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 ... 244
« on: Today at 01:09 AM »
Thought I'd give an update on our foster child, William, who turned 5 in June. He's been with us almost 7 months. My wife had a meeting with children's services today, and family involved, about his mom getting him back. When children's service people left the room for the family, cousins, uncles, etc., to work it out, all hell broke loose. It was a 5 hour affair. Bad situation. His dad arrived 2.5 hours late. His dad, whose mom had him til she got cancer and soon after died(at age 50, a heavy smoker) doesn't want him and didn't step up when his mother got sick. The rest of the family hates the mom. She has a 12 month old, and is pregnant again, still unmarried, due in late fall. So, William will be the oldest, and in great need of attention, probably won't get what's necessary. Pretty sad. He gets seizures, and requires 10 pills per day, which have some negative cognitive effects. And he's been diagnosed with some disorder, anger related. He can really lose it some times in tantrums. My wife sends him to his room, which works in cooling him off. He can't handle abrupt changes, and things need to be changed slowly if not in his routine.

My wife has been a miracle for him. As he was passed around 3 foster homes in Dec-Jan, he was nervous and scared. Can you imagine a 4 year old sleeping in a different bed every few weeks? Heartbreaking, which is why we got him. As my home is brand new, inside anyway, due to fire in Nov '12, he's been living in a new home, own room, own bathroom, and everything new and clean, carpets, paint, floors, appliances, etc.,  and all junk thrown out, it's been an ideal place for him(house was in need of work big time before). My wife has him on a routine, taking him to daycare/school every day, to the town pool every evening, to the park all the time, and dinner at 6:30 every night, followed by heaping scoops of ice cream, complete with chocolate sauce, whipped cream and sprinkles, which he gets himself......every single night!  Then it's a bath, and 4 books read to him every night. That's me when I'm home, the reader and story teller. We prefer the Dr. Seuss books, as they're better word teachers, and fun. He likes the rhyming. I've read the Thomas the Engine books dozens of times each. When I make up a story to tell him, he then copies it and tells me the same story, which we laugh at as I scowl at him for copying me. He laughs hysterically at that, my fake anger.

I see Catholic charities in Texas(Houston I think, though not sure) is asking people to be foster parents of mostly teens, from the border crossings. They actually say you can take up to 6 children, which of course would be overwhelming. But, a chance to help a child(ren).

This will end within a few weeks, but DCF (children's services) wants his mom to clean up her messy apartment first. She lives 40 miles away. And as she works, and with 3 kids, we just don't see how he'll have the fun he's been having(my wife also bought him a bike and scooter). She also takes him to the movies, and on Sunday, I took him to the science center on Lake Champlain, turtles, sturgeon, starfish, stuff like that, kinetic sand tables, which he loved. Pretty cool sand. With no other kids to care for, we have this time....but not much energy. And it's tough, particularly on my wife, to spend so much time at a pool or park, after you've already done that for years with your own children, but not recently. Parenting is sure for younger parents, and his mom is 23. We're both 60+. As we never intended to raise another child, and he will be a handful at 15 or so, and we'll be 70+, it's soon time to move on. But I spoke to my wife by phone this evening, and she's quite sad at him leaving, and for his well being. God willing, he'll be fine, and his mother really wants him, which is great. For us, he did brighten up our home. I cherish him coming into our room every morning upon waking. It's been almost 20 years since my kids did that.

« on: Yesterday at 11:47 PM »
I've read Rick Ferri's work on passive index funds over actively-managed funds.  The expense ratio's are also much lower.

Not as clear cut as you think. For the 10 years ending October 2010, American Funds was the #1 fund family in return to investors, returning an average of 4% per year for the 10 years, vs. zero for the S&P 500. Granted, this included bond funds as well, but they beat Fidelity and Vanguard, including all expenses. Tim's list of the two small funds is probably right, except for one small item. I used to run funds using a quant formula. Before instituting it, we did 10 year back studies. #1 for long periods was the S&P 600, which is small caps. We also screened the S&P 400(midcap) and 500(largest). Problem with the 600, was that after years of outperformance, it hit a decline of 75%, around 2000. So, you tripled your money, let's say $100k to $300k, then lost 75% of $300k. American Funds isn't perfect, mostly big caps, but they do have a small cap fund, which is great, but very volatile, so to concentrate there, if you retire at the wrong time, could be painful.

