New thread opportunity. Be back the 29th!
Open thread: Behave!
762 thoughts on “Vacation week 2.5”
My summer vaca starts tomorrow. My brain checked out yesterday. :/ Enjoy & safe travels!
Mostly great vacation. The one hitch is moms house flooded the night after we left. My sister and the neighbor are doing all the tough work of getting things cleaned up but its still going to be a shock for her when she gets back.
Notice that Tallbloke, Anthony, ATTP are also away on Summer holidays. Funny if you all meet up.
Lucia,
I hope the flood damage is not too bad. My production ction plant was flooded last year, and it was 6 months before everything was back to normal.
I don’t know. The neighbor is a contractor and my sis said he estimated $15k or more. Its the downstairs but fully finished. No ‘production’ though, so mom will be able to get along pretty well.
Good luck with the flood loss. Did your mom have flood insurance? Removing flood damaged belongings and structure quickly, along with aggressive ventilation to dry the place out is vital to prevent nasty molds from making things more complex and much more expensive to repair. If there is a flood policy be certain to take lots if photos, keep receipts, and an inventory of damaged items. Flood insurance us awkward and slow for actually settling claims.
If was it a rising water loss or a plumbing related loss. “Flood” refers to rising water getting into a house. If it is a plumbing related loss it is covered under her home owners policy. Either way preventing further damage is important.
Supposedly lots of photos have been taken. Yes she has flood insurance. The neighbor also gave the adjuster access. He’s a contractor and made drying things out, removing drywall and so on a first priority. Obviously mom is still going to have to deal with insurance as repairs progress.
Then she should thoroughly enjoy the rest if the vacation and be grateful for a wonderful neighbor. There will be enough worries and fun when she gets back home.
Having problems with broadband internet Australia using 20 to 70 gigabytes a day since we returned from a month in Italy.
No children left at home for 5 years to blame Apple TV off. Apart from reading blogs and news and a little banking we have done nothin not quite true and 8 hours of DOTA gaming
Usual monthly use is 50 gigabytes.
Internet providers in Phillipines trying to help 2 weeks no longer
Any advice Would Using an apple computer help instead of Microsoft
I see on web other people with this problem but no answers
Password router on and changed no obvious other users two phones and I pads
angech –
That’s a lot of traffic! Suggestive more of video than data. Is the TV powered off, or just screen off — that is, could the TV be doing operations such as recording?
.
Changing the wireless password is a good first step. Another question to ask is whether you installed any new apps on your phone or computer while away.
.
As for troubleshooting: on my router (at least), one can log in and block devices/protocols selectively. This provides a way to localize the source of the bandwidth usage. (You can also see if someone else is connecting to your wireless network despite the password change.) “System Monitor” (or some such) should show statistics such as packets/bytes sent/received which should indicate whether the culprit is connected to the router via wireless or wired connection.
.
However, I’d expect your Internet provider to have already explored that path. Did they tell you anything that they learned?
.
Apple computer instead of Windows shouldn’t affect the situation if it’s caused by your usage (blogs, news, banking, gaming). But those aren’t likely suspects for such high bandwidth. Perhaps your current Windows computer has additional programs running on it, of which you’re unaware.
angech,
Perhaps you have been infected by malware?
There is (or was) a utility called “Activity Monitor” (at least for Mac, but probably PC as well) that lets you track usage. As I recall, it only tells you how much upload and download activity is occurring at any moment, or over any period of time, not what it doing it. But that could be a start, if only to determine if the activity is associated with a particular device.
Try disabling plug-ins to see if it makes a difference.
Try disabling JavaScript. All sorts of things won’t work, but it will tell you if scripts are causing the excess usage. For Firefox, there is a third party extension called “NoScript” that works great for controlling which scripts are allowed to execute. Something similar is probably available for other browsers.
Thanks, problem started after coming back from RUssia and I see on the news today that I phone and I pads can have a Broadpwn virus or programme just by using internet in hotels there.
We are going to change router password while it is off?
Then change I phone and I pad passwords to i cloud etc and everything else and turn router on and connect one by one .
Have upload the apple patch for the virus this will stop catching it again but not sure if it will actually block a virus once on board.
Any view on this?
3 days of misery to come.
problem started after coming back from RUssia
Uh oh. What was your involvement in the Russian collusion conspiracy to deny Madam President the election victory?
.
I suspect that your bandwidth is getting chewed up because you’ve got a malware Russian spy email relay server hidden in the background.
.
I’ll email David Muir; I’m certain he’ll get somebody from his team to start researching you immediately.
.
…
Meh. Just kidding, or at least trying to. :p
angech,
This is why you back up your iPhone and iPad to iTunes on a computer. Then you can wipe your device and restore it from the backup clean. You can do a clean restore of the operating system without a backup, but you’ll lose all your data.
The easiest and most reliable answer by far is to scrub the device (total reset) and start over. Phone and tablets aren’t that hard to add back in the stuff you need. Nuclear, it’s the only way to be sure. Some viruses are quite sophisticated and will continuously keep reappearing even after you think you have deleted them.
.
My rule of thumb has always been if I can’t solve the problem in 2 hours then I reinstall the OS and start over.
Thanks DeWitt and Tom.
I have3 computer sons all too old and far away to “fix” it for me.
I am on a crash course learning about I pads etc instead of only using them.
Agree a wipe is best, still foolishly hoping re a less severe way.
“Significant†results should require a p-value below .005; results with p-values below .05 but above .005 should be called merely “suggestive.â€
This doesn’t address inadequate experiment design (e.g., failure to control for other relevant variables), but it’s a positive step to reduce dross.
So Trump is either a genius who is going to pull off a dramatic comeback or he is going down for the count. From his missing the opportunity to truly cean house on day one by firing all Obama holdovers, to his all thumbs tactics in dealing with the Russian allegations to his alienation of Congress he is not working smart. And now it appears his WH is not working at all. He demands loyalty but is not giving it to his first Senate backer. He is rapidly wearing out his tweets by repetition of message and over use. He was unable to lead and even get the repeal of the disastrous Obamacre done.
If he does not pull an amazing rabbit out if the hat he will be either out of power or irrelevant within 30 days.
The implications on climate and immigration reform are ominous.
hunter,
I doubt his hat has any rabbits now, if it ever did.
hunter,
“…. he will be either out of power or irrelevant within 30 days.”
.
Want to wager on that? Say, $500 to your favorite charity… or mine. I say he will be neither out of power nor irrelevant in 30 days. Is he still going to be an utter jerk in 30 days? Sure. Should he stop the wacko tweets (yesterday!)? Of course he should. Is he his own worst enemy? Without doubt. But he is not going to be removed from office, nor will he become irrelevant; the POTUS has constitutional powers which are not going to disappear just because he is a terrible jerk.
A message from the past “Ok, big prediction time: Within the next 7-10 days there will be a sharp drop in extent below 2012 level. If this prediction is correct I’ll explain later how it was forecast. Posted at Arctic Sea Ice Blog June 16, 2017 ”
Still waiting but all is silent.
Observations.
El Nino alert off but still slightly warm pacific.
Slight recovery Arctic and Antarctic. Still low.
Only 52 days 7 1/2 weeks till the September turn in Arctic ice.
Should go down in extent now as every time it looks like improving it goes the other way.
Does anyone have an algorithm for luck?
Tamino has a discussion up at his site
“A Few Other Stations
Mr. Wakefield doesn’t seem to like the tide gauge data from Boston, since it so easily shows how wrong he was about “NO acceleration.†He wants me to “do a few other stations, like in Australia and Brest, France.â€
So Tamino chose Fremantle and Sydney for Australia.
A comment about the unreliability of Fremantle was allowed.
Then barry | July 28, 2017 gave a site to look at “Satellite record of Australian coast sea level rise matches that of tide gauge estimated.http://rses.anu.edu.au/geodynamics/tregoning/53.pdf
Graphical comparisons near the bottom of that document. Page 60.”
Looking at this on page 59 I see that Fremantle and Sydney are by accident the two most cherry picked outliers available for sea level rise.
Pointing this out has disappeared, most disappointing as his legion of followers will miss out on that information.
Some do read this blog in their spare time….
So I was hoping they might notice it.
I’m back…
“Significant†results should require a p-value below .005; ….
I don’t think there is anything wrong with p=0.05. For drug testing p=0.05 is fine provided the protocol is published before the trial. That prevents massaging the data seven ways to sunday to get significance and generally ensures trials are large enough.
A similar thing could be done with social science or anything involving human subjects. The researchers are presumably designing and filing paper work for dealing with the human subjects anyway. All they need to do is also specify which hypotheses they will be testing when they start– Then they can’t expand and people can see whether the design is really a fishing for random false positives in the first palce.
False positives in climate get self corrected anyways– weather keeps happening so if a result is a statistical fluke, it is bound to flip. But people could get in the habit of discussing statistical power to determine some alternative to the null being rejected. A reasonable alternative could be selected. For example, when testing a null of “No warming”, the reasonable alternative hypothesis is “0.2 C /decade” as that is the mean of what is predicted. One could then decree that they aren’t going to pay attention to ‘reject 0 C/decade’ unless there was enough data to achieve a statisitical power of say 50% if 0.2 C/decade was true. Or you could require the power to be 95%… whatever.
But if statistical power against an alternative hypothesis was used, it needs to be used for pretty much everything and even handedly. So, for example, if you are using 0.2 C/dec as the null, you alternative could be 0C/decade and you apply the same rule to reject 0.2 C/dec and so on. The same for all the “It’s the volcanoes we didn’t notice erupting” or other tests.
SteveF
Is he still going to be an utter jerk in 30 days? Sure.
The one constant about Trump…
Lucia,
” “It’s the volcanoes we didn’t notice erupting†or other tests.”
.
Yup. The post hoc arm waving to justify failed predictions is the most constant characteristic of the field. That’s the clearest indication it is not really ‘science’ as most people would define it, but rather a politically motivated activity.
angech,
There is very clear evidence (satellites and tide gauges) that the rate of rise has been higher over the past ~30 years than before 1990. So there has clearly been some ‘acceleration’, and it would be shocking if the measured warming since the 1970’s had not produced an increase in the rate of sea level rise. The current rate of rise (~3.1 mm per year against a geologically stable shore line), is not high enough to be sufficiently ‘alarming’, hence the endless focus on acceleration… to implausible rates… over the next 50 years. The satellite data have stubbornly refused to cooperate, and indicate no acceleration over the past 25 years. (https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/) So, as is typical in the field, post hoc arm waves about the satellite data have started, and the University of Colorado group is already ‘adjusting’ the early part of the satellite data to show significant acceleration over the satellite period. It is not really science by any normal definition; it’s mostly green politics.
SteveF,
$500 does focus one’s attention a bit…..
I hope you are correct in all points except that he exhibits the ability to grow from this terrible 6 months of intrigue and divisiveness.
Lucia,
Welcome back!
I hope your mother’s flood situation was under good control and that she doesn’t stress too badly.
hunter,
I think it would be nothing less than miraculous for Trump to ‘grow’ to become any less of a jerk…. he says offensive things and treats people badly in public all the time (rather than mostly in private like Hillary). 😠With her guard down, speaking to an adoring crowd (and maybe after a few drinks), is when Hillary was honest with voters (‘deplorable and irredeemable’ remarks). Proving what a jerk she is. Trump never hides being a jerk, and probably never will. I doubt he even tries.
hunter,
The neighbor did a great job dealing with the emergency stuff. As to the rest…. we’ll see. I’m sure I will hear about it as dealing with the insurance unfolds.
SteveF/hunter,
I agree with SteveF that Trump is unlikely to “grow” to become less of a jerk. I think some people are jerks, it doesn’t *necessarily* hurt in real estate where being able to bargain hard, and also walk away from deals sometimes works well. Also: being pushy doesn’t necessarily hurt and so on. Being a jerk was part of his business model, even in his reality show where he “fired” people at the end of each show. That was part of the “show”, but still, it was what it was.
I also agree with SteveF that Hillary is a jerk who tried to hide that she was a jerk. I suspect, generally speaking, lots of politicians are more self-centered than average. Not all are jerks– but self-centered, believing you are “all that” and so on makes you more interested in running for office.
Trump is a jerk and will remain one. He’s not going to turn into someone who puts others first.
hunter
this terrible 6 months of intrigue and divisiveness.
I should add: we are going to see continued divisiveness because Trump is divisive. He’s not going to change. Even if he wanted to and could, sometimes a person who divided needs to go away before they can end divisiveness. They can’t just change and also expect others reactions to change the second they have. It won’t happen.
Re: Trump
The Mika Brezinski episode with Trump made clear to me that he is (partially) the product of bad parenting, and it is very unlikely that he will ever change. If any of my children ever acted the way that Trump did with the Brezinski episode, they would be severely punished. It is evident to me, with the numerous mean-spirited and stupid remarks that Trump makes that he was lacking in parental guidance as a child. If he had parental guidance, at the very least, he wouldn’t be so open with his stupidity and mean-spirited-ness. It doesn’t even occur to him that he is being mean, disrespectful and stupid.
To me that is in good measure due to bad parenting and his wealth which has protected him from the consequences of his mean-spiritedness and stupidity, which could probably be more easily self-corrected by those with less wealth who would suffer more consequences for the misbehavior exhibited by Trump. I had hoped that Trump would grow in office, but I see virtually no growth so far.
….
On the other hand, Trump often does the right things for the wrong reasons, which is superior to Clinton doing the wrong things for the wrong reasons. My most important issue is illegal immigration and Trump has been successful on that issue. Also, with as many unforced errors that he has made, I still think he is doing better than Clinton would have done.
JD
PS Lucia. Your VPN blockers are very successful. Couldn’t access your site from China over the past 2 weeks. Even used my son’s Chromebook to try to access the Blackboard, but it wouldn’t work because Captcha apparently only works with Windows and I didn’t have any Windows machines in China.
Yep. China is right out! The problem with china is high volumes of bots scraping. Why they want to scrape is a mystery, but there you go.
hunter (Comment #164129): “If he does not pull an amazing rabbit out if the hat he will be either out of power or irrelevant within 30 days.”
People continue to ignore all the evidence of the last 2 years and totally underestimate Trump. He appears to have an inexhaustible supply of rabbits in his hat.
Trump’s approval ratings have dropped a little over the last six months. The relentless media barrage that he has withstood would have reduced any other president’s approval to single digits. Trump is obviously doing something right.
The way he does things is disturbing, but I am coming to the conclusion that it is the only way that has any hope of actually changing things.
It is clear there are issues with his White House staff and it is clear that he is taking steps to fix those issues. That is his style. He takes risks and if they don’t work he tries something else. As Scott Adams says, it is the style of an entrepreneur rather than a manager. It seems strange, since we have gotten so used to the idea that the best we can hope for is managing the mess. But it takes an entrepreneur to actually clean up the mess.
I see no evidence that Trump is divisive. Off hand, I have never seen him say or do anything divisive with respect to the people. Trump attacks the dividers. It is the “resistance” that is divisive, proudly so. They are continuing the politics of division promoted by Mr. “clinging to guns and religion” and Mrs. “basket of deplorables”. Trump is the answer to division, not the cause.
Lucia,
“…lots of politicians are more self-centered than average.”
.
Yes, and bears shi….. err, and bears live in the forest. Sure, there are some politicians who are more selfless than others (Reagan comes to mind immediately). But as a rule, you wouldn’t want one as a neighbor, if only because deception is a big part of their job. Politicians pretty much can’t be honest and expect win election…. eg. almost nobody wants to hear that either much higher taxes or much reduced benefits will be needed to keep medicare solvent…. so we get liars in office. Perhaps the voters get what they deserve.
Mike M,
“I see no evidence that Trump is divisive.”
.
Wow. 🙄 I suspect there are a lot of people who disagree with that.
SteveF: “I suspect there are a lot of people who disagree with that.”
OK. So give me evidence. Trump goes after elites who act against the interests of the people. But he does not play the politics of division.
Mike M.
Trump goes after elites who act against the interests of the people.
That’s not what i’m seeing.
But he does not play the politics of division.
I’m not sure what you mean. But his action and tweets definitely increase division. Perhaps you don’t see this as being the “politics” of division. I still see a lot of division encouraged by his rhetoric, tweets and so on.
lucia: “I’m not sure what you mean.”
Trump does not try to set whites against blacks, or poor against rich, or gays against straights, or city against country. He does go after illegal immigrants, but that is arguably not American against American.
.
“But his action and tweets definitely increase division.”
I don’t see that. People who seek to create division make use of Trump’s statements for that purpose, but they do that even when the statements are perfectly reasonable.
Mike M,
Trump calls people nutjobs and whackos. He went after Mika for, supposedly, a face lift. Those things are divisive. That he might not use additional methods of creating division doesn’t make him not-divisive.
I don’t see that.
Whether you do or don’t see these insults as divisive doesn’t make them not divisive.
who seek to create division make use of Trump’s statements for that purpose
Sorry, but Trump calling people “nut jobs”, “kookie” and so on is divisive, period. Calling people liars is divisive. So are lots and lots of things Trump does.
I get you might think the people he calls liars are liars. Trump’s behavior is divisive even if they are.
The press has contempt for half the population.
The elites pursue policies that make themselves comfortable at the expense of ordinary people. 1.5 major political parties help with that.
Democrats play up class warfare for political advantage.
The left encourages half the population to have grievances against the other half.
Some clown write a book titled “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” about how idiotic Republican voters are, and the progressives lap it up.
Criticize the left’s received wisdom on climate change and you get lumped in with holocaust d3n!3rs.
Presidential candidates show contempt for a large portion of the population, using phrases like “clinging to god and guns” and “basket of deplorables”.
Trump says something nasty about a person who is one of the contemptuous elites by birth, marriage, and career.
One of these things is nasty and inappropriate. The others are divisive and truly destructive.
Addition: Suggest that “free trade” deals might not be great, and you are an imbecile.
Mike M,
Trump, at a minimum, antagonizes liberals, often with no apparent upside. He insults and demeans people, with no apparent upside. What possible rational does he have for demeaning his own AG, when that AG serves at his pleasure? I am astounded and can see no rational. I think Trump would be better served by laying out reasoned positions and then working to implement them through Congress. Trump offends, broadly, often without reason, and in ways which damage his chances of implementing the policies he claims to support. Mr Obama was terribly divisive wrt significant policy, and desided to by-pass Congress whenever he believed he could get away with it. Normal behavior for a dedicated leftist.
Trump is terribly divisive wrt everything; ‘shoot yourself in the foot’ is too weak a description. He spins his tires in a heavy snowbank, and wind seems shocked when he makes no progress.
Mike M.
The press certainly has its faults and so on. Some people other than Trump are also divisive. None of those things you complained of– even if entirely true– change the fact that Trump is divisive.
SteveF
I was just laughing at the incredible cherry picking he (Tamino) used when on occasions he rails on about cherry picking.
Is it a feature of certain types of people to always do the very things they pick on in others,
Like politicians.
I probably do not recognise it in myself but when it is so obvious and wrong in a field he knows about I just get … upset.
Welcome back Lucia.
Computer problems semi settled.
Should everyone use vpn does it make the internet more difficult to use?
President Trump has been needlessly inflammatory. He failed Presidency 101 when he chose not to fire each and every Obama appointee in government on day one. He failed to reframe important issues. He used tweets to personally belittle people and then complains when he or his family is attacked. He has not provided leadership to the Republican party.
And I still support and believe in the reasons I voted for him.
But he is making his job wildly more difficult.
hunter (Comment #164156): “President Trump has been needlessly inflammatory. He failed Presidency 101 when he chose not to fire each and every Obama appointee in government on day one.”
That makes no sense at all. There is no way that doing what every incoming president does constitutes failing “Presidency 101”. Firing every Obama appointee on day one would have been an incredibly divisive, inflammatory act.
One can argue that Trump should have fired all the Obama appointees on day one and that draining the swamp required crippling the government for several months, perhaps longer. But that is to argue that Trump was insufficiently divisive.
angech,
Tamio does tend to select, shall we say, ‘convenient’ data sets, but in this case he also showed the average of all Australian tide gauges, which is not a cherry pick. What Tamino always does, because he seems to me just a green hack, is to exaggerate shamelessly to push for forced reductions fossil fuel use. Case in point: he shows that there has been an acceleration in sea level rise over the past century (no suprise), then jumps to the (wacko!) suggestion that Rahmstorf’s wacko ‘semi-empirical’ projections of 1 to 2 meters rise by 2100, should be the basis of public policy. The IPCC discounted ‘semi-empirical’ projections in AR5, indicating they can tell the difference between reality and fiction. Odd how Tamino doesn’t believe even the IPCC when it isn’t sufficiently alarming. An honest analysis wouldn’t cherry pick crazy projections like Rahmstorf’s.
Lucia,
WRT wacko sea level projections, you may recall the guest post I wrote some years ago in response to Vermeer & Rahmstorf’s (2009) ‘semi-empirical’ catastrophic projections (central estimate of 1.24 meters rise and a rate of ~2 cm per year by 2100). My recollection is that the Vermeer & Rahmstorf projection showed a rate of rise of ~4.5 mm/year by 2020. If I’m still around in a few years, and so is your blog, I’l write a post comparing those 2009 projections to reality 11 years on, and it’s not looking good so far for Vermeer & Rahmstorf.
SteveF-
It’s definitely worth looking at and comparing!
You have summed Trump’s actions up well and in accord with my view.
I would sum it up more economically with: Trump is an egomanical jerk with absolutely no political smarts or even an ability to deal with people in general.
The only positive about Trump is that he has brought the political process to a standstill in Washington – and when your are like me in your opinion of Washington politicians and government actions and it is almost totally negative that is not a bad thing.
The general outlook on the economy being positive at the moment I think is more to do with the president not being Obama and very little to do with Trump other than little activism will be done under a jerk president.
Dewitt,
I am looking for a very clear failure of their projection, not near the uncertainty limit. Of course, you could give it a go if you don’t want to wait.
Hi Kenneth,
Hope you are well.
not Obama, nor Hillary
Rahmstorf has an equation. So the dH/dt could be checked against equation (2) given observed temperatures. I might give it a go next week.
SteveF,
I don’t think two and a half years will make all that much difference. Figure 3 observed data stops in 2000, not 2009. So it would be 20 years in 2020, not 11 years. There’s probably a reason for that.
j ferguson (Comment #164165)
Thanks for asking. I am doing well but my time is occupied with my wife’s health.
Scaramucci was fired by Trump for being a jerk. Trump said he could pardon himself so perhaps he could fire himself.
in this White House, I suppose everyone says “say again” rather than “pardon me.”
I’d thought that Scaramucci was there so that Trump could feel that he himself was not the worst.
j Ferguson,
I doubt Trump considers himself the worst by any measure. Scaramucci was hired for communications, but started acting like a (crazy) chief of staff. I would not be suprised if chief of staff Kelly told Trump “him or me, not both”. Kelly is probably a better fit with Tillerson and Mattis; we’ll see. Kelly should break Trump’s cell phone with a 2 lb hammer…. “it or me, but not both”.
In my view everyone is absolutely obsessed with “process” rather than results with Trump. While I would prefer Trump to be more presidential I really don’t care very much about this one way or the other.
.
Supreme court is a huge win. We will see what happens with healthcare, I don’t care how it happens, I care what happens. My guess is ObamaCare will financially implode (by neglect) and this will drive a compromise on healthcare that will stick which is the way it should have been from the very beginning.
.
The rest is a big fat “meh” of a nudge here and there on policy which just is standard politics regardless of who is in office.
.
My point is that results aren’t any different than what one would expect with a “sane presidential” version of Trump. The clown show is both irritating and humorous at the same time. It helps if you don’t take politics as a life or death affair.
.
I think part of the Trump hysterics is an underlying fear from the elite class that people are going to discover that the elites do not have any magic special sauce that makes them especially good at governing beyond knowing what to wear to a formal dinner and how to speak in the accepted global speech codes. If results from Trump are more or less on par with “presidential” Presidents than the mystical halo of elites will be wiped from existence (to the extent people ever believe in that).
It is noted that it is almost impossible to find comparisons between observations and models for sea level rise. They are near non-existent in the media. Buried way down deep in AR5 is a note that observations are running 15% below models for sea level rise.
.
In order to get to 1M by 2100 rates of sea level rise have to effectively more than triple tomorrow. If one assumes it won’t be instantaneous then they need to be approximately ~6x by 2100.
.
The climate scare community seems rather proud that recent estimates go as high as 2M by 2100. This requires almost a magnitude change in the rates by 2100. If you back those models up and start them from the year 1990 and compare to observations then these speculations look rather dubious. It doesn’t look like that is going to happen, they are still looking for the mere existence of acceleration and if we are heading to a 10x change in rate I postulate we would be obviously seeing that by now.
.
The 2M scenario shows probabilities of 0.3% under RCP8.5. It is marketed as the expected outcome. The model shows that currents rates should be at 7 mm/year NOW for that scenario. See table 6 / page 23. https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/publications/techrpt83_Global_and_Regional_SLR_Scenarios_for_the_US_final.pdf
.
Try to find that factoid anywhere. SLR is one of the most dishonest aspects of climate change journalism there is.
Tom
I think part of the reason there aren’t many comparisons between projected and actual sea level rise is that slr prediction may not be considered “robust”. The same actually goes for arctic ice cover– but the polar ice is dramatic so it gets watched.
Talking about shooting yourself in the foot. This is a strange story, note the updates.
It goes off the rails when all these SLR predictions “forget” to state how slow SLR is today at ~1 inch / decade. They infer we are already on pace for 1M or 2M of SLR. I would estimate that only about 5% of SLR stories in major media outlets attempt to convey accurate information using the big 3:
.
1. The current rate of SLR
2. The time period of the changes
3. The range of the expected changes.
.
It is almost never mentioned what the probabilities of high end projections are. Typically it is simply stated as “up to 1M of SLR”. There are many confounders with emissions profiles, carbon sensitivity, melting rates of Greenland and Antarctica, and so forth. It’s not simple, but it is presented as such and exaggerated almost universally by the not fake media.
.
PBS: “Sea levels could rise as much as 19 inches by 2050, according to what the report calls “mid-range projections.†http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/will-you-be-underwater-theres-a-map-for-that/
.
NPR: “if sea level here rises 3.7 feet — a midrange prediction for 2100.” http://www.npr.org/2017/07/27/539506529/mapping-coastal-flood-risk-lags-behind-sea-level-rise
Niels,
For more fun read the circular dodge the Australian BOM offers as an excuse.
It appears that a substantial amount of AGW really is manmade. Manmade the way a painting or symphony or work of fiction is made.
Tom Scharf (Comment #164171) “In my view everyone is absolutely obsessed with “process†rather than results with Trump. While I would prefer Trump to be more presidential I really don’t care very much about this one way or the other.”
Right. It is results that matter. The process may be annoying, but in the end, so what?
So far, Trump’s results are quite good. Congress, not so much. Trump does not seem all that engaged with Congress. I suspect that he is waiting for them to hit rock bottom, so that he can step in from a position of power. Remember that Trump is essentially an independent who staged a hostile takeover of the Republican Party. He has no natural power base in Congress, so he can not seek progress there in the conventional manner.
Hunter, I don’t buy that it is a general problem that actual thermometer readings are altered, but it does seem to be the case here, though. I agree the BOM explanation does not make sense.
If there is a reluctance to accept low readings and enough low readings are discarded or altered as seems to be the case in this instance it could of course lead to man made warming in the sense you describe.
It is a real problem that Zeke et al bag on about the integrity of the data and the automation of the thermometers yet anyone can be given the authority to manually override a reading they do not like .
What is to stop fake entries being put in by a dedicated warmist?
TOBS adjustments have nothing on this.
No sign of a policy to remove readings that are too high!
These screens are used over the world.
They use them in the USA and Canada where readings get down well below -10.
No signs of this weird malfunction in other countries but begs the question.
If the Australians do it they must have learnt from the Americans.
angech (Comment #164183): “It is a real problem that Zeke et al bag on about the integrity of the data and the automation of the thermometers yet anyone can be given the authority to manually override a reading they do not like .”
Shocking if true, but almost certainly false. Is there any evidence to support this claim?
“anyone can be given the authority to manually override” is surely false, but that might be due to careless wording. But even if “anyone” is changed to “some people” I still doubt it.
Mike M. (Comment #164179)
I disagree. Trump acting as a jerk is certainly getting in the way of getting things done. It all draws attention to him and not to an intellectual understanding of the programs being offered. He is bringing Washington to a standstill and while as I noted previously that is not all bad he remains a jerk and buffoon.
I doubt weather databases are built with a high emphasis on security. I also doubt there is any conspiracy here, it’s just way too small potatoes to make a tiny adjustment in one weather station that apparently isn’t even part of the global record. I can believe software places limits to automatically filter out spurious readings but -10C seems an odd number to use. The manager letter is probably just incompetence and not understanding what is going on from a panicked bureaucrat who was told something wrong from another bureaucrat. It seemed a bit premature to start throwing out equipment as “not fit for purpose” based on the explanation given.
Kenneth,
What things do you believe would have gotten done if a sane Trump was in charge?
.
I am with you that a gridlocked Washington isn’t something I am against in principle. It’s not just an imbalanced 14 year old in charge in DC, it is also the hysterical reaction to him that must be taken into account. It seems the people who were crying obstructionism for the last 6 years have had a revelation.
At the rate the Senate is proceeding, it will take 11 years to approve all the Trump nominees for Federal offices. That has absolutely nothing to do with Trump’s tweets or behavior. It’s 100% Democrat obstruction done by, among other things, requiring 30 hours of debate time for each appointment.
Tom Scharf (Comment #164171)
August 1st, 2017 at 1:43 pm
“I think part of the Trump hysterics is an underlying fear from the elite class that people are going to discover that the elites do not have any magic special sauce that makes them especially good at governing beyond knowing what to wear to a formal dinner and how to speak in the accepted global speech codes.”
While I would tend to agree with you that given the big government biases of the elite class in the US, which some might refer to as the intelligentsia, they do not have answers or even an understanding of the problems imposed by big government, but neither does Donald Trump – whatever class he may represent.
The current battle as I see it is one of partisan politics where the elites who are mainly Democrat and who are willing to defend a fellow Democrat politician for sins for which they would condemn a Republican politician. This partisanship works the same for Republican defenses of Republican politicians.
Tom Scharf (Comment #164186)
“The manager letter is probably just incompetence and not understanding what is going on from a panicked bureaucrat who was told something wrong from another bureaucrat.”
.
Yes, and somehow I think the letter is good enough to convince the minister that they know exactly what they are doing 🙂
Jennifer Marohasy has busted the BOM doctoring data on multiple occasions. She has documented these cases at her website. People are finally starting to pay attention and the bureaucrats are running out of credibility.
Mike M. (Comment #164184)
“angech (Comment #164183): “It is a real problem that Zeke et al bag on about the integrity of the data and the automation of the thermometers yet anyone can be given the authority to manually override a reading they do not like .â€
Shocking if true, but almost certainly false. Is there any evidence to support this claim?
“anyone can be given the authority to manually override†is surely false, but that might be due to careless wording. But even if “anyone†is changed to “some people†I still doubt it.”
yet we know that
–
” the Goulburn AWS recorded -10.4 on the morning of Sunday 2nd July from a screen shot taken from the observation page at the Bureau’s website:”
–
then
“the Bureau sent an email confirming: “The correct minimum temperature for Goulburn on 2 July, 2017 is -10.4 recorded at 6.30am at Goulburn Airport AWS… The Bureau’s quality control system, designed to filter out spurious low or high values was set at -10 minimum for Goulburn which is why the record automatically adjusted.â€
–
In short, after initially recording -10.0 in the CDO dataset, this was changed to -10.4 three days later following a blog post ( Bureau Erases Goulburn Record Minimum),
–
then 23 days later “the Minister for Environment and Energy, Andrew Johnson, CEO and Director of Meteorology, has claimed the weather station malfunctioned.”
–
He further said that a small number of devices in cold climate locations malfunctioned when they went under -10 degrees.
Apart from the fact that a thermometer for cold locations cannot go under precisely -10 degrees without malfunctioning!
The whole business is so laughable….
-The Bureau’s quality control system, designed to filter out spurious low or high values was set at -10 minimum for Goulburn, no mention of what a spurious high level would be, and unthinkable that machines would be automated to rule out data without human intervention in the first place.
–
Think of the damage this would do in an automated plane data if the ground level data midfunctione.
angech (Comment #164192)
then 23 days later “the Minister for Environment and Energy, Andrew Johnson, CEO and Director of Meteorology, has claimed the weather station malfunctioned.â€
Your quote is distorting the meaning of the sentence you qoute from. The full quote is:
Responding to a letter from Josh Frydenberg, the Minister for Environment and Energy, Andrew Johnson, CEO and Director of Meteorology, has claimed the weather station malfunctioned.
Just to clarify, It was not the minister who claimed the station malfunctioned. He was told in the letter from BOM that the station malfunctioned. He was also told that “the station stopped recording when the temperature there fell below -10C” And yet the station obviously recorded the -10.4C value because this was the value that was automatically adjusted to -10.0C and then three days later changed back to the original -10.4C AND this value from the alleged “malfunctioning” station is kept in the records.
Jennifer M:
By 28th July when the above letter was sent to the Minister, the correct value of -10.4 had been showing in the CDO dataset for some 23 days.
With all those rapidly melting ice sheets and glaciers and all those new global temperature records heating the global oceans, the rate of sea level rise sure seems stubborn.
angech (Comment #164192): “The Bureau’s quality control system, designed to filter out spurious low or high values was set at -10 minimum for Goulburn, no mention of what a spurious high level would be, and unthinkable that machines would be automated to rule out data without human intervention in the first place.”
Sounds like they are doing science the right way. There are always at least two sets of books for any large scale automated data system. Things break and stuff goes wrong.
One set of books always has all the unaltered raw data, even if the data is wrong. Automated systems flag anything that looks suspicious, based on both the actual measured numbers and ancillary data. For a public system for which people want immediate results, the screened data will be posted, with a notation that they are preliminary.
Then a person reviews the data, in particular all the flagged data, and produces a vetted final data set. In a small field study, the vetting rules might be somewhat informal (i.e., heavily dependent on the researchers judgement) but for a large scale, continuing operation they should be very specific.
Everything you describe seems to be consistent with normal scientific procedure.
Mike M,
Reading the letter written does show some arm waving towards what you say, but the arm wave turns to flailing, circular excuses and post hoc explanations.
There is a context to this and in context the BOM is cooking the books.
hunter,
This is a tempest in a teapot. It is sensible to have automated checks for “unreasonable” values which may arise from manual or equipment error. (Manual error might be entering 99 rather than 9.9.) In this case, -10 seems to have been a little too close to “reasonable” for a threshold. Any such automated corrections by an algorithm should be reviewed by a person, because the procedure may itself introduce error (as in this case); it’s not clear if the BoM process includes such a step. As Mike M. points out, the raw data remained available, which allows correction.
In the end, “cooking the books” is not a charge which can be defended. One measurement, in one location, is entirely negligible in the scheme of things. And it was not a deliberate alteration, but an algorithm which — in this case — did not serve its intended purpose.
…read Jennifer’s work on this.
It is not isolated, past high temps have been “adjusted” to make the present appear warmer. The results are a significant misleading of the public. One of the leadership level people at BOM, David Jones, is able to say with impunity that, “Truth be known, climate change here is now running so rampant that we don’t need meteorological data to see it.†The BOM and apparently other orgs are taking that view to the logical conclusion.
Tempest in a teapot?
A big pot.
“and unthinkable that machines would be automated to rule out data without human intervention in the first place.”
.
This is quite thinkable and commonly done. Imagine a plane gets struck by lightening and it’s altimeter electronics momentarily register an altitude of 4,294,967,295 feet. Should the plane start diving immediately or reject the value?
.
Firmware filtering for spurious values caused by glitchy electronics is done in many ways, thresholding, median filtering, averaging, frequency filtering, etc.
.
So it’s done commonly, but I would suggest filtering out -10.4C in this case is questionable. First it’s a generic temperature measurement device so it is unreasonable to filter out a reading the device may commonly see in other areas. Secondly there was a series of similar readings prior to that reading so it looked valid. The thresholding answer looks less likely based on the evidence. It’s possible the temperature device is designed incompetently and needs to be replaced. Embedded firmware isn’t always done by the top end of the meritocracy.
Of course outlier data is to be flagged. And a representative random sample of “expected” data as well.
That is not what BOM is doing here.
hunter, my “tempest” comment refers only to this incident, in which one daily temperature in one location was incorrectly logged.
I’m unfamiliar with Jennifer Marohasy’s prior disagreements with BoM. That may lead to her being overly dubious with respect to them. But this one discrepancy is, to overuse a phrase, a nothing-burger.
HaroldW,
You may be right. But having followed the Australian temps and her work for awhile I respectfully disagree with you.
Clipping low temps and not high…which is what the BOM does apparently, is going to skew the record.
And since the entire “climate crisis” is based on fractional changes in temps it does matter.
SteveF (#164159) –
While sea level rate is not up to Rahmstorf’s predictions, there does seem to be a slight acceleration.
An admittedly crude metric is the OLS slope. I computed OLS slopes for 30- and 60-year intervals from the CSIRO sea level data.
Tom Scharf (Comment #164200): “I would suggest filtering out -10.4C in this case is questionable.”
I would agree, but it does not appear to have actually been filtered out. It appears to have been flagged for checking and restored once it appeared valid. So the only issue is what was displayed in the preliminary data. It really makes no difference if that was -10.4 or -10.0. So why display the -10.0 instead of the raw data? Probably to avoid displaying a truly erroneous value of, say, -37.
Flagging and verification are important.
Rewriting the historic record, which is what Jennifer and others have documented, to cool the past and warm the present is what has set off this round.
This is not taking place outside of a context.
HaroldW,
You can really see the ~60 year cycle in the 30 year OLS slope sea level rate data. Note that the slope from 1990-2000 is similar in slope to the acceleration from 1930-1940. According satellite data, the rate is constant from 1993-2017, as was the rate from 1940 to 1950. The underlying rate of increase would be approximately the slope of the 60 year OLS plot.
There probably is some amount of SLR acceleration but that is highly dependent on values prior to the 1990 satellite measurements and how one chooses to process tide gauge measurements which is an enormous clusterf*** that makes temperature look simple.
.
If you look at the AR5 acceleration rates below it doesn’t get anywhere near the SLR magnitudes required for the scary meter+ predictions. One can imagine an “acceleration of the acceleration” and however many terms you want to add to the polynomial to get what you want. I expect it will accelerate “more” over the next century but getting to 1M or 2M is a hard sell looking at the data.
.
Usually what happens is a scientist comes up with a novel theory of Greenland melting much faster, the WAIS falling into the ocean, etc. that has nothing to do with past observations and sells that to activists irregardless of how plausible it is. Big numbers require significantly different behavior than past observations.
.
AR5:
.
“Because of the presence of low-frequency variations (e.g., multi-decadal variations seen in some tide gauge records; Chambers et al. (2012)), sea level acceleration results are sensitive to the choice of the analysis time span. When a 60-year oscillation is modelled along with an acceleration term, the estimated acceleration in GMSL (twice the quadratic term) computed over 1900–2010 ranges from 0.000 [–0.002 to 0.002] mm yr–2 in the Ray and Douglas (2011) record, to 0.013 [0.007 to 0.019] mm yr–2 in the Jevrejeva et al. (2008) record, and 0.012 [0.009 to 0.015] mm yr–2 in the Church and White (2011) record. For comparison, Church and White (2011) estimated the acceleration term to be 0.009 [0.004 to 0.014] mm yr–2 over the 1880–2009 time span when the 60-year cycle is not considered.”
Although I doubt there is a conspiracy in Australia, I will agree with Hunter that errors and corrections in the record seem to go in the direction of “hotter faster” an inordinate amount of the time. The same thing happens with SLR. I think it’s just confirmation bias in action rather than evil climate science overlords. I place much of the warping of climate science at the science > media interface. There are bad actors in the science, but mostly not I think. The failure in the science is not objecting enough to the activist viewpoints.
Tom Scharf (Comment #164209): “I think it’s just confirmation bias in action rather than evil climate science overlords”.
I think that is spot on.
Confirmation bias is certainly at the core, but crowded into that core is noble cause corruption, opportunism, group think, etc.
The climate social mania is a broad coalition if interests from the innocent but naive to the banal to the creepy.
hunter,
When someone has dedicated their career to ‘a cause’, confirmation bias is bound to be almost overwhelming. Had the satellite sea level data indicated a freightening level of acceleration, I very seriously doubt there would be frantic searching for an explanation (any explanation!) for why the rate of rise is really constant rather than accelerating like the data say.
.
Of course the desire to be part of an important (based on personal beliefs and values, and so ‘noble’) cause is what seems to drive most of these folks into climate catastrophe related fields in the first place. It really is very much like a secular religion, with a set of cannons which the faithful are obliged to defend from any doubts… or doubters. Like other religions, the greatest loathing and punishment is reserved for those within the community of believers who dare to stray from the accepted cannons… Pielke Jr, Curry, etc. The dark-humorous part of it all is the utter lack of self awareness within the community of believers.
Tom Scharf (Comment #164200)
“and unthinkable that machines would be automated to rule out data without human intervention in the first place.â€
This is quite thinkable and commonly done.
True. The old YK2 problem.
“Should the plane start diving immediately or reject the value?Three years after the near-disaster, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau issues a final report. It finds incorrect data on measures such as airspeed and angle of attack (a critical parameter used to control an aircraft’s pitch) was sent by one of the A330’s three air-data computers – each of which has its own sensors on the fuselage – to other systems on the plane. One of the three flight control primary computers then reacted to the angle-of-attack data by commanding the plane to nosedive.”
What I was trying to say, poorly, was that it is immoral (unthinkable) that automatation should be deliberately used to give false reports.
Niels A Nielsen (Comment #164193
then 23 days later “the Minister for Environment and Energy, Andrew Johnson, CEO and Director of Meteorology, has claimed the weather station malfunctioned.â€
Your quote is distorting the meaning of the sentence you qoute from. The full quote is:
“Responding to a letter from Josh Frydenberg, the Minister for Environment and Energy, Andrew Johnson, CEO and Director of Meteorology, has claimed the weather station malfunctioned.”
–
Really?
Are you talking about the minister making a blatant fabrication,
which is what I quoted,or a nitpick on the semantics of the English language (23 days v my words responding)?
Read the letter and have a laugh, or cry.
angech,
I was under the impression that you had three redundant systems and went with the majority, not the minority, if there was a difference. And we’re supposed to trust self-driving cars!
SteveF: ” It really is very much like a secular religion … ”
Not a religion, just an exclusive club that you very much want to remain a member of.
Two of the three aircraft sensors were jammed in that case so the majority won. Airbus has had other problems with sensors. Realistically aircraft are a bad example for sensor errors as they are remarkably reliable given the the total numbers and how rarely there are catastrophic errors. I believe one Air France crash occurred because some sensors failed which caused auto-pilot to disengage and then the pilot flew it right into the ocean.
.
In flight sensor failures probably happen frequently without incident but I don’t have any numbers. I imagine aircraft control systems are some of the most scrutinized code out there, as opposed to Australian thermometers, ha ha.
Birgenair Flight 301 crashed because a single pitot tube failed, triggering a series of autopilot and human pilot errors. It is thought that a maintenance crew failed to put a cap on the tube while the plane was on the ground and a wasp built a nest in the tube.
angech (Comment #164214)
“Really?
Are you talking about the minister making a blatant fabrication,
which is what I quoted”
.
Yes, that is what your truncated quote says as if Jennifer M says the MINISTER has claimed or “fabricated” anything when it is the BOM writing TO the minister about the case (the letter).
Niels A Nielsen (Comment #164219)
Oops, had to read it twice to understand what you meant I quoted!
-Ypur comment,
“It was not the minister who claimed the station malfunctioned. He was told in the letter from BOM [CEO, Dr Andrew Johnson] that the station malfunctioned.”
Sorry.
You are quite right.
Mike M. (Comment #164196)
“Sounds like they are doing science the right way. ,
Everything you describe seems to be consistent with normal scientific procedure.”
–
OK.
“The Class A tolerance for a PT100 sensor is ± 0.25 ºC over the range 0 ºC to ±200 ºC. Platinum Resistance thermometer.”
They may deploy different thermometers at different sites based on date of manufacturing, company providing etc but…
The thermometers must be appropriate for the temperature ranges being studied.
The range for thermometers has to include reasonable safety margins to ensure all temperatures can be recorded.
AWS have been in place for many years in Stevenson screens.
These screens are deployed in Canada and Alaska up north and have to measure temps [The coldest blast of weather set the US’s record low temperature of minus 80 °F (-62.2 °C) on January 23, 1971. ] below minus 60 C which they do.
Australia has some snow covered mountains and has Antarctic bases and bases on the way to Antarctica. It also can get quite cold in Australia [The lowest minimum temperature was −23.0 °C (−9.4 °F) at Charlotte Pass on 29 June 1994 in the Snowy Mountains.]
–
So “doing science the right way.”
1. Use the thermometers suitable for measuring the temperature range. Yes
2. report the range Yes
3. Put up excuses first that the recorded -10.4 was altered by an algorithm.
“The correct minimum temperature for Goulburn on 2 July, 2017 is -10.4 recorded at 6.30am at Goulburn Airport AWS… The Bureau’s quality control system, designed to filter out spurious low or high values was set at -10 minimum for Goulburn which is why the record automatically adjusted. No
4.CEO write a letter stating that two AWS stations had stopped working when it got very cold [-10’0C] and started working again when the temp went up above -10.0, despite actual figures being recorded 3 times over 6 hours by the second thermometer.
Further to state that other episodes have occurred at a few other sites exactly at -10.0C. He is going to replace the faulty electronics in the embarrassing 2 sites only. No.
–
There is no science the right way. The BOM has been caught with it’s thumb on the scales and will get away with it, once again.
The Lancet has an article (free registration required) about Gore’s sequel “Truth to Power”:
As the Donald Trump Administration punches holes in American democracy along its seemingly inevitable path to Nixonian demise, the man who should have taken the oath of Presidential office in 2001 stands in such stark contrast to the current residents of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue as to seem from another age, place, and even country. Former Vice President Al Gore, who won the popular vote in 2000 but not the electoral college vote and was denied the office by a five-to-four partisan Supreme Court decision, is back in bookstores and movie theatres. His return to the media stage with the film (video) and book versions of An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power offers a stunning reminder in these cynical times of what leadership in the face of catastrophe looks like, and how genuinely dedicated political animals can push the international agenda for the good of humanity.
angech (Comment #164221): “3. Put up excuses first that the recorded -10.4 was altered by an algorithm.
The correct minimum temperature for Goulburn on 2 July, 2017 is -10.4 recorded at 6.30am at Goulburn Airport AWS… The Bureau’s quality control system, designed to filter out spurious low or high values was set at -10 minimum for Goulburn which is why the record automatically adjusted. No”
According to Wikipedia, the record low temperature at Goulburn is -10.9 C and the reading in question matched the record low for July.
It seems perfectly reasonable that the system is set to flag record or near record temperatures so that a person can check them, especially if such rare events are known to sometimes be associated with equipment failures. If the original reading was restored as part of the normal vetting process, then there is absolutely no problem.
If the original reading was restored only because of the blog post, then there is a problem. I would not be too surprised to learn that people have gotten into the habit of not bothering to check flagged data. Such things do happen, whether due to laziness or a lack of resources. Never attribute to mendacity that which can be adequately explained by incompetence.
.
angech: “4…. two AWS stations had stopped working when it got very cold [-10’0C] and started working again when the temp went up above -10.0, despite actual figures being recorded 3 times over 6 hours by the second thermometer.”
3 readings in 6 hours means it is not working, except in the extremely unlikely case that it is set to record once every two hours. If you have a data series like: ERR, ERR, ERR, -12.0, ERR, ERR , ERR you would be wise to mistrust the -12.0.
.
angech: “Further to state that other episodes have occurred at a few other sites exactly at -10.0C. He is going to replace the faulty electronics in the embarrassing 2 sites only. No.”
Total number of scientific agencies on the planet that have the budget to do everything exactly the way they should be done: Zero.
.
Earlier, someone called this a tempest in a teapot. More like a tempest in a teaspoon.
“the man who should have taken the oath of Presidential office in 2001”
Thank you, Florida!
When George W. Bush was in office, I regarded him as the worst president in a very long time. My opinion of Bush has not improved with time.
Mike M.
Al Gore would have been far worse than Bush. He pushes CAGW because it makes him a lot of money.
HaroldW,
That is hilarious! If ever there was a synopsis of how the US became politically polarized on climate change, that would be it. “Before starting this review of a climate documentary let’s throw out a bunch of dubious unrelated incendiary comments to virtue signal our environmental brethren…”.
Mike M,
Did I tell you I voted 400 times for Bush in FL in 2000? I liked Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld and I guess that puts me in a pretty small club, ha ha. You’ll be happy to know Rumsfeld voted for Trump.
.
I remember Rumsfeld standing by Myers in a press conference while Myers and a reporter were going on and on with some ludicrous conversation about why some enemy were getting killed in Iraq and Rumsfeld got impatient and stepped in and said something to the effect of “We kill people, that is what we do, that’s our job.”. End of stupid inane debate.
.
There is lots of legitimate criticism on Cheney and Rumsfeld, but if I’m going to war I want them on my team, not the other.
Harold, that article says a lot about the author and maybe the publication in which it appears.
Who wrote it?
I wrote (Comment #164224): “Thank you, Florida!”
Did that get mistaken for sarcasm? It appears so.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #164225): “Al Gore would have been far worse than Bush.”
Worse? Almost certainly. Far worse? Maybe.
Kenneth: “Who wrote it?”
Byline is Laurie Garrett, no affiliation given in the article, but apparently this woman.
The review seems to be unrelated — except perhaps in philosophical orientation — to Christina Figueres, who joined The Lancet Countdown, which “will lead and communicate on health and climate change; demonstrate the health co-benefits of mitigation and adaptation; and monitor global progress in meeting the Paris Agreement.”
M “‘3 readings in 6 hours means it is not working, except in the extremely unlikely case that it is set to record once every two hours. If you have a data series like: ERR, ERR, ERR, -12.0, ERR, ERR , ERR you would be wise to mistrust the -12.0.
–
I am not sure if you are being egregariously misleading or just in Nick Stokes mode.
Or not interested.
The facts are that the AWS stations work well, record every 1 second according to one report and use said figures appropriately.
–
This comment was recently made, cannot vouch for veracity but it adds tio the flavour.
-“the Goulburn weather station accurately measured the local temperature as minus 10.4 at 6.30 am on Sunday 2 July, a smart card reader prevented this value from being recorded as the daily minimum on the Daily Weather Observations page.
The smart card reader had been pre-programmed to round-up any value below minus 10 degrees Celsius. So, instead of entering minus 10.4 into the CDO dataset, the value of minus 10.0 was entered for 2nd July instead.”
–
Your view appreciated but otherwise I feel enough on this.
Grand Jury a worry.
