home

Friday Night Open Thread

As expected following the media's publication of multiple unnamed law enforcement leaks concerning Stephen Silva, (background here) Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's lawyers have renewed their motion to determine the source of law enforcement leaks. I'm glad to see they complained about the leak I thought was the most egregious -- you can read the leak here. As I wrote:

....leaks by law enforcement that this is bad for Jahar because it shows he was more than an errand boy are just speculation. And incredibly out of line for law enforcement, who have no business opining to the media on the specifics and strength of any defendant's defense.

The defense wants to know what steps the Government took after the June hearing at which the judge expressed his concern about leaks to avoid future ones.

Israel and Hamas have agreed to a 12 hour cease-fire tomorrow.

I wonder what ISIS has been up to the past 2 days. I'll write about it later if there's anything new.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Another Complaint About Auto-Play News Videos | ISIS Publishes Graphic Photos of Multiple Beheadings >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Video of a haboob.... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by desertswine on Fri Jul 25, 2014 at 09:14:32 PM EST
    There's no mention of ... (none / 0) (#5)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jul 25, 2014 at 09:51:52 PM EST
    ... the ongoing haboob that's engulfed Arizona's state capitol for the better part of the past six years.

    Parent
    and 99% of statistics buttressing partisan (none / 0) (#22)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 08:22:14 AM EST
    debate - are pulled out of thin air.

    Cue the Herman Goering quote.  Give people an enemy and they'll follow you anywhere.  Is there a tenth circle of hell?  Sounds great.  Giddyup!

    Parent

    If you have never seen a summer (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 25, 2014 at 11:04:22 PM EST
    sunset from the Santa Fe Opera, just do it!

    Glorious sunsets of Santa Fe (none / 0) (#57)
    by christinep on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 01:20:19 PM EST
    We have loved and travelled to Santa Fe most summers for the past 30+ years. Usually, we drive the seven-ish hours--stopping here & there along the way from Denver--at the end of July or during the first few weeks in August. The principal purpose: Santa Fe Opera ... and the Chorale, visiting chamber music musicians, great food, ambling walks, breathing. In recent years, we have often visited for about a week at the end of the year as well.

    Thanks, oculus, for contributing to my sense of expectation as we once again plan to watch those sunsets next week.  This summer, the plan and the tickets are for "Fidelio" and "Don Pasquale." With a one-year old doggy this year, we were reluctant to be gone from the hotel too much during the evenings ... next, season Ms. sophisticated Celeste should be more seasoned at the routine.  (BTW, long dog walks during Santa Fe's early morning hours and colors are a special treat too.)  We may try to catch an Apprentice performance at one of the hotels and, definitely, the walk-in rehearsals of the chamber musicians at lunch in the main library auditorium.

    So ... what opera(s) did you enjoy?  Maybe our paths will cross there one day as we enjoy a glass of wine while feeling the breeze & looking at the sky and the Santa Fe mountains below.

    Parent

    So far I've seen Mozart's (none / 0) (#58)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 01:55:58 PM EST
    "the  Impresario" (the overture is still the best part);?Stravinsky's "La Rossignol," which was magical; and Beethoven's "Fidelio," with terrific singers, chorus, orchestra, and conductor. This is the first time Santa Fe Opera has produced "Fidelio,". Which is surprising. Two vhsmbervmusic concerts, one to go. Plus "Dr. Sun Yat Sen."

    Parent
    More Santa Fe (none / 0) (#62)
    by christinep on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 03:19:04 PM EST
    'Did not realize that "Fidelio" had not been staged before in SF.  I've only seen it once ... and it was here in Denver.  But, checking back with the schedule, I noticed in the 2015 listing that "Daughter of the Regiment" had not been given in SF before either.  Interesting how one city favors certain operas in terms of number of performances, and another US city may well be quite different in a repeating schedule.  Example (off the top of my head):  Santa Fe has had many performances of "Figaro" and "Magic Flute" -- which is fine by me, since I have always loved them both.  OTOH, I can't recall an "Aida" in SF.

    As for new presentations: There is a kind of tradition, as it were, for Santa Fe to offer American and even World premieres.  "Sun Yat Sen" should fill that role nicely.

    Anyway ... other than the old favorites for dinner such as Pink Adobe (and the delightful Pear Amaretto) or Casa Sena or Luminaria, I'll just add a pleasant Italian restaurant off Guadalupe (& Garfield?) called Andiamo. Anyway #2 ... Café Pasquale is good for breakfast as is Tia Sophia on weekdays.  And ... for late afternoon and early evening tapas, La Boca is good.  I'm already hungry.

    Parent

    According to the fellow sitting next to me in the (none / 0) (#67)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 05:19:27 PM EST
    Bar after the opera last night, the "official" info is incorrect on why the protagonist part, originally to be sung by the man from Hong Kong  for whom the opera was created, will now be sung by his cover on two weeks notice. Chinese politics has intervened.

    I bought tickets last night ror next season. Love it.

    Parent

    My review of this year's new opera (none / 0) (#131)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 10:31:37 PM EST
    definitely differs from the NYT's:

    Dr. Sun Yat Sen

    And where ever was chief music critic Tomassini?

    Parent

    In what regard, oculus (none / 0) (#159)
    by christinep on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 05:02:41 PM EST
    After reading the link that you provided, I wondered if the "definitely differs" stemmed from that portion of the review referencing musicality or that seemingly larger portion dealing with politics/perceived historical statement?

    Parent
    Apparently the opera as originally performed (none / 0) (#168)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 09:43:01 PM EST
    in Hong Kong did not include the love story, which was added to appeal to Euro-centric opera audiences. It is very hard to imagine anyone sitting through this opera w/o it. But it certainly seems tacked on. And not particularly relevant. What's left is political propaganda. The music and orchestration and orchestra and singers:  very fine. I just didn't care for the storyline. Or the gigantic statue rolled out at the end.  

    First time I recall seeing a female conductor in this pit. She was loudly applauded.

    Parent

    Here is a review of the Hong Kong (none / 0) (#169)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 10:11:24 PM EST
    performance:

    link

    First time I have heard of an opera singer arriving via hot air balloon!

    Parent

    Another review of Santa Fe Opera's (none / 0) (#170)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 10:28:26 PM EST
    production:

    link

    Parent

    wow (none / 0) (#66)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 05:14:38 PM EST
    Had not heard of Mozart's Der Schauspieldirektor...  And I thought I knew everything...

    Was it interesting?  It is is obviously a mature work at K 486..

    Surprised I have not heard of it..

    Parent

    Squeaky, the overture is a favorite of high (none / 0) (#82)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 01:27:36 AM EST
    school orchestra directors. The only other time I've seen the opera was in Madri in 1991. The festival week of San Ysidro, patron saint of Madrid. A chamber opera company performed Mozart's more obscure operas, including this one. Harpsichord on stage. Delightful. But no supertitles and the synopsis was in Spanish.

    Parent
    The opera company was from Warsaw. (none / 0) (#83)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 01:57:48 AM EST
    Interesting (none / 0) (#90)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 10:15:13 AM EST
    In modern times, the text is usually completely rewritten for contemporary relevance, which was the case for the 2014 production given by The Santa Fe Opera. There it had "English dialogue by the British dramatist Ranjit Bolt and additional Mozart concert arias folded into the score" with the action taking place in Paris in the 1920s.

    Is that the performance you heard?

    Odd that they butchered the score and libretto.

    Parent

    Yes. I didn't care for this (none / 0) (#94)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 10:51:18 AM EST
    production. Supposed to be "a backstage farce.'  Boring.

    Parent
    More Here (none / 0) (#98)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 11:10:53 AM EST
    Santa Fe Opera's production (none / 0) (#103)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 11:46:47 AM EST
    reminded me of a terrible version of "Die Fledermaus."  The other oddity:  just before the blackout @ intermission, all the characters posed in a kind of tableau in freeze-frame. After intermission:  same pose, same costume. Then the actors morphed into the cast of "La Rossignol," which was the production frequently referenced in dialogue in the Mozart half. At the conclusion of the Stravinsky, they morphed back into the costumes and tableau from b/4 intermission. This wan supposeh to be clever.

    Parent
    Too Clever by Half (none / 0) (#104)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 11:57:53 AM EST
    The More I Think of it... (none / 0) (#110)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 12:52:59 PM EST
    Most likely they changed the text because times have not changed..  Pay, ego, morons in charge...  and finally they all agree to get along because they need the money.....  oh.. did I say something about money... strike that...

    they decide to all get along and carry on with the production because of artistic integrity.

    hahahaha..

    too embarrassing for all involved today... so they changed the text so that they could all get along..

    hilarious. Mozart was a genius.

    Parent

    Now I am very curious but will (none / 0) (#116)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 04:25:23 PM EST
    never know;  when the Warsaw company performed this is  in Madrid,  how authentic was their production?  I do not recall long stretchs of spoken word followed by a few arias.

    Parent
    Libretto (none / 0) (#117)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 04:38:44 PM EST
    In original German...  I think that the whole thing is 35 minutes long.

    Parent
    I'll get back to you when I finish (none / 0) (#118)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 04:49:07 PM EST
    translating!

    Parent
    Remember the republican (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 08:36:38 AM EST
    Who was kicked out for Coke?  This is his replacement.
    This made me laugh.  

    Freshman GOP Rep Confuses U.S. Government Officials For Indian Officials

    Freshman Rep. Curt Clawson (R-FL) tried to question two American government officials as if they were representatives of the Indian government, though both had already been introduced by their respectives titles at the start of the hearing. Can you say "awkward"?

    You have to watch the video for the reaction of the people he is addressing.  Who are Americans.

    Looks (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 08:59:38 AM EST
    to be another tea party moron.

    Parent
    This guy (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 10:26:45 AM EST
    is a fool.

    Parent
    Embarrassing. (none / 0) (#68)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 05:39:05 PM EST
    You really have to wonder how clowns like these ever made it out of high school.

    Parent
    I just saw it too (none / 0) (#26)
    by ruffian on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 08:45:06 AM EST
    Those are some pretty good diplomats there to sit through that lecture. So funny.

    Meanwhile we all pay his salary and pension while he can't be bothered to learn who he is talking to.

    Parent

    Love the look on his face at the end (none / 0) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 09:07:36 AM EST
    So pleased with himself and the way he communicated so well with those brown people.  He thinkin "I got this"

    Parent
    oh yeah (none / 0) (#64)
    by ruffian on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 04:22:38 PM EST
    Total white-man-splaining all the way through. What a colossal horses a**

    Parent
    Also the kid behind him is great (none / 0) (#70)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 06:11:45 PM EST
    All the way through he is looking admiringly at him,  which is I suppose his job, with a "what-a-man" look until the very end the look changes to something like, "....wait...."

