home

Saturday Morning Open Thread

Playoffs. NFL. They start today. In the afternoon game, the Jets travel to Cincy. Cincy is a 2.5 point favorite. the Jets demolished the Bengals last week, 37-0. The Jets are an emptional roller coaster team. They are up now. I like the Jets (+2.5).

In another rematch game, the Cowboys again host the Iggles. The Eagles are resilient. I think they bounce back from having been swept by the Boys. I like the Iggles (+3.5) tonight.

This is an Open Thread.

Update: This thread got trashed by a few commenters. It's closing and being cleaned.

< Monday: Denver City Council to Decide Rules For Medical Marijuana Dispensaries | The Top Bad Guys in AQAP in Yemen >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Malcolm X speaks (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by lentinel on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 11:11:13 AM EST
    A person identifying him/herself as dtc1999 on Huffington Post
    printed this quote from Malcolm X.

    Malcolm was commenting on the occasion of Martin Luther King receiving the Nobel Peace Prize.

    He got the peace prize, and we got the problem.. ... If I'm following a general, and he's leading me into a battle, and the enemy tends to give him rewards, or awards, I get suspicious of him. Especially if he gets a peace award before the war is over.

    I cannot believe how relevant that quote is regarding Mr. Obama and his Nobel. One deep genius, that Malcolm.


    I Read Krugman So You Don't Have To Part I (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Dan the Man on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 12:09:37 PM EST
    Krugman explains the awesomeness of the current bill:
    "So you have to back community rating up with an individual mandate: people must be required to purchase insurance even if they don't currently think they need it."

    Yves Smith explains the awfulness of the current bill:

    "Contrary to what some would like to believe, it does not establish a right to health care. It establishes a duty to buy health insurance. Those are not at all the same. There is no assurance in this bill that insurers will not deny coverage or delay payments as they do now, and no provisions to deal with the strain on the system (likely de facto rationing) when millions of now-uninsured can afford at least some level insurance. The health care version of the now-standard Obama bait and switch tactic could lead not just to curtailment of the new plan, but could easily become the poster child for an even bigger push to cut other entitlement programs, even ones that are functioning well."

    Obama says that there will be (none / 0) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 12:19:09 PM EST
    a place to air denial grievances.  What sort of place though?  Who runs it?  How can I be certain that this panel will represent my son's interests and hasn't sold out to the corporate money too?  What is there in any of this legislation that is a certainty other than we will all be forced to buy something?

    Parent
    This is a very good question. (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by EL seattle on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 01:55:14 PM EST
    Not everyone will have grievances every time.  But if we're talking about a new "independent" system that will a.) ultimately serve hundreds of millions of people, and b.) address grievenances that are more complicated than a simple misspelling on an address label, there will have to be a lot of people involved nation-wide for the accurate processing and timely resolution of these grievances.  Setting up a system like this that actually works effectively won't be cheap.

    Parent
    And for those of us with REAL insurance (none / 0) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 02:21:52 PM EST
    problems right now, the systematic denial is the biggest problem we all face when we are talking life and death.  After that, if you get to live....the financial ruin comes next.  The President's flimsy disgusting promise during his weekly address means nothing to me at this time.  This man has broken every major promise he made to me so far other than an escalation of war in Afghanistan and he does not give two chits about breaking his promises to me.

    Parent
    Yr fed gummint solution (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Cream City on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 02:28:06 PM EST
    sounds like something is coming your way soon:

    A Festivus Pole!

    So that everyone can gather 'round and air their grievances, and then you won't be able to say that your gummint didn't do anything for you.

    And heck, Festivus Poles for all would cost a lot less than what our gummint is proposing.

    Parent

    Marco Rubio's campaign slogan (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by ruffian on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 12:35:24 PM EST
    in the FL Republican senatorial race:

    The Great Right Hope

    I'm not kidding. Stay classy, Marco.

    The Only Chance (none / 0) (#27)
    by CoralGables on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 01:47:57 PM EST
    the Dems have in Florida is for Marco to be the GOP nominee. He is from the teabagger wing of the GOP. Even then it may not matter if we can't find someone to run on the Dem side that has a little bit of statewide name recognition.

    Parent
    BTD Gator Update (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by CoralGables on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 03:13:44 PM EST
    The Gators received verbal commitments from three 5 Star recruits today. All play defense.