Here’s something that not all Gore fans know:
Al Gore’s previous film, ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ cannot be shown in British schools unless students are told that it is a propaganda piece and clearly advised that nine major ‘factual’ alarmist claims in the film are not supported by science. Here’s how the Telegraph reported the story:
“Al Gore’s environmental documentary ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ contains nine key scientific errors, a High Court judge ruled yesterday. The judge declined to ban the Academy Award-winning film from British schools, but ruled that it can only be shown with guidance notes to prevent political indoctrination.â€
North American schools and media outlets continue to treat the Gore film as a fact based documentary.
Harold, That Lancet review is incredibly divorced from reality. There is a cognitive dissonance here. Gore seems to tout how solar and wind are becoming so cheap they will take over energy generation while bemoaning how global warming is going to kill us all. Given Gore’s track record of half truths and becoming very wealthy off the climate bandwagon, one would think his welcome would be more tepid.
As an update to the NYMag Climate Doom article last month. The Climate Feedback Network took it on (there is still hope in the science):
.
“Seventeen scientists analyzed the article and estimated its overall scientific credibility to be ‘low’. A majority of reviewers tagged the article as: Alarmist, Imprecise/Unclear, Misleading.”. For the record it avoided “Very low” somehow.
. https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/scientists-explain-what-new-york-magazine-article-on-the-uninhabitable-earth-gets-wrong-david-wallace-wells/
.
Vox’s science guy says “Yes, it is mostly accurate”, ha ha. He seems to think using emotion is important when alarmism is involved (there is no hope in environmental journalism). https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/7/11/15950966/climate-change-doom-journalism
.
OTOH they say this is the most read article at NYMag ever. Apparently a similar crazy alarmist article at Rolling Stone is also their most read article ever. I think there was a recent book on mass group delusions, maybe I should read it. Climate fear is working or else they wouldn’t still be doing it. That card can be overplayed.
When even Michael Mann thinks you’re being a climate alarmist
Speaking of The Lancet, a new article discusses weather-related hazards, claiming
About 50 times the number of fatalities occurring annually during the reference period (3000 deaths) could occur by the
year 2100 (152,000 deaths [80,500–239,800]). Future effects show a prominent latitudinal gradient, increasing towards southern Europe, where the premature mortality rate due to weather extremes (about 700 annual fatalities per million inhabitants [482–957] during the period 2071–100 vs 11 during the reference period) could become the greatest environmental risk factor. The projected changes are dominated by global warming (accounting for more than 90% of the rise in risk to human beings), mainly through a rise in the frequency of heatwaves (about 2700 heat-related fatalities per year during the reference period vs 151,500 [80,100–239,000] during the period 2071–100).
[Commas inserted into large numbers for clarity.]
HaroldW,
Considering that there is no significant evidence of an increase in hazardous weather resulting from warming, it seems a bit of a stretch to start throwing around numbers like an extra 150,000 deaths per year from heat waves. One wonders if the people in Europe have ever heard of air conditioners, if they recognize that AC’s are used in really warm places like Saudi Arabia (or Phoenix!), or if they understand the technology of cooling air but would prefer to die from heat exhaustion than use an AC unit. More of the green rabble’s nonsensical alarm. Really, just utterly stooopid. How does such crap even get published? I have no idea.
SteveF,
Yes. They probably just did a simple projection assuming everybody in 2100 would be living in same conditions as today, just more of them. Oh, and they probably used RCP 8.5 and the high end of the model range for the temperature change. And that’s not to mention that heat related deaths are not considered excess mortality, just time shifted a few months.
Harold,
If you examine Figure 2 you will see that the reductions in deaths from cold waves offsets almost all other climate related increases completely (Example: cold waves -90 deaths, heat waves only +1.5 deaths). That’s quite inconvenient.
.
…ahem…
.
Except for “coastal floods” which they somehow estimate will rise by 3783%. This one trick pony is not a subtle sleight of hand. This is really a case where using the same scale on the graphs would be illuminating, thus it is not used, ha ha. There was some hand waving in there about how studies only estimated exposure to coastal flooding so I guess they just made up the deaths number to get the answer they liked. Here in Florida exposure to coastal flooding produces approximately zero deaths per year, and it is unclear how so many people would die later when this is effectively high tide flooding of a few feet normally.
SteveF: “One wonders if the people in Europe have ever heard of air conditioners…”
Actually, parts of Europe dislike air conditioners. For example in Italy, ACs are believed to create illness.
Cultural differences aside, I agree with you and DeWitt that any such projection which ignores adaptation (of whatever methods) will exaggerate actual results.
DeWitt: “they probably used RCP 8.5 and the high end of the model range for the temperature change.” In this case, no. The Appendix says they used SRES A1B, adding “With respect to the latest Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs), the A1B best compares to RCP6.0 for similarities in projected atmospheric composition, radiative forcing and climate characteristics.” Table S2 lists 4 different GCMs and 4 RCMs involved in the 5 scenarios used for heatwave prediction. I can’t say if these are at the high end, middle, or low end.
Europe doesn’t need as much AC if you check their relative latitude: https://i.redd.it/jjv1yg2mg99x.jpg
.
Paris is the Canadian border. This is also why solar power in Germany isn’t quite optimal.
“Except for “coastal floods†which they somehow estimate will rise by 3783%.”
Does this sort of equate to 240 people from 4 people?
I guess a rise of 5 and a 1\2 feet would realise a severe demographic change to an older taller coastal population, whereas a 7 foot rise would pruduce good basketballers to export to USA?
Why they would all stand there and drown has always escaped me.
Tom Scharf (#164239): “If you examine Figure 2 you will see that the reductions in deaths from cold waves offsets almost all other climate related increases completely (Example: cold waves -90 deaths, heat waves only +1.5 deaths)”
Sorry, only noticed your comment just now. You’re misreading Figure 2; the ordinate scales for the various panels are not identical. In panel A (heatwaves), the units are 10^5 deaths [per year], so in the final 30-year period (2071-2100) the paper projects ~150K deaths per year due to heatwaves. [As compared to 2700 in the current (reference) period.] In panel B (cold-related deaths) the units are deaths [per year], and decrease from 98 (current) to 2 (2071-2100).
Per Table S8 of the Appendix, heat-related deaths dominate the figures, by far. The prediction is 150K deaths per year by the end of the century, while all other weather-related causes total less than 1K.
Harold W,
“Actually, parts of Europe dislike air conditioners. For example in Italy, ACs are believed to create illness.”
.
I do not know the cultural details, but yes, in Italy AC’s seem as rare as US built cars. I made the mistake of not confirming if a hotel in Milan had A/C when I visited in late May a couple of years back. My choices where: 1) swelter in >85F all night long, or 2) open the un-screened window and get eaten by swarms of mosquitoes. No A/C and no window screens… a sign of an advanced culture for sure, and an indication why the word “malaria” comes from Italian (;-)). I had a horrible two night stay; I won’t make that mistake again. I am sure there are lots of people with Italian heritage in Florida and Phoenix who have adopted the use of A/Cs; no doubt their cousins in Italy will do the same if it becomes too warm. Projections of climate doom are always grotesque exaggerations or outright falsehoods, motivated by green politics. The linked article is political garbage.
Of course the ratio of cold to heat related deaths will depend on the area they are studying. However, as mentioned above, the interesting thing about cold vs heat related deaths is that they are not equal.
.
In a paper a good few years ago it was demonstrated that heat related deaths have a minimal affect on life expectancy compared to cold. Heat primarily exacerbates existing conditions. Cold, through accidents (ice) and disease (flu etc), creates more “at risk” people. It is an insidious killer, not so easily teased out of the death statistics as heat.
HaroldW,
Thanks for that, it pays to read the fine print. Another reason to use the same scales.
I’m kind of skeptical about the 150K number, most heat deaths come from already ill people, the CDC stated 58% of heat related deaths in the US came from those with existing cardiovascular disease so unless that number also extrapolates with climate change it may not add up.
If you look at the latitudes the future southern Mediterranean isn’t going to be any hotter than what Florida and Texas are now which aren’t experiencing anywhere near that rate of deaths, 618 people died in the US last year from extreme heat. 80 years from now Europe will have 25x that number? It doesn’t pass the smell test.
I doubt near 3rd world Mexico has anywhere near that number today, but I can’t find any numbers.
People can make any predictions they like, I just want them to be accountable for what they predict. If one examines the accuracy of past predictions by similar alarmists there isn’t much reason to give credence to new reports.
Tom wrote: “If you look at the latitudes the future southern Mediterranean isn’t going to be any hotter than what Florida and Texas are now”
.
A very good point. You might expect these are the sorts of things to be addressed in the discussion. Putting the research into the context of current findings. We already have ample examples of areas adapted to the climates proposed in such studies. However, these studies studiously ignore comparing the results of their prognostications with the effects of adaptations that are already in place, never mind considering anything more than off-the-cuff comments of what 80 years more development could attain. Instead, we are told the Paris Agreement is the way forward.
.
Invariably these health related studies are utter garbage from top to bottom but as we all know by now, it’s all about the “message”. Let’s not forget it was The Lancet that published Wakefield’s paper that was instrumental in getting the anti-vax scare off the ground. Climate change may or may not cause more deaths in the future. The case against The Lancet is far less uncertain.
Tom Scharf (#164246) : “If you look at the latitudes the future southern Mediterranean isn’t going to be any hotter than what Florida and Texas are nowâ€.
It’s possible that the Mediterranean, being somewhat isolated from the major ocean currents, will retain more heat than the Florida coast, which can export energy to the radiating areas of the north Atlantic more readily.
I recall a conversation many years ago with Dr. Richard Betts (likely at Bishop Hill), in which he stated that regional predictions vary in reliability, but that one region where he thought they were skillful was the Mediterranean. I’ll see if I can find it, and if he gave reasons for that opinion.
Predictions of regional climate change should definitely be treated with caution, and while there is greater confidence in some parts of the world (eg: the Mediterranean) than others (eg: the Amazon) due to the specific physical mechanisms involved, I share Roger’s concern that there is a significant degree of over-confidence in these projections (usually by third parties rather than the modellers themselves, although the latter clearly have a responsibility to make the limitations clear to the former).
It actually worries me quite a lot that the IPCC AR4 multi-model ensemble (and regional models projections nested within this) are becoming regarded in some quarters as some kind of authoritative statement on what the future really holds for specific regions. Generally speaking, my view is that the projections should only be regarded as physically plausible scenarios of what may happen – not what will happen.
Certainly there are regional differences between a Texas desert and the Florida tropics and so forth. Seattle doesn’t get very cold due to proximity to the ocean, etc.
Spot Check:
Avg July temp of Madrid is 76F
Avg July temp of Rome is 78F
Avg July temp of Tampa is 83F
Avg July temp of Dallas is 84F
So about 7F difference. That seems to leave a fair margin for warming to meet the existing US numbers. What one assumes here is obviously key to any estimate.
Tom,
I guess the authors would assume Dallas and Tampa have thremendous rates of heat related death, worse than even Rome circa 2100. It’s a wonder people choose to live in such dangerous places. In 2015, Dallas county reported 2 heat related deaths for June, July, and half of August… with average temperatures between 85F and 90+F for the entire period. The population of Dallas county is 2.5 million. So, if the entire USA were as hot as a hot summer in Dallas, you could expect something like 300 heat related deaths per year. Hard to see how Europe reaches astronomically higher death rares from heat.
Has anybody been following the ‘Google Diversity’ thing? Here’s one introductory link, here’s another.
I haven’t delved in all deeply yet. I was curious what folk around here make of it. Does the guy have a point (any point), or is he full of hooey? (real question)
The PC definition of “Diversity” – People who look different but think the same.
mark bofill (Comment #164251): “Has anybody been following the ‘Google Diversity’ thing? Here’s one introductory link, here’s another.”
From Mark’s link: “Damore argued that biological differences between men and women are the cause of the gender gap at Google and the broader tech industry”.
He apparently went on to say that tech workplaces tend to be more amenable to men than women and that if Google should address that if they want to increase the number of women at Google.
The left grows increasingly totalitarian.
Apple 1997: Think Different
Goggle 2017: Think The Same
.
I’ve been following this the last couple days. It’s a bit complex. First, the hysteria in the media doesn’t reflect the contents of the actual memo. The media just wants to assume this is your stereotypical knuckle dragging sexist and the memo doesn’t reflect this at all. It basically says “it’s possible there are less women in tech for reasons other than just oppression, can we have a discussion on this?”. Secondly, Google was put in a no win situation and took the predictable (and cowardly) way out given their desired culture. Thirdly, Google does and should have the right to fire people as it desires IMO. Fourthly, it shouldn’t have done so here IMO. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/the-most-common-error-in-coverage-of-the-google-memo/536181/
.
This guy is going to sue Google, and Google will likely settle this out of court pronto as they don’t want the PR nightmare, everyone “wins”.
.
The outcomes of these social media mob attacks seem to only point in one direction, progressive right-think. There is the case of a Trinity race/racism professor calling for the deaths of white people on social media, he was suspended and recently reinstated. We must have nuance here! Leftist wrong-think is tolerated, rightist wrong-think is banned.
I think these diversity issues are likely an example of winning the battles and losing the war. The left is in the worst governing position in almost a hundred years and the overbearing political correctness is part of the reason. Many committed left commenters at the NYT are fed up with this stuff, it just isn’t very popular. They need to eliminate the excesses of this movement or it will continue to hurt them.
Tom,
The progress of the suit by Asian-American students against Harvard claiming discrimination should be interesting. The Trump administration seems to be taking a different view of the controversy than the Obama administration, surprise, surprise.
Tom Scharf (Comment #164254): “Goggle 2017: Think The Same”
That seems to be their private motto. Their public motto is “Don’t be evil”. Combine the two and the result would seem to be something along the lines of: Google is god, there is no god but Google.
This thing is blowing up in Google’s face, they painted themselves into this corner. Two front page stories at the NYT this morning, including the NYT actually linking to this Breibart story with screenshots of internal Google conversations on blacklisting anyone who objects to Google’s diversity first culture. http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/08/07/revealed-inside-googles-sjw-cabal-blacklists/
.
Being smart does not inoculate you from being blind to your own biases. Google needs to get a hold on this, unnecessarily alienating half your customers is just a bad idea.
.
FYI: Only 15% of computer science degrees are to women. Google has 20% women on its technical staff. It’s a supply problem, and the interesting question is why CS is predominantly white male, not Google’s hiring practices.
Thanks Tom, others.
The media just wants to assume this is your stereotypical knuckle dragging sexist and the memo doesn’t reflect this at all. It basically says “it’s possible there are less women in tech for reasons other than just oppression, can we have a discussion on this?â€.
Appears to be fact that more men than women work at Google; it appears that is is undisputed and that it is OK to acknowledge this.
There is a claim that Damore suggests that there is a biological explanation for this fact. This claim may or may not be true. It’s more fun and useful for my purposes in discussing this to suppose that it is true for the moment, even if it’s not so.
1. Is it (OK?, not OK?) to propound theories that biological differences (which I presume are still OK to recognize, although in today’s pan tran fluid sexual progressive culture this may be incorrect) can impact people’s ability to do things? I’m reminded of this skit from Monty Python’s Life of Brian. Certainly I’d hope we can still recognize this difference! But (and let me preface this by saying, I know I’ve got a really big butt here) we’re talking about a biological difference as an explanation for differences in technical aptitude.
Anyway I digress I guess. I’m not really interested in this as any sort of question of fact as in ‘is there some biological difference that makes men better at some technical endeavors than women in general’. I’m much more interested in the questions –
1. Should I be ‘allowed’ to ask that? Is it wrong to ask that?
2. Is it ‘harmful’ in some sense to ask that?
3. Does it even matter if it might be true?
I’m asking a lot of questions here. I’m not sure if any are rhetorical. I don’t think they are- I’m not trying to make any point I think is obvious by asking these questions. These are questions I’m curious about.
Thanks again all.
In other news – I think Trump could be trying to provoke North Korea into some aggressive act he could use as a justification for a military strike.
I think that the question that needs to be asked is: Do affirmative diversity programs lead to more or less racist/sexist/whatever attitudes? I don’t think the answer is obvious. I do think that the promoters of affirmative action programs are ignoring unexpected or unintended consequences of these programs.
So, even if they weren’t rhetorical, let me put up my preliminary answers to my own questions. That way if they are not of any general interest the matter can be considered disposed of. So – first thoughts I’ve had on answering these:
.
1. Should I be ‘allowed’ to ask that? Is it wrong to ask that?
I think people should be allowed to ask any darn-fool question they want to. I think people should be free to laugh at / mock people who ask really stupid questions with some possible sexist or racist agenda mercilessly, but still – it ought to be OK to ask whatever dumb question one wants in my view.
.
2. Is it ‘harmful’ in some sense to ask that?
Maybe. Maybe asking dumb questions causes dumb people to develop cult followings to dumb answers, or something. I think such considerations are futile though. There will always be people who take things and run in the wrong direction with them. This is not a reason not to ask questions, AFAICT.
3. Does it even matter if it might be true?
Not particularly, see above.
.
I think that people fear that if a scientific basis is found for real differences between groups of humans, it might be used to try to justify political oppression. But. As if political oppression needs scientific justification in our world! Preposterous. I don’t understand why we couldn’t say ‘people are different. This said, we have agreed that politically and morally people are all equal regardless, because that’s what we want our society to be’ and be done with it. shrug
It was easy to foresee the memo was going to go nuclear with the diversity crowd. It argues evolutionary science and ideological intolerance in a calm reasoned way to a crowd that believes they own science and tolerance. Lodging a complaint with the left controlled NLRB for ideological intolerance was also poking the progressive bear. It has been exceedingly easy to provoke an overreaction from the left post-Trump.
.
One needs to only examine perfectly acceptable theories on why women are good at certain other professions to see hypocrisy in action.
.
He makes some perfectly valid points: not allowing ideological push back can result in authoritarians taking control, and not understanding true causation inhibits effective solutions.
Manafort’s home was raided by the FBI last month. That only happens with probable cause and my guess is that this was examined very carefully. He’s going down.
SSC takes on gender differences, recommended (note: he’s a psychologist). This is the more intellectually defensible “Google sexist screed”.
.
Summary – Men like things, women like people, this is widely accepted in the field.
.
The data supports that the tech difference in some fields is likely biologically based differences in interest (STRESSED: not differences in ability), the gender differences go all the way back through high school, etc to as early as measurements are made. Curiously women with a “typical male” hormone imbalance do not exhibit the difference…
Smite Me, O Mighty SJW Smiter! http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exaggerated-differences/
Tom,
Thanks for that link, that was both interesting and entertaining. 🙂
Tom,
I read the complete Google programmer’s message, and I also read SSC’s analysis of the relative lack of women at places like Google. The actual content of the programmer’s messages was pretty mild… mostly he was complaining about the Google’s totalitarian leftist culture…. that is a sure fired way to have a bunch of leftist totalitarians fire your a$$, and that is exactly what happened. The culture of the left seems to me to always have strong totalitarian tendencies. After all, when you are absolutely certain you are right, there is no need to suffer the disruption of opposing views being voiced, nor the inconvenience of compromise with other views, which seems Google’s philosophy in a nutshell… but increasingly one shared by most people on the political left. I find the combination of absolute certainty and a complete lack of self awareness nothing short of frightening. I suggest Google change thier motto… “Don’t be evil.. but we define what evil is.” Google is clearly run by a bunch of arrogant jerks.
SteveF,
I’m getting a 1984 vibe from all of this.
“There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live—did live, from habit that became instinct—in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.”
On the memo: I haven’t read the memo itself. Articles don’t seem to link it and I wasn’t concerned enough about it to Google it. 🙂 think the main problem for Google was it all became very public.
The arguments about differences between men and women are perpetual. Of course there are some biological differences. I think the difference in fractions of men/women in CS are more inclination than aptitude. But it’s likely that some of the differences in inclinations are biological; others are social. But a lot of the choice vis-a-vis CS is frozen in by choices people have been making in their freakin’ teens.
I don’t know enough about Google’s policies to say what Google should do. But it’s highly unlikely that they are going to get their CS hires to 50%-50% parity. The supply of women getting degrees is insufficient to do this no matter what policies Google puts in place. (Well… since they are one employer, I guess they could do it– then other employers would have a lower fraction of women.)
DeWitt,
I think that the question that needs to be asked is: Do affirmative diversity programs lead to more or less racist/sexist/whatever attitudes? I don’t think the answer is obvious. I do think that the promoters of affirmative action programs are ignoring unexpected or unintended consequences of these programs.
I agree with you. I don’t know if affirmative diversity programs lead to more or less racist / sexist / attitudes. But I will say that I believe such programs cause some people to focus more on discrimination. To skip a lengthy description of my own anecdotal experiences and cut to the chase- I have reached the point where I spend time actively looking for how any statement I make in a professional / work environment might be misconstrued (edit add: before I speak). Not out of consideration for the feelings of others, to be sure; but out of a sense of fear. I’d like to believe that creating an environment of fear was not an intended consequence of these policies, although as usual I may well be wrong about that.
Lucia,
On the memo: I haven’t read the memo itself. Articles don’t seem to link it and I wasn’t concerned enough about it to Google it.
Yeah. You’re not missing much. Reads like something I’d write. Bleh.
I think the difference in fractions of men/women in CS are more inclination than aptitude.
Sounds pretty reasonable to me.
What’s interesting to me about using fear to motivate people is that I think people resent it. I suspect fear make[s] people default hostile towards the motivational system generating and exploiting the fear and the proponents of the system. Just sayin. I suspect that given options in most situations, a Reign of Terror probably isn’t usually one of the better choices.
The activist end of political correctness is about manners, not morals. If you ask those same people whether there is less racism now due to better manners they will tell you no. Their opinion is false niceness is better than real disrespect. Perhaps this is so, but my problem is that now that we have speech code adherence in the public sphere, the witch hunts are much worse. It used to be that you could just see who was burning crosses, using the n-word, and wearing hoods to identify the racists. Now the left has gone to micro-aggressions, “dog whistles”, subtle speech code faux pas, and examining every lifetime utterance to claim everyone and anyone is a racist. That’s not a better world except for the self righteous, self elected judges of society’s inquisition. It is unearned and undeserved social power.
.
As with many things the intentions are good, the implementation has been corrupted by those who seek power using shaming as a tool. Trump was a blinking billboard that the shaming card has been overplayed. It is a good thing that a bright light is being shined on these episodes. Shaming the shamers might help.
Tom,
Shaming the shamers might help.
South Park had a season devoted to that. An example: Randy goes to the grocery store, I think it was a Whole Foods. When he is checking out, the cashier asks him for a donation to some cause or other. When he refuses, the cashier makes an announcement about it on the public address system in the store.
I don’t think it helps because people don’t recognize themselves. If they were sufficiently self aware enough to take notice, they probably wouldn’t be doing it in the first place.
Tom Scharf wrote: “Shaming the shamers might help.”
DeWitt wrote “I don’t think it helps because people don’t recognize themselves.”
I agree, but I suspect that the South Park episode was not an attempt to shame the shamers. The would-be cashiers won’t recognize themselves. Of if they do, they think “right on”. The target is the people who might recognize themselves as being potentially in Randy’s place.
Tom,
If my grocery store gave me a guilt trip, I would find another grocery store.
lucia,
Well, yes, obviously. But the people of South Park were completely enamored of Whole Foods, mostly for reasons that wouldn’t make sense to rational people.
Re Whole Foods: no (few really) preservatives. This is supposed to be a good thing, maybe it can be. Not 100% sure what happened, will likely never know for sure, but I think I food poisoned the heck out of myself about 10 years ago in Atlanta via Whole Foods. I thought growing up that preservatives were technological progress…
Mark Bofill,
Haven’t you heard? Chemicals are bad. Categorically. I understand that all junk food and fossil fuels are just absolutely polluted with chemicals all over the place. The worst chemicals are the ones with really long names. Kale at Whole Foods is chemical free I hear, unless it is grown within a 1000 miles of a Monsanto based field in which case it is pure poison.
Mark,
I generally have no objection to food preservatives, not even if they are artificial.
Natural preservatives exist and I’m sure Whole Foods is ok with those. Hops is a preservative. That’s one of the reasons it started being used in beer. Of course it also balances sweetness, but you could balance sweetness with other things.
I”m all for preventing food from rotting.
Tom,
Kale sure came into fashion! I’m waiting for the next big veggie.
While we’re on the subject of food, what I want to know is why the penchant for organically grown, non-GMO food isn’t considered anti-science, not to mention the anti-vaccination movement (thanks Lancet /sarc). My best guess is that those things cross party lines and can’t be used as a political club like ‘creation science’ and being soft on AGW.
lucia,
Kale is so last year. Back when Craig Ferguson was the host of the Late Late Show, hardly a night passed without a kale joke or two. But that was some time ago.
DeWitt,
I don’t know. That said, there are qualitative difference between different “anti” groups. With climate, some people denying something is true (e.g. world has warmed), with GMO people don’t deny it works, they are sometimes just unduly cautious with things we can’t prove. Obviously, we can’t prove that someone would never introduce a gene into something in a way that caused something both unexpected and bad to occur. Perhaps someone would breed a variety of Kudzu that would truly take over the world. Or maybe even more powerful Asian Carp. Thinking that could happen isn’t necessarily anti-science.
On the other hand, people who agree the climate has been warmed and some of that is caused by man get called deniers. Also, not all anti-GMO people are worried about the sort of hypothetical catastrophes I suggested. They are actually against things like “golden rice” which could really help alleviate vitamine A deficiency in poorer countries.
The one that gets me is all the cured ham and hotdogs that proudly claim to contain no nitrites/nitrates. They use stuff like celery juice which contains… nitrites. Unless your cured meat is grey or artificially colored, it contains nitrites.
lucia,
But you don’t know that a new selectively bred plant cultivar is safe either. If you breed for insect and pathogen resistance so you don’t have to use synthetic pesticides and fungicides, it’s likely that the plant may be more toxic. Celery is a good example of this. The psoralens in celery can cause photosensitivity in farm workers and may be carcinogenic.
Moreover, celery cultivars produced using conventional breeding methods—intended to enhance insect-resistance and aesthetic appeal to consumers through increased production of psoralen—have been associated with cases of dermatitis among grocery workers, as well as further cases of photosensitivity among farm workers handling these plants (Ames and Gold, 1999).
If you read the fine print, it should say no nitrate or nitrite added, not contains no nitrate or nitrite, and somewhere else it also says that celery juice contains nitrate and nitrite, pure marketing hypocrisy.
Bioengineering is a wonderful technology for bioweapons. If you want to make your aerosoled small pox resistant to vaccines this is the first place to go. Biotechnology bad. Then again buses can be used to run over people so…
The left’s most anti-science stance is their prohibition on nuclear energy. The message is so convoluted that it is almost never even discussed. There are endless future energy plans from the left that do not even acknowledge the existence of nuclear energy. There are also many on the left that really want to believe that everyone is born a blank slate.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #164284):
While we’re on the subject of food, what I want to know is why the penchant for organically grown, non-GMO food isn’t considered anti-science, not to mention the anti-vaccination movement (thanks Lancet /sarc).
A penchant for organically grown or non-GMO food or non-GMO is a choice, and is hence not anti-science. Those choices even have some basis in (over-?) precaution.
Anti-vaccination, if by that you mean refusal to let your children get vaccinated and/or campaigning against vaccination in general, is a clear position and is pretty well into anti-science. I don’t know why you think it is “not” considered anti-science for party line reasons or otherwise. Maybe by some.
My best guess is that those things cross party lines and can’t be used as a political club like ‘creation science’ and being soft on AGW.
Conflating all “other” is generally a precursor to applying the political club, sure.
Tom Scharf (Comment #164290):
The left’s most anti-science stance is their prohibition on nuclear energy.
Again, conflation of “the left.” I know plenty of people on “the left” who see nuclear as one of the most plausible “alternative” energy sources. There are practical concerns of course.
Careful there, Tom. Blank Whiteboards too.
oliver,
I also know people on the right who don’t think global warming is a hoax. Shall we go take a look at the top 25 environmental NGO’s and see what their stance on nuclear energy is? So to make it more (ironically) accurate, the environmentalists are anti-science on this subject, who just happen to be almost universally left wing.
Nuclear is expensive compared to natural gas, that will still hold it back if the bias problem is solved.
Tom,
1. Studies seem to show that plenty of people on the right (perhaps a slight majority) don’t think global warming is a hoax. So what’s the problem here?
2. Sure, let’s take a look at the top 25 environmental NGOs and see what is their stance on nuclear. If they are anti-nuclear, then let’s also look at their reasons for taking that position. If they have anti-science reasoning, we can call it out for what it is. As I stated in my post, there are also practical concerns that might cause one to take an anti-nuclear stance. To take one example, you just mentioned cost.
3. Historically there have been plenty of right-wing environmentalists. Some more scientific than others, just as with any other group.
Global warming as such is not a hoax although the size of the problem has been twisted completely out of proportion for ideological reasons.
Kind of like Russian interference in the American election except I don’t know if there is any truth at all in the Russia story.
One of the central narratives in the Russia story is that the Russians hacked the DNC server.
According to recent evidence there was no Russian hack, there wad not even a hack:
The Nation is an old liberal, left-leaning publication.
Oliver,
I’m honestly not sure I see where you’re going. Is your point to tell us ‘don’t generalize about the Left”? Real question, and thank you in advance.
Mark,
It probably is better to just say “anti-nuclear is an anti-science position”. Avoiding associating it with “left” or “right” avoids the possibility of constructing a sentence that seems to accuse all the left of being against it.
Back to the anti-science labeling: labeling is mostly used as a political tool. It’s hard to say why climate activists adopted the “anti-science” label while gmo or nuclear advocates haven’t. I’m not convinced it’s a “left-right” thing though. But I really wouldn’t advocate it as a technique that convinces anyone. Using the label doesn’t change anyone’s mind and mostly just annoys people. If anything it hardens positions.
People in favor of vaccination generally don’t use anti-science as a label, they prefer to just talk about herd immunity and “do you really want your kid to die?” stuff. Some k-12 schools are also getting stricter about allowing parents to have their kids skip vaccines. In the past,they tended to just be willing to accept refusal was some sort of belief that fell under the first amendment. Now the schools are pushing back. (Often the parental belief is not anything remotely like a religious belief. )
Re Left: thanks Lucia.
But I really wouldn’t advocate it as a technique that convinces anyone. Using the label doesn’t change anyone’s mind and mostly just annoys people. If anything it hardens positions.
Yes. All of these schemes to manipulate opinions and persuade people; consensus messaging, shaming, smearing, fear mongering. I don’t think any of them have much impact on actually changing peoples minds. Well reasoned, respectful discussion is probably about as good as it gets.
Still – do ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ actually stand for concrete things anymore, besides which division one sits in chamber? I get that a slur is a slur and that calling anybody anti-science is really nothing else, but. Is pointing out that the [L]eft tends to be more supportive of socialist policies a slur? It seems to me that that depends on the opinions of the company one keeps.
(My first question was meant to be introductory and may have been rhetorical. My answer – I think Left and Right mean more than where one sits in chamber. My second question is actually heartfelt and I meant my answer as well.)
Similiarly: perhaps it is counterproductive to say that the Left tends towards totalitarianism. Perhaps it is incorrect to say this. Still – I must say I understand where the sentiment comes from. Is there a better way to address the Charlie Gards and the Google Diversity Memo (I know Google is company and not a government. Google cannot be totalitarian in that sense. Still.) situations; is there a less offensive way to broach the subject? Possibly. Maybe it behooves me to think about how to express myself in a less abrasive manner, if I want anybody who doesn’t already agree with me to listen.
[Edit: I think at the end of the day the answer is that I can’t talk about the Left or the Right. That’s like talking about somebody’s favorite baseball team or something similar. It’s probably better to stick to concrete issues without attaching them to social groups.]
Lucia,
Of course generalizations (greens don’t support nuclear power, only Christians support ‘intellegent design’) are never completely accurate, since there are often many exceptions to the generalization. Still, generalizations serve as a shorthand for group political preferences, and even a liberal source like The New Republic recognizes that Democrats tend to oppose nuclear power. https://newrepublic.com/article/139700/democrats-party-science-not-really As to whether generalization hardens poilitical positions: I suspect most political positions are extremely difficult to change, mainly because they are orthogonal to factual reality, not because people tend to use generalizations.
.
I hope your vacation went well.
I think the next ‘big’ veggie is kohlrabi.
oliver,
I see that there were, in fact, pro-vaccine and pro-GMO supporters in the March for Science. They just didn’t make the news. Which says a lot about bias in the press.
There is news on the subject of Russian meddling in the election.
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) is a group formed in 2003 in opposition to the misuse of intelligence data to justify the Iraq war. Now they are saying that last year’s DNC leak was an inside job, not Russian hacking. One key piece of evidence is that the leaked files were copied in an amount of time incompatible with internet hacking, but consistent with copying onto a thumb drive.
I think (with certain important exceptions), it is fair to say that the Left has generally historically opposed nuclear power. One example is the Sierra Club. See http://sierraclub.org/nuclear-free “The Sierra Club remains unequivocally opposed to nuclear energy.”
I am personally a conservative contrarian. I mildly oppose nuclear power on the grounds of cost and my belief that the government is too incompetent to regulate the safety of nuclear power.
JD
Mark
Is pointing out that the [L]eft tends to be more supportive of socialist policies a slur?
I wouldn’t think so. Left is generally defined either on (a) economic policies or (b) personal liberties (or both). In terms of economic policies “Left” is defined as “socialist” and “right” capitalist.
In terms of personal liberties other than those touching on economic issues, left leans to ward “freedom” and right toward “government control”.
Mind you: things get jumbled in real life. Plus the exception of “other than” those touching on economic issues is a big one for personal liberties. After all: the power to tax (and or redistribute income) has a huge effect on personal liberty. I’m not totally opposed to all taxes, but I also think not being allowed to benefit from the fruits of ones own labor is a big infringement on liberty. So taxes with an aim to redistribute enough to actually level incomes strikes me as a big blow to personal liberty. (In contrast, taxing to build roads doesn’t strike me as a big problem. In between …one has to discuss…)
Mike M.,
It’s possible both hackings occurred. Wikileaks still maintains that Russia was not their source. The Russians and Chinese trying to hack into US systems is not news. It’s totally believable they got into a poorly protected DNC, why wouldn’t they? The question is whether there is evidence they took the next step and leaked the documents. Unless they are as clumsy as Reality Winner it is unlikely that question will ever be resolved.
Thanks Lucia. As far as I can recall, it’s always been (and continues to be) a genuine pleasure to get feedback from you. 🙂
.
Lefties, do you mirror what I do in ignoring the parts of the ‘Right’ (the viewpoint I affiliate with, in the unlikely event that it wasn’t obvious) I don’t like? I tend to ignore or forget this – when I go to draw from the Rightie buffet somehow this part never ends up on my plate:
In terms of personal liberties other than those touching on economic issues, left leans to ward “freedom†and right toward “government controlâ€.
Gay marriage for instance? I’z gots nothing against it.
So – back to the question — Anybody out there with a left leaning view care to comment on whether or not there are parts of ‘Leftiness’ (or however one ought to put it) they just don’t think are all that important or essential in defining what the Left is all about? Maybe parts of Leftist thought that you just flat out disagree with or ignore?
Speaking of Whole Foods and organic foods, in CO we have grocery chain named Sprouts (not sure if national or not) that only carries organic food.
Their produce and meat departments have a tremendous waste problem. Literally a rotten mess.
So back to Google. CEO Sundar Pichai cancel diversity meeting:
.
“We had hoped to have a frank, open discussion today as we always do to bring us together and move forward. But our Dory questions appeared externally this afternoon, and on some websites Googlers are now being named personally. Googlers are writing in, concerned about their safety and worried they may be “outed†publicly for asking a question in the Town Hall. In recognition of Googlers’ concerns, we need to step back and create a better set of conditions for us to have the discussion.â€
.
Obviously if someone is outed externally for asking a policy question internally then….the person who asked the policy question gets fired, right? I’m confused. What changed? That’s a rhetorical question. I haven’t heard anyone (literally nobody) say anything about Damore’s safety.
.
Call me cynical, but this meeting was canceled because it was going to hit a hornet’s nest with a baseball bat and make bad PR a veritable train wreck of PR. I do love my mixed metaphors.
.
The media coverage of this is 99.9% of the type which dismisses his arguments without discussion, he made an absurd wrong statement (allegedly), ignore everything else he said and debate nothing.
.
Here is one of the top voted questions to ask the CEO:
“The doc asserted that Google has a lower bar for diversity candidates, This is hurting minority Googlers because it creates the perception that they are less qualified. What can we do to combat that perception?”
.
A: Not lower the bar for diversity candidates? Not have a category called diversity candidates? I’m somewhat amazed this is a top question from our best and brightest. They want to pretend they don’t lower their standards for diversity when they lower their standards for diversity?
JD Ohio,
” I mildly oppose nuclear power on the grounds of cost and my belief that the government is too incompetent to regulate the safety of nuclear power.”
.
Well, the cost for nuclear power is high mostly because of political opposition… which has lead to endless lawsuits, crazy regulations, and commonly required re-designs/re-builds during the initial construction due to ever changing regulations. So the high cost which opponents always point to is the direct result of political opposition, not a cause of political opposition.
.
With regard to government inability to regulate safety: consider commercial air transport, and how many fatal crashes take place. That is in large measure the result of government safety regulations. The total loss of life associated with air accidents is orders of magnitude greater than from nuclear power worldwide, and infinitely greater in the USA… since there is not a single death in the USA caused by a nuclear power accident. The main opposition to nuclear power is motivated by 1) irrational fear of radiation and 2) a desire to make all forms of energy more expensive, so as to reduce material wealth and so reduce human influence on ‘nature’. For the Sierra Club and their ilk, it is mostly 2).
SteveF: 2 nuclear power plants were recently cancelled in South Carolina after large amounts of money had already been spent because the builder thought it would be too expensive to continue. I think it would be instructive to know why these plants were so expensive and what work that was done was unnecessary and expensive. Do you have any ideas?
JD
Tom,
“They want to pretend they don’t lower their standards for diversity when they lower their standards for diversity?”
.
Yes, it is all absurd. Of COURSE they lower standards to hire more people with desired personal characteristics. If they didn’t, then the mix of programmers and engineers at Google would perpetually reflect the graduating classes from colleges and universities for those fields… that is, about 20% women and about 1/3-1/4 as many African-Americans as you would expect based on their fraction of total population.
.
It will be interesting to see what happens with the Asian students’ lawsuit against Harvard. I think they can easily prove Harvard discriminates against Asian candidates (number of Asians admitted to Harvard constant, despite a doubling in the number of Asians in the USA). Just like Harvard discriminates against Jews and whites in favor of African-Americans and Hispanics. I doubt the lawsuit will succeed in changing Harvard’s policies (or the policies of other competitive schools… leftists always think themselves absolutely right about everything), but it will be fun to watch Harvard suffer some richly deserved bad PR.
I guess I will have to adjust the “debate on the merits” metric down to 99.0%. Here is David Brooks from the NYT:
.
Sundar Pichai Should Resign as Google’s C.E.O. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/11/opinion/sundar-pichai-google-memo-diversity.html
.
“Which brings us to Pichai, the supposed grown-up in the room. He could have wrestled with the tension between population-level research and individual experience. He could have stood up for the free flow of information. Instead he joined the mob.”
Kan (Comment #164309): in CO we have grocery chain named Sprouts (not sure if national or not) that only carries organic food.
Their produce and meat departments have a tremendous waste problem. Literally a rotten mess.”
The Sprouts I often shop at has both organic and regular stuff, just like a normal supermarket. Unlike Whole Foods, it has reasonable prices. I have not noticed any waste problem.
Don’t all supermarkets have a waste problem? It seems to me that if such a problem is obvious to the customer, than the store must be grossly mismanaged.
SteveF (Comment #164311): “Well, the cost for nuclear power is high mostly because of political opposition… which has lead to endless lawsuits, crazy regulations, and commonly required re-designs/re-builds during the initial construction due to ever changing regulations. So the high cost which opponents always point to is the direct result of political opposition, not a cause of political opposition.”
.
I had long assumed that to be the case. But has that happened with the plants in Georgia and South Carolina? If so, can you provide pertinent information?
I had been under the impression that all four plants were proceeding more or less on time and reasonably close to budget. Now two have been cancelled because of huge cost overruns and it seems likely that the other two will follow. I have not seen an explanation of just what went wrong. But it would seem to be a major blow for nuclear in the U.S.
lucia,
I disagree with your characterization of Left and Right wrt government control. 1984 and Animal Farm were written by a man of the Left, George Orwell, who saw the logical conclusion of the policies of the Left. Hugo Chavez and now Nicolas Maduro are not right wingers by any stretch of the imagination. In almost any economic dispute between the government and the individual, the left tends to take the government side, see Kelo v New London, for example.
The dispute is between liberals in the classic sense of the word, i.e. liberty, and authoritarians. Most of the Left is as authoritarian as the Right, although have somewhat different agendas. The Left has perverted the meaning of ‘liberal’ and also ‘progressive’, for that matter.
Now we have Thought Police on college campuses, not exactly dominated by the Right, and moving into corporations. Google is located in deep blue territory. Freedom of speech doesn’t exist if you can’t say or write anything that offends someone.
JD Ohio,
The plants were canceled because one of the utility companies (40% ownership) backed out when the primary construction contractor (Westinghouse) declared bankruptcy. Not coincidentally, Westinghouse is a subsidiary of a Japanese company that had lots of second thoughts about nuclear power after Fukishima in 2011.
.
The contract for procurement and construction with Westinghouse was signed in 2008, long before Fukishima. It took the Federal NRC 4 years to issue a license for construction. Construction finally started in March 2013, five years after the construction contract was signed. Further construction delays and cost overruns were driven in large part by NRC regulators working at companies building major components for the reactors; the delayed major components delayed/disrupted all other construction and installation of equipment, causing huge cost overruns and pushing projected operation to sometime after 2020 (and more likely 2022-2024). Capital projects that take ~16 years to complete are never commercially viable. Regulatory delays and complexities are a feature desired by opponents, not a bug or failure of the regulations.
Mike M.
The main listed reason for one of the South Carolina nuclear plant cancellations was the bankruptcy of Westinghouse, the reactor supplier.
…the reactor company claims that safety regulations passed to prevent terrorist attacks against targets like nuclear reactors forced redesign and relicensing of the two power plants, which “created additional, unanticipated engineering challenges that resulted in increased costs and delays on the US AP1000 Projects.â€
Business as usual.
DeWitt,
“Google is located in deep blue territory.”
.
And run by deep blue people.
Tom Scharf
Call me cynical, but this meeting was canceled because it was going to hit a hornet’s nest with a baseball bat and make bad PR a veritable train wreck of PR.
Not unlikely. But that’s not a bad reason to cancel a meeting. I suspect a fair number of people over the full political spectrum were relieved.
The media coverage of this is 99.9% of the type which dismisses his arguments without discussion, he made an absurd wrong statement (allegedly), ignore everything else he said and debate nothing.
I don’t think the media dismissed his arguments. Initially, they didn’t have them (memo wasn’t avaiable to all.) Many have discussed his arguments and the amount of discussion appears in proportion to the actual reporting of the event.
“The doc asserted that Google has a lower bar for diversity candidates, This is hurting minority Googlers because it creates the perception that they are less qualified. What can we do to combat that perception?â€
.
A: Not lower the bar for diversity candidates? Not have a category called diversity candidates? I’m somewhat amazed this is a top question from our best and brightest. They want to pretend they don’t lower their standards for diversity when they lower their standards for diversity?
They should also state they do not intend to lower the bar and show a tabulation of credentials of some sort to demonstrate that what they claim is true. Granted, there is some superficiality to credentials. But if you have a bunch of new hires in “group A” and “group B”, you should be able to show proportion of things like degree level, external experience before hire, average gpa and so on. At least look for something measureable that hiring managers think matters.
If one group is getting hired w/o degrees, no external experience of much lower gpa, it’s going to look like “lowered standards”.
The fact is: a lot of “diversity” verbiage does give the impression those striving for “diversity” intend to “lower the bar”. If they don’t want to give that impression, they need to find a path that does not involve “lowering a bar” and then be very specific about what they intend to do to increase diversity.
In the case of Google and hiring of developers, it’s obvious they are faced with a certain mix of people in the pipeline. There is very little they can do to change the pipeline — and what little the can do would at best affect the mix 10 years down the line. Perhaps their plan is to fund some HR people to specifically buttonhole all minority coders at job every job fair at every university with a decent technical program. That could increase numbers without lower standards. But in that case, they need to say that’s the plan. (They also need to recognize that they still probably won’t raise the fraction of minority hires a yuge amount. It will raise it somewhat.)
DeWitt,
Yeah. I think you are correct. I was thinking of personal liberties like gay marriage. But you are right that full control of the government has been mostly a socialist, that is “left”, thing.
Tom Scharf (Comment #164314),
Brooks should make sure his resume is in order. The mob of witch hunters will soon be after him.
D. Payne: “he main listed reason for one of the South Carolina nuclear plant cancellations was the bankruptcy of Westinghouse, the reactor supplier.”
Without further context, this doesn’t tend to prove that the nuclear reactors were priced out by excessive regulation. The fact that Westinghouse went bankrupt, on first blush, would seem to indicate that it is not a profitable business.
JD
JD Ohio,
Did you not read the quote from the second link in my post? Apparently not. That was the context you are asking for.
lucia,
I do sometimes wonder, though, if people like Chavez actually believe in the principles of socialism or are just conning the useful idi0ts to gain power. My guess would be that, for example, Fidel Castro was a true believer.
D Payne Sorry I didn’t read the second article. However, after reading the second article, I went to the links there to the NYTs. The NYTs stated: “At the same time, Westinghouse was trying to install a novel reactor design, the AP1000. Using simplified structures and safety equipment, it was intended to be easier and less expensive to install, operate and maintain. Its design also improves the ability to withstand earthquakes and plane crashes and is less vulnerable to a cutoff of electricity, which is what set off the triple meltdown at Fukushima.
Nonetheless, it was inevitable that expansions at the Vogtle generating station in Georgia and the Virgil C. Summer plant in South Carolina would hit some bumps along the road to fruition, nuclear executives say. Not only was the design new, but, because nuclear construction had been dormant for so long, American companies also lacked the equipment and expertise needed to make some of the biggest components and construct the projects.
Indeed, that may ultimately have been at the root of the troubles. The contractor Westinghouse chose to complete the projects struggled to meet the strict demands of nuclear construction and was undergoing its own internal difficulties after a merger. As part of an effort to get the delays and escalating costs under control, Westinghouse acquired part of the construction company, which set off a series of still-unresolved disputes over who should absorb the cost overruns and how Westinghouse accounted for and reported values in the transaction.” https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/business/westinghouse-toshiba-nuclear-bankruptcy.html?_r=1
I believe if these plants were truly economical, others would be able to step in and do the work. (including, maybe Chinese) Doesn’t appear to be the case.
JD
JD Ohio,
The NY Times is not a credible source for information about nuclear power…. they are actively opposed. Nuclear is the Donald Trump of energy sources.
Steve F: The Ars Technica article cited by DeWitt was in large measure based on the NYTs article.
JD
JD Ohio,
Of course nuclear is not economical, especially when compared to combined cycle, cheap natural gas fired plants. Neither are solar and wind without government handouts, in spite of what you may have heard about levelized cost. Levelized cost of energy is a nearly useless metric for non-dispatchable generation. The question is, what’s the least expensive, low carbon footprint generating system that can provide the high reliability required for the national grid. IMO, that’s still nuclear. But it won’t be cheap even when you get over the startup hump.
China is building nuclear power plants as fast as they can at home using the AP1000 design, among others. I doubt they would have the slightest interest in dealing with the US regulatory regime. China also doesn’t have relatively inexpensive shale resources, so natural gas is expensive for them.
DeWitt,
It is difficult to tell if a strong man or dictator claims to believe socialism to gain power or whether they seize power because the believe in socialism and want to impose it.
Fidel may have been a true believer in socialism. His actions did not improve living conditions for the overwhelming majority of Cubans.
DeWitt P: “Of course nuclear is not economical, especially when compared to combined cycle, cheap natural gas fired plants. Neither are solar and wind without government handouts, in spite of what you may have heard about levelized cost. Levelized cost of energy is a nearly useless metric for non-dispatchable generation. The question is, what’s the least expensive, low carbon footprint generating system that can provide the high reliability required for the national grid.”
….
Personally, a low carbon footprint is not important to me. I believe that if there is potentially dangerous warming, in let’s say 75 years, by then their will be easy tech fixes. So, from what you are saying, if economics is my concern, I should support gas-fired plants.
JD
lucia,
Sure. Juan Peron ruined the Argentine economy and Chavez and Maduro have destroyed the Venezuelan economy. Stalin caused massive starvation and on the order of six million deaths in the Ukraine. But did they know what they were doing and thought it was necessary for a future utopia or did their subordinates keep them insulated from reality? I’m pretty sure Stalin knew exactly what he was doing. He wanted the kulaks dead and he didn’t care how many other people died to accomplish it.
JD Ohio (Comment #164329): “”The Ars Technica article cited by DeWitt was in large measure based on the NYTs article.”
It is far from clear just what the story is. A $1 billion cost overrun sounds like a lot, but on a $14 billion project, it is not that unusual. It would seem to take much more than that to kill a project with billions already sunk in. Losing the tax credits would hurt the viability of project and it may well be that the plants won’t be done by the end of 2020, as required by the current law. But the House has voted overwhelmingly to remove the deadline and the appropriate Senate committee did the same. The whole Senate does not seem to have acted yet, but it seems like a good bet that they will follow suit. So I remain confused as to why these plants were cancelled.
DeWitt,
.
I haven’t studied Castro as well as I’d like, but my impression so far is that he thought early on that he’d joined the winning side and that global Communism was a historical inevitability. But I think he ultimately cared about ruling more than anything else. Che, in my opinion, was the true believer.
Mark Bofill,
“Che, in my opinion, was the true believer.”
.
Which may be why he thought nothing of murdering anyone who’s loyalty to the cause he had any doubt’s about…. even key leaders in the revolution…. sometimes with an unexpected pistol shot to the head at point blank range. That is the unfortunate consequence of having ideologues in positions of political power; there is almost no limit to the evil they can do.
Mike M: “It is far from clear just what the story is. A $1 billion cost overrun sounds like a lot, but on a $14 billion project, it is not that unusual. It would seem to take much more than that to kill a project with billions already sunk in. ”
….
My concern is that it always seems that there is something that is a cost-killer with nuclear plants arises and that over the last 20 years or so, they never seem to be completed in an economical manner. I haven’t looked at it closely, and am hoping that people here who know more about it than me can inform me.
JD
JD: “over the last 20 years or so, they never seem to be completed in an economical manner”
But in the U.S. not a single plant started in something like 40 years has been completed. It seems that plants have been built elsewhere at reasonable cost.
Steve,
There is that. 🙂 thanks for providing me with the opportunity to clarify that I’ve really got nothing but contempt for all of those bastards; Che, Fidel and so on. May they roast in hell.
Google basically hires the top 1% of candidates. They could easily hire the top 0.5% of men and the top 1.5% of women instead and even out the ranks. This probably wouldn’t hurt them too much technically but that is almost impossible to measure or predict.
.
However the total supply of candidates hasn’t changed and all that really means is that Google is taking more than its fair share of women. Somebody down the line is going to end up with an even worse male/female ratio. Good luck explaining that to the government.