    Parent
    Antibiotic cheeseburgers (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 09:37:21 AM EST
    Public health advocates are fuming over a new court ruling that they say could hasten the coming of the next pandemic.

    In a 2-1 decision released Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration need not consider banning the use of antibiotics in healthy food-producing animals.

    "We believe that this decision allows dangerous practices known to threaten human health to continue," said Avinash Kar, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. "Adding antibiotics to farm animals' feed, day after day, is not what we should be doing. It's not what the doctor ordered and it should not be allowed."

    In March 2012, a federal court ruled that the FDA must act on scientific knowledge that the overuse of antibiotics in animals raised for food has contributed to the rise of antibiotic-resistant infections in humans. That decision came in response to a lawsuit filed by the NRDC concerning findings made by the FDA back in 1977. Feeding livestock low doses of penicillin and most tetracyclines, the agency had concluded, might pose a risk to human health. The FDA never acted on or retracted those findings.

    "This is a first and important step," Kar told The Huffington Post in 2012. "But the fight is not completely won."

    Kar's remark proved prescient with this week's court decision. Thursday's finding overturns two district court rulings in cases brought by the NRDC and other groups that would have compelled the FDA to withdraw approval for most non-therapeutic uses of penicillin and tetracyclines in livestock -- unless drug makers could prove those substances were safe.



    The more I think about it... (none / 0) (#114)
    by unitron on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 01:06:54 PM EST
    ...the more I'm convinced that Antibiotic Cheeseburgers needs to be a band name.

    Parent
    More on (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jul 25, 2014 at 09:42:31 PM EST
    the doomsday preppers. First of all one of them thinks that Obama shut down some kind of lead factory in Mo. I googled that one and apparently that was from George W Bush's EPA not Obama.

    Truthfully talk radio etc. has these people so worked up and hyped up on conspiracy theories that it's really scary.

    Ben Carson is going around saying that if another "progressive" gets nominated that it's going to be the end of America because they will get to appoint three more judges to the supreme court. What exactly these judges are going to do is beyond me. And how can anybody be more disastrous than the Roberts Court has been would be my question.

    How could it be more disastrous? (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 25, 2014 at 09:48:51 PM EST
    By replacing Kennedy with someone who votes with the other four ALL the time.  That's how.

    I have been wondering if this is really possible -

    WASHINGTON -- A top aide to President Obama said it's possible that Obama could be impeached by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

    I just saw a poll that said almost 60% of republicans want it.   Could they really be that insane?  It seems I am seeing many things as more possible that I once did.

    Parent

    CNN/ORC poll (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 25, 2014 at 09:52:44 PM EST
    There's an obvious partisan divide, with 57% of Republicans but only 35% of independents and 13% of Democrats backing a move to impeach Obama.



    Parent
    Look at those (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jul 25, 2014 at 10:12:40 PM EST
    numbers--60%. And can anyone say that Ted Cruz won't be the nominee? He's the main one shopping the impeachment line from congress.

    Parent
    Yes, Ga (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 07:02:57 AM EST
    I can and will say that Cruz won't be on the ticket.

    Just as Hillary won't be.

    Both inspire part of the base. But neither can unite the party.

    Parent

    I remember (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 07:08:31 AM EST
    your predictions of a President Perry. I understand he might be running again trying to drive the clown car. ROTFLMAO.

    Parent
    Rick Perry is all hat, no cattle. (none / 0) (#69)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 05:59:02 PM EST
    Hillary will not unite the party?? (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by MKS on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 08:50:22 AM EST
    Have you seen the polls?  She has a 60 point lead on everyone else.....

    I have supported Obama since the 2008 Primary.  I was unhappy with Hillary at that time.

    I am now a big time supporter of Hillary.  I will campaign for her time permitting.

    There may be qualms on the Left about her being a hawk, and I feel them on this.....And so a challenge from the Left to keep her on her toes a little bit, would be okay.

    Hillary almost won in 2008 and but for (in my opinion) and very unusual challenger and a bad campaign manager, she would be President now.

    You are carrying the water of the Right when you say she won't run.  You and the Right say this because you are afraid she will run and win.

    Why anyone would listen to you about who the Democratic nominee will be remains a mystery.

    Parent

    You're a gambler (none / 0) (#20)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 07:28:32 AM EST
    Care to place a bet?  Because this is one of your more ridiculous claims - which is no small feat:

    Just as Hillary won't be.

    Both inspire part of the base. But neither can unite the party.

    This week's evidence came in the form of two polls -- conducted by NBC and Marist College -- of Democratic voters in Iowa and New Hampshire.  In Iowa, Clinton led Vice President Joe Biden 70 percent to 20 percent. In New Hampshire, Clinton led Biden by an even wider 74 percent to 18 percent. (That's not to pick on Biden; he was the strongest of Clinton's possible challengers.) Clinton's approval ratings in those polls are stratospheric; 89 percent of Iowa Democrats have a favorable opinion of her while 94(!) percent of New Hampshire Democrats say the same.

    "Hillary Clinton -- if she runs -- is going to have a cakewalk to the Democratic nomination, no matter how many political observers might want to see a race," wrote NBC's Chuck Todd, Mark Murray and Carrie Dann. "She's going to win the Democratic nomination, whether she faces actual primary opposition or not."

    BTW - Clinton's national favorability rating among Democrats is 84% favorable to 9% unfavorable.

    Parent

    Link (none / 0) (#21)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 07:32:45 AM EST
    Crickets...chirp...chirp....chirp... (none / 0) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 08:59:45 AM EST
    Just like Romney would win, huh? (none / 0) (#59)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 01:58:58 PM EST
    We can trust your predictions in politics, just like we can BTD's during March Madness. The difference between you two is that he can admit he blew it and laugh at his errors.

    Parent
    I think they should go for it. (none / 0) (#7)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jul 25, 2014 at 09:53:47 PM EST
    And then afterward, I'll make the popcorn and margaritas as we watch what happens to them at the ballot box.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 25, 2014 at 09:57:48 PM EST
    I completely agree.  If it happens they say it's more likely after the election.  And much more likely if the republicans take control of the senate ( they won't ) but I have also read that lots in the house want to do it even if there is no chance of removal in the senate just to put an asterisk next to his name.

    If they do that the dems will take filibuster proof control of government in 2016.

    Parent

    Are they trying to boost (none / 0) (#10)
    by nycstray on Fri Jul 25, 2014 at 10:09:04 PM EST
    Obama's favorable rating before he leaves office?

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jul 25, 2014 at 10:10:02 PM EST
    from what I have read the GOP establishment is sweating bullets over that one because they know that doing it will be the end of the GOP for a long, long time. They are hoping that the tea party nuts quit talking about it. Even just having Sarah Palin and Ted Cruz talk about it makes them very nervous and afraid it's going to cost them the senate.

    Parent
    Could Nunn really win? (none / 0) (#29)
    by MKS on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 08:56:55 AM EST
    Impeachment would drive up the Democratic vote, in Georgia, I would think.

     

    Parent

    IMO she can win without impeachment (none / 0) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 09:00:48 AM EST
    And I do take bets.

    Parent
    I don't know. (none / 0) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 09:02:03 AM EST
    Probably drive up the vote on the D side but I'm not sure whether it would help or hurt the R side.

    Nunn is lucky that she has an awful opponent with the name of David Perdue and she's likely to do better in central and south GA than most D candidates. The polls are all over the place.

    Parent

    Perdue (none / 0) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 09:03:47 AM EST

    Mr Perdue tried to stir up the Republican base last night by reminding them how much they disapprove of Barack Obama and Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, before they toddled home for the night. But Steve Anthony of Georgia State University says the low turnout at the run-off does not augur well for Republicans, come November. Less than 10% of Georgia's 5m active voters bothered to take part (roughly half the number who voted in May's primary). Mr Perdue's slim margin of victory suggests that he has not exactly set Republican pulses racing.


    Parent
    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 09:23:07 AM EST
    pretty much. I guess screeching about Obama and Harry Reid is all he has because he sure doesn't have a positive history as a CEO and I don't understand the screeching about Harry Reid.

    The GOP seems to doing a repeat of 1998 that worked out so well for them---NOT.

    Parent

    Republicans just can't help it (none / 0) (#37)
    by MKS on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 09:06:08 AM EST
    Ever since Watergate, they have hungered for their own payback.....Watergate envy.

    Not a lot of rational thought going on in conservative circles....It is just their nature to impeach, just as it is their nature to hate on brown people and oppose immigration reform--even if it spells electoral doom.

    Parent

    Agreed. (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 02:57:02 PM EST
    I just don't understand why Republicans have this compelling need to seek payback for Watergate. By late July and early August of 1974, the evidence of Nixon's complicity in criminal activity was so overwhelming that all but the most blindly partisan GOPers agreed back then -- albeit reluctantly -- that he had to go.

    If they choose to frivolously wield impeachment against President Obama as though it were simply another political weapon in their arsenal, they run the very serious risk that voters will angrily flock to the polls in 2016 to seek their own retribution. There are very few Republicans still around who remember what it was like to lose an entire generation of voters, as they did in the 1930s. It took them over three decades to fully recover.

    They should take a long and hard look at the present sorry condition of the GOP in California, a state where Republicans generally held sway until 20 years ago. Then in 1994 they trotted out Proposition 187, and wrote off the Hispanic community in the process. And when they drove the 2003 recall of Gov. Gray Davis as nothing more than a naked political power play, their fate with California voters was pretty much sealed when Davis' successor Arnold Schwarzenegger turned out to be all meringue and no filling. The pyrrhic victory they won at the polls with Proposition 8 -- subsequently overturned as unconstitutional -- will probably be their last hurrah for quite a while.

    This month in the latest PPIC poll, GOP gubernatorial challenger Neel Kashkari is trailing incumbent Gov. Jerry Brown by 40 points among independent voters, and only 23% of Californians -- mostly in the rural Central Valley and the desert communities -- are willing to identify themselves as leaning Republican. In the major urban areas where 75% of the votes are, Republicans are all but shut out everywhere save for Fresno, Bakersfield and San Diego. And even in those locales, they've fallen precipitously from a position of absolute dominance to one in which they're hanging on only by their fingernails.

    That's the fate which awaits the Republicans nationally -- life as a primarily Caucasian party that's anchored in rural communities and enjoys only limited capacity and reach -- if they don't stop riding the white-wing crazy train.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jul 25, 2014 at 10:08:10 PM EST
    but what exact disaster is that going to put forth? The fact that conservatives and their beliefs will be sent out to the wilderness for a generation or more? That's all I can think of. I guess they are not smart enough to realize that the 1950's have passed and are not coming back. Even the current supreme court can't bring them back as much as they might want to.

