Maggie's FarmWe 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
Categories
QuicksearchLinks
Blog Administration |
Saturday, April 20. 2024Saturday morning linksClimate Worries Are Non-Credible, Luxury Beliefs That Harm Civilization Itself Could EVs Compete In A True Free Market? Equitable Grading? Student Suspended After Anti-Israel Protest Complains About Facing Consequences for Her Actions Stuart's Saturday Miscellany Democrats Move to Strip Trump of Secret Service Protection Wikipedia had to censor its encyclopedia to make it more free. Are Iran’s Nine Lives Nearing an End? Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
QUOTE: Climate Worries Are Non-Credible, Luxury Beliefs That Harm Civilization Itself . . . Through all of them {major events}, as tumultuous as they seemed at the time and as relevant as they remain in the political consciousness, the world’s total energy consumption is a straight line through all of it. It's actually non-linear, with a short section looking like a straight line. See History of Global Energy Consumption. What is actually happening is that energy use has increased as the global population has increased. In fact, per capital energy consumption has been flat since the 1970s, even though much of the world has recently begun to industrialize. See History of Per Capita Energy Consumption. QUOTE: You can throw government money at it, pass laws, or pontificate in the high courts, legislative auditoriums, or the public square, but you’re just not changing that. You can’t change that. And yet, change has occurred. Biomass used to be the primary energy source until industrialization. Per capita energy use has leveled off even as more people enjoy the fruits of industrialization. The world's population will likely level off this century. Humans built the energy infrastructure, and most of that infrastructure gets replaced every generation or so, so there's no reason the energy infrastructure can't be updated over time. CO2 has nothing to do with government climate change... that is merely a control mechanism for the admin state.
Actual temperature changes are quite adaptable. Even retirees can do it. QUOTE: Wikipedia had to censor its encyclopedia to make it more free. Didn't read her comments in the short video extract that way. Rather, she seems to be saying that the concept of "free and open" wasn't actually free and open, but that it tended to exclude many peoples and cultures. So, for instance, requiring references from written literature excluded verbal traditions, or such articles had to rely on written discussions of verbal traditions made by outsiders, typically western writers. You say "oral history," the lawyers say "hearsay." Good oral histories get published with bibliographies.
Mike Anderson: You say "oral history," the lawyers say "hearsay."
A writer in the West writing about oral history from a distant culture is the actual hearsay, complete with the writer's misrememberings, preconceptions, and misinterpretations. "it tended to exclude many peoples and cultures"
I remember watching the video Shaka Zulu. It was fascinating. I didn't observe it from the position of English colonization or some negative view of indigenous cultures. I just enjoyed learning the history and events even knowing, as in everything cinematic, that some things were not accurate or were intentionally changed for the purposes of the telling of a story. But now in the woke light of today I recognize that the Zulu were incredible racists because they tended to exclude many people and culture. Oh sure you could argue that at the time of those events they didn't know but that is just some excuse by racists, according to the woke of today. It got me thinking... The native Americans also tended to exclude many people and culture too. No mention of the Romans or the Celts in their culture. What racists they were, by the modern woke standards of course. You know! The standards that require historical works to have recognized and exalted "people and culture" that they knew nothing about EVEN though they were simply writing about a people and culture that they DID know something about. But that is of no matter to the woke. All that matters is their own racism/biases and how they can make it appear that others were racist/biased. It is a great game; wokeness, don't have to be correct, don't have to follow logic or reason, just spew hate towards those "people and cultures" you dislike. Accuse others of the very racism that drives your own wokeness. Wokeness is a hate crime! OneGuy: I didn't observe it from the position of English colonization or some negative view of indigenous cultures.
None of that addresses the point raised, which was that a supposedly neutral viewpoint can still be exclusionary. The climate grift is, well, a grift. Nothing more nothing less. It is in fact warming because about 1850 we peaked in the mini ice age and it inevitably warmed. Thank god! The cold and wet weather during the ice age reduced harvests, contributed to a fungus on stored foods that created the which scare and numerous Eastern European bizarre events. And the weather contributed to plagues that are still notable in Europe's history. We are living in an ideal climate, perhaps even need a little more warming to help all living things. And ironically the ice age decreased the CO2 in the atmosphere to the extent that it inhibited plant growth so thank god it is slowly coming back to more normal levels. All in all the end of the mini ice age and the inevitable warming was a godsend.