.
Companies must now prove they are trying to discriminate on gender and race and also prove they aren’t discriminating on gender and race. That’s a pretty small window to stop lawsuits. Madness.
.
If the thesis is true that women simply aren’t all that interested in programming and CS then are we going to force them into it if passive techniques fail? Bricklaying is nearly 100% men, what are we to do about that? Wouldn’t bricklaying benefit from diversity? Apparently nobody is suing the bricklayers for their sexist oppression for some reason. Women should be forced to lay bricks, don’t give me any guff and pseudo-science on strength differences, some women are strong, overweight, drive pickup trucks, and like to drink cheap domestic beer. Oops, looks like I am using harmful stereotypes. For the record, bricklayers are awesome and should all get to work at Google IMO.
.
Just for fun, LA street artist puts up fake ads around Google’s LA office, ha ha: https://twitter.com/adra21/status/896014777725575170
Tom Scharf,
If Google wanted to hire a much larger share of women for programming, they would have to offer more money. PC is nice, but increased fixed cost may be more important.
.
I’ve done some bricklaying (on my own construction projects, not for pay)… even while I was concurrently writing code. I can verify that it is possible to do both. Maybe Google could check construction sites for strong bricklaying women.. or men. On second thought, maybe not.
.
Goolag! Love it… the logical endpoint of the leftist PC culture at Google. If the founders had any sense, they would provide a sacrificial lamb in the form of the numbskull CEO who fired Damore. They don’t and they won’t.
Tom
A more extensive set of those googlag type posters are here:
Letter to my local paper. I don’t know if they will publish it.
Beware the War Hawks.
Senator Lindsey Graham has suggested destroying N. Korea. He said “If there is going to be a war to stop him [Kim Jong Il], it will be over there. If thousands die, they are going to die there; they’re not going to die here.” (Actually the estimate is millions killed and wounded.) In earlier days he suggested bombing Iran. As Mr. Graham apparently lacks imagination about the unforeseen consequences of wars he should read Nevil Shute’s On the Beach. A few days later President Trump talks openly of Fire and Fury, that the weapons are locked and ready. But that is not counted as being aggressive – N. Korea test firing a missile needed for their nuclear deterrent is the end of the world though.
The American Civil War was expected to be over in a few weeks after the Battle of First Manassas to be followed by a quick attack on Richmond. Germany thought WW l & WW ll would be quick and easy. Iraqis would welcome American troops with flowers after the first couple of weeks. Were we told we would still be fighting in Afghanistan after 17 years? Libya is another disaster responsible for millions of culturally different refuges flooding into Europe. France did not expect the yellow peasants to beat them in Viet Nam and of course, even after seeing what happened to France it never occurred to America that it could happen to them too. 13 wars in 30 years at a cost of $12.6 trillion, what good have any of them done those that started them?
It looks like a lobotomy is performed on each new generation. The loss of life, the millions maimed and countries destroyed are forgotten. The real reasons for starting the wars are buried. The results are wonderfully embroidered as the just America, masquerading as a force for universal good, only kills those that deserved to die. Not even collateral damage. The murderers are honored for defending freedom. The UK High Court has just ruled that Tony Blair can’t be charged with war crimes, no matter what he did. Nuremburg style courts are to be run by America, not to try Americans.
George Washington’s farewell address warned: “Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove, that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.â€
Washington went on to say: “The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.†And, “’Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.â€
Yet our silly politicians, ignorant of war and fearing that America’s hegemony is crumbling, are hell bent os starting something with Iran, N. Korea, Russia and China. They have no clue how any armed conflict with these countries would turn out, but clearly any of them would be very dangerous. A recent Pew poll of thirty countries shows that America is now regarded as easily the greatest threat to world peace. N. Korea is dirt poor and could never execute a war. They would vitrified in 30 minutes if they attacked the US. They are trying to avoid America forcing a regime change.
It’s time these war hawks were not re-elected to office unless you want disaster.
Edited: strike outs added over rhetorical q’s.
Adrian: Your letter to the editor contains unanswered rhetorical quesitons. I realize they may have no rule against that, but I do. I do not make an exception to this rule for those who fearing their local paper will not post their letter to the editor decide to post it here.
In future either (a) edit your comment to conform to rules for posting here or (b) don’t post it here.
I am going to strike out your rhetorical questions.
Thank you.
I should add: it is very tempting to add “hegemony” to the “bad word list”. It is my experience that anything containing the word “hegemony” is not worth reading.
Mark Bofill –
Lefties, do you…. Anybody out there with a left leaning view care to comment…
Don’t know if you’re interested in venturing forth…and I don’t feel qualified to act as a representative of “the left”, but if you’re interested I’d be happy to share my view…
Yeah, I was following the Manichean paranoia thread with half an ear (half an eye? eww) and noticed the thread over there drifted onto shaming, blaming, lefties and so on as well. I could pop over to the Trump thread to chat with you, thanks. Lemme deal with RL and see if my big boy pants still fit and hopefully I’ll wander over this afternoon.
Good to hear from you, hope life is treating you well sir.
Lucia,
You are just being picky. Would it really have made any difference if I had written
.
(a) Were we told we would still be fighting in Afghanistan after 17 years?
(b) We were not told we would still be fighting in Afghanistan 17 years later.
.
(a) what good have any of them done those that started them?
(b) None of them have done any good for those that started them.
.
Perhaps I should have altered the quotation to follow your rules, but it wouldn’t be a true quote then.
.
Congratulations though, you have effectively cut off the feedback I was seeking.
lucia (Comment #164345)
I picked the word hegemony deliberately as a dig at some elites I despise who use it regularly. I didn’t expect many to “get it.” Obviuly you didn’t.
lucia (Comment #164345)
I picked the word hegemony deliberately as a dig at some elites I despise who use it regularly. I didn’t expect many to “get it.” Obviously you didn’t.
Adrian
I picked the word hegemony deliberately as a dig at some elites
If so, it’s a rather ineffective communication tactic because it’s unlikely any reader will perceive your intention to use it as a dig. That said: if you prefer ineffective communication, that’s your prerogative.
Sorry for the double post. I wasn’t able to edit the typo in the first, not later delete it.
Lucia,
“it’s a rather ineffective communication tactic”
.
I would expect no less from someone so picky. You never write anything to please yourself I suppose.
.
How about explaining why one should alter a quotation so that it follows your guidelines?
Adrian
You are just being picky. Would it really have made any difference if I had written
The rule against rhetorical questions is long standing, well thought out and useful. I’m sure you are aware of the rule. You don’t get to give yourself a special dispensation just because you think it’s “picky”.
As for your concern about not having a “true” quote: You did not wrap those the rhetorical questions in quote marks and cited no-one. I find it difficult to believe “13 wars in 30 years at a cost of $12.6 trillion, what good have any of them done those that started them?” was a quote of anyone (other than possibly yourself). Likewise, the other one rhetorical question was not wrapped in quotes.
If by “quote” you mean a “self-quote” of the letter you submitted to a newspaper who may not publish it, I guess that might be called a quote. But in that case, I’m not entirely enamoured with the idea that you are going to start cross-posting all your letters to the editor in comments for proof-reading here. Presumably, if the editor of your paper thinks the letter is interesting, it will be discussed in your local newspaper which in my opinion should be enough for you.
Congratulations though, you have effectively cut off the feedback I was seeking.
I’m sure if people find what you wrote interesting, they will engage despite my pointing out you are violating a longstanding rule and requesting you comply with it. The rule against the rhetorical qestions is an important and useful one. If you don’t want your discussions to be interrupted by my moderation, I suggest you simply comply with the rule. This should not be difficult.
Meanwhile, you can wait to see if people engage your ideas. If the do, fine with me. If they don’t: also fine with me.
Adrian
How about explaining why one should alter a quotation so that it follows your guidelines?
If you are quoting something written by someone other than yourself, then the quote can be posted. However, I am not going to make an exception that permits you to submit a letter to an editor somewhere else or a comment somewhere else and post it here. Sorry: But I’m not going to let you try to slyly sneak around the rule.
Should your letter have been published,it would have been fine for you to link to it and perhaps give a synopsis.
I would expect no less from someone so picky. You never write anything to please yourself I suppose.
Of course I do. Obviously, you may do so as well. If you think pleasing yourself is more important than writing effectively, that’s your prerogative. But it’s a bit silly to complain when someone points out that your chose to write ineffectively.
Lucia,
“As for your concern about not having a “true†quote: You did not wrap those the rhetorical questions in quote marksâ€
..
For crying out loud, I wrote it was a letter I had sent to the newspaper. The DelcoTimes publish the majority of the pieces I send them. This one maybe a bit too anti-establishment for them to swallow. Time will tell. But I am not going to deliberately alter any quotation whether they are from me or not. Why on earth would I alter what I wrote when looking for comments on it? This self quote exception smells like something you just made up.
.
“I find it difficult to believe “13 wars in 30 years at a cost of $12.6 trillion,â€
.
“Jack Ma: America has wasted its wealth | World Economic Forum https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/01/jack-ma-america-has-wasted-its-wealth/
Jan 18, 2017 – Alibaba executive chairman Jack Ma, attends the annual meeting of … “In the past 30 years, America has had 13 wars at a cost of $14.2 trillion.â€
Lucia
I shouldn’t have relied on memory. The cost was $14.2 trillion, not $12.6 trillion.
.
Im mildly surprised you didn’t highlight the comment as an unforgivable sentence fragment.
Of course the diabolical waste of money was not important enough for you to mention.
Say Joshua, my comment’s still in moderation over on the Trump thread at Anders. I didn’t want you to think I just flaked out on talking with you. Doubtless it will clear customs at some point. 🙂
Wait. If we are going to make crazy talk, why not talk about crazy cold fusion theories…. just as productive, and arguably more entertaining.
Lucia,
May I humbly suggest you ban a certain commenter with initials AA?
Mark Bofill,
What ‘Trump’ thread? Not seeing anything at Ken Rice’s blog with that title. Engaging joshua?!? Wow. He is a loser leftist who never addresses the factual issues.
Steve,
.
Anders was gracious enough to allow Joshua and I to talk on an old thread. Joshua supplied a link here in comment 164346.
.
I don’t think Joshua is a loser. I enjoy talking with him. I believe he is indeed a lefty, but that’s part of why I think it’s fun to talk with him.
.
I get that he gets on some peoples nerves. I cringe to suggest that one has to be able to ‘speak Joshua’, but I’m tired and slower than usual right now and can’t think of a better way to put it. I can’t articulate it right now, but there’s a certain sense to what he and I consider good faith exchanges. The lines just seem intuitive to me. Besides, Joshua is one of the few out there who seems to find my conversation worthwhile enough to go out of his way to invite me to talk with him. 🙂
.
Maybe wasting my time. What the hey. It’s fun. I got the time to waste. Sometimes anyway.
.
Thanks Steve.
Adrian,
Let me be clear. Do not post anything you authored that uses rhetorical questions.
Lucia,
Even if it is now published?
SteveF
“Wait. If we are going to make crazy talk, why not talk about crazy cold fusion theories…. just as productive, and arguably more entertaining”
.
Why is it still controversial science when there have been half a dozen good replications by well known laboratories? That here have been 80 or 180 (depending on whose count you believe) other replications is icing on the cake and irrelevant.
.
See this thread on lenr-forum that has sufficient pathological skeptics for you to feel right at home.
. https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5273-how-many-times-has-the-pons-fleischmann-anomalous-heating-event-been-replicated/?pageNo=1
North Korea is close to having nuclear armed ICBM’s. Hopefully, we will be able to get China to talk them out of going the final mile. But what if talk does not work? So far it hasn’t. I see three possibilities, all unattractive.
(1) A preemptive military strike to destroy their missile facilities, their nuclear facilities, and their ability to strike at civilian targets in South Korea. The willingness to do this has the advantage of maximizing the chance the talks will succeed. But this will likely be very nasty for South Korea and can not be done without their full cooperation.
(2) We rely on deterrence; i.e., the policy of deliberately keeping the world one step short of nuclear war and U.S. cities ones step from annihilation.
(3) We tell the South Koreans that they are on their own.
Is there another choice?
Mike M,
.
It is a thorny problem. The preemptive strike means accepting some ugly colateral damage. Stratfor had what seemed like a good five part write up on the military strike option here is part three. Of course Chinese interference or possible war or retaliation complicates the matter also.
If Trump finds another option I’m going back to believing the dude is an unappreciated genius, that’s all I can say. I doubt it though.
Adrian
Lucia,
Even if it is now published?
I have already answered this. Please reread (Comment #164355) .
In case the reading level of that comment was too high for you: No, you may NOT quote your own rhetorical question.
Or, to restate that, let me requote myself in (Comment #164363)
Adrian,
Let me be clear. Do not post anything you authored that uses rhetorical questions.
Honestly, I’m not sure if you are stupid, disingenuous or just like acting like a 5 year old child who wants to “negotiate” special rules for himself. But I said this very clearly.
Lucia,
“I am not going to make an exception that permits you to submit a letter to an editor somewhere else or a comment somewhere else and post it here. Sorry: But I’m not going to let you try to slyly sneak around the rule.
Should your letter have been published,it would have been fine for you to link to it and perhaps give a synopsis.”
.
So can I quote someone else’s piece that contains a rhetorical question but not my own? Or someone could quote me, but I can’t quote myself? Doesn’t sound reasonable to me but it’s your forum and you can do what you like. I could do without the insult that the reading level of that comment was too high for me.
Mike M,
Yes, there is. The fundamental problem is, and has always been, that China supports North Korea. Without that support, North Korea collapses. Tell China that we will immediately subject their exports to the States to a heavy import duty unless they force North Korea to behave. In parallel, we should make clear to China that we will offer nuclear missiles to any of our allies in Asia who want them, including Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. We should make clear that we will send home every one of the hundred thousand plus Chinese students at our universities (that is, the kids of the wealthy and the party leadership), and stop issuing visas of any kind to Chinese nationals, including Chinese diplomats at the UN. When the ‘international community’ objects, tell them they always have the option to move the UN to Beijing, Havana, Caracas, or a similar communist paradise, and not worry about US participation in the future.
.
Nobody has ever been willing to inconvenience the Chinese, even though they have used North Korea to purposely generate endless problems since the 1960’s and are 100% responsible for the North Korea mess. Someone needs to focus their minds with real costs for their very irresponsible choices.
Adrian,
“Why is it still controversial science when there have been half a dozen good replications by well known laboratories?”
.
That you actually believe such claims shows how little you know about science, how incredibly naive you are, and how badly you suffer from conspiracy ideation.
MikeM
“(3) We tell the South Koreans that they are on their own.
Is there another choice?”
.
Not clear what you meant by that. As I suggested in my earlier comment, I don’t think N. Korea will give up their nuclear deterrent without military action. They think that is the only option that will stop America trying another “regime change.” So another option is to accept them as a limited nuclear power. They might be stopped from further tests (ie developing what they have any further) if America would stop its aggressive military games against them and lifted the sanctions. (Not likely)
.
Don’t get me wrong, I think the N. Korean regime stinks. Like the USSR that will pass if they are left alone. The worst option is to start another war where no one can tell what it will lead to and would probably kill and main millions.
SteveF: “Nobody has ever been willing to inconvenience the Chinese, even though they have used North Korea to purposely generate endless problems since the 1960’s and are 100% responsible for the North Korea mess. Someone needs to focus their minds with real costs for their very irresponsible choices.”
I like that.
You don’t unlearn how to make nukes and missiles. It’s over with Norks. This needed to be stopped 10 years ago. Compliance now doesn’t gain much when it’s simply a matter of production instead of invention.
Mike M: “North Korea is close to having nuclear armed ICBM’s. Hopefully, we will be able to get China to talk them out of going the final mile. But what if talk does not work? So far it hasn’t. I see three possibilities, all unattractive.”
….
Unless North Korea clearly and unambiguously directly threatens the US with an imminent attack, or actually launches missiles at the US, we have no choice but to defer to South Korea, Japan and China. If we attack North Korea, its first response will be to attack Seoul, which is very close. Of course, any attack on Seoul would be catastrophic.
JD
Adrian,
You seem to grasp the rule. However, bear in mind that if I develop the impression you have created a sock-puppet so you can quote them, then that’s out.
Also: You should very rarely be quoting long comments in their entirety. Quote the gist, then link. That’s just normal web use.
I mean seriously: There is almost never any need to quote an entire 6 paragraph item. Tell people what’s interesting about i, perhaps quote a few sentences and link. That’s what linking is for.
mark bofill,
I largely agree with the Stratfor link you posted. It ended by saying:
“Realistically, absent the use of nuclear weapons or the invasion and occupation of North Korea, the United States and its allies are already at a point where they cannot guarantee the complete removal of the threat of a North Korean nuclear attack.”
.
While there is no doubt about the ability of America to strike, as usual your targets depend on intelligence. Getting good information about N. Korea would be harder than for most other countries and the US has failed miserably in Iraq, Libya Afghanistan and Syria. N. Korea has submarines able to fire missiles and their ICBMs are mobile.
.
Where we possibly differ is that I don’t view N. Korea as much of a threat if it is not attacked first.
The recent Pew survey of 30 countries showed that the rest of the world considers America by far the greatest danger to peace.
Lucia,
“I mean seriously: There is almost never any need to quote an entire 6 paragraph item. Tell people what’s interesting about i, perhaps quote a few sentences and link. That’s what linking is for.”
.
If it had been posted at that time I would have given a link. As it wasn’t, I didn’t have a link to give, so a synopsis would not have helped.
I note you didn’t actually answer my last question about posting quotations.
SteveF,
“I mean seriously: There is almost never any need to quote an entire 6 paragraph item. Tell people what’s interesting about i, perhaps quote a few sentences and link. That’s what linking is for.”
.
Your comment highlights your ignorance and that you have never read the literature.
I’m sorry. That was the wrong quotation (left over from the previous comment) I was not able to edit it or felete it.
It.
.
The quotation should have been:
“That you actually believe such claims shows how little you know about science, how incredibly naive you are, and how badly you suffer from conspiracy ideation.”
.
I’m suffering from macular degeneration and it is becoming difficult for me to read stuff.
Adrian,
I note you didn’t actually answer my last question about posting quotations.
Look, I’m not going to answer that over and over. Please reread (Comment #164355) . It contains the answer to your question.
If you continue this, I will ban you outright.
“Nobody has ever been willing to inconvenience the Chinese”.
I am quite intrigued with advocacy of a trade war with China by USA. Since I am not in the USA I suspect I am missing some nuances here. If the USA government initiated measure like you suggest, then wont that mean US citizens paying a lot more for consumer goods which doesnt sound like a way to be popular? Not to mention seriously inconveniencing some large US firms. China is also the biggest holder of US debt. What is that going to do the cost of debt?
Isnt there also a risk that if US is going break WTO conventions, then China can retaliate to damage US access to Korea, India etc? Long term, I suspect China would emerge even stronger from a trade war.
Phil,
No idea. A trade war with China would not be good.
Phil,
Adding a duty to Chinese goods would cost consummers, of course, but rather less than a nuclear missle arriving in Chicago… or Washington. It would also cost less in money and lives than war on the Korean peninsula. A substantial reduction in Chinese imports would immediately pressure the Chinese government, because China is more heavily export dependent than most countries. I am unimpressed with arguments about the WTO. The WTO and other international organizations assume countries will act reasonably and responsibly on fundamental things (like not supporting a lunatic who is developing nuclear weapons)… but China simply refuses to act responsibly, and endangers the entire world, so nicities like the WTO, the UN, World Bank, etc. are of secondary consideration. The US can (and does) enter bilateral and multilateral trade agreements, independent of the WTO. South Korea, Japan, and India are not going to abandon the US market because the WTO is unhappy.
.
I see zero impact of China holding US Treasury debt…. I suggest they consider debt from Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina and Greece instead of Treasuries.
.
I see this as a simple question: Will the Chinese continue to allow a lunatic who regularly murders his political opponents (even in his own family!), imprisons foreign nationals, advocates genocide, and treatens his neighbors with war, to continue to develop a worldwide nuclear threat? I hope the answer from the Chinese is no. But they won’t reach ‘no’ without serious motivation. Maybe it would be best as a first step to expel all Chinese students at US universities, and stop issuing visas to Chinese nationals… or only issue the same kind of restrictive, one-entry-only-short-stay visas that the Chinese insist on for US citizens.. and make the visa process as difficult and onerous as the Chinese make it for foreigners to visit China. Our interactions with the Chinese have historically been one-sided in favor of the Chinese; that needs to change immediately, because they are behaving very badly. If China wants the many benefits of being an ‘enlightened world leader’, then it needs to start acting like one.
Instead of fighting we should just give 20,00 Afghanistanis and 20,000 North Koreans a 2 week holiday in Disneyland each year all expenses paid.
Far cheaper than fighting them.
And after 5 years of exposure to corrupt Western decadence they will all revolt at home to get American conditions.
angech
20,00 Afghanistanis and 20,000 North Koreans a 2 week holiday in Disneyland each year all expenses paid
Might work. A lot might end up overstaying their visas by a considerable length of time though.
Off topic mention for those who may be interested but hadn’t heard, there’s a paper out claiming to prove P != NP (Computational complexity theory / comp sci). Link here, blog reference here. Haven’t looked at it yet.
Mark,
I think I would have to invest seveal hours just to understand what the problem is, never mind understand the proof. Now if it were related to the accuracy of climate model calculations…. then maybe worthwhile. 😉
I’m sure this must be important to some fields. Perhaps cryptography? I have to admit I’m not going to dive into that.
SteveF: “Will the Chinese continue to allow a lunatic … I hope the answer from the Chinese is no. But they won’t reach ‘no’ without serious motivation.”
Yep. Start negotiations and when they don’t make quick progress, start ratcheting up the pressure. Visa restrictions, then kick out Chinese students, then import duties, then big military buildup in East Asia.
Sadly, the courts will likely block the first two steps, because Trump. Congress won’t take action on the third. So the military option will be all that is left.
angech
Instead of fighting we should just give 20,00 Afghanistanis and 20,000 North Koreans a 2 week holiday in Disneyland each year all expenses paid.
Far cheaper than fighting them.
And after 5 years of exposure to corrupt Western decadence they will all revolt at home to get American conditions.
.
I’m quite sure the North Koreans don’t need to go to Disneyland to want “American conditions”. They know full well what they are missing and they would love to join their brothers and sisters in the south.
.
The Afghans are an entirely different story. The poisoning of the mind caused by the religion of Islam does not go away so easily and certainly not through a visit to Disneyland.
.
A disturbingly large minority of muslim immigrants to the West – and their offspring even more so – view the Western lifestyle as decadent and muslim “values” as superior and preferable.
.
Almost three quarters of Muslims in the UK think that insults against Islam or publication of cartoons of Muhammed should be met with arrest and prosecution. Almost one fifth of British muslims outright support terror. The younger generation tend to hold more extreme views on the subject than their parents.
.
A majority of Turkish immigrants to Western Europe recently voted for almost unlimited powers to the islamist quasi-dictator Erdogan. Unfortunately, a visit to Disneyland will not make any difference at all.
Steve, Lucia,
Yes. It’s my field, and I’m not sure I want spend the time to crawl through that paper. 🙂 The thumbnail sketch of the background and question behind it all – some problems appear to be ‘hard’ to solve, where ‘hard’ means there is no known polynomial time (P) way to do it. You can ‘check’ possible answers to see if they are solutions to a given problem in polynomial time however. This is NP (non deterministic polynomial). What’s neat is that somebody realized that many of these problems can be transformed into other hard problems algorithmically in polynomial time, which means for the class of ‘NP Complete’ problems, if you can solve one in P, you can solve them all in P. So – naturally it’s been of great interest for a long time to find out if it’s really impossible to solve these problems in P or if it’s just that we haven’t been able to puzzle out how to do it. Most compsci people have strongly suspected P != NP, but it hadn’t been proven. So, it’s not really earth-shattering news, just sort of putting an old question to rest. Still sort of neat.
mark,
It may not be earth-shattering, but it is worth $1,000,000 since it’s one of the Millennium Prize problems.
Btw, I don’t think you can have an off-topic post on an open thread.
And in other news, Arctic Sea ice is running close to 2016. A simple extrapolation says the minimum will be in the vicinity of 4.2Mm². The rate of melting should be slowing and we’re slightly past the date when 2012 cratered.
Antarctic Sea ice is still setting record lows, although not by all that much. I’m a little surprised I haven’t seen much on that, although I haven’t really looked.
I don’t think you can have an off-topic post on an open thread.
That’s correct. Open threads permit anything.
Lucia,
“Open threads permit anything.”
.
Save for rhetorical questions. 🙂
Niels,
“Unfortunately, a visit to Disneyland will not make any difference at all.”
.
Well, yes, Disneyland is pretty lame… but maybe Disney World in Orlando would work? No probably not.
.
I suspect the number of “true-believers” that support all the crazy stuff is smaller than some surveys suggest, because there is plenty of “name-and-shame” pressure on Muslims to conform with the most extreme Islamic teaching/rules. But there truly are a lot of Muslims who DO believe all the crazy stuff (throwing gays from rooftops, substituting religious law for civil law, killing anyone who leaves Islam, etc.), and that presents a very big long term problem for everyone else, made much worse by the absurd PC culture of the left which prohibits any criticism of wacko Islamic thinking.
Here’s one I didn’t bother to read from The Atlantic. Prepare for the book burnings. I hope anyone with the proper ethics will not be seen in public if they have one of these on their shelves.
.
Reading Racism in Dr. Seuss https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/08/reading-racism-in-dr-seuss/536625/
.
I find the hatred against green eggs and ham truly disturbing, but found the treatment of red fish and blue fish to be equitable.
SteveF
True. No rhetoricals.
BTW: I decided to moderate AA just in case. He hasn’t come back, but for the time being, I’m reading his posts before the appear.
Lucia,
That is an encouraging development, but…
.
Who think’s it’s right to suppress free speech?
Who will show some sympathy for people who are going blind?
Who could doubt the reality of cold fusion after replication in dozens of independent leading laboratories? Why will no one read links to this cutting edge research? How can there be so many people obviously involved in the conspiracy to suppress cold fusion? And more to the point: Why are there so many lunatics in the world?
.
I could go on, but won’t, because I’ve made my rhetorical case…. my arguments are unassailable! ðŸ˜
.
Why are there so many lunatics in the world?
I think the answer is “magnets”. My Dad came home one day and told us that when he’d stopped at a lunch joint a guy at the counter started explaining that all the ills in the world were due to “magnets”. So, that’s probably it.
It’s an attractive theory.
Or repellent. Take your pick.
Polarizing.
Molecular oxygen is magnetic, so it may in fact all be due to magnets.
I did not know that about oxygen. That said: my chemistry is weak.
SteveF (Comment #164409): “Molecular oxygen is magnetic, so it may in fact all be due to magnets.”
Actually, O2 is paramagnetic, thanks to having unpaired electrons. That just means that it reacts much more strongly to a magnetic field than most substances, and in the opposite direction. But you can not make a magnet out of it.
Mike M,
Bit of a quibble, but yes, paramagnetic. Flowing O2 gas deflects in a magnetic field; that deflection is used to measure the oxygen content of many flowing gas mixtures.
For all the people who think self-driving cars and trucks are a great idea, I give you this:
DeWitt,
If you fly on a commercial jet, most of the time the automatic system will be in control…. and that is good, because there has been a steady decline in fatal accidents with ever greater automation. Could an autopilot crash a plane? Absolutely, but the chance is much less than if a person is flying most of the time. Computers can go haywire, of course, and that is why critical systems are usually multiply redundant. But keep in mind humans go haywire as well, as the crazy German pilot who flew his plane into a mountain a few yeas back (after locking the co-pilot out of the cockpit) so clearly shows…. and he was not the only case. All we can reasonably ask for is automated systems which reduce overall risk and which are gradually improved to continue to cut risks. I have flown a couple million miles in the last 25 years, and I am not at all concerned with autopilots.
.
Properly implemented, automated cars and trucks will save a lot more lives than automated planes have.
Steve, suggestion on chinese students seems reasonable way to put pressure on. Starting a trade war? You are gambling that this would pressure China into pressuring NK whereas it could just result in retaliation, guessing that screams from within USA will break resolve before any major damage to Chinese economy. The debt? I am no expert, but USA is going to have to borrow more money, and it seems to me anyway that China could be play hardball in a couple of ways that would make it rather more expensive (eg dumping the Treasury bills).
My guesses for future?
1/ You are not going to disarm NK
2/ NK wont initiate any war with SK or USA
– and now
3/ USA is not going to start war with NK
Too much to lose with any of those options.
I wonder how hard it would be to intentionally cause an automated car to crash through external mechanisms. Wile. E. Coyote had lots of interesting ideas.
.
Trying to make a car drive like a human seems pretty hard. I would think you could make it immensely easier for a computer to drive a car with on road electrical navigation aids. Having predesignated driving lanes with navigation aids or simply knowing exactly where other cars have driven previously would make it easier. The key to making it cheap and dependable is auto-driving infrastructure I think.
SteveF,
Maybe. But cars and trucks are not the same as planes. Planes don’t fly wingtip to wingtip and nose to tail. A momentary glitch in a car in heavy traffic will cause an accident. Other than landing or takeoff, planes have room to recover. Planes also have fairly rigorous maintenance and inspection schedules. Vehicle inspection in the states that have it is hit or miss. And that’s just off the top of my head.
lucia (Comment #164403)
August 15th, 2017 at 4:21 pm
I think the answer is “magnetsâ€.
It could be “ants”.
When things go wrong there are usually ants involved in the background. Picnics obviously. Wiring in houses.
I have a joke with my mate that when our footy team loses the ants have been busy.
Note, I have not been near any magnets lately that I know of.
Still, exceptions.
Ants.
Etc.
De Witt
“Arctic Sea ice is running close to 2016. A simple extrapolation says the minimum will be in the vicinity of 4.2Mm²”
–
Neven wrote on his blog a month ago
“Dr David Schröder from the University of Reading modelled melt pond distribution maps for June. Based on melt pond fraction in May+June we predict a mean 2017 September ice extent of 5.1 (4.6 to 5.6) mill km2 (within the range observed during last 4 years). The likelihood for a new record minimum is below 1% [my emphasis; N.]”
Fingers crossed he is right.
Steve F
I suspect the number of “true-believers†that support all the crazy stuff is smaller than some surveys suggest, because there is plenty of “name-and-shame†pressure on Muslims to conform with the most extreme Islamic teaching/rules. But there truly are a lot of Muslims who DO believe all the crazy stuff (throwing gays from rooftops, substituting religious law for civil law, killing anyone who leaves Islam, etc.), and that presents a very big long term problem for everyone else, made much worse by the absurd PC culture of the left which prohibits any criticism of wacko Islamic thinking.
The problem is that it is so easy to defend wacko Islamic thinking because the “crazy stuff” in the form of how to live your life and how Allah wants the law of the land to be is right there in the Islamic texts. The Koran and the Hadiths are on the side of the “fundamentalists”. Any re-formation of Islam in the literal sense of the word wil always favor the “wackos”. There are a lot of moderate Muslims but in general they are only moderate to the extent that they are not Muslims and do not follow Muslim teachings. (Yes there are versions of Islam that are moderate but they are few and small and their followers are not regarded as Muslims by the main Sunni and Shia branches of Islam)
.
In other words: The Muslims who support all the stuff we call crazy are not wacko in an islamic context. And that’s in fact the problem at it’s core as I see it.
.
I suspect the PC’ers deep down know this but reject it because the consequences of that reality are too hard for them to face. They just hope time will solve the problem in some way through integration and assimilation and at the same time they hope that concealing any problems that accompany mass migration of Muslims to the West will somehow help. Some PC’ers hope a moderate European/western version of Islam will suddenly develop. And they keep hoping and concealing, insisting they are right even as evidence to the contrary pile up in front of their eyes (well maybe not _their_ eyes so much, the bulk of the problems usually arise in the suburbs where all the intolerant deplorables live and actually feel the consequences of mass immigration from Muslim countries) If I was American I would watch very closely what happens in France, the UK, Germany, Sweden etc as the Muslim share of the population grows. The conditions are getting worse at a very fast pace now.
Niels,
“If I was American I would watch very closely what happens in France, the UK, Germany, Sweden etc as the Muslim share of the population grows.”
.
Don’t worry, lots of people in the States have been watching, and don’t like what they see. Unless native Europeans in those countries start having babies (and/or Muslims start having fewer), those countries will ultimately become majority Muslim, and cease to be European in any meaningful sense. From a practical POV, political accommodation (partial transfer of jurisdiction to ‘Sharia’ courts, restrictions on public criticism of Islam) has already started, and will not doubt only grow. Many Europeans appear to have given up on Western culture and liberal values; I find it tragic.
.
BTW, I understand that all the “wacko” stuff is completely ‘normal’ from the perspective of a literal reading of the Koran. It’s only wacko from a Western POV. It took Chistianity 1800 years to move (mostly) away from a literal reading of the bible. For the sake of all humanity, I hope that change happens soon within Islam.
Phil,
Let’s hope the lunatic doesn’t decide to lob a missle into the center of Aukland.
SteveF
Yes I agree, it is incredibly tragic. I love my country (Denmark) and the culture and way of life that has developed here over the centuries but I’m starting to doubt very much that my children and/or future grand children will want to stay here in 30 or 40 years time. I’m really, really sad I have these thoughts but I do.
SteveF
Let’s hope the lunatic doesn’t decide to lob a missle into the center of Aukland.
Lets home none of the lunatics do so.
Niels,
I had a few interesting conversations with European leaning (AKA secular) Turks before Erdogan got a popular mandate to serve indefinitly and institute Islamic policies. They where ‘certain’ Turkish voters would never allow the rule of secular government (first instituted by Ataturk) to devolve into the nightmare of Islamic government. They were quite wrong, of course. But I was not at all suprised…. you have only to drive along a few small streets away from the center of Istanbul to see all the women dressed in long black gowns, with hair carefully hidden from view, to recognize that Turkey is nothing like a European country, and Erdogan reflects that. There is broad public support for fervent Islam in every Muslim majority country I have visited. Which is why with rapidly growing Muslim polulations European culture is in real danger of disappearing.
Tom Scharf (Comment #164416): “Trying to make a car drive like a human seems pretty hard.”
The advocates think that is a good thing. 🙂
On many occasions while driving I have seen a potential danger ahead and taken action to minimize my risk and/or risk to others. A computer can not do that; it can only react, not anticipate.
The self-driving car advocates count up all the cases where a computer could have avoided an accident that was caused by human error. They ignore all the cases where human intelligence prevented an accident from happening.
.
Tom Scharf: “I would think you could make it immensely easier for a computer to drive a car with on road electrical navigation aids. … The key to making it cheap and dependable is auto-driving infrastructure I think.”
But I don’t think that works when most of the other cars are being guided by wetware. Or on other than limited access roads. If self-driving cars can not operate with the existing infrastructure and investment, they will always remain in the future.
Niels A Nielsen (Comment #164420): “The problem is that it is so easy to defend wacko Islamic thinking because the “crazy stuff†in the form of how to live your life and how Allah wants the law of the land to be is right there in the Islamic texts. … There are a lot of moderate Muslims but in general they are only moderate to the extent that they are not Muslims and do not follow Muslim teachings. … The Muslims who support all the stuff we call crazy are not wacko in an islamic context.”
.
All religions contain crazy stuff. Most believers largely ignore the crazy stuff and live their lives in a manner consistent with the surrounding society. Their faith might have a big influence on how they lead their lives, but mostly by encouraging them to adhere to a high standard of behavior.
In all religions there are believers who come to take all their faith’s teachings very seriously. They end up behaving in ways that are distinctly not normal. In Christianity, the extreme example of that is Mother Teresa. In Islam, the extreme example is a suicide bomber.
DeWitt,
That account was pretty horrifying. Still, the quality and safety of semi / fully autonomous driving systems is a testable, measureable, controllable, and presumably perfectable thing. There’s no sure fire remedy I know of to fully prevent incompetent or low quality (I.E. intoxicated) human drivers.
A fun aside – I could trust a self driving car. The weird thing is I think I’d be a lot more tense about riding in a self driving car if I was the guy who wrote the code. I helped my kids build a fairly large trash can robot on wheels years back, and I came to truly dread their playing with it, always wondering if something was going to go wrong to make the darn thing go crashing full speed out of control through the garage or house. It didn’t really much happen, but still… OCPD I guess.
I agree with the comments about the problem being easier if all of the cars are automated on the same system. Easiest I’d think if they were all on the same system. Harder to integrate different ones, but the worst case is probably automated systems interacting with good old who-knows-what-they’ll-do-next / hard to predict humans driving as well.
Mike M.
“A computer can not do that; it can only react, not anticipate.”
.
Depends a little on implementation. If automated cars/trucks communicate with each other, then they may “see” things ahead that no human could see. Heck, I have many times been told by a navigation program of an accident miles abead and directed to an alternative route. But I think even more important is that a fair comparison be drawn between manual and automated driving: will automated cars/trucks lead to more or fewer accidents, and more or fewer injuries/fatalities? In the long run I think the answer pretty much has to be fewer. And then there is the very real benefit of being able to do other (productive) things instead of driving; in the long run, I believe that will lead to widespread adoption of automated cars/trucks.
Mike M. you seem to think that behaving in a “normal” way is generally the same for people from Christian and Muslim backgrounds and you believe Muslims generally live their lives in a manner consistent with the surrounding society. Neither is true when the Muslim population reaches a certain size. Just to take one example: Muslim boys are (generally of course) brought up to regard women as inferior to men and infidels (non-Muslims) as inferior to Muslims. In Denmark and European countries with a significant and fast expanding Muslim population, these religious/cultural differences cause immense problems with violence, disrespect and abuse of particularly women. This takes place in schools, at hospital admittance rooms, swimming pools, librarys, bars, discos, streets, almost everywhere. The muslim neighborhoods that have formed develop almost invariably into no-go zones where attacks, often with stones, on people of authority like firemen, ambulance drivers, policemen and bus drivers etc are the order of the day. Recently such a mundane function as mail delivery was suspended for weeks in a Muslim neighbourhood near where I live because the post deliverers refused to work there after being attacked while working. Suicide bombers are not the main problem. Development of a growing number of parallel societies of Muslims where the “wackos” rule and even replace the law of the land with local sharia courts are.
.
Sadly, Winston Churchill, who was also a historian, was right more than 100 years ago when he wrote in 1899 (The River War):
How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.
.
The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property—either as a child, a wife, or a concubine—must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science—the science against which it had vainly struggled—the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome
SteveF,
I hope sooner rather than later. I definitely wish they were available for my Mom. She can drive, but longer likes to drive at night, she doesn’t want to park any place “tricky” and she does get rides to church events because there are volunteers who do that.
For myself: In the suburbs, currently one must drive or be stuck in the house. That said, I’ve never ‘loved’ driving and if yuge-shit-wads of money were to rain down from heaven upon me one of the things I would prioritize is not driving without inconvenience or costs that are too high for “regular”.
(Uber is great. But their tool indicates a trip to the 95th street library in Naperville would cost me $16-21 dollars. There and back would be between $32-$42. That’s ok for a New Years Even night out on the town. But clearly, if my intention is to make money tutoring students and meeting them at various local libraries, driving my own car is worth it. Likewise, their parents would find it worthwhile for the kids to drive to the library also. And if I wanted to dine out 365 nights a week, adding $42/ night * 365 nights = $15,330 makes operating a car well worth it. That’s without adding in things like grocery runs. It also doesn’t add in the $120-$150 round trip if I want to visit my mom in Libertyville.)
So: self driving would be great and I’d pay a premium compared to not-self driving. Then I wouldn’t worry about drinking when dining out and so on. I’d take a self driving care in a heart beat.
My husband and his brothers like to drive. But even they wouldn’t mind skipping it when dining out– especially when dining at homes for family Christmas or New Year’s Eve celebrations. (Yeah. You can sleep on the couch or pull out sofa, but do you want to? A self driving car would mean you can have the extra glass of wine and still sleep in your own comfy bed at home.) For a one night thing, I guess we could spend the $42 for uber there and back though.
Sadly liberty is lost under the guise of safety. I knew Richard Spencer was coming to UF on Sept 12th and told my daughter to stay as far away as possible, but I do not support this overt repression of speech. I doubt this can stand legally if challenged. I suppose all the alt-right needs to do is make left wing speeches “unsafe” to shut their speakers down, but I’m willing to guess academia would try much harder to let these speeches occur. This is truly disappointing.
.
Aug. 16, 2017
Dear Campus Community:
Amid serious concerns for safety, we have decided to deny the National Policy Institute’s request to rent event space at the University of Florida.
This decision was made after assessing potential risks with campus, community, state and federal law enforcement officials following violent clashes in Charlottesville, Va., and continued calls online and in social media for similar violence in Gainesville such as those decreeing: “The Next Battlefield is in Florida.”
I find the racist rhetoric of Richard Spencer and white nationalism repugnant and counter to everything the university and this nation stands for.
That said, the University of Florida remains unwaveringly dedicated to free speech and the spirit of public discourse. However, the First Amendment does not require a public institution to risk imminent violence to students and others.
The likelihood of violence and potential injury – not the words or ideas – has caused us to take this action.
Warm Regards,
W. Kent Fuchs
President
University of Florida
As a further comment I am sick and effing tired of the “We completely support free speech BUT…” commentary that has become standard issue boilerplate. It is transparently false, the actions speak louder than these empty words. Also the gratuitous “we find person X’s views detestable” is unnecessary and signals their actual motivations quite clearly. I don’t care what he thinks about any particular group, I care that he treats groups equally and fairly.
Niels A Nielsen (Comment #164432): “you seem to think that behaving in a “normal†way is generally the same for people from Christian and Muslim backgrounds …”
I think that most people live in a way that approximates normal for the surrounding society. Normal in Cairo is very different from normal in Copenhagen.
.
“… and you believe Muslims generally live their lives in a manner consistent with the surrounding society.”
For the most part, yes, IF they are integrated into the surrounding society.
.
“Neither is true when the Muslim population reaches a certain size.”
I think that much of what you describe (which I agree is so) is cultural and arises largely from a lack of integration of Muslim immigrants into the larger society. In a sufficiently large, non-integrated neighborhood, the predominant surrounding culture is no longer Danish or American, it is Arabic or Somali. That leads to many problems. Muslim immigrants in Europe seem to be much more poorly integrated into society than in the U.S. and the problems you describe seem to be far worse in Europe than in the U.S.
Multiculturalism contributes to the problem by treating non-integration as a desirable thing. Attitudes in the surrounding society can contribute by making it hard for newcomers to integrate. And Islam contributes to non-integration both by being the one true faith and by seeking to control so much of people’s lives.
.
“Suicide bombers are not the main problem. Development of a growing number of parallel societies of Muslims where the “wackos†rule and even replace the law of the land with local sharia courts are.”
I agree. Europe seems to have a huge problem in that regard. But even when Muslims are pretty well integrated into society, the religion can encourage extreme, violent behavior. We have seen that in the States with some of our home grown Islamic terrorists.
Human psychology is such that people will want to control their own destiny even when evidence is shown that automated cars improve safety overall. “I would rather kill myself driving than have a computer kill me without my control” will betray evidence. There will certainly be high profile deaths caused by an automated system doing something very dumb a human wouldn’t have. This will get hyped by the media and that fear will infect the existing distrust of handing your destiny over to a computer. This will likely diminish over time but that time scale is likely a generation.
.
If automated cars go slower than manual ones, this will also be a problem for adaption. Strict adherence to speed limits will not be popular. If it can be shown that things such as all stopped automated cars can accelerate from a stop light simultaneously like a train or dynamic navigation saves actual net time then this could be overcome.
.
It seems like long haul trucking would be the first mass adaption.
Tom,
Strict adherence to speed limits will not be popular.
I shouldn’t wonder that strict adherence would be unpopular with the state or local municipalities that collect the revenue from speeding tickets as well. It’s puzzled me before that we don’t have widespread automated systems to keep people from speeding. Not exactly technically easy, but I’d think it’s been doable with the technology we’ve had for some time now.
mark,
It’s puzzled me before that we don’t have widespread automated systems to keep people from speeding. Not exactly technically easy, but I’d think it’s been doable with the technology we’ve had for some time now.
They don’t because speeding tickets are a significant source of revenue for state and local governments. Speed limits are set accordingly, not just for safety, although safety is a factor. It’s a predator/prey relationship. You need a certain percentage of speeders to fund the police. Speed cameras, however, was taking it too far, at least in Tennessee. They’ve been outlawed.
Also, if you can’t speed, you can’t pass on a two lane road. You’d get long lines of cars behind the car that’s doing 5MPH below the speed limit. That isn’t safe either.
Tom Scharf, Some people will want to control their own destiny. Others, not so much. I‘d be happy to treat an automated car just like I treat a train or an airplane. I’m not controlling either of those. Could the plane crash? Or the train derail? Of course they could. I see stories about that on the news frequently. It doesn’t make me think I need to be in control.
Humans are still in control of planes and trains and automobiles. Planes don’t need pilots to land and take off, but humans do it anyway. There are far fewer exceptions to traveling with trains and planes than there are in cars. Planes / trains can afford very expensive and complex systems for automation, cars cannot. I think I could trust a car to travel on an interstate, but they have a lot of testing to do before I will trust them in anywhere, America.
.
My current car has automatic braking for detected objects which has kicked in a couple times and is very useful. Can it pass a slow truck on a raining two lane road it hasn’t seen before at night? That’s going to make me nervous.
Tom,
Google car has had what I think is a surprisingly good track record so far, unless something happened more recently than this and I missed it. first crash February of last year.
.
Apparently it’s the edge cases like how to get around sandbags in the road that needs work. But I imagine these are cases where human drivers might do the wrong thing (or at least an unexpected thing that might increase the risk of an accident) too.
I should have added, the test driver in the google car saw what was going on but thought the google car was doing the right thing (in other words, in the judgement of the human test driver the bus should have slowed down to let the google car maneuver).
I misspoke and as a result ended up making a false claim. Google car had been involved with 17 crashes, but the claim was that all of those were due to human error. This particular crash Google acknowledges that their system bears some responsibility since it was maneuvering when the crash happened.
Sorry about that.
Tom
Humans are still in control of planes and trains and automobiles.
Yes. But my point is I am not. I don’t feel the need for control.
hey have a lot of testing to do before I will trust them in anywhere, America.
Sure. But that’s not the same as a person not allowing the car to drive itself because the human feels a need of control. I don’t want to be a passenger in a drunk drivers car because they aren’t competent. But doesn’t mean I’m unwilling to give up control. I’m happy to give up control provided the car is then operated safely.
If I saw lots of evidence a self-driving care drove safely, I’d be fine with it. Of course I haven’t seen that yet. Also: I wouldn’t be the first adopter, but the same holds for lots of things. I wasn’t the first to get a large screen tv either. I like to let something be in the market before I jump in.
If self driving isn’t ready, it’s not. When they are, I’m all in.
mark,
in the judgement of the human test driver the bus should have slowed down to let the google car maneuver
In what strange alternate universe did they recruit that test driver? (That’s sarcasm, not rhetorical) Apparently he never had a defensive driving course or never lived in a city with lots of public transportation. That’s almost as bad as a sailboat expecting a loaded oil tanker to slow down to let it maneuver. Sure, the sailboat theoretically has the right of way. So what. The tanker can’t stop or turn and won’t even try.
DeWitt,
That is sorta strange. But this is Mountain View CA, so… Who the heck knows.
No I’m joking, actually I agree with you. I don’t know. Maybe I misunderstood the link, or the link was wrong, or the test driver really was just a bad driver, or the test driver fell through a wormhole from another dimension. Here’s what it said:
“After a few cars had passed, the Google AV began to proceed back into the center of the lane to pass the sand bags. A public transit bus was approaching from behind. The Google AV test driver saw the bus approaching in the left side mirror but believed the bus would stop or slow to allow the Google AV to continue. Approximately three seconds later, as the Google AV was reentering the center of the lane it made contact with the side of the bus.”
shrug
Thanks DeWitt.
mark bofill (Comment #164442): “Google car has had what I think is a surprisingly good track record so far”.
What they don’t tell us is how many times the human drivers had to intervene to avoid a crash. In other words, how many crashes there would have been if everyone in the car was reading the newspaper or taking a nap.
Mike M.,
That’s true also.
Tom Scharf,
“Planes / trains can afford very expensive and complex systems for automation, cars cannot.”
.
I don’t think cost will ever be the limiting factor.. The per-copy cost for software depends on the number of copies sold, not just the total development cost. So yes, the cost per plane is extremely high (serveral thousand copies? $millions per copy?), but comparably complex software for cars would be for many millions of copies… drastically diluting what is essentially a fixed cost. Ditto for hardware, system integration and system verification. Planes / trains can afford very expensive and complex systems for automation, cars cannot. But when the numbers go up the per copy cost falls. Early adopters will pay a dear price, just as they always do, but count on the cost falling rapidly.
In one of the factories where I work they have had driverless (robotic) forklifts since the start of the year — the only accident was when one of the human driven forklifts run into the back of one of the robots because the human driver was distracted. So I’m keen to see robotic cars as there are too many distracted drivers.
“Let’s hope the lunatic doesn’t decide to lob a missle into the center of Aukland.”
Well I hope too, (daughter lives there) but rate the risks walking to work down a pedestrian-only path far higher. He is not exactly worried about invasion of kiwis.
Tim Cook of Apple says this:
Concerning the president, he added: “I disagree with the President and others who believe that there is a moral equivalence between white supremacists and Nazis, and those who oppose them by standing up for human rights. Equating the two runs counter to our ideals as Americans.â€
It comes after Mr Trump said there was “blame on both sides” for the violence,
Doesn’t seem responsive to me. Saying there is blame on both sides for violence != the sides are morally equivalent, at least in my strange little world. Perhaps he [Trump] did say the sides were morally equivalent and I missed it, does anyone know? (RealQuery) shrug
mark bofill: “Saying there is blame on both sides for violence != the sides are morally equivalent, at least in my strange little world. Perhaps he [Trump] did say the sides were morally equivalent and I missed it, does anyone know?”
Trump did not directly say the two sides are morally equivalent. But he indirectly said that they are morally equivalent, by condemning violence on both sides. That is just as bad and exposes his condemnation of the white supremacists as a phony smokescreen.
You see, the antifas are on the right side of history and are fighting for the greater good. That makes violence understandable, perhaps even acceptable. But the white supremacists are in the wrong, so there is no possible excuse for their violence. Therefore, blaming both sides for violence is to say that their positions, not just their actions, are morally equivalent.
The reason that you have difficulty understanding this is because you are an intelligent, thoughtful, and open-minded person. Your education was obviously deficient, since you were never properly indoctrinated. You should report to a re-education camp forthwith.
Have I succeeded in violating Poe’s Law? Probably not.
Mike M.
:> Believe me, I know the feeling. But while it might seem like I ask doh questions like this just to fuel outrage, it’s not what I’m shooting for. Specifically because this type thing irritates me, it makes me error prone when I deal with it. I make mistakes when I get irritated. So, I actually really am sanity checking to see if I’ve missed something glaringly obvious to everybody else (somehow it’s the glaringly obvious oversights I’ve made in the past that are most painful and therefore they are the class of error I least want to repeat).
