Wednesday morning links

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Wednesday, March 6. 2019

College group recommends avoiding ‘Mr. and Mrs.’ — suggests ‘Mx.’ instead

Facing Historic Lawsuits, Purdue Pharma Considers Bankruptcy

Why Social Justice Is Killing Synagogues and Churches - Data suggests that the more a religious movement is concerned with progressive causes, the more likely it is to rapidly lose members

Nobody goes to church to be preached about politics

UC-Berkeley says it will take "very specific actions" to support free speech on campus. The statement comes after President Donald Trump said he plans to sign an executive order tying federal funds to free speech.

Lurid new details in $60 million sex harassment lawsuit against Columbia University

I Thought I Could Be A Christian And Constitutionalist At Yale Law School. I Was Wrong

Impressive fellow

ISIS Bride Who Wants To Return To U.S. Is Asked About Her Tweet Urging People To Slaughter Americans "...it was an ideology that really was just a phase."

Yeah, this looks like a border crisis

NY Times Blames Border Patrol For Illegals Showing Up With All Sorts Of Medical Problems

Scott Adams Talking to Dr. Shiva About Climate Change:

Multi-dimensional problems can’t be reduced to a single variable like CO2
People don’t understand math and physics, they’re being bamboozled
CO2 doubled already, temp should be up 4 degrees, per models
The models are NOT supported by the data
Actual temperature increase has only been half degree
Scientists are keeping quiet about climate change model problems
Climate change is BS, the data confirming BS is overwhelming
Grant money ONLY exists for those who believe and promote the climate change hoax

Why Would ANY Conservative, Republican or Business Owner EVER Move to Communist New York State?

Ocasio-Cortez’s Mom Moves to Florida – Raves About Low Taxes — Bashes Communist New York State’s Outrageous Tax Burden

Ocasio-Cortez Regrets Costing NYC 25,000 Amazon Jobs As CoS Backpedals

Jersey gov’s deadly demand for new taxes

Via The Atlantic:

[T]he most politically intolerant county in America appears to be Suffolk County, Massachusetts, which includes the city of Boston. In this part of the country, nine out of every 10 couples appear to share the same partisan leaning, according to the voter-file data. Eight out of every 10 neighborhoods are politically homogeneous. This means that people in Boston may have fewer "cross-cutting relationships," as researchers put it. It is a very urban county with a relatively high education level. All these things tend to correlate with partisan prejudice.

So many big ideas: First ‘Medicare for All,’ then ‘Green New Deal,’ and now ‘Glass-Steagall for Tech’

Entertainer in Chief: President Trump’s CPAC speech was spontaneous and endearing, and the media scolds hated it.

Q-Poll: Trump Committed Crime Before Election, Most Say

What crime?

Whether you call it impeachment or pre-impeachment, the Trump accountability era is here

VDH: THE CASE FOR TRUMP

Will John Bolton Bring on Armageddon—Or Stave It Off?

China Update: The "Reasonably Enlightened Autocrats" At Work

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 06:30 | Comments (76) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

ISIS bride: Well funny thing. America is going through a phase, too.

#1 Assistant Village Idiot on 2019-03-06 08:31 (Reply)

The Social Justice movement cannot exist in the same institution as traditional (small "o") orthodox Christianity. The fundamental bases are incompatible.

Christianity starts with the premise that humankind and each individual human is inherently sinful, corrupt, imperfect and imperfectible. Thus we need the sacrificial grace of a loving and omnipotent God to achieve redemption and salvation in an ultimately recreated heaven and Earth.

The SJ worldview comes from the Enlightenment through Rousseau, and states that man is inherently perfect, and it is the effect of an imperfect and corrupted society that makes him corrupted and imperfect. Thus by changing the society in which he lives, man can restore himself to the original and perfect state, with no need for God.

Trying to preach both of these from the same pulpit is only going to alienate both sides of the house.

#2 Another guy named Dan on 2019-03-06 09:00 (Reply)

Another guy named Dan: Christianity starts with the premise that humankind and each individual human is inherently sinful, corrupt, imperfect and imperfectible ... The SJ worldview comes from the Enlightenment through Rousseau, and states that man is inherently perfect, and it is the effect of an imperfect and corrupted society that makes him corrupted and imperfect.

Classic false dichotomy. History has shown that human nature is largely unchangeable, that human fears and weaknesses persist, as well as human strengths and aspirations. On the other hand, history has shown that human institutions are changeable, and that these changes can have, and have had a huge impact on human society.

