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
Monday, November 27. 2017
Photo of a SF bus from my California buddy
The Strange and Gruesome Story of the Greenland Shark, the Longest-Living Vertebrate on Earth
There Is Nothing Unnatural About GMOs
Dogs face obesity epidemic 'because humans are killing them with kindness'
As with some humans, hunger does not necessarily correlate with need for nutrition
Why This Cardiologist Is Betting That His Lab-Grown Meat Startup Can Solve the Global Food Crisis - The future of your entrée is quietly growing in Memphis Meats' lab.
Chinese Fake Trees Driving U.S. Christmas Tree Growers Out of Business
Sears nostalgia won't turn it back to the Amazon of old
It's 2017, here's why your cell service still stinks
Freedom is messy
New Zealand Man Expected To Excel In International Women’s Weightlifting
There Is Just One Thing Preventing Elon Musk's Vision From Coming True: The Laws Of Physics
SUNY Albany event calls Thanksgiving 'a day of mourning'
Is Capitalism Killing The Planet?
No. People are
Why are the do-gooders full of hate?
The #MeToo Moment Is At Risk Of Turning Into A “Sex Panic”
The Left is hijacking “sexual harassment” to make war on men, women, flirting, and relationships
WILL WE EVER BE RID OF HILLARY?
CNN Fails To Report These 24 Democrat Sex Scandals
In June 2010 Bill Clinton Met with Putin – In July 2010 Ten Russian Agents Were Released by Obama Without Charges and Given a Russian Heroes Welcome
BILL CLINTON Is Involved in TWO Major Uranium Scandals Involving the Clinton Foundation – Not Just One
CFPB: Trump targets a monster
Reverend Pavlovitz Petulantly Demands Apology From Trump Voters
Congress has handed Trump a historic presidential victory
Washington Post Blamestorms Trump For Rising Hate Crimes In 2015 And 2016
AFGHAN AND IRAQI MIGRANTS TERRORIZE FRANCE
North Korea: The Call of Freedom: Giving thanks for the world's most powerful idea
Tehran Is Winning the War for Control of the Middle East
And there’s no indication that, despite Mohammed bin Salman’s bold moves, Saudi Arabia stands a chance of turning the tide.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
My dog's vet told me, "Your dog doesn't know he's not hungry."
That's a good one! It is in a dog's (or any predator's) nature to eat as much as possible when the getting's good.
Dogs are natural scavengers and followed humans around snacking on their 'garbage' for centuries. They learned to beg and get more food, which negated the need to hunt at all.
I also read somewhere about a dog's tastebuds. They have a lot fewer than humans...and the ones they do have are geared toward proteins. If a food has a higher protein/fat content, they will eat that first vs. the lower protein/fat content food. But they don't 'taste' these foods like we do or get joy out of taste.
(on a side note, I also learned that dog's taste water where humans do not to the same degree)
What I learned from having dogs over the years: If you feed them 'people food' from the table or kitchen counter, they are more likely to beg or steal people food. If you keep them on their own dog food, they are much better behaved. The minute they know the chicken on the dining table will end up in their bowl at the end of the meal, the more likely they are to bug the heck out of you for that chicken while you are trying to prepare it or eat it.
DON'T FEED DOGS SCRAPS.
Feed them high-quality dog food for nutritional purposes. Stick to dog treats in a limited way...only a few times a YEAR. I'm not kidding!
And you will see the begging nature be a lot less, saving you any 'guilt' feelings.
There's a reason you don't learn science (or logic, or critical thought) from Real Clear Science. It's garbage.
Let's see, they start out with a straw man argument, where they accuse the anti-GMO group of creating a straw man argument. I suppose there is something clever about that approach. But a fallacy is still a fallacy.
First, it's not that it's "unnatural" that anti-GMO people are concerned with, it's that it's the effect on humans that this unnatural approach has. So comparing the modern GMO techniques w/ that of bacteria isn't fully sound because:
- The genes being exchanged are not likely to occur in nature. Still that's the red herring that RSC wants us to pursue.
- But to the real point, the effect of this gene exchange is not fully understood. GMO work obviously does see the gene expression they are looking for (may take some experimenting, but that's why it's a success) but it's unclear if other effects are in play, since genes often overlap. One of many things that can go wrong.