Thanks.
Following American public life is an increasingly bizarre experience. Is this why?
Real question: What is the difference between American leftists tearing down statues of confederate generals and the Taliban destroying statues of the Buddha?
One only needs to examine what Obama said after “reprehensible and repugnant” attacks to see an unbelievable double standard in action.
.
Dallas 2016, Obama:
“The demented individual who carried out those attacks in Dallas, he’s not more representative of all African-Americans than the shooter in Charleston was representative of white Americans. Or the shooter in Orlando or San Bernardino were representative of Muslim Americans. They don’t speak for us. That’s not who we areâ€
.
The shooter was associated with several black militant groups, one calling out for the killing of cops, who the media barely ever mentioned, much less condemned.
.
Not to mention the failure of Obama to call out Islamic jihadists after numerous attacks. He typically never mentioned Muslim or Islam at all after a terrorist incident. Orlando (after it was known the shooter called in to 911 and claimed ISIS adherence):
.
“We are still learning all the facts. This is an open investigation. We’ve reached no definitive judgment on the precise motivations of the killer.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/12/president-obamas-complete-remarks-on-orlando-shooting/?utm_term=.c7385a9e0c42
.
In this case I’m not aware the killer has made any statements on his motivations (pretty easy to guess), the point is the media is fine with patiently waiting for definitive proof of motive in Islamic terror, but is willing to jump to conclusions immediately in these cases.
.
These white supremacists / neo-Nazis are crazy and should be condemned. But this media game where artificial post-hoc thresholds and timelines of how much and how fast the condemnations occur with assumptive word parsing are biased when compared to other Presidents. Certainly Obama was better at saying the right words, but the media seems to be reporting what they believe Trump really thinks, not what he says.
Mike,
I’ve tried framing an answer a few times and failed. The trouble I’m having is, obviously there are many differences. Which are substantial and which are superficial differences; this question depends on the point one is trying to make by comparing the two.
.
Not being an utter dufus, I can reasonably assume you are comparing the two to express disapproval of those tearing down the confederate statues, by suggesting that this behavior is similar to the behavior of a barbaric terrorist group in the Middle East. Reasonable, but – be it noted for the record I’m assuming & filling in what I think are the blanks in what you said the way I imagine you want them filled in.
.
With all this preliminary out of the way : Dumb as this sounds, I’m trying to understand what monuments mean to people in the first place. I’m not much of a monuments guy. Do Southerners look at confederate statues and think ‘Man, those guys were great! I wish I was a plantation owner with a bunch of black slaves back in the day!’ or something? I’m almost certain they don’t. But what the heck do they think? I don’t know. Does it even matter, am I missing the point of what monuments are for.
.
I don’t know. I’ll most likely move on to something else before I puzzle it out.
Mike M,
What is striking here is in this endless conversation on “car guy” the word statue is almost never mentioned. Theoretically that is why he was there. The PC left is going out of their way to antagonize people and those on the edges tend to blow up. This doesn’t mean arguing about statues shouldn’t happen, but when you invite conflict you sometimes get…conflict. I think both sides wanted conflict here, and in this case the far right guy went out of bounds.
.
I could really care less about confederate statues and I’m not aware anyone ever saw them as anything but historical monuments until recently. That they are racist and oppressive is an invented issue from my point of view, but if people care that much then take them down. However I think this should be a local voter referendum. I particularly don’t think people on the coasts should be telling people in the south what statues are allowed in the south.
.
My guess is after the statues are removed then the social justice folks will just move on to the next invented symbol of oppression. At some point it will go too far and more violence will occur. I believe they are just escalating (names on buildings, etc.) because the more extreme side of social justice wants a violent confrontation. This won’t end with statues. It’s unclear if they really have deep support in these issues.
Mike M,
“What is the difference between American leftists tearing down statues of confederate generals and the Taliban destroying statues of the Buddha?”
.
Not much.
“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.†George Orwell, 1984
.
The left has always recognized this. So have many religions. The common thread is the desire for absolute control of what people are allowed do… and and even more… allowed to think. Refusing to allow people to know what actually happened in the past diminishes their ability to resist changes in the present, and so makes “progress” easier.
.
Examples are everywhere. Can’t change the Constitution to say what you want it to say? Then just nominate dedicated leftists to the Supreme Court to “interpret” it to say the opposite of what the words actually say.
.
It is difficult for me to find a better example of unmitigated evil masquerading as principled belief than the left’s desire to re-write (or even erase!) history in the name of “progress”.
mark bofill: “I can reasonably assume you are comparing the two to express disapproval of those tearing down the confederate statues, by suggesting that this behavior is similar to the behavior of a barbaric terrorist group in the Middle East.”
No, it was a real question. I suspect that there might really be a difference, other than the people doing it, but I can not state what that difference is.
I liked SteveF’s answer. 🙂
There are some differences. Geography; happening in different places. I suspect the Taliban would claim to be motivated for religious reasons, I don’t think the people tearing down Confederate statues would profess that. Age of the statues. Meaning of the statues? What the statues symbolize. Note that while I don’t know what the monuments mean or symbolize, I’m willing to hazard that statues of Buddha don’t mean or symbolize the same thing Confederate statues do, mostly because I don’t think past Confederate figures have anything to do with Buddhism. I think the cultural background of the people of Afganistan and people of the U.S. are sufficiently different that comparing such events is not entirely unlike comparing ants to aluminum cans. Legal system in the two countries and how it relates. History of the two countries and how that relates. So on, so forth.
I still like SteveF’s answer. Could be.
Tom Scharf: “That they are racist and oppressive is an invented issue from my point of view … this should be a local voter referendum … people on the coasts should be telling people in the south what statues are allowed in the south.”
.
I agree. The problem is that the bullies are determined to have their way one way or another. If a city has a referendum and decides not to tear down their statues, they will find themselves the target of boycotts and travel bans. So it is impossible for this to now just be a case of the good people of some southern town thoughtfully deciding that they really don’t want a statue of Lee in the town square.
.
Tom Scharf: “My guess is after the statues are removed then the social justice folks will just move on to the next invented symbol of oppression.”
.
Of course that is what will happen. A reasonable argument can be made that statues of those who actively supported the confederacy should be moved to museums. But it won’t stop there. The left will move on to Jackson (Edit: I mean Andrew, not Stonewall.) and, eventually, Jefferson and Washington. They will restrict access to the museums, then close them, then destroy them. With the left there is always a camel attached to the nose.
.
Tom Scharf: “… the more extreme side of social justice wants a violent confrontation.”
.
They want domination and to impose their thoughts on all. Violence is only a means to that end.
.
Tom Scharf: “It’s unclear if they really have deep support in these issues.”
.
It really does not matter, since they are able to impose silence, if not insincere agreement, on a large swath of the population.
Scharf: “One only needs to examine what Obama said after “reprehensible and repugnant†attacks to see an unbelievable double standard in action.”
….
It is true there is a lot of hypocrisy here. To the examples above, I would add the case of Pam Geller who has been subject to assassination attempts for publishing a very mild cartoon.
….
On the other hand, on a practical level Trump, is being dumb, dumb, dumb. When he gets positive statements from David Duke, he should immediately and forcefully disavow them. Instead, as far as I know he is not doing so as I write this. The fascists were at fault in Virginia and they should be very strongly criticized. I believe Kasich stated that there are no good neo-Nazis. He is right. There is no need to criticize the Left at this time when the Nazis were mostly at fault. The Left will in the future be guilty of violence and intolerance. That is the time to criticize the Left, and I would forcefully do so.
….
Trump’s stupidity and insensitivity is turning away potential allies. For instance, a good long-time friend of mine from high school is Mexican-American and is more conservative than me. However, he voted for Clinton. Many Chinese people are sensitive to White superiority/discrimination narratives. The Chinese would be naturally Republican voters, but in one Obama election, Obama won 70% of the Asian vote. I am in a WeChat group and last week a friend of mine posted a story about an Air BNP host who stated she wouldn’t rent to an Asian. (See despicable incident here where the host said that she could do so because of Trump) https://nextshark.com/dyne-suh-california-airbnb-racist-trump-supporter-asian/
Trump, or someone in the White House should have tweeted that they were appalled by the host’s statement and believe that the host should be fined. (which she was)
….
People have to start thinking practically and should thoroughly and unambiguously separate themselves from people like the disgusting BNP host. To me the most important issue facing the US is stopping the open borders movement. However, many potential allies are needlessly alienated by the unthinking denigration of non-white people — many of whom are otherwise naturally conservative.
JD
SteveF (Comment #164462)
“It is difficult for me to find a better example of unmitigated evil masquerading as principled belief than the left’s desire to re-write (or even erase!) history in the name of “progressâ€.”
.
Couldn’t agree more.
mark bofill: “Saying there is blame on both sides for violence != the sides are morally equivalent, at least in my strange little world. Perhaps he [Trump] did say the sides were morally equivalent and I missed it, does anyone know?â€
Trump did not directly say the two sides are morally equivalent. But he indirectly said that they are morally equivalent, by condemning violence on both sides. That is just as bad and exposes his condemnation of the white supremacists as a phony smokescreen.
.
Have you guys ever heard of antifa?
.
I googled “lucia rankexploits antifa” and came up empty, so I’m guessing not, or at least not to the level of awareness that actually gets them mentioned.
.
This article in the Atlantic Monthly, entitled: “The Rise of the Violent Left“, appeared just before Charlottesville. The Atlantic Monthly is characterized as a left leaning rag ( though I think while many authors have that perspective, they appear to be open to many ideas ).
.
Yes, the KKK is despicable. Our country is dedicated to the idea that all men ( meaning men and women ) are created equal.
.
Yes, the Nazis are despicable. Our country sacrificed millions of young lives to defeat the Nazis.
.
Yes, antifa is despicable. Antifa was at Charlottesville, though it’s not entirely clear what they did there. But we know what they’ve done elsewhere.
. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qKCl9NL1Cg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-E61BTum2OI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0H27Ul9ZsHk
etc. etc. ( google and youtube them ).
.
And of course, antifa didn’t just begin with Charlottesville, they’ve been at it in the US since the inauguration of Trump. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dO2H_yT9A0U
.
antifa are agent provocateurs. They are looking for fights and violence. In many ways, they are a worse threat than the KKK or Nazis. It’s not just Trump that “antifa” was assailing. By using the threat of violence, antifa seeks to stifle opposing views, which of course, is what fascists do.
.
The false moral equivalency is this – by attacking KKK-nazis, antifa set up a false dialectic – KKK&Nazis bad, antifa good. This is dangerous! Antifa also bad, very bad.
.
It’s not just KKK&nazis that antifa opposes. It was antifa that rioted Milo Yianoppolis and Ann Coulter away from Berkley. Fine you may say – they’re both provocative with their words, though isn’t that what discourse is about? If they’re wrong, don’t other words counter them? Is violence ever justified by words?
.
More troublingly was the violence against professor Charles Murray, a social scientist attempting to provide an evidenced lecture on race. Violence to shut down a college lecture?
.
Further, antifa was a presence ( organizer? ) at the recent anti-sharia protests. Again the irony that sharia law, in prescribing death to non-believers, death to homosexuals, stoning for adulterers, inequality for women, is about as fascist as one can get.
.
Antifa are moronically fascists themselves which would be amusing were it not for danger of their appeal in these emotional, unreasoned times. There are evidently antifa “chapters” all around the country ( and world ).
.
The Atlantic article points out the antifa’s roots stem back to the 1920s in Europe, which is another irony – antifa was NOT effective in stopping the rise of fascism then. In fact, even more ironically, antifa may further fascism ( not of their own ) by galvanizing resistance.
.
You may recall, I did not and, with the strong exception of his reasonable stance on ‘climate’, do not support Trump. And Trump may be in fact appealing to racists. However, in this incident, the media have vindicated Trump:
.
1. because antifa is anti-Trump and seeks to provoke confrontations and violence and does bear some guilt of the death ( the ‘both sides’ where one side is not normal people, but antifa ).
.
2. until very recently, the antifa phenomenon was not covered by the ‘maintstream media’. I first learned of them 6 months ago from youtube videos, not the maintstream media. The mainstream have an anti-Trump agenda and didn’t inform me about antifa – the mainstream is, if not fake, very incomplete.
Mike M: “What is the difference between American leftists tearing down statues of confederate generals and the Taliban destroying statues of the Buddha?”
….
I don’t know much about Buddhism, but I would guess that it is much more humane than the belief systems of the confederate generals who fought in support of slavery. I personally wouldn’t request that the statutes be taken down because I believe it is needlessly provocative. On the other hand, other than some instances of amazing bravery, there is very little that is admirable about a soldier who is fighting to preserve slavery. I don’t like that this is being used as a wedge issue, but on a logical level there are reasonable grounds for the Left’s contention that confederate generals, on balance, were not admirable people who should be honored in today’s world.
JD
Eddie,
Yup, I’ve heard of Antifa. Thanks for the comments and particularly the link. I hadn’t seen that. I agree substantially with your comment and share your concerns.
T. Eddie: “Yes, antifa is despicable. Antifa was at Charlottesville, though it’s not entirely clear what they did there. But we know what they’ve done elsewhere.”
….
Exactly my point. Attack them later and elsewhere. From everything I have seen the Nazis were mainly at fault in Virginia.
JD
JD Ohio: “The fascists were at fault in Virginia and they should be very strongly criticized. I believe Kasich stated that there are no good neo-Nazis. He is right. There is no need to criticize the Left at this time when the Nazis were mostly at fault.”
You are mistaken. Trump did denounce the neo-Nazis and white supremacists, as he has done many times before. But the press ignores that.
There is indeed fault on “many sides” in Charlottesville. Yes, some of the supremacists came prepared for a fight. So did the Antifa. We know the latter have a history of actually starting fights, I don’t know if that is true of the supremacists. The supremacists had permits, which allow the police to plan so as to avoid trouble. The Antifa apparently did not have permits. The police not only did not keep the groups separate, they actually forced them together. Then they seem to have stood back and watched when the predictable happened. There is a lot of blame to go around.
“You are mistaken. Trump did denounce the neo-Nazis and white supremacists, as he has done many times before.”
…..
Yes but he did it in a way that could be interpreted as saying the Leftist protesters were as bad as the Nazis. If one were to take your viewpoint, Trump should have criticized Antifa explicitly. I haven’t seen where he did so. Trump is simply very stupidly playing into the hands of the Left. I have never said that Trump didn’t criticize the Nazis. I am saying he is giving others reasonable grounds to make the false equivalence argument. Also, Trump should extremely clearly and unambiguously reject David Duke, which I don’t believe he has done. When Neo Nazis issue statements in support of what you have done, you should do some serious re-thinking.
….
Also, even on the right there is major Jewish criticism of Trump. See http://nypost.com/2017/08/17/netanyahu-under-pressure-to-condemn-trumps-response-to-charlottesville/ “But Netanyahu’s reluctance to speak out on such an important issue has set him apart from the growing ranks of Israeli leaders who have been outspoken in their anger, and risks alienating Jewish American leaders already estranged by certain Israeli policies.
A growing chorus of opposition politicians, commentators and even coalition partners has urged Netanyahu to take a stronger stance, even at the risk of antagonizing the president.”
JD
Turbulent Eddie (Comment #164468);
You quoted me (Comment #164454), stopped a few words short of my mention of Antifa, then asked: “Have you guys ever heard of antifa?”
.
It sounds like you missed my Comment #164455. And that the answer to my question “Have I succeeded in violating Poe’s Law?” is “No”.
~sigh~ I no nobody really cares but to nuance my comment where I said I liked SteveF’s answer, I’d need to qualify what I mean when I say ‘the left’ and that’s a tedious thing to do. I don’t think anyone (including me) cares about the details of this, just again, a note for the record. I ought to have qualified this.
JD Ohio (Comment #164473): “Yes but he did it in a way that could be interpreted as saying the Leftist protesters were as bad as the Nazis … he is giving others reasonable grounds to make the false equivalence argument.”
.
Trump: “To anyone who acted criminally in this weekend’s racist violence, you will be held fully accountable. Justice will be delivered. As I said on Saturday, we condemn, in the strongest possible terms, this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence. It has no place in America.”
Trump: “Racism is evil. And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the K.K.K., neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.”
Sounds unambiguous to me.
.
TRUMP: “As I said on — remember this — Saturday, we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence. It has no place in America.”
TRUMP: “Well, I think the driver of the car is a disgrace to himself, his family and his country. And that is — you can call it terrorism. You can call it murder. You can call it whatever you want.”
Exactly my point. Attack them later and elsewhere. From everything I have seen the Nazis were mainly at fault in Virginia.
.
Well, judging by his past, the driver was a racist and of course, bears responsibility for his vehicle.
.
Apparently, the vehicle was also attacked from behind by a rod, just before the crash into the crowd. What responsibility does this attacker on the car bear for the victims? I think a lot. The violent assault on the vehicle probably incited either rage or panic.
.
And antifa showed up specifically to incite violence:
. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0s8R_cGgvFY
.
Antifa, beyond being a stupid self parody of fascism themselves, are very dangerous.
.
If the KKK&Nazis had showed up to march, marched, and went home, there would not have been a problem. They have ideas, repugnant, perhaps, but ideas. This is not a problem – this is what America stands for: freedom of speech and freedom of assembly! Antifa stands for fascism and violent opposition to freedom.
.
I oppose racist ideas.
.
I support the right of all to express their ideas, even repugnant ones.
Mike M: “TRUMP: “As I said on — remember this — Saturday, we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence. It has no place in America.â€
TRUMP: “Well, I think the driver of the car is a disgrace to himself, his family and his country. And that is — you can call it terrorism. You can call it murder. You can call it whatever you want.â€
….
He should have stopped there, but he didn’t. He stated that there were very fine people on both sides, which is exactly the wrong statement to make after a paralegal (I know of no links to Antifa) is killed by someone who supported Hitler.
JD
Eddie,
I support the right of all to express their ideas, even repugnant ones.
🙂 Someplace along the road the idea of supporting free speech appears to have morphed into supporting free speech except views X, Y, and Z which all forward thinking people denounce. Bah I say. If the principle doesn’t protect the expression of all views, that principle doesn’t mean anything anymore.
TE “I support the right of all to express their ideas, even repugnant ones.”
….
So do I. Unfortunately, we will have many, many opportunities to support free speech because the Left is so intolerant. We shouldn’t be talking about free speech in this context. Rather, we should be talking about free speech in the context of Pam Geller. On the other hand, in this instance, conservatives and Trump should simply strongly criticize the Nazis and move on.
JD
You see, the antifas are on the right side of history and are fighting for the greater good. That makes violence understandable, perhaps even acceptable.
.
In haste, I missed this.
.
This is of course completely wrong. Antifa are clueless fascists seeking to both provoke violence and stifle free speech and in this regard, quite vile and dangerous.
.
Acceptable violence?
.
I think this speaks to the lack of ideas. Had they any valid ideas, they perhaps would use them to prevail. Violence indicates emotion, and not any intelligence.
What is the difference between American leftists tearing down statues of confederate generals and the Taliban destroying statues of the Buddha?
A lot. To begin: Conferedate generals are not on par with Buddha.
Also: generally speaking the alt-right side of the protest here is not protesting someone “tearing down” a statues or destroying them. The statue are being removed from current locations which is not the same as destroying them. The protesters could if they wish propose to buy various statues and them in a private park they own.
There are other differences.
JD,
I’m no fan of the alt-right, but they have the same rights as everyone else. They legitimately got permits for a protest and a bunch of counter protesters showed up to shut it down (at least the more extreme counter protesters).
.
We cannot have a system where in order to suppress speech one only needs to threaten violence against views they dislike, even when those views are in fact very misguided.
.
We have a system in place. Murder and assault are illegal. A police force exists to enforce those laws. I’m amazed that the police just stand by and watch this stuff happen with almost no arrests.
.
Free speech advocates are going to win every case here, as they did when VA attempted to revoke the protest permit (hilariously they didn’t revoke the counter protest permit and stood by that).
.
These groups are tiny and pose zero threat to our society, let stupid people be stupid. Stupidity is every American’s right and is demonstrated very frequently. This case is the Streisand Effect on mega-steroids. The fear that the KKK is on a comeback is absurd.
.
Silencing racists by force makes them silent angry racists. No counter protest, no deaths. The proper action is to ignore them.
.
I think the reporting on Trump has been primarily what the media believes Trump believes. Trump isn’t ever going to speak with sophistication, that’s part of his appeal, but it isn’t always a net positive. My opinion was they were going to crucify Trump regardless of what he said.
Turbulent Eddie (Comment #164481): “This is of course completely wrong.”
Myself (Comment #164455) “Have I succeeded in violating Poe’s Law? Probably not.â€
I now have a definitive answer in the negative.
I had hoped that the final paragraph of my comment #164454 would give away the game and make sarc tags superfluous, but I was overly optimistic.
TE,
It’s … what’s the word. Parody. Or mockery. Or sarcasm. One of those things where someone speaks absurdity to underscore how absurd it is.
It’s one of those odd things where the ‘in person’ subtle visual, posture, and tonal clues help a lot in distinguishing this. It doesn’t translate all that well online.
Forget about it. FWIW, I’m almost colorblind to this as well. 🙂
Scharf: “Silencing racists by force makes them silent angry racists. No counter protest, no deaths.” This is inconsistent. The counter protestors have rights too.
….
“My opinion was they were going to crucify Trump regardless of what he said.”
Yes, but Trump has made it much easier and enabled them. For instance, I believe the Russia probe is garbage, but here Trump, as evidenced by the wide range of those critical of him, is being practically stupid. When a Hitler supporter kills an innocent paralegal, it is the wrong time to argue Constitutional niceties. It appears that there was another terrorist attack in Europe today. We should be talking about that and not Charlottesville.
JD
I invite people to carefully analyze the media’s reaction to the apparent terror attack in Barcelona vs VA.
.
Are they going to demand every politician forcefully denounce Islamic Jihad immediately, and crucify those who don’t do it fast enough or forcefully enough? Is the attacker a Muslim supremacist? How carefully will they wait for proof of motive? Will they call for protecting Muslims from backlash (like they did with white nationalists, ha ha)? Will they deflect blame from religious beliefs? Will they examine the underlying social conditions which cause extremism to form (like they did with white nationalism, ha ha). Will Trump now be crucified for being too forceful and one sided in his statements?
.
These are rhetorical of course, we have seen this before. I have noticed US media is much more likely to call these things terror attacks immediately now.
.
I have no doubt my viewpoint is somewhat biased, especially on the media. Reporting on the VA attack is typical more emotionally based, Islamic (oops Islamist) terror is usually more “just the facts” and less judgmental. I will not levy any charges that they under-cover terror attacks, they cover them completely.
JD,
I’m referring to attempts to revoke their permits and not allow them to rent spaces at UF based on safety, etc. Police should not allow counter protesters to stop a protest. Counter protesters have perfectly valid rights to show up and condemn them. I personally think it is idiotic to show up to these things on either side.
lucia (Comment #164482): “A lot. To begin: Conferedate generals are not on par with Buddha.”
But that is really no different than saying that you approve of one but not the other. The Taliban probably don’t approve of the Buddha.
.
lucia: “Also: generally speaking the alt-right side of the protest here is not protesting someone “tearing down†a statues or destroying them. The statue are being removed from current locations which is not the same as destroying them.”
Yes, but there have been instances of tearing down (in Durham, for example). I have no doubt that the people pushing this would like to tear down and smash the statues if they thought they could get away with it.
.
lucia: “There are other differences.”
Such as?
As far as tearing down is concerned, I can only think of one clear difference. It is favorable to the Taliban (a consistent opposition to idolatry).
As far as relocating is concerned, I have already said that a reasonable case can be made. But that really only matters if you believe that is what this is really about. It isn’t. It is about power. “Who controls the past controls the future.” (A slogan of the Party in “1984”)
JD wrote: “He stated that there were very fine people on both sides”
.
“You also had some very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group — excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.”
.
Seems like a fair statement, and possibly quite a good one. If you want to turn any “moderates” into “extremists”, treat them as if they already are so you can ignore addressing whatever concerns they have. Get that resentment glowing!
Mike M
lucia (Comment #164482): “A lot. To begin: Conferedate generals are not on par with Buddha.â€
But that is really no different than saying that you approve of one but not the other. The Taliban probably don’t approve of the Buddha.
Wrong. Buddha is a principle religious figure for a major religion. Confederate generals are people who carried out military campaigns. These aren’t the same sort of thing and the two are not on par with each other.
lucia: “There are other differences.â€
Such as?
Between 100 year old statutes and ancient ones? The latter being older is a difference. Between something that is easily moved and something that cannot be moved? Moveablity is one.
Yes, but there have been instances of tearing down (in Durham, for example). I have no doubt that the people pushing this would like to tear down and smash the statues if they thought they could get away with it.
Sure. And in the instances where property is damaged the people doing it are wrong to do so. So is smashing windows and a variety of other things.
The person who pulled down the statue in Durham has been arrested– as she should be. Also, the statue appears to be a bronze. Other than being toppled, it seems likely it’s sustained little damage.
I still don’t think a single person toppling that statue of quite recent vintage and who then was arrested is ‘the same’ as military group moving in taking over a region destroying major religious statues from the fifth century.
The acts do share the trait of wanting to destroy something others value. But there are way too many very important differences to claim the two acts are “the same”.
But that really only matters if you believe that is what this is really about. It isn’t. It is about power. “Who controls the past controls the future.†(A slogan of the Party in “1984â€)
If so, then it is just as much about “power” for the people who are insisting the statues stay just where they are.
WRT to Robert E. Lee, it looked like the process to move it was being discussed using our normal — that is through elected representatives. That’s still an issue of “power”– but done in the way we’ve decided we are going to do it. If I were a citizen in VA I’d be all for moving the darn thing and putting it up for auction to whoever might want to buy it. I also think the woman who pulled down the statue in Durham deserved to be arrested and charged. She has been.
DaveJR: “If you want to turn any “moderates†into “extremistsâ€, treat them as if they already are so you can ignore addressing whatever concerns they have.”
….
I don’t think many moderates would march with Nazis and the KKK. This is not a practical concern at all in this instance. I am very strongly opposed to open borders, but I wouldn’t go within 100 miles of these despicable people who organized the protest.
JD
Tom,
.
Rhetorical questions aren’t protected speech.
Don’t make me sic Antifa on yo @ss.
:>
Lucia,
f so, then it is just as much about “power†for the people who are insisting the statues stay just where they are.
Appreciate this remark, it helped me realize this: I don’t care about Confederate monuments. I find I do care about the road by which they remain or get taken down.
I think there has been a trend in recent years to take these statues down, legally and by working through whatever mechanisms local governments provide to accomplish these things. At least in some places. I think that’s fine and really have no issue with it.
I realize I do indeed have an issue with monuments being torn down during demonstrations by mobs. As you say, this is about power. I do not think demonstrators or protesters, be they Nazi, Antifa, or what have you, should have this power. I wonder and worry what such groups might move on to try next after they are done with the monuments. Enough already, is my view.
Thanks.
There is a bit of a stench of elitist northerners crapping on their backward southerners in the statue debate. The emotional part of this is not taking down relics of the Confederacy which nobody cares about, but it is more who gets to decide. Kind of like what started the civil war, ha ha. Why does someone in NYC care what statues are in the south?
.
I don’t consider myself a southerner but there is without question a moral smugness from the north that is irritating. If the southern states controlled the national media and all the north heard was how backward and immoral they were and there was an attitude that the north MUST adapt proper southern culture they might understand how this works. Enjoy your grits, college football, and country music people.
it is more who gets to decide. Kind of like what started the civil war, ha ha. Why does someone in NYC care what statues are in the south?
I’ve been thinking about the significance of monuments. I’ve concluded that they mean different things to different people. I mean, in and of themselves, they’re just metal or stone objects or statues, sometimes with a small plaque.
.
So I guess I agree with you here. Perhaps these monuments are symbols of racism to some. Probably they’ve got different meanings to others.
.
Maybe this (getting rid of the statues) is an extension of the ‘anything that offends me is intolerable and must go’ mentality that seems relatively common these days.
Tom Scharf
Why does someone in NYC care what statues are in the south?
I don’t know. James Alex Fields who killed someone with his car during the Charlottesville incident was from Ohio. We may eventually learn why it was important to him that the Robert E. Lee statue remain in a prominent place of honor in VA, but I don’t think we know yet. There is some reason to believe it’s because he’s a control freak and has
I’m sure protestors from outside VA were present on both sides of protest/counter protest. I suspect many people on both sides were singularly unpleasant sorts. But clearly, some Northerners are sufficiently upset that VA appeared ready to remove the statue that they arrived to protest the actions of elected representatives in VA.
Tom Scharf,
To be clear, the reason the protestors were present was to protest the decision by the Charlottesville, VA City Council to remove the statue. That is the city government for a Southern city was following the normal process of deciding what sorts of things their city wants to commemorate.
There doesn’t seem to be much evidence that removal of the statue is something being imposed by smug Northerners on Southerners. It looks like the decision to remove it is following our normal governmental processes: Those elected to the city council are have decided from their city’s park.
At least some of those protesting removal are Northerners.
lucia: “The person who pulled down the statue in Durham has been arrested– as she should be.”
It seems like a number of people have been arrested and charged with felonies. I hope the authorities follow through.
The monument in question was a memorial to Confederate soldiers. I find destroying that more objectionable than pulling down a statue of Lee.
lucia: “Also, the statue appears to be a bronze. Other than being toppled, it seems likely it’s sustained little damage.”
I am sympathetic to an open, honest, bully-free process arriving at a decision to relocate a monument. But I don’t think that is what is going on in most of these cases. And so far as I know, not a single monument has actually been relocated, other than to a packing crate in a warehouse.
There have already been attacks on people who had nothing to do with the civil war. Woodrow Wilson, Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson. This is ultimately about rewriting history. I find that unacceptable.
Mike M
The monument in question was a memorial to Confederate soldiers. I find destroying that more objectionable than pulling down a statue of Lee.
Perhaps. I still don’t think destroying it rises to the level of destroying art that’s lasted since the 5th century.
I am sympathetic to an open, honest, bully-free process arriving at a decision to relocate a monument. But I don’t think that is what is going on in most of these cases.
Looks to me like there is the normal amount of contention. We have contention in the Illinois state house over lots of stuff. Chicago has contention over lots of stuff. I guess people might see the “other” side as “bullying”. But that’s just the way democracy is.
And so far as I know, not a single monument has actually been relocated, other than to a packing crate in a warehouse.
This doesn’t bother me. It would take some time to find places. If I were in a state warehousing this stuff, I’d suggest putting it up for auction.
There have already been attacks on people who had nothing to do with the civil war. Woodrow Wilson, Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson. This is ultimately about rewriting history. I find that unacceptable.
Woodrow Wilson: Most overrated president ever.
I’m not sure what you mean by “attacks”. Some people critize these people. That’s free speech, something most amearicans value. I would find surpressing it unacceptable.
Some of the criticism of these people is fair. The two who are not Wilson had some good points also. I don’t see open discussions about any of the three as “rewriting history”. Or if it is, I don’t see that as necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes first accounts are biased. Further discussion, which can lead to further writing is fine with me.
I’m mostly referring to outlets like the NYT being quite clear in their moral judgement on southern Confederate statues. WV don’t sell your coal! VA take down your statues! There are almost no cases of southern busybodies telling NYC how to run their affairs.
.
I’m not sure if this was a local issue originally or a national one that was injected there. Clinton carried this county by 25% so it is reasonable they might vote to remove the statue.
.
It is arguable that the “north (the left)” is on a campaign to designate southern cultural symbols as racist and exerting their power to have them removed. Why? To save the south from itself? It annoys people.
.
I think this is just a case of cultural bullying for little end benefit. Has anyone previously connected confederate statues as some kind of racist icon? If they really are I support taking them down. If this is just about cultural power then I don’t. If this was the last racist symbol that will be objected to then I say take them all down today. Confederate flag, statues, the end? I’m not aware of the next one and I suggest it may be invented.
The southerners find the symbol of Lincoln in Washington DC as a very hurtful reminder of a time where 258,000 of their citizens were brutally slaughtered by the Northern aggressors who dispensed with diplomacy and instead participated in a campaign of oppression and subjugation. The Lincoln memorial should be taken down and he should be removed from currency as this is a constant reminder of a very shameful time in this nation’s history which nobody should take pride in.
Tom
I don’t subscribe to or read the NYT.
West Virginia broke from Virginia during the civil war. WVa was in the Union, so wrt to the civil war “North”.
I think Southerners are sufficiently well able to think for themselves. I don’t see any reason to assume they are somehow succumbing to the pressure of the NYT.
If something really is a racist symbol and put there for that reason, I’d be for taking it down even if it meant we were going to continue to take down additional ones. That would be my vote. Others can vote otherwise.
That said: My reason for thinking it’s perfectly fine for the individual cities and states to decide to take these things down is I believe in democracy. If duly elected governments decide to take these utterly unnecessary statues down, that’s fine with me. If Chicago decided to take down the Picasso: ok. They get to do that. Same with the Marylin Monroe statue or the statue of Kazimir Pulasky. If East Peoria Il wants to rename Woodrow Wilson Elementary and name it “Lady Gaga Elementary”: Fine by me.
With respect to statues, I think it would be fiscally prudent for Chicago to sell any that most prople don’t want around and the city council decides to get rid of. I suspect they could get a lot of dough for the Picasso. I suspect there are still too many Polish voters in Chitown for them to decided to get rid of Kazimir. I don’t think East Peoria will get very much if they sell the name plate on their Elementary
If the people wanting to take it down want it because they think it’s racist: Ok. If the others want to argue they aren’t. Fine. Neither argument changes my mind: If the majority of people don’t want those there, and the elected reps vote to get rid of them, get rid of them.
Tom
The Lincoln memorial should be taken down and he should be removed from currency as this is a constant reminder of a very shameful time in this nation’s history which nobody should take pride in.
If Congress makes such a decision through the normal democratic process, then it will be done. I happen to be against the decision to take down Lincoln, but that’s democracy.
Chicago can do what they normally do, sell the naming rights, the Apple Picasso. I’m all for local control of statues. National media has a lot of reach and so can exert cultural pressure unevenly. I’m not proposing anything change, just an observation.
lucia: “I’m not sure what you mean by “attacksâ€. Some people critize these people.”
There have been protests in New Orleans demanding the removal of the statue of Andrew Jackson. Andrew Jackson. In New Orleans.
Jefferson-Jackson Day dinners are becoming a thing of the past. Democrats still have the fund raising dinners, but the name is disappearing.
Students at Princeton have demanded the removal of Wilson’s name from buildings.
Students at Missouri and at William and Mary have demanded the removal of statues of Jefferson.
A committee at the University of Texas recommended removing a statue of Wilson because he was a racist. The administration removed the statue, but said it was for symmetry since they removed the nearby statue of Jefferson Davis.
I suspect there are many more examples. If not, there soon will be.
Tom:
I would be cautious about believing the Southerners are being oppressed by national media. For one thing: Lots of white people in the South are not descendants of people who lived there during the Civil War. Lots of Southerners are not white. A not insiginficant number were descendants of slaves.
There are plenty of reasons to think quite a few people who currently live and vote in the south do not consider the “Confederate Heroes” or even individual confederate soldiers something worthy of honoring and that their notions about who is worth honoring are not the result of “bullying” by “northerners”.
Tom Scharf (Comment #164502): “The Lincoln memorial should be taken down and he should be removed from currency as this is a constant reminder of a very shameful time in this nation’s history which nobody should take pride in.”
Of course it should be taken down, but not for the reason you give. Lincoln was on record as being firmly opposed to miscegenation. He wanted to relocate freed blacks to Africa. He was no doubt against gay marriage, and as for his attitude toward transsexuals, don’t even ask. A caveman whose memory should be erased from history. [/sarc off]
.
lucia: “If Congress makes such a decision through the normal democratic process, then it will be done. I happen to be against the decision to take down Lincoln, but that’s democracy.”
No. That is not democracy. Sending the past down the memory hole is totalitarian.
Woodrow Wilson: Most overrated president ever.
Plus many. He went bonkers sometime during the negotiations on the end of the Great War and his wife ran the show from then on. Too bad we didn’t have the 25th amendment then.
The Swiss, especially in Geneva, love him, though. I bet they made a lot of money from the League of Nations.
By the way, my browser still doesn’t automatically fill in Name and E-mail. At least it doesn’t lose the text when it gives me an error message.
MikeM
There have been protests in New Orleans demanding the removal of the statue of Andrew Jackson. Andrew Jackson. In New Orleans.
Our bill of rights guarantees the right to free assembly. A protest is not an “attack”. The statue is still there. If it wasn’t…. I wouldn’t care.
Jefferson-Jackson Day dinners are becoming a thing of the past. Democrats still have the fund raising dinners, but the name is disappearing.
So? If people don’t want to host them, have them or attend them, then they will be in the past. Debutant balls aren’t as popular as they sued to be either. Or cotillians. Not seeing a problem here.
Students at Princeton have demanded the removal of Wilson’s name from buildings.
Most overrated president ever. I get he was associated with Princeton and he later became president which many would consider a feather in their cap. So they likely wanted the braggign rights. But I’m not really seeing a problem if his name is no longer on a building in Princeton. Princeton can decide what to do.
Students at Missouri and at William and Mary have demanded the removal of statues of Jefferson
I think that’s silly. But I don’t see any problem with people discussing whether they want his statue there. So far it seems like they are staying.
A committee at the University of Texas recommended removing a statue of Wilson because he was a racist.
He was a racist. He also didn’t have many good points to speak of as a President. I don’t quite understand why U of Texas had statue of him there– he’s not especially connected with TX. If UT wants it there, ok with me. If they don’t fine by me to. The presence or absence of that statue won’t change history.
The administration removed the statue, but said it was for symmetry since they removed the nearby statue of Jefferson Davis.
Weird reason. I suspect they are prevaricating. I suspect the got rid of the Wilson statue because, in the end, it’s hard to admire the guy. If he’s not balancing someone else, there seems little reason to keep him.
I’d admire them more if they were frank, had balls and said they got rid of the Wilson statue because he was a crummy president undeserving of a place of honor. But there you go.
I suspect there are many more examples. If not, there soon will be.
Most of your examples are cases where people are exercising free speech. I also hope people will continue to do so. I realize you don’t happen to like the content of their speech but I would find it rather appalling if the reason you think statues shouldn’t come down is that people are exercising their right to express an opinion contrary to yours.
I’d rather have a statue of Jefferson Davis in my alcove than one of Wilson.
Re: Rewriting History
….
What one chooses to focus on is ultimately always subjective. For instance, I am half-Italian (father’s parents from southern Italy) and until I recently watched a documentary I had no idea how poorly regarded Southern Italians were in the early 20th century. For instance, the Irish thought so little of these Italians that they forced the Italians to attend church services in basements. (Seems hilarious to me now. Almost certainly not funny at the time.)
….
One issue in today’s world that is rarely discussed is the role of Black Africans in enslaving other Blacks. For instance, “President Mathieu Kerekou’s apology[ized] for his country’s role in “selling fellow Africans by the millions to white slave traders.†“We cry for forgiveness and reconciliation,” …. Tribe stalked tribe, and eventually more than 20 million Africans would be kidnapped in their own homeland.
Historians estimate that ten million of these abducted Africans “never even made it to the slave ships. Most died on the march to the seaâ€â€”still chained, yoked, and shackled by their African captors—before they ever laid eyes on a white slave trader. The survivors were either purchased by European slave dealers or “instantly beheaded†by the African traders “in sight of the [slave ship] captain†if they could not be sold.” See http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/41431
……
The author of this article stated that: “My 2003 study of 49 state U.S. history standards revealed that not one of these guides to classroom content even mentioned the key role of Africans in supplying the Atlantic slave trade.”
…..
Of course, the Left in its attempt to delegitimatize white countries and culture and particularly, white males, will try to rewrite history. On some occasions, it will have points to make. On the other hand, there are many, many historical facts that are swept under the rug. I say let them all come out.
JD
Well, I read here that saying there was blame on both sides deserves impeachment. Steve Cohen (D) from Tennessee.
These people exhaust me.
Lucia — Wilson Bolshevik Link.
….
Wasn’t aware of that history. Thanks. It is also relevant to the current Russia election intervention controversy. Wilson intervened in Russian affairs and Russia ran a propaganda campaign in the US during the time Wilson was in office.
JD
mark,
Too bad Steve Cohen didn’t have the same outrage over Obama’s similar waffling about cop-killing.
JD Ohio,
The Wilson administration resegregating the US Postal service, instituting the policy of requiring photo of job aplpicants to federal jobs (so as to screen out black), demoting blacks already employed were demoted or fired and so on may well have been the reason we later needed the civil rights movements. It wasn’t just employment either. Lunchrooms and restrooms in buildings with Cabinet offices were segregated.
Blacks had been making advances in employment. But suddenly…. certain jobs were closed.
The reason people think Wilson was a racist is there is every reason to believe he was a racist. Wilson may not have thought himself a racist. He may truly have believed that segregation was somehow “good” for black. I’m sure lots of slaveholders in the South would reject themselves as having been unfair to their slaves and would say they were being “good” to them too. That would, of course, depend on your definition of “good”.
National media outlets are centered in cities and besides CNN none of them are in the South. As of 2013 only 7% of journalist identified as Republican. The majority of major media outlets reside in a county that Clinton carried by 30% or more. 92% of journalists have college degrees. Only 2 of 59 newspapers endorsed Trump. Trump carried the entire south. Etc. Etc.
.
Does this mean they are biased against the “south”? Not necessarily but it implies they aren’t likely to know southern culture very well (when that may be important) and coverage of southern culture is more likely to be biased. It is more a rural /city divide than a north / south divide.
.
I don’t think anybody cares about the confederacy. I can’t recall our local media ever even mentioning it except for the confederate flag controversy which mirrors this one.
Careful DeWitt. It almost sounded like you were implying moral equivalence between President Obama and President Trump. Somebody might move to bring an impeachment against you or come protest in your yard and pull down that concrete bird bath that stands as a symbol of .. well, they’ll think of something I’m sure.
Tom Scharf,
“Of course it should be taken down, but not for the reason you give. Lincoln was on record as being firmly opposed to miscegenation. He wanted to relocate freed blacks to Africa. He was no doubt against gay marriage, and as for his attitude toward transsexuals, don’t even ask. A caveman whose memory should be erased from history. [/sarc off]”
.
Many (many!) years ago in high school I researched original writing and speeches by Lincoln, in the period leading up to the civil war. He routinely wrote/said things about people of African descent which would be utterly unacceptable today (or for that matter, in the late 1960’s). I wrote a report, with extensive quotes, showing clearly that Lincoln thought people of African descent were broadly inferior to people of European descent. My report was not well received. The urge to re-write history is strong.
Tom,
I have no idea if the media is biased against the south. The media may not understand the south well.
But even if both those things are true, that doesn’t mean southern cities must be deprived of the right to decide to remove statues they don’t want. They are the ones voting to get rid of these things. The media wasn’t voting southerners were.
I get that some people from places in the North– like Ohio– may not understand why the Southerners are voting to remove these things. But people in Ohio don’t need to understand those votes. Southerners seem to be generally deciding to get rid of these things. As far as I’m concerned: fine. If they don’t want them, they can remove them.
I don’t think the feds, CNN, northerners nor crazed young men from Ohio should be marching in to force Southerners to keep these dang things up.
Lucia,
“I have no idea if the media is biased against the south.”
.
I do. They are. Horribly.
So in Tampa a confederate statue is getting taken down. I, like probably everyone else, never knew it was there. In June the commission voted 4-3 to keep the monument and paint a mural behind the monument. They re-voted Wednesday 4-2 to take it down, but they aren’t paying for its removal (a reasonable compromise in my view). $140K was raised almost immediately and its getting moved.
.
I’d still prefer a voter referendum but realistically nobody cares about these things other than for culture war purposes.
.
I would be remiss not mention the speech given at the dedication ceremony in 1911:
“The South stands ready to welcome all good citizens who seek to make their homes within her borders. But the South detests and despises all, it matters not from whence they came, who, in any manner, encourages social equality with an ignorant and inferior race.”
.
So, uhhhh, yeah. Not going to endorse that one.
lucia,
I don’t think the feds, CNN, northerners nor crazed young men from Ohio should be marching in to force Southerners to keep these dang things up.
I suspect that may be the reason why the local police herded the protesters from both sides together. The plan was to let the outsiders, otherwise known as yankees, from both sides bust each other up and then the police could finish the job in the name of breaking things up. Unfortunately, things didn’t go to plan.
Before the narrative about James Fields, the Charlottesville killer, goes further I would mention that he is really a Kentucky person and not an Ohio person. He moved to Ohio about six months ago and grew up and went to a high school in Boone County Kentucky, where his Nazi beliefs were very evident. See http://reason.com/blog/2017/08/16/james-fields-former-classmates-speak-out
…..
Lucia Re: Woodrow Wilson. In a very small coincidence my high school history teacher told me what Wilson did to Black people. However, I never did detailed reading about it.
JD
Tom
I’d still prefer a voter referendum but realistically nobody cares about these things other than for culture war purposes.
Voter referenda are expensive. I’d be pissed at hell if someone wasted my taxpayer money that way. Decide. Risk getting voted out or not. Just like other much more important decisions.
Tucker Carlson: “We made the point that the sudden outrage over confederate icons isn’t entirely about slavery horrifying as slavery is. It’s also part of a larger effort on the left to discredit the founders of this country and the beliefs they enshrined in law. Once you believe that any figure in history who once owned slaves is inherently illegitimate and should be erased, it’s hard to take our founding documents very seriously.” https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/08/17/tucker_carlson_rips_bill_kristol_like_a_slot_machine_junkie_using_twitter_to_say_i_rationalized_slavery.html
.
I think he is right as to the real agenda.
Mike M,
I think Bill Kristol has become essentially irrelevant, which is a bit sad. I suspect the moment that defined him as such was publication of “the flight 93 election”, which specifically called establishment conservatives like Kristol little more than useful intellectual foils (and ineffective token opposition… like the Washington Generals vs the Harlem Globtrotters) for liberal Democrats’ endless quest for ‘social progress’ (AKA subversion of the Constitution and individual liberties in pursuit of ‘social and economic justice’).
.
Kristol may be only 64 years old, but he looks, acts, and thinks (to the extent we can determine from his writing) like he is much older. I think his influence is near zero.
NPR publishes a curious puff piece today:
Between Swimming And S’mores, Young Muslim Campers Learn To Cope With Rising Hate http://www.npr.org/2017/08/17/544145281/between-swimming-and-smores-young-muslim-campers-learn-to-cope-with-rising-hosti
.
I guess Barcelona is learning to cope with hate as well, shall we ask those victims? I don’t wish ill upon any innocent people but if you are going saturation coverage on Charlottesville (125 stories at NPR this week) I do expect coverage of the Islamic terror attack to get a bit judgmental at some point for journalistic integrity.
.
“My father, he saw Islam as a force for good, equality, social justice and pursuing knowledge,”
.
Really, social justice? Come on, this is stretching things beyond the realm of fantasy. I’m not even talking terrorism but the attitudes of Muslims towards Jews and gays aren’t exactly shining examples of cosmopolitanism.
.
Pew 2011, % Favorable View Of Jews
Turkey – 4%
Egypt – 2%
Jordan – 2%
Lebanon – 3%
Palestine – 4%
Indonesia – 9%
Pakistan – 2%
.
That’s >700M people with unfavorable views of Jews.
.
Pew 2013: Should society accept homosexuality?
Pakistan – 2%
Indonesia – 3%
Egypt – 3%
Palestine – 4%
Turkey – 9%
Lebanon – 18%
.
Muslims in US – 52%
All of US – 63%
Republicans – 48%
.
Few Muslims like ISIS (< 10%).
Tom Scharf (Comment #164526): “Absent is journalistic outrage at wrongful treatment.”
Yeah. The final words of the NPR piece are “in this case, maybe it would be better to leave photo identification to the experts.” That implies that mobbing people is OK, as long as you are careful about the ID.
SteveF,
Isn’t Bill Kristol one of the gang who promoted Palin to McCain, who had never before heard of her?
Mike M.
It’s also part of a larger effort on the left to discredit the founders of this country
Robert E Lee and the rest of the confederate ‘heros’ were not founders of our country. Nor was Woodrow Wilson. Or even Andrew Jackson.
j ferguson,
I don’t know. I do know Palin was badly out of her depth when she ran for VP.
lucia: “Robert E Lee and the rest of the confederate ‘heros’ were not founders of our country. Nor was Woodrow Wilson. Or even Andrew Jackson.”
You don’t seem to have paid attention to how the left works these things. They start with Confederates. Next they move on to the likes of Jackson and Monroe. Then they will be ready for Madison and Jefferson. And finally Washington.
Tom,
“Few Muslims like ISIS.”
.
Shocking, since lots more than that think throwing gays from rooftops is perfectly OK…. which is one of the more outrageous things ISIS does. Maybe they just don’t like the negative publicity for Islam that ISIS generates with all the beheading videos.
By all means let’s judge historical figures not by the social standards they lived in, but by today’s social standards. But let’s make sure and isolate that newfound historical standard to those of our out group. It’s nice to know that we are the finest most morally superior people in the history of earth. Everyone else in history is a repugnant human being because Nazi! Slavery! Bigotry! Sexist! Homophobe! Eugenics! Poor dresser! Don’t fold their toilet paper! I’m feeling rather good about myself. Our social standards aren’t merely different, they are on the right side of history. To top it all off those ancients believed they were the morally superior ones in their day, what a laugher.
Mike M: “It’s also part of a larger effort on the left to discredit the founders of this country and the beliefs they enshrined in law. Once you believe that any figure in history who once owned slaves is inherently illegitimate and should be erased, it’s hard to take our founding documents very seriously.â€
….
I agree 100%. However, sometimes the Left will stumble on legitimate issues — for instance Confederate War Generals. I would also add that there is much that was not admirable about Andrew Jackson. For instance if the book Jacksonland is correct, it appears that Andrew Jackson had many flaws. A reviewer of the book stated that: “Jackson was a deeply flawed person who owned hundreds of slaves, executed American soldiers for desertion, and forcibly relocated many native American tribes from lands they had been promised in previous treaties and which they had inhabited for centuries.” See http://www.businessinsider.com/new-steve-inskeep-book-reveals-andrew-jacksons-flaws-2015-5
….
George Washington is the firewall against the Left’s attempts to delegitimaticize the US. He was an honorable figure who freed his slaves. (Of course, I realize that the Left will still try to destroy him) The world was a very different place in the latter part of the 18th century and people then shouldn’t be judged by the standards of today. On the other hand, if more details are revealed about historical figures, in some cases, those figures should be re-examined.
….
Getting back to Trump. If Trump had simply left out the both sides have issues narrative, he would be in a very strong place to call out the Left and remind it that the Islamic Terrorism in Spain should be explicitly denounced.
JD
SteveF,
Muslims don’t like ISIS now because they’re looking more like losers. If they’re losing, they can’t really be true believers. I’d be more interested in comparing to polls back when ISIS looked more like winners.
You don’t seem to have paid attention to how the left works these things.
