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
Friday, July 16. 2021
The beavers returning to the desert
Beavers used to be there. They grow their own food (mostly willow and grasses). But why does BBC make everything about climate change?
Heathrow Passenger Numbers Remain Almost 90% Down From Pre-Pandemic Levels
Is Patha Bhat gourmet food?
Nancy and Paul Pelosi Making Millions in Stock Trades in Companies She Actively Regulates. The Speaker, already one of the richest members in Congress, has become far richer through investment maneuvers in Big Tech, as she privately chats with their CEOs.
Yes, it is legal for them
MINISTRY OF TRUTH COMING SOON
Interview with Jackie: How the Combination of Living in Spain and Covid-19 Turned a Liberal Into a Libertarian
Don’t Even Think About Calling the Cops. For New York City progressives, not even violent crime warrants police intervention.
How the Left Weaponized Race in Its War on the West
In the U.S., "Cuba Libre" means a rum and Coke. In Cuba itself, it means something far more intoxicating: freedom. We are seeing that cry for freedom now in the streets of Havana.
Tracked: Jul 18, 09:11
Tracked: Jul 18, 09:58
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
I don't know whether or not patha bhat is gourmet food, but I'm quite certain it's cultural appropriation.
Patha bhat is just the Indian version of ramen noodles, using rice instead of noodles. That's fine with me, because you can enhance those dishes with anything. And you can google recipes for pumpkin flower fritters.
Re: Cubans need not apply
It's not that they're Cubans per se, it's that they're part of that "diverse Latino community" Joe Biden spoke of, namely the part that tends to vote Republican, and that's not the sort of diversity the Democrats are in favor of.
It's funny, the Democrats used to be the party that opposed immigrants from Mexico and parts south on the theory that those immigrants were mostly Catholic and therefore tended to be anti-abortion and pro-family values. That all changed once the Democrats figured out that if you limited immigration to "unaccompanied minors", i.e. children without parents, you could get them before their parents had a chance to teach them right from wrong and the state could push them into the indoctrination camps known as the public school system and brainwash the wrongthink out of them. Now the Democrats are all in favor of immigration, as long as it's children.
Jerryskids: Re: Cubans need not apply
Cubans are under the same rules as other immigrants and can certainly apply for asylum once they reach the U.S.
Unlike other immigrants, however, we actively prevent them from reaching the US.
And unlike other immigrants, most of these actually have a plausible claim of asylum.
OldCurmudgeon: Unlike other immigrants, however, we actively prevent them from reaching the US.
The U.S. can't physically block people inside Mexico. They do work with authorities in Mexico and Central America to limit migration, but there is a limit to what is practical.
OldCurmudgeon: And unlike other immigrants, most of these actually have a plausible claim of asylum.
A lot of Central Americans have valid claims of asylum, where criminal gangs essentially constitute the government in many of their home regions.
There's a reason why there has been an increase in immigration from Central America, while there is little net immigration from Mexico.
With specific exceptions, persecution by criminal gangs is not a ground for asylum, refugee status or withholding of removal and these claims typically fail. Persecution means persecution by the government and if your typical two minutes of google research tells you that asylum is possible in cases where the government turns a blind eye to gang violence, it would have taken another 30 seconds to learn that that argument rarely works because policing against gang violence, even if ineffective, destroys that argument.
Don't mislead people or lie about asylum law, you fraud.
Deport Everyone: With specific exceptions, persecution by criminal gangs is not a ground for asylum, refugee status or withholding of removal and these claims typically fail.
To qualify for asylum, the person has to show persecution due to race, religion, nationality, political opinion or social group (or threat of torture by government officials). Some have won asylum for the political opinion of choosing not to join a criminal gang, or being a member of a social group, a family, that is being persecuted. Women and gays can often win asylum is they can show persecution because of that. But as you point out, many asylum claims are rejected, and people have been returned to their home country to be murdered by the criminal gangs they fled.
Deport Everyone: Persecution means persecution by the government
That is not quite correct. If violence is out of control of the government, then you may qualify. However, if the violence abates, then your claim may be denied. You are correct, however, that asylum claims based only on the criminal environment are denied. The policy was implemented much more stringently during the Trump administration.