But the real crux of the matter is, are these new species harmful in some way? The usual testing that is cited has NEVER studied the real concerns of the effects of these foods on people. So when they say it's "harmless" that is an unfounded statement, and not very serious b/c the tests were so limited.
And to compare modern GMO approaches w/ traditional hybridization is disingenuous. Modern approaches are to insert genes that were never found in food, into food. Traditional hybridization is to cross-breed existing foods, thus the new species, in principle, still consists of foods.
The rise of allergies, asthma, sensitivities, and other immuno-response symptoms and conditions really insists that the whole GMO approach be studied further, and with real scientific scrutiny and integrity. To date is has not.
DrTorch: The genes being exchanged are not likely to occur in nature.
Quite so. English's argument that "There Is Nothing Unnatural About GMOs" is facile, and conflates the different meanings of natural. And due to the rapidity of changes, far beyond what is expected in nature, unexpected consequences are much more likely as new changes compound on previous changes before humans can adapt, or even recognize and understand what is occurring.
This does not necessarily mean that GMO technology can't be harnessed safely, but minimizing the problem of unexpected consequences won't make the problem disappear.
DrTorch: First, it's not that it's "unnatural" that anti-GMO people are concerned with, it's that it's the effect on humans that this unnatural approach has.
That, and changes to ecosystems if modified organisms contaminate natural populations.
The points you made are correct. The problem is that the anti-GMO people insist that there is a problem with GMO food (i.e. that it causes harm if consumed) and that is untrue. GMO is something new and not the old method of hybridization. Similar to the dramatic change when we moved from the horse as a primary means of transportation to the automobile. And there were many people then who rejected automobiles. We call those who oppose modernization luddites.
There is no evidence of harm from GMOs but there is considerable evidence of significant good from GMOs. Golden rice is a good example. Another is the doubling of harvests at a time when populations have doubled as well. Probably without GMOs we simply could not support 7.5 billion people and 10's of millions would die every year from starvation. The net good from GMOs heavily outweighs the fictional net harm from GMOs.
"But there MIGHT be a problem, therefore we OUGHT to ban them!"
SMH. In the end, it boils down to trust. Do you trust the people putting forth GMO foods ARE going to WILLINGLY kill off their customers to make a profit? It's a damned short-sighted way of looking at things, that smacks of rampant paranoia.
" anti-GMO people insist that there is a problem with GMO food (i.e. that it causes harm if consumed) and that is untrue. "
Untrue? I'm not convinced of that. As my physician used to taunt me, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
The studies cited that state that there is no harm are not sound studies. They have not studied legitimate concerns and mechanisms that could be sources of harm.
It bears (much) more study, not the casual dismissal that we already have an answer. That sort of indifference has led to problems in the past.
I have no doubt that someday some GMO food will be found to cause some kind of health problem with some people. But what then is the difference between that and a couple hundred other foods we eat and are approved. I spent two hours in a restroom while one of my boysocuts sat in the toilet stall with the shits and the pukes because he consumed a small amount of cheese. Not GMO cheese just ordinary everyday cheese that we all eat regularly. His dad finally showed up and took over the vigil. What if it had been a GMO food that caused it? Should we then ban all GMO? Why not ban all cheese and other dairy products.
A child in my daughters 5th grade class was taken away in an ambulance (some years back) due to a life threatening reaction to peanut butter that the child didn't even touch never mind consume. Not GMO. But what if it had been? Would all GMO then be suspect?
The point is someday a GMO food will indeed be proven to have caused some health problems for someone and the radical anti-GMO people will demand all GMOs be removed because of it. Should they do this?
Some years back the U.S. sent 100's of tons of corn to Zimbabwe when they were starving because their left wing dictator had killed off too many white farmers. The anti-GMO nuts convinced them to reject the corn. Think about that! The government would rather that their people die of starvation rather than feed them proven safe corn. All because of unproven and totally fabricated anti-GMO lunacy.
I repeat; someday a GMO food will cause some health problems for some segment of the humans on earth. Should then all GMO's be banned???
So you are claiming that GMO's cause asthma, allergies, and sensitivities? (Yes, you are. Your comment only pretends to neutrality.) What is your evidence for that?
Your points start off well-taken, but when people verge into unsubstantiated claims I just ignore them. Explaining a possible mechanism by which GMO's could cause problems, without establishing that they have caused problems is not valid.
