Tuesday morning links

Soros' problem seems to be not that hulking, unaccountable bureaucracies are in charge, but that the wrong hulking, unaccountable bureaucracies are in charge.

#1 Another Guy Named Dan on 2019-02-12 09:12 (Reply)

Georgi is pining away for the good old days of the USSR.

What a douche.

#1.1 Rusty on 2019-02-12 10:28 (Reply)

Communism with muslim enforcers seems to be what Soros is selling and normal, thinking people are not buying.

#1.2 annieoakley on 2019-02-12 15:12 (Reply)

QUOTE:

IS GLOBAL WARMING THEORY SCIENTIFIC? ... A model is a theory. Whether the model is correct or not depends on its consistency with observation.

Model projections vs. observations

-

#2 Zachriel on 2019-02-12 09:58 (Reply)

Still linking to the 2005 data from the now shamefully discredited IPCC AR4 report, huh? You remember, the one where the climatologists were caught telling their colleagues to delete emails in order to thwart FOIA requests? The one where climatologists discussed ways to "hide the decline"? The one where they used proxy measurements to produce the fake hockey stick? The report that 2/3rd's of which was written by climatologists directly affiliated with an activist group with the expressed purpose of "increasing the public's sense of urgency"? That IPCC report?

Unfortunately for you, the data is in on the models. And they are off by a mile.

#2.1 Rusty on 2019-02-12 10:24 (Reply)

They can only "cool" the past so much.

#2.1.1 Zachingoff on 2019-02-12 15:57 (Reply)

The real (and scary) hockey stick graph:

NATIONAL DEBT TOPS $22,000,000,000,000 (Drudge Report)

#2.1.2 Jim on 2019-02-12 22:34 (Reply)

Jim: NATIONAL DEBT TOPS $22,000,000,000,000

That's about 105% of GDP. If there should be another economic shock, the U.S. may find itself in a difficult situation. It's not atypical of what happens when a great power declines, sort of like having too much plastic surgery.

"I am big. It's the pictures that got small." — Norma Desmond

#2.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-13 11:15 (Reply)

In other words...no.

#2.2 Sam L. on 2019-02-12 12:48 (Reply)

Sam L: In other words...no.

Actually, the observations fit well-within the 95% margins of error of the model projections. Not sure your point.

#2.2.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-12 13:31 (Reply)

It's an old trick and a deceptive one.

The older CMIP3 models match the manipulated data which was tweaked to show more warming. However, the more sophisticated models like CMIP5 do not.

So Z goes with the older models and tweaked data.

But a recent study (2018) shows just how off the sophisticated models are. As much as 45%.

#2.2.1.1 Rusty on 2019-02-12 13:47 (Reply)

More wisdom from Monty Python:
"It's only a model."

#2.3 Jim on 2019-02-12 18:33 (Reply)

Virginia’s governor: The special interest groups made him a deal he can't refuse. Give us more free stuff and you can keep your governor's office. It was a simple trade of the citizens rights and money for his being allowed to conntinue to play governor. But now they will pull the strings.

#3 Anon on 2019-02-12 09:59 (Reply)

IS GLOBAL WARMING THEORY SCIENTIFIC?

Yes. It's a falsified scientific theory.
It made a prediction. The prediction failed.

#4 Rusty on 2019-02-12 10:06 (Reply)

Do Animals Have Feelings?

Sensations? Of course they do

How, in concrete terms, are humans more than sentient, i.e., how are its sensations not just sensations?

Or, can the godly churchian Darwinist truly isolate soul or is it by now a post hoc assumption and habit?

Or, is presumed intellectual capacity transcendent because if it is, man sure botched that while the average house pet expresses more humanity during the course of its life. They're also a damn sight smarter in ways that matter.

The sentience qualifier tends toward semantic, self-aggrandizing hedging and is self-defeating.

#5 Meh on 2019-02-12 10:28 (Reply)

QUOTE:

42 Million Reasons Why Trump Thinks Democrats' New 'Open Borders' Demand Is "Crazy!

QUOTE:

Gallup asked the whole population of the United States of America {well, they sampled the population anyway}. There are 50 states in America. Roughly 325 million people live in the region. Gallup asked them, "Would you like to move to another country permanently if you could?"

A whopping 16% said "yes."