There is another not insignificant issue. Timing. If you put money in, let's say, every January into index funds, yes, your returns will probably be very good. But I find people who speak of index funds often wait until they have a good feeling about things. This destroys returns. Think of some of the best times to buy the last 25 years or so. The day after the '87 crash, after the dot com crash, the day the market opened after 9/11, October 2008-March 2009, when the world was in turmoil. When buying an individual security, it's much easier to value it as a business. No one can value the market as a business, but I suppose comparing the total market cap of the market with GDP is a good broad measure which can be used(Andrew Smithers reports on this, using Tobin's Q). Many stocks in 2008, got into single digits. Buffett was on TV, CNBC, at his annual meeting in the spring of 2009, and said he was buying Wells Fargo at current prices. It was $8. It's now $51. But at the time, even our White House said he "lost his touch", with many thinking the market was going to get killed. And Buffett has like 300 million shares of WFC. Valuing one company much easier than valuing the market.

Right now, I'd expect index returns to be quite modest over the next 10 years, probably less than 4% annualized, but lumpy. At 8% returns, the market would be 35,000 in 9 years. Don't see it happening. Big slip coming, IMO. Emerging markets overall a better bet. 50% of global GDP, but only 25% of global market cap, so the rest of world has 50% of GDP and 75% of market cap, or 3X the relative valuation. This can't last. I'd expect US assets to "adjust" downwards, including stocks, real estate, etc., certainly in real terms. Europe a bit better but still overpriced relative to emerging markets based on GDP/market ratios.

« on: July 25, 2014, 10:56 AM »
Wiki is a series of references to other places, you dolt.  And the NYT "doesn't cut it" but you continually cite random denier blogs on the internet like they're the gospel.  ::)  You are everything that's wrong with modern discourse.

I'm not here to argue science with you.  For starters, you just blatantly ignore anything proving you wrong.  Secondly, I'm not an expert on the science and I don't pretend to be like you.  I put my faith in the conclusions drawn by independent scientists all over the world who are much smarter than I am.

Any reasonable person can see that the denying and casting of doubts re: AGW is all coming out of mouths that are bought and paid for by Big Oil (and whatever other giant conglomerates that don't want to lose billions of dollars in profit each year due to policy changes) and the republican party.   I provide proof to you of this garbage, and you come back telling me about the cost of limousines.

How about addressing the actual point of the post you quote for once?  Just one time.

I did address the post. Did I not quote from the NY Times piece? And look at this from wiki. First of all, there's an entry called, "climate change denial"? Wow, wonder what their point of view is. But I digress. This is in the wiki piece:

Through a single organisation, between 2002 and 2010, conservative billionaires secretly donated nearly $120 million (£77 million) to more than 100 organizations seeking to cast doubt on the science behind climate change.[31]

Big deal. The Hewlett Foundation alone is giving $100 mill per year for 5 years. I think the Sierra Club gets $300 million per year from the US Government. And what do they do? Attack American business. Delightful, huh? Using taxpayer money to attack American companies. The US government gives $22 billion per year. This is fact. Big Oil? Just a liberal whipping boy. What proof did you give me? Show me where "Big Oil" is lavishing $20 billion per year, or $1 billion per year. The Heartland Institute is often cited, but they are nothing compared to the AGW blob. Their total budget is 1/16th of Hewlett Packard Foundation's largesse. Does any skeptical group throw 20,000 person conferences all over the globe, in lavish hotels, where 1,200 limos and 140 private jets attend? Does "Big Oil" get $22 billion in grants and subsidies? You say you show proof, but I don't see it.

Where is the link, as espoused by the NY Times between "emissions and global warming"? Show me the proof. CO2 emissions have gone up for 15 years and temperatures haven't. Point me to the proof, if you have it. Don't just link a story, then blame me when it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. I do read them, til I start laughing, anyway.

