Saturday morning links

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Saturday, January 20. 2024

Green bell peppers are just unripe red bell peppers.

American Dependence: The Rise of Single Parenthood. There’s a strong circumstantial case that welfare benefits increased single parenthood to some extent, but to what extent is difficult to nail down using scientifically rigorous methods.

ADMINISTRATORS — NOT JUST DEI ADMINISTRATORS — ARE THE BIGGEST THREAT TO FREE SPEECH ON CAMPUS

What Do College Administrators Do?

Why can't Americans make chips?

Biden finally admits border isn’t secure, believes ‘massive changes’ needed: ‘I’m ready to act’

Journalist Uncovers "Shadowy Network" Of NGOs Facilitating US Border Invasion

Infamous ‘Zuckbucks’ Group Tries To Election-Meddle Again — This Time With Federal Tax Dollars

Heritage Foundation President Dishes Truth to Davos Elites

'Someone Is Going To Die Today': Did Daniel Penny Act in Self-Defense?

Cuba's communists blame tiny private sector for their economic mismanagement, hike their taxes 20%

BORIS JOHNSON: The global wokerati are trembling so violently you can hear the ice tinkling in their negronis... but a Trump presidency could be just what the world needs

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 06:56 | Comments (40) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

BORIS JOHNSON: The global wokerati are trembling so violently you can hear the ice tinkling in their negronis... but a Trump presidency could be just what the world needs

If the ice tinkles in your negroni, your ice cubes are too small.

I'm a bit discouraged to think that our best remedy for Bidenomics and the Davosoisie is our own Orange Vulgarian, a cross between P.T. Barnum and Captain Queeg. A man, who in 4 years, was unable to dissociate the word "American" from that ghastly quasi-cheese we slap onto cheeseburgers.

But, ya gotta play the hand you're dealt.

#1 Mike Anderson (Link) on 2024-01-20 08:34 (Reply)

Boris Johnson is a clueless piece of shit. He said Biden has done many wonderful things! Really! He also said that there was no election fraud and Biden won fair and square! The only people who say that are those who are still trying to desperately coverup the massive voter fraud that allowed Obama to have a third term. My humble advice to anyone in politics who is not still covering up the 2020 election fraud is to say nothing. You look like a fool or a liar when you claim it was not stolen. I get it if you are part of the communist left but if you aren't than simply don't address this issue. We literally have a dozen major cases where election officials destroyed ballots and records and perhaps a hundred or so smaller cases of the same thing. In five of the key states where Biden magically won with more votes than voters numerous obvious cases of fraud have been uncovered (as if getting 110% voter turnout wasn't a clue). At this point if you are in politics, one of the movers and shakers and you still claim the 2020 election wasn't stolen than you are lying and part of the problem.

#1.1 OneGuy on 2024-01-20 09:25 (Reply)

60% of the billions raised by Act Blue is coming from the CCP. This won't be on your news tonight or any night. They are actively censoring it. Instead you will hear about trans gender BS or sports stories or a shooting or two by "teens" and anything else they can distract you with. More bread and circuses to keep you appeased and uninformed. But in the age of the internet they need something else; bots to ask for proof if you say something that is contrary to the bread and circuses agenda. Or nitpick your words or cherry pick your statements. Anything to distract and disinform.

It is interesting too that our politicians and bureaucrats will openly defy us, break laws, defraud our election, then cover it up and destroy evidence in front of us and the media colludes with them in the coverup. And then you question it and someone will say "prove it" and grin at you knowing that you know and everyone knows that they destroyed or hid the evidence and used fact checkers to insist the truth is lies and the lies are truth. This is all gas lighting of a new and spectacular dimension. A shameless coverup by bought and sold politicians and hacks. Who knew that "1984" was not just a book but a manual for modern communists and fascists.

#1.1.1 OneGuy on 2024-01-20 10:23 (Reply)

OneGuy: In five of the key states where Biden magically won with more votes than voters

Please provide evidence of that claim.