    Parent
    The Republicans are (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 10:19:29 AM EST
    having a difficult time with the 21st Century.  In the South, their animus toward it takes on the form of  a death rattle--on the way out, but still dangerous.  Their answer in the House is to sue; their hopes for the future are the  dangerous demagoguery of Ted Cruz and  Poland Spring time for the hapless Marco Rubio.   Rand Paul's foreign policy ideas are likely to result in befuddlement among the rank(s).    Georgia seems to have a good chance of becoming, at least, a purple state in the near future--the increase in population, and the increase in registration of African American voters.

    Parent
    I know. (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 10:28:17 AM EST
    The GOP has been enabling the south for way too long. I have wondered many times what would have happened in this country if the likes of Strom Thurmond were not welcomed into the GOP with open arms back in 1964. Their past and their enabling of it is going to destroy them unless they get a handle on it. Seriously in 20 years is there going to even be a GOP? If they continue down the current road, there is not going to be one.

    Parent
    In a sense, the GOP (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 10:49:07 AM EST
    is already gone--replaced by tea party insurgents, in part, and scared Republican ersatz teapartiers, in part, resulting in a wacko-sphere of extremists and less extremists.  Given another 20 years, at this rate, the worry will not be for survival of the GOP but the USA. In any event, much damage will continue to occur over a 20-year run.  For example, the Supreme Court:  Roberts will be just 79, Alito, 84, and Thomas 86.  And, Scalia and Kennedy will be 98--Scalia, at least, is likely to hang on until his teeth sink into the bench.

    Parent
    I post this (none / 0) (#45)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 10:20:58 AM EST
    Because it is hilarious (caution cat video ahead), because it's Saturday morning 10am and I am already stoned and making lunch and because it is the prefect metaphor for the republicans "impeaching" the president.   Complete with aloof beatific expression on the presidents face and impotent squeaks from the republicans.

    LETS IMPEACH HIM!!!

    Parent

    Any time is the right time ... (none / 0) (#71)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 06:12:49 PM EST
    ... for cute kitty videos. Running a close second are adorable mouse videos.

    Parent
    Two words... (none / 0) (#15)
    by unitron on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 12:44:13 AM EST
    ...President Biden.

    He'd go into the 2016 election with the advantage of incumbency, and since it would probably be somewhere after January 2015 before Obama could be removed from office, he'd have most of the last two years of Obama's second term and still be eligible for two full terms of his own.

    Parent

    From our "So Stupid It Hurts!" file: (none / 0) (#3)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jul 25, 2014 at 09:45:29 PM EST
    Stephen A. Smith, ESPN analyst extraordinaire, tried to mansplain the issue of domestic violence for his audience this morning on that sports network's "First Take."

    Quite understandably, fellow ESPN analyst Michelle Beadle was not at all amused by her colleague's backhanded suggestion that female victims of domestic violence are somehow responsible for having provoked their men into committing battery.

    Lest you think that this was a rare instance when Smith inserted his foot into his own mouth and proceeded to swallow, please rest assured that today wasn't this clown's first encounter with Da Stoopid. Just three days ago, he took to the airwaves to defend former Indianapolis Colts Coach Tony Dungy, who has a well-documented history of homophobic remarks.

    Refusing to see as controversial Dungy's latest suggestion that he wouldn't have drafted openly gay football player Michael Sam because the former Missouri defensive back courts controversy, Smith instead bluntly told Dungy's critics, "Get over it!"

    Smith's ignorant statements took aback "First Take" co-host Skip Bayless, who immediately responded, "I'm shocked that you don't see the problem here. I'm truly, utterly shocked."

    Suffice to say that if there were awards handed out for vapid self-righteousness in journalism, Stephen A. Smith would definitely give the folks at Fox News a very serious run for their money.

    Aloha.

    Well, we're batting 500 (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 12:00:38 AM EST
    I totally agree with you re Smith.

    Not so re Mann.

    Remember that Dungy said this about Incognito:

    "Dungy added that hazing isn't something that has to happen but rather something that's allowed to happen. `It doesn't happen everywhere,' Dungy said. `It happens where you allow it to happen.'
    "

    Link

    And dig a little further re Sam.

    "I do, however, believe that the media attention that comes with it will be a distraction," Dungy said. "Unfortunately we are all seeing this play out now, and I feel badly that my remarks played a role in the distraction."

    To me that's a valid point. Distractions on sports teams are killers. At level of competition just one or two losses will keep a team out of the play offs. And while it is easy to say that Sam should have been drafted and the distractions dealt with you are asking a coach, a team and a fan base to "do the right thing" and suffer for it.

    And let me add I hope I am wrong and that the Rams turn it around and Sam has a great year.

    We'll just have to wait and see.


    Parent

    ... about Michael Sam with his remarks -- and given his own high profile and history of homophobic remarks, how did he think the media was going to react when he said that he wouldn't have drafted the guy? He got enveloped by his own dust cloud.

    Everybody should just shut up and let Sam be, and let him play football. He was certainly no distraction to teammates at Missouri when he came out to them over two years ago, and he went on to become the SEC 12 defensive player of the year last season.

    Dungy's remarks were unfortunate, uncalled for and had no basis in reality given Sam's performance in college, but he's kinda / sorta apologized for them, so let's just move on and hope that'll be the last we'll hear about the subject from him.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    That is what is so ridiculous about it (none / 0) (#65)
    by ruffian on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 04:26:33 PM EST
    In sports, any information whether it is directly related to the game play or not, is produced by the news media. If they do not want to write about Sam's gayness, they do to have to.  They create the so-called distraction themselves.

    Parent
    Distraction seems to be the number one (none / 0) (#79)
    by nycstray on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 09:20:52 PM EST
    calling these days in the media. Ratings baby, no matter how over it some of us may be.

    Parent
    I think it's all going to be academic in (none / 0) (#75)
    by Anne on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 07:34:41 PM EST
    the end, because I have my doubts that his play will translate to the NFL - at which point, I think there's one of those uncomfortable dilemmas that has no good outcome.  Do they have the latitude to cut him without enduring 68 kinds of speculation that it had something to do with him being gay?

    I guess we'll see soon enough.

    Parent

    My thoughts are (none / 0) (#78)
    by nycstray on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 09:19:11 PM EST
    He'll either make it on the field or he won't. The play/numbers won't lie in the end and there will be those that will use (if he's cut) it for their personal agenda. I kinda doubt a team will keep him if he can't do the job, regardless of what folks say. He also doesn't seem like a prima donna type, which will make however this turns out more even keel. He was happy to be picked even though it was much later than I'm sure he would have liked. Seems to have a good head on his shoulders, so maybe he can set an example for all those that aren't quite so, um, balanced :)

    I mean this is pro football. There's a long history of good college players just not being able to compete in the NFL regardless of who they are (yes, I'm looking at Mr Bible Verse) etc.

    Parent

    Agreed. (none / 0) (#81)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 10:25:25 PM EST
    As long as the Rams give him a fair shot, which I think they will, what happens afterward is all up to Michael Sam. Even if he makes a great impression with his play, there's no guarantee that the Rams will keep him, but someone else in need of a defensive back might pick him up. I was always impressed with his play in college, but as you noted, the college and pro games are different animals.

    Parent
    CA and have only this to say:

    GIGO only applies if there is, in fact, something wrong with the data.  You have no proof or evidence that there was(is) something wrong with the data, or that there was something wrong with the complex computer modeling done.

    You should try doing more than wave your arms in your reply the next time, since you seem to believe in being doubtful without a clue is a respectable intellectual position.

    Thanks for the feedback!

    Parent

    Since you bring the subject up (none / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 10:36:47 AM EST
    GIGO only applies if there is, in fact, something wrong with the data.

    Well, let's wave some arms. ;-)

    1. Mann left out the Medieval Warming Period.

    Shortly after its publication, the hockey stick and its main author, Michael Mann, came under attack from Steve McIntyre, a retired statistician from Canada. In a series of scientific papers and later on his blog, Climate Audit, McIntyre took issue with the novel statistical procedures used by the hockey stick's authors. He was able to demonstrate that the way they had extracted the temperature signal from the tree ring records was biased so as to choose hockey-stick shaped graphs....

    Link

    2. NOAA admits their temp reading stations were in the wrong places...

    Responding to widespread criticism that its temperature station readings were corrupted by poor siting issues and suspect adjustments, NOAA established a network of 114 pristinely sited temperature stations spread out fairly uniformly throughout the United States. Because the network, known as the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), is so uniformly and pristinely situated, the temperature data require no adjustments to provide an accurate nationwide temperature record. USCRN began compiling temperature data in January 2005. Now, nearly a decade later, NOAA has finally made the USCRN temperature readings available.

    According to the USCRN temperature readings, U.S. temperatures are not rising at all - at least not since the network became operational 10 years ago. Instead, the United States has cooled by approximately 0.4 degrees Celsius, which is more than half of the claimed global warming of the twentieth century.

    Of course, 10 years is hardly enough to establish a long-term trend. Nevertheless, the 10-year cooling period does present some interesting facts.

    snip

    Second, for those who may point out U.S. temperatures do not equate to global temperatures, the USCRN data are entirely consistent with - and indeed lend additional evidentiary support for - the global warming stagnation of the past 17-plus years. While objective temperature data show there has been no global warming since sometime last century, the USCRN data confirm this ongoing stagnation in the United States, also.

    Link

    3. The dog ate my data

    ......I asked CRU for the data myself, being a "real" academic. I received a letter back from CRU stating that I couldn't have the data because "we do not hold the requested information."

    I found that odd. How can they not hold the data when they are showing graphs of global temperatures on their webpage? However, it turns out that CRU has in response to requests for its data put up a new webpage with the following remarkable admission (emphasis added):

    ....We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data

    .
    Trust me. I'll respect you in the morning...The checks in the mail...The Beamer's paid for

    4. Professor Jones confesses in a private email.

    . ....Have you looked at individual sondes, rather than averages - particularly tropical ones? LKS is good, but the RATPAC update less so.

    As for being on the latest VG analysis, Kostya wanted it to use the surface data. I thought the model comparisons were a useful aside, so agreed.

    ....I'm hoping that CCSP will come up with something - a compromise.

    ....I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences..

    Phil Jones of the CRU

    5. Tricks and stuff..

    ..one email in which Phil Jones said he had used "Mike's Nature trick" in a 1999 graph for the World Meteorological Organization "to hide the decline" in proxy temperatures derived from tree ring analyses when measured temperatures were actually rising.

    BTW - you do understand that proxy means it has been changed

    5. And then there is that consensus thingeee.

    It follows that the sentence I quoted from Bedford and Cook is false. Cook et. al. did not find that "over 97% endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause." (emphasis mine). Any interested reader can check that it is false by simply comparing the two papers of which Cook is a co-author. John Cook surely knows the contents of his own paper. Hence the sentence in question is a deliberate lie.

