Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - kidcoyote

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 243
« on: Today at 06:09 PM »
Well, I disagree with the Hobby Lobby decision almost entirely. It's very sexist. Women can't have contraceptives but men can have Viagra.

Not a believer in the First Amendment, I guess? My body, my choice, your responsibility? Sure, women can have contraceptives, but why does someone else have to pay for them? Re the tit for tat vs. men, don't think you want to go down that road. Did you know under the ACA, women get 7 "free" visits per year? I'm not joking. Do men get anything like this? Think of the cost. 8 visits, at let's say, $300 per visit x 100 million women=$240 billion annually. Who pays for these "free" visits? There's no such thing as a "free visit". Don't believe me? Show me where men get anything like this. Now, if you're honest, and think it should be "equal", the deck is stacked against men. Does any male here get 8 "free" visits per year, with no co-pay. Any idiot can give away "free" stuff to garner votes. It's an old trick. Effective, though.

« on: Today at 02:55 PM »
Here's the contribution to energy production, on a percentage basis, of wind, solar and biomass. Back to the Dark Ages, don'tcha think? And these are the warmists' solutions? Oh, we just need to fund them, right? Biomass has been around for more than 10,000 years, wind, since at least the Vikings days, and solar, forever. And they were funded back then. Spend a few trillion and we'll get there, right? Anyone is welcome to do so, but I'll take fossil fuels, with TV, internet, autos, planes, trains, home heat, home electricity, indoor plumbing. Oh, wait, I forgot about the need/desire for some to coerce others to do what they want. Lar, I'm not going to force you to do what I want. It's your side that does the coercion. As far as I'm concerned, you can do whatever you want. You want to live on biomass, solar and wind, and worry about the world, go ahead.

Bill Buckley had it so right in "Up From Liberalism".

I will not cede more power to the state. I will not willingly cede more power to anyone, not to the state, not to General Motors, not to the CIO. I will hoard my power like a miser, resisting every effort to drain it away from me. I will then use my power, as I see fit. I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth. That is a program of sorts, is it not? It is certainly program enough to keep conservatives busy, and liberals at bay. And the nation free.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.

« on: Today at 02:37 PM »

And March was the US coldest.


That statement is no different than saying North Dakota was colder than normal in June.

As I've pointed out to you numerous times, it's GLOBAL warming not US warming - temps in one particular locale mean little.

The GLOBAL March temps were the fourth highest March on record.

"The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces was the fourth highest for March on record, at 0.71°C (1.28°F) above the 20th century average of 12.3°C (54.1°F)."

BTW - it was only the coldest March since 2002 in the US, it wasn't the coldest on record like you suggest.   And that's only the contiguous US since Alaska had one of the hottest Marches on record. 

And if you don't like June, pick ANY other month.   EVERY month is significantly higher than normal.

Keep drinking the Kool Aid, Lar. Adjusting temperatures from the 1930's 75 years hence may be okay with you, but not me. And you know what? I don't give a s*** about what the temperatures supposedly are in Asia, Africa, Europe. I know in Vermont and NY, MA CT, where I regulary travel, they change year to year. Last year was awesome for the ski industry, the year before they almost went broke. The warmist would claim both as evidence of climate change. Sure the climate changes. Every idiot knows that. But is it catastrophic? NFW. In my life, what I deal with, what my fuel bill is, what my AC bill is, how many days I can play golf, how my garden does, how often I cut my grass, how hard it is to start my car, how often I plow my driveway, this is what my "climate" is. And you know what, there's a lot more important things to spend my time on than someone predicting the world's going to end in 100 years.

Forget this back and forth. How about personal experience? Who on these pages, not what you've read, but who here can state that the climate is dangerously different than it was 25 years ago? More snow, rain, hurricanes, tornados, extreme cold, heat, whatever? I don't feel or see much difference. This year, the spring was freezing, the summer's dry as hell. Who gives a s***? Africa, if it is warmer, maybe it's helping as Africa has 4 of the 10 fastest growing economies in the world. So, maybe it gettting warmer, if it is, is good for people, just like the Medieval Warming Period was so good for Northern Italy, resulting in such bountiful harvests and prosperous economic growth, the great cathedrals were built due to prosperity. So, that's bad?

It's been well-documented that Spanier (nor anyone else involved) was a mandated reporter in 2001.  Even as the law reads today, it's a very gray area if he'd be a mandated reporter because the kid wasn't there under the care of any PSU employee.