So this means roughly 52 million would like to migrate somewhere.

The next question Gallup asked was, "Where would you like to move?"

Of those who want to leave the United States permanently, 26% said they want to go to Canada.

O Canada!

That's three times as many in terms of population when comparing to those in Latin America who want to come to the U.S.

#6 Zachriel on 2019-02-12 10:34 (Reply)

Only in PROGRESSIVELAND is it good to replace 50 million skilled english speaking citizens with 40 million unskilled illiterates.

#6.1 Rusty on 2019-02-12 10:57 (Reply)

Canada’s immigration system is a world leader and provides many opportunities for those who would like to come here.
...

That doesn’t mean that Canada offers a free pass to anyone. Whether you’ve got Temporary Protected Status or no status in the United States, or are coming from any particular region of the world, there is a strict process in place. You might think that once you’re in, you’re in, but that’s just not the case.

To be able to remain in Canada, there are several important steps you must successfully proceed through in our immigration system.

When you enter Canada irregularly outside an official port of entry, you are intercepted and arrested by the police.

You then face a rigorous process to determine whether or not you have a legitimate refugee claim according to Canadian and international law. This includes complete security and background checks.

There are no guarantees that you will be able to stay in Canada. If it is determined that you are not in need of Canada’s protection, the process to remove you from Canada is initiated.

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/campaigns/irregular-border-crossings-asylum/understanding-the-system.html

#6.2 Christopher B on 2019-02-12 10:58 (Reply)

Christopher B: There are no guarantees that you will be able to stay in Canada. If it is determined that you are not in need of Canada’s protection, the process to remove you from Canada is initiated.

So what you are saying is that Canada provides due process for asylum seekers, consistent with their treaty obligations? Do they routinely separate children from their parents, other than in cases to protect their security?

#6.2.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-12 11:06 (Reply)

Do they routinely separate children from their parents

I see you favor incarcerating children with adult criminals.

Good to know.

#6.2.1.1 Christopher B on 2019-02-12 12:33 (Reply)

Zachriel: Do they routinely separate children from their parents, other than in cases to protect their security?

Christopher B: I see you favor incarcerating children with adult criminals.

Notably, you didn't answer the question. Is there a reason for this?

Canada's policy is to provide due process for people seeking asylum, and not detaining them unless there are extenuating circumstances, such as a serious criminal background. The U.S. has treated anyone who crosses the border as a criminal, including those seeking asylum, separating parents from their children, and detaining them separately. Worse still, they tried to force parents to sign away their rights, and then lost track of their children.

#6.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-12 12:44 (Reply)

Just a human observer here, but yeah, he answered it with a vengeance. Either you're incapable or obtuse. Which is it, notably?

#6.2.1.1.1.1 Eschew pettifoggery on 2019-02-12 12:57 (Reply)

How do you distinguish between criminals and innocent parents? Run some genetics, maybe? Cross AncestryDNA's database with the UN's with Interpol's in real time?

So you're saying the border service, with its Obama-era policies, is in the business of orphaning children just because it can.

You're saying that Canada has a crime problem on its southern border just like the US does on its.

#6.2.1.1.1.2 Only you can prevent fallacy-botting on 2019-02-12 13:20 (Reply)

The family separation thing was an Obama policy. But I have to ask, why not? Why give these law breakers any special treatment? All of this would be moot if we simply adopted a policy of return within 24 hours. Erect one way doors at the border and as quick as the illegals are captured push them through that door.

#6.2.1.1.1.3 Anon on 2019-02-13 09:16 (Reply)

Anon: The family separation thing was an Obama policy.

Ah, no. Trump instituted zero-tolerance, which meant that families that crossed the border illegally, even if they were legally applying for asylum, were held in detention, then children were separated. What has made this even worse was that the Trump Administration did not track the children, so that many parents still can't find their children, or have been deported without their children.

Anon: All of this would be moot if we simply adopted a policy of return within 24 hours.

That would be contrary to U.S. law, and with respect to asylum-seekers, would be contrary to U.S. treaty obligations.

#6.2.1.1.1.3.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-13 11:20 (Reply)

Re: Governor, Virginia’s kindergarteners are not the problem. You are.