    The meaning of is

    5. And it's okay to lie for the cause

    "To capture the public imagination,
    we have to offer up some scary scenarios,make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have.

    Each of us has to decide the right balance
    between being effective, and being honest."

    Leading greenhouse advocate, Dr Stephen Schneider
    ( in interview for "Discover" magagzine, Oct 1989)

    Are you gonna believe me or your lying eyes?

    Hope this helps.

    Parent

    Mordiggian (none / 0) (#50)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 10:53:20 AM EST
    I think he likes you!


    Parent
    Yes I do Capt (2.00 / 1) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 06:12:52 PM EST
    He writes something interesting and challenging.

    You should try that.

    Parent

    It's a summer thing (none / 0) (#73)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 06:17:15 PM EST
    So should you (none / 0) (#80)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 10:16:18 PM EST
    Instead of silly links to wingnut blogs and clipped "quotes".

    Parent
    Do we know it's a "he"? (none / 0) (#84)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 08:13:37 AM EST
    I'm not talking about global warming (none / 0) (#52)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 11:00:41 AM EST
    because I know you have a bee in your bonnet about it, but the Stanford study about California relying on renewable sources by 2050.

    Now, I realize you think you've made your case with several picky statements taken out of context over different sources throughout the years, but if you look at things like the Arctic Ice Sheet, which continues to decline from year to year:

    During the second half of June, the rate of sea ice loss in the Arctic was the second fastest in the satellite data record. As a result, by the beginning of July extent fell very close to two standard deviations below the long-term (1981 to 2010) average.

    The rate of ice loss for the first half of July averaged 104,000 square kilometers (40,000 square miles) per day, 21% faster than the long-term average for this period.

    Ice loss during the first two weeks of July 2014 was dominated by retreat within the Laptev Sea, and within the Kara and Beaufort seas. Open water areas now exist north of 80 degrees North in the Laptev Sea. Ice cover remains fairly extensive in the Beaufort and Kara seas compared to recent summers.

    The fact that last month was the hottest June on record, and other facts you could research for yourself on the Internet
    could cause you to change your mind if you weren't wedded to the idiotic theory that climate change is a big conspiracy on the part of the scientific community.

    And please don't quote any Michael Crichton at me, there have been plenty of cases of people trained as doctors(or engineers) who are good wat what they do, but nevertheless are clueless as to how real science works, as you appear to be in your post.

    As always, thanks for feedback.

    Parent

    You (none / 0) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 11:47:08 AM EST
    really are giving it the old college try but it's really kind of pointless to talk about science from people who use crackpot science like women can't get pregnant from rape and using birth control is the same as having an abortion. They only use these "approved" evangelical sources for all their science information.

    Parent
    Climate change denialists (none / 0) (#56)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 12:09:30 PM EST
    are just one step above the people who are scared of HAARP or worry about chemtrails, IMHO.

    Parent
    I had (none / 0) (#85)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 08:21:05 AM EST
    never heard of the HAARP thing but it sounds like something Jim would be supporting. Apparently for Repbulicans buying into conspiracy theories is easier than accpeting science or fact. Global warming is all about the one world conspiracy theory to these people.

    Parent
    Report (none / 0) (#86)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 08:47:58 AM EST
    It is also pointless to talk to wild eyed (none / 0) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 09:00:10 AM EST
    partisans who can't grasp that climate change has happened since Day One. The issue is, is it Man Made Global Warming?

    The science is so bad that the Leftie Hoxers gleefully jumped on the RINO's, "Climate Change" to disguise what they are really saying from the Low Information voters.

    If you can, tell me how the MMGW theory meets the accepted definition of a Scientific Theory.

    A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2] As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory force. [3][4]

    Link

    You should particularly focus on "predictive power."

    I note this because the predictive power of the theory of gravity is provable and has been proven.

    Contrast that with the MMGW theory that has yet to meet any prediction.

    Link

    And speaking of sources,

    Skeptical Science is a climate alarmist website created by a self-employed cartoonist, John Cook (who apparently pretends to be a Nazi). It is moderated by zealots who ruthlessly censor any and all form of dissent from their alarmist position

    Thanks to the Wayback Machine we can reveal what his website originally said,

    "I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist" - John Cook, Skeptical Science

    Link

    Of course the whole theory is refuted by this from the main stream Science Daily quoting from the main steam American Geophysical Union.

    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. However, some studies have suggested that the ability of oceans and plants to absorb carbon dioxide recently may have begun to decline and that the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is therefore beginning to increase. In contradiction to those studies, new research 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

    "Low information voters" ... (5.00 / 0) (#101)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 11:25:30 AM EST
    ... are those who have to resort to clipped "quotes" and wingnut websites, rather than the thousands of peer-reviewed scientific studies supported by facts and data.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#102)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 11:46:46 AM EST
    interesting to hear any Republican talk about low information voters when they still believe that Obama is not a US citizen and we found WMDs in Iraq, you can't get pregnant from rape and that birth control is the same as having an abortion. Maybe low information AND whacked is a better description. LOL.

    Parent
    GA, can you do nothing but (none / 0) (#105)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 12:06:43 PM EST
    post things you know to be untrue??

    But if you want to engaged in condemning a group based on the activities of a few...

    nut cakes I give you this.

    Parent

    I find (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 12:23:22 PM EST
    that highly ironic coming from you. And it's not just a few. It's 60% of Republicans that believe that we found WMD's in Iraq silly. You link to one person but 60% of the GOP is how many millions? LOL. The whole party is whackadoodle conspiracy theorists.

    Parent
    Only 1 person?? (none / 0) (#119)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 08:03:43 PM EST
    You are scared to watch the video.

    Well, you should be calling for the lynching of a SC justice is kinda over the edge...

    Parent

    Yep - only one (none / 0) (#126)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 08:24:36 PM EST
    And it's the same, ailly video you always post ... 'cause it's all you've got.  Funny how you skipped right over the fact that a large majority of those  low-information voters (aka Republicans) believe we found WMDs in Iraq, as opposed to the "few" you claimed.

    But since you enjoy your silly tactic so much:

    Conservatives Call For The Lynch1ng of President Obama

    Tea Party Speaker Calls for a Lynching
    .


    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 12:30:16 PM EST
    it's even worse 67% of Republicans think we found WMDs in Iraq link

    ROTFLMAO!

    Parent

    We've seen this game befoe (none / 0) (#120)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 08:05:30 PM EST
    YouGov interviewed 1056 respondents who were then matched down to a sample of
    1000 to produce the final dataset
    .

    lol

    Parent

    Oh, yes, (none / 0) (#125)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 08:18:49 PM EST
    i forgot. That's the same strategy you guys used to say Romney was going to win the presidency. ROTFLMAO.

    I guess you don't understand much about polling as it shows. You've got one person. I've evidence of MILLIONS. Hey, you can even look at thousands of pictures from tea party rallies calling for the lynching of Obama. Thanks for the reminder. You just destroyed your own single pitiful example.

    Parent

    "This game" (none / 0) (#127)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 08:29:14 PM EST
    Yes - you don't like to deal with polls ... facts ... or reality ...

    ... so you make some silly attempt to discredit them that has no basis in fact or logic.

    Not much of a "game", but you work with what'cha got, right?

    Parent

    Twisting (none / 0) (#88)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 09:13:52 AM EST
    facts and taking them out of context again, Jim? LOL. Proving that you're wacked out and can cut and paste is nothing new. Shoot I just saw an article where the GOP still does not believe that Obama is an American citizen despite showing his "long form" birth certificate. If that doesn't show that facts don't pentrate Republicans I dont know what does.

    Parent
    Yeah, he isn't up to date about (none / 0) (#89)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 09:44:17 AM EST
    the Antarctic ice sheet:

    In the reality camp, Skeptical Science reviews the scientific literature (here) and offers this summary explanation:

        Antarctic sea ice has been growing over the last few decades but it certainly is not due to cooling - the Southern Ocean has shown warming over same period. Increasing southern sea ice is due to a combination of complex phenomena including cyclonic winds around Antarctica and changes in ocean circulation.

    Now "The Cryosphere" has published a new study on "A spurious jump in the satellite record: has Antarctic sea ice expansion been overestimated?" (European Geosciences Union news release here).

    The abstract explains:

       

    Recent estimates indicate that the Antarctic sea ice cover is expanding at a statistically significant rate with a magnitude one-third as large as the rapid rate of sea ice retreat in the Arctic. However, during the mid-2000s, with several fewer years in the observational record, the trend in Antarctic sea ice extent was reported to be considerably smaller and statistically indistinguishable from zero. Here, we show that much of the increase in the reported trend occurred due to the previously undocumented effect of a change in the way the satellite sea ice observations are processed ... rather than a physical increase in the rate of ice advance.

    The study found that this change in data processing "caused a substantial change in the long-term trend." The authors note that "our analysis does not definitively identify whether this change introduced an error or removed one, the resulting difference in the trends suggests that a substantial error exists in either the current data set or the version that was used prior to the mid-2000s."

    But one of the co-authors, Dr Walt Meier, a cryoscientist, explained to me that the climate scientist who maintains the data set for NASA has rechecked it -- and found the error was in the original processing. In other words, "the most recent Antarctic sea ice trends are correct" but "the earlier published trends are incorrect and the change in trend over time is not as extreme as the published literature indicates."

    Bottom line: Antarctic sea ice trends are an intriguing scientific puzzle worthy of academic interest, whereas Antarctic land ice trends are like the planet running around with its hair on fire, yelling "stop the madness of denial and delay before it's too late."

    and then there's this:

    If there were one American industry that would be particularly worried about climate change it would have to be insurance, right?

    From Hurricane Sandy's devastating blow to the Northeast to the protracted drought that hit the Midwest Corn Belt, natural catastrophes across the United States pounded insurers last year, generating $35 billion in privately insured property losses, $11 billion more than the average over the last decade.

    And the industry expects the situation will get worse. "Numerous studies assume a rise in summer drought periods in North America in the future and an increasing probability of severe cyclones relatively far north along the U.S. East Coast in the long term," said Peter Höppe, who heads Geo Risks Research at the reinsurance giant Munich Re. "The rise in sea level caused by climate change will further increase the risk of storm surge." Most insurers, including the reinsurance companies that bear much of the ultimate risk in the industry, have little time for the arguments heard in some right-wing circles that climate change isn't happening, and are quite comfortable with the scientific consensus that burning fossil fuels is the main culprit of global warming.

    "Insurance is heavily dependent on scientific thought," Frank Nutter, president of the Reinsurance Association of America, told me last week. "It is not as amenable to politicized scientific thought."

    Of course, we all know that insurance companies are run by RINOs and Lefties bent on destroying our American way of life, amirite?