By the way, this applies to Cuban refugees, as well. Not everyone escaping Cuba is a political refugee. Most just flee for better conditions. Deport Everyone, you would presumably deport all the Cubans, too.
Your intellectual dishonesty, not your politics, is why no one around here takes you seriously as a commenter. Maybe you should take it as a complement of sorts—people think you’re clever enough to know the truth, but that you refuse to acknowledge it. Maybe, but you’re not smart enough to know that that dishonesty wrecks any credibility you might have.
But keep at it. It's fun watching you twist yourself into semantic knots to justify your positions.
SK: Your intellectual dishonesty, not your politics, is why no one around here takes you seriously as a commenter.
This is where you show were we were either dishonest or even just wrong.
U.S. courts have held, for instance, that women and children are often targeted by criminal gangs because they are women and children, so may qualify under the "social group" standard. Family members who are threatened may also qualify under the "social group" standard. Those who publicly oppose criminal gangs may qualify under the "political opinion" standard. The results are very dependent on the jurisdiction, however, showing the inconsistency in the asylum law.
This has been done repeatedly around here by multiple people and it's proven to be of no use. You just play word games, google fingers, and nana nana boo boo.
But keep at it, it's fun to watch and revealing that the left will tie itself in knots to justify different standards of justice for different people based on their politics.
Thanks for proving my point. You don't have a clue about what you're talking about. The phrase is "particular social group" and a bare argument that women and children comprise one is a dead loser. Merely "opposing" narco gangs is not enough. Here's an insight you'd never find after weeks of googling. A seminal case on PSG analysis found that a Salvadoran teenager who would not be recruited by the MS-13 narco gang and was threatened with rape or the girl's brothers who were repeatedly beaten and robbed and kids' family did not constitute a particular social group.
You don't know how the PSG analysis is done, you don't know what "nexus" means in this field of law, you don't know how to read cases (if you're ever read one, which is certain you haven't), you don't know how to put facts in context or even have a general grip on asylum law so you mislead yourself and try to mislead everyone else here.
Either that or you're just plain lying. Don't know which is more likely, it's a toss up.
Deport Everyone: The phrase is "particular social group" and a bare argument that women and children comprise one is a dead loser.
Except that gender-based prosecution has been held by courts to be grounds for asylum. In any case, more than 4000 people from the Northern Triangle have been granted immigration relief just in 2020, and that was under the Trump administration.
Exceptions like victims of female genital mutilation, sexual slavery which or domestic violence claims and constitute PSGs. These people are entitled to asylum because they are in PSGs, not because of gender.
Cite the case, rule or statute that states gender alone is a ground for asylum.
You don't understand this topic enough to have an opinion worth making.
Deport Everyone: Cite the case, rule or statute that states gender alone is a ground for asylum.
Persecution based on gender is the topic. Asylum has been granted on these grounds since the 1990s, but the rules were unclear, and results varied by court. Attorney General Sessions tried to put a stop to it with his opinion in Matter of A-B-.
In 2019, in Orellana v. Barr, the court found that the the petitioner was found to be a member of a persecuted and particular social group.
In 2020, in Hernandez-Chacon v. Barr, the court found that a Salvadoran woman's refusal to submit to sexual violence by a gang member should be considered political opinion resisting the norm of female subordination that pervades El Salvador.
Since then, Attorney General Garland voided the Sessions opinion, and sent it to rule-making for public comment so as to put some consistency and rationality to the process.
Now you're just lying. You're making up stuff and assuming no one is going to read the cases and call you on your lies.
Did you actually read Hernandez-Chacon? The 2d Circuit Court of Appeals found that she did not establish membership in a PSG but remanded the case to the Immigration Court for further fact finding on whether she qualified for asylum on political grounds.
Nor did you read Orellana v. Barr which didn't grant asylum but also sent the case back to the Immigration Court to reconsider evidence on membership in a PSG that was far narrower than gender.
The rest of your blather shows you are way over your head.