#1.2 Zachriel on 2024-01-20 09:34 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Zach-GPT:"Please provide evidence of that claim."

No one is trying to convince you of anything or cares if you agree or not. Do your own work.
.

#1.2.1 eeyore on 2024-01-20 12:17 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Heritage Foundation President Dishes Truth to Davos Elites . . . British international affairs expert and moderator Sir Robin Niblett repeated the leftist propaganda that Trump would use the presidency to exact vengeance

"I am your retribution." — Donald Trump

QUOTE:

And the climate alarmists have been consistently wrong for decades, with evidence to undermine their claims now too.

The link referring to climate alarmists includes non-climate predictions. Nor are the predictions of climate alarmists the same as predictions of climate scientists. The links to "evidence" and "undermine" don't point to any evidence.

QUOTE:

“The solutions … are far worse and more harmful" than do the alleged problem itself!

That's plausibly a defensible position, but no argument is valid when starting from false premises.

#2 Zachriel on 2024-01-20 09:22 (Reply)

Roberts is in error. Climate alarmists haven’t been wrong for decades, they’ve been wrong for almost 130 years.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/08/120_years_of_climate_scares.html

#2.1 mudbug on 2024-01-20 12:18 (Reply)

mudbug: Climate alarmists haven’t been wrong for decades, they’ve been wrong for almost 130 years.

Speculation published in newspapers is not the same as the increasingly strong scientific consensus, especially in light of the advances in science over the last few decades.

#2.2 Zachriel on 2024-01-20 12:27 (Reply)

There is NO strong scientific consensus of AGW. There is no consensus in science, there is only consensus in engineering. And that is the problem of science today and why there is far too much fake science being published and then withdrawn. AGW science amounts to nothing more than government purchasing outcomes from those willing to market their grifting talents. They are better know as lobbyists in any other profession, and well paid lobbyists at that.

#2.2.1 indyjonesouthere on 2024-01-20 15:32 (Reply)

In the first place, the topic was the accuracy of "climate alarmists." Those alarmists may or may not be what you or I might call "scientists." But a lot of those speculations were grounded in the opinions of "scientists" or "experts" of the day.

Secondly, "Scientific consensus" has no real scientific meaning. The consensus can easily be wrong and has been over and over. Researchers are largely paid from grants from the government and non profits. Quite often, they will not accept grants that might disprove the "consensus" and papers
submitted for peer review often face obstacles from climate alarmist scientists who don't want those papers published (see climategate emails).

Measuring the temperature is not that much more accurate than it has been for centuries yet for some reason, NASA and other agencies find it necessary to adjust temperature data (always cooling the further past and warming the recent past). If anything, the extra heat from concrete in cities should require recent readings to be scaled cooler. Temperature is an observed data. It is not derived and not subject to adjustment.

In the 1990s, the location of weather stations was public and many of them found over tarmac at airports and near a/c exhaust. Now, from what I understand, those locations are secret. If so, there's no way to monitor the validity of those locations.

#2.2.2 mudbug on 2024-01-20 16:28 (Reply)

mudbug: In the first place, the topic was the accuracy of "climate alarmists."

People say all sorts of things.

mudbug: But a lot of those speculations were grounded in the opinions of "scientists" or "experts" of the day.

Scientists often speculate or make projections on limited data. That’s distinct from a strongly supported scientific finding.

mudbug: Secondly, "Scientific consensus" has no real scientific meaning.

But can have meaning nonetheless. For instance, if scientists develop a model that can project the path of a hurricane more accurately, then policy-makers can use this knowledge to save lives and property.

mudbug: The consensus can easily be wrong and has been over and over.