    Parent

    Of the insurance companies will sue (none / 0) (#95)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 10:57:00 AM EST
    any in house company lawyer will tell you that CYA is always the best course.

    Whether or not it is factual is another story.

    Parent

    The gentleman in question who was quoted (none / 0) (#106)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 12:20:30 PM EST
    was the president of an organization of insurance companies, not an in-house flack or lawyer for a particular company.

    But even if that is true as a general principle, what evidence do we have that this is CYA besides your opinion as such?  Again, arm-waving isn't very effective outside of cheerleading and baton baton twirling, sir.  

    The problem with that is that, as I posted, the AGU says that C02 in the atmosphere has not increased in 150 years

    As for atmospheric CO2 levels, who are we to believe, you or this lying graph that I found here?:

    This is a community of Earth and space science blogs, hosted by the American Geophysical Union.

    Again, thanks for a civil response.

    Parent

    Executives do not talk about (none / 0) (#141)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 03:33:59 PM EST
    legal matters unless they have discussed it with their in house lawyers.

    As for your graph, did you miss this from my comment # 87 (above)?

    "Of course the whole theory is refuted by this from the main stream Science Daily quoting from the main steam American Geophysical Union.

    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. However, some studies have suggested that the ability of oceans and plants to absorb carbon dioxide recently may have begun to decline and that the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is therefore beginning to increase.

    In contradiction to those studies, new research 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

    Since you provided no link to information that supports the graph all I can say is that I have seen several such graphs/articles that, when analyzed, show that they speak of CO2 over CITIES and other such sources.. volcanoes..

    Kind of like the panic of the false comparisons over the Greenland temps... BTW - Greenland was green during the Medieval Warming Period and the earth survived quite nicely. ;-)

    The earth scavenges the CO2 and stores it in plant life, soil/rock and the oceans. To counter the APU's study the hoaxers spoke darkly of such things as "amplification factor," "feedback" and other such terms designed to confuse. But facts are tough things to throw away.

    A new estimate of the feedback between temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has been derived from a comprehensive comparison of temperature and CO2 records spanning the past millennium. The result, which is based on more than 200,000 individual comparisons, implies that the amplification of current global warming by carbon-cycle feedback will be significantly less than recent work has suggested

    snip

    Recent attempts to quantify the feedback by examining the co-variation of pre-industrial climate and CO2 records yielded estimates of about 40 parts per million by volume (p.p.m.v.) CO2 per degree Celsius, which would imply significant amplification of current warming trends.

    snip

    In this week's Nature,... The authors derive a likely range for the feedback strength of 1.7-21.4 p.p.m.v. CO2 per degree Celsius, with a median value of 7.7.

    The researchers conclude that the recent estimates of 40 p.p.m.v. CO2 per degree Celsius can be excluded with 95% confidence, suggesting significantly less amplification of current warming.

    Science Daily

    Is climate changing? You bet. But man's use of carbon fuels is not causing it.

    Parent

    Nonsense! (none / 0) (#146)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 04:09:48 PM EST
    Executives do not talk about (none / 0) (#141)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 03:33:59 PM EST
    legal matters unless they have discussed it with their in house lawyers.

    Again, he isn't an executive, unless you think that the CEO of an organization clears every word they tell the public with their lawyers.

    Hint:  They don't.

    And, again, how do you know this is true in this particular case?  You postulate a hypothesis and immediately begin acting as though you've just proven something, when you haven't.

    Yeah, someone has to echo their 'lawyer' that insurance companies use science in their decisions.

    As for the graph, it came from the AGU website, and if you look at it closely you can see the sources credited for the date in the side areas of the graph.  With all due respect, you appear not to examine anything that goes against your conclusions very close.

    As for your article from Science Daily, your link goes to an article 5 years old.

    This is from 2 years ago, and may be more relevant:

    Earth's oceans, forests and other ecosystems continue to soak up about half the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere by human activities, even as those emissions have increased, according to a new study. The scientists analyzed 50 years of global carbon dioxide measurements and found that the processes by which the planet's oceans and ecosystems absorb the greenhouse gas are not yet at capacity.

    Try to be more up-to-date with your rebuttal material in the future.

    Parent

    heh (none / 0) (#99)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 11:17:38 AM EST
    From your source.

    A new study finds that the change in the trend of Antarctic sea ice growth over time is "not as extreme as the published literature indicates," as one coauthor put it.

    The most important thing to know about Antarctica and ice is that a large part of the South Pole's great sheet of land ice is close to or at a point of no return for irreversible collapse. Only immediate action to sharply reverse CO2 emissions could stop or significantly slow that.

    The problem with that is that, as I posted, the AGU says that C02 in the atmosphere has not increased in 150 years.

    My turn:

    The most recent Antarctic ice sheet alarm began with a paper examining a particular glacier in West Antarctica that "has long been considered prone to instability." The paper speculates that a collapse of this particular glacier is unavoidable, though it will not actually collapse for at least a couple centuries and possibly not until 2900 AD.

    Notably, while the majority of Antarctica is getting colder and the Southern Hemisphere polar ice cap is expanding, West Antarctica is a smaller portion of the continent that is experiencing modest warming.

    link

    Parent

    My turn again (none / 0) (#109)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 12:49:11 PM EST
    In other words, "the most recent Antarctic sea ice trends are correct" but "the earlier published trends are incorrect and the change in trend over time is not as extreme as the published literature indicates."


    Parent
    Nooooooooooooo (none / 0) (#142)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 03:37:43 PM EST
    Notably, while the majority of Antarctica is getting colder and the Southern Hemisphere polar ice cap is expanding, West Antarctica is a smaller portion of the continent that is experiencing modest warming.

    Sorry if you can't grasp the concept.

    Parent

    You can't talk about green energy (none / 0) (#76)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 09:00:34 PM EST
    without the man made global warming crutch. Without that there is no justification whatsoever for the vast energy price increases and government control that is in the pipeline. (Pun intended.)

    MMGW has to be sold or green energy collapses like a house of cards.

    Crichton spoke with clarity and was able to turn a phrase that got him attention. If you study him closely you can track him from being a believer to a doubter. Given his success in various fields, and yes his training, that says a lot, especially when taking a contra position is so unpopular and get you shut out of the media. One of my favorites:

    Cast your minds back to 1960. John F. Kennedy is president, commercial jet airplanes are just appearing, the biggest university mainframes have 12K of memory. And in Green Bank, West Virginia at the new National Radio Astronomy Observatory, a young astrophysicist named Frank Drake runs a two week project called Ozma, to search for extraterrestrial signals. A signal is received, to great excitement. It turns out to be false, but the excitement remains. In 1960, Drake organizes the first SETI conference, and came up with the now-famous Drake equation:

    N = N* fp ne fl fi fc fL

    Where N* is the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy; fp is the fraction with planets; ne is the number of planets per star capable of supporting life; fl is the fraction of planets where life evolves; fi is the fraction where intelligent life evolves; and fc is the fraction that communicates; and fL is the fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations live.

    This serious-looking equation gave SETI a serious footing as a legitimate intellectual inquiry. The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses--just so we're clear--are merely expressions of prejudice. Nor can there be "informed guesses." If you need to state how many planets with life choose to communicate, there is simply no way to make an informed guess. It's simply prejudice.

    As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing.

    Aliens cause global warming.

    I think that summarizes so much about the current state of "science." It has become a product to sell and the selling requires a narrative. There's  literally nothing/nobody that wants government money that doesn't use MMGW as a crutch.

    And the fact is that, as Karl Popper pointed out, a theory cannot be a Scientific Theory unless it can be falsified.. a confusing way of saying that if it can't be proven, or if it is proven wrong just one time then it is proven wrong for all time.

    It is a small "t" theory. And to believe it requires an act of faith. There is no difference between a religious belief and a belief in MMGW. Neither can be proven and both can point to all sorts of historical information.

    As to quoting out of context, I provide links and the reader can decide for themselves. Schneider's words cannot be misunderstood. Nor can Jones'. If you wish something can happen so something can be proven then you know it hasn't happened.

    As for the ice caps, well if we go back just 26 months:

    The amount of sea ice covering the Arctic dramatically increased last month, reaching levels not seen at this time of year for nearly a decade.

    Link

    If we go back 3 years:

    The arctic ice appears to have bottomed out at a level 6.4% higher than the 2007 record. Mark Serreze of the National Snow and Ice Data Center says the Arctic could be ice-free in the summer by about 2030, though that is hard to predict; other scientists say it could be mid-century before that dramatic point is reached. The article continues Why does this matter? Ice that's floating on the sea surface doesn't raise the sea level when it melts

    Link

    Of course the Greenland cover always comes up, yet:

    All eyes are on Greenland's melting glaciers as alarm about global warming spreads. This year, delegations of U.S. and European politicians have made pilgrimages to the fastest-moving glacier at Ilulissat, where they declare that they see climate change unfolding before their eyes.

    Curiously, something that's rarely mentioned is that temperatures in Greenland were higher in 1941 than they are today.

    Link

    And then we have this about Antarctica:

    Antarctic polar ice extent has set another new record, defying alarmist global warming claims. Surpassing the greatest month-of-April ice extent in recorded history, the new record throws cold water on alarmist claims that the Antarctic ice cap has crossed a melting point of no return.

    snip

    Notably, while the majority of Antarctica is getting colder and the Southern Hemisphere polar ice cap is expanding, West Antarctica is a smaller portion of the continent that is experiencing modest warming. Taking advantage of this outlier trend in a smaller portion of the continent, the media has a long history of highlighting modest warming in West Antarctica or a small retraction of West Antarctic sea ice and falsely claiming this is caused by global warming and is representative of Antarctica as a whole.

    Link

    So is MMGW a "bee in my bonnet?"

    Well, I grew up a science fiction fan and have a huge collection. So the possibility of massive destruction is not strange to me. My post Navy career was in engineer to customer service product management to technical sales and I take the position  that he who dies with the most toys "wins."

    I have seen too many lies by too many politicians, scientists and engineers to sell a product or "the future" to believe that we need to do things that enrich some at the expense of the many and turn power over to un-elected bureaucrats.

    Parent

    First of all (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 09:15:09 PM EST
    Your link about Greenland is about 3 years out of date:

    According to national weather institute DMI, the highest temperature was registered on June 15 in the southwestern town Kangerlussuaq, where it reached 23.2 degrees Celsius. That is 0.1 degrees warmer than the previous record of 23.1 that was measured on two occasions in 1988 and 2002.

    And if green energy is such a boondoggle, what are the Chinese getting in to it? Do they know something perhaps you don't?

    As for a bee in your bonnet, I withdraw that, you have a few loose noodles in your strudel about AGC.