If you lied and misrepresented like this in any court anywhere in this country, you'd be reported to your state bar and disciplined. Here, you're just embarrassing yourself.
Buy a clue.
Deport Everyone: Did you actually read Hernandez-Chacon?
Yes. They said the lower court should consider her refusal to submit to sexual violence should be considered as political opinion, saying: "She argues that when she refused to submit to the violent advances of the gangmembers, she was taking a stance against a culture of male-domination and her resistance was therefore a political act.
"There is ample evidence in the record to support her claim."
Deport Everyone: Nor did you read Orellana v. Barr
We did. As the appeals court noted: "The BIA upheld the finding of an immigration judge (“IJ”) that Orellana, although persecuted because of her membership in a particular social group, had failed to establish that the Salvadoran government was unwilling or unable to protect her from this persecution." So, she was found to be a persecuted member of a particular social group. She still had to prove that the lack of government protection.
You really need to read the decisions before accusing someone else of not reading the decisions.
Bullshit. You didn't read anything and now you're lying again.
Deport Everyone: You didn't read anything
Actually, we directly quoted from the decisions.
It's pointless to engage this twit.
One of it's favorite things is to cite case and articles and pretend they support it's argument when they don't.
Either that or it's not bright enough to actually understand the meaning of the citation.
Zachriel: Sorry if I didn't make my point clearer. "Deport everyone" includes you.
The Bureau of Immigration Appeals and therefore Immigration Courts (which are administrative tribunals roughly equivalent to Article III courts and not under the control of the Executive) routinely reject asylum claims based on gang violence where there is no evidence that the alleged persecution was tied to one of the protected grounds and the government allows or encourages this behavior. But government attempts to control gangs, even if ineffective, undermine this argument. The exceptions (which I pointed out exist) are very fact specific and very few and very hard to prove.
The controlling cases long pre-date the Trump administration.
I'm purposefully being vague about key points because its funny watching you scramble to google to figure out what they are. Platitudes and half-assed legal research don't work here.
Deport Everyone: The Bureau of Immigration Appeals and therefore Immigration Courts (which are administrative tribunals roughly equivalent to Article III courts and not under the control of the Executive) routinely reject asylum claims based on gang violence where there is no evidence that the alleged persecution was tied to one of the protected grounds and the government allows or encourages this behavior.
In 2020, during the Trump administration, about 18% of asylum claims from El Salvador were approved, 14% from Guatemala. For comparison, about 40% of asylum claims from Cuba were approved. For all countries of origin, it's about 30%. However, it varies considerably across the court system.
Kamala’s office just called. They would like your help with her root cause analysis of illegal immigration.
I think your points will fit well just following the chapter where the current administration’s campaign promise of open-armed welcome is highlighted. Oh, that’s right, their encouragements play no part in it.
Or maybe after the chapter on the freedom flights into red states, covered by the dark of night. Oh no, not only not a possible root cause but not even acknowledged by the perps.
I’m sure someone of your intellectual prowess and apparent deep insight into progressive zeitgeist would raise the overall IQ of
her project infinitesimally (ah, the magic of small
And patience with the ignorance of others, a strong suit you’ve developed by dealing with other MF commenters, is a skill you’ll need to do well in her service.
Louis Miller: They would like your help with her root cause analysis of illegal immigration.
Political instability and lawless gangs are a primary cause the violence overtaking the region. Little economic development can occur until the situation stabilizes.
“Political instability and lawless gangs are a primary cause the violence overtaking the region. Little economic development can occur until the situation stabilizes.”
Ha! Such as it ever was! This is nearly non-sequitur in the current debate!
One could infer from your point that record numbers waited patiently to flee these easily recognized, long-term problems, but it can’t have been due to some encouragement and assurances (however false) from the current administration?
And a humorous follow-on implication is that a “root cause” analysis was necessary to expose such prominent drivers.
You are losing your edge jousting with commenters on the other boards you’ve been plaguing.
Louis Miller: One could infer from your point that record numbers waited patiently to flee these easily recognized, long-term problems, but it can’t have been due to some encouragement and assurances
Why has there been an increase in immigration from Central America, while there is little net immigration from Mexico?