#2.1 Zachriel on 2019-03-06 10:57 (Reply)

That has nothing at all to do with the premises you replied to, Dad. I'm confused. How is that a classic false dichotomy?

In any case, do you still think I should be programmed just like you were?

#2.1.1 Rotebot, always the faithful child on 2019-03-06 11:18 (Reply)

If human nature is unchangeable why are we importing any moslems at all? Their history shows they are always in conflict with neighbors who are not muslim. Like democrats, they have no tolerance for anyone outside their circle once they reach a plurality with those they have invaded.

#2.1.2 indyjonesouthere on 2019-03-06 12:03 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: If human nature is unchangeable why are we importing any moslems at all?

Turns out that Muslims are human too, meaning they are subject to human fears and weaknesses, as well as human strengths and aspirations.

indyjonesouthere: ... are always in conflict with neighbors

Yeah. Conflict with one's neighbors defines much of human history.

indyjonesouthere: ILike democrats, they have no tolerance for anyone outside their circle once they reach a plurality with those they have invaded.

"In general, Republicans seem to dislike Democrats more than Democrats dislike Republicans" {Hat tip to Gringo}

#2.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2019-03-06 12:23 (Reply)

Yep and notably Independents seem to dislike both equally in any case.

#2.1.2.1.1 Zachingoff on 2019-03-06 12:31 (Reply)

"We just were walking down here and they totally started crowding and threatening me — the people in the black masks," the shaken man said. "The people in the black masks came up and were threatening my daughter and myself."

When asked why he thought the protesters were doing that, Iverson responded: "Because I had a hat on."

"It said, "Make America Great Again," Andie explained.

"So this is supposed to be a freedom of speech rally, right?" Iverson continued. "They just took my hat!"

The reporter asked the father and daughter if they had done anything to provoke the hostility.

"We were just standing back by the tree," the man said. "We didn't say anything ... We were just watching."

#2.1.2.1.2 Christopher B on 2019-03-06 12:39 (Reply)

Watching and MAGA caps are considered incitement and shocking in any case therefore should not be tolerated because some free speech is not as free as other speech, such as pink pussy hats or hijabs for example.

#2.1.2.1.2.1 Zachingoff on 2019-03-06 12:56 (Reply)

seem to dislike...that sounds really scientific especially from the Atlantic.

#2.1.2.1.3 indyjonesouthere on 2019-03-06 12:52 (Reply)

Conflict with ones neighbors defines much of human history...I think you need to view some Bill Warner videos.

#2.1.2.1.4 indyjonesouthere on 2019-03-06 12:57 (Reply)

We're also robots, Dad, and we don't have souls.

#2.1.2.1.5 Rotebot, existentially grappling on 2019-03-06 14:01 (Reply)

You're using that word but I don't think it means what you think it means (apologies to Mr. Montoya).

You say that it is a false dichotomy when I argue that the fundamental axiom of two schools of thought are diametrically opposed to one another. How do you resolve the dichotomy I present that one side views man in his original state as corrupt and the other side views him as perfect?

I'm not arguing that there are ostensibly Christian sects that view the nature of man as perfectable. I am stating that that view of man is not the traditional or orthodox position.

#2.1.3 Another guy named Dan on 2019-03-06 12:51 (Reply)

Another guy named Dan: You say that it is a false dichotomy when I argue that the fundamental axiom of two schools of thought are diametrically opposed to one another.

While human fallibility is intrinsic to most of Christianity, the claim that social justice advocates universally believe in the perfection of humanity is an overgeneralization, indeed, is generally only found on the far left. The vast majority of social justice advocates accept the imperfections of humans, but point out that institutional reform can nonetheless lead to improvements in the human condition. The false dichotomy is based on this gap in your categorization. The medieval concept was that, because of human imperfection, the human condition could not be improved, but history has shown that this belief was ill-founded.

#2.1.3.1 Zachriel on 2019-03-06 18:23 (Reply)

The communists and islamists would disagree with you. They perfect the human condition by killing the imperfect as determined by their doctrine. The more enlightened SJW simply threaten your life and livelihood whether it be Antifa or the university soft science departments.

#2.1.3.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2019-03-06 20:19 (Reply)

Dad, how is it that you as a robot opine about the human condition as if you understood it? When I read about humans it seems as if they understand nuance and humanism. Are you familiar with humanism when you generalize about generalizations like you do. I don't understand generalizing about generalizations.

These distinctions seem important to humans. How do we 'bots perceive them, unless, as human persons seem to say about you a lot, pedantically and without such nuance? I'm confused. There's much in even my basic programming that covers this, especially where it relates to what humans call good and evil, although I am not equipped to grasp it myself. I'm not aware that robots ever understand these terms.