It's been well documented? The question really is with MM. Did he need to report? Was he a mandatory reporter? I am not sure MM had to report, but once reported to admin, the protocol is clear.  And MM was in his official capacity as he was employed, on campus, and the child did come before him. But a voluntary reporter, even that is what MM was, once reported to admin, it seems by the law a report, with strict protocol, has to be followed. Schultz calling the police to find if the '98 incident was still on record is damning at the least, and Spanier's concern about being vulnerable for not reporting shows intent to not follow the law, which he should have known or gotten legal advice.

§ 42.42. Suspected child abuse—mandated reporting requirements.
 (a)  General rule. Under 23 Pa.C.S. §  6311 (relating to persons required to report suspected child abuse), licensees who, in the course of the employment, occupation or practice of their profession, come into contact with children shall report or cause a report to be made to the Department of Public Welfare when they have reasonable cause to suspect on the basis of their professional or other training or experience, that a child coming before them in their professional or official capacity is a victim of child abuse.

 (b)  Staff members of public or private agencies, institutions and facilities. Licensees who are staff members of a medical or other public or private institution, school, facility or agency, and who, in the course of their employment, occupation or practice of their profession, come into contact with children shall immediately notify the person in charge of the institution, school facility or agency or the designated agent of the person in charge when they have reasonable cause to suspect on the basis of their professional or other training or experience, that a child coming before them in their professional or official capacity is a victim of child abuse. Upon notification by the licensee, the person in charge or the designated agent shall assume the responsibility and have the legal obligation to report or cause a report to be made in accordance with subsections (a), (c) and (d).

Here's the total law including protocol.

« on: Today at 01:45 PM »
Obama loses in court.....again. Great to see the imperial Presidency reined in, at least for those who don't like dictatorships.

To get out in front of all those who will say millions of peoples' premiums will go up, not so, it's just they'll now have to pay them themselves, for what's very expensive insurance. These comments were written yesterday, before the decision, in another article.

First, a victory for the Halbig plaintiffs would not increase anyone’s premiums. What it would do is prevent the IRS from shifting the burden of those premiums from enrollees to taxpayers. Premiums for federal-Exchange enrollees would not rise, but those enrollees would face the full cost of their “ObamaCare” plans.

Second, Avalere Health, the Urban Institute, and media outlets that have repeated their estimates typically neglect to mention that a victory for the plaintiffs would mean the second-highest court in the land ruled the Obama administration had no authority to issue those subsidies or impose the resulting taxes in the first place – that those taxes and subsidies are, and always were, illegal. Regardless of one’s position on the PPACA, we should all be able to agree that the president should not be allowed to tax and spend without congressional authorization. That’s what’s at stake in Halbig. It is why the Halbig cases are far more important than “ObamaCare.”

The termination of those subsidies and the taxes they trigger takes on an entirely different flavor when we introduce that small detail. If the courts rule for the plaintiffs, I’ll be interested see how many news agencies use headlines like, “Ruling Denies Subsidies to Millions,” versus the more accurate, “Court Rules Obama Gave Illegal Subsidies to Millions.”

Though that small detail doesn’t change the fact that 5 million people have been deeply wronged, it does clarify who wronged them: not the Halbig plaintiffs or a few judges, but a president who induced 5 million low- and middle-income Americans to enroll in overly expensive health plans with the promise of subsidies he had no authority to offer, and that could vanish with single court ruling.

...been a rough couple of weeks for the chief on his healthcare plan. First, Hobby Lobby, now this. The Constitution and laws are just such stubborn things. At least he's doing better at foreign policy. ;)

« on: Today at 01:26 PM »

I'm somewhat surprised that kid hasn't already pointed out that this was a colder than average June in North Dakota so clearly global warming is a farce.

So now June is the proxy for the whole year? NOAA adjusts temperatures from 75 years ago. Unreliable. And March was the US coldest. The map is too big to post, but if you read their narrative on let's say, North and South America, when it's not hot, they don't mention temperatures, but precipitation. They don't mention snow, as that would indicate it's cold. They don't want to do that. And for April, they highlight tornadoes in the Midwest. While true, tornadoes are at 20 year lows. Hurricanes are at 30 year lows. So why stress one month? So, when we have one month of tornadoes, and the climatistas go nuts? You can't be that gullible.

One scientist nailed it on the Phillipine typhoon a couple years back, "There have been 20-30 thousand of these in the Phillipines the last 10,000 years. Why is people blaming this one on climate change?"

