Comments Posted By the Dragon
Displaying 31 To 40 Of 58 Comments
WARMING ADVOCATES: 'REMAIN CALM! ALL IS WELL!
busboy,
More from the Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html
When will we see this in the US Press? NEVER, or later?
Regards,
Comment Posted By the Dragon On 29.11.2009 @ 12:01
busboy,
Maybe we'll get an answer http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6678469/Climategate-University-of-East-Anglia-U-turn-in-climate-change-row.html
Regards,
Comment Posted By the Dragon On 28.11.2009 @ 16:30
busboy said:"That is what I think of when I see the phrase “does not allow anyone to see the calculations or tests”. I get the impression that is NOT what you mean, so I’m a little confused about what discredits the entirety of research into the topic rather than individual reports or scientists, but I also get the impression the failure is on my end."
It's sort of like Gorgon Lightfoot's song "If you could read my mind" :-)
What I was attempting to address is that my understanding that the resultant temperature data was provided as East Anglia is/was the collector/aggrigator, I believe, BUT the methodology or makeup of the actual model which was used to produce that underlying data upon which, much if not all of the "peer reviewed" research is based, has not been provided so any other scientist, particularly a skeptic could reproduce the data independantly.
I am quite cynical about "peer review" in science anymore. It goes back to WADA "World Anti-Doping Agency", FRAUDA World I call it. Another group of junk scientists. They got "peer reviewed" science by having like minded scientists "peer reviewing" their own work, NOT getting other skeptical scientists involved.
Regards,
Comment Posted By the Dragon On 28.11.2009 @ 07:52
busboy,
You make some good points, I do happen to remember, I think I was in college (70-73), one of the National Magazines was trumpeting the next "Ice Age".
I am a non-believer. The reason? Can you imagine Einstein saying he has this theory of relativity, yet DOES NOT allow anyone to see the calculations? How about Jonas Salk just saying I have a vaccine for polio, yet NO TESTS?
Regards,
Comment Posted By the Dragon On 27.11.2009 @ 20:16
THINKING IMPURE THOUGHTS IS MORE THAN A MORTAL SIN IF YOU'RE A REPUBLICAN
Richard Bottoms said:"And fourth, you lost.
Whatever comes out of it for the teabagger movement, the bottom line you lost a seat and we picked one up."True, BUT whether NY-23 became a big deal or not, the outcome would have been as it turned out. Own Goal on the Establishment.
You have an interesting point here "Not more than I think because I think it will happen more times than not if you continue to drive the party to the right." I'm sure the move-on crowd threatening wavering Dems will lead to a more moderate Dem party?
Regards,
Comment Posted By the Dragon On 24.11.2009 @ 21:03
Richard bottoms said:"Purity Control is going to be what limits the GOP success in 2010. The teabaggers will demand it, moderates who might have been re-elected won’t be and conservatives who win will be a detriment on 2012 as they enforce fealty during the run up to the elections."
I very much doubt that. Contrary to what you think, tea party folks are not dumb, THEY ARE very frustrated. To the extent they find the Republican Primaries as a place to do their battles, as it should be. It's interesting how all most of analysis draws from NY-23, which was unique for a couple of reasons, First it was a "Special Election" and Second, as a result of the first, there WAS NO Primary. Third, there is a Conservative Party in NY, which has a line on the ballot, which is not the case in most other states.
This 10 point list seems assinine to me, and an attempt to recapture the "Contract with America". OR more likely an attempt to suck up to the vocal dissatisfaction afoot. They are tone deaf, and either don't understand or attempting to deceive those who find the RNC as much a part of the problem as Obama and the Democrats.
It will be interesting, and I keep waiting for an explaination as to how Cristie and McDonnell managed to get the votes of close to 60% of independents.
Regards,
Comment Posted By the Dragon On 24.11.2009 @ 19:21
'IQ OF A CELERY STALK?' WHY DIDN'T I THINK OF THAT ONE?
Liberty60,
Your comments in #24 are EXCELLENT!
I agree with you philosophically, the question is can your and my aims be achieved with one stroke of a pen? I sincerely doubt it.
The real question is HOW do/can we move towards our common objective?
I suspect as a Manager, you often have a handfull of options of how to move forward in any circumstance, I suspect from time to time you choose an option which offers less risk and less reward, rather than an option which fits your basic philosophy which may carry far higher risk with more abundant reward.
You said "It is insulting to tell us you want to “set government back within its limits” and then tell us that we need to accept a large and intrusive Security State." I agree with you conceptually, my only question is must this be the first step?
I am not really sure which problem should be solved first, yet if you don't start somewhere, one is unlikely to solve any of them.
Regards,
Comment Posted By the Dragon On 23.11.2009 @ 07:31
Liberty60 said:"This is part of the problem I have with Palin; that she is, in Rod Dreher’s words, a “conflicted populist”; she writes movingly of how Exxon screwed over the people of Alaska, and how she was their champion; yet then goes on to chirpily state that Big Business gets a bad rap."
Liberty, have you read the book, or any of the book?
I DID NOT respond in an earlier thread when you brought up Dreher because I was very early in the book. At present I am half-way, although it seems I just finished the pre-campaign stuff, yet there will be some more related to the post-campaign Alaska stuff.