« on: July 25, 2014, 09:34 AM »
Well if you tell me the peer review process is corrupted, I guess it must be.  ::)

Again and again, you just hear what you want to and ignore the rest.  You pretend to understand the science behind all of this, and anything that doesn't make sense to you (and why would it?  you're not a scientist of any sort as far as i can tell, let alone a climate specialist, and yet you think you have a grasp of the big picture here... for what reason exactly?), just gets tossed out as meaningless or ignored entirely.  Then you start spewing out the exact same names and crazy ideas over and over, it's a reflex for you at this point.

For someone who is able to find the conspiracy angle in every single thing he doesn't want to believe, it's amazing to me that you never turn that same skeptical eye towards the people and ideas you do choose to buy into once in awhile.  Don't you ever stop to think that it's just as likely, if not infinitely more so (this is the correct answer), that the people speaking out against these 'rent seekers' happen to have a horse in the race as well?

I don't know why I still bother to show you things you'll just ignore, but maybe have a read here for yourself:

First, on the NY Times piece. It states that Cooney removed "the link between emissions and global warming". What link? It should be removed. It's highly speculative. Since 1800, global temps are up about 1 degree Centigrade. So, when did emissions start global warming? Give me the date.

On wiki, please. The "deniers" are organized? What, the Heartland Institute? Are you freakin' serious? Their total annual budget is $6 million, not climate change budget, but total. The US government gives $22 billion to climate change causes annually. The Hewlett Foundation alone made a $500 million pledge over 5 years to one AGW group. Have you ever even looked at the hotels at the IPCC conferences? The f***'n rooms in Durban went for $1,500 per night. 20,000 people are attending these jaunts. That's $300 million, not including flights or food, or limos. And Bali, Cancun, Copenhagen? Nancy Pelosi alone took 100 people to Copenhagen, where the conference had to order limos from Germany and Sweden as they required 1,200 limos. 140 private jets were used. Some carbon footprint. This is the Marie Antoinette crowd, funded by you and me. Limousine liberalism on steroids.

You need to up your game. The NY Times and wiki don't cut it. 3 scientists, recent work, please. Thanks. I can supply work from 3 skeptics within last 3 years.

« on: July 25, 2014, 09:17 AM »

OT / Re: Jerry Sandusky - all relevant threads consolidated
« on: July 24, 2014, 01:40 PM »
In a courtroom where Freeh is the prosecutor and Thornburg is the defense (and PSU football is the accused), Freeh wouldn't stand a chance.  The evidence is just too thin to side with Freeh.  That doesn't make Thornburg 100% accurate.  Just means the defense poked enough holes in the prosecution.

The evidence that we think we know. Criminal beyond a reasonable doubt or civil preponderance of the evidence? In a courtroom we'd probably find out evidence that never made it into the both final reports.

One of my favorite of personal blinders is with Jeff 'the Ironhead' Byers who frequently has said on his morning radio show that one of the reasons the Freeh report can not be trusted is because Freeh is a former prosecutor and prosecutors pick and choose to strengthen their case, all the while failing to mention or notice that Thornberg is also a former prosecutor.

What I think is sort of easy to prove was that there was an intent to conceal, and I'd start with two questions in court:

What did you mean(to Spanier, if he takes the stand) by we might be "vulnerable" in the future if we don't report and handle it in this way?

Why did you call the police (Schultz) and ask if the '98 incident were still on the books? Why was that important?

What I'm having questions about is the penalty. Non-reporting at the time was  misdemeanor. How can a judge give long sentences for what essentially was a misdemeanor? I thought the behavior was reprehensible, but if they are found to have been required to report, I just don't see how the judge exceeds the statutory penalty. On the other charges, endangering children and obstruction of justice, it's still regarding a misdemeanor. If I were defense attorney, I'd take that route. Overzealous prosecutor, IMO. The law is the law.

« on: July 24, 2014, 01:28 PM »
I don't follow a lot of 'alarmists' like you.  I pay more attention to scientists, which I'm guessing you consider to be the same thing whenever they don't agree with your worldview.