Huh? Yes. I have paid attention to how “the left” works things. I’ve also paid attention to how “the right” works things. I’m the person who voted for Gary Johnson. So yes: I know.
Beyond that: given the context of your statement… Are you trying to suggest that friggin’ Robert E Lee or Woodrow Wilson were founders of our country?! Because if you are, you better support it with something other than, “The left. But the left… Oh. the left…!”
If “The left! Ohhh… the left! ” is the main argument for keeping the statues, seems to me there is no good argument for keeping them. If the city of Charlottesville VA wants them off city property, they should be off.
If someone wants to buy them and erect them somewhere else, they should approach the city and offer to buy them. My understanding is Trump is rich. He could buy them and create a park. Sounds like a fine solution to me.
lucia: “Are you trying to suggest that friggin’ Robert E Lee or Woodrow Wilson were founders of our country?!”
I never said that. I never said anything that could be reasonably interpreted as that. In fact, I very explicitly said something very different from that.
There’s a wonderful park in Budapest where they’ve collected a lot of the more florid communist era statuary. It’s called Memento Park. I couldn’t find a photo on the web that does it justice.
A parking lot of confederate generals sitting on horses could be pretty amazing. If it was not located too far from here, say less than 100 yards, I’d go see it.
Mike M
Perhaps not. But for some reason you injected this into a conversation about removing or retaining statues of confederate war heroes into the conversation:
It’s also part of a larger effort on the left to discredit the founders of this country
Given that you threw that in here, I think it’s important to point out: These confederate war generals, and various “heros” were absolutely not founders of our country. They have no connection to the founders. I think people trying to “save” these statues by pretending this has something to do with saving the founders is odd. In fact, I think it’s worse than odd.
I think it’s a wrong to try to “save” the statues of these confederates by pretending that arguments for keeping them bear any resemblance at all to arguments for keeping those of the founders. I find it rather shocking that someone who thinks highly of the founders would try to use their reputations and achievements to “save” a statue of Robert E. Lee.
J Ferguson — Architects
….
This is off topic of current discussion, but I think you might get a kick out of it. I was visiting Wuhan China and ran into the wife of an architect. I asked her what she and her husband thought of architectural work. She thought he worked too hard and wasn’t paid enough. She also said that the only way her husband’s firm could get paid decently was to work with a foreign firm. Apparently, the difficulties of architectural work are cross-cultural.
JD
j ferguson,
A parking lot of confederate generals sitting on horses could be pretty amazing. If it was not located too far from here, say less than 100 yards, I’d go see it.
If the statues were put up for auction, such a park could exist. Imagine 50 Robert E Lees all side by side? Could be awesome! Worth $2 admission for sure!
Seriously, if city councils and states don’t want them any more, that seems like a great possibility.
I’m starting to become a bit wary of our history as (re)written. It seems it is being reinterpreted a little too often, but it could be my imagination. I think I would like to see the account as described by newspapers at the time before I started swallowing increasingly critical views. If they start denigrating Reagan en masse I’m burning the library down. Of course it is valid sometimes, it was an eye opener to me to see who really did all the dying to defeat the Nazis in WWII (Soviets). It isn’t even close. If a war is going to be a sufferathon my money is on the Russians. http://www.rationalrevolution.net/images/wartwomilcas.gif
NYT profiles Antifa and reports them saying the stupid things they typically say. These aren’t anybody’s heroes. It will be unsurprising to see them kill someone soon enough.
Antifa’ Grows as Left-Wing Faction Set to, Literally, Fight the Far Right https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/us/antifa-left-wing-faction-far-right.html
Tom Scharf,
Remember at the beginning of WWII, Hitler and Stalin were allies. They divvied up Poland early on. Stalin was shocked when Hitler turned on him. The global communist propaganda mill had to do a complete about face. Now we’re supposed to believe that National Socialism was a right wing movement.
“Voter referenda are expensive. I’d be pissed at hell if someone wasted my taxpayer money that way.”
–
We are about to have a voluntary postal expensive referendum on gay sex marriage in Australia.
One of the complaints is your comment.
Another is that it might lead to hate acts and speech like happening at your end.
Personally I think that referenda on important controversial matters do clear the air in a way that elected persona with views they often did not put to the electorate voting does not.
–
A big shock when catholic Ireland voted it in recently and very cathartic.
Hopefully if and when it gets up it will show that most people realise the importance of trying to treat people equally where possible.
angech
We are about to have a voluntary postal expensive referendum on gay sex marriage in Australia.
One of the complaints is your comment.
At least gay marriage is a big decision, so the expense might be commensurate with the impact. Gay marriage is also not easily reversed without injecting serious disorder in people’s lives.
That level of expense for deciding whether to remove or install a statue in a park is ridiculous. Right now, most of those statues are warehoused. That means if people really don’t like the administration and they can vote them out. The next administration can put the statue back. The entirely thing would have little effect on people’s lives.
Even if the statue were sold off (which would me my preference to avoid costs of housing the things) the next administration could commission and install a new one– possible at less cost than running a referendum.
We have representative government for a number of good reasons. One of them is to not spend jillions on every piddly little administrative decision. The cost of referendum can be worth it if the decision is important enough. The decision to remove a statue isn’t up there. I bet there was no referendum to install it precisely because this isn’t the sort of thing that merits a referendum.
Lucia,
These confederate war generals, and various “heros†were absolutely not founders of our country. They have no connection to the founders.
Yes. They are certainly not the founders of our country.
The way I have heard the argument introducing founding father monuments into this issue presented goes like this:
1. The Confederate monuments are symbols of racism because the Confederacy ‘championed’ slavery. Or ‘stood for’ slavery. Or however exactly one wants to put it, different people put it differently I think.
2. We have monuments of others, founding fathers, who owned slaves.
3. Therefore it is inconsistent to insist on taking down the Confederate monuments when we leave the founding father monuments up.
.
For my part, I am not particularly impressed by this argument. I think for example one can make a case without much trouble that the Confederacy had a lot more to do with slavery than the founding fathers did, or that the Confederacy is a bigger symbol of slavery than the founding fathers. I think there’s some knocking over of straw men going on here; if somebody has said that any statue of anybody who owned slaves needs to be taken down, I’m not aware of it.
. shrug
.
[Edit: However, Angela Rye of CNN has just disabused me. It’s not a straw man, she’s actually made exactly this argument. here.
I should fact check better before I post. When will I learn…]
angech,
What is a “postal expensive referendum”? Do you mean a referendum done by mail, which is also expensive? Or does that (sarcastically) mean the referendum done by mail is not expensive?
.
Some policy questions can be reasonably answered via referenda, but not all. (A city wide plebiscite on statues in a park? Sure. A nation-wide plebiscite of Federal tax laws? No.) Too often the result of a referendum can be foolish public policy of very questionable constitutionality, or even blatantly unconstitutional. Referenda can lead to the tyranny of the 50%+1 majority. The structure of the US Federal government exists to avoid that specific type of tyanny.
mark bofill,
I have been hearing the “constitution is immoral because it was written by a bunch of old white slave owners” since I was in college, and that was a while ago. The argument is regularly raised by people on the left, and seems to be sincerely believed. Note here that the principles of self governance embodied in the constitution are what they are complaining about. The left rejects the legitimacy of the self governing nation state, and has since Marx and Engels. This is not going to change. And leftist on the Supreme Court will continue to subvert the Constition via Orwellian ‘interpretation’.
mark bofill,
Another big distinction: The founders statues aren’t up there because they fought to maintain slavery. They are honored for other reasons– founding the country.
It’s true the funding fathers weren’t perfect. Few claimed they were.
I really can’t see any danger to statues of the founding fathers except that those trying to “save” the confederate statues are trying to suggest some level of parity in order to elevate the historical importance of all these confederate statues. In otherwords: I see more danger in people like Mike M bringing up the founders in these arguments than in the stray lefty who criticizes the founders.
SteveF,
Yep. I’ve heard people criticize the founders for slave owning. Whether the statues are up or down isn’t going to change this– it’s been going on pretty much forever.
The founders weren’t perfect. I think it’s fine to acknowledge that. Some did own slaves. Some didn’t. Some freed their slaves; some didn’t. I don’t expect the Jefferson monument to come down any time soon.
Lucia,
I think the ‘friction’ is that the Constitution does not directly address nor prohibit slavery, even while the plain words of the Constitution appear inconsistent with the existance of slavey. That friction was the result of a political compromise between Northern states opposed to slavery on moral grounds, and Southern states where slavery was crucial for maintaining trade in cotton and tobacco. The common desire for liberty from the King and Parliament was stronger than the disagreement about slavery, but within “four score” that friction was enough to cause the Civil War. Could the Civil War have been avoided? I don’t know. But I very much doubt the United States could have come into existance unless the states had agreeded to disagree on slavery in the late 18th century.
SteveF,
Thanks. I agree with you (I find I generally do) except that I’d prefer to qualify what I mean by ‘the Left’. I don’t actually know exactly who I’m talking about, in fact. Some on the left, perhaps. Totalitarians on the left, I speculate. Not sure but I’m working on it. In fact, so as not to clutter by reiterating this constantly I’m calling this my boilerplate standard disclaimer #1; this is my default qualification when I talk about ‘some on the left’.
.
Lucia,
Agreed.
SteveF (Comment #164551)
What is a “postal expensive referendum�
–
It’s complicated.
A bit like your Democrat obstruction in the Senate.
One lot was elected promising a referendum, compulsory voting.
The other lot blocked it claiming it would hurt feelings.
The alternative to an expensive [100 mill dollars] referendum was a free postal ballot [still 100 mill] of those who wished to respond.
Funny but the people with “hurt” feelings who were going to abstain now actually want to vote.
–
As I stated Australian people do actually value individual freedom of choice so it should get up on this basis.
SteveF,
Yes. Slavery was a compromise. Many new it was a deferred argument. I also don’t know if civil war could have been avoided. I think it would have been difficult to avoid.
The US definitely would not have come into existence if the compromise had not been made.
mark bofill
‘some on the left’.
I’m pretty sure your “some” includes Antifa. Most on the left are not members of Antifa.
angech
Funny but the people with “hurt†feelings who were going to abstain now actually want to vote.
Not too surprising– and I don’t even know which side they were on. I can’t decide which is more probable. The ones who were going to have “hurt feelings” were
1) People who wanted representatives to vote thinking they’d get SSM put in place more easily by having representatives vote or
2) People who wanted to prevent any vote at all thinking they’d block SSM by coming up for lots of reasons to defer action, possibly forever.
Both are strategies that can work. Democracy can be contentious so both get used. I don’t really object to maneuvering– but I know it when I see it!
WRT to the “statues” issue: My guess is the call for a ‘referendum’ for a very low level decision that is well within the remit of a city council falls in category (2). The import of the decision over art work in city parks is clearly not sufficient to call for a referendum. It’s highly unlikely anyone thought it was that important when the statue was first erected and equally unlikely referenda have been called in the past for things like deciding how to decorate or use the park. People who want to block a decision about something to do with the park are asking for something very expensive and rather extraordinary.
Many governments even have things in place to determine when a referendum is called and when the decision lies with a body like a city coundil, state legislature and so on. (Often those things are called “the state constitution” or something like that.)
So my guess: People who don’t want the statues taken down are suggesting the referendum be called precisely because they know it’s ridiculously expensive. So no one will have the referendum and then the statue will remain in place.
In fact, I’d hazard a guess that some of the people may want suggest a state wide referendum for a city decision. A state wide referendum would run counter to the system in place which gives cities some autonomy that can’t be taken away. It amplify the cost. Those calling such a referendum would include a mix of people who don’t have a clue how our system of government works and others who do know but are willing to take advantage of confusion to get what they want using a strategy they think will make them sound “reasonable”.
lucia: “are trying to suggest some level of parity in order to elevate the historical importance of all these confederate statues.”
I have not seen any such argument from anyone opposed to taking down the monuments.
The objection is to sending history down the memory hole. People in Charlottesville did not wake up one day and decide they didn’t want the Lee statue. They came to that conclusion as a result of some people putting a lot of time and effort into convincing them. Why invest so much into something that no one cared about? Because there is an ulterior motive. That motive is to get us used to sending history down the memory hole. The reason for that is that it is useful to totalitarians.
.
Here is an apparently liberal, black scholar arguing that the statues should remain up: https://fabiusmaximus.com/2017/08/18/why-we-need-confederate-monuments/
Stephens: “Our incessant focus on memory holing history is idiotic and ridiculous. Why is it that we put more time into complaining about statues and flags than our kids killing each other on the streets of Chicago, Baltimore, New Orleans or Memphis every day? Why do we spend more energy on superficial actions when we can go around to any government public school and find more than half of the kids not proficient in ANY subject on grade level? Now these are worth attention, but nope, not sexy or dramatic enough (Deray trained yawl hypocrites well).”
Kumar: “Revolutionaries like to destroy our past because it makes us weak and more easily manipulated. Spitting on the dead is a fun easy way to the arouse emotions of mobs, making them feel virtuous. First direct them at easy targets like monuments, than at their political foes. For good reason the Founders saw mobs and factionalism as the chief enemies of the Republic. We might soon learn why.”
MikeM
The objection is to sending history down the memory hole.
Removing statues from parks does not send history down a memory hole.
eople in Charlottesville did not wake up one day and decide they didn’t want the Lee statue.
Presumably it happened over a decent span of time. That’s exactly the same as all sorts of decisions. So I don’t see this as a reason that someone not for Charlottesville should be able to decree that those in Charlottesville don’t have the right to elect who they want nor for their elected officials to decide what to do with their park.
They came to that conclusion as a result of some people putting a lot of time and effort into convincing them.
Oh. Heavens. Political campainging, ads and so on are routine in this country. It’s called “freedom of speech”. As far as I can tell, no one has hypnotized people of Charlottesville into acting against their own will. At most someone persuaded those in Charlottesville using arguments. That’s totally fine with me.
Why invest so much into something that no one cared about? Because there is an ulterior motive.
Are you asking why the protestors came to protest? I’m guessing you are not. But I agree with you they may have an ulterior motive. I don’t think they are just a bunch of art lovers nor do I think they are just people concerned about “history”.
Here is an apparently liberal, black scholar arguing that the statues should remain up:
Sure. Some people want them up. They get to express their view.
Our normal procedure remains let the people in Charlottesville make decisions about their parks. I’m really not understanding why you seem to object letting democracy take its course on the decision about this stupid statue you think no one cares about.
Why is it that we put more time into complaining about statues and flags than our kids killing each other on the streets of Chicago, Baltimore, New Orleans or Memphis every day?
The answer to this scholar’s rhetorical is we don’t. In fact, we spend plenty of time talking about kids killing each other on the streets of Chicago. And if the stupid idiot protestors hadn’t gone to Charlottesville to promote attention to the rather mundane decision to remove a statue, decided to do “ZeigHeil” salutes and one of them hadn’t decided to run his car into a group of people killing them, we’d still be talking about killings in Chicago instead of being distracted by this story about the stupid statue the city of Charlottesville decided to take down.
Hi Lucia,
There something really comical about the R. E. Lee and Horse statuary parking lot. What if it turns out that dozens of these things are identical and their owners thought they were getting original art? And Lee wouldn’t be the only one. There would be dozens of other stars from those times. I don’t know who recognized the “trash heap of history” but maybe this is a physical opportunity to have one.
In the ’60s when the Washington Cathedral was still under construction there was a fenced in area containing dozens of the limestone gargoyles and grotesques (look like gargoyles but no plumbing function). The stone carvers had gotten ahead of the erectors. I thought the scene was immensely funny.
I suggest that those who think that we are trying to erase elements of our history by removing confederate statuary consider whether erecting statues of Rudolf Hess, Goebbels, Ribbentrop, or Goering would contribute to our appreciation of history.
The right controls enough states that they could almost call a constitutional convention on their own. The possibility of the left changing the constitution under the current rules are zero for at least the next few decades. Their city centric strategy does not allow this. I am very thankful that document has stood the test of time, there are a lot of wackos out there who believe they can make a better society if only they had control.
When I was referring to a voter referendum I meant putting it on the ballot in the next general election so the costs wouldn’t be that high. I might have used the wrong term. The issue isn’t important enough to me for this but it seems to be quite important to others.
Most on the left are not members of Antifa.
.
A point worth remembering. Lots of emotions swirling around, but ( hopefully ) most remain sane.
.
However, antifa does achieve sympathy, especially after something like Charlottesville. Antifa cynically gains the most from the tragic death. Even Andrew Ross Sorkin on CNBC asked something like: `Nazis bad, how could those opposed to fascism, as antifa‘s name claims it is, be bad?`. It doesn’t take much thinking to understand that antifa is bad also, which is more or less what Trump said.
.
Most of those on the left are not members of antifa but evidently many are giving antifa a pass or even encouraging them. They evidently gave a pass to the DNC for staging violence at Trump rallies during the campaign. Given that the left also tolerates George Soros funding both antifa and the Trump campaign bum fights, they are guilty.
.
Now, Trump, and Trump supporters may be guilty also. The DNC abandoned the white working class during the Obama campaigns. Trump’s rhetoric may indeed be designed to appeal to racial identity. The uninspired black vote did not turn out while the Trump rabble roused white working class vote did.
.
All this is pretty disgusting to those who have or think they have an ideological basis for their party affiliation. Trump was never a ‘conservative’ or ‘rightist’ and the ‘alt-Right’ isn’t about the role or extent of government. Similarly, if antifa[sic], is the ‘alt-Left’, they don’t really have a clue about how the world works or even the fascism that’s in their name. Those rabble rousing in the streets have about street level mentality.
.
Another interesting aspect to this to me is Soros. His father was a Jewish turncoat in Nazi Germany? On one hand, one could imagine this instilled a lot of residual guilt, which would lead him to somehow try to make restitution by actually being anti-fascist. On the other hand, agent provocateurs manipulating the masses and using violence and threats is very fascist.
j ferguson,
What if it turns out that dozens of these things are identical and their owners thought they were getting original art?
I would be very surprised if a lot of them weren’t mass produced. I seriously doubt that the purchasers of copies weren’t aware that they were copies.
lucia,
It is sending it down a memory hole. Go visit Germany. Good look finding any remnants of WWII, it is illegal to sell or pretty much talk about that stuff and they have removed almost every vestige of that time period. The irony is they claim their attitude is “never forget” when their actions are “forget ASAP”. We have done the same thing with Indians here in the US, there is almost no indication they ever existed beyond casinos. Movements to ban teams from using Indian names for “cultural appropriation” removes it even further. Cowboy and Indian movies? Gone. Gunsmoke? Gone. When’s the last time you saw a kid dressed up as an Indian? We played cowboys and Indians when I was a kid. A lot of this was stereotyping but it at least acknowledged the time period and what happened.
.
What gets me is this certainty people have that future people aren’t going to look back on their own generation with “shame”. Divisive identity politics may not stand future scrutiny very well.
I would guess a large percentage of wealthy people owned slaves during the time period. It was accepted. How many you owned was probably a status symbol. We draw a very bright line with slavery but pretend low cost “guest workers” are perfectly OK. We are perfectly happy to buy cheap crap built in sweat shops overseas. Lots of these factories have dormitories so the workers live there full time and they end up sending all their money back to their family in a village. This isn’t very far from slavery.
.
If a much wealthier future generation looks back and asks “how could you allow that to happen?” the answer will effectively be “it’s just the way it was”. It’s an imperfect world, we should keep grinding to make it better, and spend less time sneering at our forebearers.
“consider whether erecting statues of Rudolf Hess, Goebbels, Ribbentrop, or Goering would contribute to our appreciation of history”
.
This is only a function of who won the war. These statues would very likely exist and be seen as honorable if the Germans would have perfected the nuclear weapon before they were defeated. Do you think there would be statues of Churchill if the Germans won?
As the old saying goes, history is always written by the winners.
Tm Scharf,
But weren’t the R.E. Lee statues erected by the losers? Obviously what statues are erected has nothing to do with winning or losing.
Hi DeWitt,
Maybe there was a Confederate Statuary Catalog. It would have had a checklist for use in ordering up this sort of thing. Name, mounted or unmounted, size (percentage of life-size), how many of horse’s hoofs are on ground, with pistol, drawn or undrawn, flag, sword, sword overhead, or pointing earthward, flag, etc.
1 NYT Op-Edit On Barcelona Word Count:
Islam – 0
Muslim – 0
.
3 NYT Op-Eds on following day after Charlottesville
White supremacist/nationalist/bigot
#1 – 7 times
#2 – 12 times
#3 – 10 times
.
It’s becoming propaganda. There has also been several instances (SF) of cities refusing to release security camera video of group robberies to the media because they don’t want to stereotype or stigmatize certain groups. http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/07/09/bart-withholding-surveillance-videos-of-crime-to-avoid-stereotypes/
.
“To release these videos would create a high level of racially insensitive commentary toward the district,†she was told. “And in addition it would create a racial bias in the riders against minorities on the trains.â€
Tom Scharf
The issue isn’t important enough to me for this but it seems to be quite important to others.
If it’s important enough to someone in Charlottesville, I have no problem with them looking up the rules for getting a referendum on the ballot and trying to place it there. I haven’t heard any rumors that anyone relevant is trying to do this.
If I were a voter in Charlottesville, I would be against this.
….
This is an issue that should be put behind us. I would personally favor the retention of Union and Confederate monuments at Gettysburg in recognition of the huge loss of life, but if others disagree my opinion is not strongly held.
JD
Tom Scharf
Go visit Germany. Good look finding any remnants of WWII,
I’m pretty sure Germans (a) know WWII was fought, (b) know which side they fought and and against whom the fought, (c) know who the Nazi’s were, (d) know who Hitler was and so on. They don’t need a statue of Hitler to remind them. So it seems to me your example proves that taking down statues does not put the history down a memory hole.
We aren’t going to forget the Civil War was fought for lack of statues of Robert E. Lee in various dignified or heroic poses.
We have done the same thing with Indians here in the US, there is almost no indication they ever existed beyond casinos.
I’d suggest you are wrong about there being no indications that Native Americans exists. There reservations themselves. We stopped by the Umatilla reservation in WA state. Umatilla weren’t doing much at the time, but it’s still theirs. The continued presence of these reservations would seem to indicate the Native Americans still exit. In Illinois, we have Starved Rock Park. We’ve also got the Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site. Heck, in the Netflix series Longmire, there are American Indians living on a reservation.
When’s the last time you saw a kid dressed up as an Indian?
What do you mean “dressed up as an Indian”? I guess I’ll answer your presumably rhetorical Q with this one: When was the last time you saw a kid dressed up Pilgrim? Because the only times I remember people dressing up as either is for kids play acting out the Thanksgiving story.
Even if “only shown in reruns” means gone, I’m mystified that someone would think that show being gone was a symptom that history is going down a rabbithole. MASH is probably equally “gone” but I don’t think people have forgotten the Korean War. Lots of tv shows are “gone”, for example “Seinfeld”. Lost in Space is probably closer to “gone”. Shows get stale.
We played cowboys and Indians when I was a kid.
We played hopscotch and jacks. I’m not seeing a lot of either any more. I don’t conclude that means history has gone down a memory hole.
Divisive identity politics may not stand future scrutiny very well.
Likely not.
I only hope that we’ll still allow elected city official do things like choose whether to install or remove a statue from their park. It would be a shame if fear of demonstrations by white nationalists made elected officials too afraid to remove statues for fear of angering divisive white nationalists.
J ferguson
Name, mounted or unmounted, size (percentage of life-size), how many of horse’s hoofs are on ground, with pistol, drawn or undrawn, flag, sword, sword overhead, or pointing earthward, flag, etc.
that would be a fun way to organize the park:
(1) No horse, Lee standing.
(2) No horse, Lee seated.
(3) Horse, all four legs on ground
And so on.
Perhaps someone who wants to preserve these historical statues can start an Indie-Go-Go campaign to acquire the land and the statues.
JD Ohio,
I would personally favor the retention of Union and Confederate monuments at Gettysburg in recognition of the huge loss of life,
I’d be for keeping those for pretty much the same reason. Recognition of huge historic battles is historically important. Mentioning both sides is required.
Gettysburg was important as a battle and also as the site where the Gettysburg address was read.
I’m not aware of anyone wanting to get rid of monuments there though I wouldn’t be surprised if someone can’t find a person somewhere who has called for it. Lots of people say lots of things. We have freedom of speech, which is a good thing.
If you want to see people playing cowboys, outlaws and Indians, go to Tweetsie Railroad, a western theme park with a coal-fired steam engine driven train, near Blowing Rock, NC. I think they sell more cap guns there than the rest of the US combined.
Guardian reports the suspect in the Barcelona attack said this on social media:
.
“Asked what he would do on his first day if he became absolute ruler of the world, he replied: “Kill the unbelievers and leave only Muslims who follow their religion.†Asked in which country he would never contemplate living, he answered: “The Vatican.â€
. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/18/accidental-blast-thwarts-huge-bomb-attack-by-spain-terror-cell
.
Some Spanish Rambo cop personally gunned down 4 of 5 terrorist suspects.
Clint Eastwood – The Good, The Bad, The Ugly. Real Cowboy. He also directed Unforgiven which was also excellent.
Tom Scharf,
“It is sending it down a memory hole. Go visit Germany. Good look finding any remnants of WWII, it is illegal to sell or pretty much talk about that stuff and they have removed almost every vestige of that time period.”
.
The slate is now clean. About 18 years ago we had a German exchange student live with us for a year; she was 17 when she arrived and 18 when she returned. One time I happened to be watching a history program on TV, having to do with WWII, and on the program there was a clip of Adolf Hitler addressing a huge crowd (with the typical shouting of ‘Heil Hitler!’, of course). When she heard this clip on the TV, her eyes got very big, and she exclaimed “I can actually understand what he is saying!”. She had NEVER in her life seen a film of Hitler, nor heard a recording of his voice. She actually had no idea that her German and Hitler’s were one in the same…. almost as if she thought Hitler was something other than a native German speaker. I did not insist on further discussion, but I very much doubt that she understood anything of substance about WWII, the Holocaust, the pursuit of “a pure Aryan race”, etc. I was astounded; for her, it was as if it all never happened.
Tom Scharf:
1 NYT Op-Edit On Barcelona Word Count:
.
3 NYT Op-Eds on following day after Charlottesville
.
It’s becoming propaganda.
Tom,
The thing is, there isn’t much to have an “opinion” on. Nobody notable is arguing publicly about whether there were “good people” among the Barcelona attackers, or that there were free speech issues at stake, or that the attackers are being either unfairly maligned or undeservedly supported by public officials.
There are several articles on the news pages about the Barcelona attack.
oliver,
I think you mean “fine” people. 😉
😉
oliver,
You are missing the point. The media isn’t isolating their criticism on just one misguided “car guy”, they have thrown their blanket of condemnation over any group that has a whiff of white supremacy or white nationalism in their opinion as if they drove the car themselves. They are horribly inconsistent when it comes to their in-group Muslims. This was a perfect test case for media consistency and it was an utter fail. Here we have a coordinated group of Muslims with a terror event a magnitude larger. Just the proven facts on the Barcelona attack, film at 11, now back to drawing Trump with a Klan hood on and pretending half his supporters are the Aryan nation about to invade Austria.
.
With the Dallas shooter and several ISIS killers they go out of their way to exonerate peaceful BLM members and Muslims (as I think they should). If the violence is right wing then the culture war knives come out.
.
This is really just business as usual, but these are professional media people who supposedly take their job seriously. Only 14% of Republicans trust the media, this is why. Perhaps 86% of Republicans are delusional and don’t have critical thinking ability, but my guess is there is truly a there there. Possibly I am just too biased in my own view, but the media bias has become blatant and shamelessly transparent.
Tom,
Perhaps the media would tell you that you are drawing a false moral equivalence between white nationalists and Muslims. I’m not actually joking or expressing sarcasm.
Tom,
You really are lacking some perpective on when concluding coverage is somehow unbalanced. There are lots of reasons the attacks in Charlottesville are getting more coverage. Attacks in the US are going to get more coverage. Attacks organized to get protest are likely to get more coverage. Death’s in context of a situation with lenghy back story are going to get more coverage. ( The brouhaha over the statue has been going on for years. There has been a court case to block the cities decision, yada, yada, yada.)
The Antifa riots got lots of coverage too. So did Ferguson.
The fact is *I* care more about attacks, deaths and riots in Charlottesville than in Barcelona. I don’t care WHO the perpetrators are. So do lots of Americans. That’s why our news covers these more.
I should add: I don’t think the media is blaming everyone on the right here. These kooks in Charlottesville were definitely Nazi-wannabees. Most of the right is not Nazi wannabees just like most of the left is not ANTIFA.
I heard a comment on the radio. At the time of the Civil War, the people cared more about their State government than their Federal government. We know the Federal government hardly existed then compared to now. I recall something some Minnesota Regiment that did something at Gettysburg.
This is my State. Now the Federal government that never did much for us is going to tell us what to do. So as we defend our state, we have our leaders. Not too much unlike fighting the Redcoats, semantics aside.
As the shooting started in a battle, were the Southern soldiers fighting the Blacks or the Northerners?
The Northern Generals. Responsible for many war time atrocities? There are shades of gray all over the place. Clear answers and solutions backed by a lot of confidence and calls for immediate action simplify too much.
Well I hope a 170 stories on NPR in the past 7 days that mention Charlottesville is adequate to inform people (Barcelona = 22). This is a narrative the left likes so it goes into saturation coverage. It’s just disproportional to an extent of irrationality. If furniture is more dangerous than terrorism, it’s way way more dangerous than white supremacists.
.
Consider how many white supremacists there really are. The KKK supposedly has about 3,000 (Wikipedia) to 6,000 (SPLC) members, several hundred who showed up last week. Maybe all the other nutty off shoots and Europe have some more, so let’s call it 10,000.
.
Google:
“white supremacist” charlottesville – 944,000 news hits (note: google counts are a bit screwy)
.
So we have 94 news hits for every single member.
.
These guys aren’t a threat, one member has killed someone I know about, but lets say they have 10 legitimate killers. We have 94,000 news hits for every serious militant member.
.
For reference, ISIS = 16,000,000 news hits, 30,000 fighters = 533 news hits per soldier.
.
94,000 / 533 = 176x
.
The media is covering white supremacists at a rate of about 176x more than ISIS if you gauge it by ready to kill soldiers. But, but, but, this and that. Let’s just call it 10x. I don’t think white supremacists are 10x more dangerous than ISIS.
.
The media never made a promise they would cover things proportionally, and they will pander to their audience (Trump KKK = 836,000 news hits). But are they reporting the news here or inventing it? News + Twitter = Herd mentality. For example, how quickly and forcefully a denouncement is made seems to be a Trump/Charlottesville only standard.
.
I promise I will now drop the subject, unless I don’t.
Boston had a (mostly) peaceful free speech rally / counter-protest today. Best sign.
Ragnar
We know the Federal government hardly existed then compared to now
It was hard to grow the Fed gov before the income tax. . . which was passed during the Woodrow Wilson administration. You know. The guy whose statues we are supposed to worry might come down.
HaroldW,
Evidently some counter protestors were arrested in Boston. I think, among other things, they were throwing bottles filled with pee at the police.
Boston Police Dept. tweeted: “#BPD is asking individuals to refrain from throwing urine, bottles and other harmful projectiles at our officers.”
Do people really need to be told that this behavior is out of line?
Sorry, that’s rhetorical. My answer: adults don’t.
Lucia,
“The guy whose statues we are supposed to worry might come down.”
.
I don’t worry about Wilson’s statues comming down; he was in fact a racist, but more importantly, dedicated his presidency to doing things harmful to the country… arguably the first ‘progressive’ president. In my opinion, Wison was on balance a strong negative influence. However, I do worry a bit about declaring any historical figure unworthy of being remembered, and their positive contributions discounted completely. I do worry about the tendency of totalitarians everywhere to re-write history… or simply erase it… for political expediency and consolidation of power by limiting what people can know and believe. The issue is closely related to efforts to limit what people can say, which sadly, have been remarkably successful, even in many democracies in Europe, where the only ‘hate speech’ allowed is that which is motivated by hatred of personal liberty.
SteveF
The issue is closely related to efforts to limit what people can say, which sadly, have been remarkably successful, even in many democracies in Europe, where the only ‘hate speech’ allowed is that which is motivated by hatred of personal liberty.
Sure. But saying they can’t come down is also forcing people to speak. In the case of the statue in Charlottesville, the city council voted to take it down.
The problem with public statues is that they do represent the community saying something. Obviously, some members of the community don’t want to be saying that thing, so they will ask that not be “said”. Since the way it is said is by displaying a statue, the only to not say it is to take the statue down. In some cases, the community will decide to take it down. That’s fine with me.
So: I’m not upset if some group decides to take down a statue. I’m no more upset about it than I would be upset if a private person bought an estate that included a statue and decided to take their private statue down.
Now: I would be against a federal or state law that barred for either putting up, taking down or continuuing to display any particular type of statue. But as far as I am aware no one has passed a law saying Woodrow Wilson or Confederate statues can’t be erected or displayed.
So our current state is as it should be: We all get to discuss and decide whether we want to erect these statues or take them down. We get to demonstrate to express our opinions.
What we don’t get to do is run people down with cars, destroy property, throw bottles of piss at police in the process of demonstrating to express our opinion. That’s wrong.
On the erasing: Of course history should continue to be taught. That doesn’t mean we need any particular statue. We’ve got plenty of civil war movies. We also have plenty of federal monuments and so on. I don’t think we’re going to forget it happened.
BTW: I am surprised the German girl hadn’t seen and heard the famous clip of Hitler speaking. That clip is shown so often in the US. Of course, it’s not a statue. My understanding is Germany has gone about over-the-top with Nazi stuff and supression of discussion. No hate speech codes.. right? That’s bad.
HaroldW,
Yes. Of course the people throwing piss and rocks at officers knew perfectly well it wasn’t allowed.
It’s was a bit puzzling. It seems the crowd consisted mostly of counter protestors. My guess is they had arrived hoping to throw rocks and piss at Nazis. There weren’t any there, so they used all their pent up energy to throw the rocks and piss at the Police.
I think something like two or three dozen were arrested.
Here’s the Boston Police Commisioner sounding very Bostonian
This is local Boston coverage
Lucia,
“I would be against a federal or state law that barred for either putting up, taking down or continuuing to display any particular type of statue.”
.
How about a City ordinance against the display, anywhere visible to the public, of a statue of any person who ever held slaves? It is a serious question… where do you (Lucia) draw the line? If someone wants a statue of Adolf Hitler or Joe Stalin in their yard, do you think a local ordinance should be able to block that?
Lucia,
“This is local Boston coverage”
.
I sure hope the crazies don’t tie up traffic the next time I need to get to the airport.
SteveF
Yeah. But that’s not what happened in Charlottesville.
Lucia,
No, not exactly what happened in Charlottsville, but I see it as the next logical step.
SteveF
How about a City ordinance against the display, anywhere visible to the public, of a statue of any person who ever held slaves?
I’d be against such a law. I also suspect it would violate the 1st amendment. It’s not a content neutral. People are allowed to display things. I should be able to put statues in of a slaveholder in my yard. I don’t happen to want to do so.
If a neighbor put one up, I might need to erect a statue of Harriet Tubman or something. Maybe I’d have it be similar to the one featured in the movie “Butter”.
If someone wants a statue of Adolf Hitler or Joe Stalin in their yard, do you think a local ordinance should block that?
I think people should be allowed to erect the Hitler or Stalin statues in their yard provided it meets any content neutral requirements. (When I was a kid a guy who owned a lumber yard wanted to put up a huge statue that violated height requirements. He did put lots of stuff up but there were long discussions about code: http://www.roadsideamerica.com/tip/5952 )
Obviously, other people will form opinions about the family with the Hitler or Stalin statue in their yard. There will also be a heightened risk of vadalism relative to other statues– for which perpetrators should be arrested. The risk will exist nonetheless.
With respect to individuals, my lines are “No laws prohibiting free speech by individuals. No laws forcing individuals to make unwelcome speech.”
SteveF,
Large protest crowds have blocked traffic and interfered with pedestrians trying to move. That’s wrong too.
It doesn’t happen to be what happened in Charlottesville. A kook just decided to run people over.
Mom taught in Gurnee. We saw this statue all the time.
Lucia,
“A kook just decided to run people over.”
.
Sure, and a bunch of other kooks arrived carrying clubs and baseball bats, prepared to assalt those who they disagree with politically. And with containers of piss. There was an awful lot of “you’re not allowed to say that” going on, and I think the news coverage has been shameful to not point this out. To their credit, the ACLU stood up for free speech. The news reports? Not so much. In fact, almost not at all.
Yes. There were kooks on both sides. Neither one excuses the other. I just want to be sure people have facts right. Earlier in the year there were kooks who blocked traffic and endangered people in cars. I think some were even rocking cars back and forth. In that instance, one might have excused the driver plowing into people who were attackers.
But in this instance, there was a crows and cars. But the crows was not attacking the car. It slowed them just like a traffic jam would. The guy just decided to plow into people. Here’s the drone view.
I’m not sure if there was piss in Charlottesville. The police in Boston did a good job not allowing things like clubs and bats. They evidently didn’t allow flag pole either– nothing that could be used as a club.
Lucia,
I would be against a federal or state law that barred for either putting up, taking down or continuuing to display any particular type of statue. But as far as I am aware no one has passed a law saying Woodrow Wilson or Confederate statues can’t be erected or displayed.
The law — directed at local governments — bars the removal, renaming, removal and alteration of monuments, memorial streets, memorial buildings and architecturally significant buildings located on public property for 40 or more years.
.
wrt Boston: yes, police were very good at keeping the groups separate. I still don’t see the “free speech = hate” connection, but then that may just be me.
.
“Onan man”…I’m glad you included a link. I thought it might be the Biblical Onan, and was quite puzzled that someone would want to erect a statue. I was imagining something like the Brussels statue.
Harold,
There isn’t any connection between free-speech and hate. I think many of the counterprotestors just assumed the free-speech group was the same as or affiliated with the group in Charlottesville. The one in Charlottesville did have people in Nazi uniforms, carrying Nazi flags and so on. This one did not.
The fact is in politics– and on both sides– people use rhetoric. And the Nazi-wannabees do often dress up some of their rhetoric with things like “free-speech”. Then they also add in other stuff– like “kill jews” or carry swastikas.
The Antifa side on the other hand, wants to say they are “anti-fascist”. But really, they are “anti-anything-not-far-left”. And that includes being anti-free speech.
There are lots of people between these two extremes. The smallish free-speech group who had a permit a are free speech people. They did not include a contingent of people wearing Nazi uniforms or carrying Swastikas.
marc bofill,
I’m against such a law. I think cities and communities should be allowed to take things down just as they are allowed to put things up.
Heck, I’m pretty dubious of many of the “historic” listings especially when the impede the ability of owners to modify their property. It doesn’t bother me too much if the current owner inflicts it on themselves, but sometimes it gets inflicted by non-owners on owners. I think that’s not right.
Lucia,
.
Yes. After thinking it through I’m against it too. I sort of scratched my head earlier on this thread looking for examples of totalitarianism on the right that didn’t involve anyones sex life; this may be such an example.
.
It may be that I show totalitarians on the right too much tolerance under the justification that ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’. It’s not necessarily so; the enemy of my enemy might just be my other enemy that hasn’t gotten around to fighting with me yet. shrug.
Thanks Lucia.
lucia:
There isn’t any connection between free-speech and hate. I think many of the counterprotestors just assumed the free-speech group was the same as or affiliated with the group in Charlottesville. The one in Charlottesville did have people in Nazi uniforms, carrying Nazi flags and so on. This one did not.
lucia, Harold,
The connections were between “Free Speech” — the rally, not the issue — and some people also affiliated with the Charlottesville rally. The organizers had previously held a rally on Boston Common in May of this year, and the connections weren’t any big secret then.
Oliver: Thanks for the menion of the May event. Local radio station WBUR mentioned the other event: “In response [to Charlottesville], Boston Free Speech, the group behind both rallies, has announced hurried adjustments to Saturday’s schedule. It has cancelled a planned march, the program has been shortened by several hours, and three of the four most controversial headliners — including Invictus, who was also present at the Charlottesville rally — have dropped out.”
WBUR also mentions that “The organizers who first planned that protest [the “counter-protest”] were responding to the violence in Charlottesville, and weren’t aware at first that the free speech rally was due to happen at the same time.”
On second thought, I don’t know. I go back and forth on it. I think it’s possible (in fact, not unlikely) the only reason the ” the Alabama Memorial Preservation Act of 2017.” was passed in the first place was in response to this movement to tear down Confederate monuments under the premise that they are racist. I wonder what is really behind this movement. My thinking so far is that most people really don’t give a darn one way or another about monuments; tearing them down or protesting about them is a vehicle for something else. What, exactly? If I understood would I support Alabama Memorial Preservation Act? I don’t know the answers to these questions for sure.
It is not just a free speech issue. It is a right to assemble issue as well.
Lucia – there were many reports of urine filled balloons be thrown in Cville.
“be thrown” = “being thrown”
Lucia said -“Large protest crowds have blocked traffic and interfered with pedestrians trying to move. That’s wrong too.
It doesn’t happen to be what happened in Charlottesville. A kook just decided to run people over.”
The intersection – two blocks away from Emancipation Park – where Heather Heyer was killed was being blocked by the counter protesters. They people were standing in the middle of it and had cars surrounded from all directions. The car that ran people over did not go onto the sidewalks at any time.
The driver intentionally rammed into them and is a kook. But to say that the counter protesters were not blocking traffic is not accurate.
Oliver,
I think the people connected to the Charlottesville rally were dis-invited.
Kan,
Yes. In the later one I added the detail of protestors actually attacking the cars.
Obviously, there was a large number of people in the street. But they weren’t all placing their hands on the cars, pounding them and shaking them. The people in the cars were not endangered. The people in the street were blocking in the sense of being there– as happens in a traffic jam. Of course it’s unlikely this one would clear.
I imagine (possibly incorrectly) that someone could have turned their vehicle around to get to most destinations. (I don’t doubt it would have been hard to drive to a parking lot near the statue.)
Kan
It is not just a free speech issue. It is a right to assemble issue as well.
Of course. The police in Boston acted well in this case and supported the right of assembly and free speech. They kept the two sides separated, which was a good thing. No deaths was certainly a good outcome.
HaroldW,
It’s interesting that the counter protestors weren’t initially aware the free-speech rally was happening and were actually organized to “counter” the Charlottesville event.
It’s nice to see the free-speech groups separating themselves from the Nazi groups. They should do that. I think it’s important for the free-speech groups to focus on their own message and not join with other messages that have nothing to do with free speech and which they disavow.
Nazi uniforms, kill Jews, Swastikas and so forth aren’t “free speech” messages. Also, when present they distract from the topic intended by free speech organizers. So organizers going about getting permits for their events should do as much as possible to not allow the Nazi wannabees to try to ride on their tailcoats.
So, I’m glad the free-speech guys excluded the Nazi-wannabees.
That said: you couldn’t really expect counter-protestors to know the Nazi-wannabees were disinvited until a bit after it happened. So even if the counter-protestors had organized because of this rally, I wouldn’t have expected them to know the difference between who was speaking in August and who was planned to speak in May.
A kook just decided to run people over.
.
And it’s not clear for how long he decided.
. The video doesn’t exhibit any indication that the driver intends to plow into the crowd until being struck by the flagpole, immediately after which one starts to hear the screams.
.
Has the flag pole assailant been identified? arrested for incitement? can he be? should he be?
.
It will be interesting to see how or if this plays out in court.
.
It doesn’t appear as if the driver intended to plow into the crowd before being struck. Are panicked, or even enraged responses ‘crimes of passion’ rather than premeditated murder?
.
I certainly don’t support the bigots or even Trump, for that matter, but I’m very suspicious of the nefarious activities of antifa and dark money manipulating public opinion.
The free speech crowd (I count myself among them) aren’t exactly thrilled to have neo-Nazis co opting this subject and electing themselves as spokesmen. Historically Nazi parades are the academic hypothetical example of free speech debates. There aren’t that many people really interested in preventing neo-Nazis from making fools of themselves, however there are plenty of people who will look the other way if someone else does the dirty work. Defending free speech is not defending Nazis but it sure may look the same if you squint hard.
.
As you guys might suspect, I don’t need gas poured on my confirmation bias fire in this subject area. I turned to CNN for the first time in a few weeks to see the Boston protest and in the first 15 seconds saw this – Left split screen – Interview with Boston cop who was very happy to see so many people protesting against racism, Right split screen – Somebody walks by camera with a “White People Suck” sign. Hilarious. The media is water boarding me.
Turbulent Eddie,
That looks similar to this video. But if the guaridan one is original, it appears someone might have fiddled with slo-mo and regular mo in the one you showed. Because in the guarding one which starts earlier, the car was moving along when someone hit it.
Mind you: someone shouldn’t be thwocking cars. But it looks like someone may have fiddled with time in your version.
Tom Scharf
Defending free speech is not defending Nazis but it sure may look the same if you squint hard.
It will look that way if you have Nazi’s speaking at the same events the free speech guys speak at. Likewise, an event can look like “Antifa” if antifa people are traveling along in the group and making trouble.
Both violent groups do have the strategy of mixing in with others.
Kan “there were many reports of urine filled balloons be thrown in Cville.”
could you provide links.
JD
But it looks like someone may have fiddled with time in your version.
.
That’s possible, though the camera work is disorienting.
.
It’s difficult to tell how fast the vehicle is going.
.
On one hand, on the guardian video, you do hear screaming before the vehicle approaches, but also, how slow does the vehicle have to be going for the flag holder to be able to see the car, identify it as a target, and then effectively whack the bumper?
.
The flag pole guy certainly didn’t dress like antifa, which has been my focal bias toward the story.
.
I guess I’ll try ignore the street things, hope that radicals ( KKK,Nazis,Antifa ) are not taking over the country, and go back to thinking about climate stuff.
how slow does the vehicle have to be going for the flag holder to be able to see the car, identify it as a target, and then effectively whack the bumper?
My guess is a person seeing a car approaching over a block could time a ‘jump/ thwock’ if the car was doing 30 mph.
Calc: (60 min/hour) / (30 miles/hour) = 2 minutes/mile. That’s for any sustained run, but not so fast a person couldn’t time a jump and thwock.
30 mph is slow for getting anywhere. It’s fast if you are approaching a crowd.
The flag pole guy certainly didn’t dress like antifa,
He’s not wearing a mask.
There is going to be more rioting next year. I suspect the driver will be found not guilty of major charges and instead will get a max sentence for minor things like leaving the scene of an accident.
The media stories I have seen say
1) He rammed/ran into a crowd of (counter)protesters
2) He then backed up and sped away
3) He was driving a Dodge Charger or Challenger
Take a look at the video Lucia posted in 164609. The vehicle does not back away, and is not a Dodge Charger/Challenger. I’m not even sure it’s a car.
The driver did not drive forward into a crowd of protesters. He drove into a car that then hit another car/minivan that then hit this crowd. It would explain why only one person died. I’m surprised he could generate that much speed in a 3rd vehicle. Europe would love it if ISIS attacked in this fashion.
MikeN,
It does look like the car moving at a higher speed hits one or two other (probably two). It also looks like the more serious injuries (and fatality) came when the struck second car rolled over a couple of people. The Gardian clip shows a silver colored Dodge Charger with a severely damaged from end backing up the street, away from the accident scene…. which is going to add to the charges, no matter the details/motivation for plowing into the other cars. It is also possible he hit one or more people just before hitting the other car(s). The guy is going to do some serious time.
MIkeN,
I agree. The vehicle in the drone video looks like a maroon minivan driving into a group of people.
In the other pictures, it looks like a grey car had smashed into a minivan or another car.
I guess we’ll read more about the case later.
Type “charlottesville car” into Google and go to images. This guy is very likely going to get convicted. He drove over people and then hit the cars.
.
None of the pictures I have seen make it obvious he is actually driving the car (I personally think it was George W Bush). Maybe the police pulled him out of it later, but if he simply owns it and it is circumstantial that he drove it that could make it a hard conviction. Conversely if he hasn’t made any statement and comes to the trial with a “I panicked and hit the gas instead of the brake” story the other evidence will be vital.
.
It would be more reasonable to be second degree murder unless they have evidence he planned it. People routinely get only 15 years for 2nd degree murder. It would be political suicide not to add hate crime to the charges for a prosecutor, but hate crime curiously does not include politically motivated killings (in VA). I don’t think he has much of a record.
.
Getting an unbiased jury will be a bit of a challenge.
So….our Navy is incapable of navigating it ships without hitting an oil tanker? If only they had access to technology that could allow them to see where they are going.
Tom Scharf
Getting an unbiased jury will be a bit of a challenge.
Never underestimate the ability of people to avoid reading news.
Here I am… in Chicago. And it’s cloudy. Not good for eclipse viewing.
“Getting an unbiased jury will be a bit of a challenge.”
It will be virtually impossible. Whether people have read the news clippings or not, they will have strong feelings on both sides. Some jurors may say the right things, but deep down they will have strong views that will help or hurt one side or the other. Hopefully, the case will be tried at least 75 miles away from Cville, which would help a bit.
JD
Mostly cloudy here in MA. But in the early stages, there were enough clear spots to see. The birds definitely noticed.
We just set a record by a huge margin during the eclipse for the longest consecutive period in the last year in which the media stopped talking about Trump. I’ll take eclipse hysteria over Trump hysteria any day.
.
It was partly cloudy in FL but good enough to see it at its peak in my location.
Tom Scharf,
I expect he will go to prison for 20+…. maybe even life; second degree murder (maybe first if he put something crazy on twitter or Facebook), multiple batteries, leaving the scene, etc. The optics are all terrible, and the guy backed away at high speed after injuring/killing people… so could easily have run over more people if they hadn’t gotten out of the way. I think he is burned toast.
Just to be clear, he deserves to be punished pretty severely. I hold anyone who murders an innocent bystander in contempt. The victim here had no reason to believe the rally would be life threatening, although it is reasonable to assume that a fight might break out. Most people just aren’t going to go to these things but if they feel especially strongly about this, then protest should be feasible without nut jobs going into murderous rages while the police stand around acting like this possibility doesn’t exist.
.
The police question is pretty interesting. They obviously have a non-engagement policy going on that is newish, police running around beating people is bad optics, but I think they may have over learned that lesson. I’m really torn on this subject, it is probably the best way to do things, until it isn’t. I know in middle school it was pretty much standard practice to allow two people who wanted to fight to fight for a while before separating them. It allowed them to kind of get it out of their system. Note: This was the fist fight era. I find the lack of arrests for clear criminal behavior a bit hard to swallow and not much of a deterrent for future protests.
Here is an interesting photo I took. This is looking straight down on my driveway under the shadows of a tree in front of my house. Lots of pin-hole projectors provided by nature. https://goo.gl/photos/4D6Bg5aYDYnB8CWa6
Clear skies and a great view here in eastern TN, specifically Loudon, just south of Knoxville on the Tennessee river just off I-75. I parked in a fast food place, at a late lunch and stayed there for the eclipse along with a lot of other people. It was fun. The corona wasn’t particularly detailed by eye, but it did get fairly dark at the peak.
Fantastic eclipse viewing in Wyoming. A total eclipse is a qualitatively different thing than a partial or annular eclipse. Amazing. Well worth the trip.