    Uh Oh there is hope (none / 0) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 03:18:59 PM EST
    The dude who always does happy birthday Jesus on top of his house and drives me nuts took down all of his lights now.  He still has lights on the roof though, but he changed those.  They now read Roll Tide #1

    Parent
    If the Tide losses next year (none / 0) (#58)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 03:20:42 PM EST
    I'm back to Jesus and his birthday though all Christmas long.

    Parent
    But, but... (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 08:15:13 PM EST
    ...he's a social liberal!!!11!

    Good God. (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 01:40:32 PM EST
    This stuff is high school level science. No scientist would say that a theory can be proven. Scientists don't 'prove' anything. They refute things. And by throwing data at theories and failing to refute them, theories become more or less well corroborated.

    This stuff is so old, it's not even worth talking about.

    Trying reading some basic science or even one of the thousands of words written on the demarcation of religion and science.

    Religious belief cannot be refuted; scientific hypotheses can.

    I don't know why any of us engage in this, except boredom I guess:)

    Okay (none / 0) (#120)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 02:36:19 PM EST
    And by throwing data at theories and failing to refute them, theories become more or less well corroborated.

    The question is, who gets to decide what has been corroborated?

    When you are talking pure science, fine. But if you are a scientist then you know man made global warning's theory has many skeptics among scientists.

    And why do man made global warming believers all act like preachers? Could it be that it is more like religion than science?

    Yes. It. Could. Be.

    Parent

    ha ha Josh is staying the night elsewhere (none / 0) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 10:49:59 AM EST
    what drivel (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by The Last Whimzy on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 11:43:42 AM EST
    i can't believe people make a living writing inane crap like that.  booman, i mean, of course.

    this doesn't have to be that complex.

    activism and good government are two fundamentally distinct activities.

    but unfortunately, an activist has to believe that what they agitate for will lead to good government, and yes, activists have good ideas, so there remains a persistent and continual inability to separate these two fundamentally different activities.

    anyway.  before obama won the election, these two fundamentally different things were forced into separate camps, folks inside (politicians, beltway pundits) and outside the gate (activists).

    now obama won, gate crashers crashed, and activism and good government is being confused daily, talked about interchangeably, leading to lengthy fits of rationalization.  see booman above.

    this has nothing to do with a vacuum left behind by the collapse of the right.

    this is a dynamic that happens everytime, and has happened repeatedly throughout history when "movements" build up a myth of a leadership icon (in this case, obama), take up residence inside the gates, and then spend the next decade trying to figure out why things didn't work out the way they planned.

    now, as a bystander i can amuse myself as the drama plays out, but there's a practical issue at stake.  time and energy is wasted.  i think if you looked at how things are playing out, we'd rather not have had a crashing of the gates, let politicians be politicians (letting us down all the time), and let us be activists.

    at the very least the clinton admin proved that you can have a functioning, reasonably successful government with the gates firmly locked tight.

    and if i remember correctly, activists were actually happier being activists, knowing where they stand, etc.


    Parent

    You know what's funny? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 11:57:41 AM EST
    If we go by the super duper Booman playbook, nothing ever changes because there is no reason for it to change.  If people don't like what is happening to them and around them they have to say so and they have to vote so.  And bloggers need to write about what is WRONG, not attempt to string together long pretty necklaces of scattershot so they can find some nominal feel good to distract from reality.

    Parent
    i know i know (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by The Last Whimzy on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 12:11:35 PM EST
    and after i get over how annoyed i get, of course booman isn't a "writer of drivel" or even a hypocrite (lesser crime: guilty of petty  contradictions) writing about what is WRONG when convenient and firing off scattershot rationalizations as convenient per se, but all that was just a waste of time.

    he'll never get back the time he spent writing it and but there is some value i'm sure.  for people like markos and booman and others, having led people astray, and because there is presently nothing at all that can be done about it, there is, perhaps, a moral compunction to at least attempt to make people feel good about where they have been led.


    Parent

    My interpretation via (none / 0) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 10:56:00 AM EST
    La Feministing.  No shotguns needed to make sense of things.

    Parent
    "The Hurt Locker" (none / 0) (#4)
    by lentinel on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 11:13:26 AM EST
    Has anyone seen "The Hurt Locker"?