The real problem is the grift. Billions funneled off to billionaires and other countries. What we need is a massive investigation into who profited by this grift. A massive forensic audit where everyone who participated in diverting public and private funds is exposed and goes to jail. All of the fake scientists who lied and faked the data to get grants need to go to jail. All of the people who created, backed and paid for the demonstrations need to go to jail. All of the manufacturers installers and money men of solar and wind programs need to go to jail. End the grift, punish the grifters. OneGuy: It is in fact warming because about 1850 we peaked in the mini ice age and it inevitably warmed.
Simply saying it's warmed because the mini-ice age ended is just a tautology: It's warm because it's no longer cold. To make it a non-tautological claim, you could reference an actual mechanism to explain the warming. There are a number of reasons for removing Speaker McCarthy and many of those same reasons may well lead to removing Speaker Johnson. One example is the release of the J6 tapes. Both speakers promised to release those tapes and put sunlight on the J6 event. Release everything let the truth speak for itself. But the Democrats can't have that because they have lied and hidden evidence and conspired to punish innocent citizens with the full force and power of the federal government. The truth won't set the Democrat congressmen free it will expose them for the criminals they are.
Sadly there is no solution to this that will benefit the citizens. If Johnson is ousted it is likely that the enemies of the state will exploit the chaos to further their goal of destroying America. Many will blame Gaetz or MTG but that would miss the obvious. McCarthy should have followed through with his promises and he didn't. Johnson should follow through with his promises and he didn't. The blame falls on their shoulders and not on the few Republican patriots trying to get the truth out to the American citizens. The Biden administration has just modified title IX to allow men to play in women's sports. It is the law now. It is interesting that the Dems actually chose the legislation that was intended to protect women's sports to harm women and women's sports. If this were just some old far left tone deaf politicians doing stupid stuff that would be still stupid but reparable. That is not what this is; this is an intentional act by pedophiles and lunatics to mainstream pedophilia and lunacy. Why would all of the Democrats jump in the lunatic bandwagon? Simple; the lunatics will all vote and they will all vote Democrat. The Democrats want absolute power and they will sell anything, give anything including their self-respect to get that power. They want that power to destroy our country and loot it in the chaos. The Democrats are literally the enemies of our state.
There is no political solution to this state supported pedophilia problem. The solution is for states and municipalities to take a page from the DC court system and charge anyone who exposes themselves young women or enters their bathrooms and locker rooms to spy on them. Charge them and send them to jail. OneGuy: The Biden administration has just modified title IX to allow men to play in women's sports.
Biden Title IX rules set to protect trans students, survivors of abuse: The administration’s regulations offer protections for transgender students, but do not address athletics Biden dismantles Trump-era Title IX rules, sidesteps issue of trans athletes in girls' sports opps! You forgot to tell us all why from your position on high, why we shouldn't prosecute any man dressed as a woman who enters a women's bathroom or changing room. We all are breathlessly awaiting your wisdom.
“Trans” people are merely people who are pretending to be of the opposite sex. They may believe they are that sex, they may wish they were that sex, or in the case of men posing as women, they may be taking advantage of the opportunity to compete in sports against women who will likely be at a disadvantage to them and/or take advantage of the opportunity to share changing and showering facilities to have access to women in compromising situations for any number of nefarious reasons.
Their beliefs, desires, feelings, or attitudes don’t change anything anymore than beliefs, feelings, or attitudes change any other reality. mudbug: “Trans” people are merely people who are pretending to be of the opposite sex.
Do you think that if someone has an XY chromosome then their gender necessarily must be male? Do you think a person with a penis is a male?
#5.1.2.1.1
mudbug
on
2024-04-20 14:03
(Reply)
mudbug: Do you think a person with a penis is a male?