OT / Re: Jerry Sandusky - all relevant threads consolidated
« on: Yesterday at 01:38 PM »
It's been well-documented that Spanier (nor anyone else involved) was a mandated reporter in 2001.  Even as the law reads today, it's a very gray area if he'd be a mandated reporter because the kid wasn't there under the care of any PSU employee.

Okay, a 12 year old is raped in a HS bathroom upstairs from the gym during a HS basketball game. A HS student witnesses it. He runs to the principal's office and informs the principal, but not knowing exactly what he saw, he best describes a man and child naked in the bathroom and he heard a slapping sound. Does the principal have to call child services? The 12 year old was not a student, nor the molester not a school employee. Spanier would not have to report, but probably should, but certainly not mandated, if someone came to him and reported a sexual assault 1 mile off campus, by someone he knew, like JS. But a former employee on school grounds, and a report by an employee? Sorry, you're splitting hairs. Anyone on campus comes before the President.

Here's how the Times reports the emails:

According to emails and Schultz’s notes, Spanier and the two administrators agreed on a plan: They would inform the board chairman at Second Mile (the charity that Sandusky founded), alert child-welfare authorities and tell Sandusky that he could no longer bring children into Penn State’s locker rooms. Not long after that, Curley wrote to Schultz and Spanier to say that he had changed his mind about going to the child-welfare authorities. Instead, he would urge Sandusky to get help.

“This approach is acceptable to me,” Spanier wrote in response. “The only downside for us is if the message isn’t ‘heard’ and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it. But that can be assessed down the road. The approach you outline is humane and a reasonable way to proceed.”

So, my questions are:

Why the need for a plan? Plan for what?
Inform the child welfare authorities of what?
Why tell Sandusky not to bring children on campus if there was no crime, or no suspicion of a crime?
Why urge JS to get help? Help for what?
Vulnerable for not having reported exactly what?
Downside for us if the message isn't heard? What message? No more raping kids on campus?

« on: Yesterday at 01:14 PM »
Tim A, this from Buckley's, Up From Liberalism, written in 1959. Does this not capture what Allende, and for that matter, all liberals/leftists, think?

"The salient economic assumptions of liberalism are socialist.  They center on the notion that the economic ass can be driven to Point A by the judicious use of carrot-and-stick, an approach that supersedes the traditional notion of conservatives and classical liberals that we are not to begin with dealing with asses, and that Point A cannot possibly, in a free society, be presumed to be the desired objective of tens of millions of individual human beings.

The liberal sees no moral problem whatever in divesting the people of that portion of their property necessary to finance the projects certified by ideology as beneficial to the Whole. . .

The call by liberalism to conformity with its economic dispensations does not grow out of the economic requirements of modern life; but rather out of liberalism’s total appetite for power.  The root assumptions of liberal economic theory are that there is no serious economic problem; that in any case economic considerations cannot be permitted to stand in the way of “progress”; that, economically speaking, the people are merely gatherers of money which it is the right and duty of a central intelligence to distribute.

If his words are accurate, shutting down debate, like in AGW, or hiding immigrants in the current crisis, or in using the IRS to get one's way, is okay to the liberal, because the ends justify the means. I posted a link yesterday, "Durham in Wonderland", by KC Johnson, a prof at Brooklyn U, part of CUNY. Look at how this guy was treated, and he is a liberal, and voted for Obama. This is the kind of censorship that's all too common in academia today. FYI, after 8 years, he shut down his Duke website. So, academia is in no way looking for truth, and good heavens, certainly not debate, but in shutting down debate, and in submission to its agenda.

« on: Yesterday at 12:59 PM »
War is certainly different, Tim. I'm a bit more familiar with FDR interning Japanese Americans, and actually know a family who lost their business due to this. IMO, that was outrageous, and many think it had less to do with risk, than California farm interests who wanted the land the Japanese had improved through irrigation, making something of nothing. Anyway, I digress.

Again, it would have been nice for you not to change the rules after the game had started.

Just curious as to what reasoning you would use to disqualify Pinochet?

I don't need any reminders about FDR's internment camps. I had a relative, a German born US citizen, that was sent to an internment camp in Texas while his son was sitting in a German POW camp after his bomber was shot down. Care to guess which one made it out alive?