P.S. – Sometimes government does things right. The Park service did a terrific job at Fort Laramie.
I wonder if any of those folks ever got anywhere near the ‘hacked’ DNC computer. They would seem likely candidates for a thumb drive file transfer. Given that a Clinton holdover is in charge, I doubt we’ll find out.
I agree with Mike M. A partial eclipse is ho-hum compared to a total eclipse.
Tom Scharf:
Here is an interesting photo I took. This is looking straight down on my driveway under the shadows of a tree in front of my house. Lots of pin-hole projectors provided by nature. https://goo.gl/photos/4D6Bg5aYDYnB8CWa6
That is a great image. Thanks for sharing.
DeWitt,
I think Julian Assange claims he never pays for information. Hard to imagine the Awan scoundrels would just give him the DNC emails without compensation. Besides, as far as I know, the Awans had no direct connection with the DNC. The ‘restrained’ prosecution is likely just Democrates trying to limit very bad publicity for a very embarrassing lack of judgement by Wassernam-Schultz. I would not be surprised by a plea bargin with little jail time, followed immediately by Awan’s permanent residence changing to Pakistan.
Joint project between Google and Tesla. Still in design stage. Uses electric energy to drive a heat pump to create a temperature gradient, and then heat engine to convert thermal gradient back to electricity.
Owen –
Any idea what the overall conversion efficiency of such a system is? That is, how many kWh can be recovered from storage, for each 1 kWh collected.
I wondered also about projected efficiency, but they gave no details. I would think that the efficiency of the heat pump that creates the gradient would drop off as the thermal gradient increases. If they get to the point where they build a utility-scale demonstration plant, we’ll know more.
Perhaps there are more charges in-line for the Pakistan conspiracy and the attempted flight forced the FBI to go with what they had to keep him in jail. There’s smoke there, but no fire yet.
If you have Netflix, watch “What Happened to Monday?” A cut above the usual dystopia flick.
Just for fun, someone ran the numbers and the eclipse apparently overwhelmingly voted for Trump. The most amazing thing about this is someone ran the numbers. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DGLRvSeUMAANVt4.jpg:large
Tom Scharf,
I saw that on twitter. Firing an employee who announces games because his name is “Robert Lee” It is truly stupid. That the employee is asian and almost certainly did not pick the last name “Lee” to revere Robert E. Lee and his parents probably did not pick the extremely common first name “Robert” with “Robert E. Lee” in mind is icing on the cake.
You’d think that at most if someone was worried riots would break out when people heard his name, they’d ask if he didn’t mind using the name “Bob” while announcing. Then let him decide. Maybe he’d mind and stick with Robert which would be fine; let them risk the riots. Maybe he’d think it was worth changing his name to avert the chance of riots and suggest he’d like to be called “Bubaa Lee” from now on. Sheesh.
They just reassigned him to another game, not fire him. It shockingly turns out he is not related to the confederate general. ESPN is trying to squirm out of it by saying they feared social media would make fun of this, so they moved him. Spectacular backfire.
.
Earlier last week they had an NFL fantasy football “auction” (that is normally called a draft) and the usual suspects interpreted this as a slave auction. ESPN apologized.
Lucia, not too far from you there is an Adolf funeral home. It’s a little jarring to see, especially when they have ‘and cremation’.
The kerfuffle about Mr. Lee reminded of this commercial:
Tom,
Just one more of the incredibly stooopid things ESPN has done in the last couple of years… comparable in stupidity to their decision to make pro sports boadcasting yet another arena for PC virtue signaling by left wing broadcasting ‘personalities’, who are themselves quite stupid. They will be greatly diminished in size and infuence in the future, and deservedly so.
I’ve never subscribed to ESPN. But my impression is that the ability to sound stupid is nearly a requirement for sports broadcasters. Mind you: I don’t think they are all stupid. In fact, many show bursts of intelligence from time to time. But the “patter” seems designed to intentionally make even fairly dumb audience members feel at home– like they aren’t outwitted by really smart guys.
So: even if someone is smart, they are required to sound dumb from time to time.
They do typically know the sports they are covering very well. I’ve watch college football for over 30 years (I just like it, I do not ask myself to explain it to myself rationally as that would be a difficult conversation). There are definitely some good broadcasters, and some not so good ones. I agree with Lucia that they talk way too much and much is simply filler. Some are like that person you know who just totally dominates a conversation at all times. The very best ones know when to shut up.
.
After 30 years they aren’t providing a lot of insight, but the good ones still do and you can tell that they are really enthusiastic about it, not fake enthusiastic. Kind of like a good teacher. But yeah, SAT scores aren’t that important here.
.
ESPN does college football the best, they paid $7.3B for the right to broadcast just the college football playoffs over 12 years. In 2015 the playoff was the highest rated show in cable history.
.
When you look at those numbers and see how the NCAA forces players to live at near poverty you kind of laugh when academia tut-tuts others for social justice issues. Players on high value teams are generating great value they are not getting fairly compensated for because of an academia monopoly on the business. It’s actually pretty ugly when examined closely.
A few notes of interest. Generally speaking college football produces about 6x the revenue of basketball. Even at Duke football revenue is about the same as basketball.
.
About half of college football teams lose money, but accounting here is indecipherable in many places. Many schools use football to pay for all other academic sports. Annual profit from football:
.
Texas – $92 million ($165M in revenue)
Tennessee – $70 million
LSU – $58 million
Michigan – $56 million
Notre Dame – $54 million
Georgia – $50 million
Ohio State – $50 million
Oklahoma – $48 million
Auburn – $47 million
Alabama – $46 million
.
My school earns $20M per year for just being a member of a “Big-5” conference. Television contracts are more important than ticket sales. Costs are very high: Stadiums, scholarships, coaches salaries (millions), travel, etc.
HaroldW, if the boss is a multibillion dollar corporation and comes to you with a suggestion, you are likely to agree with that. Particularly if agreeing means you have less travel. I wonder if this was a step up for Lee to do this game, he is being put in to a national pool, that got stunted.
>I’ve never subscribed to ESPN.
Unless you don’t have cable, it takes some effort to do that. ESPN has sued cable networks that offered packages without ESPN. It’s more common now, with $8 a month fees.
Tom Scharf,
The “loose money” how? Real question. Is it by paying the coaches and staff lavishly? By building huge sports complexes?
It seems to me if they are “losing” money, they ought to reduce their expenditures. It would see this could be done by (a) not building or improving stadiums, (b) having fewer scholarships, (c) paying coaches less, (d) moving to a division that requires less travel. There isn’t a rule that says schools have to have big, lavish football programs.
If the argument is they need it to bring in alumni donations, then they aren’t ‘losing’ money on football. They just aren’t accounting for the “revenue stream” of alumni donations that arise from football. If the argument is they need it to make their school visible and attract students, then they aren’t losing money. They are aren’t crediting the “value” the team gives in reduced expenditures on advertising.
HaroldW,
They are selling, I’m not buying. They contacted him and asked him to move to another game. He is a low level announcer at ESPN that just laid off a bunch of people, he has only one “stay employed” answer to that request.
.
For the record President Skipper worked 8 years at Rolling Stone and this is exactly the kind of crap they troll in constantly. Skipper’s job is looking increasingly fragile, he has unnecessarily politicized ESPN and its finances have taken a nosedive since he took over.
Tom,
I don’t have cable. I haven’t had it for over a decade; we have an antenna. That was enough even before streaming services becames widely available.
I also think didn’t get ESPN when I did have cable. It was an add on and I was never willing to pay for that.
Did ESPN win the suits against the cable companies? If they did, that’s seems ridiculous.
The short answer is the other 127 college football Div 1 teams are not Alabama or Texas. Then there are 500+ lower division schools.
Debt from lavish “facilities” (stadiums, academic dorms, weight rooms, locker rooms, practice fields, etc.) and very high salaries for coaches.
.
The longer answer is winning is VERY profitable and that requires good players and coaches. You can’t get good players without good facilities and brand name coaches. Hitting the top tier is very hard so establishing a winning tradition is part of getting there. That’s at least a decade long investment and it is extremely competitive.
.
As you mentioned there are also intangibles such as raising the profile of your school and the very real but totally invalid connection between athletics and academics. Michigan must have good academics, right?
.
And other real things like in my home state WV there are no pro teams so WVU is it. The state loves the football team (when they aren’t hating it). They want it invested in and feel great pride when it is successful. Most of that WVU gear is not being sold to alumni. The state may be sh** hole, but at least it has a good football team every now and then, ha ha. Let’s all look away when the fact that the roster is completely full of out of state people comes up…
Tom Scharf,
Michigan must have good academics, right?
Actually it does.
That said: I do agree with your point. People tend to assume schools they heard of have better academics than schools they have not heard of. People often hear more about schools with winning football and basketball programs.
ESPN has forced cable companies to put them on upgrade tiers and not a-la-carte them for decades. I don’t think that has changed. It used to be mandatory carry. I appreciate others subsidizing ESPN for me. Thank you. ESPN’s biggest problem now is cord cutters. They are offering up their own streaming service to bypass cable companies completely.
.
The only thing keeping me from cutting the cord is live sports.
Tom Scharf, live sports you can still get with HD for broadcast networks via an antenna. ESPN’s live sports is pretty substantial, but with Monday Night Football weak the last several years I can do without it.
Having their own subscription streaming service doesn’t help ESPN like it helps others. They are getting $8 a month from almost all subscribers. Replacing 90(used to be 110) million $8 a month subscribers with 10 million(I think this is generous) subscribers paying $10 a month won’t work, especially now cable companies have no reason to put you in a broad tier and subscriber losses will accelerate. The ESPN sports contracts run out in 5-10 years, and I doubt they can afford to bid again, but without the live content they can’t get the subscribers.
They’ve released audio clips of Hillary’s new book, What Happened, with her complaining about Trump stalking her at the debate.
At the time, I wrote here it was deliberately to show that he is taller than her. However, later I noticed it looked like he was reading Hillary’s notes. Checking again I realize Trump was not stalking her at all, he was moving to his podium. Between the stage, audience, and cameras, we got the wrong impression.
I am not getting the impression the world really wants to know HRC’s thoughts about the election, again, again, again. Such a victim. Losing to the most unlikable candidate in election history has got to be a conspiracy of OTHERS, unless of course you are the second most unlikable candidate in election history. Not too many people on either side want to think about this election any more.
MikeN, Tom Scharf: For the record, I agree with you that ESPN likely put its weight behind the suggestion to reassign Lee to the other game (which presumably has less exposure), and Lee acceded. One can easily feel pressured in such situations.
Funny thing is, ESPN didn’t escape criticism. Had they continued, people would no doubt have tweeted about the “insensitivity” of assigning Robert Lee to a game in Charlottesville. As it is, people are tweeting about the chicken-s***-edness of the reassignment. ESPN couldn’t win.
Tom
I didn’t purchase upgrade tiers. The regular levels already had more than I wanted to watch. I didn’t get HBO either. So I know once upon a time I could get cable without getting either HBO or ESPN.
I’d virtually never watch ESPN. I’m fine watching HBO shows later when they become available on video or Netflix. Of course HBO also has methods for people to get it a la carte now.
I think what you now mean is ESPN wouldn’t let them sell it a la carte, but would let them sell it in a tier. That’s a different thing from “forcing” them to put it in the tier. The cable company could have decided not to carry ESPN. I assume how the cable company carries ESPN is negotiated in a contract.
HaroldW,
As far as I know not a single human being brought up that Lee might be a problem except for an internal ESPN worry wart, but it’s a bit fuzzy. Had it actually happened saying something about it would have been on the level of tweeting a cat picture. America is ready to accept this situation. I think it struck a nerve because CEO’s and college admins have become exceedingly cowardly in confronting silly demands, and this is preemptively cowering to a non-existent silly demand. It’s not good that CEO’s are thinking this way.
.
Fear of social media mobs has become a problem. I’m not sure how libertarians are supposed to act when organized thought police mobs are winning the day. Reactionary push back is inevitable.
An interesting rant from the left about the exhaustion of everyone around you being the police. https://medium.com/@freddiedeboer/planet-of-cops-8917cfc01fc9
.
It talks about a strange case of a punk band named PWR BTTM who had their entire careers erased nearly overnight based on a Facebook accusation.
Lucia, no, ESPN wouldn’t let cable companies sell in a tier. This was in their contracts. That you didn’t get it in your basic package is unusual, especially if it was some time ago. Their is generally a superbasic that the cable companies don’t like to talk about that has broadcast networks, CSPAN, and maybe a few more channels, generally around $10. The next basic tier, around 40 channels, almost always had ESPN
>I’d virtually never watch ESPN.
This makes sense if you didn’t have the channel.
Do you mean to say you had the channel but never actively subscribed to it like you would with HBO?
MIkeN,
Well… perhaps I mis-remember. I know I didn’t watch ESPN and certainly didn’t value it. Jim also didn’t value it. Our desire to watch ESPN is about the same as our desire to watch the Kardasians, which is to say: not at all.
It’s also possible that I didn’t know our complete package. We can program our tv to only show the channels we want to see. So we would always cut out some to make surfing more efficient. Home Shopping Network? Various religious channels. We’d just program the tv to skip those. Maybe we got ESPN and programmed it out and consequently I don’t remember getting it.
Whatever the case, we cut the cable long, long ago because the price of cable was ridiculous relative to what you got. Lots of things are available on antenna in the Chicago area.
MikeN,
Do you mean to say you had the channel but never actively subscribed to it like you would with HBO?
I mean if HBO or ESPN magically appeared on my tv for free, I would sometimes watch an HBO show because I like some of their shows. I would never watch ESPN. I generally don’t watch sports.
The only circumstance in which I sit in a room with sports on is if someone else is watching it. In that case, I’ll likely be doing something like knitting or socializing. We own more than one tv. Generally speaking, if Jim wants to watch sports we go to different rooms and watch different shows. There are some things I like he doesn’t and some things he likes I don’t. So neither one of us feels any need to force the other to watch something they don’t enjoy.
Oh– correction. I do sort of watch the baseball if it’s the world series. But I pop in and out of the room a lot— like listen while surfing the web or something. I wouldn’t pay to watch it. But if it’s free, I’ll pay some attention to it.
Next thing you will be telling us is you don’t watch NASCAR.
WWE/Left: It hardly matters since apparently they don’t vote very often. But if, like the people of South Park, they actually believe that Pro Wrestling and the drama surrounding it is real, not scripted, they’re gullible enough to be lefties. /sarc.
Tom Scharf,
“Next thing you will be telling us is you don’t watch NASCAR.”
.
Never once in my life. Some things are below even thinking about, never mind watching.
Lucia,
“…ability to sound stupid is nearly a requirement for sports broadcasters.”
.
Maybe. I think it comes naturally to far too many. Especially the virtue signalers. There are some who know what they are talking about, at least wrt the sport they cover, but not too many.
I’ll bite. How or when do sportscasters signal virtue? i wouldn’t have thought they had any to bring to our attention.
Everyone here is probably too young to remember televised bowling, but it used to consume a lot of air-time in the mid-fifties and in Chicago was doinated by an announcer who whispered; maybe like the guys who do golf today, you know, the ones we listen to when we thought we’d be watching 60 minutes.
WWF is a Democratic skew?
John Cena hosting SNL, “I’m John Cena. For those of you who voted for Hillary, I’m a wrestler.”
John Ferguson,
ESPN was in full virtue signaling mode in support of Colin Kaepernik over his refusal to stand for the national anthem (and his vocal support for Black lives matter… and his claims police target black people for murder… even if the data say they don’t). They also were wildly in virtue-signaling support of championship teams refusing to go to the White House, ‘because Trump!’ There are many other examples. They are purposely and consistently offending half their customers; it is a dumb business model, and they are suffering because of it. Nobody cares what a sports anouncer thinks of Colin Kaepernik, Black Lives Matter, or Donald Trump… they should just shut up 100% about politics.
.
Sorry about the golf running over into 60 Minutes; at least on 60 Minutes virtue signaling is a long-standing tradition. The on-course golf announcers wisper when they are close to a player making a shot…. when at some distance from the players, they speak normally.
John Ferguson,
BTW, it appears NFL owners are not willing to offer a contract to Kaepernik…. bringing charges of ‘racism’ of course… but the real issue is that NFL teams don’t want a player who goes out of his way to offend half the team’s customers. They recognize they are in the entertainment industry, and reject ESPN’s business model of driving away half their customers.
john ferguson,
I remember tv bowling!
Lucia,
So do I… the pro bowler’s tour. It was on air mostly Sunday mornings in winter, so unless you liked ice fishing or broadcasts of local church services (very Catholic Massachusetts!), tv bowling was it.
Tom Scharf (Comment #164685)
.
From your link:
“the only acceptable reaction to an accusation is enthusiastic and unqualified acceptance.â€
.
Yes, that seems to be the case when the accuser is in any shape or form left-wing or “progressive”.
If the accuser can be construed as in any shape or form right-wing then the only acceptable reaction to him or her is outrage and counter-accusations of racism, naziism, conspiracy-thinking or the like.
I guess that is “The Closing of the American Mind” (Allan Bloom). No rational discussion is possible in a climate of evil, evil moralism and self-righteousness.
j ferguson,
Earl Anthony was my hero. I bowled a 256 in a league game when I was 14. Sadly that was a fluke and the PBA was never in my future. Bowling was on TV a lot back then.
Hiring Kaepernik wouldn’t be so bad, everyone praising you for your enlightenment. The fans would be uptight but that would pass. The problem is firing Kaepernik, the same people would tar and feather you for life and you would become a social outcast. A Strange Game. The Only Winning Move is Not to Play.
.
I think it is inappropriate what he did (he promised to stand this year) because it is intentionally disrespectful to people who believe in patriotism and it is their paid entertainment. At least Hollywood doesn’t lecture you in the middle of a movie and keeps it off screen.
The NFL also happens to be a round hole / square peg here, probably the best example of a racially blind meritocracy there is.
The 12 year major hurricane drought may finally end today. Looks like a lot of flooding, the last thing you want is a hurricane to get on land and stand still. Epic rain.
The 12 year major hurricane drought may finally end today. Looks like a lot of flooding, the last thing you want is a hurricane to get on land and stand still. Epic rain.
Yes, stalling out along an August stationary front.
The Charlottesville horrors, and the subsequent lack of adequate censure of extreme-right supporters by President Trump, have been widely condemned, and rightly so. There are no “very fine people†among the fanatics of Charlottesville. But condemnation will only go so far. Calling Trump morally blank, inept, and destructive is right, but it is also useless. Liberal outrage, self-satisfying in left-wing echo chambers, amounts effectively to pity, not remedy. And it can embolden supporters who see criticism as an attack on their politics and culture.
I’m going to make a crazy prediction: Trump’s response to the hurricane will be deemed inadequate. The term “Trump’s Katrina” will be used within 2 seconds of landfall.
.
In reality it doesn’t make sense for a city to be “fully prepared” for this kind of disaster. That means all cities must be fully prepared for all disasters. It’s more economical for there to be federal “inusrance” for this group risk. So FEMA. In FL they are pretty clear you need to have 3 days of food/water if you plan to stay. Don’t expect the government to be there any sooner.
subsequent lack of adequate censure of extreme-right supporters by President Trump
I seriously doubt that Trump could adequately censure them in the eyes of the anti-Trump fanatics. Once again,there is no mention of the Antifa crowd.
When I was looking into the connection between Hayek and Pinochet I came across a capsule definition of fascism, attributed to Mussolini, IIRC (I haven’t been able to find it again). It was something like do whatever you have to do to accomplish your goals. IMO, that isn’t extreme right or left. It’s a philosophy of how to use power, not an ideology. As such, it applies to any totalitarian government regardless of their claimed ideology. Stalin, Mao and Chavez were just as much fascists in practice as Mussolini.
Tom Scharf (Comment #164705): “The 12 year major hurricane drought may finally end today.”
Harvey is now Category 3. It seems likely that the flooding will be serious.
Al Gore was right! Not.
MikeN (Comment #164709): “Tom Scharf, your prediction is already correct. Salon blasted him yesterday. http://www.salon.com/2017/08/2…..aster-test”
Salon: “His tweet did not include basic information, like who is in danger, how to be prepared or what the government is doing to prepare.”
Because that is what tweets are for.
What does the creationist say when the missing link is found? There are now two gaps!
OK, my new speech is “we have only had 1 major hurricane make landfall in the last 12 years…”. They will say “we have tied the record for the most major hurricanes making landfall over one day”.
France’s Emmanuel Macron approval rating is now 37%, right there with Trump. Down 20% in 3 months. It just came out he spent $30,000 on makeup, ha ha.
I remember the last one as Katrina, but apparently it’s Wilma. At the time the statement was this was because of global warming and it was going to get worse.
If A then B, is the same as If NOT B, then NOT A.
By making these predictions, they are declaring there is no global warming.
MikeN: “I remember the last one as Katrina, but apparently it’s Wilma.”
I remembered it as Rita, also that same year.
Of course, there have been some very near misses since then. Like Ike, which dropped down to Cat 2 just before the eye made landfall. And Matthew, that lashed the Florida coast as, I think, a Cat 4 but with the eye staying just offshore. And Sandy, that was not even a hurricane when it hit, but was so big that it had a huge storm surge anyway.
Harvey is apparently now Category 4.
The real problem is that Harvey is just going to sit there, blow and dump rain over a relatively small area because there are no steering currents to make it go somewhere else.
“His tweet did not include basic information, like who is in danger, how to be prepared or what the government is doing to prepare.â€
And you’re going to do that in 140 characters. Someone and their editor at Salon is out of touch with reality.
SteveF (Comment #164699)
August 25th, 2017 at 5:00 am
I think the reason no one wants Kaepernik is because he is not a very good quarterback anymore. He had a season and a half in SF that was good with a good team and coach, but the last time I saw him play was agaianst my inept Bears. He looked terrible and called a Bear player by the N word.
If a Tom Brady were to leave the Patriots after sitting out a National athem do you think he would be blackballed – and neither do I think a QB of color and of Brady’s caliber would either.
Kenneth Fritsch: “I think the reason no one wants Kaepernik is because he is not a very good quarterback anymore.”
Kaepernik is surely better than many backup quarterbacks in the league, but he may want to be paid a lot better than a backup. I suspect that is why Seattle passed on him.
MikeM, I think you’re on to something. Quarterbacks who have played in the Super Bowl should have a market value. Kap should play. However, Kap left a really good contract and may not want to take a pay cut.
Kaepernick may be better than a number of backup quarterbacks, but teams do not place a lot of value in having a better backup. If Kaepernick were playing at a high level, he would be signed. As a good backup or mediocre starter, teams are taking lower quality QBs who aren’t a media distraction.
Paul Begala, the Democratic strategist, said his party was “driving straight into a trap Trump has set,†because the president seeks to shift the focus away from comments he made about white supremacists to his charge that opponents are trying to “take away our history.â€
“While I understand the pain those monuments cause,†said Mr. Begala, who was an adviser to President Bill Clinton, “I just think it in some ways dishonors the debate to allow Trump to hijack it.â€
A debate over statues has somehow morphed into a debate over statues. Trump is indeed a genius. I have no idea what Columbia University is going to do. The shame.
Gosh, we better boycott Columbia Pictures movies too, for that matter all Sony movies since they own Columbia Pictures. The depiction of Columbia may be female, but we know it’s really Chris in drag.
Of course The Emoji Movie probably deserves to be boycotted. Spiderman Homecoming was pretty good, though. But now I feel bad for having paid money in a movie theater to see it. /sarc
Justice O Neill of the Ohio Supreme Court (a Democrat) surprised me when he vehemently objected to Cleveland Browns players kneeling when the National Anthem was played. He stated: ““I will not pay to witness the disrespect of the American flag. It really is that simple. Yes folks. You have freedom of speech. I also have the freedom of not paying $75 to listen to you. And if freedom of speech is so clear here. Why not burn the flag on the 50 yard line.†http://www.dispatch.com/news/20170823/justice-bill-oneill-calls-out-browns-for-kneeling-during-national-anthem
Undoubtedly hurt himself with Democrats and helped with Republicans. I dealt with him directly during my workers’ compensation days, when he was simply a staff attorney, and to his credit, he never once mentioned his Army service.
This is exactly what Trump wants to do, to ensure his message is received.
Classic after Rubio crashed with his ‘dispel with the fiction’ routine, he joked to Trump at the next debate,’Now you’re repeating yourself.’
Trump: “I don’t repeat myself. I don’t repeat myself.”
Oh probably. However, when politics is involved I don’t consider Snopes to be a reliable source.
Berkeley Police Chief Andrew Greenwood said he ordered officers to abandon the park when the black-clad activists arrived. Confronting them would have risked escalating the violence and jeopardizing the safety of the peaceful protesters, Greenwood said.
“It played into the false narrative that some conservatives have spun,” about violent left-wing stifling of free speech, Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguin said Monday, a day after the anarchists assaulted the people they thought were right-wing extremists and pepper sprayed Gibson.
The mayor said the police acted appropriately, saying the anarchists “were trying to provoke the police.”
“Protecting a piece of grass in that situation was not worth it,” Arreguin said.
Yvonne Felarca, a spokeswoman for the militant left-wing organization By Any Means Necessary, defended Sunday’s violence, calling it self-defense — even though it there were no indications anyone one tried to physically harm the anarchists at the park.
She said right-wing extremists are often armed and want to fight left-wing opponents, concluding that Sunday’s violence was a “success” and sent a message that speech her group considers fascist will not be allowed in ultraliberal Berkeley
T. Scharf: “The NYT rationalizes Antifa the very next day, ha ha.”
I agree. Not a very good article. However, one has to give Gitlin some credit. Bud from Mckinney Texas commented that: “Antifa just proved Trump’s point about violence on both sides.”
Gitlin responded: “You’re right.”
JD
Tom Scharf (#164731): You use words very loosely. “Rationalizes”? “Fascist”? Do you know what these words mean? The NYT writer at the link you provided did say, among other things, that so far “antifa” had not killed anyone. On the other hand, the extreme right has a significant number of murders attributed to it. It is amusing that not only Trump, but some people here, appear to believe that “antifa”, a fringe group that hardly anybody had heard of a few months ago, is a bigger threat to liberties than the extreme right, and are willing to describe both in terms that suggest “equivalence”. Shame on you.
PeteD,
Interesting. Can you link me something or elaborate on the extreme right murders of which you speak?
[Edit: Oh, I see. You are referring to this, I suppose.]
Well, good. Thanks for prompting me. I abhor all of these acts. Drunk people shooting immigrants, people attacking minorities with swords, people attacking muslims with knives.
.
I actually do still think organizations like Antifa are more dangerous to our liberties than individuals though. Even more so when intellectuals on the left feel compelled to defend or justify them, instead of joining me in denouncing them.
mark,
Try Timothy McVeigh and Oklahoma City.
Speaking of which, the FBI recently arrested a man for the attempted bombing of a bank in Oklahoma City.
However, the fact that Antifa hasn’t killed anyone yet isn’t what I would call a good reference. I think they’re still in the same class as the brownshirts and the Klan if they feel the need to wear masks and black clothing to disguise themselves.
There were at least five violent assaults in Berkeley:
Among those assaulted was Joey Gibson, the leader of the Patriot Prayer group, which canceled a Saturday rally and was then prevented from holding a news conference when authorities closed off the public square Gibson planned to use.
After the anarchists spotted Gibson at the Berkeley park, they pepper-sprayed him and chased him out as he backed away with his hands held in the air. Gibson rushed behind a line of police wearing riot gear, who set off a smoke grenade to drive away the anarchists, Fox 40 reported.
Separately, groups of hooded, black-clad protesters attacked at least four other men in or near the park, kicking and punching them until the assaults were stopped by police. The assaults were witnessed by an Associated Press reporter.
mark bofill (Comment #164740): “I actually do still think organizations like Antifa are more dangerous to our liberties than individuals though. Even more so when intellectuals on the left feel compelled to defend or justify them, instead of joining me in denouncing them.”
Spot on. I also denounce both the neo-Nazis and Antifa.
Another reason that Antifa is far more a threat than the neo-Nazis is they are treated with tolerance, and even support, by supposedly responsible people on the left. Every responsible person on the right joins Trump in denouncing the neo-Nazis.
DeWitt,
.
Yes, that’s a good example. I don’t really care what the ideology is. Right, left, libertarian, anarchist, totalitarian, whatever. I don’t care if you think you’re John Galt himself. At the end of the day, if you’re trying to kill people or blow up buildings or any of that in my society, you’re my enemy.
.
Antifa doesn’t stress me out too badly though. One of Isaac Asimov’s characters had a saying I liked about violence being the last refuge of the incompetent that I think applies. Antifa and their intellectual supporters do not realize that by embracing violent tactics and by trying to justify them they do more harm to their cause than any number of Donald Trumps tweeting 24/7 or holding rallies day and night. I believe extremism and violence alienates most of the folk at home. They don’t like it, they don’t identify with it, and they don’t like or identify with groups that associate themselves with it.
.
So … knock yourselves out, Antifa fools. Try not to block traffic in my backyard while your movement burns itself out.
.
[Edit: Thanks Mike M.]
PeteD,
Sorry, but mindless shaming is not an instrument that works universally.
.
Rationalize: attempt to explain or justify (one’s own or another’s behavior or attitude) with logical, plausible reasons, even if these are not true or appropriate.
.
As in the NYT pretending Antifa is an organization with humanitarian goals and fighting the good fight in spite of all evidence to the contrary. I suppose one definition of fascist somehow includes Ann Coulter, Milo, the GOP car in the Portland Rose Parade, and every Trump supporter. Everyone seems to look like Hitler lately.
.
Both Antifa and the fringe right both pose exactly zero threat to society. I only bring up Antifa in relation to the hyperventilating currently under way in the media about the fringe right. The fringe left shot 5 police officers dead last year and shot up a Republican baseball game but I suppose they “don’t count”.
.
Antifa is quite clear about their violence first shut down of people’s assembly and speech they don’t agree with, i.e. liberties. You don’t have to be on one side or the other here, one can be against both of these fringe elements at the same time.
If you read the comments thread on the NYT Antifa article it is a bit distressing how many people actively support them, although they are still a minority even at the NYT. I think some of this is just partisan red meat and reflects who’s in power and who isn’t. The media cheering on a “civil war” is highly irresponsible.
.
At this point fringe left vs. fringe right is mostly just Fight Club.
PeteD,
Read Mussolini’s The Doctrine of Fascism and tell me again that it’s a right wing philosophy.
Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State….
It’s no different in practice than Marxism-Leninism under Stalin or Mao other than pie in the sky about the eventual withering away of the state. Mussolini was more honest about that.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #164746): “It’s no different in practice than Marxism-Leninism under Stalin or Mao other than pie in the sky about the eventual withering away of the state. Mussolini was more honest about that.”
You are badly mistaken. You obviously overlooked the section titled “REJECTION OF MARXISM”. Fascism and Communism have in common that they are extreme statist systems. But there is statism on the right (Bush, McCain, Santorum) as well as the left. Fascism is an extreme form of right-wing statism. Right and left are inadequate for describing location in a multidimensional space.
As essentially totalitarian, but otherwise very opposing, systems, Fascism and Communism could not possibly co-exist. Both Hitler and Stalin understood that they could never be other than implacable enemies. In contrast, both Fascists and Communists could co-exist with liberal democracies, although the latter were confident that they would eventually overwhelm the democracies.
mark bofill (Comment #164743): “I believe extremism and violence alienates most of the folk at home.”
I sure hope you are right about that. I think you probably are right. But I find myself thinking that there were people in Germany saying the same 90 years ago, and I know how that turned out. So the tolerance on the left of the Antifa criminals makes me nervous.
Mike M.,
.
Me too. I’m not suggesting that it’s impossible to get people sufficiently riled up that they’d get behind mob violence on a large scale. I’m really saying the leverage is better / the job is easier without adding violence to the mix.
.
I could be wrong, as always. I remember my personal reaction to hearing about torch carrying neo nazi’s demonstrating in Charlottesville – it was one of disbelief. It astonished me (still does, frankly) that in this day and age people could still be found to light torches and march in a white supremacy rally. I suspect it astonished others.
. This was the moment that Antifa wasted. If the left had gone in with an MLK non violent protest, they could have scored big points with me in that moment. I would have been at that point sufficiently surprised to rethink a lot of my assumptions and reconsider my distaste for lefties in general.
.
Anyway. I ought to know better than to generalize from my own perspective, but it’s just so darn convenient to do so. shrug I think they misplayed that and continue to misplay it. They make it easy for those who aren’t already on their side to dismiss them.
.
Thanks for your thoughts Mike.
I’m really saying the leverage is better / the job is easier without adding violence to the mix.
…should have said, if some sort of social / societal change is the goal. As in the original American civil rights movement.
I wonder how many people are truly devoted to these fringe movements, and how many are there for belonging to the edgiest anti-social element they can find to piss off Mommy and Daddy or other psychological issues. At least you are a somebody when you are a Nazi, ha ha. If there was a more extreme baby eating Nazi movement they might lose a few members.
.
For reference the Church of Satan can get as many people to show up to a meeting as these groups can. There was a Satanist panic many decades ago with similar characteristics. Play your albums backwards for Satanic chants! I loved that my Mom hated AC/DC. Now they play them during commercials and football games, ugh. No fun!
.
ISIS also has that “most evil thing ever” draw. Being more extreme than Al Qaeda was a plus, not a minus.
.
Being a member of a violent street gang isn’t exactly a path of upward mobility but many do it anyway as a replacement for family when there are no other options.
.
Lashing out at a society that has rejected you as a big L loser probably plays a bigger role than “I think Nazis are neato” is my guess. For all the torch carrying there aren’t many who truly act on this and a precious few who have any social power to get it anywhere near mainstream.
Tom,
That could be. I’ve wondered about the psychological draw of Antifa as well. [Edit: I got that you were talking about the draw of being a neo nazi. The ‘as well’ in my sentence was sort of ambiguous. Sorry] Perhaps kids are bored and long to do something they can consider significant and romanticize without incurring much significant personal cost. I don’t know.
Mike M.
Both Hitler and Stalin understood that they could never be other than implacable enemies.
Oh, really. Hitler may have understood that and always planned a double-cross, but Stalin certainly didn’t.
Hitler and Stalin got along for nearly two years until Hitler invaded. Stalin didn’t believe it at first.
Stalin ordered many friendly gestures toward Germany, including speeding up the deliveries of Soviet products there. He did not in the least react to a warning from Churchill about a prospective German attack against the Soviet Union. During the ten days before the Nazi invasion—all kinds of information about the German threat notwithstanding—Stalin did his best or, rather, his worst, to affirm his faith in Hitler and in Germany. I do not know of a single instance of such abject behavior (for that is what it was) by a statesman of a great power.
The German attack shocked Stalin into silence at first. (Molotov’s words after the German declaration of war were also telling: “Did we deserve this?â€) Stalin’s first orders for the Soviet army were not to respond at all. It took him hours after the invasion—until noon—before he ordered the army to resist.
What was more important than the Non-Aggression Pact was its addendum, a Secret Protocol, that called for nothing less than a division of Eastern Europe, particularly Poland, part of which was to be taken over by the Soviets. In addition, Germany recognized Russia’s “sphere of interest†in Estonia, Latvia, Finland, some of Lithuania, and the Romanian province of Bessarabia. Moscow denied the very existence of this Secret Protocol for a long time, well beyond World War II. But it existed in the German archives; and in 1939 it became a somber and dreadful reality. As late as 1986 the aged Molotov (then over ninety) denied its very existence to a Russian journalist. In fact, many of its conditions survived both the world war and the succeeding conflicts until 1989.
That doesn’t sound like mortal enemies to me, at least not until Hitler decided invade.
Also, please cite examples of Bush, McCain and Santorum wanting anything even vaguely resembling a totalitarian state. Realizing the need for a government of laws as opposed to anarchism is not what I would call statist.
Shameless climate opportunism is in full force. Every major media outlet is gorging on it.
.
Does Harvey Represent a New Normal for Hurricanes? https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/08/hurricanes-harvey-climate-change/538362/
.
“Yet Harvey also seems to break with a recent trend. Technically, the storm is the first major hurricane to make landfall in the United States in more than 11 years. The contrast may prompt some to say, well, what gives? Are hurricanes getting any worse, or not?
The answer, in short, is: Yes, they are getting worse.”
Mike M.,
Btw, Leninism or Marxism-Leninism is not classical Marxism. It’s possible that Marx would not have supported the Soviet Union or Red China. His model was the Paris Commune. Therefore Fascism’s rejection of Marxism does not necessarily apply to the Soviet Union under Stalin.
The main thing, though, is that it’s not at all clear that either Hitler or Stalin were ideologues. It was likely more about power and stabbing your ally in the back at the most convenient time, sort of like a game of Diplomacy only with lives in the balance.
DeWitt,
They were both profoundly evil totalitarians, who individually murdered many millions. Were I a religious type, I could take solice they now suffer in hell, but I am not. I can only wish each had suffered much worse fates on Earth, or that each had died in their youth.
Tom Scharf (Comment #164754),
Those folks are both badly uninformed and quite below shame. Such is the life of a leftist politician/journalist. You could call them whores, but that would unfairly denigrate respectable women of the night.
Tom Scharf (Comment #164754):
Shameless climate opportunism is in full force. Every major media outlet is gorging on it.
Tom,
Several news sources are also posting articles on the near-opposite, i.e.: no, Hurricane Harvey was not caused by climate change, although the jury is out on how much climate change affected the result.
I agree with oliver. I’m reading news sources reporting this cannot be attributed to climate change. (This is not to say climate change has zero effect.)
I think the main issue here is building in flood plains. Building in flood plains, overbuilding near flood plains (especially paving surfaces), rebuilding in flood plains and not putting in adequate volume for retention and detention are a widespread problem in the US. It’s sufficiently bad that it’s the main contributor to many floods in the US and it’s important this be recognized and addressed or we will continue to have disasters of this sort.
lucia,
I think what experts would have considered adequate drainage in Houston, not that it existed, would still not have been able to deal with Harvey.
DeWitt,
Houston would have flooded anyway. Still, there is flooding and there is flooding.
I didn’t say they said “it was caused by climate change”.
.
The climate opportunism here is claiming that climate change is making it worse by 30%, 30% more rain, it’s a “fact” climate change is making this worse, 6 inches of sea level rise in the past few decades, and 100 other varieties of misleading claims.
.
I haven’t read them all (only scanned about 10 of them), but not a single one of them referenced what the IPCC says:
“Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basinâ€
.
Only a single article even referenced the long term trend. I could go on for hours about the data. I want to stress that since the IPCC report came out we have had quiet years relatively. Here is the top level:
.
100 year US landfalls http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-V9Zqz_djQhw/U5ZjNCvNY_I/AAAAAAAADhk/UahVOH12Hic/s1600/noaa.hurrfreq.jpg
.
Global tropical cyclone frequency https://i1.wp.com/policlimate.com/tropical/frequency_12months.png
.
Hurricane dissipation power index http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gvGJwPddn60/U5ZjIv5x0hI/AAAAAAAADhc/xl3hIezzQ0g/s1600/noaa.hurrint.jpg
.
Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) http://models.weatherbell.com/tropical/global_running_ace.png
.
Atlantic ACE from 1950 http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/outlooks/figure3.gif
.
I am not aware anyone has ever accumulated rainfall statistics for hurricanes or if they are even meaningful due to variance of conditions. Harvey’s flooding is 95% due to a hurricane stalling, not climate change.
.
It’s been warming for a 100 years, we have a 100 years of hurricane landfall data and about 40 years of satellite era data. The media covers this like something new just happened and gets misleading quotes all over the place.
.
One example: Atlantic, NYT: “observed upward trend in North Atlantic hurricane activity since the 1970s.”.
.
That’s blatant cherry picking if you examine the graphs above. It’s dishonest. I don’t know if the scientist or report told the journalist the whole truth and they chose to print only what they wanted to believe. The history here is that environmental journalism is more at fault here.
.
Most experts believe hurricanes probably run in a multiple decade hi/lo cycle when the long term data is examined, jury is still out.
.
The data is too noisy to find a climate change signal at this point, perhaps in another 50 years it will emerge. Claims it is a “fact” the signal has emerged are wrong. If it does emerge the effect size is likely to be small. 5% more powerful, 5% more rain, that type of level.
Turbulent Eddie,
There is always an angle. Some people are trying to claim that climate change caused it to stall. Jet stream blah blah blah. This is an extraordinarily speculative claim.
The bulk of the damage from Katrina was primarily because people are *** living below sea level *** and a bunch of mediocre constructed dikes failed. Do they still live below sea level? Yes. They actually reconstructed neighborhoods again below sea level. That also isn’t caused by climate change unless it is making people stupider somehow.
DNA – 23 and Me keeps adding new reports. They now tell me locations of my “DNA relatives” in the US / World. Realistically it just points to high population areas in the US, but it did nail Germany in Europe. They are also adding a lot of genetic marker tests for things like macular degeneration.
.
And then there are strange things like me and my DNA relatives are 60% less likely to be a vegetarian than than the rest of their customers, 59% more likely to have worked as a lifeguard (not sure I follow causation here), etc.
lucia,
Four feet of rain in a couple of days is going to cause flooding. If Houston had better drainage, the water would be somewhat less deep, but houses would still be wet.
The Sebring race track uses a WWII air base, lots of flat concrete. When we get a typical Florida afternoon frog strangler during the 12 Hour race weekend, you get inches of standing water on the old concrete pavement because it’s too level. The water simply can’t flow that fast with the low slope even though it would either soak in or run off once it reached the edge of the pavement.
I have the same problem with the rain gutter on the back of my house. Either the house has settled or they neglected to put any pitch in the gutter. During a heavy rain, the gutter overflows even though the downspouts aren’t clogged.
Houston has the same problem. It’s too level.
Another race track where I go, Summit Point Motorsports Park in West Virginia (barely) has worked very hard on drainage. It was still underwater after the torrential rains hit the DC area a few weeks ago. That was a first as far as I know. I cleverly arranged to not go that weekend. I thought it was going to be too hot.
The good news here is that downstream from Houston is the ocean, which won’t appreciable rise no matter how much it rains. If this happened in Iowa everyone down stream on the Mississippi would be having a bad few days eventually.
.
The infrastructure cost to handle 50 inches of rain in Houston without large damage would probably cost more than the damage. It’s just not worth it. At some point you just say this is a rebuild situation.
Let’s see: 0.0045 m^3 per gallon, 3 days = 2.6e5 seconds, that’s an average of 156 thousand cubic meters per second. Nine times the average outflow of the Mississippi. Yikes!
Yeah, that will cause flooding, no matter how well prepared people are.
DeWitt
If Houston had better drainage, the water would be somewhat less deep, but houses would still be wet.
Yes. But wet isn’t necessarily waist high in water.
Even with the flooding, there are spots above water. For example: see the dry parking log
I’m not trying to make light of this, but the fact is, part of the problem with flooding is where development took place. Houses just shouldn’t be built in some places. (We’ve got houses in inappropriate places in Illinois too.)
I cleverly arranged to not go that weekend.
Wise. Before the rain hit the governor of TX (wisely) advised people that it would be wise to elect to leave the city even if they were not evacuated. Paul Krugman emitted a nasty tweet criticizing the governor for potentially inducing a panic evacuation which would itself result in deaths. (The governors words did not induce a panic evacuation).
But you know what? If a hurricane is scheduled hitting your low lying city on the weekend it is wise to decide to take a nice long 3 day weekend inland.
lucia,
I suspect that Paul Krugman would have had something nasty to say about the Republican governor of Texas whatever he said. See, for example, Salon’s comment about not enough information in Trump’s tweet linked somewhere above.
According to an article on the Weather Channel, it’s going to take weeks for the water to drain away. I don’t think three days would be long enough. But if you’re already not there, you have more options.
I would bet that as far as flooding is concerned, a lot of people don’t understand that it’s altitude, not distance that makes the biggest difference. But even if your house survives, the area won’t be livable for a while, assuming that you could get back there at all.
Houston shouldn’t build there…I think the answer by John Schilling made the most sense in a discussion on this that I will shamelessly copy:
.
Houston isn’t a major labor market because somebody said, “hey, wouldn’t it be neat to build a whole lot of expensive industry on an easily-flooded swamp?†Houston is a major labor market because it is a major sea and river port convenient to, initially, a bunch of prime agricultural land and, lately, even more oil. That geography isn’t going anywhere. The infrastructure that has been built up over the past century and a half to exploit that geography, isn’t going anywhere. Houston’s industrial base and associated labor market, isn’t going anywhere.
It will be protected from flooding by whatever means its owners and their associated government deem necessary, and if that means private dikes and expensive insurance, so be it. If, in addition to this expensively protected industrial base, there is adjacent land that is defined as cheap and useless because we are resolved to point and laugh when anyone who builds there suffers and dies (see HBC regarding the political implausibility of that), then a whole lot of desperate poor people hoping to improve their lot by working in Houston’s industries are going to take their chances and build there, hoping to better their circumstances and move up and out before they lose everything to the next flood.
So, the Greater Houston Shanty Town. Or some more profitable and durable sort of industrial, commercial, or residential development. Take your pick, but leaving the land idle isn’t on the table unless you’ve got men with guns tasked with shooting anyone who sets up a shanty there.
DeWitt,
Three days won’t be enough to drain. But being out of town when it goes under water means you are out of town. If the town is under water, you stay away longer. This is better than being there when the town goes underwater and figuring out where to be as it starts to drain.
Of course it’s altitude that matters.
Tom,
I’m not laughing at those in Houston. Leaving some land idle is on the table. Just as it is everywhere else.
Why can’t people be allowed to assume the risk and live there? The land that isn’t flooded now probably costs a lot more.
.
Obviously there are limits, but if that limit is only flooding during a 100 year flooding event then maybe that is OK. The land is cheap, they have to pay more for flood insurance, and they don’t have to live 45 minutes out of town for the same price. Downtown has access to cheaper labor.
.
If their house floods every 5 years then sure, restrict it.
Looks like there is a large difference between Berkeley the city and Berkeley the college. The new chancellor looks very committed to allowing speakers. That’s very encouraging. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-berkeley-far-left-protests-milo-20170830-story.html
.
“We’re doing what we can to support an academic mission to provide a wide view of opinions and perspectives,†he said. “For those who choose the path of violence and confrontation, we will meet them head on.â€
lucia (Comment #164771): “Even with the flooding, there are spots above water.”
Has anybody here heard anything about how much of Houston has significant flooding? Some news reports seem to imply that the whole city is underwater, but that is surely not the case.
.
lucia: “Wise. Before the rain hit the governor of TX (wisely) advised people that it would be wise to elect to leave the city even if they were not evacuated. Paul Krugman emitted a nasty tweet criticizing the governor for potentially inducing a panic evacuation which would itself result in deaths.”
Krugman may be just sniping at a Republican, but there is a deeper problem with his attitude. It is that the government knows best and therefore should decide for everyone. But the government can’t consider all the individual factors, so the decision tends to be either “everybody evacuate” or “everybody stay in place”. But both were bad ideas in this case. People in areas likely to flood should have been encouraged to relocate to drier parts, even if only a relative’s spare room across town.
.
lucia: “But you know what? If a hurricane is scheduled hitting your low lying city on the weekend it is wise to decide to take a nice long 3 day weekend inland.”
But the lefties think that you should not be allowed to make such a decision for yourself.
This is the person who filed the fake RICO action against Exxon for the supposed reason of discovering financial fraud. In reality, it is abuse of process by Schneiderman.
JD
Re: Time for Water to dissipate
Almost certainly it will take several months. There was an amazing small storm that dumped 20 inches of rain on Southern Lee County Florida [Fort Myers] (near Collier County border) in the late 1990s. It took several months to drain. (20 miles from the center only about 5 inches fell) Harvey should take much longer. (My parents owned land about 8 miles South of the storm’s center in Collier County ). Tried to quickly find link, but couldn’t.
JD
JD Ohio,
Is it possible that Mueller may, in his enquiries (as they say across the pond), have detected some mischief better prosecuted at the state level? Or something prosecutable by New York but not the US?
The noise in the media seems to be that this move is intended to prosecute at the state level since a conviction would not be pardonable by Trump?
Were Manafort to be pardoned could his testimony then be compelled without him enjoying 5th amendment protection? it seems to me that if this were the true, evading federal scope of pardonability would not be a reason to inclulde New York in the investigation.
btw, thanks for thinking of me upthread. compensation was the least of the problems with attempting architecuture; so to speak.
j Ferguson,
Bringing a financial case against Trump or one of his family under NY law may well be the strategy. The objective here seems to be to drive Trump from office by any means possible.
J Ferguson “Is it possible that Mueller may, in his enquiries (as they say across the pond), have detected some mischief better prosecuted at the state level? Or something prosecutable by New York but not the US?”
… .
It is theoretically possible, but to reach that conclusion you would have to assume that a fair investigation was being conducted. I think exactly the opposite is occurring. Mueller is using Obama loyalists to conduct the so-called investigation. Now he adds a real low-life State Attorney General who is responsible for a really despicable lawsuit. It all points in the same direction. Witch-hunt .
Remember that Comey stated that a prosecutor would not bring a case for criminal gross negligence again Clinton for the email server issue. He didn’t say that the law had not been broken. Think about it. If the same issue arises with Mueller, what do you think he will do?
JD
Mueller is seeking to apply pressure to Manafort, who will then be expected to reveal something on Trump. Unless Manafort knows that Trump was secretly spending large sums of his own money and not reporting it, I don’t see what he could reveal from his two months as campaign chairman, and three months as ‘delegate corraler’. I think bribing the delegates is legal.
JD, I do assume a ‘fair’ investigation although certainly not without some motivation. I don’t kn ow but I would assume that many if mnot most investigations proceed on the basis that something wrong has been done. Maybe they don’t always know what it is in the beginning – “a crime has been (must have been) committed but we’re not yet sure what it is.
If it is something lie the above then I would say it entirely accurate to conclude that they are out to get someone.
I don’t mind if you blow up this line of reasoning because I can be pretty naive.
j ferguson Re: Fair Investigation
Here is what I said on Climate Audit
“If I didn’t know the way that Washington worked, I would say this has to be a joke. Latest hire by Mueller:
“Most recently [Greg Andres] a white-collar criminal defense lawyer with New York law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell, Andres, 50, served at the Justice Department from 2010 to 2012. He was deputy assistant attorney general in the criminal division, [worked for Obama] where he oversaw the fraud unit and managed the program that targeted illegal foreign bribery….
He is married to Ronnie Abrams, a U.S. district judge in Manhattan nominated to the bench in 2011 by Democratic President Barack Obama.â€
See http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-lawyer-exclusive-idUSKBN1AH5F9
….
Apparently, Mueller can’t find qualified non-political Attorneys and on top of that he can’t find Attorneys who aren’t Democrats. If he was really conducting an objective investigation, he would never hire people like this who are intimately connected to Obama and the Democrats. It should also be noted that Mueller was the head of the Justice Department unit that improperly (according to 9-0 Supreme Court decision) put Arthur Anderson out of business.”