Most of the time, but about 1 in 2,000 births have ambiguous genitalia. And that's just considering biological sex not gender. Why did you avoid answering? Do you think that if someone has an XY chromosome then their gender necessarily must be male?
#5.1.2.1.2
Zachriel
on
2024-04-20 14:22
(Reply)
The admin state determining what a women is when the most recent SCOTUS judge can't make the definition. All hail the admin state.
#5.1.2.1.2.1
indyjonesouthere
on
2024-04-20 15:23
(Reply)
You keep bringing up chromosomes and people with ambiguous genitalia and you know that is not the issue. The new Tittle IX rules say nothing about those issues because those are not the issues. The Biden administration and other and trans activists are forcing women to share dressing and showering spaces with men who "identify" as women. Those men are still men regardless how they "identify" themselves and you've offered no evidence or logic to the contrary because there is none. There are kids who identify as dogs and cats. Does that make them dogs and cats?
Is Lia Thomas a woman or a man?
#5.1.2.1.2.2
mudbug
on
2024-04-20 15:27
(Reply)
It's because it's using the Motte and Bailey fallacy to argue with you. Is it worth your time?
#5.1.2.1.2.2.1
eeyore
on
2024-04-21 10:05
(Reply)
eeyore: It's because it's using the Motte and Bailey fallacy
It's not a fallacy to point out that the new Title IX rules do not address athletics, contrary to the original comment; or to point out that the statement "'Trans' people are merely people who are pretending to be of the opposite sex" is a gross overgeneralization. It's now the law for me to share a restroom with your wife.
#5.1.2.1.2.2.2
Zachriel
on
2024-04-21 10:15
(Reply)
mudbug: You keep bringing up chromosomes and people with ambiguous genitalia and you know that is not the issue. The new Tittle IX rules say nothing about those issues because those are not the issues.
They are issues for the people who have those traits, people for whom you don’t make allowances. Also, they represent just the most obvious categories, but there are many other people who don’t fit your narrow ideas about gender. They don’t cease to exist because you refuse to acknowledge their existence.
#5.1.2.1.2.3
Zachriel
on
2024-04-20 17:21
(Reply)
From Barnhardt memes found at WRSA...
Current world population:8,025,718,113 People born from women:8,025,718,113 People born from men: 0 Feel free to fact check
#5.1.2.1.2.3.1
indyjonesouthere
on
2024-04-20 19:29
(Reply)
And, in one post, you explain why I am an idiot for even engaging you. Who are these people with chromosome abnormalities or ambiguous genitalia who are being discriminated against and where have I ever said I don't make allowances for them.
You are either a fool or intellectually dishonest or both (I vote for both) to continue to claim that the trans "movement" is about chromosomes and ambiguous genitalia. I noticed that you didn't quote the part in the new Title IX rules that address those people. Here's a quote from the new rules: QUOTE: The Department’s proposed regulations will also strengthen protections for LGBTQI+ students by clarifying that Title IX’s protections against discrimination based on sex apply to discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. We all know, including you, that "gender identity" means that we all can self identify as whatever gender you want and has nothing to do with chromosomes or genitalia. (as an aside, people who are considered for "gender reassignment surgery" are not tested for chromosome or genital abnormalities.) Note also that the new rules do not mention chromosomes or intersex. I've been consistent in my opposition to the idea that someone can identify as something they are not and the rest of us have to play along with his fantasy and that it should even be ensconced in law. You, however, have failed to even say whether Lia Thomas is a man or a woman and instead argue about chromosomes and ambiguous genitalia. So you're a liar and not worth the time it took for me to type my first reply let alone the rest and except for possible comedic purposes, there's no reason to spend the time to read your posts.
#5.1.2.1.2.3.2
mudbug
on
2024-04-20 21:01
(Reply)
mudbug: We all know, including you, that "gender identity" means that we all can self identify as whatever gender you want and has nothing to do with chromosomes or genitalia.