The bottom line here is that people like you, who think that casually 'monitoring' the temperature in your neighborhood over the last 5 years or counting hurricanes for the last 30 years is somehow just as valid a scientific approach as any sort of peer-reviewed PHD-level research on the matter... you and your kind are the alarmists of the world, the ones shouting from the rooftops about conspiracies and the evil government agendas that you have zero proof of besides the voices in your own head telling you that you're doing god's work by continuing to spew garbage 24/7.

I have to wonder what drives people to behave the way you do, never doubting for a second any of this junk that you're so ready to claim as cold-hard fact so long as it continues to fit neatly into your own little warped perspective.  Is this a learned behavior or were you born this way?

The peer review process is corrupted. It's like a circle jerk. I can give you 4 names: Richard Lindzen, Svensmark, Jasper Kirkby and Heinz Hug. I've read their work. While some of it is quite difficult to understand, they explain it well(except for Hug). I have seen nothing from the AGW side other than "97%". Most of the writers on AGW on the left include people like Al Gore, Bill McKibben and Naomi Klein types. Klein's work is laughable. On the AGW scientist side, I've seen most recent works by Hansen and Mueller, e.g., ridiculed by their own side. So, unless you can point me to a current paper, let's say last 3 years, explaining why we are in danger, I say it's all BS.

I've read both sides on the positive feedback loop of water vapor, which the AGW crowd calls a greenhouse gas, and find the AGW crowd stance ridiculous. If it's true, that there's a positive feedback loop, the earth would cease to exist in days or weeks, not years. If there's no negative mechanism, like clouds, to cool the planet, we'd already be dead. Here's a paper from an AGW supporter. This makes no sense to me. And he's taken as a granted, that temperatures are going to get warmer to cause this. That's not certain. And even if warmer temps do cause more humidity(I have no idea on this), like the tropics, or Florida, it'd cause more rain. Aren't the tropics the location of some of the world's great forests and animal life? The AGW crowd is treating this as a sort of Andromeda strain, where it's going to mulitply. Rent seeking, plain and simple. With $22 billion in annual government handouts, lots of jobs at stake.

OT / Re: Jerry Sandusky - all relevant threads consolidated
« on: July 24, 2014, 12:04 PM »
So we still don't have in writing here exactly what the law was in 2001?  And what was the penalty for it?  And did it apply to Universities ("a school employee seems vague to me)?  All the stuff under (b) doesn't tie together for the PSU case.  The child was not in the care of any university employee, the child was not identifiable, the child was not come across in the course of performance of any job related duties, ...

I don't see this as applicable unless I'm reading something wrong.

The law didn't get weakened. So, the law was enacted in 1990 and amended several times, most notably in '94 and '95. So, we know what the law was in 2001. It was this law, unless amended. But any amendments, if any, would not have weakened it, but strengthened it, as prior amendments did. The question is, does this make them mandatory reporters? But MM was a school employee. The child was identifiable by MM.

There's another factor here. In Spanier's emails, he knows there's a risk in not reporting, so he's aware of the responsibility. He warns of the risk in not reporting. If reporting wasn't required, why would he do this? At the least, he knows it might be required.

Don't agree with this by Tom.
And based on that "basis to report" neither Spanier nor anyone else would have been obliged to report anything.

« on: July 23, 2014, 04:14 PM »
Hobby Lobby DOES cover 16 of 20 forms of contraception including birth control pills.  They won't cover the 4 that destroy fertilized embryos.

Nice work. Lets a little air out of the hysteria balloon.

OT / Re: Jerry Sandusky - all relevant threads consolidated
« on: July 23, 2014, 04:04 PM »

Kid, one question for you -- was this the law in 2001?  Unless you can verify this in the affirmative, this conversation can end.

Here's the language from law from Chapter 63, I think section 6311, enacted in 1990.  Recently I quoted 42.42, which is specific to healthcare workers. Seems based on this, it's more comprehensive. As you can see, school employees are required to report. I'm pretty sure a child is one under age 18. Certainly PSU has freshmen under that age, so PSU admin has to be aware of the requirements. If a prof is having sex with a 17 year old co-ed, it'd have to be reported based on this, even if consensual. Bad bet siding with Lar. He just googles stuff which fits his preconceptions. He's not looking for facts, but wants to appear right. On the case, remember I don't think this should have been prosecuted, and thought the NCAA fine should not have been paid. F them. But on the case, the penalty for non-reporting was close to nothing, maybe not even the $200 fine, but it was a misdemeanor. To waste state resources on this is foolish. I would have terminated the employment of those involved, not admitting or denying guilt, and paid the victims, and moved on. If there was an outrage on this, I would have stated that the money saved went to the victims. Spanier is facing 3 years. He would've taken this deal. And if not, I'd have denied paying future legal fees. Hardball? Yes.