    I just did and found it to be absolutely stunning.

    I have to avoid war films right now (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 11:28:18 AM EST
    particularly films about current situations.  I did go see 'Inglourious Basterds' though and was fine with what it's revenge adaptation of a genocide and war long over.  I can't silence art, I would never want to either.  I'm not ready for this kind of art though because sometimes when I have seen certain shows like "Generation Kill", they do depict certain realities but I feel like it is war porn at the same time and war porn scares me.  I think it can distort the image of protection that Americans feel is around them or not around them in a lot of unhealthy ways.  I can watch documentaries about the current situations though.

    Parent
    "Hurt Locker" is (none / 0) (#6)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 11:40:09 AM EST
    Academy Award material, for sure.  Kathryn Bigelow should be appropriately recognized for her direction.   The movie will be released on DVD through Netflix on Jan 15.

    Parent
    I just looked at the 10 day forecast (none / 0) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 11:51:27 AM EST
    down here, and it isn't looking great for this region.  Last spring I went to an Atlanta dog show and it was very cold for this region then too.  Many of the exhibitors who show there every year were talking about how what was happening was part of the new climate change.  It was an outdoor show that is covered in case of rain.  There is nothing available for heat though and nothing was ever needed.  That was Atlanta though, not where I live....where most people still say that climate change is a make believe issue.  When we first moved here and the huge hurricanes hit, a lot of people around here looked shell shocked.  And then it passed as we did not get a repeat season, so it was brushed off as a fluke then two years down the road, and climate change is still bullsnot.  I hung out with some local friends last night though for a bit, one who is an avid hunter, and they are scared again.  They have that shell shocked look again.  And nobody wants to talk about the weather because maybe there is something to this climate change thing and they went around here for years and years laughing in the face of it.  The houses here are not built to tolerate these temps for long.  Many many pipes will be freezing in the future if this is the new future during the winter months.  And my God, I died going to the beach this summer.  We were just about burned alive.  It got so hot it wasn't fun anymore.

    35 and sleeting here in Orlando (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by ruffian on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 12:01:17 PM EST
    Wish it would snow, just so I could see it happen!

    Next year I am going someplace warm for the winter.

    Parent

    Also, I have friends in town to run (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by ruffian on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 12:06:27 PM EST
    the Disney Marathon this weekend. They did the half-marathon this morning. Started at 6 am or so after a sub-freezing night! Not sure what the temp was when they started, but it was only in the 30's when I woke up at 7:30. No one expects that in Orlando in January.  I felt sorry for them - they came from Denver only to find worse weather here. I went to the park with them yesterday and it was very strange to see people bundled up in winter clothes at Disneyworld.

     I heard that Disney had to send someone out to a local store to buy more gloves that they could sell at the park. I'm sure there was no markup ;-)

    Parent

    Ont he bright side.... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by ruffian on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 12:10:11 PM EST
    The Mt. Everest mountain finally looked accurate and not plunked sown int he middle of a tropical paradise!

    Parent
    I know someone who flew down (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by nycstray on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 12:37:05 PM EST
    for that. If you guys aren't getting the winds we are, it will feel pretty warm, lol!~

    Parent
    Scientific fact (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by waldenpond on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 12:36:33 PM EST
    My son came home on Thursday angry with his high school econ teacher... says he keeps expressing his political views as fact.  I called the teacher at my sons request and asked he tone down the political rhetoric and allow debate.  He asked about what... I asked if he denigrates unions and if he discussed climate change.... the teacher interrupted me to declare in a loud voice that 'It is scientific FACT there is no such thing as climate change!'  Oy.  My son went back to class and left when the teacher started up again.  My son insisted on new teachers for next semester and I didn't even get a call from the principal because my son cussed at the teacher on his way out.  Seventeen is so fun.

    Parent
    Well, sure, it's some scientist's fact (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Cream City on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 02:05:13 PM EST
    but then there are those other scientists' facts.  The problem clearly is that this teacher is not truly a scientist, i.e., one with an inquiring mind and commitment to the scientific process of inquiry, which always ought to include consideration of all "facts," theories, etc.

    So he's not a scientist, and is he even a teacher?  A teacher against unions?  Against all the benefits that AFT has won for him?  In sum, he's a fool.