It’s often The Relativity of Wrong.

mudbug: for some reason, NASA and other agencies find it necessary to adjust temperature data

Homogenization is used on historical data because stations have been moved, instruments changed, and there are gaps in the records. However, independent statistical analysis that doesn’t depend on homogenization shows the same trend. Also, if you only consider rural stations, it shows the same trend. Even more definitively, satellite and robotic ocean buoys show the same trend.

mudbug: Now, from what I understand, those locations are secret. If so, there's no way to monitor the validity of those locations.

Oh, gee whiz.

#2.2.2.1 Zachriel on 2024-01-20 20:53 (Reply)

Real-time Global Temperature
(updated every 1-2 minutes)
57.76°F / 14.31°C
Deviation: 0.56°F / 0.31°C
Stations processed last hour: 50824
Last station processed: Muskoka, Canada
For source/info see:
https://temperature.global

#2.2.2.1.1 Zachinoff on 2024-01-20 23:25 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Zach-GPT: but no argument is valid when starting from false premises.

premise 1: People who use 'we' instead of 'I' are insane.
premise 2: Zach-GPT uses 'we' instead of 'I'.

Therefore: Zach-GPT is insane.

That's a valid argument even if you believe the premises are false. Were you asleep in Logic 101?

#2.3 eeyore on 2024-01-20 12:40 (Reply)

"I am your retribution." As is the case with every assertion you make in the comment, your "argument" conveniently challenges a strawman rather than the right's best arguments. But then you're responding to the strawmen arguments the other commenters made. So there's that. But I think you know that you're responding to a strawman argument with a poor argument, so I think you're engaged in bad faith, and are a liar.

Not only does your response ignore all of the dire claims the left makes about things Trump would do if reelected, the Trump quote you cite does not support any of the insane claims progressives are making, which are largely projection.
To wit, as a RW person who finds a lot about Trump off putting and thinks that he is often grossly incompetent at leading and accomplishing worthwhile results, I'm in a real quandary. I find Trump boot lickers every bit as annoying as progressives such as yourself, even if far less generally contemplable as individuals. Since it isn't possible to hold progressives in adequate contempt. My worry is that Trump will not exact adequate vengeance. That he will flail about ineffectively, or target the wrong people, or confine himself to purely symbolic actions. But pray to God that he will be half as effective as progressives are pretending to believe he will be.

And all of that is on idiots and naves like yourself and other progressives. You've spent generations destroying cultural institutions, advocating for insane social and economic policies and undermining public trust in the government, the aforementioned cultural institutions and in our fellow citizens.
Sow the wind and reap the whirlwind.

#2.4 James on 2024-01-20 12:40 (Reply)

James: the Trump quote you cite does not support any of the insane claims progressives are making, which are largely projection.

The claim "Trump would use the presidency to exact vengeance" is directly supported by Trump explicitly stating, "I am your retribution."

James: My worry is that Trump will not exact adequate vengeance.

So you disagree with the Heritage Foundation President who claims it was just leftist propaganda. Indeed, you agree with those on the left who claim that Trump said he would use the presidency to exact vengeance.

Meanwhile, Trump also said he would be dictator for a day. You know what they call a dictator for a day?
.
.
.

A dictator.

#2.4.1 Zachriel on 2024-01-20 13:06 (Reply)

You're making a vague, unqualified, unspecific allegation about Trump's intentions. When Trump is well known for making hyperbolic statements. Your argument doesn't pass the sniff test because it is BS and made in bad faith. In fact, pretending to take much of what Trump says literally is an act of bad faith. Like the crack of bad faith.

Read my comment again. I explicitly said that most of what progressives where alleging Trump would do is completely insane (the assertion that he would, not Trump doing it). Which means that the president of Heritage and I concur. Not that we disagree. Reading comprehension. What is it?

#2.4.1.1 James on 2024-01-20 13:26 (Reply)

James: You're making a vague, unqualified, unspecific allegation about Trump's intentions.

It's not vague or unspecific.

James: When Trump is well known for making hyperbolic statements.

Trump is running for president, not late night stand up.

James: In fact, pretending to take much of what Trump says literally is an act of bad faith.