I personally think Dreher has to live on a planet further from Earth than mine, to think that there is necessarily any inconsistancy in the above comment. Is your problem that Exxon screwed Alaskans? Seems to be evidence to support this claim aka Exxon Valdez. She also served as an advocate for those she was elected to serve, in demanding that Exxon and others exploit their leases or lose them.
Second, in order for Dreher's view to be correct, one HAS TO believe ALL Big Business (however that is defined) is bad. I personally do not believe that, while admitting there are a number of bad actors who give a bad name to the Solid Citizens. Is that an unreasonable position? Should I visit the sins of someone you know to you, just because you happen to know them?
I find this "Corporation" argument specious. With Corporations, do you also include LLC's and Partnerships? IF so, let's save the world and liquidate them all. My guess we could put another 50-70 million people out of work, maybe more, but it would be for their own good. No, you didn't say that, yet "Corporations" is so vague and fits 3/4's of my client's, employing 0-50 workers.
One thing I think it would have been useful to realize that Sarah Palin's book is an Autobiography. By definition, I expect it to reflect the world from Sarah Palin's perspective, AND I presume that it presents her in a very favorable light.
I haven't gotten to the Katie Couric part, so the only comment I will make is that I saw John Fund (Wall Street Journal) on TV last week (I think Hannity..I watched because Vince Flynn the author was on and I love his books) where he asserted that the Couric interview lasted 8/9 hours which was edited to 13 minutes. There was a Democrat strategist (I think the name was Schoen or something like that) on as well who seemed to confirm that. They stated that was congenitally stupid for a campaign to allow that, and it seems the McCain campaign DID NOT get a copy. I'll finish the book and see what Sarah Palin ACTUALLY has to say about it.
As to NSA and Homeland Security (she hasn't addressed this yet in the book), I personally have always been conflicted. Unfortunately, I see it as a catch-22. Am I trusting enough to believe these agencies WILL NOT abuse their trust? barely, and uncomfortably so. Could I live with myself IF I stood fast to principle, eliminated their efforts, and a dirty bomb eliminates Houston Texas or LA and several million or more people die. Is that an easy choice? For me, not so easy. How about you?
As to the Too Big to Fail issue, my gut say's Sarah Palin disagree's with that. The question, as was the melt down last fall. How do you deal with a situation where the Government was an active participant in the underlying causes?
Regards,
Comment Posted By the Dragon On 22.11.2009 @ 19:26
Liberty60 said:"Palin’s platitudes are actually angry resentments- the evil Elites, the foolish Leftists, the “ones who don’t see America the way you and I see America”
Her sentiments are the politics of exclusion, of class warfare in its most destructive manifestation."Interesting. I am sure George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, George Mason just to name a few, who colluded on the Constitution intended for the "We the People" folks to be subservient to the National Government. They just happened to screw it up the mechanism when they wrote the document.
The strain that runs through the 1st half of Sarah Palin's book (I'm only half-way through, so unlike Ms. Cox, I cannot give a full review yet) is that the Government exists to serve those "We the People" folks. I think that much of the rage is at bottom, similar. I admit that is a very quaint concept, and so 18th Century.
Regards,
Regards,
Comment Posted By the Dragon On 22.11.2009 @ 17:53
Rick,
You and Taibbi are really on to something.
You Champion civility!!!
Then proceed to call anyone who does not HATE Palin, like you folks seem to, is either currently committed to a mental institution, escaped same, or has illegally evaded such commitment.
You say "Many times, Americans argue by “substitution,” not able to finger exactly what it is that troubles us, and rather than explore the real reasons for our differences, use proxy issues instead." and then relish demeaning anyone not "ENLIGHTENED" as you and Taibbi, regarding Sarah Palin. I guess there are multiple and opposing definitions of "substitution".
You make the following point "They will tell you it’s all about “socialism” but these same folks didn’t seem to mind much when Bush pushed the prescription drug benefit, or the huge federal interference in education represented by the No Child Left Behind legislation." Maybe in your part of the Universe EVERYONE loves these Republican nostroms. It seems that this Pathetic Band of Resenters have a fairly bi-partisan target. While they may feel they can achieve their wishes through the Republican Party, many hold no love for the current Republican establishment either, having been let down time and again.
I suspect you and Taibbi RESENT the fact that the US Constitution begins with 3 words "We the People", you would much prefer a somewhat longer intro, something like "You Stupid People MUST bow down to the People who know what's best for you."
One thing you "Smart" folks might not have considered is that the VAST MAJORITY of citizens don't hang 24/7/365 on politics. They make their choices and expect the trains to run ontime. When things are very comfortable, they will take a chance on a pie-in-the-sky promise, it couldn't cause much problem if it doesn't work. BUT woe be to the one who seems to have tried to pull the wool over their eyes, particularly in difficult times.
You then seemed somehow to allude to William F. Buckly in positive terms. Rick, you've got to get your story straight...OR is this a different William F Buckley from the one who wisely said "I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University." That sounds more like what these mentally unbalanced individuals are saying, AND what you and Taibbi deplore.
Regards,
Comment Posted By the Dragon On 22.11.2009 @ 15:59