    However, your son is anything but a fool, and he not only has a brain but also guts.  So he will do well in college (if he finds the right college for him and his mind and guts) and in life, while his former "science" "teacher" is stuck in some other century. :-)

    Parent

    Sounds like the teacher (none / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 02:47:14 PM EST
    has a very inquiring mind... He just doesn't agree with your inquiring mind...

    Oh wait. Carbon dioxide levels are increasing.

    Aren't they? Well...... no.

    To assess whether the airborne fraction is indeed increasing, Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.

    In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.

    Science Daily.

    Parent

    I think you still don't get it (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Cream City on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 03:08:19 PM EST
    in terms of how scientific inquiry really is done.

    An inquiring mind is required to inquire into all of the theories, facts, etc.  And so is a teacher.

    Parent

    I think he means (none / 0) (#55)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 03:18:43 PM EST
    enquirer minds, not inquiring minds...

    Parent
    That is (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Cream City on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 03:10:35 PM EST
    a good teacher ought to do so.

    Your preference apparently is otherwise.  Interesting.

    Parent

    I think I'm hungry (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 03:16:17 PM EST
    I read Wolfgang Knorr and all I can think about is hollandaise sauce.

    Parent
    Sarcasm is not your strong point (2.00 / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 04:35:53 PM EST
    Re-read what I wrote...

    Parent
    I heart your son (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 12:46:08 PM EST
    I ended up finishing high school at a private school because my Drivers Ed teacher kept talking about how female drivers shouldn't get an insurance break, they weren't safer.  They drove around with their heads up their arses and everyone ended up crashing in heaps behind them.  Then there was a more disgusting incident where he would not allow me to go to the restroom to attend to "women stuff" deliberately.  I walked out that day.  I was suspended.  We went to the school board.  They believed him.  I did not ask any of the other kids though to be a witness, that's a lot to ask in such a closed system as it was then.  Wish we had more recording devices back then.

    Parent
    MT, I gotta ask (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 01:15:50 PM EST
    this... and yes the teacher was wrong... but isn't that profiling??

    Parent
    Is what profiling? (none / 0) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 01:38:17 PM EST
    Saying females are safer drivers (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 02:41:15 PM EST
    I don't know Jim (none / 0) (#41)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 02:43:10 PM EST
    Why don't you ask who says that?  I don't say that. I just know I'm not running around causing everyone to crash behind me because I have a vagina.

    Parent
    You weren't angry that the teacher (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 02:53:59 PM EST
    was disagreeing with the insurance companies profile that girls were better drivers?

    Well, it sounds that way.

    BTW - If I remember correctly someone sued the insurance companies over this because they weren't charging the same premiums...girls got lower prices than boys.

    The insurance companies just gave up and put the girls in the same risk pool as the boys and guess what...

    Everyone's premiums went up.

    Now guess what's gonna happen over pre-existing conditions?

    ;-) ;-(

    Parent

    No, I was angry that the teacher (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 03:06:14 PM EST
    took something that insurance companies did and made it about how stupid people with vaginas are Jim.  Unfortunately the moment he saw me physically bristle I was his favorite target after that.  I ran into him when I was about 23 and he told me smuggly that it looked like I had grown up to be a fine young woman.  I agreed with him but told him I was not the fine young woman he would have ever wanted me to be.  He obviously hated women to begin with, his wife was well known as a battered woman years later when people came out of the dark about such things in Wyoming (it took awhile)....but he had obviously found something new to hate women for and I don't need to hear crap like that when I'm sixteen years old.  How can that be that hard to grasp Jim?  Funny thing about my dad, he understood women's rights very well so I knew exactly what I was listening to even as a sixteen year old.  I often don't know how my dad was also such a Tiger Woods at the same time...five failed marriages because who could put up with him :)  Maybe he just loves ALL women A LOT and he can't have just one chip.

    Parent
    Uh, my comment remains (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 04:46:24 PM EST
    sounds like you were angry at the teacher for disagreeing with the insurance companies profiling females as better drivers than boys.

    I see nothing wrong with... profiling works.

    Parent

    I don't care about what the teacher (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 05:32:41 PM EST
    thinks about profiling or you for that matter Jim.  He beat up women for fun.

    Parent
    MT (1.00 / 0) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 07:05:36 PM EST
    My comment wasn't about him beating or not beating...