I think my answer is FUCK OFF if you're going to put words in my mouth.
It was intended to be used to attack the right but it got out of control and now is attacking the left so now it becomes a problem. The MSM is working overtime to ignore the sexual assaults of the left while simultaneously keeping Roy Moore on the news all the time. As more and more witnesses and evidence contradicts the Roy Moore accusers it would appear that this was a Democrat dirty trick and not a sexual assault at all.
This highlights a greater problem. Estimates are that half of the serious charges of sexual assault and rape are rejected for prosecution because they are found to be untrue. It is more than a little troubling that so many times false charges could result (and sometimes do) in innocent men going to jail. Why does that happen so often? The primary reason is there are no consequences to making false charges. Often these women move on and later again make new charges on different men. Just like the recent examples of hate crimes that later turn out to be hoaxes no punishment for the false claims leaves the perpetrators free to do it again.
OneGuy: #me too: It was intended to be used to attack the right but it got out of control and now is attacking the left so now it becomes a problem.
That is historically incorrect. #metoo was created by Alyssa Milano on October 15, 2017, in response to the Harvey Weinstein scandal.
OneGuy: As more and more witnesses and evidence contradicts the Roy Moore accusers it would appear that this was a Democrat dirty trick and not a sexual assault at all.
On whether he had dated girls in their teens when he was in 30s. “Not generally, no,” Moore said.
#me too the meme, the idea, the concept, the smear campaign!! NOT the individual who claims credit for the words "me too"! #DUH
"“Not generally, no,” Moore said."
That is the awesome thing about this kind of accusation; there is no defense and everything and anything you say in response (including saying nothing) works against you. It is the perfect crime; accuse someone you dislike or want to prevent from succeeding in public life with sexual harassment and they are toast. Clarence Thomas may be the only one who escaped this dirty trick but it is important to note that the Democrats still rewarded the fake accuser with a cushy job.
OneGuy: #me too the meme
The meme was introduced in response to the Weinstein scandal.
OneGuy: That is the awesome thing about this kind of accusation
Moore could have simply said "No." He didn't.
Zzzzz: Moore could have simply said "No." He didn't.
"Moore could have simply said "No." He didn't."
I'm not sure you are paying attention. He has said "no". He has said he didn't even know various of the accusers. He has said numerous things. That's the best thing about this particular accusation: It doesn't matter what he says. The MSM is in on the scam. They will report only what serves their purpose. They will keep asking the same question and keep using the answers (whatever answer they get including "no") to implicate him in this tawdry episode.
I hope he goes after them. I hope he brings a civil suit against each of them. I suspect none of them would make it before a judge and jury but the deposition would be very interesting. There are numerous witnesses that have come forward to counter the claims of these women. I hope Roy Moore goes for the max on this including the possibility of jail for the false accusers. That's what it is going to take to stop this charade.
OneGuy: He has said "no".
On whether he had dated girls in their teens when he was in 30s. “Not generally, no,” Moore said.
OneGuy: I hope he brings a civil suit against each of them.
Moore will never take it to court, for obvious reasons.
Zzzz:Moore will never take it to court, for obvious reasons.
Doubt you kidz would care to enlighten us on those "obvious" reasons...
"Moore will never take it to court, for obvious reasons"
That is a great point and a big part of the scam. The people putting out these false claims know how difficult it is to fight and they put up the "little people" with nothing to lose in a court fight. Just another example of what makes these false claim scams the perfect crime. So you are probably right. Win or lose there is little that Moore can do that won't cost him a lot of money and get him more negative publicity. Even if he is proven innocent and the accuser is proven to be a liar you can be sure that the MSM will spin it to make him the bad guy. The Dems have the greatest anti-democratic, anti-constitution, anti-civil rights scam in the world and just like that famous "tar baby" once their target is slimed everything and anything they do to extract themselves from it only makes it worse. So for obvious reasons Moore will probably have to let the lying liars get away with their perfect crime. Is this a great country or what???
OneGuy: The people putting out these false claims know how difficult it is to fight and they put up the "little people" with nothing to lose in a court fight.
Moore certainly has sufficient resources to pursue a civil case against his accusers (as does Trump, who indicated he was going to sue his own accusers). Of note, Moore is an attorney who practiced in civil law, a former prosecutor, and then judge, so to say he is disadvantaged is preposterous.