(a)  Mandated reporters.--The following adults shall make a report of suspected child abuse, subject to subsection (b), if the person has reasonable cause to suspect that a child is a victim of child abuse:

(1)  A person licensed or certified to practice in any health-related field under the jurisdiction of the Department of State.

(2)  A medical examiner, coroner or funeral director.

(3)  An employee of a health care facility or provider licensed by the Department of Health, who is engaged in the admission, examination, care or treatment of individuals.

(4)  A school employee.

(5)  An employee of a child-care service who has direct contact with children in the course of employment.

(6)  A clergyman, priest, rabbi, minister, Christian Science practitioner, religious healer or spiritual leader of any regularly established church or other religious organization.

(7)  An individual paid or unpaid, who, on the basis of the individual's role as an integral part of a regularly scheduled program, activity or service, accepts responsibility for a child.

(8)  An employee of a social services agency who has direct contact with children in the course of employment.

(9)  A peace officer or law enforcement official.

(10)  An emergency medical services provider certified by the Department of Health.

(11)  An employee of a public library who has direct contact with children in the course of employment.

(12)  An individual supervised or managed by a person listed under paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10) and (11), who has direct contact with children in the course of employment.

(13)  An independent contractor.

(14)  An attorney affiliated with an agency, institution, organization or other entity, including a school or regularly established religious organization that is responsible for the care, supervision, guidance or control of children.

(b)  Basis to report.--

(1)  A mandated reporter enumerated in subsection (a) shall make a report of suspected child abuse or cause a report to be made in accordance with section 6313 (relating to reporting procedure), if the mandated reporter has reasonable cause to suspect that a child is a victim of child abuse under any of the following circumstances:

(i)  The mandated reporter comes into contact with the child in the course of employment, occupation and practice of a profession or through a regularly scheduled program, activity or service.

(ii)  The mandated reporter is directly responsible for the care, supervision, guidance or training of the child, or is affiliated with an agency, institution, organization, school, regularly established church or religious organization or other entity that is directly responsible for the care, supervision, guidance or training of the child.

(iii)  A person makes a specific disclosure to the mandated reporter that an identifiable child is the victim of child abuse.
(iv)  An individual 14 years of age or older makes a specific disclosure to the mandated reporter that the individual has committed child abuse.

(2)  Nothing in this section shall require a child to come before the mandated reporter in order for the mandated reporter to make a report of suspected child abuse. 
(3)  Nothing in this section shall require the mandated reporter to identify the person responsible for the child abuse to make a report of suspected child abuse. 
(c)  Staff members of institutions, etc.--Whenever a person is required to report under subsection (b) in the capacity as a member of the staff of a medical or other public or private institution, school, facility or agency, that person shall report immediately in accordance with section 6313 and shall immediately thereafter notify the person in charge of the institution, school, facility or agency or the designated agent of the person in charge. Upon notification, the person in charge or the designated agent, if any, shall facilitate the cooperation of the institution, school, facility or agency with the investigation of the report. Any intimidation, retaliation or obstruction in the investigation of the report is subject to the provisions of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4958 (relating to intimidation, retaliation or obstruction in child abuse cases). This chapter does not require more than one report from any such institution, school, facility or agency.

« on: July 23, 2014, 02:30 PM »
The world is waking up to the AGW BS

LOL which world is this?

The people with a brain. You must have missed it. Hurricanes are at 30 year lows, tornadoes at 20 year lows. Is that due to climate change? Look at records. The alarmist always stress events as evidence. Sandy hits, and it has to be climate change, yet 15 or so storms hit the NYC in the 1950's. If it's 100 degrees for 3 days next week in NYC, someone will claim climate change.