    Parent
    I am always happy to have you tell (none / 0) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 11:31:54 PM EST
    people what I said.

    Couldn't get a date tonight, eh?

    Parent

    Too bad the teacher (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 01:13:56 PM EST
    did what he did... And the fact that he is correct doesn't alleviate his actions.

    I just hope someone corrects the teacher and teaches your son the facts.

    Parent

    Unfortunately the climate change (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 01:05:51 PM EST
    The cooling (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Spamlet on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 02:05:09 PM EST
    is an aspect of global warming.

    The planet's average surface temperature is rising, but not uniformly, and so temperatures are falling in some locations.

    See also the process known as "deep water formation," which involves the Gulf Stream and can be interfered with by melting of the polar ice caps in a way that can make winters much colder over the long term (as well as in individual years and locations).

    Parent

    Ocean currents (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by waldenpond on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 02:45:54 PM EST
    I read up on deep ocean currents... how minor changes in temperature and chemical composition (the reduction in salinity from melt) effect upwelling and the resulting impact on the movement of warm weather into the northern hemisphere.  Interesting theories.

    Parent
    The problem is that we are about to (1.00 / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 03:07:18 PM EST
    destroy even more of our economy based on theories.

    Check out the problems we have with temperature probes.

    61% have error rates of 5 degrees C.

    Parent

    yes, those pesky scientific theories. (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 03:20:24 PM EST
    Do we really have to play the Meaning of Theory game again? As in replaying the really fun 'evolution is just a theory' game?

    Parent
    I trust you demand more (1.00 / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 04:39:45 PM EST
    proof against your clients than you do for man
    made global warming.

    Happy New Year Molly!

    Parent

    I don't have clients. (none / 0) (#65)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 04:44:48 PM EST
    My field is science.

    Happy New Year to you, Jim!

    Parent

    I am sorry twice (2.00 / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 04:57:53 PM EST
    First that I mistook you for another person.

    Secondly that you seem to have a closed mind when it comes to man made global warming.

    Parent

    Really? (none / 0) (#80)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 08:28:33 PM EST
    Because if you put one person in a room with no air vents and a bucket of water - that person might be able to survive for a few days until the resources are used up.  If you put 100 people in that same room, doncha think the resources will be used up faster - because of the heat the people generate and the oxygen they use (ala "mad made climate change")

    How does anyone actually believe that there's no such thing?  It's astounding when the science is there and simple logic tells you it's true?

    Parent

    Then why hasn't all the resources been used (none / 0) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 11:34:53 PM EST
    up?

    That is the most inept defense of man made global warming that I have seen.

    I thought better of you.

    BTW - Ever heard of plants producing oxygen from that evil carbon dioxide?

    Parent

    Resources being used... (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Raskolnikov on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 07:07:03 AM EST
    ...not sure why anyone would entertain you with an argument, but here goes.  In terms of resource consumption, we are merely using fossil fuels at a rate 10000 times our rate of deposit, which were formerly used, as a control device, to store carbon dioxide.  Those pretty plants, which take that carbon dioxide and give us oxygen, then die, decompose, and are eventually turned into coal or oil deep in the earth, which we then mine up and burn, releasing all the carbon they have captured.  It was, prior to our burning fossil fuels, a controlled response to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.  We're basically spending millions of years of savings without any plan for deposits, and its unheard of in the history of our world.

    Of course, the fact that we are simultaneously cutting down trees and burning more fuel (decreasing our ability to naturally absorb CO2 while increase our production of it) certainly doesn't help the proper balance established over so many millions of years.  As to whether man-made climate change is a FACT or not, I like what the Economist magazine says about it..in essence, what would cost about 1% of global GDP (in the form of a carbon tax, or regulation) is worth it for an insurance policy for something we can only hope will never happen.  If you're right, and we're doing nothing that will cause serious changes in the next few generations, then fine.  But if you're wrong, and some of the more catastrophic events come to pass, then we're f*cked.  The Economist is a pretty libertarian, non-government intervention kind of rag, and even they say the insurance is worth 1%.  I happen to agree.

    Parent

    You believe (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by jbindc on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 07:20:46 AM EST
    the earth is flat too and we didn't land on the moon?

    C'mon jim - you're smarter than that.  6 billion people on the planet using resources that took millions and billions of years to form, and you think humans have nothing to do with climate change?