"to say he is disadvantaged is preposterous"
You are either naive or duplicitous. The charge itself is enough to label you guilty. It is the classic model used in the witch trials. Your very denial is proof of guilt. Your attempt to clear your name will be labeled as blaming the victim. Just one woman on the jury will probably insure a hung jury or a loss. It is an accusation you cannot fight. It is a perfect crime.
OneGuy: The charge itself is enough to label you guilty.
The current question concerns your suggestion that you wish Moore would pursue a civil action. Then you suggested he would be disadvantaged in a legal forum, which is, as we said, preposterous. If anyone would understand how to use the civil courts to seek redress, it would be an attorney with experience in civil law, one who had also been a prosecutor and judge.
'Estimates are that half of the serious charges of sexual assault and rape are rejected for prosecution because they are found to be untrue.'
Got a link for that claim?
What women play is definitely NOT sports! More like "girly games", that lesbian fans and participants, use to identify fellow travelers.
"Lower and slower" is not what sport is about.
Why do all the best "adult" women's teams in soccer, basketball and hockey regularly lose, (in many cases badly), to high school boys' all-star teams?
The fact that women's teams or athletes are not generally up to competing against men's teams or athletes which makes my point.
As for the value of women's sports, I would say they can be every bit as worthy as men's sports. Back when I was in college and played rugby, the best rugby game I ever saw was between two women's teams.
And there’s no indication that, despite Mohammed bin Salman’s bold moves, Saudi Arabia stands a chance of turning the tide.
Now there's an "UN-biased" group of writers: Foreign Policy!
Pure Establishment, through and through. Any group that un-sarcastically endorsed the obviously criminally-corrupt Felonia Von Pantsuit for POTUS, needs their critical thinking credentials thoroughly examined!
The Establishment hates MbS's reforms, as such reform dries up yet another source of ill-gotten vigorish for the Establishment pukes.
Any "reform" that starts out recovering a $100 billion in ill-gotten corrupt gains from the perps, to the detriment of the Establishment globalists, as MbS's did, is alright by me
Since I work in this industry, I think it's fair to say that Net Neutrality - specifically Title II - would go a long way in making wireless service worse. Why? Because the impact would reduce investment in infrastructure.
The claim, as it is being presented now, is that in the 2 years so far there has been no impact on investment. Partially true, but mostly not true. Investment IS down, but not substantially mainly because many firms hoped for an anti-regulation president, and got one. As a result, many plans which were going to be put on hold were actually ramped up in the expectation of a removal of Title II.
Net Neutrality is a big lie. I spent this Thanksgiving explaining to my two boys the bullshit they've been fed on Reddit about Net Neutrality, pointing to the Comcast/Netflix deal as the perfect example of how Net Neutrality would kill investment. That deal allowed Comcast to expand bandwidth substantially. While my sons complained about Comcast's 'throttling' - I pointed out that it made perfect sense to do that, in order to make more bandwidth available for ALL, rather than JUST Netflix users.
I also gave them myriad examples of how Net Neutrality actually benefits Facebook, Google and Amazon - who are backing it BECAUSE THEY KNOW it benefits them by reducing their potential costs, and making it easier for them to squash any potential competition that might be able to raise money to purchase bandwidth.
It's amazing to me that people think the government is working in their best interests with Net Neutrality. It's the biggest lie going. Net Neutrality will survive, but in a different and more effective form WITHOUT the current FCC version. As I pointed out to my boys, we haven't had it until 2 years ago - and nobody complained. In fact, it was only proposed out of FEAR OF POTENTIAL ISSUES, not anything real.
So I suspect wireless service will now (slowly) improve - particularly since wireless is really dependent now more on internet traffic than actual phone conversations. Comcast's growth is entirely based on its internet provision, cable is shrinking. So they are entering the wireless market (just as Verizon is expanding their digital presence with Oath).
Bulldog: I also gave them myriad examples of how Net Neutrality actually benefits Facebook, Google and Amazon - who are backing it BECAUSE THEY KNOW it benefits them by reducing their potential costs, and making it easier for them to squash any potential competition that might be able to raise money to purchase bandwidth.
You have that backwards. Established players can afford bandwidth much more easily than upstarts.
"Established players can afford bandwidth much more easily than upstarts."