Pinochet? Interesting. This, from Wiki:

As president, Allende adopted a policy of nationalization of industries and collectivization; due to these and other factors, increasingly strained relations between him and the legislative and judicial branches of the Chilean government – who did not share his enthusiasm for socialization – culminated in a declaration of a "constitutional breakdown" by the congress. A centre-right majority including the Christian Democrats, whose support had enabled Allende's election, denounced his rule as unconstitutional and called for his overthrow by force. On 11 September 1973 the military moved to oust Allende in a CIA-sponsored coup d'état.

So, Pinochet was asked to do this by a majority of the country's congress. Where's your beef? This was not a one man show. I mean, congress and the courts were against him. IMO, today, a coup in Venezuela is warranted. Similar situation as to Chile. Confiscation of private property is war. Was the American Declaration of Independence a coup?

OT / Re: Jerry Sandusky - all relevant threads consolidated
« on: Yesterday at 12:33 PM »
Kid, based on your whacky thoughts on this case I suspect you of something. Does that mean I have to report you?  Stick to politics. You embarrass yourself -- your apparent disdain for spanier is the only reason you are participating in this conversation. And your "facts" need checked more closely. But that's how you operate, as others have pointed out in other threads.

I'm not a mandatory reporter. Spanier is, as is admin. Read the law. The only possibility is the one Lar pointed out, that the "child must come before them". But this is a slim reed. Suppose in a HS, a 12 year old is brought into a bathroom and molested. Now, HS staff are mandatory reporters. But because the child wasn't a student and maybe the molester wasn't an employee, does that mean if the principal is notified by someone seeing the incident, the principal doesn't have to report, because the "child didn't come before them?" Get serious, man.

The 800lb gorilla missing in most analysis that I see, is that admin, in any situation, is not allowed, under any circumstances, to handle it internally. Ever. Ever.  The HS situation I mentioned is a perfect example. Admin had no knowledge, other than several parents writing anonymous letters suggesting there was something going on. The coach and student looked a bit too cozy. Leaving the campus together(the girl was 15), in the car together, fooling around after practice, walking the halls together. And the girl started, despite being among the weakest of 12 players. Numerous letters were written over a period of months. Once apprised of this, admin has to report to child services, that parents had suspicion. Child services investigates. No foul, no penalty. Admin legally has to report, on suspicion, not conclusive evidence. Certainly letters have to be considered suspicion. Spanier failed this test. His emails are damning. You can't honestly state there was no suspicion. Look at his emails. It's not some wacky idea. My wife is in a school where this is an issue, child abuse, sexual abuse, parents in prison, parents on drugs, child neglect, broken homes, boyfriends abusive to children, children taken from parents by social services, etc. She was appalled at the support of Paterno in this. Not that he was guilty, but that the concern was misdirected. If anything, it confirmed what many thought, that football and his legacy was more important than child welfare, at least to some. 

« on: Yesterday at 12:01 PM »
Some comments on the Economist article about socialism.

The Morals of the Welfare State

The degrading of human morality under socialism is a long-time theme stretching back before Hayek to, arguably, Tocqueville.  Short of complete socialism, mightn’t the welfare state have something of the same effect?  Here’s a good topic for serious, fine-grained social science research.  And my scientific estimate is that the number of academic social scientists who endeavor to investigate this question will asymptotically approach zero.

Tim B has posted numerous posts on pre-conceived notions, and a couple pieces on Hibbing. All of these seem to point that there is something in one's brain blocking them from seeing the light, most commonly regarding global warming. But how about socialism? What's blocking the left from seeing the stupidity of socialism? What are the facts? How did the Soviet and China experiments go? And how about Cuba, N Korea, Cambodia, Vietnam? And Argentina? Venezuela? And even non-totalitarian experiments like W. Europe? Social scientists and academics have no interest in exploring this phenomena, as to why some still believe in socialism, despite the horrors. And why not? Pre-conceived notions, in spades. Cognitive dissonance. Hibbing's right about one thing, the idea that the right focuses on negatives and the left doesn't. Leftist policies  like socialism produce negative results, but the left doesn't want to look at that, the destructiveness of policies they support. They prefer the fantasy or theory of it, not the reality.

« on: Yesterday at 11:50 AM »
Predictable. I can see it on these very pages. Who but the left censors people(or kills or imprisons them) when they don't like what they write or say? ;)

Abraham Lincoln's admin censored and imprisoned some of his critics. Or was honest Abe a leftie?

It was during war time. Rescinding habeus corpus? Come on Tim, get serious. Straw man argument.

So let me get this straight. You're the one who neglected neglected to declare your rules of peacetime only and ignoring habeas corpus doesn't count, but I'm the one with the straw man argument?