    Parent

    If you and Rask want to argue (none / 0) (#99)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 12:10:27 PM EST
    that we are using up resources I agree.

    We have been using carbon based energy sources since man discovered fire. Wood, coal, coal gas, natural gas, kerosene, gasoline, diesel, etc.

    But it has not been shown that this has resulted in man made global warming by increased carbon dioxide levels. In fact carbon dioxide (see my response to Dark Avenger) levels gave remained constant for the past 150 years in per that study.

    And temperature changes have been validated as changing with changes in the sun's output.

    I find that too many people think that just because you don't buy into the climate of fear and hoax being pushed by many non-scientists and scientists for purely monetary gain you don't believe that the environment needs protection.

    Of course the two are two separate issues. In fact, if the world is entering into a cooling period, it will be more difficult to protect the environment because of the loss of food sources and revenues.

    The only hope I have regarding the resources is that technology will save us by reducing usage. The Internet reduces travel. Nuclear power reduces use of carbon based fuels. Hybrid cars reduce fuel usage. I do not see wind or solar as a real solution at this time. (That doesn't mean we should quit trying.)

    As for that sound stage, no it wasn't used for that, it was used to create the life and times of Obama story that was so adroitly sold to the American voter in '08. '012 cometh.

    Parent

    BTW - I may have been overly harsh (none / 0) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 11:56:29 PM EST
    But understand I do not disbelieve that there is climate change. That is middle school science. I just don't believe that man made global warming exists.

    The comment I made and the link goes to the location of the temperature probes. Many that were in neutral locations years ago are now surrounded by concrete, asphalt and air conditioner exhausts.

    And guess what, they show an increase.

    If we are going to do studies then these need to be moved.

    And I don't disagree that urban environments have become hotter as they become denser with more people, etc. But Chicago is not the GLOBE.

    And since we are speaking globally it should be expected that average of the increases and decreases should be an increase. That isn't happening. And if carbon dioxide is the cause then the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere should be increasing. That is not happening. In fact, the only thing that can be validated is that global temperature increases and decreases with sunspot increases and decreases.

    Parent

    I know you are (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 02:39:19 PM EST
    but you can't be serious.

    The claim is that the GLOBE is warming because of man made carbon dioxide. Facts don't support that and the "science" is under stress. Let's see what Phil Jones of the now infamous CRU said.

    Another Jones' e-mail read, "I would like to see the climate change happen so the science could be proved right."

    Think about that statement. "I would like to see climate change happen..."

    That statement is just so terrible on many levels. First, this is a man who claims that climate change is happening around us.

    Indeed so fast that we must not hesitate or put down the cup but drink the kool aid immediately. Yet in the privacy of what he thought would always be a confidential email he says...."I would like to see climate change happen..."

    That means that he knows that his claims are incorrect.

    But even worse, just think. Man made global warming is supposed to unleash floods and droughts and death and destruction... Yet he says, "I would like to see climate change happen..."

    That is just plain evil. Not just dishonest, but evil.

    And what is the reason for this wish? What is the motive?

    ".....so the science could be proved right."

    But wait. Jones and the other hoaxers claim consensus that the science is settled. That the science is "right."

    But again in what he thinks is a private email he admits that it hasn't been proven because if it had, he could not be wishing.

    Remember Jones' statement. You need no other argument for shutting down the fear mongers and hoaxers.

    Link

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Spamlet on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 03:10:03 PM EST
    This purloined e-mail certainly gives the evil lie to what has been, until now, the scientific consensus on global warming. Thanks for the exposé.

    Parent
    It's nothing but the result (none / 0) (#77)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 08:09:55 PM EST
    of a conspiracy on the part of tenured radicals who have commandeered our once-proud institutions of higher learning.

    Parent
    No cooling (none / 0) (#24)
    by waldenpond on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 01:18:45 PM EST
    according to said economics teacher... it's scientific fact! there is NO such thing as climate change.

    Parent
    Krugman Embraces McCain (none / 0) (#16)
    by Dan the Man on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 12:30:47 PM EST
    He's against the tax break for health insurance spending.

    "The argument for limiting the tax exclusion is that the tax break on health insurance encourages over-spending, so limiting it could help in the process of "bending the curve". More generally, since we think the United States spends too much on health for not-so-good results, it makes sense where possible to pay for expanding coverage from the health sector itself. Both arguments are reasonable."