My basic point is that there are at least 10s of thousands of attorneys who are competent to assist the investigation. If Mueller was being fair, he would go out of his way to use them. Instead he chooses blatantly biased Obama loyalists. (A Holder AG, whose wife was appointed as a federal judge !!! Please) Also, as Alan Dershowitz has pointed out, there is no underlying crime. It is not illegal (maybe it should be) for Russia to interfere in US elections. Of course, the US has interfered in the elections of many nations, such as Italy and Chile, [also, Brexit, openly by Obama] which makes the whole matter even more hypocritical. Finally, Mueller was also responsible for the Anderson fiasco, which put Arthur Anderson out of business for no reason.
JD
If they take Trump out on what would be viewed as legal chicanery it would unleash social forces that absolutely do not need to be unleashed. This is the Pentagon’s win the war, lose the peace strategy.
Tom,
How taking Trump out would be viewed depends on the reason for taking him out and the evidence available to the public.
I wouldn’t mind if he was out provided the reason was sound. I’d be perfectly happy with Pence. (I continue to hope Trump will be struck by a lightening bolt hurled by Thor, god of thunder. )
Why try to take him out on an obstruction charge or such? Realistically with Trump you just need to wait him out, he will shoot his own foot eventually. If the Mueller investigation turns up nothing significant it’s going to be hard to justify starting another one. Pence is much worse for the left IMO. He’d probably be semi-competent and people who were buying “the system is rigged” are going to have pitchforks and torches in their hands. It would flip the script on emotional outrage.
Tom S: ” If the Mueller investigation turns up nothing significant it’s going to be hard to justify starting another one. Pence is much worse for the left IMO.”
….
Whether there is anything out of the ordinary by the standards of Washington DC or not, Mueller will find something. That is what he has signaled by moving some of the prosecution to a grand jury in Washington DC, which would be more hostile to defendants than Virginia. If you seized the computers of top government officials [be very interesting to see Mueller and Comey computers and those of their associates] and looked at them with a fine tooth comb, you would find something to charge with respect to about 80% of them. If Comey had seized the computers of Clinton, her aides and of people working for the Clinton foundation, additional (to server issue) chargeable offenses would be found.
….
What is so irritating to me is that Comey plays the Boy Scout and doesn’t even tape Clinton’s testimony. Total joke. Then we have Mueller who illegitimately put Arthur Anderson out of business and who is giving free reign to Obama supporters to conduct fishing expeditions into the computers of Trump supporters and associates. It is not a question of whether there will be charges. Rather, it is a question of who will be charged and what the charges will be.
….
As I have said before, I would much prefer Pence to Trump. Unfortunately, Trump, so far, has shown zero ability to grow in office, which I previously had a small hope for. However, this whole special prosecutor thing is getting really dirty.
JD
JD Ohio,
When has a special prosecutor thing not been really dirty? I can’t think of any, and that includes Ken Starr. Their remit is different. In theory, IIRC, prosecutors can’t go on fishing expeditions to find a crime. There must be some probable cause. The remit of a special prosecutor is almost by definition a fishing expedition. If he doesn’t charge anyone, he’s going to be thought to be covering something up or is incompetent or both.
Steven Mosher says: August 31, 2017 at 5:45 am at ATTP
“Bigger problem might even be that a GCM year is 360 daysâ€
Now that is a can of worms.
In the simplified world that climate models represent the Gregorian calendar of 365/366 days is not always used. For historic reasons some GCMs have been set up to have a ‘simpler’ calendar. Some models omit the leap day and use a calendar of 365 days. And a few models use a 360 day calendar in which each month is assumed to be 30 days.
So much for yearly energy balances then.
Do they take the whole years 365 days heat and stuff it into 360 days?
No wonder the world is heating up.
–
I realise I am naive but is this an issue that everyone knows and just goes ho hum or does it on many levels invalidate the models.
How many of the IPCC models are 360 days if any?
–
Lucia, hate him or hate him life is just so much more interesting with Trump than Pence.
Plus on the Skeptic, not your lukewarmer side the arguments, poor as they are, are at least getting an airing.
How he got this far I do not know.
No Bill Clinton teflon.
More the incredible absorbing man or the Blob from Marvel.
angech
“May you live in interesting times.” is a curse, not a blessing.
lucia,
Yes. And these are also curses, not blessings: “May you get everything you wish for.” and “May people in high places notice you.” As I remember, they’re from China.
IDK. I blush to admit, I experience a certain degree of schadenfreude watching how severely Trump pisses off certain folk in the media, as well as in our government. It’s childish, but I’m not eager for that to end.
.
It’s the little chuckles that keep us staggering along through life, in my view.
>doesn’t even tape Clinton’s testimony.
Standard FBI procedure, even with McNally(and I think without this you don’t find Brady guilty).
They might find some sort of tax fraud for Trump, or breaking other laws with his real estate including mafia dealings. Gone far afield from Russia, but still criminal actions. What would Congress do?
Seems to me there is a path to get Sessions to unrecuse by asking him about whether it OK with him that his underling ignores regulations on appointment of a special counsel.
Happy wife, happy life.
Trump seems happy and in control at the moment.
He is not a naturally grumpy old man.
Some directed anger perhaps.
Also chuckling away.
Feel 9 meter high plastic walls with alarms would be as good as silly concrete blocks.
I thought most of the border is already walled anyway??
Mike N: “doesn’t even tape Clinton’s testimony. Standard FBI procedure …”
It used to be has somewhat changed. See https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/23/us/politics/justice-dept-to-reverse-ban-on-recording-interrogations.html?_r=0 In any event, it is standard in most states to tape interrogations, and it should be done by the FBI to ensure accuracy. My understanding is the FBI historically refused to tape interrogations, so that it could massage the testimony — juries would believe agents more than defendants. An unjustified reason for the policy.
Additionally, when you are dealing with a known, powerful liar like Clinton, for the purposes of that particular case if you are in fact serious, you need to exercise your discretion and record her testimony. Comey didn’t do so simply because he had already decided to forego prosecution, and the questioning of her was simply a fake show for most of the public so that the FBI could pretend that it had seriously questioned Clinton.
Also, the Brady situation was purely a private matter and had absolutely nothing to do with the FBI.
JD
My understanding is the FBI historically refused to tape interrogations, so that it could massage the testimony
That’s the real FBI, Hoover’s creation, not as shown on TV or the movies. Hair and fiber experts that aren’t actually experts, for example. Or if they are, they’re giving false testimony in court. But since they’re the FBI, a jury will believe them anyway. The list goes on and on.
JD Ohio,
Of course it is a political witch hunt… one that started as soon as Trump won in November. It is not going to stop. Muller and his posse will use a grand jury to get one or more criminal inditements against Trump’s associates, Trump family members, or both, which will have absolutely nothing to do with collusion with Russia. These will be classic ‘a grand jury will indite a ham sandwich’ type inditements, and almost certaintly related to financial transactions, that when viewed in the least favorable light possible, might be considered to have crossed the line between legal and illegal. The objective is and will remain to pressure Trump to resign, and at some point I suspect Muller will let Trump know who is going to prison…. unless he resigns, that is. I am sure Muller believes driving Trump from office is worth political corruption of the Justice Department, just as I am sure he is mistaken about that.
I’m a little confused here. If an interrogation of a target of an investigation has been recorded is that recording later admissable in court? I suppose it would be useful for the internal development of a prosecution even if not admissable. I’m assuming that the contents of an interrogation can be used in court but am asking about the tape itself. In other words is not recording really that big a deal?
I’ve seen only one reference in the media to the idea that having been pardoned a person can no longer rely on 5th amendment to avoid testimony related to the subject of his pardon. If this is the case, then all this stuff about Mueller wanting to expose Manafort to a State level prosecution to get him to tesitfy assuming he will be pardoned is nonsense.
Ford’s pardon of Nixon would seem to have been an obstrruction of justice since the gears were just beginning to turn, but it derailed his impeachment and prosecution in the Senate, not the machinations of our justice department. So there is a precedent for a pardon of a hypothetical crime. Those who suppose that Trump may pardon some of his colleagues prior to their indictments may be thinking that this would be obstruction which I imagine it would be but he wouldn’t be the first. Ford and maybe some others have already done it.
From a NYTimes discussion of Bush’s pardon of former Defense Secretary Weinberger et al.:
Mr. Bush said today that the Walsh prosecution reflected “a profoundly troubling development in the political and legal climate of our country: the criminalization of policy differences.”
He added: “These differences should have been addressed in the political arena without the Damocles sword of criminality hanging over the heads of some of the combatants. The proper target is the President, not his subordinates; the proper forum is the voting booth, not the courtroom.”
SteveF,
I completely agree that corrupting the justice process to rid us of Trump is too high a price. It would be devastating to the assumptions we’ve heretofore tried to run our country on.
I suspect there are a lot of folks out there that would think it’s worth the price, but not me.
From what I’ve seen so far, i can’t imagine that they are going to be able to make a substantial case of conspiracy to involve a foreign power in an election, which is what I think this thing would come down to.
j ferguson,
My understanding is that any recording would have to be made available to the defense… which is why the prosecutors might not want to record an interrogation. JD Ohio can correct me if I am wrong about this.
.
‘Contemporaneous notes’ like Comey’s (about Trump conversations) can be tilted/biased in ways a disinterested party listening to a recording of a conversation would not be. Which of course is why Trump bluffed Comey with the possibility of audio recordings of their conversations. No matter what you think of Trump, he is not so dumb as to let Comey use biased ‘personal notes’ to inaccurately portray their conversations. I have no doubt Comey understood Trump’s message: “If you lie to Congress about those conversations, you could end up in a jail cell.”
angech (Comment #164799): “Feel 9 meter high plastic walls with alarms would be as good as silly concrete blocks.”
Only if the border patrol can respond in a timely manner. That is not usually the case. Building a road on the U.S. side is probably at least as important as a wall, and is quite possibly the main cost of building a wall.
There are many proposals for the design of a wall, at least some of which are being tested.
.
angech: “I thought most of the border is already walled anyway??”
No, it is only walled in urban areas. Most of the rest has some sort of “barrier” such as the Rio Grande River (which one can often walk across), a couple strands of barbed wire, or vehicle barriers that one can walk around.
j ferguson (Comment #164803): “If an interrogation of a target of an investigation has been recorded is that recording later admissable in court?”
Of course it is admissible, at least as long as it is not made surreptitiously. Why wouldn’t it be?
.
j ferguson : “Ford’s pardon of Nixon would seem to have been an obstrruction of justice since the gears were just beginning to turn, but it derailed his impeachment and prosecution in the Senate, not the machinations of our justice department.”
The pardon had no effect on impeachment since that was no longer possible once Nixon resigned. A pardon can not possibly be obstruction with respect to the individual being pardoned. One might argue that a pardon of an underling might be used to obstruct an investigation into someone higher up. Some have claimed that Bush’s pardon of Weinberger was a coverup. But legally, I don’t think it is possible for a pardon to be deemed obstruction.
mark bofill,
One of Trump’s few redeeming characteristics is the ability to make the left look like screeching maniacs. Trump gave $1M of his own money to Harvey victims and I could just feel the pain and suffering it took for some of the media to even write that story. An all time troll, WH spokesman to the press:
.
“He actually asked that I check with the folks in this room, since you are very good at research and have been doing a lot of reporting into the groups and organizations that are best and most effective in helping and providing aid, and he’d love some suggestions from the folks here and I’d be happy to take those,â€
.
I think a few media members had to check in for psychological counseling after that one, ha ha.
.
The NYT, naturally had to add this to their story:
.
“But Mr. Trump reportedly donates far less of his income and assets than many of his ultra wealthy peers, and this donation comes with questions attached. In the past, he has failed to follow through on promised donations from his nonprofit foundation.”
.
NPR:
.
“Trump has had a spotty record when it comes to pledging and then actually carrying through on his promises to donate money to charities. He has in the past also exaggerated the amount of money he has given through his now-shuttered charitable foundation. In January of 2016, then-candidate Trump pledged to give $1 million to veterans charities, but it wasn’t until reporters pressed him months later that most of the money was doled out.”
.
Never let up, not even for a minute.
Tom,
🙂 Indeed. Sometimes I think this was the real reason, maybe the main reason even, that Trump got elected. Just enough voters distributed out across America wanted to say ‘screw you’ to … somebody. I’m pretty sure it was a factor at least.
.
What better way than by electing Donald Trump.
They can record an interrogation if they want to, but I certainly want to record it for myself.
.
Does the interviewee have the right to record their own interrogation?
If instead of a wall we built an army of about a 1000 hunter killer drones that would probably be cheaper and more effective. I jest in doing this for real, but it would be more effective. After about two weeks and several high profile “leaked” surveillance videos attempted border crossings would stop almost completely. That’s what the psychopath side of my brain recommends.
.
ISIS has this kind of mentality, have you noticed how many reporters are covering the Syrian civil war? I mean the ones that still have heads?
.
End morbid humor.
Tom Scharf (Comment #164813): “If instead of a wall we built an army of about a 1000 hunter killer drones that would probably be cheaper and more effective.”
Trump has already implemented a more humane version of that. By making it clear that our laws will now be enforced, he has significantly reduced the number of attempted crossing.
We can not build a wall that would be some sort of passive, impenetrable barrier. It needs to be combined with surveillance, so that the Border Patrol knows where the violators are, and the Border Patrol must be able to respond quickly. Then the purpose of the barrier is to slow the violators down enough so that they are still in the process of crossing when the Border Patrol arrives on the scene. That usually requires at least a double fence.
If the odds of successfully crossing are low enough, the number attempting to cross will drop dramatically.
Tom Scharf – “Just enough voters distributed out across America wanted to say ‘screw you’ to … somebody. I’m pretty sure it was a factor at least.”
.
Which is essentially what Michael Moore thought when he predicted Trump would win. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lMp_363B2c
Tom Scharf (Comment #164813): “If instead of a wall we built an army of about a 1000 hunter killer drones that would probably be cheaper and more effective. I jest in doing this for real, but it would be more effective.”
Maybe instead of bullets, the drones could fire exploding dye packs like the ones used to foil bank robbers. Perhaps a really putrid mercaptan could be added, as a further aid to detection and as a disincentive.
DaveJR,
.
Actually you were quoting me, not Tom.
.
Pointing out that I share views with Michael Moore… You sure know how to put me in my place! Ugh. 🙂
.
Thanks Dave.
Tom Scharf,
“Never let up, not even for a minute.”
.
The left never does. Nor do the greens. Nor do the crazy Nazis. Totalitarians never do.
.
The left and the greens want a very different world from the one that exists, where ‘enlightened global leaders’ of the left, like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bernie ‘USSR’ Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and a host of obnoxious Davos types (AKA self-congratulating elites) dictate which activities are and are not allowed, quite independent of what the public wants, and quite independent of what the plain words of the US Constitution say.
.
It’s always ends-justify-the-means with the left, which is exactly what we saw with Mr. Obama’s many extra-legal and/or unconstitutional executive orders, international ‘agreements’, and regulations (which, not coincidentally, mostly took place after he didn’t face re-election).
Steve,
.
I get what you’re saying about Bernie and Elizabeth. I didn’t think the Onion Knight fairly ought to be counted in their ranks though…
:p
Davos who?
DavidJR,
That was pretty good. Michael Moore Oct 2016: “Trump’s election will be the biggest F U ever recorded in human history….and it will feel…good”. He is definitely a self promoter but he does understand blue collar mentality.
.
Watching national TV on election night was pretty entertaining. OK, we had our hit of crack, now what do we do? What is going to be interesting is to see what the establishment learns from this. They are still in the rage and denial phase, but my guess is politics in 2018 and 2020 will be much different. They may really hate Trump, but they will be trying to learn from him in the end.
.
A lot of the establishment rage is sourced in fear. Fear of loss of their “privilege”. How dare those commoners! The scariest thing that can happen is when Harvard, Yale, and Princeton no longer matter.
Mike M,
Thanks for straightening out my memory of the sequence of events associated with Nixon’s departure. Given what you’ve reminded me of, what I wrote makes no sense.
Vox hard hitting journalism on Antifa. Somehow the recent Berkeley beat downs, the destruction of the press’s cameras who tried to cover it, and why they cover their own identities while doxxing everyone else doesn’t come up. Apparently they are peaceful and want dialog with conservatives. No hilarious laughing occurs. https://www.vox.com/2017/9/1/16202908/antifa-charlottesville-alt-right-white-nationalist-protest
Tom Scharf (Comment #164823): “Vox hard hitting journalism on Antifa.”
They quote the Antifa spokesman: ““White supremacists are more afraid of us than we are of them.”
Of course. Law abiding citizens are more afraid of violent criminals than vice-versa.
Thanks for the link Tom. It almost reads (to me) as if the dude thinks he’s Batman, only without the money or the brains.
.
Vigilantes. It surprised me, maybe it shouldn’t have, that some think this is a good idea. Over here I see that out of any three (3) people who troubled to voice an opinion, two (2) though that vigilantes are a good thing.
I sometimes wonder if the progressing generations of humans aren’t slowly losing their abilities to understand abstract concepts. shrug
Tom Scharf,
“The scariest thing that can happen is when Harvard, Yale, and Princeton no longer matter.”
.
They matter a lot less than they think they do. I am reminded of William F Buckley’s comparison of governance by the Harvard faculty with governance by random people drawn from the Boston telephone directory… and how he would much preferred the later.
I suspect antifa has been threatening some Democrats and made them change their tune.
Re: Unrecorded Interrogations
….
When in the course of looking at the Hillary Clinton FBI “questioning” I discovered that the FBI had a long history of not recording investigations, [substantially modified shortly before Clinton “questioning”] I was astounded. [wtf] In my workers’ compensation practice, my clients were routinely deposed, and neither I nor the defense would even consider having a deposition that was not videotaped or transcribed by a court reporter. That the FBI would be so callous and cruel concerning its duty to discover the truth, is truly ethically disgusting. Unfortunately, it is not unusual for prosecutors and the police to knowingly hide or oppose highly excupatory evidence — quite often, simply to avoid embarrassment for defective prosecutions. See for instance, https://jonathanturley.org/2013/12/05/prosecutors-oppose-dna-testing-for-inmate-dna-tests-then-link-different-man-to-murder/comment-page-2/
I have mixed feelings about the Arpaio pardon, but in reading Turley article, no matter what your view on Arpaio, Trump’s pardon ranks way down the list of ill-advised presidential pardons.
JD
JD Ohio,
.
You keep sugesting that sending Arthur Anderson & Co. on a perpetual vacation was unwarranted and perhaps a misapplication of prosecutorial power. I agree that their case seems to have come undone, but cannot it be one of those sorts of things which in th UK would be charaterized as un-proven rather than just plain wrong?
.
I had concluded at the the time of the Enron revelations that Arthur Anderson, either Arthur as it was called by some of its employees or Andersonville by others, fully deserved to find some other line of work. It seemed to me that they were blessing (or overlooking) some very unusual bookkeeping practices at Enron, practices which would deceive Enron’s shareholders into thinking that the business was much more productive than it actually was, practices which included crediting the amounts of loans to their net while not recognizing the liability.
.
It may be that you know a whole lot more about this than I do, and if so, it probably isn’t worth anyone’s time to hash this out.
.
Suffice it to say I have relatives that were toilng in the Dallas office of Anderson at the time who were much put out that the company was being prosecuted. They seemed convinced that their charge in their business with Enron did not include detection or reporting of fraud nor really much due dillgence beyond review of their books in accordance with GAAP. I would submit that Enron’s books couldn’t possibly have conformed to GAAP. So putting them out of business may have been warranted even if the exact means was defective.
.
I suppose you could say that Arthur was no worse than the others and that any knowledgeable investor should know that audits are not a good guide to much of anything.
I have become a bit frustrated that some CEO’s aren’t getting thrown in jail for obscene practices at their company. Have you seen the latest at Wells Fargo? There was a big scandal last year, and now they have uncovered a lot more of the same thing.
.
“That question took on greater urgency Thursday after Wells issued disturbing new disclosures about its customer dealings. The bank concluded that it had opened as many as 3.5 million unwanted accounts for customers, 1.4 million more than previous estimates. What’s more, Wells admitted a new impropriety: enrolling more than half a million accounts into its online bill pay service without customers’ permission.
The mounting infractions at Wells Fargo are getting hard to track without a scorecard. Unrequested auto insurance that affected 800,000 people — check. Unauthorized changes to mortgage repayment terms in bankruptcy — check. Improper withholding of refunds to some car loan customers — check.”
.
If CEO’s are going to get paid huge salaries because of their “responsibilities” then they should also actually have some responsibility for illegal practices. They inoculate themselves by leaving no paper trails. They don’t use email, they don’t use social media and typically conduct business with a high emphasis on plausible deniability. They are corporate Antifa.
.
I’m sick of it. They need to be responsible for things like “making sure the company maintains proper procedures so you can’t cheat on emissions tests”, or “having an embarrassingly criminally corrupt sales team”.
.
If we need to make a new law to the tune “you are a shyster CEO and you should have known, we don’t care if you really knew or not” then so be it. Go rob the 7-11 down the street for $100 and you get 25 years. Rip off a million customers and you might get fired. Typically the justice department just settles with companies for sums of money that don’t even represent a year of profits.
.
Some CEO’s are “fine people”. Holding them accountable for others may seem unfair but at some point a threshold is crossed and they need to be held criminally responsible for their company’s actions. Wall Street was barely punished for the 2008 financial crisis, and I don’t think anything has changed.
Encore, encore Tom. I couldn’t agree more.
.
I was astonished that the folks who were trading in lousy-mortgage backed securities didn’t become guests of the state. Our advisor suggested that everyone knew they were no-good. BS. Trading in a bubble shoyuld probably be legal but maybe there wouldn;t be a bubble if all of the players actually understood what was going on.
.
It’s amazing to me that what looks a whole lof like fraud may not be.
.
oh my. I’m getting froth on the keyboard.
i don’t want to get started on Wells Fargo. But it is amazing that the guys who ran the place and inspired (term of art) the amazing practice of improviong returns by creating new accounts for their existing customers kept their positions and income while the folks who were forced into this (what should have been criminal) activity lost their jobs.
.
It might be helpful to read De Toqueville’s very instructive book, The Revolution and the Old Regime, to get the flavor of how the peasants (most of us) can only be screwed so long before the tumbrils are trotted out.
.
Our very wonderful banking relationship with Wachovia was absorbed by Wells Fargo which then proceeded to carve back the perks which came with our balance and try to separate out parallel services such as on-line account review AND mailed statements such that you couldn’t get both no matter what.
.
This may not seem like a big deal but it is when you are trying to manage an account of an ancestor who is 102 from afar. There are other failures by them to provide the same services which I could easily get from my Mom’s bank, but alas not from them.
.
I wonder if they were any good with horses.
.
Tom, I see you are in Tampa. Sometime we need to meet, maybe with SteveF when he gets back from the Cape and work ourselves into the lather I can easily imagine.
J Ferguson: “You keep sugesting that sending Arthur Anderson & Co. on a perpetual vacation was unwarranted and perhaps a misapplication of prosecutorial power. I agree that their case seems to have come undone, but cannot it be one of those sorts of things which in th UK would be charaterized as un-proven rather than just plain wrong?”
….
Theoretically, you can say it is unproven, but that is always the case when a conviction is overturned on appeal. However, what is reprehensible about Mueller’s (and the prosecutor’s) actions is the extent he went to stretch the meaning of this statute: “In this [Supreme Court] case, our attention is focused on what it means
to “knowingly … corruptly persuad[e]†another person “with intent to … cause†that person to “withhold†documents from, or “alter†documents for use in, an “official proceeding.†See very readable Supreme Court case here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-368.ZO.html
….
The Supreme Court commented that: ““We have traditionally exercised restraint in assessing the reach of a federal criminal statute, both out of deference to the prerogatives of Congress, Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985), and out of concern that ‘a fair warning should be given to the world in language that the common world will understand, of what the law intends to do if a certain line is passed,’ McBoyle v. United States, 283 U.S. 25, 27 (1931).†United States v. Aguilar, 515 U.S. 593, 600 (1995).
Such restraint is particularly appropriate here, where the act underlying the conviction–“persua[sion]â€â€“is by itself innocuous. Indeed, “persuad[ing]†a person “with intent to … cause†that person to “withhold†testimony or documents from a Government proceeding or Government official is not inherently malign.8 Consider, for instance, a mother who suggests to her son that he invoke his right against compelled self-incrimination, see U.S. Const., Amdt. 5, or a wife who persuades her husband not to disclose marital confidences, see Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 (1980).
Nor is it necessarily corrupt for an attorney to “persuad[e]†a client “with intent to … cause†that client to “withhold†documents from the Government.”
….
Mueller didn’t go after any fraudulent activities of Anderson — he stretched the statute very far, and in the anti-Enron atmosphere the prosecution was able to get an instruction to the jury that did not require bad intent for a conviction. Virtually never do you get the ideologically fractured Supreme Court to agree 9-0, but that is what happened here, which is a strong indication to me of gross over-reaching. Personally, I see a lot of what happened to Anderson in the way that Mueller is going after Trump. Didn’t see the same fervor when Comey was supposedly investigating Clinton.
JD
In comment no. #164791, I stated what a joke it was for Comey not to tape Clinton’s testimony. The recent revelation that Comey drafted a letter exonerating Clinton prior to questioning her and other very important witnesses, supports my contention about what a joke the “questioning” of Clinton was. It wasn’t real questioning; rather, it was window dressing to give the public the false impression that Clinton had been thoroughly investigated.
…..
One summary stated: “It appears that in April or early May of 2016, Mr. Comey had already decided he would issue a statement exonerating Secretary Clinton,†the letter said.
“That was long before FBI agents finished their work. Mr. Comey even circulated an early draft statement to select members of senior FBI leadership,†it said. “The outcome of an investigation should not be prejudged while FBI agents are still hard at work trying to gather the facts.â€
“Finally, Mueller was also responsible for the Anderson fiasco, which put Arthur Anderson out of business for no reason.”
Thanks JD. I did not know this. I need to go back and refresh my memory of how bad that was.
To get an idea of the arrogance and obtuseness of some prosecutors, here is the statement of the trial lawyer in the Arthur Anderson case: “[Leslie] Caldwell laughed off the reference and refused to take blame for Anderson’s demise. “I don’t believe the Justice Department is responsible for what happened to Arthur Andersen,†she said in the Sept. 5 interview. “I believe Arthur Andersen management is responsible.†see http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20140912/NEWS01/140919932/enron-buster-is-back-at-justice-taking-aim-at-individual-bankers
Mark Bofill (#164739):
Apparently, you are unaware that counts have been made of killings attributed to the “far leftâ€, to “Islamistsâ€, and to the “far rightâ€, in the USA. The Government Accountability Office tallied the murders attributable to the far right and to Islamists, over the period 2001-2016. See the following document, pp.28-35. http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/683984.pdf
There seem to have been far more murders committed by the far right than by the far left. In fact, from this document, it looks as though the score is 106:0.
To Tom Scharf (#164744):
“Both Antifa and the fringe right both pose exactly zero threat to society.â€
I disagree with you. You seem to think that they’re “equivalent†phenomena. Again, I point you to the obvious fact that the far right in the US has killed far more people than have been killed by the far left. See my separate reply to Mark Bofill. Why do you find it so hard to admit this?
SteveF (#164818)
“The left and the greens want a very different world from the one that exists, where ‘enlightened global leaders’ of the left, like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bernie ‘USSR’ Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and a host of obnoxious Davos types (AKA self-congratulating elites)†[my emphasis]
And “It’s always ends-justify-the-means with the left,……â€.
A couple of quibbles.
(1) In fact, “the leftâ€, to the extent that one can describe them as speaking with any kind of united voice on any issue at all, are very much against the governance by self-elected elites, of which you write. That’s precisely what all the demonstrations against the World Economic Forums have been about!
(2) To describe Clinton as being “of the left†is risible. Presumably, you are unaware of the contempt in which Clinton is held by large sections of the left. I think it would be truer to say that Clinton is held in regard only by wishy-washy liberals. And by “liberal†I do not mean a synonym for “left†or “socialistâ€.
(3) I do not disagree with you about the use of ends/means arguments in justifying policies. I do not, however, agree with you in your implication that the use of “the ends justify the means†philosophy is restricted to the left. In fact, the use of such justifications has been widespread in recent political history, on all sides of politics (to justify the torture of suspected Islamist terrorists, for example). What else is the conventional defense of the atomic bombings of Japan but an appalling application of “the ends justify the means� (The philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, perhaps more than almost anyone else, has pointed out where this can lead: to the justification of any enormity.)
To De Witt (# 164746, and elsewhere)
DeWitt, I think that you make a mistake that many have made before you, in equating totalitarianism of the left with that of the right. I have a colleague who passed from the observation that the Nazis called themselves “National Socialists†to the conclusion that there was, therefore, no difference between Nazis and socialists (!!!). But there is! At the very least, one would have to explain why “national socialist†regimes in Germany and Italy went to war against the communist and socialist parties, within their own countries. We must recognize that both fascism and communism are doctrines that are at odds with the assumptions of individualist liberal democracies. But they face one another not from the same side of the divide, but from opposite sides. For fascism is a doctrine born of irrationalist notions of blood and soil. Communism (in its Marxist variant) is, whatever one might think of it, based on perfectly rational beliefs about the future of capitalism and the role of the industrial working class in its overthrow. This is why, in case you hadn’t noticed, fascist regimes, or strongly authoritarian regimes, grew their deepest roots in countries- Germany, Italy, Spain- in which liberal democracy had not taken root in the way it did in the USA, Britain, and France. (I will also note in passing that these countries were- are- predominantly Catholic. Now there’s food for thought!)
I also think that by applying the word “fascist†to people who are merely nasty, or whom we don’t like, we are debasing the word and impoverishing the language. For we are taking a word that has a meaning in describing the wholesale re-organisation of entire societies along lines of blood and soil (and not of class membership) and thereby emptying it of meaning.
Final word to you: anarchists also wear black.
PeteD
This is why, in case you hadn’t noticed, fascist regimes, or strongly authoritarian regimes, grew their deepest roots in countries- Germany, Italy, Spain- in which liberal democracy had not taken root in the way it did in the USA, Britain, and France. (I will also note in passing that these countries were- are- predominantly Catholic. Now there’s food for thought!)
Communism also grew their deepest roots in countries in which liberal democracy had not taken root as it did in the USA, Britain and France.
PeteD,
What is truly risible is someone who thinks ‘liberals’ like Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton, who fashion their policies along the lines of Robin Hood’s, are not of the left. The fact the Hillary is personally corrupt and famously money grubbing, despite being already very wealthy, does not make her any less ‘of the left.’
PeteD,
“What else is the conventional defense of the atomic bombings of Japan but an appalling application of “the ends justify the meansâ€?”
.
I nearly snarfed my coffee.
.
You have swallowed the liberal koolaid my friend.
PeteD,
.
Hi. I’m a little perplexed at what we are talking about and why. If I understand you correctly, you argue that more murders have been committed by the far Right than the far Left and cite a GAO document to support this.
So what?
I enjoy engaging different viewpoints, but. Help me out here. What are you saying?
Ahh.
“Both Antifa and the fringe right both pose exactly zero threat to society.â€
(response)
I disagree with you. You seem to think that they’re “equivalent†phenomena. Again, I point you to the obvious fact that the far right in the US has killed far more people than have been killed by the far left.
If your point is that Antifa has not killed a lot of people, or that the left has not killed alot of people, and therefore they are benign, … Ok. I’m not particularly impressed with that notion of ‘benign’. It’s not my position that Antifa is a problem because they have a large body count.
But let’s get to the heart of the matter:
Antifa uses thuggery and intimidation to suppress views and speech they consider undesirable. This is, if not unhealthy for our society, [is] at least not to be admired. Not in my view, at any rate.
Take us for instance. I disagree with you, but I welcome the discussion and prefer that you air your views honestly and without regard to how I feel about them. Do you not prefer this to the antifa approach, personally? Real question (astonishing as it seems to me that I need to ask that), but my answer is ‘I sure do!’
Thanks Pete.
I think one of the main problems Antifa defenders have is they seem to advance the argument that either Fascists are bad or Antifa is bad. Both appear to be bad. Both should be denounced.
Also: just because a group calls itself “antifacist” doens’t mean it’s actually “antifacist”. I don’t think the riots we’ve seen with people breaking windows has anything to do with protesting facism.
Obviously, some right wing groups and people are a problem. Which is the bigger danger is whichever one manages to get more people to not denounce them.
Thanks Lucia. I was considering making a similar comment. It’s not inherently a ‘right / left’ issue. Anybody in my book who uses mob tactics and violence to intimidate and silence people is a problem. I don’t care what side of the political spectrum it comes from.
I do not, however, agree with you in your implication that the use of “the ends justify the means†philosophy is restricted to the left. In fact, the use of such justifications has been widespread in recent political history, on all sides of politics (to justify the torture of suspected Islamist terrorists, for example).
that you understand that … what shall we say.. ‘bad behaviors’ perhaps, are not unique to either side. Perhaps we have no disagreement. I condemn the neo-nazi’s. I invite you to join me in condemning antifa. What say you?
PeteD (Comment #164841): “”http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/683984.pdf There seem to have been far more murders committed by the far right than by the far left.”
But that is very questionable. Many of the cases seem to be just murders, without a political component. Zero murders by people on the left defies belief. And there is a glaring mis-categorization on page 36: “Anti-government violent extremist flew a small plane into an Austin, TX office building with U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) office in it to protest the IRS and the government”, 2/18/2010, Austin, Texas. That would be Joseph Andrew Stack who appears to have been mad at the government for being on the side of the evil corporations. Two quotes from his manifesto:
“The recent presidential puppet GW Bush and his cronies in their eight years certainly reinforced for all of us that this criticism rings equally true for all of the government.”
“The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.”
Thanks JD, for your further thoughts on Anderson. proving intent seems a high (and worthy, I might add) hurdle for some sorts of activities where there may be equivalent chance of bad results with one possibility being bad luck, another incompetence, and only the last ill itent – and yet the results all look the same.
We’re off to OZ, so less frequent reading here.
Pete D: “There seem to have been far more murders committed by the far right than by the far left.â€
….
Couldn’t get to link. However, that seems to be a very misleading statement. Although I wouldn’t characterize Muslims as being Leftist, they are aligned with the Left on most issues. (Such as advocating for de facto open borders and Muslims voting 70% Democratic) Thus, if you consider 9/11 and the multiple Muslim terrorist attacks, the larger number of deaths is caused by the Left and those aligned with the Left.
JD
PeteD,
I suppose the starting point for that stat in 2001 was just random, right? I’m going to go waaaaaaaay out in left field and suggest 9/11 matters in these counts. If you don’t count Charlottesville, recent Nazi killings also aren’t so bad. If white supremacists killed 3,000 people in 2001 I also suggest that would be meaningful to you. Starting any terrorism stat with since 2001…usually involves me not finishing the sentence.
.
I’m not really that interested in who has the highest death count recently left vs. right, nor do I care who thinks what is equivalent or not. Evil is in the eye of the beholder and miraculously one’s ideological opponents tend to fit that eye rather nicely. Both sides are despicable with regards to violence. I’m also quite cognizant that touting death stats like these doesn’t always age well. I dislike political violence, end of sentence.
.
These extremists groups pose zero threat to society in the sense that these movements have zero hope of becoming mainstream.
I have heard from the left’s highest moral authority (The Daily Show) that Antifa is to be called “Vegan ISIS”. It seems the practice of labeling random people Nazi’s and then unleashing a mob beating isn’t a very popular tactic after all. Something I read: “One of the least safe places to be in Berkeley, Calif., is in the vicinity of someone holding a “No Hate†sign.”. Most of the crowds are peaceful protesters. If they want to rage at the machine, have at it. It’s probably a bad idea to invite in Darth Vader as protection though, he’s a bit temperamental.
PeteD,
So the Nazi’s went after socialists. The Trotskyites and other communist variants didn’t do real well under Stalin either, not to mention a lot of the old Bolsheviks. Totalitarians annihilate the competition.
I looked at Pete’s reference and the starting date is the first indication of bias. It also omits the spate of executions of police officers by Black nationalists. Dallas (where 5 died) was July 17, 2016. Just last month 2 offices where executed in Florida. Surely, such black nationalist attacks should count as “left wing”. They are certainly not right wing. So why were they omitted since Dallas was within the period studied? Obama whitewashing of BLM comes to mind as a possible cause.
The criteria for classifying something as “right wing” is very broad and is really pretty meaningless. So “anti-globalist” is apparently “right wing” even though many on the left are “anti-globalist.”
In short, this report looks to me like its carefully designed to arrive at a pre-ordained conclusion. Much like Comey’s investigation of Clinton.
J Ferguson: “We’re off to OZ, so less frequent reading here.”
Enjoy your trip. I have gotten used to 15 hour trips to China and in fact, quite often enjoy reading on the trips. Don’t know if I could take what I am assuming is a much longer trip to OZ.
JD
Obama did exactly what Trump is accused of, obstructed justice. The fix was in in April. Comey’s statement exonerating Clinton repeats Obama nearly word for word.
Dewitt, I’m appalled how some people are truly above the law in your country. I really am.
The queen and her royal family are above the law in my country but the people of Denmark decided i that way. It is in our constitution and it serves a purpose.
It could be that I am naive but it is my definite impression that no member of our government or our administration are immune to criminal prosecution.
Why is this not the scandal of the century in your news outlets? A former secretary of state breaks the law and it has absolutely no consequences for her because she has friends in the government? I’m not impressed by the Danish media to say the least but I’m actually very confident a story like that would clear all headlines for weeks and weeks in this country. Even if it could somehow be argued that she didn’t break the law.
JD Ohio,
LAX to Sydney is just under 15 hrs direct flight. Of course, most people have to first fly to LA, so 20+ hrs total travel time is typical.
Niels ,
The lawlessness of the Obama administration was perfectly consistent: Obama consistently chose to ignore the law when he disagreed with it (eg immigration laws) ignore the US Constitution when it was convenient (eg international treaties like the Paris Accords) and nominated judges to the Supreme Court who were quite willing to “interpret” the words of the Constitution to mean the opposite of what they clearly say. Making sure Hillary was never prosecuted for her lawbreaking is just a small part of Obama’s lawlessness. As I noted above, it is always ends-justify-the-means with the left, and always has been. (Even if many empty headed “progressives” think otherwise.)
DeWitt,
“The fix was in in April.”
.
The fix was in a long time before that.
Niels A Nielsen (Comment #164863): “I’m appalled how some people are truly above the law in your country. I really am.”
I very much doubt it is really any different in Denmark. It is an undeniable fact that nobody in the U.S. is truly above the law. But like everywhere else, if you have powerful friends you might get away with things that others would not get away with.
Mike M. (Comment #164867) “I very much doubt it is really any different in Denmark.”
.
That’s your privilege of course.
But that doesn’t change my mind. I’m sure it is different. It’s a matter of degree of course but yes, it is very different in that regard.
.
“It is an undeniable fact that nobody in the U.S. is truly above the law.”
Is it? Nobody? It seems to me in that Hillary, Obama, Comey and others in this case are very much above the law. That nobody is above the law means that the law applies to everyone, no one is above it, we all must follow it. That seems to me to be very much an illusion in your country, I’m sorry to say.
.
AND I allege that the ideal “nobody is above the law” is actually true to a much larger extent in my country than in yours. I cannot remember thinking that someone in my country was not prosecuted just because he had influential friends. I really can’t.
It may have something to do with the size and homogeneity of the population. Corruption is almost absent in this country. Really.
lucia (Comment #164850)
September 4th, 2017 at 7:10 am
“… the bigger danger is whichever one manages to get more people to not denounce them.”
I appreciate the insightfulness of that comment and agree with it.
SteveF,
The fix was in a long time before that.
Sure. But in April we have hard evidence in the form of Comey’s memo detailing how he was going to exonerate HRC, long before the ‘investigation’ was complete.
Niels A Nielsen (Comment #164868),
I think we have a semantic disagreement.
You made reference to people being “truly” above the law in the U.S. The issue here is the word truly. Including that makes this a claim that the law says that some people are above the law. That is absolutely not the case in the U.S.
.
You wrote: “It seems to me in that Hillary, Obama, Comey and others in this case are very much above the law.”
Just because someone sometimes gets away with breaking the law does not mean they are above the law. Enforcing the law always has an element of discretion. If you have powerful friends, you will likely benefit from that discretion. If you have powerful enemies, you will likely be harmed by that discretion.
.
You wrote: “That nobody is above the law means that the law applies to everyone, no one is above it, we all must follow it. That seems to me to be very much an illusion in your country, I’m sorry to say.”
That is the ideal. The real world always falls short of the ideal. Failing to recognize that is an illusion.
.
You wrote: “I’m sure it is different. It’s a matter of degree of course but yes, it is very different in that regard.”
I don’t doubt that it is different in degree. Denmark is a very homogeneous country, making it easier to treat everyone the same.
.
You wrote: “AND I allege that the ideal “nobody is above the law†is actually true to a much larger extent in my country than in yours.”
That is a logical impossibility. It is either nobody or not nobody; either true or false. Perhaps Denmark come closer to the ideal than the U.S., but that is hardly justification for the looking-down-your-nose tone of your comment #164863.
Subjective opinions are useless for judging things like this. I know plenty of people who would be deeply offended by the suggestion that Hillary, Obama, Comey, etc. have done anything that requires prosecution.
I went to Walmart for something, people are in full hurricane freak out mode in Tampa already. No carts. No water. No hurricane essential anything. Parking lot completely full. Harvey apparently spooked them. Typically this doesn’t happen until 2-3 days before, not 5 days. Big lines at gas stations, one of them totally out of gas.
.
Curiously Goldfish appears to be an essential hurricane food item, ha ha. My kids grew up on those.
SteveF (Comment #164865)
September 5th, 2017 at 6:40 am
“..The lawlessness of the Obama administration was perfectly consistent..”
Steve, Obama and his administration certainly attempted to stretch the powers of the executive branch of government and Trump has been and will be no different in these regards. The issue in my mind is not Obama and Trump but rather that we in the US have ceded
too much power to government. I once argued, with a defender of Obama when he observed that Obama was not involved in the IRS differentiating politically between those groups getting tax considerations and adding that he thought Obama was an honest man (before perhaps “you can keep your plan”), that having what he thought was an honest administrator and still having a bureaucracy out of control was even more troubling and that was an obvious problem related to government power and even with unelected officials. I also see an arbitrariness in judicial rulings that fit with their political agendas as troubling and not an issue of personalities but rather of all branches of government having too much power and power that is often arbitrary. Comey’s arbitrariness is just another example of something that goes back to J Edgar Hoover who had no checks or balances for years.
Tom,
People preparing for the Hurricane is wise. Getting in early means Walmart may be able to restock the shelves for key items.
Tom Scharf (Comment #164872): “people are in full hurricane freak out mode”
I think if I were in Irma’s path, I’d be running. Some forecasts show Irma becoming the strongest Atlantic hurricane on record, with 200 MPH winds and a pressure below 900 mbar at landfall. Scary.
Mike M. (Comment #164871)
.
I don’t think we are in any fundamental disagreement. I just heard your comment “I very much doubt it is really any different in Denmark” as a resignation on the terrible state of the public life in your country. I thought what you said was that you see the same kind of preferential legal treatment of the rich and powerful everywhere. I thought you were saying that you believe that this is a normal/unavoidable state of affairs.
.
I wanted to point out that political and legal corruption as revealed by the Hillary, Obama, Comey case would spark extreme outrage in Denmark. Also among a lot of Danish leftists among whom simple decency can stil be found. Not all leftists act as if the end justifies the means, believe it or not Steve F 🙂
A very large percentage of Danes would agree that noone (except the queen/king) is above the law in their country and not just in theory.
.
“Subjective opinions are useless for judging things like this.” I don’t agree. I learn a lot from listening to different subjective opinions on things like this. What do you suggest we use instead to determine a country’s closeness to the ideal of “nobody above the law”?
Would you rather exchange “objective” data like the Corruption Perceptions Index from Transparancy International? http://www.transparency.org/cpi2016
.
1 Denmark
1 New Zealand
3 Finland
4 Sweden
.
The US is #18 on the list.
@Tom, re the “no water” — I thought that in FL people would save empty, sealable waterproof containers for just this sort of thing. I know in the USVI they do. Hell, I’m in MN, where we have no chance of getting hit by a hurricane, and I can think of ~200 gallons of potable water containers in different sizes off the top of my head. If I had 5 days to prepare (hell, one day) I could up that by 10x.
Tom,
I agree with Mike M. Riding out a potential Cat 5 hurricane is not a good idea. Leave. Now.
Well, board up your windows first, if you can find plywood.
Niels,
That’s #18 out of 176, so not too bad. A lot of people thought “the fix was in” from the beginning with Clinton and that may have proved to be true, but realistically it may have cost her the election. Most people found her very untrustworthy.
.
It’s unclear to me whether politicians are attacked with the same zealousness in Denmark as the US, if you are running for high office your closets are going to be searched thoroughly with a hyper-critical eye.
.
The argument for Clinton was she technically broke the law but “normal people” who did similar things, sending classified documents over email, without nefarious intent weren’t typically prosecuted. They might have been fired or reprimanded. I’m not necessarily agreeing with this view, I believe she obstructed justice by destroying her server after she was told to conserve records. The Clinton machine is pretty defensive in nature, but you can get that way when getting impeached for (not) having “relations” with interns. You are not paranoid when everyone is actually out to get you.
.
Witch hunts are standard practice in US politics now.
Kenneth Fritsch,
“Obama and his administration certainly attempted to stretch the powers of the executive branch of government and Trump has been and will be no different in these regards. ”
.
I must respectfully disagree. Trump has an array of opponents dedicated to making sure he is able to do almost nothing of substance. Even the tinest hint of stretching of presidebtial powers by Trump will be instantly blocked by an unruly hoard of “progressive” Federal judges (many no doubt wishing they could swap their black robes for black antifa garb… and punch out some conservatives just for fun). Federal judges only rarely stopped Obama, in spite of his grotesque flouting of the law. Besides, I suspect Trump is far less inclined to boss people about to promote his political agenda than Obama, who was IMO, the quintessential budding totalitarian who constantly disregards the Constitution. History will not be kind.
Niels A Nielsen (Comment #164876): “I don’t think we are in any fundamental disagreement.”
Maybe.
.
Niels: “I just heard your comment “I very much doubt it is really any different in Denmark†as a resignation on the terrible state of the public life in your country.”
Politicians in the U.S. are putting bickering and self-interest ahead of the good of the country to an unacceptable degree. I am not resigned to that. Trump gives me hope. But the issues with Obama, Clinton, and Comey are a different thing.
.
Niels: “I thought what you said was that you see the same kind of preferential legal treatment of the rich and powerful everywhere. I thought you were saying that you believe that this is a normal/unavoidable state of affairs.”
Of course that is the case. Only a fool would say otherwise. The only difference from one country to another is a matter of degree. The U.S. is a lot closer to perfect that it is to most countries (probably the large majority). Denmark might well be even better.
.
I wanted to point out that political and legal corruption as revealed by the Hillary, Obama, Comey case would spark extreme outrage in Denmark.
I am skeptical. I lived in Canada for 25 years; my guess is that Canadians would overwhelmingly take exception to any claim that their government is corrupt. Obama’s behavior would get a big fat yawn there. I suspect that would be so in most parliamentary democracies (certainly in Germany, from what I hear). The Clinton foundation might spark outrage (as in much of the U.S.), but the possibly criminal stuff she did, not so much. If Comey really put the fix in, that probably would spark outrage in Canada. I think it will here as well, if the news spreads and is confirmed.
.
Niels: “I learn a lot from listening to different subjective opinions on things like this.”
Well, yes. Such things can be interesting and instructive. But one should not confuse the resulting impressions with facts.
.
Niels: “What do you suggest we use instead to determine a country’s closeness to the ideal of “nobody above the lawâ€?”
Don’t know.
.
Niels: “Would you rather exchange “objective†data like the Corruption Perceptions Index from Transparancy International?”
I don’t think it is possible for a “Perceptions Index” to be objective. Might be useful for broad stokes, but not fine distinctions.
.
Niels: “1 Denmark …The US is #18 on the list.”
Is there a meaningful difference between #1 and #18?
Lax to Sydney 14 hours via AA.
Following a 4+ hour flight from Miami and followed in turn by one hour flight to Brisbane then 5 hour drive to Torquay, Queensland. Oog.
j ferguson,
Including drive time to Miami and time awaiting flights at airports, that sounds like 30+ hrs door to door. Ugh. Some people (rarely me!) break up that kind of travel with a night in LA or Sydney (I think Sydney is nicer).
When it rains, it pours. First Harvey stalls right on the coast, and now Irma is predicted to go right up the Florida coastline. Yikes.
+-50 miles is going to be a huge difference with this one. FEMA better check their bank account balance. It’s going to take a huge turn north on Sunday and the uncertainty is such that almost the entire state is threatened, even on Sunday.
.
For those interested the European model is the best single performing model. Drag the slider: https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/models/?model=ecmwf
Tom,
If Irma somehow manages to get into the Gulf and goes up the west coast of Florida, it will be even worse. There are a lot of cheaply built condos located on sand bars on the Gulf coast of Florida. The storm surge on the east side of a hurricane moving north will be higher than for the west side.
If you wait until you know where Irma is going for sure, it may be too late to leave.
Evacuation is kind of a problem. Typically you can just go elsewhere in Florida, as it sits now everyone on the coasts would have to leave the state or else risk evacuating right into the hurricane. I-95 and I-75 would saturate quickly. My guess is most people are going to sit tight until they determine which side of Florida it’s likely going to go. Except Miami. It’s not Florida’s first rodeo. Here are all Florida landfalls in the past 100 years, 28 major hurricanes: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/10/05/see-every-florida-storms-path-past-100-years/91637546/
.
Florida current building codes are about a Cat3 storm. Significant updates after Andrew. When I replaced the roof last year it had to be upgraded to new code, good timing.
Tom,
I-95 and I-75 would saturate quickly.
Isn’t that going to happen anyway? Best to get an early start.
From our vantage point in east Oz, the storm is a bit of an abstraction. The landlord was unable to muster the troops to erect our storm panels for Matthew (last fall’s blow), but we lucked out and had no damage. the property manager had caused the trees to be thinned out and we (well all of us) only lost one.
.
Doubting that the landlord would ever be able to get storm panels erected during the panic which precedes a real storm, we asked him to install impact glazing. He wouldn’t do it because he said he’d never recover the cost. So we split it with him and now we have them and they are quite stout. Our place in Delray Beach is stucco on CMU with concrete slabs except for the frame roof – built in 2004. It is probably about as good as you can get down here for residential construction so we are optimistic.
.
i only worry about my old 1992 Sun SPARCstation 10 system. It is backed up 3 different ways, but I had to jigger the hostid number to make it work with my software RTU and I’m not sure I’ll be able to remember how I did it if I have to buy a replacement.
.
I think heading out to the turnpike or up 95 from south florida late in the overture is nuts – go out there and be killed, if its path crosses yours.