Established players can afford office supplies and real estate and advertising and employees and just about everything "...much more easily than upstarts."
Net Neutrality was a power grab. If the details are too unclear in these cases to understand what is really going on all you really need to know is who is behind it. If the left is behind it then it is a power or money grab or both.
IdahoBob: Established players can afford office supplies and real estate and advertising and employees and just about everything
If someone has a great idea that would possibly take the place of YouTube, under net neutrality, she simply has to convince people to use her new service, and the bandwidth will follow. Without net neutrality, YouTube can pay for special access to bandwidth, and while the innovators new website may be the best thing out there, it may also very well be glitchy and slow due to lack of equal access to customers.
The original condition of the Internet is net neutrality. Anyone has been able set up a website or Internet service, and anyone has been able to access that website on an equal basis. Without net neutrality, that would no longer be the case, and it would lead to entrenchment of the existing large players.
That is utterly and completely incorrect. That is how it is POSITIONED. But that is NOT how it works - and again, if I thought you'd understand or accept the truth, I'd explain. But your lack of knowledge astounds me. As I said, I work in this field. There IS A REASON Facebook, Google and Amazon wanted Net Neutrality. Not understanding that simply shows me how vapid you really are.
You're an idiot and clearly have no business experience. This is my field.
If I felt I could convince you of the truth, I would. Normally I'd ignore you, but seriously? You're just too stupid for words, especially in this case.
You raise two connected "arguments", which we will address in turn.
Bulldog: You're an idiot... You're just too stupid for words.
You're an idiot... You're just too stupid for words.
Bulldog: This is my field.
This is an appeal to your personal authority, to which we respond by citing Internet pioneer Vinton Cerf and Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee, both of whom support net neutrality. They could be wrong and Bulldog correct. Sure. Absolutely. However, it would be hard to argue they are idiots that are just too stupid for words.
In fact, there are pluses and minuses to regulation. Too broad of regulation could stifle innovation. Regulation, if any, should be consistently applied and predictable over time. By classifying the Internet as Title II, the result may be to create an unstable regulatory environment. Legislation to address the issue would be best, but the U.S. legislative process has been dysfunctional for quite some time.
"This is an appeal to your personal authority"
Then you say "e respond by citing Internet pioneer Vinton Cerf and Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee..."
So your trump card is an appeal to authority?
Your point seems to be that you must be right because look two people with obvious biases agree with me.
If anything you are proving my point, i.e. that the left wouldn't be fighting so hard for this unless it gave them control over the internet. That's what this is all about. Not making the playing field level or helping start ups. All the left cares about is power and if it wasn't for the constitution we would have long ago gone down the same road that Venezuela is on today.
IdahoBob: So your trump card is an appeal to authority?
An appeal to authority is valid when
• The cited authority has sufficient expertise.
• The authority is making a statement within their area of expertise.
• The area of expertise is a valid field of study.
• There is adequate agreement among authorities in the field.
• There is no evidence of undue bias.
The proper argument against a valid appeal to authority is to the evidence.
Now compare. Bulldog appeals to his own personal authority in the field of information technology. We appealed to recognized experts in the field. In any case, there are differing valid opinions within the field, so there is no adequate consensus.
IdahoBob: Your point seems to be that you must be right because look two people with obvious biases agree with me.
Not at all. We explicitly stated that experts can be wrong. However, they are certainly opinions worth considering, not idiots that are just too stupid for words. Furthermore, after Bulldog's diversion into ad hominem and his appeal to personal authority, we returned to the topic to discuss the pluses and minuses of regulation.
IdahoBob: All the left cares about is power and if it wasn't for the constitution we would have long ago gone down the same road that Venezuela is on today.
Slippery slope argument. Keep in mind that republican ideals were on the political left at the time of the American founding.
Hate crimes. They were higher in some years under Obama, trended down some, then rose again in 2015, before Trump had even announced for the presidency.
The data is cherry-picked because the Washington Post is dishonest.
Elon Musk...the hope and change candidate of the corporatist world.
RE: It's 2017, here's why your cell service still stinks.
Good article that hits most of the big problems, but the BI headline is kinda silly. Like our highways, cell coverage is quite good, but ppl bitch anyway. If they don't have full strength LTE browsing in a NYC subway or in their treestand in BFE, then the service "stinks". Expectations are high, I suppose.