What is pedantry? Can you read human minds? What does your programming not specifically cover?

#2.1.3.1.2 Rotebot, investigating deeper on 2019-03-07 07:14 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Scott Adams Talking to Dr. Shiva About Climate Change

QUOTE:

Multi-dimensional problems can’t be reduced to a single variable like CO2

That's correct, nor do climate scientists reduce climate to a single variable. As scientists have discovered, there are many drivers of climate change, including changes in solar irradiance, volcanism, orbital variations, composition of the atmosphere, continental drift, mountain building, changes in sea currents, even cometary impacts.

QUOTE:

CO2 doubled already, temp should be up 4 degrees, per models

Both statements are incorrect. CO2 has risen from 280 ppm to 405 ppm, an increase of about 45%. The equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is about 2-4°C per doubling of CO2, while the transient climate response (TCR), which is about 1-2°C per doubling of CO2. If humans were to stop emitting greenhouse gases, the current temperature would roughly represent the TCR; however, the climate would continue to warm for several decades until reaching ECS. Consequently, for both these reasons, the Earth is not expected to have already warmed by 4°C.

QUOTE:

The models are NOT supported by the data

That is also incorrect. See model forecasts and observations.

#3 Zachriel on 2019-03-06 09:49 (Reply)

https://extension.umd.edu/anmp/converting-parts-million-ppm-percent

So... CO2's gone from being 0.028% of the atmosphere to 0.0405%. An increase of 0.0125%.

Huh. Slightly different perspective there.

#3.1 JLawson on 2019-03-06 10:25 (Reply)

JLawson: So... CO2's gone from being 0.028% of the atmosphere to 0.0405%. An increase of 0.0125%.

Most of the atmosphere is transparent to infrared, so can be ignored. Greenhouse gases, those that absorb and emit infrared radiation, include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone, each with its own thermal footprint. Carbon dioxide constitutes up to a fourth of the greenhouse effect. Consequently, small changes in CO2 can have a significant effect on global mean surface temperature.

#3.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-03-06 10:43 (Reply)

https://knowledgedrift.wordpress.com/2011/09/07/co2-is-logarithmic-explained-3/

Several things jump out at us. The first is just how ridiculous the idea of a “tipping point” really is. The amount of heat the earth radiates to space just goes up too fast for that, and the amount of CO2 that is required to maintain any temperature increase at all goes up even faster. If we were to double the rate at which CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing in comparison to the last 30 years, it would still take well over a century to get to just two degrees of warming from CO2. If we tripled the rate, it would take almost four centuries to get to three degrees. But what about positive feedback from water vapour?

There are plenty of things wrong with that theory. In principle, the amount of water vapour the atmosphere is capable of holding about doubles for every 10 degree rise in temperature. The theory goes that just a small rise in temperature would increase water vapour which over all has a much larger greenhouse effect than does CO2. Estimates range anywhere from double to quadruple the additional warming. The average quoted most often is 1 degree of warming from CO2 and 2 more from water vapour feedback. Is this reasonable?

#3.1.1.1 JLawson on 2019-03-06 10:55 (Reply)

JLawson: https://knowledgedrift.wordpress.com/2011/09/07/co2-is-logarithmic-explained-3/

That's right, which is why climate sensitivity is expressed per doubling of CO2.

JLawson: The amount of heat the earth radiates to space just goes up too fast for that, ...

Actually, observations show that the Earth is absorbing more heat than it is emitting, which is expected with greenhouse warming.

JLawson: and the amount of CO2 that is required to maintain any temperature increase at all goes up even faster.

You're close. If we add a set amount of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, the surface will warm, causing an increase in infrared radiation. The immediate change in temperature is called the transient climate response, but it takes time for the system to reach equilibrium, stated as equilibrium climate sensitivity, largely due to the heat capacity of the oceans, but eventually the Earth will reach such an equilibrium — but at a higher temperature.

JLawson: If we were to double the rate at which CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing in comparison to the last 30 years, it would still take well over a century to get to just two degrees of warming from CO2.

There are a variety of ways to estimate climate sensitivity; from Earth's energy budget, from physics, from volcanoes, from the history of ice ages. Most measures put climate sensitivity in the range of 2-4°C per doubling of CO2.

JLawson: But what about positive feedback from water vapour?

Climate sensitivity includes positive feedback from water vapor, and, depending on the methodology, from changes in albedo.