Except that, for many trans people, there are specific known physiological reasons they identify as a different gender than their birth sex. The psychological complexity of gender expression related to hormonal balance and other unknown factors may also impact many individuals. The old system was to beat up sissies and other non-conforming gender identities, so this isn’t something new. You had said, “‘Trans’ people are merely people who are pretending to be of the opposite sex.” But that is a gross overgeneralization, as we have repeatedly pointed out to you.
#5.1.2.1.2.3.2.1
Zachriel
on
2024-04-20 21:51
(Reply)
Why do you and others keep arguing with this nimrod? All you're doing is encouraging him.
#5.1.2.1.2.3.2.2
Maniac
on
2024-04-21 07:29
(Reply)
Why would we use law to normalize freak genetic mutations or developmental accidents?
#5.1.2.1.2.4
ruralcounsel
on
2024-04-21 13:38
(Reply)
ruralcounsel: Why would we use law to normalize freak genetic mutations or developmental accidents?
Why would you think it is just to discriminate in the provision of public services against people for what they are?
#5.1.2.1.2.4.1
Zachriel
on
2024-04-21 14:11
(Reply)
Or for what they THINK they are? Pretending seems to be a progressive/marxist preoccupation.
#5.1.2.1.2.4.1.1
indyjonesouthere
on
2024-04-21 14:27
(Reply)
Re: Stuart’s Substack…
The psychiatry department, at UCLA, is now promoting self-immolation as the next wonderful thing. This from a talk on Depathologizing Resistance. Depathologizing. Only a phd could come up with such a term. Of course, only the correct resistance should be depathologized. For instance, resisting their lunacy is not the resistance they are talking about. They want you to resist the norms of western civilization. I wonder sometimes if psychology has been a net positive for humanity? Granted, it’s a field I know very little about. The horror stories that emerge from the field from, all your actions are predicted from the secret lust you hold for your opposite sex parent, lobotomies, electrical shock treatment, gender is a construct, and now self-immolation. I’m sure I didn’t list a quarter of the bad things that have emerged. First, do no harm, seems like a good thing to keep in mind. But how do you convince a phd that suicide is a bad thing? Self erasure promoted by government seems to be the recent fad encouraged by Canadian and European expert classes. With government budget crunches it seems to be the way to a more balanced budget.
Yet here we are illegally importing ever more third worlders as cheap replacements for the Chamber of Commerce corporatists crying in their beer over inflationary pressures driven by endless bailouts of corporatists and student loan participants, neither of which seem to understand responsibilities. Equitable Grading?
The push from the principal at the majority-minority school where I taught math for one year was to do all you could to give a passing grade. Which means that lazybones got promoted, and also did poorly on the standardized statewide test. A math teacher at a neighboring majority-minority middle school gave out flunking grades to a third of his students the first marking period. That was also his first year teaching. His students got the message. They ended up doing very well on the standardized statewide test. Definitely the best in his school, and maybe the best in a majority-minority school. Don't remember. After teaching 2-3 years, he took his talents to the tech industry. More money, less aggravation. Students are not stupid. Many find out what the bare minimum to get by is, and calibrate their efforts to that bare minimum. I taught when computer application to teaching was in the beginning stages. I wasn't even aware of spreadsheets. If I had to do it over again, I would post weekly and maybe even daily grades. Much easier to do with a spreadsheet. That way students get quick feedback. It is the Marxist theory applied to education. If they can't or won't learn then give them the diploma anyway. It is a terrible disservice to our children. It actually isn't difficult to teach children from age about 2 to about 13. They love learning, love pleasing the adult and are eager to interact. You can teach everything any adult will ever need to be successful in life to a child before they are 13 years old. How to read and write, do math, know history, understand how the government works and what their place in society is. Not calculus or advanced math, not physics or chemistry. But everything they need to know to succeed in life. The next 5 years spent in school, as our education system is designed, is a waste of time for 95% of students. They don't learn much more and yet those 5 years could be spent teaching them a trade or real life useful skills. But it isn't. It is essentially teen babysitting with some sports and meeting the opposite sex thrown into the mix.