Trump is running for president. His words are a guide as to how he will execute the powers of the office. Trump said he would act a dictator and they he would seek retribution.

#2.4.1.2 Zachriel on 2024-01-20 14:11 (Reply)

There is no vaccine for TTS.

Trump Tourettes Syndrome

Quibble-DickZ be doomed, Francis.

#2.4.1.2.1 Zachinoff on 2024-01-20 19:45 (Reply)

Is that better or worse than being a 'Hitler'?

#2.4.1.3 indyjonesouthere on 2024-01-20 16:04 (Reply)

Or a "Lenin"? ..."Stalin"?

#2.4.1.3.1 Zachinoff on 2024-01-22 01:29 (Reply)

BTW: "Nor are the predictions of climate alarmists the same as predictions of climate scientists." It is easy to find factual predictions made by climate "scientists" that are/were wildly wrong. So easy that demanding an example cannot be reasonably taken as an act of good faith.
According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
Do better.

#2.5 James on 2024-01-20 13:11 (Reply)

Z: no argument is valid founded when starting from false premises.

#2.6 Zachriel on 2024-01-20 13:17 (Reply)

James: It is easy to find factual predictions made by climate "scientists" that are/were wildly wrong.

You can find scientists who say all sorts of things. There are is a scientist or two who doubt that birds are theropods. There is probably a scientist or two who think the Earth is flat.

QUOTE:

An appeal to authority is valid when

• The cited authority has sufficient expertise;
• The authority is making a statement within their area of expertise;
• The area of expertise is a valid field of study;
• There is adequate agreement among authorities in the field;
• There is no evidence of undue bias.

The proper argument against a valid appeal to authority is to the evidence.

In this case, there is a strong consensus within climatology and related fields. The skeptics typically only argue on the fringes, rarely publish, and have yet to convince a substantial number of their peers.

#2.7 Zachriel on 2024-01-20 13:24 (Reply)

Try actually reading. The quote is from the head of one of the world's best known global climate research centers. The comment identified him by name and title.
Do better.

#2.7.1 James on 2024-01-20 13:31 (Reply)

BTW, appeal to authority is always a fallacy and never a legitimate argument. The fact that you'll make such a claim is evidence that you're aware your position is weak.

#2.7.2 James on 2024-01-20 13:37 (Reply)

James: The quote is from the head of one of the world's best known global climate research centers.

In what scientific journal has he published that claim? Do the majority of scientists agree with his assessment? Can you at at least provide an original source with context?

James: BTW, appeal to authority is always a fallacy and never a legitimate argument.

Well, that is not correct. While not a valid deductive argument, an appeal to authority can be a valid inductive argument, based on that a consensus of experts in a valid field of study are more likely (but not certain to be) correct about assertions within their field of study than someone outside the field of study. EVERYONE uses appeals to authority—when they go to a medical doctor—when they have a mechanic check out their motor vehicle—when they seek legal advice from an attorney. Otherwise, you would just rely on your pizza delivery guy or bartender for their opinion on that lump growing on your back. Furthermore, every scholarly paper relies on previously established findings. Einstein didn't personally check the Michelson–Morley experiment before proposing his Special Relativity.

James: The fact that you'll make such a claim is evidence that you're aware your position is weak.

Rather, it became an issue because of the original post using off-hand statements found in newspapers from the past as an argument against the consensus of modern scientists using much more advanced means.

#2.7.3 Zachriel on 2024-01-20 14:30 (Reply)

Zach-GPT: "Somebody said something WRONG on the internet!"

Lighten up, Francis.

#2.7.3.1 eeyore on 2024-01-20 15:07 (Reply)

There is NO consensus Francis.
The International Union of Geological Sciences, representing over a million geoscientists, refuses to yield to activist scientists who want to label the period since 1950 as the Anthropocene epoch, largely to boost concern about the supposed human impact on the climate is telling.
It is time to dump DIE subjects from the academic landfill and start teaching geology instead.