The author calls Virginia governor, Governor Blackface. That is unfortunate. Whatever "crimes" he may have committed that are in evidence in that picture in his yearbook those many years ago, they compare in no way to his promoting the killing of a baby delivered from a woman who decided that she didn't want it. This is more egregious given that the father has no say in the matter and there is no attempt to find adoptive parents. The worst serial killer gets better treatment than that.

#7 mudbug on 2019-02-12 10:47 (Reply)

mudbug: Whatever "crimes" he may have committed that are in evidence in that picture in his yearbook those many years ago, they compare in no way to his promoting the killing of a baby delivered from a woman who decided that she didn't want it.

That's false. He was talking about a baby born with a fatal abnormality.

#7.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-12 10:55 (Reply)

Right. He was talking about killing an unwanted baby with an abnormality.

#7.1.1 Rusty on 2019-02-12 11:04 (Reply)

Wrong. The bill he was commenting on had no restrictions concerning abnormalities, fatal or not. He stated that the baby might be not be viable or might have severe abnormalities which doesn't mean that either of those cases must occur, since as I've already stated, the bill has no such restrictions. Nor were there restrictions for gender selection.

But even if one is as generous with his interpretation as you are, he is still advocating killing a baby that has been born with abnormalities. Apparently, those babies are just medical waste to him. Thankfully, Stephen Hawking's parents didn't exercise that choice.

#7.1.2 mudbug on 2019-02-12 11:29 (Reply)

mudbug: The bill he was commenting on had no restrictions concerning abnormalities, fatal or not.

The bill had nothing to say about babies already born, which was your claim.

mudbug: he is still advocating killing a baby that has been born with abnormalities.

No, he is discussing the situation where families are sometimes faced with an end of life decision, and that sometimes they find it is better to allow a natural death than to prolong suffering.

#7.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-12 11:37 (Reply)

Yesterday you again notably failed to comment on the NY law's allowing the street killer of an unborn baby in its mother's womb to legally escape prosecution, thus already fulfilling mudbug's repeated formulation along with everybody else's.

Was the ink even dry? Do "pro-choice" ghouls care?

You, characteristically and notably, engage in wordplay instead, wherein you'll avoid the real effect above - that a statute not explicitly outlawing an act effectively allows it - while challenging others that that same language is missing.

You're an enabler, and you and they are all running a transparent ruse. The bill's supporters were gleeful about this net effect. It was all willful.

Anyway, apparently the fix is in on this law, if normal humans will pardon the expression.

You, if history serves, will probably also pardon the expression because you are disinterested in this, the genuine issue, while mouthing off about everything else.

Will you be ridiculing any Christians again today?

#7.1.2.1.1 Pass it to see what's in it. on 2019-02-12 11:59 (Reply)

Wrong again. Reread my posts. They do not even imply that the bill addressed babies already born. I said the bill does not address any conditions where abortion up to delivery would be prohibited. Northam said how that would be done. Unsaid by him is that it would be more dangerous to the woman to abort a full term baby inside her body so the safest way to do it would be to deliver the baby first.

The case of Terri Schiavo is not equivalent at all. Try again.

#7.1.2.1.2 mudbug on 2019-02-12 13:34 (Reply)

mudbug: Reread my posts.

You said, "he is still advocating killing a baby that has been born with abnormalities." That statement is false. He's talking about natural death for a baby born with fatal abnormalities.

mudbug: I said the bill does not address any conditions where abortion up to delivery would be prohibited.

That is incorrect. The bill restricts abortions after 24 weeks, except to protect the health of the mother, or in cases of fetal non-viability.

mudbug: Unsaid by him is that it would be more dangerous to the woman to abort a full term baby inside her body so the safest way to do it would be to deliver the baby first.

Actually, that is exactly the situation he was addressing. In the case of fetal non-viability very near birth, the baby would normally be delivered, then the family could then decide on the level of care they wanted for their dying baby.

mudbug: The case of Terri Schiavo is not equivalent at all.

It's the same end-of-life situation. What is appropriate depends very much on the circumstances.

#7.1.2.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-12 14:20 (Reply)

QUOTE:

It's the same end-of-life situation. What is appropriate depends very much on the circumstances.

"Dr. Gosnell, I can't stand all that screeching. It sounds like a little alien or something down there.. Can you make it stop?"