We need to fix it. We could easily fix it. I mean it isn't difficult to understand what needs to be done and the actual changes would be easy to implement. There is however one very large impediment; the unions. The unions give money and votes to politicians and the politicians give power to the unions and the hell with the kids. End the unions and put actual educators in charge and fix it. The American system of K-12 education is broken. re Democrats Move to Strip Trump of Secret Service Protection
The dems desire to kill Trump is becoming less subtle. I think there is a real chance they will get him. It will be interesting to see who votes for passing this.
Q: """ It will be interesting to see who votes for passing this""".
A: Zachriel's soul mates feeblemind: Democrats Move to Strip Trump of Secret Service Protection
It's important to note that the bill would only apply to those who have been convicted of a felony and imprisoned. Ulithi: Zachriel's soul mates Uh, no. The bill is ill-thought. Secret Service protection isn't just meant to protect the individual but also protects the United States. As the bill has no chance of passage, it was clearly introduced for its political messaging. "the bill would only apply to those who have been convicted of a felony and imprisoned."
Does that include convictions of innocent people by kangaroo courts, corrupt judges and lawfare prosecutors? Is that really where the left wants to take us? OneGuy: Does that include convictions of innocent people by kangaroo courts, corrupt judges and lawfare prosecutors?
It's a proposed United States law, so it would only apply in the United States, a rule of law country with an independent judiciary. The imprisoned convict would already be under 24-hour guard. OneGuy: Is that really where the left wants to take us? As already noted, the bill is ill-thought, nor is it meant as a serious proposal, but as a political statement. You also paint "the left" with too broad a brush. "You also paint "the left" with too broad a brush."
The "left" is communist or communist sympathizers or useful idiots. They want to destroy the constitution and destroy our Republic. You cannot be too critical of them.
#8.1.2.2.1
OneGuy
on
2024-04-21 12:36
(Reply)
You seem to be diverting from your own point. In any case,
OneGuy: The "left" is communist or communist sympathizers or useful idiots. So, you are using a "special" definition. You might want to qualify your use of the term, such as saying "some on the far left". The left is a wide spectrum of thought.
#8.1.2.2.2
Zachriel
on
2024-04-21 12:52
(Reply)
Was Justice Scalia assassinated? New evidence implicates Podesta in a hit contract to kill him. It was a last minute decision as part of the "insurance" against a Trump win. Would our government assassinate a Supreme Court Justice who supported the constitution and was thus thwarting their agenda to turn us into a communist country?
"The left is a wide spectrum of thought."
Yes! That's what I said: "The "left" is communist or communist sympathizers or useful idiots." That's their spectrum of thought. I'm sure most of the useful idiots would be insulted to be called communist or communist sympathizers and then promptly go out and vote for Biden or Hillary, which makes them useful idiots. OneGuy: That's their spectrum of thought.
Well, no. The left-right political spectrum divides the political universe dichotomously, so is inclusive a much wider variety of thought than you acknowledge. Generally, the left advocates for a more egalitarian society, while the right advocates for a hierarchical society or at least for preserving existing hierarchies. The left can vary from radical communism to simply advocating for greater equality before the law, depending on the existing social structures. The right is also a wide spectrum. What a load of crap. We have equality what the left advocates for is special treatment to identity groups. They try to get hate laws passed to allow them to unconstitutionally enforce those special treatment rules and laws. The left is all commies and commie boot lickers. And you can stick that up your dichotomous ass. Actually I would pay to watch that.
OneGuy: The left is all commies and commie boot lickers.
Got it. You are not using terms as they are found in the dictionary, encyclopedia, or even a political science glossary. Unfortunately, we have misplaced our secret, right-wing decoder ring. You may want to refer to one of the aforementioned resources. Left/Right is a French parliament definition. The typical Vichy fascists vs the typical Mitterrand marxists. Leave the usual European socialist definitions to Euro use. It's does not apply here except by socialist academics.
In the US it is authoritarian socialist vs anarchists. One seeks to micromanage lives while the other denies all use of government. I'm quite happy with banning the admin state to save us from micromanagement while allowing only modest federal interference in our lives. Back to founding fathers size government. |