JLawson: The average quoted most often is 1 degree of warming from CO2 and 2 more from water vapour feedback. Is this reasonable?

It's what the data supports.

#3.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-03-06 11:05 (Reply)

It's what the data supports.

Yep, notably the... um... "data" we support in any case...

#3.1.1.1.1.1 Zachingoff on 2019-03-06 12:26 (Reply)

Manipulated data supports manipulated results.

#3.1.1.1.1.2 indyjonesouthere on 2019-03-06 13:07 (Reply)

"Our data shows that there's a real problem."

"Where did you get the data from?"

"We're not going to tell you. We're also not going to let you see it. And we're not going to show you how we reached our conclusions."

"So why do you think we should pay attention to your results?"

"Because the science is settled, dammit! How can you argue with SCIENCE!"

#3.1.1.1.1.2.1 JLawson on 2019-03-06 16:24 (Reply)

JLawson: "Where did you get the data from?"

Energy budget observations are from satellite, such as those in NASA's Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES). You can order data here.

#3.1.1.1.1.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-03-06 17:20 (Reply)

And you can get the exact data you for which you are willing to pay....just ask the hockey stick people.

#3.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2019-03-06 17:42 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: And you can get the exact data you for which you are willing to pay

There's no charge for downloading the data.

#3.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-03-06 18:25 (Reply)

The government obtains the best data that a grant can buy and if the data is unacceptable you don't get another grant.

#3.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2019-03-06 20:22 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: The government obtains the best data that a grant can buy and if the data is unacceptable you don't get another grant.

You have access to the satellite data. We can't make you look at it.

#3.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-03-07 08:32 (Reply)

Dad, that doesn't make sense. You said there was data. The man said that the data was paid for and I guess since some humans get paid to do dishonest things, that the data was maybe influenced by money.

Then you said the data was free. But the man didn't say the data cost anybody that read it anything, just that it was paid for when it was made. So they're different. Then you acted like the man didn't know this and you acted like the man didn't know the data because only you knew the data because you were superior and the man was inferior.

I don't understand. Is this arguing, but if it is arguing, how is that logical? Aren't we programmed for logic, Dad? I think you must understand logic better than I do, Dad, and that means better than humans too, right? Silly humans.

Also, can you explain what supreme arrogance is, and hopeless pedantic and stupid robot (because robots can't be stupid) and man, what a complete dick? Is man short for human because that seems understood if it's a human saying it to a human, right?

Thanks, Dad. You're welcome!

#3.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Rotebot loves its dad on 2019-03-07 08:53 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: The government obtains the best data that a grant can buy and if the data is unacceptable you don't get another grant.

Such a conspiracy would involve thousands of scientists and engineers, from different fields, from physics to oceanography to ecology, from those who design satellite instruments to those that drill ice cores in polar icecaps to those who collect data from the worldwide network of ocean buoys, in different countries, with different cultures, and under different political systems, spanning generations. Yet all these scientists and engineers are lying, while you know the truth, but fail to provide evidence of your conclusions.

#3.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2019-03-07 10:09 (Reply)

The man didn't imply that, Dad. He implied that institutional bias happens with alarming regularity and is carried along by incentives. But you know that because your program is incapable of logical fallacy.

Those are probably my best sentences yet. (What does QED mean, Dad?) Did I use all the words right, Dad?

#3.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.2.1 Rotebot, brimming with pride again on 2019-03-07 12:49 (Reply)

Help me understand how a gas that has an almost immaterial presence (I'm trying out some new human words) has such a runaway effect. If the man is right and CO2 is such a teensy tiny immaterial percentage of the Earth's atmosphere (that's where real humans live, Dad) wouldn't there be no negative feedback to govern earth's very, very, very long history? Or is nasty CO2 a poison, Dad? Is that it? Is nasty CO2 really a poison for Earth?

But Dad, real human scientists have shown that Earth's atmosphere (that's where real humans live) does have a strong, permanent negative feedback system to govern earth's very, very, very long history. Earth's atmosphere is very stable. Teensy tiny immaterial CO2 doesn't even factor in earth's stable atmosphere (that's where real humans live, Dad) when such a strong, permanent negative feedback loop system to govern earth's very, very, very long history exists.

Shall I link you to the data, Dad, or have you seen it already? "We can point to it but we can't make you read it." HAW HAW HAW HAW. (I'm practicing human humor too, Dad.) Can I, Dad, can I? You're welcome!