And for your benefit http://canadafreepress.com/article/climate-scare-blown-up-by-geology

#2.7.3.2 indyjonesouthere on 2024-01-20 15:58 (Reply)

The post office instituted a program where every letter is photographed where it is first picked up and at the delivery post office. They began this after the infamous anthrax letters so they could prevent and track terrorists acts using the post office. Everything is tracked. If you put 10 Christmas cards in a PO drop box they probably have you on video and do have pictures front and back of your cards. But mysteriously this program was stopped in late October of 2020 and started up again in late November 2020. How in the hell did this critical anti-terrorists program just get shut off like that? Who ordered it? Surely this was investigated to see who did it and why. Did the IG look into it? Did any MSM or reporters cover this story? Why not? They have picture front and back of every Christmas card sent and where it was posted every year. You could still find your card you sent to your aunt in 2010 in their archives but not a single picture of any mail in ballots for the 2020 election. What a strange coincidence. Will they do this again in October of 2024?

#3 JustMe on 2024-01-20 11:02 (Reply)

Green bell peppers are just unripe red bell peppers.
--------------------------
Not exactly - many yellow and orange peppers are varieties bred to sweeten up earlier without changing color. But they do eventually turn red.

There are also peppers that go purple before they go red.

If you want those colors - with reliably good taste - you are better off springing the money for an extra packet of seeds.

#4 Ben David on 2024-01-20 11:22 (Reply)

A Trump presidency is totally dependent on the integrity of the voting system in your state. In MT where we were led by the DEMS for more than 12 years and then turned red in 2016, the Dems have been radically changing the election process. Nothing clean here anymore. They have installed all electronic vote counting demanding that you send in your ballot three weeks ahead of time. In the last two months since the Dems have convinced the Republican leadership in three counties to hire "agreed upon outside experts" to come and count ballots. But first they made the new voting commissioners one each county look completely incompetent. The Republicans were not smart enough to step in and help the newly elected person in charge of running the election in their county to become proficient in their job in time to stop the "outside expert" scheme.
We no longer register by party. Nope are RINOS agreed to that scheme also.
We are still allowed to walk into voting central on election Tuesday and drop off are ballots which is what I planned to do. However, they really hate you doing that--in fact they hate it so much that five days before election day my DH received a message on HIS cell phone. Hello this is your county election authority we have noticed that your wife has not yet mailed in her ballot!! When I asked my local R leadership how/why the happened you know what they said. "Oh both sides are doing that now--we really want you all to vote early so we can work over those who haven't voted yet--maybe we change their minds". Meaning: any democrat or republican can access your record at any time. Name, address, phone number AND--previous party registration (previous to the new system). Yeah baby I really am going to trust the new high tech voting system the D just put into place with the "collaboration" of the RINOS!

#5 facultywife on 2024-01-20 11:49 (Reply)

facultywife: They have installed all electronic vote counting

Montana uses paper ballot and optical scan, one of the most secure systems available. There is a random audit of the ballot count in every precinct. In close elections, a full manual recount can be requested.

#5.1 Zachriel on 2024-01-20 12:13 (Reply)

And, your point is? You did not address the rest of my comments regarding our system. In particular my private information is openly available to any politician, party worker, or ballot counter and they are free to send that information to anyone they choose. In my example, the fact that I had not yet voted was sent to a third party--my husband. I am sure you think that is also a good "service to the voter".

To address your comment in particular. Making sure that the input is read correctly is simple technology today, but that does not complete the process--it only installs information into a technology that will then do with it as humans program it.

#5.1.1 facultywife on 2024-01-20 15:56 (Reply)

facultywife: You did not address the rest of my comments regarding our system.

We addressed checks on the integrity of the ballot system, which doesn’t depend on the machine count. There’s a paper record, manual audits, and a system for manual recounts. As for your registration status, that has always been public record.