Snip, snip. "No problem."

#7.1.2.1.2.1.1 Zachingoff on 2019-02-12 15:53 (Reply)

It really is amazing how disingenuous and how tortured your reading of plain language you are.

With regards to limits in Tran's bill, there are essentially none. The bill does not define "health of the mother." It's whatever the woman and what ever sympathetic doctor she says it is. Indeed, there is almost no situation where an abortion is required for the physical health of the mother.

In the case of Northam's scenario defending the bill, we know that the health of the mother is not a factor. The baby is born alive. So is he arguing against the bill? After all, you noted that there are restrictions after 24 weeks.

I repeat, Northam did not say something like, "... in cases of an unviable baby or severe abnormalities." He said, "... It's done in cases where there MAY be a severe deformity; there MAY be a fetus that is non-viable." Neither he nor anybody else defines "severe abnormalities." Would that include Downs Syndrome? How about physical abnormalities? Would that include the kids on the Shriner's Hospital ads? It's all subjective and up to the doctor(s) and the mother.

Hint: Terri Schiavo was indeed end of life. Northam is discussing the beginning of life.

#7.1.2.1.2.1.2 mudbug on 2019-02-12 16:47 (Reply)

mudbug: With regards to limits in Tran's bill, there are essentially none. The bill does not define "health of the mother."

Health of the mother was defined by the Supreme Court in Doe v. Bolton in 1973. The definition is medical and subject to medical review.

mudbug: In the case of Northam's scenario defending the bill, we know that the health of the mother is not a factor. The baby is born alive.

That's right. In the last month or so of pregnancy, it is usually safer to deliver the baby.

mudbug: So is he arguing against the bill? After all, you noted that there are restrictions after 24 weeks.

No. The question is what would happen if the baby is near term and has a severe abnormality. He said the baby wouldn't be aborted, but delivery. Then the family could decide on appropriate end-of-life care. Many families would rather not prolong their child's suffering if there is no chance of recovery, and would prefer to hold their baby and make it comfortable as it dies a natural death.

mudbug: Neither he nor anybody else defines "severe abnormalities."

It's clear from context he's talking about a fatal abnormality, resulting in a family having to make decisions on end-of-life care.

#7.1.2.1.2.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-13 11:25 (Reply)

Love how everyone worries about whether or not an animal has feelings, but doesn't care one whit about terminating the life of an unborn baby that definitely has feelings.

#8 MissT on 2019-02-12 13:08 (Reply)

Well said, MissT! We criminalize destruction of eagle eggs but fertilized human eggs are fair game.

#8.1 mudbug on 2019-02-12 14:20 (Reply)

Actually it was a false dichotomy.

Realists respect all life and avoid slaughter, animal and human. In the American civil religion leftists are fine with sacrificing human life on their ideological alter and rightists like killing animals because it asserts their godly dominance and superiority.

#8.1.1 Meh on 2019-02-12 14:40 (Reply)

Follow up on one of yesterday's selections

The growing lack of evidence in the case has reportedly pushed Chicago police to even consider charging Smollett with filing a false report. CBS Chicago and other local outlets report that Johnson still wants Smollett treated as a victim, but will pursue charges against the actor if the case is proven to be a hoax.

https://pjmedia.com/blog/liveblogevent/live-blog-185/entry-253130/comments/

#9 Christopher B on 2019-02-12 14:14 (Reply)

This is very likely yet another instance of fake racism. It really is getting tiresome but whether the Chicago police will bring charges against him if they believe he is faking it is very much less of a likelihood.

#9.1 mudbug on 2019-02-12 18:57 (Reply)

Vicki Hearne's introduction to "Adam's Task" is a nice essay on failure to anthropomorphize. (Ignore all cover blurbs on her books - Hearne takes no prisoners.)

#10 rhhardin (Link) on 2019-02-13 06:30 (Reply)

Electronic Health/Medical Records.
Of course they're perfect. That's why
---they can't find out when my colonoscopies were or the results;
---every visit they have to re-enter half of my list of medications;
---when I asked for a printout of visits/conditions, it had no particular order. Not alphabetical, not chronological, just kinda like "here it is, you figure it out."

#11 OldFert on 2019-02-14 03:30 (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

Tuesday, February 12. 2019

Tuesday morning links