    I base this on the fact that you think out-of-date data about Greenland and a lecture by someone who isn't trained as a scientist outweighs the data and facts and reasoning behind the science of why our planet is getting warmer.

    Thanks for not being patronizing this time around.

    Parent

    The Chinese are building solar panels (none / 0) (#91)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 10:46:55 AM EST
    for the world market which has been largely driven by government subsidies. (See Spain. See the US' metered systems.) There are also a host of uses for small systems. e.g. Roadside signs where no electric power is available and back up battery power requirement is low. Remote microwave systems. Small boats. etc., etc. These require low price with resulting short end of life (EOL)figures.

    Unlike ours, their coal power generation plants are very old technology and are creating problems. We went past this years and years ago when the EPA was actually mandating that problems be fixed rather than engaging in the last .00001% activity to help Obama in his quest to turn the US into a third world country. (Okay, that's an overreach but since MMGW'ers want to talk about trends....)

    As for Greenland, the link doesn't give us the '41 temperature just that it was higher. And it was written in 2007. So let's examine your complete source.

    "Its highest ever temperature, 25.5 degrees, was measured in July 1990....."

    So the previous high was 25.5. Yet the source ALSO says:

    the highest temperature was registered on June 15 (2014) in the southwestern town Kangerlussuaq, where it reached 23.2 degrees Celsius. That is 0.1 degrees warmer than the previous record of 23.1 that was measured on two occasions in 1988 and 2002.

    Your source

    This, of course, is the basis for the panic inducing headline:

    Greenland breaks June heat record

    Yet, seizing on my math skills

    (25.5) - (23.2) = 2.3 for a decrease.

    Now one can argue that the 1990 25.5 was in July while the article is for June. So I went to Google and found the 1 PM temperature to be 16.11 C at 1PM on 7/27/2014.

    But, to be fair, the high forecast for today is 18.88.

    And the ten day forecast calls for a 8/1 being the high of 21.66... still well below any of the records.

    July is cooler than June??? Possible and understandable if you ever spent a summer in San Francisco about which Mark Twain wrote that the coldest winter he ever spent was a summer in San Francisco.

    Weather

    Which probably proves nothing beyond weather is weather but the media loves panic headlines to sell their product.

    And weather is weather and should not be confused with trends.

    Speaking of which, to return to Dr Jones

    This is from an Australian at BMRC (not Neville Nicholls). It began from the attached

    article. What an idiot. The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998.

    OK it has

    but it is only 7 years of data and it isn't statistically significant.

    link

    Now that was in July of 2005. It is now 9 years and 22 days later and the trend is the same.

    I wonder how long it takes for it to be statistically significant.

    Dr  Jones' emails

    As for loose noodles, if preferring fact to fiction causes that pass the butter......

    Parent

    The Chinese are building solar panels (none / 0) (#92)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 10:46:55 AM EST
    for the world market which has been largely driven by government subsidies. (See Spain. See the US' metered systems.) There are also a host of uses for small systems. e.g. Roadside signs where no electric power is available and back up battery power requirement is low. Remote microwave systems. Small boats. etc., etc. These require low price with resulting short end of life (EOL)figures.

    Unlike ours, their coal power generation plants are very old technology and are creating problems. We went past this years and years ago when the EPA was actually mandating that problems be fixed rather than engaging in the last .00001% activity to help Obama in his quest to turn the US into a third world country. (Okay, that's an overreach but since MMGW'ers want to talk about trends....)

    As for Greenland, the link doesn't give us the '41 temperature just that it was higher. And it was written in 2007. So let's examine your complete source.

    "Its highest ever temperature, 25.5 degrees, was measured in July 1990....."

    So the previous high was 25.5. Yet the source ALSO says:

    the highest temperature was registered on June 15 (2014) in the southwestern town Kangerlussuaq, where it reached 23.2 degrees Celsius. That is 0.1 degrees warmer than the previous record of 23.1 that was measured on two occasions in 1988 and 2002.

    Your source

    This, of course, is the basis for the panic inducing headline:

    Greenland breaks June heat record

    Yet, seizing on my math skills

    (25.5) - (23.2) = 2.3 for a decrease.

    Now one can argue that the 1990 25.5 was in July while the article is for June. So I went to Google and found the 1 PM temperature to be 16.11 C at 1PM on 7/27/2014.

    But, to be fair, the high forecast for today is 18.88.

    And the ten day forecast calls for a 8/1 being the high of 21.66... still well below any of the records.

    July is cooler than June??? Possible and understandable if you ever spent a summer in San Francisco about which Mark Twain wrote that the coldest winter he ever spent was a summer in San Francisco.

    Weather

    Which probably proves nothing beyond weather is weather but the media loves panic headlines to sell their product.

    And weather is weather and should not be confused with trends.

    Speaking of which, to return to Dr Jones

    This is from an Australian at BMRC (not Neville Nicholls). It began from the attached

    article. What an idiot. The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998.

    OK it has

    but it is only 7 years of data and it isn't statistically significant.

    link

    Now that was in July of 2005. It is now 9 years and 22 days later and the trend is the same.

    I wonder how long it takes for it to be statistically significant.

    Dr  Jones' emails

    As for loose noodles, if preferring fact to fiction causes that pass the butter......

    Parent

    Like the essays (none / 0) (#96)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 11:04:44 AM EST
    They are easier to scroll past

    Parent
    Oil subsidies? (none / 0) (#97)
    by MKS on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 11:07:30 AM EST
    We should stop those, true?

    No more tax breaks for big oil....

    Parent

    If you want to (none / 0) (#100)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 11:19:33 AM EST
    stop all subsidies, government grants, tax breaks for non profits...

    I agree. Let's do it.

    Parent

    Big Oil (none / 0) (#115)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 02:34:25 PM EST
    isn't composed of any non-profit groups, AFAIK.

    Parent
    Wrong again (none / 0) (#111)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 12:58:36 PM EST

    for the world market which has been largely driven by government subsidies. (See Spain. See the US' metered systems.) There are also a host of uses for small systems. e.g. Roadside signs where no electric power is available and back up battery power requirement is low. Remote microwave systems. Small boats. etc., etc. These require low price with resulting short end of life (EOL)figures.

    Wrong, in fact, the Chinese have plenty of competition when it comes to solar panels.

    For most of the past decade, if you put solar panels on your roof or built a massive megawatt photovoltaic power plant, the federal government slashed the cost by 30 percent in the form of a tax credit.

    The investment tax credit, or ITC, has proved wildly successful, helping spur a huge expansion of solar energy in the United States. A record 4,751 megawatts of photovoltaic power capacity went online in 2013, a 41 percent jump from the previous year and 15 times as much as was installed in 2008, when the ITC went into effect.

    Now the party is almost over.

    At the end of 2016, the ITC will only be worth 10 percent of a project's cost. And it helps explain why the solar arm of French energy giant EDF on Tuesday said it has hired First Solar to supply photovoltaic panels and build three power plants in California's Central Valley that will generate about 43 megawatts of electricity for utility Pacific Gas & Electric. As solar projects go, this is rather small pommes de terre. But speed counts as much as size these days. On a conference call with investors Tuesday, First Solar chief executive Jim Hughes said the French projects will be finished in early 2015, easily beating the 2016 tax credit deadline. On the other hand, a so-called utility scale power plant - 100 megawatts or more - can take far longer to build.

    First Solar is the largest solar panel maker and developer in the United States--and the world's sixth biggest--so its fortunes are a bellwether for the global industry. The company makes most of its money building and operating photovoltaic power plants and Hughes said demand is growing across the U.S. as 2016 approaches. For instance, First Solar will soon announce a new 150-megawatt power project to be built in California, he said.

    But the real action is happening overseas. Hughes said that 57 percent of First Solar's 12.2 gigawatts of potential future projects are outside the U.S., in burgeoning markets like Latin America, the Middle East, and India.

    Even the mining industry--not known for its clean and green reputation--is going solar. First Solar has signed a deal with an international mining company in Australia, which Hughes did not name, to build a 5-megawatt solar power plant at a mine site to reduce the company's reliance on heavily polluting diesel generators.

    5-megawatt solar power plant for a mining operation.  

    I don't know about you, but in my book that isn't small-scale.  I suggest you stew that with the noodles in your strudel if you can.

    Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem -- neat, plausible, and wrong

    H. L. Mencken

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#121)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 08:10:44 PM EST
    The investment tax credit, or ITC, has proved wildly successful, helping spur a huge expansion of solar energy in the United States. A record 4,751 megawatts of photovoltaic power capacity went online in 2013, a 41 percent jump from the previous year and 15 times as much as was installed in 2008, when the ITC went into effect.

    Of course it was. When government is paying people will do crazy things.

    BTW - Where was 4,751 megawatts of power generation for NIGHT TIME installed??

    And I didn't say the Chinese didn't have competition.

    Parent

    The tax credits only mean that the (none / 0) (#133)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 02:15:57 AM EST
    ROI is sooner rather than later.  That's not true for fossil fuel plants, the last time I checked.

    BTW - Where was 4,751 megawatts of power generation for NIGHT TIME installed??

    Last time I checked, the demand for power goes down at night, but it does mean 4751 MW of power generated during the day without any fossil fuels or nuclear fission just to heat up water to the point of boiling for generating electricity.

    And, of course, winds blow at night, tidal or wave power can be generated 24/7 with the right technology, so, no, solar power isn't the be-all and end-all of green power generation, but thanks for bringing it up.

    Look up what's going on out there with green power generation these days,, daddy-O, it might just blow your mind.


    Parent

    Noooooooooo (none / 0) (#143)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 03:59:01 PM EST
    Tax credits mean that someone else is paying for it and the investor's exposure is less.

    And power demand is a bit more complex than what you write. Climate, season, type of local industries all come into play.

    And yes, the winds blow and the tides flow at night... but there is NO current power generation using the tides and the wind quits from time to time.

    As for your stupid "dady-O" I ain't yo daddy and if I was I'd file legal papers disowning you.

    But I digress.

    As I previously noted, I'm a techie. I'm all for the latest and greatest. When we redid our retirement home I looked at everything.

    But there was nothing around that was practical.

    There is no PRACTICAL way to store the power generated by coal, wind or tides. And no, batteries aren't practical.

    Hydro does it obliquely by water storage. But the environmental wackos hate damns and have had some torn down.

    Some homes using large brick walls to store heat during the day and radiate it back into the room at night.

    You can't run a modern civilization on such.

    So study up, honey chile. Dig you some hard science stuff and quit smoking dope and dreaming of Unicorn Farts powering your bicycle.

    TANSTAAFL

    The world is based on carbon.


    Parent

    For a techie you seem to be uninformed (none / 0) (#150)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 04:40:18 PM EST
    Point 1:

    There is no PRACTICAL way to store the power generated by coal, wind or tides. And no, batteries aren't practical.