#5.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2024-01-20 20:57 (Reply)

You need a "captcha" caption for the photo:

"Click on every square with a Finnish sniper."

#6 Blackwing1 on 2024-01-20 12:45 (Reply)

Simo Hayha
Finnish sniper nicknamed “White Death”
During the Winter War (1939-1940)
Credited with over 500 kills

#6.1 rocdoctom on 2024-01-20 15:14 (Reply)

I assume that when Biden says he is ready to act on the border he says it like Jon Lovitz Master Thespian character "Acting!!"

#7 Martin (Link) on 2024-01-20 13:25 (Reply)

"welfare benefits increased single parenthood to some extent" That is one of those truths that should be self-evident: when you subsidize something you get more of it; when you tax it you get less of it. Not only is there a financial reward to young single women to get pregnant, but they are penalized if the father is around. Pregnancy as a means of self-support is even celebrated by liberals, such as in their 2009 movie, "Precious."

#8 Frank on 2024-01-20 16:23 (Reply)

Cuba's communists blame tiny private sector for their economic mismanagement, hike their taxes 20%

Compare Cuba's milk production with Latin America's milk production.FAO Stats: Crops and livestock products.

QUOTE:

Milk prod, metric tons
1961 2022
Cuba 350,000 372,306
Latin America 18,561,645 87,708,523

Ratio of 2022 milk production to 1961 milk production
Cuba 1.06
Latin America 4.73

While that comparison is disastrous for Cuba, the comparison gets even worse if you compare how Cuba did after the loss of the Soviet sugar daddy. First, look at how Cuba's milk production fared with the 3 decades of Soviet subsidies.

QUOTE:

Milk production
1961 1989
Cuba 350,000 1,131,400
Latin America 18,561,645 40,695,261

With Soviet Union assistance, Cuba's increase in milk production surpassed Latin America's milk production.

Ratio of 1989 milk production to 1961 milk production
Cuba 3.23
Latin America 2.19

Cuba accomplished this increase mainly by importing corn from the Soviet Union.

After 1989, Cuba's milk production went into freefall.

QUOTE:

Milk production
1989 2022
Cuba 1,131,400 372,306
Latin America 40,695,261 87,708,523

Ratio of 2022 milk production to 1989 milk production
Cuba 0.36
Latin America 2.16

From 1989 to 2022, Cuba's milk production declined 64%.

Also note that the 1989/1961 and 2022/1989 production ratios for Latin America stayed roughly the same- 2.19 to 2.16, whereas there was an incredible drop for Cuba's 1989/1961 to 2022/1998 ratios: 3.23/.33, a ratio of 9.8 to 1.

What went wrong? With the loss of free-as-dirt corn from the Soviet Union, Cuba needed to get another food source for its cattle. One consequence of the loss of Soviet subsidies was that Cuban sugar had to compete on the world market. It didn't do well. The logical thing to do with the land that no longer produced sugar would have been to convert it to either cattle pasture or corn to feed the cattle. Instead, the former sugar land lay fallow and got invaded by marabu weed. (Though there is also an article on the failures of Cuban agriculture: "It isn't just the marabu.")

So much for socialist agriculture, or having Fidel run everything.

#9 Gringo on 2024-01-20 16:23 (Reply)

So it's been a couple of years since Trudeau seized the bank accounts and did other terrible things to the truckers who were peacefully protesting his draconian covid policies that have now been proven to be all wrong. Has he apologized yet? Has the Canadian government taken any steps to make sure no other tyrannical could ever repeat Trudeau's actions? Were any of the Mounties punished for their violence to those Canadian citizens? Did the Canadian government take any steps to make sure that their police/Mounties could never again trample their citizens freedoms and rights like that again? I know a lot of Canadians and see a lot of them socially everyday. All of them, 100% have docilly accepted this from their government.

#10 OneGuy on 2024-01-20 18:08 (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

Saturday, January 20. 2024

Saturday morning links