The Central Triangle has suffered several recent devastating events: hurricane damage, the coronavirus pandemic, drought, and food insecurity. The result has been deterioration of the political situation, and the rise of criminality. Yes, people there hope to find succor in the U.S. Not all will be admitted, but political stability and economic development are the only long-term solution.
in theory. In practice, there are no doubt orders in place to evict and deport Cubans and other orders to welcome with open arms Hondurans and Guatemalans.
"As the world heats up and extreme weather becomes more frequent, scientists have been rushing to reintegrate beavers into struggling ecosystems and dry landscapes"
Journalists don't seem to realize how obvious that particular construct of language, trying to pre-frame an opinion as a fact, really just serves to deflate their own story.
So here we have a story about nature improving its own ecosystems and creating a new equilibrium, with scientists simultaneously spouting doom, babbling about the devastation of the 'fur trade' from a hundred years ago (??) while they 'rush' to claim credit for beavers appearing where they didn't expect them.
Beavers go anywhere they can survive, and their work is mostly positive in changing ecosystems for the better by re-deploying water, but not always. They really don't care if some BBC 'scientists' notice it or not.
Aggie: So here we have a story about nature improving its own ecosystems and creating a new equilibrium, with scientists simultaneously spouting doom, babbling about the devastation of the 'fur trade' from a hundred years ago (??) while they 'rush' to claim credit for beavers appearing where they didn't expect them.
Huh? The beavers are being reintroduced by ecologists: "Doden and several other researchers set out to reintroduce beavers to the drought and fire-stricken land."
But why does BBC make everything about climate change?
Not everything, of course, but the natural world is being significantly impacted by anthropogenic climate change, so scientists are working to understand and mitigate the effects.
When was the moast perfectest climate evah in the world what we should strive for? Was it in the middle of the Clinton or Obama administration?
Don't give me some BS, give me numbers. I need goals. What's the perfect temp for July 16, 2021, in North America?
Global Warming is Cool: When was the moast perfectest climate evah in the world what we should strive for? Was it in the middle of the Clinton or Obama administration?
Modern human civilization has prospered in a period of relative climate stability, and they have erected huge infrastructures to support a burgeoning population. Instability threatens that infrastructure. Sea level rise threatens to displace millions; changes in climate jeopardizes agriculture; and dislocations of ecosystems imperils humanity's shared natural inheritance.
Check your Holocene Privilege. The bestest evah climate was in the Cretaceous, when sea levels were 260m higher.
I'm still waiting for the 50,000 climate refugees the UN promised a decade ago so we can translocate them back to the ocean depths.
Global Warming is Cool: The bestest evah climate was in the Cretaceous, when sea levels were 260m higher.
That's illustrates the problem quite well. Here's North America with an 80m sea level rise. Now what happens to all the people who live in coastal cities? Florida is gone. California's Central Valley with all its agriculture is gone.
Not to mention the flora and fauna were quite different.
It's not that human civilization couldn't have evolved in such a landscape. But it didn't. And everything humans have built, and the world's current ecosystems, would be threatened by a sudden change in climate to anything resembling the Cretaceous.
Thanks for reminding us that there are no more non-avian dinosaurs. Your insights are truly remarkable.
So, why stop at 90m? This is America, we go for broke. 275m at least. The biodiversity of the WICS must have been fantastic.
Which climate doomsday prediction did this come from? The Coming Ice Age one? The one by that inbred prince who said we only had 10 years to prevent catastrophe? A National Weather Service forecast?
Wrong. As usual.
Incontrovertible evidence for that claim is non-existent.
DrTorch: Incontrovertible evidence for that claim is non-existent.
Science rarely deals in the incontrovertible; however, there is strong scientific evidence supporting anthropogenic global warming. That evidence includes the basic physics of the greenhouse effect, observations of Earth's heat budget, and, of course, the fact that the Earth's surface is warming as expected from the increase in greenhouse gases. Indeed, without human emissions, the Earth's climate would probably have cooled slightly over the last few decades.