    3 Clever New Ways to Store Solar Energy

    Flow Batteries

    Aziz and his colleagues turned to fuel cells for inspiration. Fuel cells power space capsules and aircraft, capitalizing on reactions that convert the chemical energy in small organic molecules like methanol into electricity. Aziz figured that if he could craft a fuel cell that also runs in reverse--essentially converting energy back into chemical reactants--the resulting flow battery could store solar power using inexpensive, organic fuel.

    Inorganic, metal ion-based flow batteries have been in use since the 1980s. These older models were constructed as tanks filled with vanadium ions, and could be customized to deliver more hours of energy by simply increasing the amount of vanadium in a storage tank. Unfortunately, vanadium isn't cheap.

    "If all you have to do is increase the size of the storage chemicals, that's fine--until you have to pay for the chemicals," Aziz says.

    His team found a less expensive alternative in the form of quinones--small organic molecules that help rhubarb plants store energy. "In photosynthesis, quinones are known to recharge over and over again with high efficiency," Aziz says. While vanadium flow batteries cost almost 2 cents per kilowatt-hour, Aziz says that his quinone-based flow batteries may ultimately cost as little as 1/4 of a cent per kilowatt hour.

    This is from that hippie-dippie rag you know as Forbes:

    The Electric Power Research Institute performed feasibility studies in this area. The Palo Alto, Calif.-based research arm of the electric utility sector said that unlike hydropower, tidal energy does not require the permanent impediment of water flow and the subsequent harm to aquatic life. Existing tidal plants, it adds, impound the water before releasing it into generators. And newer tools are even more progressive and use underwater turbines that ultimately connect to cables to transport the power.

    Try again, assertion sometimes just isn't enough, James.

    Parent

    Jackie Robinson created a distraction (none / 0) (#35)
    by MKS on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 09:02:22 AM EST
    Rosa Parks created a distraction too.

    Sports are not as important as people make it out to be....It is just a "game."

    Gay bashing fortunately only  boomerangs now.

    Parent

    You make a good point (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 10:59:40 AM EST
    But the question is...

    Does Dungy's statement rise to "gay bashing?"

    You might say, "I disagree with his assessment."

    But you can't disagree with the fact that Sam's presence on a team will create a lot distractions.

    And if statements of fact can't be made then we truly have lost our way.

    It would be better if the press, and social media, would have just noted he was gay and then went into a black out mode.

    And I say that Dungy's comments have exploded for the same reason Tebow was a lightening rod wherever he was at as a pro. The media can't tolerate Christians who are also prominent in the game.

    Parent

    Statement (none / 0) (#53)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 11:02:33 AM EST
    But you can't disagree with the fact that Sam's presence on a team will create a lot distractions.

    Yeah, just like what happened Jason Collins signed with the NY Knicks.

    Parent

    Tebow (none / 0) (#54)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 11:06:31 AM EST
    Can you cite any links to Sports Illustrated, the NY Times, one of the major networks(Fox excepted, they only make fun of non-Christians), ESPN, etc. demonstrating intolerance of Tebow because of his Christianity?

    Parent
    Generally speaking, when you suggest ... (none / 0) (#63)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 03:39:54 PM EST
    ... to people that they're going to hell for whatever it is that they're doing with which you disagree, it should therefore come as no surprise when they answer your admonishment by replying in kind.

    Parent
    BTW (none / 0) (#122)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 08:13:24 PM EST
    I Goggled Tebow Christian and got 2,010,000 hits.

    Somebody was writing about it.

    Parent

    When an athlete makes his faith (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 02:20:10 AM EST
    a part of the game, people are going to write about it.  It's not like he would do quiet prayers on the sidelines during the game and that was it.  He made it a part of his public persona, and so drew attention to his faith and stirred peoples' curiosity about it and him.

    Christ had something to say about people who prayed in public places and were vociferous about their faith, didn't He?

    Parent

    Christ prayed (none / 0) (#136)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 02:19:40 PM EST
    very publicly.

    So you need a better one than that.

    Plus, I've seen many players kneel and thank God for the touchdown they just scored.

    Tebow's religion was neither excessive or any different from that.

    And if it was his public persona then you've made my point.


    Parent

    Christ Prayed? (none / 0) (#137)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 02:55:22 PM EST
    And very publicly at that?

    Sleeping Beauty slept for 100 years... bet you can verify that too!

    Your credibility is weakening.

    Parent

    There is the "touchdown" Jesus at (none / 0) (#138)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 03:03:55 PM EST
    @ Notre Dame. Very public.

    Parent
    Squeaky, when you attack (none / 0) (#144)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 04:06:21 PM EST
    just because you hate someone you make yourself look stupid.

    ...18And He said, "Bring them here to Me." 19Ordering the people to sit down on the grass, He took the five loaves and the two fish, and looking up toward heaven, He blessed the food, and breaking the loaves He gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the crowds, 20and they all ate and were satisfied. They picked up what was left over of the broken pieces, twelve full baskets....

    Matthew 26:26
    While they were eating, Jesus took bread,and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body.

    Luke 22:17
    After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, "Take this and divide it among you.

    Parent

    Hahaah (none / 0) (#161)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 05:28:11 PM EST
    Apparently our belief in "science" that denies any global warming, is about as credible as your claim that Jesus prayed out in the open.

    I am sure that you believe this happened too:

    The princess grew and became a miracle of beauty. One day, when she had just reached her fifteenth year, the king and queen went away, leaving her all alone in the castle. She walked from room to room, following her heart's desire. Finally she came to an old tower. A narrow stairway led up to it. Being curious, she climbed up until she came to a small door. There was a small yellow key in the door. She turned it, and the door sprang open. She found herself in a small room where an old woman sat spinning flax. She was attracted to the old woman, and joked with her, and said that she too would like to try her hand at spinning. She picked up the spindle, but no sooner did she touch it, than she pricked herself with it and then fell down into a deep sleep..

    Finally [the Prince] came to the old tower where Brier-Rose was lying asleep. The prince was so amazed at her beauty that he bent over and kissed her. At that moment she awoke, and with her the king and the queen, and all the attendants, and the horses and the dogs, and the pigeons on the roof, and the flies on the walls. The fire stood up and flickered, and then finished cooking the food. The roast sizzled away. The cook boxed the kitchen boy's ears. And the maid finished plucking the chicken. Then the prince and Brier-Rose got married, and they lived long and happily until they died.

     



    Parent
    Yeah, but that was at the... (none / 0) (#164)
    by unitron on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 06:40:21 PM EST
    ...equivalent of a revivalist's tent meeting--something that was specifically a religious event with an audience that was there voluntarily for just that.

    His words of disapproval about public prayer were about those who went out in everyday general life public to make a big show to everyone of how holy and devout they were.

    You know, people who didn't care so much about being holy and devout nearly as much as they did about being seen to be holy and devout.

    Parent

    I guess you need a Sunday School reminder: (none / 0) (#139)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 03:13:08 PM EST
    Well, for one thing, Tim Tebow isn't the second coming of the Son of God.  For another thing, we know what Christ said about praying in public for others:

    Matt 6: I-VI

    And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

    And yes, Jesus prayed in public, but none of the prayers were at a public sporting event, according to Biblical scholars.

    Tebow's religion was neither excessive or any different from that.

    And if it was his public persona then you've made my point.

    What, that people object to a Christian praying in public against the specific injunction of the founder of Christianity?

    I think if I were a believer in Christianity I would find him offensive. I think you've just made my point as well.

    Parent

    See what I said to Squeaky (none / 0) (#145)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 04:09:48 PM EST
    It is obvious that your religious background is poor.

    Well, since you are a believer in MMGW you are a member of a religion.

    Parent

    It is? (none / 0) (#149)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 04:31:40 PM EST
    I'm glad you were put here on earth to tell me that.

    As for the Sermon on the Mound, that's a religious event, probably up there with Moses and the 10 Commandments or David slaying Goliath, so a prayer there would be reasonably in place there, vs. a sports event, about which the New Testament is regrettably silent, although I believe that the Roman Emperors did make an offering to the Roman Gods before the gladiator games.  So cheer up, there is a legal, if not a moral, precedent for Mr Tebow.

    BTW:  If the flaws many commentators here seem to have after an exchange of views with you is 'obviously' ignorance, doesn't that say something about you?

    Parent

    It says that (none / 0) (#152)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 04:52:46 PM EST
    your snarks prompted me to snark back.

    And that's what happens every time I engage in a technical fact based discussion with a Leftie.

    ;-)

    As for Squeaky, he's hated me for years. A burden I have accepted willingly.

    So now the argument is that athletes can't pray at a religious event??

    Nice try and changing the subject, but no cigar.

    Parent

    Why did he say (none / 0) (#158)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 05:02:00 PM EST
    "enter into your closet"?

    Clue: he wasn't sending out advice to conservative republican congressmen of the future.

    Parent

    Re Argument (none / 0) (#160)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 05:18:54 PM EST
    So now the argument is that athletes can't pray at a religious event??

    Nope, I'm just pointing out that you've yet to show that the 2 million hits that Tebow and Christianity are all because of a negative presentation of Tebow by the MSM.

    Now, I'm going to let you in on a little secret:

    People who tend to be public about mixing their religion and their profession are very off-putting to some people who are religious but don't wear it on their sleeve, along with those who aren't religious but get irritated by those who seem to have to remind the world about their chosen faith every 5 minutes they aren't on the field or athletic court or whatever.

    An athlete who is successful on the field is allowed many sins, someone with a mixed record like Tebow get increased scrutiny on all aspects of his life, and he has chosen with his "Tebowing" and praying in public to subject it to scrutiny.

    Don't worry, after his death, he'll go down in history for being the first Internet Christian Martyr, suffering for the faith by being crucified electronically 2 million times, a much worse fate than the quick and easy deaths of the early Christians who were fed to the lions in the Colosseum.

    Parent

    Sure enough Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm (none / 0) (#171)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 11:28:11 PM EST
    Let me see.... Tebow's religion was all the rage... we get 2 million hits and you waffle?

    lol  That's what I love about the Left.

    People who tend to be public about mixing their religion and their profession are very off-putting to some people who are religious but don't wear it on their sleeve, along with those who aren't religious but get irritated by those who seem to have to remind the world about their chosen faith every 5 minutes they aren't on the field or athletic court or whatever.

    Everything is off putting to someone in today's world. Does open prayer often insult you?? I recommend you sue... or go into therapy.. You pick'em.

    Being a social liberal if I see someone praying I just ignore them or join them, depending on the time, place and my mood.

    But I can see how you wouldn't want to be tolerant... even though I bet you talk a good game!

    Parent

    Nah, I'm a pancake sort of fellow (none / 0) (#173)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 06:01:03 AM EST
    You still haven't shown that the 2 million hits means anything, James.