    Hysterically enough, he doesn't even consider the reason why Americans "the United States spends too much on health for not-so-good results" is because of the profit margins of the insurance industries with their 30% administrative costs (compared with the 5% for Medicare).

    Then he talks about how the bill would induce the "slowing the growth of premiums".  But since cost control would merely make the profit margins of the insurance industries bigger, why would they pass on the "cost control" savings to the consumer?  That's just ridiculous.

    Or: Improve the results (none / 0) (#32)
    by Cream City on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 02:07:55 PM EST
    for the consumer -- the consumer of health insurance as well as health care.  What a concept.

    But then, that's why I'm not a prize-winning economist.  Clearly, I oversimplify rather than convolute.:-)

    Parent

    Everybody and their momma... (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 01:41:57 PM EST
    loves the Jets.  This worries me greatly.

    Revis! (none / 0) (#33)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 02:10:28 PM EST
    Sanchez!  Ryan!  Best defense and running game!

    What could possibly go wrong?  Aside from a rookie QB cracking under the pressure...

    Parent

    Don't worry (none / 0) (#59)
    by CST on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 03:30:30 PM EST
    I still want them to lose :)

    Parent
    picks (none / 0) (#29)
    by Lil on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 02:00:01 PM EST
    I hope you are right about the Jets and they do seem to have the momentum. I think the Cowboys have the Eagles number, however, even though I'm not really sure why.

    mcjoan reports at orange (none / 0) (#34)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 02:21:08 PM EST
    that Ben Nelson is trying to give the Medicaid fix to every state. I have a suggestion: put 100% Federal payment into effect immediately. That will really help state governments when they need it most: now.

    Why are the HS kids wearing (none / 0) (#38)
    by nycstray on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 02:39:48 PM EST
    Army uniforms for the game?

    Because the game (none / 0) (#47)
    by CoralGables on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 03:06:48 PM EST
    is sponsored by you and me.

    Parent
    Methinks it should be sponsered (none / 0) (#52)
    by nycstray on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 03:12:01 PM EST
    by a college system or something. Kinda reminded me of the recruiters hanging out at the HS. The kids playing in the game at least have a chance at a college.

    Parent
    Very odd (none / 0) (#68)
    by CoralGables on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 05:16:20 PM EST
    to me too as all those kids playing already have scholarship offers and have nothing to do with the military and nothing to gain by playing.

    Kids flown to San Antonio to risk injury to their career in a meaningless game before they sign on the dotted line. The stands were filled with military so it wasn't a paid crowd. It was televised but if NBC had to pay anything to do so I have no idea. It's likely a meaningless high school all star football game on the public's dime, paid for with the Army budget.

    Things that make you go hmmmm

    ....but I did enjoy watching kids don their Gator caps when making a verbal commitment to Florida and seeing a future Gator named as MVP.

    Parent

    Pete Carroll... (none / 0) (#39)
    by desertswine on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 02:39:50 PM EST
    Why not? (none / 0) (#75)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 08:04:10 PM EST
    Stays on the West Coast, get a ton of $, gets control of personnel decisions and gets another shot at something he hasn't been quite as successful as he would like.  

    And if the rumours of improper activities at USC are to believed, why not get out while the getting is good.  

    He'll have is work cut out for him getting the SeaChickens back to being competitive though.  No playmakers on offense, porous defense and they need a new QB.  

    Parent

    Harry Reid sure has a way with words! (none / 0) (#45)
    by vml68 on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 03:03:44 PM EST
    Holy crap (none / 0) (#61)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 03:44:51 PM EST
    That man has got to be so fricken stupid!  To even begin to hatch out such a statement....just positively 100% shallow dumb as a post.

    Parent
    Just finished watching Public Enemies (none / 0) (#60)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 03:43:19 PM EST
    Watched it once last night but fell asleep before the end.  Man Johnny Depp is such a sexy beast in that movie.  I am such a sucker for a bad boy with a good haircut and a good cut of clothing...whew.  It's scary how many principles I feel like I could lose.

    My Sister... (none / 0) (#70)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 05:59:34 PM EST
    ...doesn't really care what Johnny's wearing--pirate outfits, suits--just as long as he's wearing them!  

    I'll have to ask if she's seen 21 Jump Street...  