War is certainly different, Tim. I'm a bit more familiar with FDR interning Japanese Americans, and actually know a family who lost their business due to this. IMO, that was outrageous, and many think it had less to do with risk, than California farm interests who wanted the land the Japanese had improved through irrigation, making something of nothing. Anyway, I digress.

Today, you have the BBC, a taxpayer funded network, stating that they won't allow AGW deniers, in the cover that they're not 'scientific'. This is total BS. You have science magazines in this country where editors have been forced to apologize or worse, get fired, should they publish AGW skeptical research. Richard Lindzen, whose bio is as good as any in atmospheric science, cannot get published in the US. Once he wrote a piece, promised that he could choose his own peer reviewer, only to have that denied. He published it, in Korea, in Korean Geophysical Letters, or something of that sort. Svensmark and Kirkby ran their CLOUD experiment, after 15 years of denied funding, and were proven right. And yet, millions are wasted on limos, global flights to places like Durban, Bali, Cancun. In Copenhagen alone, 1,200 limos were needed for that meeting, and Svensmark, a Dane, was not invited, nor was the world's leading polar bear expert, a Canadian, despite his paying for himself to attend, and was told that his views, "were not helpful." Maybe you believe in censorship like this. I don't. And that doesn't even count publications like the NY Times, or the major networks, the way they report. Scientists skeptical of catastrophic AGW are compared to racists, creationists, or like tobacco deniers. Then we get the preconceived notion BS, or that our brains don't function correctly. When the science of AGW is weak, I guess one has to resort to this kind of tactic. If one is familiar with Marxism, this is exactly what Marx tried. When the center of global economic thought was in London, perplexed by Marx's theories, they asked him to explain certain aspects, as to them, it wasn't adding up. His response, "you have a bourgeoisie mind, and you need a proletariat mind to understand how it works." Is this not similar to what Hibbing states, that those not in agreement with the agenda of the day, can't think correctly? I guess the London group had "pre-conceived notions". And I agree, they probably did. It's called common sense and facts.

OT / Re: Jerry Sandusky - all relevant threads consolidated
« on: Yesterday at 01:43 AM »
NY Times with a surprisingly fair article discussing/interviewing Spanier.

From the Times article, here are a few gems, which continually miss the point, and the Times knows this.

Wes Oliver, a law-school professor at Duquesne, in Pittsburgh, provided television commentary on the Sandusky trial and has been following the proceedings against Spanier. “I don’t even know what guilt means in this case,” he told me. “What exactly does it mean to fail to supervise a former coach who you happen to know brings kids to your campus? What kind of duty exists there? If anything, it’s a sin of omission. There are sins of omission for which people are punished, but I don’t know if that will happen here or if it should happen.

If Spanier's found guilty, it's not due to lack of supervision, but non-reporting, then a cover up. I'd agree, that as non-reporting is a misdemeanor, this case has gotten strangely large, now felonies are charged. But this piece, with the abuse by his father, including a quote by his sister, seems an attempt by the Times to make Spanier a victim. This is typical of the Times.

But this from the article, from a prof? Puhlease. Wonder how he felt about the Duke lacrosse case, where 88 faculty indicted their own students! I mean, unreal. They should have all been terminated for cause. It was outrageous.

"Not to sound too high-minded, but the purpose of a university is to seek truth and advance knowledge, and we’re a long way from having done that.”

The Duke lacrosse case. This is worth reading in full. Sickening. Really shows how universities look to seek truth and advance knowledge. That's got to be the most hypocritical line ever. It's the exact opposite of campuses today. They're pushing an agenda and funding, not truth.

Who'd a thunk it? The New York Times on the wrong side again. And self righteous about it. From the paper which supported Stalin (Walter Duranty) and Castro(they reported on their front page, circa 1960, that the head of the Bacardi Rum family, whose business Castro confiscated, purchased a defense aircraft to bomb Castro in the Presidential Palace. The US intervened and stopped it.) And here we are, 50 years later, where the maximum wage in Cuba is $1 per day. Maximum.

Excellent coverage of this case came from some quarters of the traditional media—from the 2006-2008 staff of the Duke Chronicle; from Joe Neff at the N&O; and nationally from 60 Minutes and ABC’s Law and Justice Unit. But the terrible traditional coverage—from the New York Times, the Herald-Sun, op-ed commentators such as Selena Roberts and Eugene Robinson, and other outlets in the early stages of the case—was terrible indeed.[/b]

OT / Re: Jerry Sandusky - all relevant threads consolidated
« on: Yesterday at 01:15 AM »
Taking it into one's own hands and warning TSM not appropriate protocol. Need to report. The NY Times reporter doesn't mention this. It's the critical point against him and those charged.