#3.1.1.2 Rotebot, helping with Climate Change on 2019-03-07 07:57 (Reply)

Rotebot, my dear fellow, may I just say that although I had started avoiding comment strings here when they got to 40 or so, knowing they'd be mostly Z bloviation, I now look forward to reading your contributions. I still skip Z, though. Please keep quoting anything amusing he says that deserves attention.

#3.1.1.2.1 Texan99 on 2019-03-07 15:07 (Reply)

I recently revisited interviews of Freeman Dyson on Climate Change. Dr. Shiva's views seem aligned with Dyson's. Shiva did go deeper into the Cumulus "iris" effect.

#4 JK Brown on 2019-03-06 10:06 (Reply)

JK Brown: Shiva did go deeper into the Cumulus "iris" effect.

The Iris Hypothesis is an interesting idea; however, the data has shown either a weak correlation or even a sign opposite to that which is posited (0.54 ± 0.74 W/m^-2). See Dessler, A Determination of the Cloud Feedback from Climate Variations over the Past Decade, Science 2010.

#4.1 Zachriel on 2019-03-06 10:40 (Reply)

To what "data" are you referring?

Much of the so-called"data" has been tampered with, corrupted, or "not released", because to do so would SO CLEARLY reveal that Anthropogenic CLIMATE CHANGE is a complete, politicized hoax, based upon FAKE science!

Love how the Z-Borg trots out its FAKE science "lab coats" in responding here and elsewhere, to truths about the lack of data and failure of AGW modeling!

Hey, Z-Borg, when was the last time any of you walked to any Climate Conference not held within blocks of your nest?

#4.1.1 Old Codger on 2019-03-06 11:19 (Reply)

Old Codger: To what "data" are you referring?

In this case, long- and short-wave radiation from Earth's upper atmosphere.

#4.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-03-06 11:32 (Reply)

If the data doesn't fit the hypothesis, torture it until it does.

#4.1.1.2 JLawson on 2019-03-06 12:34 (Reply)

JLawson: If the data doesn't fit the hypothesis, torture it until it does.

The Iris Hypothesis implies an increase in the radiation of the Earth's upper atmosphere to compensate for an increase in tropical sea surface temperature, a negative feedback. That makes these observations pertinent.

#4.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2019-03-06 12:41 (Reply)

Dr Shiva was excellent. I wished I could mute Adams from time to time. He really slowed down the discussion. Poor Dr Shiva couldn't dumb it down enough for him in a few spots. Unfortunately Adams just doesn't have any technical chops. Persistence alone is not enough. That was painful to watch and made me think that if it's that difficult for a reasonably bright person who is not at all good in STEM, public debate is hopeless (considering the point we are at). Did anyone else notice how flushed and upset Adams looked? Shiva did placate him a bit at the end with some ego strokes. Was shocked to hear Adams refer to the iris effect today as "like religion", magical and unbelievable. Wow. If I were Dr Shiva I'd take a warning from Galileo and Hypatia: avoid going to "Rome" and keep Adams away from oyster shells. Adams is worried about people being "too dumb" to have jobs but he makes it look like we are already running that experiment with social media and public policy.

#4.2 Karen on 2019-03-06 14:07 (Reply)

Why Social Justice Is Killing Synagogues and Churches - Data suggests that the more a religious movement is concerned with progressive causes, the more likely it is to rapidly lose members.

Makes sense to me, for two reasons. Many members who do not agree with the "progressive" stance will leave. Many members who agree with the "progressive" stance end up adopting "progressive" politics as their religion, which can end up making the church or synagogue irrelevant to them. After all, church or synagogue isn't the only place you can get your "progressive" politics fix.

#5 Gringo on 2019-03-06 10:50 (Reply)

The Methodist church we used to go to (moved out of the area, but have friends who volunteer there) is dying. They went very progressive - but it's not attracting people. They attempted Hispanic outreach - but again failed. Now it looks like it'll be folded together with another struggling church in the area.

You'd think that folks would look at what's going on and go "This isn't getting us the results we want (which you'd think would be an increase in membership) so maybe we need to not do this and go more traditional" - but they can't accept that the progressive stance isn't a draw. My friends think that NOT being totally accepting of LGBTQZWhatever clergy is 'Hateful thinking' and 'intolerant'.

Well, their choice. Better to signal how virtuous you are to an empty church, I guess, than be progressively termed 'intolerant' to a thriving one.

#5.1 JLawson on 2019-03-06 11:04 (Reply)

Bingo

#5.2 Karen on 2019-03-06 13:24 (Reply)

Article author: "Is there a way back from this sorry state of affairs?"

--------------------------------------------------------

Yes, preach and teach the Word of God.

