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
Saturday, December 10. 2016
Image via American Digest
Wyoming wind project may get permit to kill eagles
Kill the village to save it
This telltale tail shows dinosaur feathers in ‘exquisite detail’ after 99 million years
Birds are dinosaurs
Psychologist: Lying to Your Kids About Santa Gives Them Trust Issues
What a jerk
A GRIM TALLY SOARS: MORE THAN 50,000 OVERDOSE DEATHS IN US
Cheaper, stronger drugs.
The inquisition of the pharma industry
How Chicago politics works: Madiganistan
Hillary Clinton: Censor the Internet or People Will Die
Glad she lost the election
Salon: Donald Trump’s lazy, slipshod transition: No ideology, only cynicism and corruption
Trump Appoints Most Female Members to Cabinet in History
Goldberg explains things:
Tracked: Dec 11, 09:08
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.
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?
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.
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.
Hillary Clinton: Censor the Internet or People Will Die
Fake news. Again, the information to debunk this claim is readily available.
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.
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.
Except she did say lives are at risk. You keep leaving out parts that are inconvenient.
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.
why don't you ever read the bullshit you post here?
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.
… 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.
Zzzzzzzz..ack. Using your extensive scientific background, a data model of 18 years is how significant in geological time and natural climate trends?
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.
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.
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?
Notice the Z-bot always talks about "models," because the actual data contradict the global-warming hypothesis/hoax.
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.
On a 4 billion year old planet, twenty years is not a trend. Twenty million, maybe.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Again, no empirical evidence to support this, just "projections" from models that have already been shown to be wrong.
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.
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.
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.
Of course there is reason to think that the "dreaded" greenhouse gasses are contributing to the greening of some deserts:
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!
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.
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.
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.
Oh, but lying to your college student kid about Santa probably does give them trust issues.
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?
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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).
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!
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.
Do NOT retain any or eventually all the others will show up under disabilities.
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".
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.
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
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?