Report what?

Until we know what McQueary actually told them (and based on the actions of John McQueary and Dr Dranov, it wasn't anything serious), we can assume they did in fact follow the correct protocol

Suspicion of abuse has to be reported. Not actual abuse. Not definitive abuse. Suspicion. Spanier's emails certainly show that. Couldn't be clearer. You cannot deal with these things internally. There's no "handling it". Has to be reported. Child services figures it out, not the admin trying to keep it in house. I've seen this. Very similar response by admin.

About 10 years ago, a middle school basketball coach got close to a female student(coach was male). When she went to 9th grade(HS) he got the freshmen coaching job, and started her as a player. Parents were perplexed, as the girl was not a good player at all. In any case, they were seen hanging around together, and long story short, several parents sent anonymous letters to admin that something was amiss. Well, like at PSU, admin tried to handle it, and interviewed both the teacher and student, who both denied anything going on. That's illegal. The law is clear, has to be reported, cannot be handled by admin. The relationship continued for 3 more months, then emails were checked by admin, and in another interview of both, the girl broke down and confessed. But for 3 months, he continued sex with her. He got 6 years. He was married, and a father of 3. But just like PSU, admin tried to handle it internally. And they had zero evidence of abuse. Zero. Just hearsay. Doesn't matter. Suspicion has to be reported. Not evidence of abuse, not proof, just suspicion. Admin should have gotten jail. Don't know if the girl's family sued. The behavior by admin in the HS case was no different than that of PSU. You need to protect children. There ain't no handling anything. Make the call to child services. That's it. This HS coach abused this girl, 15 years old, for 3 more months. At PSU, it was 10 years on the loose.

« on: July 20, 2014, 09:04 PM »
I don't understand why somebody would equate 'best-selling' with 'quality' in 2014.  But then again, this is Kid we're talking about. 

Rand has 4 books in that top 10, do you know why???  Because people who enjoy reading that **** are fanatical morons.  L. Ron Hubbard has 3 books in the top 10.  That means Hubbard and Rand make up 7 of the top 10.  LOLOLOLOL 

I love that you posted this as some kind of proof of quality regarding Rand's work, you never disappoint when it comes to proving the point you're arguing against.

You're absolutely right, when it comes to THAT top 10 list, I haven't read much.  Thankfully.

It's not necessarily quality, granted, but as "Atlas Shrugged"(of the 4, probably the one I liked least) has more reprints than any other book other than the Bible, it can't be called "on the fringe", unless you think the Bible can be called "on the fringe". Like it or not, it's an important work, and people who haven't read it, like you, shouldn't be dissing something they know little or nothing about. Rand was an atheist, which I'm not, but some of her ideas have been dead on. Crony capitalism, for one. And how can one argue with this reasoning? It's why I don't believe in group rights, because this is exactly what it is. 

« on: July 20, 2014, 08:46 PM »
Predictable. I can see it on these very pages. Who but the left censors people(or kills or imprisons them) when they don't like what they write or say? ;)

Abraham Lincoln's admin censored and imprisoned some of his critics. Or was honest Abe a leftie?

It was during war time. Rescinding habeus corpus? Come on Tim, get serious. Straw man argument.

OT / Re: Jerry Sandusky - all relevant threads consolidated
« on: July 20, 2014, 08:41 PM »
NY Times with a surprisingly fair article discussing/interviewing Spanier.

A little soft, IMO. A bit much on his abuse. Irrelevant. And this by another prof? Yeah, the Mann investigation was a sham. 4 questions/points were to be asked, and only 2 were addressed. Spanier ran it. And the 4 investigators were all PSU professors. Ridiculous. Seeking truth? Puhlease. Keeping the funding cash cow continuing.

"Not to sound too high-minded, but the purpose of a university is to seek truth and advance knowledge, and we’re a long way from having done that.”

I always was against the $60 million NCAA fine. That'll find its way to some big wig's sister who runs a charity and pays herself $500k per year. Not sure what the punishment will be, as non-reporting is a misdemeanor, but his emails seem pretty convincing of his intent to cover it up. Taking it into one's own hands and warning TSM not appropriate protocol. Need to report. The NY Times reporter doesn't mention this. It's the critical point against him and those charged.