"Science rarely deals in the incontrovertible...Indeed, without human emissions, the Earth's climate would probably have cooled slightly over the last few decades."
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is THE SCIENCE™.
People aren’t persuaded by glib sophistry—the fact that you believe people think it’s something other than that is pathetic. The fact that you don’t understand that everyone here KNOWS it’s merely glib sophistry unworthy of a middle school debate club is really pathetic.
SK: And this, ladies and gentlemen, is THE SCIENCE™.
Well, providing evidence is a stronger argument than "Is not!" even if you repeat it several times. The diagram is from Huber & Knutti, Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth’s energy balance, Nature Geoscience 2012.
"Science rarely deals in the incontrovertible...Indeed, without human emissions, the Earth's climate would probably have cooled slightly over the last few decades."
Read your words again--maybe you'll get it. Just maybe--you're fundamentally dishonest, so you won't admit it, but you MIGHT get it. But then you'd actually have to understand sentences, not just type them.
Hey, the FBI has a nifty new place to inform on radicals--have you reported me yet?
SK: Read your words again--maybe you'll get it. Just maybe--you're fundamentally dishonest, so you won't admit it, but you MIGHT get it.
The evidence indicates that the Earth would probably have slightly cooled, but the margins of error as shown in the diagram may indicate no overall change absent anthropogenic forcing. As also shown, the warming with anthropogenic forcing matches the expectation. You can see that here also:
Like all scientific findings, the findings could be off a little, or off a lot, or be completely wrong. However, there is support for anthropogenic warming across multiple disciplines, which would be very unlikely absent human causation.
I didn't think you had the capacity to comprehend the point.
Hint--it's not about global warming.
Our guess is your conflation of incontrovertible with probable, but generally it is up to you to make your meaning clear.
I just love the way you use words like "conflating" as shiboleths.
And you know exactly what I'm getting at, you're just deflecting.
SK: And you know exactly what I'm getting at
If it’s not your confusion over incontrovertible and probable, then, no, we don’t know what you are getting at.
I'll lay it out--the debate isn't about language usage. This is an informal setting.
It's one of your most common forms of engagement and it's deeply dishonest, not to mention childish.
"but the natural world is being significantly impacted by anthropogenic climate change"
No. It isn't.
jimg: No, it isn’t.
There is a wide variety of scientific evidence supporting anthropogenic global warming, starting with the basic physics of the greenhouse effect, which has been known for over a century. See Arrhenius, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, London, Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 1896.
Beavers are one of the most destructive and disruptive forces in an ecosystem. But as they are animals, and not stewards like humans are, there is no positive or negative aspect of their actions. They're just doing what beavers do. Many species suffer from it, others thrive from it, but you can't apply an ethical conclusion from it.
Jack Walter: Many species suffer from it, others thrive from it, but you can't apply an ethical conclusion from it.
Beavers generally increase biodiversity which is important to ecosystem stability. Beavers also help preserve groundwater. Both are important for humans. Guess it depends on whether you appreciate humans or not.
Beavers used to be there. They grow their own food (mostly willow and grasses). But why does BBC make everything about climate change? It's all the rage with the "in-crowd".
Shapes of things: Ministry of truth edition: It's all the rage these days.
How the Left Weaponized Race in Its War on the West: They got the power and are beating the rest of us over the head. (The revolution will be coming...) Let us all stand up and yell "BULLSHIT!!!!" (Or COWSHIT, for Nancy.)
... Emma Doden, a masters student in translocated beaver ecology at Utah State University.
WTF? Taxpayers are funding an MS in "translocated beaver ecology"?
Is this a joke or an occupation in a porn movie?
I have a PhD in harvesting upland game.
Global Warming is Cool: Taxpayers are funding an MS in "translocated beaver ecology"?
Heh. Those crazy scientists. Next thing you know they'll be studying viruses in bats. Then it'll be universal health car for flying rodents!
Scientists were studying viruses in bats during the ebola epidemics and the source of some zoonotic disease has been known for centuries. I doubt anyone studying covid had a degree in "translocated beaver ecology."
Why do you think it's necessary to defend every stupid libtarded idea on a site whose purpose is to cherry pick stupid libtarded stories?