How about Canada and Australia, and now Korea? People here are brainwashed. Luddite like. Funny to watch. Sad that policies implemented which hurt the poorest Americans.

“No matter what they say, no country is going to take actions that are going to deliberately destroy jobs and growth in their country. We are just a little more frank about that,” the Prime Minister said.

The choice is stark,” Mr. Oliver said Monday during a speech to the International Economic Forum of the Americas. “Head down the path of economic decline, higher unemployment, limited funds for social programs like health care, continuing deficits and growing debt, or achieve prosperity and security now and for future generations through the responsible development of our resources.”

« on: July 23, 2014, 02:08 PM »
Supply side/Libertarian

Every semester, I ask my freshman students how wealthy they would be if they each were worth financially as much as Bill Gates but were stranded with all those stocks, bonds, property titles, and bundles of cash alone on a desert island. They immediately see that what matters is not the amount of money they have but, rather, what that money can buy. No principle of economics is more essential than the realization that, ultimately, wealth isn't money or financial assets but, rather, ready access to real goods and services.

Piketty seems barely aware of this reality, focusing on differences in people's monetary portfolios. He therefore ignores the all-important supply side: what people—rich, middle class, and poor—can buy with their money. Yet, to the extent that inequalities are at all relevant, the only ones that really matter are inequalities in access to real goods and services for consumption. Bill Gates' living quarters are larger and more elegant than mine and, I dare say, yours. But even the poorest people in market economies have seen their ability to consume skyrocket over time. And the poorer they once were, the greater has been the enhancement of their ability to consume.

This is right. Even Adam Smith spoke of the poorest in market economies being far better off than the wealthiest or better off in let's say, pioneers, who during harsh winters, with little food to gather or hunt, often had to let elders die, as they couldn't care for them.

The big problem I have with Piketty is his central thesis that capital devours the future. Firstly, while there's evidence that some capital earns higher returns than other capital, some of it is lost entirely. I read a piece the other day that the brewer, Stroh's, lost $6 billion, a wipeout.  And look at all the capital lost in the dot com boom. Piketty just picks the winners to make his case, by measuring the wealthiest in a snapshot. He never shows it's the same people over 20-30 years. Secondly, he shows scant evidence, because there isn't much, of intergenerational capital. Of the richest Americans today, really only Mars shows up on lists regularly, of inherited wealth. Walmart heirs as well, but Sam may have given them stock when it was worth 1/100,000th of what it is today. That, like most fortunes, will die with estate taxes, gifts to foundations, etc. Most of the wealth I see is Buffett, Gates, Zuckerberg, etc., all made without the use of capital in the current generation,  from near zero. Sure, Buffett is a capital multiplier, but he won't last forever, and he's given his away, which will create enormous benefits to people, like Ford, Carnegie, Pew, Rockefeller, Colgate, Duke. This completely kills his case. He really is just Marxism lite. It's not new in that sense, just warmed over Marxism. google is worth $400 billion, and while the cofounders may be worth $20 billion each, that means everybody else is worth $360 billion in google stock. As most of that is held in mutual funds and/or pension funds, they in a very real sense contributed to others' net worth, but of course dispersed among more people. But why is that bad? And that's not even counting all the employment they've created.

« on: July 23, 2014, 12:00 PM »
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.

Just to ignore the ACA stuff here and talk about the actual decision, since it didn't actually analyze the ACA from the perspective that you just carted out really without reason and it compared the ACA to the RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act)

Of course I believe in the First Amendment and a person's right to freely practice their religion but corporations and businesses need to actually practice religion in order to get protections of the First Amendment. In my opinion and in opinions written by the Supreme Court in the past (see Employment Division v. Smith), when deciding on whether a corporation should get a religious exemption, what should be examined is what the Corporation is and if the Corporation itself practices its religion. Yes, it's privately held but the corporation itself has no religious belief, it's an arts and crafts supply store. There's nothing religious about it and it doesn't practice any sort of religion. The family who owns it can be as religious as they want and practice those faiths, but their business should do the same if they want to get an exemption. Did you know that approximately 90% of the corporations in America are closely held? So now, any closely held corporation can claim a religious exemption even when they do not practice one, that to me is an abuse of the law and is derelict to the purpose of the First Amendment.