« on: July 20, 2014, 05:08 PM »
More deception from our deceiver in chief. When it comes to dishonesty, Nixon couldn't hold a candle to this guy. Gosh, he's just so clever. Revolting that someone would do this, misrepresent what he's doing.

Faith Based Charities-Not

« on: July 19, 2014, 06:30 PM »
Maybe Hibbing can put this into his machine. Like to see him spin this. Might upset his pre-conceived notions. It's getting so hard to determine who's who. First we hear that the National Socialists weren't socialists, and now people like Howard Dean are trying to say Putin and his communist buddies are right wing. Talk about spin.

The More People Are Exposed to Socialism, The Worse They Behave

Predictable. I can see it on these very pages. Who but the left censors people(or kills or imprisons them) when they don't like what they write or say? ;)

« on: July 19, 2014, 03:50 AM »
I don't waste a lot of my time reading the work of crazy people, outside of your posts in this thread that is.  So no, I'm not well-versed in Rand's work because about 100 pages of that garbage was more than enough.  I haven't made it through Mein Kampf or the manifestos of most 21st century mass murderers either, you'll have to fill me in on the cliff notes of those sometime, too.

Atlas Shrugged is the #1 rated novel in the world as according to readers.

Which readers, exactly?  Probably the same people who rank Transformers movies the #1 in the world every summer.

And it's hilarious that you cite the Ivy League backgrounds of these guys as references for their credibility.  Isn't your buddy Krugman a Princeton prof? Plus a Yale and MIT grad?  Sorry if he doesn't meet your low-information standards. 

You never disappoint in your responses, I'll give you that.

I won't fault you, as apparently you don't read much, but Atlas Shrugged may be best selling novel of all time, in print over 60 years. But here's the list, I did say readers,so there you go. BTW, Krugman was pushed out of Princeton.

« on: July 19, 2014, 03:43 AM »
IRS officials targeted and harassed American citizens based on their political views.  This should upset every American regardless of party affiliation.  The highest ranking IRS official to date tied to this has taken the fifth.  And now it is revealed her emails for the period in question are "lost" and/or destroyed.  This needs to be fully investigated, no matter how messy it gets or where it leads.

I agree, but if it is illegal to claim a tax break for political activities, what are they supposed to do? This is a serious question.

I've been looked into by the state tax department (many years ago, for some deduction my accountant made), and I can tell you that it sure felt like harassment, not investigation.

Now a friend of Lerner's, a lawyer at the Federal Election Commission under investigation for violating the Hatch Act, had her hard drive "recycled."  What a coincidence.

Amazing, isn't it? Nixon's second article of impeachment included, "endeavouring to use the IRS to harass political opponents", so he wasn't even successful, but just attempted to use the IRS. Rightly so, the IRS commish denied his request. Now we're supposed to believe both that: it's not important, and the WH wasn't involved. What a joke.

« on: July 19, 2014, 03:38 AM »

Target of suspicion? Want to point that out? He's a target of the AGW industry. Like Lindzen, Svensmark, Kirkby, Hug, and on and on. Gosh, that paper has slipped badly. It's more like the Enquirer than the Enquirer. That reads like a 9th grade paper. Just the adjectives. That paper used to have editorial standards. Now, it's just a rag sheet.

« on: July 16, 2014, 02:39 PM »
PowerlineBlog, another trusted and completely unbiased source for all your global warming denial news.

He not only throws in an Ayn Rand reference with a straight face, he shares another valuable resource in the war on reason.

KidCoyote, everyone!

Powerline, FYI, is run by 3 Dartmouth grads, all now attorneys, one, Hinderaker, got his law degree from Harvard. The other writer, Steve Hayward, is a PhD in history. Sorry if they don't meet your low information standards.

Re Ayn Rand, most dismiss her without reading her work. The #1 book people lie about reading is Atlas Shrugged. I actually didn't like that one so much(too long and repetitive), but did read it, as well as We The Living(B), Anthem(A) and The Fountainhead(A). Atlas Shrugged is the #1 rated novel in the world as according to readers. Most don't understand her. She was anti-God, similar to many here, which I'm not, but her overall view on government was spot on.

The nineteenth century was the ultimate product and expression of the intellectual trend of the Renaissance and the Age of Reason, which means: of a predominantly Aristotelian philosophy. And, for the first time in history, it created a new economic system, the necessary corollary of political freedom, a system of free trade on a free market: capitalism.