    Until you do so, all you're doing is repeating yourself, and making yourself look foolish as the same time.

    Is that also part of being a 'social liberal'?

    Everything is off putting to someone in today's world. Does open prayer often insult you?? I recommend you sue... or go into therapy.. You pick'em.

    Never said that the open prayer offended me or anyone else here, but you seem to think that a sporting event is on the same level as the Sermon on the Mount.

    Being a social liberal if I see someone praying I just ignore them or join them, depending on the time, place and my mood.

    And the 2 million hits Tebow and Christianity is from intolerant lefties, egged on by a MSM that hates Tebow being an open Christian, according to you.

    If you can't show even one of the 2 million hits isn't 'anti-Tebow', that kinda makes me wonder if social liberal isn't an euphemism meaning "Somebody who can't be bothered to make a case for their argument."

    Show that some of the top hits are anti-Tebow because of an anti-Christian bias in the MSM and you might have a case.  So far, for all yor huffing and puffing, you haven't demonstrated that the MSM persecuted the despised Mr. Tebow because of his Christianity.

    Parent

    Hated You (none / 0) (#166)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 06:50:13 PM EST
    Never... I do not know you.

    Your comments, on the other hand, which are most often if not always wingnuttery.. I sometimes reluctantly take issue with, whenever I am bored enough.  

    Parent

    Aw come on Squeaky (none / 0) (#172)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 11:30:58 PM EST
    now you gonna claim you love me but hate what I write???

    "Love the sinner but hate the sin."

    Hmmmm.. seems like I have heard that before..

    lol

    Parent

    Don't think squeaky (none / 0) (#174)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 06:15:22 AM EST
    thinks your important enough to hate.

    Shouldn't you be praying for him, like a good Christian?

    Parent

    Would that be the... (none / 0) (#165)
    by unitron on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 06:42:38 PM EST
    ...Sermon on the Pitcher's Mound?

    Because then we're back to religion at sporting events.

    Parent

    "When the count is 3-2 (none / 0) (#167)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 07:06:32 PM EST
    thou should be wary of the bunt."

    The Book Of Mantle Chapter 5, verse 1.

    Parent

    Nonsense. (none / 0) (#61)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 03:13:38 PM EST
    Tim Tebow is hardly a lightning rod. He's simply another player who had some problems replicating at the pro level the success he enjoyed in college. His oft-professed Christianity has absolutely nothing to do with that. He just needs to keep working, and there's no reason why he can't eventually be successful as an NFL player. It took Jim Plunkett the better part of a decade before he finally caught a break with the Oakland Raiders and realized his potential.

    Parent
    Donald, you may be correct (none / 0) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 10:49:37 AM EST
    that Tebow was just another college athlete that had trouble being successful in the pro world.

    But can you name me another that attracted so much attention?

    Parent

    Well, how's ole... (none / 0) (#112)
    by unitron on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 01:02:10 PM EST
    ...Manti Te'o doing?

    Or did you specifically mean garnered so much attention after going pro?

    Parent

    Uh, yes (none / 0) (#123)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 08:14:22 PM EST
    the point is after going...

    Parent
    Ah, yes - Manti Te'o! (none / 0) (#130)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 09:11:50 PM EST
    "Play like your make-believe girlfriend died today."

    Te'o was a great player on the field for Notre Dame, but a fraud off of it. So is his family, who were part of that whole ruse, insisting publicly that they had actually met the non-existent young woman.

    Regarding the rumors about his sexuality, I won't go there, because that's his business. But personally -- and this is my opinion only -- I think they were spinning the dead girlfriend story to gin up sympathy for the guy's 2012 Heisman candidacy, which I think is unconscionable and inexcusable.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Lots of players demonstrate a shaky (none / 0) (#113)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 01:02:24 PM EST
    transition from college to the pros, attention isn't the same as 'negative press because they hate CHRISTIANS like him'.

    When someone makes a point of doing something special after a touchdown to demonstrate respect to their God, that's going to draw attention, period.  I think your quarrel is with human nature, not with anti-Christian sports and mainstream media.

    Parent

    Well, if the attention is negative (none / 0) (#124)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 08:15:15 PM EST
    then says a lot about our culture.

    Parent
    So what else is new? (none / 0) (#129)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 08:52:44 PM EST
    "People love it when you lose, they love dirty laundry."
    -- Don Henley, "Dirty Laundry" (I Can't Stand Still, 1982)

    Parent
    His performance wasn't that good at times (none / 0) (#132)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 02:05:18 AM EST
    I don't think the reaction to that says anything about our culture, except for Gen Pattons' observation that Americans hate to lose.

    Parent
    Actually the average (none / 0) (#135)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 02:06:28 PM EST
    fan doesn't blather on ESPN or have a sports column.

    So it is about media.

    Parent

    You still haven't shown or linked to anything (none / 0) (#140)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 03:18:10 PM EST
    from the media to demonstrate an anti-Christian bias against Tebow.

    Now that we've agreed on the sports media not being responsible, perhaps you can link to some example of MSM being unfair or otherwise prejudicial against Mr. Tebow because of his faith and not his performance on the field.

    That would be more helpful instead of repeating your assertion for the 4th or 5th time already.

    Parent

    And you haven't linked anything (none / 0) (#147)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 04:16:12 PM EST
    proving the validity of that graph.

    Now, since you have admitted to being non Christian and we know you are a Member of the Church of MMGW then I can understand how your eyes are closed.

    I did note that "Tebow Christian" garnered over 2 million hits. Somebody was writing about it.

    Also go back and read what I wrote about Dungy who is also being attacked for being publicly Christian.

    Parent

    Funny how THE church (none / 0) (#154)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 04:57:46 PM EST
    and that other church -- with it's Bircher-like belief in a world-wide conspiracy of climate scientists and tree-huggers -- seem to go together.  

    Parent
    You'll see that it says: Data sources: TP Whorf Scripps, Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, Institution of Oceanography (SIO), University of California La Jolla, California, United States, 1999.

    The image below shows that the atmospheric CO2 has increased from a pre-industrial concentration of about 280 ppmv to about 367 ppmv in 2000 (ppmv= parts per million by volume). Carbon dioxide concentration data from before 1958 are from ice core measurements taken in Antarctica and from 1958 onwards are from the Mauna Loa measurement site. The smooth curve is based on a hundred year running mean. It is evident that the rapid increase in CO2 concentrations has been occurring since the onset of industrialization. The increase has closely followed the increase in CO2 emissions from fossil fuels.

    You will find the graph and the above explanation here.

    As for Tebow, you've mentioned the Google search result, but you've yet to demonstrate any media degradation or criticism of Mr. Tebow based on his religion is why your Google search had 2 million hits.  Did you at least look at the first 20 results to tell us what the general tenor of the public reaction to him is?

    I'm sorry, in a country where the vast majority of the population are professing Christians, you've yet to demonstrate any negative MSM treatment of Mr. Tebow because of his religion, other than Google results which, I remind you again, show people are talking about it, but not what they're saying about it.

    Parent

    FYI (none / 0) (#157)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 05:00:21 PM EST
    Jim suffers from the Christian persecution complex. Most neoconfederates do. They unfailingly have a huge boulder on their shoulder and are convinced that anybody criticizing Tebow is all about the "anti-Christian' bias in this country.

    Frankly I'm a Christian and I think that Tebow is cheesy but then most evangelicals are. Tebow would paint bible verses on his eyes which looked pretty stupid and probably changed no one's mind. In fact his cheesy behavior and antics on the field probably hurt Christianity more than anything.

    Parent

    It's what passes for a conservative (none / 0) (#162)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 05:39:56 PM EST
    rallying point these days: the idea that "secularists" and "the liberal media" are all out to persecute christians. It's another conspiracy like the MMGW hoax and secret-muslim-commie presidents.  

    Parent
    Remember QB Ryan Leaf of Washington State? (none / 0) (#128)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 08:40:33 PM EST
    jimakaPPJ: "But can you name me another that attracted so much attention?"

    As a senior in 1998, Leaf led the Cougars to their very first Pac-10 conference title in school history and their first Rose Bowl game since 1931. He was a deserving Heisman Trophy finalist that year, and in the following spring was the No. 2 overall selection by the San Diego Chargers in the NFL draft.

    But as a pro, Leaf's erratic personal behavior and substance abuse problems compounded his poor performance as a player, and the media was thoroughly ruthless in their coverage of his issues.

    Ryan Leaf's pro career was over by 2002, but the media is still unrelenting. An ESPN special on NFL drafts aired just the other night, calling Leaf the biggest washout and draft bust in NFL history, while also noting that he's presently incarcerated at Montana's Crossroads Correctional Facility, serving a seven-year sentence for numerous burglary, theft and drug charges.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    I'll give you a 3 on a scale of 10 (none / 0) (#148)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 04:20:24 PM EST
    I Googled "Leaf failure NFL" and got 608,000 hits vs the over two million for "Tebow Christian."

    Parent
    Jim you have to use better methodology (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 06:07:28 PM EST
    I can google "Jim is a douche" and get 1.7 million hits.

    Parent
    Leaf has been out of the league (none / 0) (#151)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 04:48:36 PM EST
    for a decade. Tebow's folding under the Satanic-secularist onslaught of unbelievers, the liberal media, and "leftie hoaxers" was fairly recent.  

    Parent
    Interesting article... (none / 0) (#16)
    by unitron on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 12:45:06 AM EST
    "a 70-percent increase in the price of oil: (none / 0) (#24)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 08:27:56 AM EST
    from $3.01 to $5.11 per barrel."

    Those were the days...

    Parent

    Florida senator wants D'Souza film (none / 0) (#27)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 08:48:47 AM EST
    I'd like to think that ... (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 06:18:19 PM EST
    ... watching Dinesh D'Souza's sentencing would be far more appropriate and influential on impressionable young minds -- sort of a "Scared Straight" for potential wingbats.

    Parent
    Good choice (none / 0) (#32)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 09:00:12 AM EST
    with a 9% rating @ Rotten Tomatoes(dot)com, this should make Commies out of the young Floridians in no time, if the proposal becomes law.

    Parent
    Brownbackistan Experiment (none / 0) (#38)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 09:06:50 AM EST
    Blows up Laboratory of Democracy. - Joe Conason, RCP

    When Louis Brandeis wrote in 1932 that a "single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country," he was suggesting that state innovations might advance reform on the federal level. The progressive Supreme Court justice surely wasn't imagining anything quite like Brownbackistan [Kansas].


    It seems (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 09:28:48 AM EST
    even Kansas has had enough of this cr*p.

    Parent
    Browhbackside (none / 0) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 09:09:31 AM EST
    Is losing.   In every poll.  To a democrat.   In Kochistan.

    Parent