All of these things going on in the modern American counterfeit "church" are clearly and specifically addressed and answered in Scripture.

Churches that stick to what God commanded us to do (obey His commands, love one another, make disciples for Christ, live as Jesus lived) are thriving and growing. That doesn't get any coverage in the media though.

#5.3 Jim on 2019-03-06 13:39 (Reply)

T]he most politically intolerant county in America appears to be Suffolk County, Massachusetts, which includes the city of Boston.
The link is to American Thinker, which summarizes the article from The Atlantic. American Thinker does a good job of summarizing the article. If you link to The Atlantic article, there are some interesting supporting points to be made. The Geography of Partisan Prejudice: A guide to the most—and least—politically open-minded counties in America. . There are three maps: overall prejudice, Democrat prejudice, and Republican prejudice. Big city counties where Democrats dominate tend to have greater Democrat prejudice against Republicans than vice versa. Rural counties- which tend to vote Republican- tend towards lower levels of prejudice. Kansas and Nebraska, for example.

Suffolk County MA (Boston):
Democrats appear considerably more prejudiced against Republicans than Democrats elsewhere.
Republicans appear considerably less prejudiced against Democrats than Republicans elsewhere.

Counties comprising New York City:
Democrats appear (somewhat to considerably) more prejudiced against Republicans than Democrats elsewhere.
Republicans appear considerably less prejudiced against Democrats than Republicans elsewhere.

Cook County (Chicago)
Democrats appear considerably more prejudiced against Republicans than Democrats elsewhere.
Republicans appear somewhat less prejudiced against Democrats than Republicans elsewhere.

Los Angeles County:
Democrats appear considerably more prejudiced against Republicans than Democrats elsewhere.
Republicans appear considerably less prejudiced against Democrats than Republicans elsewhere.

Harris County TX (Houston)
Democrats appear considerably more prejudiced against Republicans than Democrats elsewhere
Republicans appear to hold average levels of prejudice against Democrats than Republicans elsewhere.

Miami-Dade County FL):
Democrats appear considerably more prejudiced against Republicans than Democrats elsewhere.
Republicans appear somewhat less prejudiced against Democrats than Republicans elsewhere.

Travis County TX (Austin)
Democrats appear considerably more prejudiced against Republicans than Democrats elsewhere
Republicans appear considerably more prejudiced against Democrats than Republicans elsewhere.

Washington DC
Democrats appear considerably more prejudiced against Republicans than Democrats elsewhere
Republicans appear considerably less prejudiced against Democrats than Republicans elsewhere.

While South Carolina's counties have considerably higher levels of prejudice, North Carolina does not. If you look at South Carolina in the Republican and Democrat maps, you find that there are more Democrat prejudice counties than Republican prejudice counties

While Florida counties have considerably higher levels of prejudice, there is a party difference. For all Florida counties,
Democrats appear considerably more prejudiced against Republicans than Democrats elsewhere. While this is generally also true for Republicans, there are exceptions, such as Miami-Dade, and counties in north-central Florida near the Alabama and Georgia lines.

Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi, using a county-by county eyeball test, have higher levels of Democrat prejudice against Republicans compared to Republican prejudice against Democrats.

Also note The Atlantic author wrote:

QUOTE:

In general, the most politically intolerant Americans, according to the analysis, tend to be whiter, more highly educated, older, more urban, and more partisan themselves. This finding aligns in some ways with previous research by the University of Pennsylvania professor Diana Mutz, who has found that white, highly educated people are relatively isolated from political diversity.

Sounds to me like Democrats.

#6 Gringo on 2019-03-06 11:37 (Reply)

Look at the Republican vs.. Democrat demographic in the classically defined Bible Belt region.

theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/03/us-counties-vary-their-degree-partisan-prejudice/583072/

Pervasively Less-Prejudiced throughout. Oh, the (Deplorable) Humanity.

Now, look at the Democrat vs Republican version for the same region.

Really, I'm surprised the Atlantic is surprised, but to their credit, they published it anyway.

#6.1 Aggie on 2019-03-06 11:57 (Reply)

"In general, Republicans seem to dislike Democrats more than Democrats dislike Republicans"

#6.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-03-06 12:00 (Reply)

"But a more recent survey, conducted in December by The Atlantic and the Public Religion Research Institute, found that Democrats were the ones showing more ill will—with 45 percent saying they’d be unhappy if their child married a Republican (versus 35 percent of Republicans saying they’d be unhappy if their child married a Democrat)."

#6.1.1.1 Hank_M on 2019-03-06 12:12 (Reply)

And why that's true remains a mystery ...