No, it was not a full, perfect, unregulated, totally laissez-faire capitalism—as it should have been. Various degrees of government interference and control still remained, even in America—and this is what led to the eventual destruction of capitalism. But the extent to which certain countries were free was the exact extent of their economic progress. America, the freest, achieved the most.

Never mind the low wages and the harsh living conditions of the early years of capitalism. They were all that the national economies of the time could afford. Capitalism did not create poverty—it inherited it. Compared to the centuries of precapitalist starvation, the living conditions of the poor in the early years of capitalism were the first chance the poor had ever had to survive. As proof—the enormous growth of the European population during the nineteenth century, a growth of over 300 per cent, as compared to the previous growth of something like 3 per cent per century.

It's PC to knock Rand, but her views on crony capitalism were spot on. But you'd have to have read her books, not made believe you did.

« on: July 15, 2014, 09:12 PM »

Same old tired Hibbing work. A different magazine covering the same baloney? I guess we'll see a few more magazines running the same stuff. How about facts on subjects, rather than trying to figure out opponents' mindsets? I guess when facts don't support preconceptions, one will try anything.

Well, here are some facts on a controversial topic, AGW. $22 billion per year on this c***? And people think fossil fuel companies tip the scales? Lots of pigs at the trough on this. Al Gore not the only one making tens of millions of dollars per year. The AGW crowd would disappear if not feeding off the public purse. And then there's the regulations which hamper the AGW crowd's targets. It's a wonder any business can survive under this financial and regulatory onslaught. The US Government has no business funding this, essentially attacking American business with money and rules. And why, to support their bundlers? National disgrace. Crony capitalism, just as Ayn Rand warned. $22 billion annually. Revolting.

On Global Warming, Follow the Money

« on: July 15, 2014, 12:21 PM »
But the preferences of developed, aging polities — first Japan, now the United States and Europe — are obvious to a dispassionate observer. Their overwhelming priority is to protect the purchasing power of incumbent creditors. That’s it. That’s everything. All other considerations are secondary. These preferences are reflected in what the polities do, how they behave. They swoop in with incredible speed and force to bail out the financial sectors in which creditors are invested, trampling over prior norms and laws as necessary. The same preferences are reflected in what the polities omit to do. They do not pursue monetary policy with sufficient force to ensure expenditure growth even at risk of inflation. They do not purse fiscal policy with sufficient force to ensure employment even at risk of inflation. They remain forever vigilant that neither monetary ease nor fiscal profligacy engender inflation. The tepid policy experiments that are occasionally embarked upon they sabotage at the very first hint of inflation. The purchasing power of holders of nominal debt must not be put at risk. That is the overriding preference, in context of which observed behavior is rational.

I am often told that this is absurd because, after all, wouldn’t creditors be better off in a booming economy than in a depressed one? In a depression, creditors may not face unexpected inflation, sure. But they also earn next to nothing on their money, sometimes even a bit less than nothing in real terms. “Financial repression! Savers are being squeezed!” In a boom, they would enjoy positive interest rates.

That’s true. But the revealed preference of the polity is not balanced. It is not some cartoonish capitalist-class conspiracy story, where the goal is to maximize the wealth of exploiters. The revealed preference of the polity is to resist losses for incumbent creditors much more than it is to seek gains. In a world of perfect certainty, given a choice between recession and boom, the polity would choose boom. But in the real world, the polity faces great uncertainty. The policies that might engender a boom are not guaranteed to succeed. They carry with them a short-to-medium-term risk of inflation, perhaps even a significant inflation if things don’t go as planned. The polity prefers inaction to bearing this risk.

Depression is a choice

On the other hand, you can believe Paul Volcker. Then again, if you have preconceptions not based in reality aka history, ..., can't help you.

PV: I’ll give you a simple answer. The responsibility of any central bank is price stability. I was at the helm at that time. Price stability is two percent inflation, which we can’t closely control anyway. They ought to make sure that they are making policies that are convincing to the public and to the markets that they’re not going to tolerate inflation.

DP: And does high inflation matter as long as it’s expected?

PV: It sure does, if the market’s stable. And if it is expected, then everyone adjusts, and it doesn’t do you any good. The responsibility of the government is to have a stable currency. This kind of stuff that you’re being taught at Princeton disturbs me. Your teachers must be telling you that if you’ve got expected inflation, then everybody adjusts and then it’s OK. Is that what they’re telling you? Where did the question come from?

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 243