Also, we are focusing on the business, what about the employees of Hobby Lobby who don't practice a religion or who believe that contraceptives should be provided? They now don't get the same healthcare options as men do! How crazy is that? It's open discrimination against women because they aren't allowed to get the same coverage as men are, as explained next. You seem to conveniently omit that men can get Viagra and other male enhancement medicines at Hobby Lobby but women can't get contraceptives. Let's think about how unbelievably hypocritical that is. So, men are able to engage in all the sexual activity they want according to Hobby Lobby as long as they can get it up, but women aren't, or well they can and just get pregnant over and over again. That's not just, that's not a sound resolution and never mind the fact that birth control can be used as a cure for some diseases and conditions such as ovarian cysts.

Essentially, the Supreme Court has yet again bent backwards to give rights to corporations that they were never intended to have. Citizens United has started them on a track they can't stop yet. Hopefully some order can be restored but I don't hold my breath with this Court. Every time they seem to take a step forward (DOMA and Prop 8.), they always manage to take a few back (Hobby Lobby, Citizens United still being controlling and good law, McCutcheon could end up here depending what happens to the eventual contribution limit challenge that will be in front of the Court soon, I would expect in the next two years and their complete disregard that political corruption isn't going to look the same after Watergate, they aren't going to do the same thing again).

You're making some leaps in your reply. It's a very religious corporation. The family is devout. They closed on Sundays to observe the Sabbath.

Sure, the left is against CItizens United, but not for union donations? What's the difference? Teacher union dues in NJ alone total $130 million. The left also harps on the Kochs, yet union donations dwarf their donations at least 100 to 1, maybe 1000 to 1. Why is a union a person, but a corporation is not? Unions are made of people, corporations are made up of people. Walmart is the largest employer in 17 states. Why can't they lobby to represent their interests? Anyway, case is over, get over it.

Re male vs female. Males don't get contraceptives covered. Who's being hypocritical? Viagra treats a medical condition. Birth control is like $30 per month, and it should be made OTC. But you didn't respond to the 8 free visits women get. Women get 8 free visits, men get zero. How is this fair?

« on: July 23, 2014, 11:49 AM »
In my personal experience... I've never seen a tornado or a hurricane.  How do I know they even exist at all?  Not going to just trust the liberal media reporting on them, or those left-wing commie universities that claim to have scientific data on them.  I can stick my head out the window and tell you if it's hurricaning or tornadoing outside.  And so far, I haven't ever seen one.

Hurricanes are at 30 year lows. Tornadoes are at 20 year lows. There's no climate problem. I realize you're unaware of that. No weather event problem. The next hurricane, you can be sure we'll hear it's unprecedented. The US government gives $22 billion a year for climate research. That's all this is about, grant grubbers, rent seekers. Using taxpayer money to line one's pockets.

I'm sure you're unaware of this, but with the carbon tax repeal in Australia, one company had to issue what's an 8k in the US, a material event.  Due to the carbon tax repeal, a company guided down earnings by something like $140 million. A solar company? A windmill company, who'd lose out on handouts? No. A coal company. It was because the carbon tax was going to "hurt" them, the government was giving them about that dollar amount to help out. So, a coal company benefitted by a carbon tax, just like insurance companies in the US stand to benefit(and get bailed out) by Obamacare, the same companies Obama rails against, benefit the most. This is what the whole game is about.  BTW, Korea is also scrapping their carbon cut plans. And Europe is importing US coal like crazy, cause the cost of solar is too high for industries to compete globally. The world is waking up to the AGW BS. It's all about money, on all sides. Always has been.

« on: July 22, 2014, 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: July 22, 2014, 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: July 22, 2014, 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?

OT / Re: Jerry Sandusky - all relevant threads consolidated
« on: July 22, 2014, 02:23 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.

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: July 22, 2014, 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: July 22, 2014, 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: July 21, 2014, 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: July 21, 2014, 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: July 21, 2014, 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: July 21, 2014, 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: July 21, 2014, 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.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 244