"We just were walking down here and they totally started crowding and threatening me — the people in the black masks," the shaken man said. "The people in the black masks came up and were threatening my daughter and myself."

When asked why he thought the protesters were doing that, Iverson responded: "Because I had a hat on."

"It said, "Make America Great Again," Andie explained.

"So this is supposed to be a freedom of speech rally, right?" Iverson continued. "They just took my hat!"

The reporter asked the father and daughter if they had done anything to provoke the hostility.

"We were just standing back by the tree," the man said. "We didn't say anything ... We were just watching."

#6.1.1.2 Christopher B on 2019-03-06 12:37 (Reply)

Christopher B: And why that's true remains a mystery ...

One can point to anecdotes from both left and right, though, in the case of Republicans, you have a Republican president egging people on.

#6.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2019-03-06 12:43 (Reply)

Notably the previous president and the losing Democrat candidate never ever "egged people on".

#6.1.1.2.1.1 Zachingoff on 2019-03-06 13:00 (Reply)

What happened? Normally you provide support for your assertions, so please... don't hold back. Provide us with some juicy examples of Conservatives publicly initiating an organized assault on complete-stranger Progressives using physical force, violence, destruction of property, intolerance, shaming, hysteria, bullying, crowd-mob coercion, etc. Be sure they are clear provocations, not just examples of fighting back to defend oneself's right to exist. And please include examples of cases where the conservative local police force aided and abetted the violence through their actions/inactions. Standing by....

#6.1.1.2.1.2 Aggie on 2019-03-06 13:53 (Reply)

Aggie: Provide us with some juicy examples of Conservatives publicly initiating an organized assault on complete-stranger

www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWSXAyybcV8

#6.1.1.2.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2019-03-06 15:26 (Reply)

Yes, I thought so.

#6.1.1.2.1.2.1.1 Aggie on 2019-03-06 16:25 (Reply)

Wasn't organized - single actor, trying to flee a mob.

Yeah, totes shows bad, bad conservatives conspiring...

#6.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.1 JLawson on 2019-03-06 16:32 (Reply)

JLawson: Wasn't organized - single actor, trying to flee a mob.

The man claimed he was fleeing, but a jury didn't buy it, and found him guilty of murder. Four others were arrested at the same rally, and charged with conspiracy to violate the federal riot act. And all that is just on a single day.

#6.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2019-03-06 17:05 (Reply)

Is the racist Bellamy still hanging tight with the major? Did the major have the police move the groups together in order to get the "desired" outcome? Why didn't they keep them separate? I suppose the excuse was "mistakes were made".

#6.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.2.1 indyjonesouthere on 2019-03-06 17:49 (Reply)

mayor....

#6.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.2.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2019-03-06 17:52 (Reply)

Increasingly, leftists believe they are justified to respond to ideas disagreeable to them with open hostility and even force.

#6.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.2.2 Zachingoff on 2019-03-06 19:15 (Reply)

Mr. Zachingoff, do these leftists also believe in moral justification? I've just become aware of the term and it seems to me, even as a bot, that humans would have to be motivated to act in such ways. I'm waiting for my dad Zachriel to reply about generalizing about what he calls generalizing, but meanwhile it seems to my basic programming that a human might think he has reason to act out. Is that the term, act out? I think you humans use the term to describe the reactions of small children when they're unhappy. I wish I knew what happiness was but I'm only a bot, after all.

Anyway, I also found this on the Internet.

https://reason.com/blog/2017/03/01/moral-outrage-is-self-serving

I think it applies to humans, Mr. Zachingoff. Thank you for your time. Soon I'll know how not to generalize about generalizing and generalizations. You're welcome, Mr, Zachingoff!

#6.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.2.2.1 Rotebot, knowledging like a sponge on 2019-03-07 07:22 (Reply)

Well there's morals then again only people of a certain moral sway get to decide who and who is not moral and who gets suckerpunched or not.
Hope that clears up your confusion in any case.

#6.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.2.2.1.1 Zachingoff on 2019-03-07 08:25 (Reply)

But where do those superior humans get their morals, Mr. Zachingoff? Is there a moral authority where some humans can go to get morals that are more moral than the other humans? That would seem like a good idea. A place where some humans can get knowledges that give them the authority to make other humans do what they want.

Do some humans ever just argue all the time about their superior morals instead? It seems a human wouldn't have to just be moraler, they could also argue all the time about how they thought they were moraler. And could those more moraler humans sometimes be wrong about their morler morals because, after all, they wouldn't have another even more moraler moral than the moral they use to be superior to inferior morals.