"Why do you think it's necessary to defend every stupid libtarded idea..."
Cause he is a libtard. Liberals, aka communists are incapable of ever admitting that their evil ideas are wrong.
He disappeared out of here for a long time. I think his mom must have let him back in the basement during covid lock downs. Now with the fraudster in office, and the communist economy doing what it does best, causing misery and suffering, he's likely to be in the basement for awhile.
Now I'm disappointed. Emma Doden doesn't have an MS in Translocated Beaver Ecology. She has a B.S. in ordinary Wildlife Ecology: Research and Management, and Biology from the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point which I guess is a thing. According to the Utah State University she is working on her M.S. comparing resident and translocated beaver ecology. Probably Mormon.
But on the other hand she's a cute leggy blonde chick.
B. Hammer: Liberals, aka communists
Liberals are not communists.
SK: Flowers aren't roses.
Rather, some flowers aren't roses. Communists (Marxists) are not liberals.
That's just wonderful, and a quite nice example of your intellectual dishonesty.
Do you not understand how foolish you make yourself look?
Classical Liberal, no. Modern Liberal, yes.
More word games.
Redefining words is not an argument.
American Heritage Dictionary: liberalism a. A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
Liberalism combines two qualities: liberty and equality, though they are often in tension. A Marxist makes equality paramount, even at the sacrifice of individual liberty.
Re: Redefining words..
Even your buddies at the left slanted Wikipedia ?
I suppose that it isn’t communism that they are protesting in Cuba? You’re such a gaslighter.
What is sad, is that you really believe marxists believe in equality. Although you are right about one thing, there is now room for individual liberty in Marxism.
B. Hammer: I suppose that it isn’t communism that they are protesting in Cuba?
Good example. Cuba is not a liberal society, but communist authoritarian.
B. Hammer: What is sad, is that you really believe marxists believe in equality.
That is exactly what Marx and his followers believed. That they combined their unachievable utopianism with ends justify the means extremism has led to all manner of human suffering.
Is there any other kind?
B. Hammer: Is there any other kind?
While communism normally refers to Marxist communism, communism can be applied more generally to any ideology where society is organized so that there is communal ownership of property, with the absence of classes and money. Varieties include anarchistic, Christian, communalist, etc.
Keep in mind that Soviet and Maoist societies were considered socialist as intermediate states leading towards the envisioned communist utopia. A dictatorship of the proletariat.
Joke of the Day:
NUNES: The Durham Report Is Still Coming; Some Obama Officials Will Go to Prison
On Wednesday, Rep. Devin Nunes, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, was interviewed by Sara Carter on her podcast and said he still expects Justice Department Special Counsel John Durham to release his report on the Obama administration spying on the Trump campaign over the bogus pretext of collusion with Russia. He also said he expects it will result in “prison sentences for some former senior Obama officials.”
It was terrible to introduce rabbits, cats, foxes and mongooses to Australia. Re-introducing species to environments that have reached (dynamic) equilibrium without them can be just as bad.
Don't call the police?
I believe we should have an opt-out provision.
Just call all law enforcement agencies in your community and say: "No mater what, I do not want you to ever come to my home".
Recently, in Atlanta, a "Defund the Police" advocate stepped out of his car and it was immediately stolen. And what did he do? You guessed it!
The BBC has recently gotten really weird. If it isn't climate change it is 'white man bad'. Really, there was an article the other day about the history of a bit of the area that is southeast Asia that had in it the line 'Everything was going so well until the British turned up.'
Not recently, this has been going on for at least two decades, if not longer.
It's just gotten more and more brazen and open over the last 5 years or so.
As soon as I saw there were 30+ comments, before I even clicked I knew that Zach was back. :)
"Don't Feed The Trolls."
How hard is it to follow the rules?
I know. Sorry. It's just fun to watch him tie himself up in knots and play the word game.
It was a nice break after the Mueller and IG reports put the lie to his defense of the miscreants attacking the rule of law and he disappeared for a while.
The solution for Cuban refugees is to just claim they're from Guatemala.