    Parent

    J.E.T.S! Jets Jets JETS!!!! (none / 0) (#71)
    by nycstray on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 06:39:00 PM EST
    that is all :)

    You miss the point, (none / 0) (#74)
    by Spamlet on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 07:32:39 PM EST
    which is not the provenance of the e-mail.

    Whatever.

    As you already know, the TL consensus is likely to be that the scientific consensus on global warming is correct. But you seem to enjoy coming here to wave the wingnut flag on this issue, so knock yourself out.

    If you want an echo chamber (none / 0) (#118)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 02:23:51 PM EST
    instead of a debate my advice is to purchase a garbage can and speak into it.

    I enjoy TL because I read opinions that conflict with some of mine and actually learn something from time to time.

    So with me it is enjoyable education. With you it is enjoyable gossip.

    To each their own.

    Parent

    This post is useful (none / 0) (#90)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 08:20:37 AM EST
    in demonstrating your lack of understanding about science - the whole 'theories can't be proved' thing is classic. Right up there with the writings in the Creation Museum.

    They're both "just theories" (none / 0) (#96)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 11:39:09 AM EST
    and on equal evidential footing. Ergo, neither one should be taught; or BOTH should be.

    There's surely a scientific consensus for THAT view.

    Gee, that's what I said way back then (none / 0) (#103)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 12:18:41 PM EST
    From my comment:

     

    I agree, so let's not teach either. After all, I'm sure you will agree things that can't be proven, such as religion should be left up to the parents. That would also include global warming.


    Parent
    Sarcasm. Jim (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 12:26:59 PM EST
    The problem is, that's what you -- and by you I mean Rush, Sean, Glenn, Miss Piggy etc -- actually think.

    Parent
    Your problem is that (none / 0) (#106)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 12:34:29 PM EST
    you deny the rights of others to disagree. Yet you think this violation of man's basic rights makes you superior. That is your problem, not mine.

    Parent
    Now we know why colleges and universities (none / 0) (#97)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 11:43:54 AM EST
    don't accept Wiki.

    ScienceDaily (Dec. 31, 2009) -- Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.

    <snip>

    To assess whether the airborne fraction is indeed increasing, Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.

    In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.

    Science Daily


    Why dont you link (none / 0) (#98)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 11:54:11 AM EST
    us to the other "recent studies" (plural) that contradict Knorr's conclusions so that we do our own comparison?

    Parent
    Why didn't you provide the two links (none / 0) (#100)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 12:13:57 PM EST
    I provided?

    Parent
    No, suggest is used because (none / 0) (#126)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 08:06:03 PM EST
    it is a qualifier and the author knows what he is writing is conjecture.

    After Climategate (none / 0) (#129)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 08:28:39 PM EST
    who knows what "tricks" are being pulled.

    Among the messages that Sensenbrenner read was one from Jones, the East Anglia scientist, in which he wrote about a "trick of adding in the real temps" in an exchange about long-term climate trends.

    Of course if you think what Phil Jones thinks I guess you need to trick'em.

    Another Jones' e-mail read, "I would like to see the climate change happen so the science could be proved right."

    That's a very plain statement that Jones doesn't think climate change has happened so he wants it to so he can be proven right.

    So much for consensus, eh?

    ;-)

    Link

    Welcome to "The Way Things Ought to be" (none / 0) (#132)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 11:42:09 PM EST
    Vol II. (with apologies to Rush)

    The major difference between the two "theories" is that one is based on ACTUAL accumulated evidence/facts from the fossil record and the other is based on wishful thinking and the desire of social liberals to roll over for the religious right.

    Somehow this translates into them both being "just theories" on equal footing -- one of which people better not teach, or Jim and James Dobson will get mad.

    Well DA, (none / 0) (#140)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 02:30:25 PM EST
    while you sit there unconcernedly prattling on with your secular science, you're apparently unaware that there's a McCarthy-like witch hunt going on to silence scat munchers, their followers, and yes, the American way itself.

    Go to Jim's site for more info.

    this thread is closed and has (none / 0) (#143)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 09:45:37 PM EST
    been somewhat cleaned.

    As a reminder, no personal attacks and no reprinting of long screeds of material you find elsewhere. This space is for comments. You may quote a paragraph or two to make your point, but link to the original, don't reprint long portions.