have a run of good weather, it is NEVER, EVER attributed to climate shift, but any run of bad weather always is (even if some scientists try to explain that those are not climate, but weather issues)

The answer is that we simply don't know. Models are nice but especially when projected into the future, will always be substantially or dead wrong.

Engineering models are orders of magnitude better than climate models because they have been tuned by millions of instances including failures (our current AGM modelling has only a single instance, and it has not yet even run its course). Nonetheless no one steps foot into a new aircraft that has been designed entirely by modelling.

#3.3.1.2 jay on 2016-12-10 20:26 (Reply)

jay: ANY shift of climate, regardless of the reason will have losers and winners.

Sure. And what happens to the losers? Do they migrate to your country?

jay: Models are nice ...

All science is based on models from the simplest laws to the most complex theories.

jay: Models are nice but especially when projected into the future, will always be substantially or dead wrong.

That's a gross overgeneralization. As George E. P. Box pointed out, all models are wrong, but some are useful.

Anthropogenic warming is strongly supported, and based on fundamental physics. How the heat will be distributed, however, is very complex, and the science is still uncertain on the effects of global warming on regional climate. Nonetheless, the Earth's surface is warming due to greenhouse gases.

#3.3.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2016-12-11 09:37 (Reply)

Of course there is reason to think that the "dreaded" greenhouse gasses are contributing to the greening of some deserts:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130708103521.htm

#3.3.1.3 mudbug on 2016-12-10 22:58 (Reply)

mudbug: Of course there is reason to think that the "dreaded" greenhouse gasses are contributing to the greening of some deserts

What will those crazy scientists discover next!

#3.3.1.3.1 Zachriel on 2016-12-11 09:42 (Reply)

Having spent time in China, I can tell you through first hand observation that China no doubt puts more crap into the atmosphere in a week than the U.S. does in a year. I will grant you that one major problem is the U.S. adds to the problem by buying all the crap from China that causes the Chinese crap in the environment. Hopefully that will end under Trump.

#3.4 Jim on 2016-12-10 15:10 (Reply)

Jim: Having spent time in China, I can tell you through first hand observation that China no doubt puts more crap into the atmosphere in a week than the U.S. does in a year

That's right. The environmental movement in the West resulted in regulation of various pollutants, including car emissions. It was resisted, of course, by conservatives and industry, but the result has been much cleaner air and water.

China is rapidly industrializing. Though China's government is not as responsive to political pressures as democratic governments, they have come to realize they have a serious problem that can no longer be ignored. Conservative forces are resistant to change, but pollution is inhibiting continued economic progress, so they know they have to change.

#3.4.1 Zachriel on 2016-12-11 09:46 (Reply)

Lying to your kids about Santa develops their critical sense. Once they think logically about it, they realize how they shouldn't believe incredulous things without evidence of validity.

#4 JK Brown on 2016-12-10 10:09 (Reply)

Oh, but lying to your college student kid about Santa probably does give them trust issues.

#4.1 JK Brown on 2016-12-10 10:10 (Reply)

It's not a huge deal, but I don't think it's a good thing to lie about Santa. To me there is nothing wrong with saying that Santa is a symbol of generosity and the season. That's hardly a negative. Same with tooth fairy.

The next question in the child's mind is what else are the adults lying about?

#4.2 jay on 2016-12-10 10:34 (Reply)

Agreed. Listen to the number of people saying they gave up believing in God tying it directly to disbelieving in Santa. People do connect these things, even if they are unaware.

As for developing their critical faculties by lying to them, I suppose I could toughen them up by smacking them randomly, too.

#4.2.1 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2016-12-10 13:23 (Reply)

"The Phasing Out Of Physical Money Has Begun"

Make sure you have some of the black market physical currency for when the power/internet goes out.

#5 JK Brown on 2016-12-10 10:12 (Reply)

It's like books. I still require physical books and will not go the online/Kindle/etc. route. If books and money become electronic, all it takes is someone pushing a button to take away your income, your knowledge, and your freedom.

Note that at least for someone like me, the government already has total control over my money, because the IRS knows how to tap my bank accounts because we are now required to do all tax transactions electronically. And now, at the State level, for "privacy" reasons, the State no longer even sends you an email confirming how much they have taken out of your account. You have to go on their website and look at your "account" to figure that out.

#5.1 Jim on 2016-12-10 15:32 (Reply)

I've lived through 4 hurricanes and 2 ice storms that knocked out electricity service. One time for almost 2 weeks.

Credit and debit cards are useless during those times.

Having a $1000 cash in small bills is something everyone should have hidden at home.

#6 Mark M. on 2016-12-10 11:21 (Reply)

Of the "communities" Goldberg listed, Whites are the only one without special community rights and privileges. Sorry alt-right, you're not getting any.

No special rights: so: no affirmative action, no Jim Crow, no minority set-asides, no revocation of freedom of association, no...; what's the use. The purpose of government and politics is to create and to maintain privileges (i.e., reward your friends and punish your enemies).

#7 ErisGuy on 2016-12-10 11:24 (Reply)

Best way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is for the government to stop discriminating on the basis of race!

Eliminate all those programs, IMMEDIATELY!

#7.1 Old Codger on 2016-12-10 12:24 (Reply)

Repealing of the "civil rights" laws would do a lot of good in our country and end much of the strife that has been promoted by the Left for decades. Everyone would become equal under the law, instead of certain groups having special rights because of their skin color, ethnic origin, gender, sexual practices, etc.

The only ones I would retain are those protecting disabled people. I think there is a need for government to try help protect people with disabilities, but the rest is total nonsense and directly contrary to our constitution and bill of rights.

#7.1.1 Jim on 2016-12-10 15:37 (Reply)

Do NOT retain any or eventually all the others will show up under disabilities.

#7.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2016-12-10 19:50 (Reply)

would you be ok with a major government contractor refusing to hire on the basis of race, religion or sex and the government declining use its economic power to stop that practice?

economic power as in, "you can refuse to hire Catholics but you won't get this billion dollar defense contract".

#7.1.1.2 Will Bithers on 2016-12-10 23:00 (Reply)

This is from 2010. Exactly my point. The clampdown had not started yet in earnest. Singing of Christian songs at public events is now banned here because of Atheists United and the Freedom from Religion Foundation.

#7.1.1.2.1 Jim on 2016-12-11 13:53 (Reply)

Jim: This is from 2010.

Oh gee whiz.

The Oaks shopping mall in Thousand Oaks, California 2015

Norman OK 2016

Feliz Navidad, Germany 2016

Independence Center, Independence Mo 2015

#7.1.1.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-12-11 14:27 (Reply)

Jim: Repealing of the "civil rights" laws would do a lot of good in our country

So you want to make it legal for people to refuse service to blacks, or sell a home to Jews?

#7.1.1.3 Zachriel on 2016-12-11 09:48 (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

Saturday, December 10. 2016

Saturday morning links