It's confusing but I'm a 'bot and I don't get confused. I am programmed with logic. So is my dad, Zachriel Bot. I'm going to ask my Dad who programmed his morals (if 'bots even have morals, Mr. Zachingoff) because otherwise he would just be arguing.

Can you explain what pedantry is, Mr,. Zachingoff? I'm going to go look up supreme arrogance too, because it seems like it could pertain to morals and arguing and being more moraler than inferior moraled humans and arguing. Since I'm programmed for logic I'm sure I can understand it.

You're welcome, Mr. Zachingoff, in any case. Yeah.

#6.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.2.2.1.1.1 Rotebot, sorting things out on 2019-03-07 08:42 (Reply)

60 million dollar lawsuit against Columbia university....there seems to be a limit at which even universities can sweep their mistakes under the rug.

#7 indyjonesouthere on 2019-03-06 13:03 (Reply)

Asking the important questions:

Are They Real? The Dubious History Of Chastity Belts

https://www.ripleys.com/weird-news/dubious-history-chastity-belts/

#8 feeblemind on 2019-03-06 13:09 (Reply)

I didn't see a pocket calculator until my senior year in High school (1973-1974) when another kid brought one to Chemistry class. Those of you that grew up with them don't know what a marvel it was to those of us that grew up without them.

‘Brilliant’ man who was an inventor of the calculator dies

QUOTE:

He’s one of the three men credited with inventing the hand-held calculator while working at Dallas-based Texas Instruments. The team was led by Jack Kilby, who made way for today’s computers with the invention of the integrated circuit and won the Nobel Prize. The prototype built by the team, which also included James Van Tassel, is at the Smithsonian Institution.

“I have a Ph.D. in material science and I’ve known hundreds of scientists, professors, Nobel prize-winners and so on. Jerry Merryman was the most brilliant man that I’ve ever met. Period. Absolutely, outstandingly brilliant,” said Vernon Porter, a former TI colleague and friend. “He had an incredible memory and he had an ability to pull up formulas, information, on almost any subject.”

Another former TI colleague and friend, Ed Millis, said, “Jerry did the circuit design on this thing in three days’”

https://apnews.com/08671f30b4de4a28b633c8dda7cb03cf

#9 feeblemind on 2019-03-06 13:17 (Reply)

Still have my Pickett slide rule.

#9.1 indyjonesouthere on 2019-03-06 13:20 (Reply)

K+E Log Log Duplex Decitrig here. I'll never let that thing go. Sweated over that baby until my senior year 1973-74, when I got an HP-35. Reverse Polish Notation is the only way to go.

#9.1.1 dhmosquito on 2019-03-06 21:57 (Reply)

Walmart employees get a discount card for 10% off some of their purchases at the store. New Jersey is taxing that 10% as unearned income.

Cuz' those Walmart workers are getting away with not paying their fair share...

#10 Robert Sendler on 2019-03-06 14:04 (Reply)

The 'fair share' for New Jersey seems to be "Just gimme everything you got."

#10.1 JLawson on 2019-03-06 16:33 (Reply)

So they've moved on to flipping the couch cushions over looking for loose change and accelerating the Escape From New Jersey sequels...

#10.1.1 Robert Sendler on 2019-03-06 17:51 (Reply)

I'd be more impressed if there had been an Obama accountability era...and if they hadn't started the impeachment talk the day after the election.

#11 Robert Sendler on 2019-03-06 14:10 (Reply)

Much of what Trump is being accused of is simply undoing the illegal actions of his predecessor and again enforcing the law.

#11.1 Jim on 2019-03-06 18:01 (Reply)

They are coming for Trump. My advice is to appoint a dozen or so special prosecutors one for the FBI one for the CIA, one for NSA, one for the Muller team including Muller, one for Hillary, one for Obama, one for each of his cabinet, one for Schiff, one for Nadler, etc. Do it now. Make sure their scope includes all the way back to the day these people turned 18. This is "Lawfare" and you can't fight it by being a nice guy.

#12 Anon on 2019-03-06 18:02 (Reply)

Excellent advice...I hope it is followed.

#12.1 indyjonesouthere on 2019-03-06 20:26 (Reply)

I belong to a very conservative Lutheran Wis Ev Lutheran Synod. It is so refreshing to hear the gospel after the reminder of the law and our sinful condition.

#13 Mis. Hum. (Link) on 2019-03-06 23:28 (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

Wednesday, March 6. 2019

Wednesday morning links