.
we lived in Miami for Andrew’s visit. The great revelation was how resourceful people can be but you find that out in the aftermath. There were a lot of deaths at signaled intersections. the electricity was out and thus no red lights so people just drove through them. In a couple of days there were civilians directing traffic – all acapella.
we didn’t get electricity back for 3 weeks but guys across the street had it next day. There was an inventory taken of freezers and we all shared the capacity.
one of the funnier episodes was an encounter with a woman in a corvette who was impatient. we were chain sawing a tree which was blocking traffic at east end of our street. she drove up and after a couple of minutes started to honk, one of my neighbors who was one of the chainsaw wielders walked over to see how he could help. She asked us to hurry up , she was late for an appointment. We were gaining on it but it would be another 30 minutes. She had a fit and was unresponsive to the idea that she turn around and go out to LeJeune and go that way. Soon she was screaming at us and honking wildly. Our hero fired up the chain saw and bounced it a few times across her hood – which on fiberglass makes impressive grooves. she shut up, turned around and in 20 minutes was back with a cop.
.
we explained and he told her to forget it.
.
In retrospect the chainsawing of a corvette hood was probably inappropriate but we were tired.
Lucia,
Hi. Do you suppose you could start another thread? I wanted to kid you about the vaca thread but thought you might have a cow.
ah well.
thanks much.
Most people die from drowning in a hurricane, not wind. Even Andrew only had about 18 deaths.
.
I-95 and I-75 and turnpike are starting to slow down, you can see it on Google maps. It was going about 30 mph today. I do not want to be stuck on an interstate. It’s looking like east coast landfall and it might actually miss entirely. Miami is under heavy threat and I don’t think you can evacuate that many people without making things worse. It’s likely a bad weekend in Florida for a lot of people.
.
It’s hard to get a realistic view of actual damage. Media tend to go to trailer parks or frame shots for maximum apparent damage. Here is a flyover of ground zero of Harvey. https://youtu.be/_eE2oyarSN8
.
They did a lot of assessments after Andrew. Concrete and block walls rarely failed. The leading cause of roof failures was inadequate attachment of roof sheathing. Most window failures were caused by flying debris. In the hardest hit areas most shingle roofs had significant damage. Hip roofs were better than gable roofs. Garage doors detached from their rails. Manufactured/mobile homes were catastrophically damaged. Poorly constructed homes were a problem, not built to code. Roof damage > water damage > large losses.
My summer vaca starts tomorrow. My brain checked out yesterday. :/ Enjoy & safe travels!
Mostly great vacation. The one hitch is moms house flooded the night after we left. My sister and the neighbor are doing all the tough work of getting things cleaned up but its still going to be a shock for her when she gets back.
Notice that Tallbloke, Anthony, ATTP are also away on Summer holidays. Funny if you all meet up.
Lucia,
I hope the flood damage is not too bad. My production ction plant was flooded last year, and it was 6 months before everything was back to normal.
I don’t know. The neighbor is a contractor and my sis said he estimated $15k or more. Its the downstairs but fully finished. No ‘production’ though, so mom will be able to get along pretty well.
Good luck with the flood loss. Did your mom have flood insurance? Removing flood damaged belongings and structure quickly, along with aggressive ventilation to dry the place out is vital to prevent nasty molds from making things more complex and much more expensive to repair. If there is a flood policy be certain to take lots if photos, keep receipts, and an inventory of damaged items. Flood insurance us awkward and slow for actually settling claims.
If was it a rising water loss or a plumbing related loss. “Flood” refers to rising water getting into a house. If it is a plumbing related loss it is covered under her home owners policy. Either way preventing further damage is important.
Supposedly lots of photos have been taken. Yes she has flood insurance. The neighbor also gave the adjuster access. He’s a contractor and made drying things out, removing drywall and so on a first priority. Obviously mom is still going to have to deal with insurance as repairs progress.
Then she should thoroughly enjoy the rest if the vacation and be grateful for a wonderful neighbor. There will be enough worries and fun when she gets back home.
Having problems with broadband internet Australia using 20 to 70 gigabytes a day since we returned from a month in Italy.
No children left at home for 5 years to blame Apple TV off. Apart from reading blogs and news and a little banking we have done nothin not quite true and 8 hours of DOTA gaming
Usual monthly use is 50 gigabytes.
Internet providers in Phillipines trying to help 2 weeks no longer
Any advice Would Using an apple computer help instead of Microsoft
I see on web other people with this problem but no answers
Password router on and changed no obvious other users two phones and I pads
angech –
That’s a lot of traffic! Suggestive more of video than data. Is the TV powered off, or just screen off — that is, could the TV be doing operations such as recording?
.
Changing the wireless password is a good first step. Another question to ask is whether you installed any new apps on your phone or computer while away.
.
As for troubleshooting: on my router (at least), one can log in and block devices/protocols selectively. This provides a way to localize the source of the bandwidth usage. (You can also see if someone else is connecting to your wireless network despite the password change.) “System Monitor” (or some such) should show statistics such as packets/bytes sent/received which should indicate whether the culprit is connected to the router via wireless or wired connection.
.
However, I’d expect your Internet provider to have already explored that path. Did they tell you anything that they learned?
.
Apple computer instead of Windows shouldn’t affect the situation if it’s caused by your usage (blogs, news, banking, gaming). But those aren’t likely suspects for such high bandwidth. Perhaps your current Windows computer has additional programs running on it, of which you’re unaware.
angech,
Perhaps you have been infected by malware?
There is (or was) a utility called “Activity Monitor” (at least for Mac, but probably PC as well) that lets you track usage. As I recall, it only tells you how much upload and download activity is occurring at any moment, or over any period of time, not what it doing it. But that could be a start, if only to determine if the activity is associated with a particular device.
Try disabling plug-ins to see if it makes a difference.
Try disabling JavaScript. All sorts of things won’t work, but it will tell you if scripts are causing the excess usage. For Firefox, there is a third party extension called “NoScript” that works great for controlling which scripts are allowed to execute. Something similar is probably available for other browsers.
Thanks, problem started after coming back from RUssia and I see on the news today that I phone and I pads can have a Broadpwn virus or programme just by using internet in hotels there.
We are going to change router password while it is off?
Then change I phone and I pad passwords to i cloud etc and everything else and turn router on and connect one by one .
Have upload the apple patch for the virus this will stop catching it again but not sure if it will actually block a virus once on board.
Any view on this?
3 days of misery to come.
Uh oh. What was your involvement in the Russian collusion conspiracy to deny Madam President the election victory?
.
I suspect that your bandwidth is getting chewed up because you’ve got a malware Russian spy email relay server hidden in the background.
.
I’ll email David Muir; I’m certain he’ll get somebody from his team to start researching you immediately.
.
…
Meh. Just kidding, or at least trying to. :p
angech,
This is why you back up your iPhone and iPad to iTunes on a computer. Then you can wipe your device and restore it from the backup clean. You can do a clean restore of the operating system without a backup, but you’ll lose all your data.
The easiest and most reliable answer by far is to scrub the device (total reset) and start over. Phone and tablets aren’t that hard to add back in the stuff you need. Nuclear, it’s the only way to be sure. Some viruses are quite sophisticated and will continuously keep reappearing even after you think you have deleted them.
.
My rule of thumb has always been if I can’t solve the problem in 2 hours then I reinstall the OS and start over.
Thanks DeWitt and Tom.
I have3 computer sons all too old and far away to “fix” it for me.
I am on a crash course learning about I pads etc instead of only using them.
Agree a wipe is best, still foolishly hoping re a less severe way.
Here’s something I like.
This doesn’t address inadequate experiment design (e.g., failure to control for other relevant variables), but it’s a positive step to reduce dross.
So Trump is either a genius who is going to pull off a dramatic comeback or he is going down for the count. From his missing the opportunity to truly cean house on day one by firing all Obama holdovers, to his all thumbs tactics in dealing with the Russian allegations to his alienation of Congress he is not working smart. And now it appears his WH is not working at all. He demands loyalty but is not giving it to his first Senate backer. He is rapidly wearing out his tweets by repetition of message and over use. He was unable to lead and even get the repeal of the disastrous Obamacre done.
If he does not pull an amazing rabbit out if the hat he will be either out of power or irrelevant within 30 days.
The implications on climate and immigration reform are ominous.
hunter,
I doubt his hat has any rabbits now, if it ever did.
hunter,
“…. he will be either out of power or irrelevant within 30 days.”
.
Want to wager on that? Say, $500 to your favorite charity… or mine. I say he will be neither out of power nor irrelevant in 30 days. Is he still going to be an utter jerk in 30 days? Sure. Should he stop the wacko tweets (yesterday!)? Of course he should. Is he his own worst enemy? Without doubt. But he is not going to be removed from office, nor will he become irrelevant; the POTUS has constitutional powers which are not going to disappear just because he is a terrible jerk.
A message from the past “Ok, big prediction time: Within the next 7-10 days there will be a sharp drop in extent below 2012 level. If this prediction is correct I’ll explain later how it was forecast. Posted at Arctic Sea Ice Blog June 16, 2017 ”
Still waiting but all is silent.
Observations.
El Nino alert off but still slightly warm pacific.
Slight recovery Arctic and Antarctic. Still low.
Only 52 days 7 1/2 weeks till the September turn in Arctic ice.
Should go down in extent now as every time it looks like improving it goes the other way.
Does anyone have an algorithm for luck?
Tamino has a discussion up at his site
“A Few Other Stations
Mr. Wakefield doesn’t seem to like the tide gauge data from Boston, since it so easily shows how wrong he was about “NO acceleration.†He wants me to “do a few other stations, like in Australia and Brest, France.â€
So Tamino chose Fremantle and Sydney for Australia.
A comment about the unreliability of Fremantle was allowed.
Then barry | July 28, 2017 gave a site to look at “Satellite record of Australian coast sea level rise matches that of tide gauge estimated.http://rses.anu.edu.au/geodynamics/tregoning/53.pdf
Graphical comparisons near the bottom of that document. Page 60.”
Looking at this on page 59 I see that Fremantle and Sydney are by accident the two most cherry picked outliers available for sea level rise.
Pointing this out has disappeared, most disappointing as his legion of followers will miss out on that information.
Some do read this blog in their spare time….
So I was hoping they might notice it.
I’m back…
I don’t think there is anything wrong with p=0.05. For drug testing p=0.05 is fine provided the protocol is published before the trial. That prevents massaging the data seven ways to sunday to get significance and generally ensures trials are large enough.
A similar thing could be done with social science or anything involving human subjects. The researchers are presumably designing and filing paper work for dealing with the human subjects anyway. All they need to do is also specify which hypotheses they will be testing when they start– Then they can’t expand and people can see whether the design is really a fishing for random false positives in the first palce.
False positives in climate get self corrected anyways– weather keeps happening so if a result is a statistical fluke, it is bound to flip. But people could get in the habit of discussing statistical power to determine some alternative to the null being rejected. A reasonable alternative could be selected. For example, when testing a null of “No warming”, the reasonable alternative hypothesis is “0.2 C /decade” as that is the mean of what is predicted. One could then decree that they aren’t going to pay attention to ‘reject 0 C/decade’ unless there was enough data to achieve a statisitical power of say 50% if 0.2 C/decade was true. Or you could require the power to be 95%… whatever.
But if statistical power against an alternative hypothesis was used, it needs to be used for pretty much everything and even handedly. So, for example, if you are using 0.2 C/dec as the null, you alternative could be 0C/decade and you apply the same rule to reject 0.2 C/dec and so on. The same for all the “It’s the volcanoes we didn’t notice erupting” or other tests.
SteveF
The one constant about Trump…
Lucia,
” “It’s the volcanoes we didn’t notice erupting†or other tests.”
.
Yup. The post hoc arm waving to justify failed predictions is the most constant characteristic of the field. That’s the clearest indication it is not really ‘science’ as most people would define it, but rather a politically motivated activity.
angech,
There is very clear evidence (satellites and tide gauges) that the rate of rise has been higher over the past ~30 years than before 1990. So there has clearly been some ‘acceleration’, and it would be shocking if the measured warming since the 1970’s had not produced an increase in the rate of sea level rise. The current rate of rise (~3.1 mm per year against a geologically stable shore line), is not high enough to be sufficiently ‘alarming’, hence the endless focus on acceleration… to implausible rates… over the next 50 years. The satellite data have stubbornly refused to cooperate, and indicate no acceleration over the past 25 years. (https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/) So, as is typical in the field, post hoc arm waves about the satellite data have started, and the University of Colorado group is already ‘adjusting’ the early part of the satellite data to show significant acceleration over the satellite period. It is not really science by any normal definition; it’s mostly green politics.
SteveF,
$500 does focus one’s attention a bit…..
I hope you are correct in all points except that he exhibits the ability to grow from this terrible 6 months of intrigue and divisiveness.
Lucia,
Welcome back!
I hope your mother’s flood situation was under good control and that she doesn’t stress too badly.
hunter,
I think it would be nothing less than miraculous for Trump to ‘grow’ to become any less of a jerk…. he says offensive things and treats people badly in public all the time (rather than mostly in private like Hillary). 😠With her guard down, speaking to an adoring crowd (and maybe after a few drinks), is when Hillary was honest with voters (‘deplorable and irredeemable’ remarks). Proving what a jerk she is. Trump never hides being a jerk, and probably never will. I doubt he even tries.
hunter,
The neighbor did a great job dealing with the emergency stuff. As to the rest…. we’ll see. I’m sure I will hear about it as dealing with the insurance unfolds.
SteveF/hunter,
I agree with SteveF that Trump is unlikely to “grow” to become less of a jerk. I think some people are jerks, it doesn’t *necessarily* hurt in real estate where being able to bargain hard, and also walk away from deals sometimes works well. Also: being pushy doesn’t necessarily hurt and so on. Being a jerk was part of his business model, even in his reality show where he “fired” people at the end of each show. That was part of the “show”, but still, it was what it was.
I also agree with SteveF that Hillary is a jerk who tried to hide that she was a jerk. I suspect, generally speaking, lots of politicians are more self-centered than average. Not all are jerks– but self-centered, believing you are “all that” and so on makes you more interested in running for office.
Trump is a jerk and will remain one. He’s not going to turn into someone who puts others first.
hunter
I should add: we are going to see continued divisiveness because Trump is divisive. He’s not going to change. Even if he wanted to and could, sometimes a person who divided needs to go away before they can end divisiveness. They can’t just change and also expect others reactions to change the second they have. It won’t happen.
Re: Trump
The Mika Brezinski episode with Trump made clear to me that he is (partially) the product of bad parenting, and it is very unlikely that he will ever change. If any of my children ever acted the way that Trump did with the Brezinski episode, they would be severely punished. It is evident to me, with the numerous mean-spirited and stupid remarks that Trump makes that he was lacking in parental guidance as a child. If he had parental guidance, at the very least, he wouldn’t be so open with his stupidity and mean-spirited-ness. It doesn’t even occur to him that he is being mean, disrespectful and stupid.
To me that is in good measure due to bad parenting and his wealth which has protected him from the consequences of his mean-spiritedness and stupidity, which could probably be more easily self-corrected by those with less wealth who would suffer more consequences for the misbehavior exhibited by Trump. I had hoped that Trump would grow in office, but I see virtually no growth so far.
….
On the other hand, Trump often does the right things for the wrong reasons, which is superior to Clinton doing the wrong things for the wrong reasons. My most important issue is illegal immigration and Trump has been successful on that issue. Also, with as many unforced errors that he has made, I still think he is doing better than Clinton would have done.
JD
PS Lucia. Your VPN blockers are very successful. Couldn’t access your site from China over the past 2 weeks. Even used my son’s Chromebook to try to access the Blackboard, but it wouldn’t work because Captcha apparently only works with Windows and I didn’t have any Windows machines in China.
Yep. China is right out! The problem with china is high volumes of bots scraping. Why they want to scrape is a mystery, but there you go.
hunter (Comment #164129): “If he does not pull an amazing rabbit out if the hat he will be either out of power or irrelevant within 30 days.”
People continue to ignore all the evidence of the last 2 years and totally underestimate Trump. He appears to have an inexhaustible supply of rabbits in his hat.
Trump’s approval ratings have dropped a little over the last six months. The relentless media barrage that he has withstood would have reduced any other president’s approval to single digits. Trump is obviously doing something right.
The way he does things is disturbing, but I am coming to the conclusion that it is the only way that has any hope of actually changing things.
It is clear there are issues with his White House staff and it is clear that he is taking steps to fix those issues. That is his style. He takes risks and if they don’t work he tries something else. As Scott Adams says, it is the style of an entrepreneur rather than a manager. It seems strange, since we have gotten so used to the idea that the best we can hope for is managing the mess. But it takes an entrepreneur to actually clean up the mess.
I see no evidence that Trump is divisive. Off hand, I have never seen him say or do anything divisive with respect to the people. Trump attacks the dividers. It is the “resistance” that is divisive, proudly so. They are continuing the politics of division promoted by Mr. “clinging to guns and religion” and Mrs. “basket of deplorables”. Trump is the answer to division, not the cause.
Lucia,
“…lots of politicians are more self-centered than average.”
.
Yes, and bears shi….. err, and bears live in the forest. Sure, there are some politicians who are more selfless than others (Reagan comes to mind immediately). But as a rule, you wouldn’t want one as a neighbor, if only because deception is a big part of their job. Politicians pretty much can’t be honest and expect win election…. eg. almost nobody wants to hear that either much higher taxes or much reduced benefits will be needed to keep medicare solvent…. so we get liars in office. Perhaps the voters get what they deserve.
Mike M,
“I see no evidence that Trump is divisive.”
.
Wow. 🙄 I suspect there are a lot of people who disagree with that.
SteveF: “I suspect there are a lot of people who disagree with that.”
OK. So give me evidence. Trump goes after elites who act against the interests of the people. But he does not play the politics of division.
Mike M.
That’s not what i’m seeing.
I’m not sure what you mean. But his action and tweets definitely increase division. Perhaps you don’t see this as being the “politics” of division. I still see a lot of division encouraged by his rhetoric, tweets and so on.
lucia: “I’m not sure what you mean.”
Trump does not try to set whites against blacks, or poor against rich, or gays against straights, or city against country. He does go after illegal immigrants, but that is arguably not American against American.
.
“But his action and tweets definitely increase division.”
I don’t see that. People who seek to create division make use of Trump’s statements for that purpose, but they do that even when the statements are perfectly reasonable.
Mike M,
Trump calls people nutjobs and whackos. He went after Mika for, supposedly, a face lift. Those things are divisive. That he might not use additional methods of creating division doesn’t make him not-divisive.
Whether you do or don’t see these insults as divisive doesn’t make them not divisive.
Sorry, but Trump calling people “nut jobs”, “kookie” and so on is divisive, period. Calling people liars is divisive. So are lots and lots of things Trump does.
I get you might think the people he calls liars are liars. Trump’s behavior is divisive even if they are.
The press has contempt for half the population.
The elites pursue policies that make themselves comfortable at the expense of ordinary people. 1.5 major political parties help with that.
Democrats play up class warfare for political advantage.
The left encourages half the population to have grievances against the other half.
Some clown write a book titled “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” about how idiotic Republican voters are, and the progressives lap it up.
Criticize the left’s received wisdom on climate change and you get lumped in with holocaust d3n!3rs.
Presidential candidates show contempt for a large portion of the population, using phrases like “clinging to god and guns” and “basket of deplorables”.
Trump says something nasty about a person who is one of the contemptuous elites by birth, marriage, and career.
One of these things is nasty and inappropriate. The others are divisive and truly destructive.
Addition: Suggest that “free trade” deals might not be great, and you are an imbecile.
Mike M,
Trump, at a minimum, antagonizes liberals, often with no apparent upside. He insults and demeans people, with no apparent upside. What possible rational does he have for demeaning his own AG, when that AG serves at his pleasure? I am astounded and can see no rational. I think Trump would be better served by laying out reasoned positions and then working to implement them through Congress. Trump offends, broadly, often without reason, and in ways which damage his chances of implementing the policies he claims to support. Mr Obama was terribly divisive wrt significant policy, and desided to by-pass Congress whenever he believed he could get away with it. Normal behavior for a dedicated leftist.
Trump is terribly divisive wrt everything; ‘shoot yourself in the foot’ is too weak a description. He spins his tires in a heavy snowbank, and wind seems shocked when he makes no progress.
Mike M.
The press certainly has its faults and so on. Some people other than Trump are also divisive. None of those things you complained of– even if entirely true– change the fact that Trump is divisive.
SteveF
I was just laughing at the incredible cherry picking he (Tamino) used when on occasions he rails on about cherry picking.
Is it a feature of certain types of people to always do the very things they pick on in others,
Like politicians.
I probably do not recognise it in myself but when it is so obvious and wrong in a field he knows about I just get … upset.
Welcome back Lucia.
Computer problems semi settled.
Should everyone use vpn does it make the internet more difficult to use?
President Trump has been needlessly inflammatory. He failed Presidency 101 when he chose not to fire each and every Obama appointee in government on day one. He failed to reframe important issues. He used tweets to personally belittle people and then complains when he or his family is attacked. He has not provided leadership to the Republican party.
And I still support and believe in the reasons I voted for him.
But he is making his job wildly more difficult.
hunter (Comment #164156): “President Trump has been needlessly inflammatory. He failed Presidency 101 when he chose not to fire each and every Obama appointee in government on day one.”
That makes no sense at all. There is no way that doing what every incoming president does constitutes failing “Presidency 101”. Firing every Obama appointee on day one would have been an incredibly divisive, inflammatory act.
One can argue that Trump should have fired all the Obama appointees on day one and that draining the swamp required crippling the government for several months, perhaps longer. But that is to argue that Trump was insufficiently divisive.
angech,
Tamio does tend to select, shall we say, ‘convenient’ data sets, but in this case he also showed the average of all Australian tide gauges, which is not a cherry pick. What Tamino always does, because he seems to me just a green hack, is to exaggerate shamelessly to push for forced reductions fossil fuel use. Case in point: he shows that there has been an acceleration in sea level rise over the past century (no suprise), then jumps to the (wacko!) suggestion that Rahmstorf’s wacko ‘semi-empirical’ projections of 1 to 2 meters rise by 2100, should be the basis of public policy. The IPCC discounted ‘semi-empirical’ projections in AR5, indicating they can tell the difference between reality and fiction. Odd how Tamino doesn’t believe even the IPCC when it isn’t sufficiently alarming. An honest analysis wouldn’t cherry pick crazy projections like Rahmstorf’s.
Lucia,
WRT wacko sea level projections, you may recall the guest post I wrote some years ago in response to Vermeer & Rahmstorf’s (2009) ‘semi-empirical’ catastrophic projections (central estimate of 1.24 meters rise and a rate of ~2 cm per year by 2100). My recollection is that the Vermeer & Rahmstorf projection showed a rate of rise of ~4.5 mm/year by 2020. If I’m still around in a few years, and so is your blog, I’l write a post comparing those 2009 projections to reality 11 years on, and it’s not looking good so far for Vermeer & Rahmstorf.
SteveF-
It’s definitely worth looking at and comparing!
SteveF,
Why wait until 2020? Looking at Figure 3 in the paper, I already see divergence at the lower edge of the error band for the rate in 2000. The modeled rate of sea level rise is 4mm/year and increasing. The actual rate as measured by satellite and corrected for GIA and seasonal effects (column 12) is a remarkably linear 3.42mm/year for 1993-2017 (R^2 = 0.98).
SteveF (Comment #164153)
You have summed Trump’s actions up well and in accord with my view.
I would sum it up more economically with: Trump is an egomanical jerk with absolutely no political smarts or even an ability to deal with people in general.
The only positive about Trump is that he has brought the political process to a standstill in Washington – and when your are like me in your opinion of Washington politicians and government actions and it is almost totally negative that is not a bad thing.
The general outlook on the economy being positive at the moment I think is more to do with the president not being Obama and very little to do with Trump other than little activism will be done under a jerk president.
Dewitt,
I am looking for a very clear failure of their projection, not near the uncertainty limit. Of course, you could give it a go if you don’t want to wait.
Hi Kenneth,
Hope you are well.
not Obama, nor Hillary
Rahmstorf has an equation. So the dH/dt could be checked against equation (2) given observed temperatures. I might give it a go next week.
SteveF,
I don’t think two and a half years will make all that much difference. Figure 3 observed data stops in 2000, not 2009. So it would be 20 years in 2020, not 11 years. There’s probably a reason for that.
j ferguson (Comment #164165)
Thanks for asking. I am doing well but my time is occupied with my wife’s health.
Scaramucci was fired by Trump for being a jerk. Trump said he could pardon himself so perhaps he could fire himself.
in this White House, I suppose everyone says “say again” rather than “pardon me.”
I’d thought that Scaramucci was there so that Trump could feel that he himself was not the worst.
j Ferguson,
I doubt Trump considers himself the worst by any measure. Scaramucci was hired for communications, but started acting like a (crazy) chief of staff. I would not be suprised if chief of staff Kelly told Trump “him or me, not both”. Kelly is probably a better fit with Tillerson and Mattis; we’ll see. Kelly should break Trump’s cell phone with a 2 lb hammer…. “it or me, but not both”.
In my view everyone is absolutely obsessed with “process” rather than results with Trump. While I would prefer Trump to be more presidential I really don’t care very much about this one way or the other.
.
Supreme court is a huge win. We will see what happens with healthcare, I don’t care how it happens, I care what happens. My guess is ObamaCare will financially implode (by neglect) and this will drive a compromise on healthcare that will stick which is the way it should have been from the very beginning.
.
The rest is a big fat “meh” of a nudge here and there on policy which just is standard politics regardless of who is in office.
.
My point is that results aren’t any different than what one would expect with a “sane presidential” version of Trump. The clown show is both irritating and humorous at the same time. It helps if you don’t take politics as a life or death affair.
.
I think part of the Trump hysterics is an underlying fear from the elite class that people are going to discover that the elites do not have any magic special sauce that makes them especially good at governing beyond knowing what to wear to a formal dinner and how to speak in the accepted global speech codes. If results from Trump are more or less on par with “presidential” Presidents than the mystical halo of elites will be wiped from existence (to the extent people ever believe in that).
It is noted that it is almost impossible to find comparisons between observations and models for sea level rise. They are near non-existent in the media. Buried way down deep in AR5 is a note that observations are running 15% below models for sea level rise.
.
In order to get to 1M by 2100 rates of sea level rise have to effectively more than triple tomorrow. If one assumes it won’t be instantaneous then they need to be approximately ~6x by 2100.
.
The climate scare community seems rather proud that recent estimates go as high as 2M by 2100. This requires almost a magnitude change in the rates by 2100. If you back those models up and start them from the year 1990 and compare to observations then these speculations look rather dubious. It doesn’t look like that is going to happen, they are still looking for the mere existence of acceleration and if we are heading to a 10x change in rate I postulate we would be obviously seeing that by now.
.
The 2M scenario shows probabilities of 0.3% under RCP8.5. It is marketed as the expected outcome. The model shows that currents rates should be at 7 mm/year NOW for that scenario. See table 6 / page 23.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/publications/techrpt83_Global_and_Regional_SLR_Scenarios_for_the_US_final.pdf
.
Try to find that factoid anywhere. SLR is one of the most dishonest aspects of climate change journalism there is.
Tom
I think part of the reason there aren’t many comparisons between projected and actual sea level rise is that slr prediction may not be considered “robust”. The same actually goes for arctic ice cover– but the polar ice is dramatic so it gets watched.
Talking about shooting yourself in the foot. This is a strange story, note the updates.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2017/07/bureau-erases-goulburn-record-minimum-temperature-set-sunday-2-july-2017/
It goes off the rails when all these SLR predictions “forget” to state how slow SLR is today at ~1 inch / decade. They infer we are already on pace for 1M or 2M of SLR. I would estimate that only about 5% of SLR stories in major media outlets attempt to convey accurate information using the big 3:
.
1. The current rate of SLR
2. The time period of the changes
3. The range of the expected changes.
.
It is almost never mentioned what the probabilities of high end projections are. Typically it is simply stated as “up to 1M of SLR”. There are many confounders with emissions profiles, carbon sensitivity, melting rates of Greenland and Antarctica, and so forth. It’s not simple, but it is presented as such and exaggerated almost universally by the not fake media.
.
PBS: “Sea levels could rise as much as 19 inches by 2050, according to what the report calls “mid-range projections.â€
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/will-you-be-underwater-theres-a-map-for-that/
.
NPR: “if sea level here rises 3.7 feet — a midrange prediction for 2100.”
http://www.npr.org/2017/07/27/539506529/mapping-coastal-flood-risk-lags-behind-sea-level-rise
Niels,
For more fun read the circular dodge the Australian BOM offers as an excuse.
It appears that a substantial amount of AGW really is manmade. Manmade the way a painting or symphony or work of fiction is made.
Tom Scharf (Comment #164171) “In my view everyone is absolutely obsessed with “process†rather than results with Trump. While I would prefer Trump to be more presidential I really don’t care very much about this one way or the other.”
Right. It is results that matter. The process may be annoying, but in the end, so what?
So far, Trump’s results are quite good. Congress, not so much. Trump does not seem all that engaged with Congress. I suspect that he is waiting for them to hit rock bottom, so that he can step in from a position of power. Remember that Trump is essentially an independent who staged a hostile takeover of the Republican Party. He has no natural power base in Congress, so he can not seek progress there in the conventional manner.
Hunter, I don’t buy that it is a general problem that actual thermometer readings are altered, but it does seem to be the case here, though. I agree the BOM explanation does not make sense.
If there is a reluctance to accept low readings and enough low readings are discarded or altered as seems to be the case in this instance it could of course lead to man made warming in the sense you describe.
The explanation from BOM can be seen here
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2017/07/bureau-misleads-minister-frydenberg-goulburn/
It is a real problem that Zeke et al bag on about the integrity of the data and the automation of the thermometers yet anyone can be given the authority to manually override a reading they do not like .
What is to stop fake entries being put in by a dedicated warmist?
TOBS adjustments have nothing on this.
No sign of a policy to remove readings that are too high!
These screens are used over the world.
They use them in the USA and Canada where readings get down well below -10.
No signs of this weird malfunction in other countries but begs the question.
If the Australians do it they must have learnt from the Americans.
angech (Comment #164183): “It is a real problem that Zeke et al bag on about the integrity of the data and the automation of the thermometers yet anyone can be given the authority to manually override a reading they do not like .”
Shocking if true, but almost certainly false. Is there any evidence to support this claim?
“anyone can be given the authority to manually override” is surely false, but that might be due to careless wording. But even if “anyone” is changed to “some people” I still doubt it.
Mike M. (Comment #164179)
I disagree. Trump acting as a jerk is certainly getting in the way of getting things done. It all draws attention to him and not to an intellectual understanding of the programs being offered. He is bringing Washington to a standstill and while as I noted previously that is not all bad he remains a jerk and buffoon.
I doubt weather databases are built with a high emphasis on security. I also doubt there is any conspiracy here, it’s just way too small potatoes to make a tiny adjustment in one weather station that apparently isn’t even part of the global record. I can believe software places limits to automatically filter out spurious readings but -10C seems an odd number to use. The manager letter is probably just incompetence and not understanding what is going on from a panicked bureaucrat who was told something wrong from another bureaucrat. It seemed a bit premature to start throwing out equipment as “not fit for purpose” based on the explanation given.
Kenneth,
What things do you believe would have gotten done if a sane Trump was in charge?
.
I am with you that a gridlocked Washington isn’t something I am against in principle. It’s not just an imbalanced 14 year old in charge in DC, it is also the hysterical reaction to him that must be taken into account. It seems the people who were crying obstructionism for the last 6 years have had a revelation.
At the rate the Senate is proceeding, it will take 11 years to approve all the Trump nominees for Federal offices. That has absolutely nothing to do with Trump’s tweets or behavior. It’s 100% Democrat obstruction done by, among other things, requiring 30 hours of debate time for each appointment.
Tom Scharf (Comment #164171)
August 1st, 2017 at 1:43 pm
“I think part of the Trump hysterics is an underlying fear from the elite class that people are going to discover that the elites do not have any magic special sauce that makes them especially good at governing beyond knowing what to wear to a formal dinner and how to speak in the accepted global speech codes.”
While I would tend to agree with you that given the big government biases of the elite class in the US, which some might refer to as the intelligentsia, they do not have answers or even an understanding of the problems imposed by big government, but neither does Donald Trump – whatever class he may represent.
The current battle as I see it is one of partisan politics where the elites who are mainly Democrat and who are willing to defend a fellow Democrat politician for sins for which they would condemn a Republican politician. This partisanship works the same for Republican defenses of Republican politicians.
Tom Scharf (Comment #164186)
“The manager letter is probably just incompetence and not understanding what is going on from a panicked bureaucrat who was told something wrong from another bureaucrat.”
.
Yes, and somehow I think the letter is good enough to convince the minister that they know exactly what they are doing 🙂
Jennifer Marohasy has busted the BOM doctoring data on multiple occasions. She has documented these cases at her website. People are finally starting to pay attention and the bureaucrats are running out of credibility.
Mike M. (Comment #164184)
“angech (Comment #164183): “It is a real problem that Zeke et al bag on about the integrity of the data and the automation of the thermometers yet anyone can be given the authority to manually override a reading they do not like .â€
Shocking if true, but almost certainly false. Is there any evidence to support this claim?
“anyone can be given the authority to manually override†is surely false, but that might be due to careless wording. But even if “anyone†is changed to “some people†I still doubt it.”
yet we know that
–
” the Goulburn AWS recorded -10.4 on the morning of Sunday 2nd July from a screen shot taken from the observation page at the Bureau’s website:”
–
then
“the Bureau sent an email confirming: “The correct minimum temperature for Goulburn on 2 July, 2017 is -10.4 recorded at 6.30am at Goulburn Airport AWS… The Bureau’s quality control system, designed to filter out spurious low or high values was set at -10 minimum for Goulburn which is why the record automatically adjusted.â€
–
In short, after initially recording -10.0 in the CDO dataset, this was changed to -10.4 three days later following a blog post ( Bureau Erases Goulburn Record Minimum),
–
then 23 days later “the Minister for Environment and Energy, Andrew Johnson, CEO and Director of Meteorology, has claimed the weather station malfunctioned.”
–
He further said that a small number of devices in cold climate locations malfunctioned when they went under -10 degrees.
Apart from the fact that a thermometer for cold locations cannot go under precisely -10 degrees without malfunctioning!
The whole business is so laughable….
-The Bureau’s quality control system, designed to filter out spurious low or high values was set at -10 minimum for Goulburn, no mention of what a spurious high level would be, and unthinkable that machines would be automated to rule out data without human intervention in the first place.
–
Think of the damage this would do in an automated plane data if the ground level data midfunctione.
angech (Comment #164192)
Your quote is distorting the meaning of the sentence you qoute from. The full quote is:
Just to clarify, It was not the minister who claimed the station malfunctioned. He was told in the letter from BOM that the station malfunctioned. He was also told that “the station stopped recording when the temperature there fell below -10C” And yet the station obviously recorded the -10.4C value because this was the value that was automatically adjusted to -10.0C and then three days later changed back to the original -10.4C AND this value from the alleged “malfunctioning” station is kept in the records.
Jennifer M:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2017/07/bureau-misleads-minister-frydenberg-goulburn/
Perhaps it will be instructive to read the letter itself.
With all those rapidly melting ice sheets and glaciers and all those new global temperature records heating the global oceans, the rate of sea level rise sure seems stubborn.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
angech (Comment #164192): “The Bureau’s quality control system, designed to filter out spurious low or high values was set at -10 minimum for Goulburn, no mention of what a spurious high level would be, and unthinkable that machines would be automated to rule out data without human intervention in the first place.”
Sounds like they are doing science the right way. There are always at least two sets of books for any large scale automated data system. Things break and stuff goes wrong.
One set of books always has all the unaltered raw data, even if the data is wrong. Automated systems flag anything that looks suspicious, based on both the actual measured numbers and ancillary data. For a public system for which people want immediate results, the screened data will be posted, with a notation that they are preliminary.
Then a person reviews the data, in particular all the flagged data, and produces a vetted final data set. In a small field study, the vetting rules might be somewhat informal (i.e., heavily dependent on the researchers judgement) but for a large scale, continuing operation they should be very specific.
Everything you describe seems to be consistent with normal scientific procedure.
Mike M,
Reading the letter written does show some arm waving towards what you say, but the arm wave turns to flailing, circular excuses and post hoc explanations.
There is a context to this and in context the BOM is cooking the books.
hunter,
This is a tempest in a teapot. It is sensible to have automated checks for “unreasonable” values which may arise from manual or equipment error. (Manual error might be entering 99 rather than 9.9.) In this case, -10 seems to have been a little too close to “reasonable” for a threshold. Any such automated corrections by an algorithm should be reviewed by a person, because the procedure may itself introduce error (as in this case); it’s not clear if the BoM process includes such a step. As Mike M. points out, the raw data remained available, which allows correction.
In the end, “cooking the books” is not a charge which can be defended. One measurement, in one location, is entirely negligible in the scheme of things. And it was not a deliberate alteration, but an algorithm which — in this case — did not serve its intended purpose.
…read Jennifer’s work on this.
It is not isolated, past high temps have been “adjusted” to make the present appear warmer. The results are a significant misleading of the public. One of the leadership level people at BOM, David Jones, is able to say with impunity that, “Truth be known, climate change here is now running so rampant that we don’t need meteorological data to see it.†The BOM and apparently other orgs are taking that view to the logical conclusion.
Tempest in a teapot?
A big pot.
“and unthinkable that machines would be automated to rule out data without human intervention in the first place.”
.
This is quite thinkable and commonly done. Imagine a plane gets struck by lightening and it’s altimeter electronics momentarily register an altitude of 4,294,967,295 feet. Should the plane start diving immediately or reject the value?
.
Firmware filtering for spurious values caused by glitchy electronics is done in many ways, thresholding, median filtering, averaging, frequency filtering, etc.
.
So it’s done commonly, but I would suggest filtering out -10.4C in this case is questionable. First it’s a generic temperature measurement device so it is unreasonable to filter out a reading the device may commonly see in other areas. Secondly there was a series of similar readings prior to that reading so it looked valid. The thresholding answer looks less likely based on the evidence. It’s possible the temperature device is designed incompetently and needs to be replaced. Embedded firmware isn’t always done by the top end of the meritocracy.
Of course outlier data is to be flagged. And a representative random sample of “expected” data as well.
That is not what BOM is doing here.
hunter, my “tempest” comment refers only to this incident, in which one daily temperature in one location was incorrectly logged.
I’m unfamiliar with Jennifer Marohasy’s prior disagreements with BoM. That may lead to her being overly dubious with respect to them. But this one discrepancy is, to overuse a phrase, a nothing-burger.
HaroldW,
You may be right. But having followed the Australian temps and her work for awhile I respectfully disagree with you.
Clipping low temps and not high…which is what the BOM does apparently, is going to skew the record.
And since the entire “climate crisis” is based on fractional changes in temps it does matter.
SteveF (#164159) –
While sea level rate is not up to Rahmstorf’s predictions, there does seem to be a slight acceleration.
An admittedly crude metric is the OLS slope. I computed OLS slopes for 30- and 60-year intervals from the CSIRO sea level data.
Plotted results here.
Tom Scharf (Comment #164200): “I would suggest filtering out -10.4C in this case is questionable.”
I would agree, but it does not appear to have actually been filtered out. It appears to have been flagged for checking and restored once it appeared valid. So the only issue is what was displayed in the preliminary data. It really makes no difference if that was -10.4 or -10.0. So why display the -10.0 instead of the raw data? Probably to avoid displaying a truly erroneous value of, say, -37.
Flagging and verification are important.
Rewriting the historic record, which is what Jennifer and others have documented, to cool the past and warm the present is what has set off this round.
This is not taking place outside of a context.
HaroldW,
You can really see the ~60 year cycle in the 30 year OLS slope sea level rate data. Note that the slope from 1990-2000 is similar in slope to the acceleration from 1930-1940. According satellite data, the rate is constant from 1993-2017, as was the rate from 1940 to 1950. The underlying rate of increase would be approximately the slope of the 60 year OLS plot.
There probably is some amount of SLR acceleration but that is highly dependent on values prior to the 1990 satellite measurements and how one chooses to process tide gauge measurements which is an enormous clusterf*** that makes temperature look simple.
.
If you look at the AR5 acceleration rates below it doesn’t get anywhere near the SLR magnitudes required for the scary meter+ predictions. One can imagine an “acceleration of the acceleration” and however many terms you want to add to the polynomial to get what you want. I expect it will accelerate “more” over the next century but getting to 1M or 2M is a hard sell looking at the data.
.
Usually what happens is a scientist comes up with a novel theory of Greenland melting much faster, the WAIS falling into the ocean, etc. that has nothing to do with past observations and sells that to activists irregardless of how plausible it is. Big numbers require significantly different behavior than past observations.
.
AR5:
.
“Because of the presence of low-frequency variations (e.g., multi-decadal variations seen in some tide gauge records; Chambers et al. (2012)), sea level acceleration results are sensitive to the choice of the analysis time span. When a 60-year oscillation is modelled along with an acceleration term, the estimated acceleration in GMSL (twice the quadratic term) computed over 1900–2010 ranges from 0.000 [–0.002 to 0.002] mm yr–2 in the Ray and Douglas (2011) record, to 0.013 [0.007 to 0.019] mm yr–2 in the Jevrejeva et al. (2008) record, and 0.012 [0.009 to 0.015] mm yr–2 in the Church and White (2011) record. For comparison, Church and White (2011) estimated the acceleration term to be 0.009 [0.004 to 0.014] mm yr–2 over the 1880–2009 time span when the 60-year cycle is not considered.”
Although I doubt there is a conspiracy in Australia, I will agree with Hunter that errors and corrections in the record seem to go in the direction of “hotter faster” an inordinate amount of the time. The same thing happens with SLR. I think it’s just confirmation bias in action rather than evil climate science overlords. I place much of the warping of climate science at the science > media interface. There are bad actors in the science, but mostly not I think. The failure in the science is not objecting enough to the activist viewpoints.
Tom Scharf (Comment #164209): “I think it’s just confirmation bias in action rather than evil climate science overlords”.
I think that is spot on.
Confirmation bias is certainly at the core, but crowded into that core is noble cause corruption, opportunism, group think, etc.
The climate social mania is a broad coalition if interests from the innocent but naive to the banal to the creepy.
hunter,
When someone has dedicated their career to ‘a cause’, confirmation bias is bound to be almost overwhelming. Had the satellite sea level data indicated a freightening level of acceleration, I very seriously doubt there would be frantic searching for an explanation (any explanation!) for why the rate of rise is really constant rather than accelerating like the data say.
.
Of course the desire to be part of an important (based on personal beliefs and values, and so ‘noble’) cause is what seems to drive most of these folks into climate catastrophe related fields in the first place. It really is very much like a secular religion, with a set of cannons which the faithful are obliged to defend from any doubts… or doubters. Like other religions, the greatest loathing and punishment is reserved for those within the community of believers who dare to stray from the accepted cannons… Pielke Jr, Curry, etc. The dark-humorous part of it all is the utter lack of self awareness within the community of believers.
Tom Scharf (Comment #164200)
“and unthinkable that machines would be automated to rule out data without human intervention in the first place.â€
This is quite thinkable and commonly done.
True. The old YK2 problem.
“Should the plane start diving immediately or reject the value?Three years after the near-disaster, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau issues a final report. It finds incorrect data on measures such as airspeed and angle of attack (a critical parameter used to control an aircraft’s pitch) was sent by one of the A330’s three air-data computers – each of which has its own sensors on the fuselage – to other systems on the plane. One of the three flight control primary computers then reacted to the angle-of-attack data by commanding the plane to nosedive.”
What I was trying to say, poorly, was that it is immoral (unthinkable) that automatation should be deliberately used to give false reports.
Niels A Nielsen (Comment #164193
then 23 days later “the Minister for Environment and Energy, Andrew Johnson, CEO and Director of Meteorology, has claimed the weather station malfunctioned.â€
Your quote is distorting the meaning of the sentence you qoute from. The full quote is:
“Responding to a letter from Josh Frydenberg, the Minister for Environment and Energy, Andrew Johnson, CEO and Director of Meteorology, has claimed the weather station malfunctioned.”
–
Really?
Are you talking about the minister making a blatant fabrication,
which is what I quoted,or a nitpick on the semantics of the English language (23 days v my words responding)?
Read the letter and have a laugh, or cry.
angech,
I was under the impression that you had three redundant systems and went with the majority, not the minority, if there was a difference. And we’re supposed to trust self-driving cars!
SteveF: ” It really is very much like a secular religion … ”
Not a religion, just an exclusive club that you very much want to remain a member of.
Two of the three aircraft sensors were jammed in that case so the majority won. Airbus has had other problems with sensors. Realistically aircraft are a bad example for sensor errors as they are remarkably reliable given the the total numbers and how rarely there are catastrophic errors. I believe one Air France crash occurred because some sensors failed which caused auto-pilot to disengage and then the pilot flew it right into the ocean.
.
In flight sensor failures probably happen frequently without incident but I don’t have any numbers. I imagine aircraft control systems are some of the most scrutinized code out there, as opposed to Australian thermometers, ha ha.
Birgenair Flight 301 crashed because a single pitot tube failed, triggering a series of autopilot and human pilot errors. It is thought that a maintenance crew failed to put a cap on the tube while the plane was on the ground and a wasp built a nest in the tube.
angech (Comment #164214)
“Really?
Are you talking about the minister making a blatant fabrication,
which is what I quoted”
.
Yes, that is what your truncated quote says as if Jennifer M says the MINISTER has claimed or “fabricated” anything when it is the BOM writing TO the minister about the case (the letter).
Niels A Nielsen (Comment #164219)
Oops, had to read it twice to understand what you meant I quoted!
-Ypur comment,
“It was not the minister who claimed the station malfunctioned. He was told in the letter from BOM [CEO, Dr Andrew Johnson] that the station malfunctioned.”
Sorry.
You are quite right.
Mike M. (Comment #164196)
“Sounds like they are doing science the right way. ,
Everything you describe seems to be consistent with normal scientific procedure.”
–
OK.
“The Class A tolerance for a PT100 sensor is ± 0.25 ºC over the range 0 ºC to ±200 ºC. Platinum Resistance thermometer.”
They may deploy different thermometers at different sites based on date of manufacturing, company providing etc but…
The thermometers must be appropriate for the temperature ranges being studied.
The range for thermometers has to include reasonable safety margins to ensure all temperatures can be recorded.
AWS have been in place for many years in Stevenson screens.
These screens are deployed in Canada and Alaska up north and have to measure temps [The coldest blast of weather set the US’s record low temperature of minus 80 °F (-62.2 °C) on January 23, 1971. ] below minus 60 C which they do.
Australia has some snow covered mountains and has Antarctic bases and bases on the way to Antarctica. It also can get quite cold in Australia [The lowest minimum temperature was −23.0 °C (−9.4 °F) at Charlotte Pass on 29 June 1994 in the Snowy Mountains.]
–
So “doing science the right way.”
1. Use the thermometers suitable for measuring the temperature range. Yes
2. report the range Yes
3. Put up excuses first that the recorded -10.4 was altered by an algorithm.
“The correct minimum temperature for Goulburn on 2 July, 2017 is -10.4 recorded at 6.30am at Goulburn Airport AWS… The Bureau’s quality control system, designed to filter out spurious low or high values was set at -10 minimum for Goulburn which is why the record automatically adjusted. No
4.CEO write a letter stating that two AWS stations had stopped working when it got very cold [-10’0C] and started working again when the temp went up above -10.0, despite actual figures being recorded 3 times over 6 hours by the second thermometer.
Further to state that other episodes have occurred at a few other sites exactly at -10.0C. He is going to replace the faulty electronics in the embarrassing 2 sites only. No.
–
There is no science the right way. The BOM has been caught with it’s thumb on the scales and will get away with it, once again.
The Lancet has an article (free registration required) about Gore’s sequel “Truth to Power”:
angech (Comment #164221): “3. Put up excuses first that the recorded -10.4 was altered by an algorithm.
The correct minimum temperature for Goulburn on 2 July, 2017 is -10.4 recorded at 6.30am at Goulburn Airport AWS… The Bureau’s quality control system, designed to filter out spurious low or high values was set at -10 minimum for Goulburn which is why the record automatically adjusted. No”
According to Wikipedia, the record low temperature at Goulburn is -10.9 C and the reading in question matched the record low for July.
It seems perfectly reasonable that the system is set to flag record or near record temperatures so that a person can check them, especially if such rare events are known to sometimes be associated with equipment failures. If the original reading was restored as part of the normal vetting process, then there is absolutely no problem.
If the original reading was restored only because of the blog post, then there is a problem. I would not be too surprised to learn that people have gotten into the habit of not bothering to check flagged data. Such things do happen, whether due to laziness or a lack of resources. Never attribute to mendacity that which can be adequately explained by incompetence.
.
angech: “4…. two AWS stations had stopped working when it got very cold [-10’0C] and started working again when the temp went up above -10.0, despite actual figures being recorded 3 times over 6 hours by the second thermometer.”
3 readings in 6 hours means it is not working, except in the extremely unlikely case that it is set to record once every two hours. If you have a data series like: ERR, ERR, ERR, -12.0, ERR, ERR , ERR you would be wise to mistrust the -12.0.
.
angech: “Further to state that other episodes have occurred at a few other sites exactly at -10.0C. He is going to replace the faulty electronics in the embarrassing 2 sites only. No.”
Total number of scientific agencies on the planet that have the budget to do everything exactly the way they should be done: Zero.
.
Earlier, someone called this a tempest in a teapot. More like a tempest in a teaspoon.
“the man who should have taken the oath of Presidential office in 2001”
Thank you, Florida!
When George W. Bush was in office, I regarded him as the worst president in a very long time. My opinion of Bush has not improved with time.
Mike M.
Al Gore would have been far worse than Bush. He pushes CAGW because it makes him a lot of money.
HaroldW,
That is hilarious! If ever there was a synopsis of how the US became politically polarized on climate change, that would be it. “Before starting this review of a climate documentary let’s throw out a bunch of dubious unrelated incendiary comments to virtue signal our environmental brethren…”.
Mike M,
Did I tell you I voted 400 times for Bush in FL in 2000? I liked Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld and I guess that puts me in a pretty small club, ha ha. You’ll be happy to know Rumsfeld voted for Trump.
.
I remember Rumsfeld standing by Myers in a press conference while Myers and a reporter were going on and on with some ludicrous conversation about why some enemy were getting killed in Iraq and Rumsfeld got impatient and stepped in and said something to the effect of “We kill people, that is what we do, that’s our job.”. End of stupid inane debate.
.
There is lots of legitimate criticism on Cheney and Rumsfeld, but if I’m going to war I want them on my team, not the other.
Harold, that article says a lot about the author and maybe the publication in which it appears.
Who wrote it?
I wrote (Comment #164224): “Thank you, Florida!”
Did that get mistaken for sarcasm? It appears so.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #164225): “Al Gore would have been far worse than Bush.”
Worse? Almost certainly. Far worse? Maybe.
Kenneth: “Who wrote it?”
Byline is Laurie Garrett, no affiliation given in the article, but apparently this woman.
The review seems to be unrelated — except perhaps in philosophical orientation — to Christina Figueres, who joined The Lancet Countdown, which “will lead and communicate on health and climate change; demonstrate the health co-benefits of mitigation and adaptation; and monitor global progress in meeting the Paris Agreement.”
M “‘3 readings in 6 hours means it is not working, except in the extremely unlikely case that it is set to record once every two hours. If you have a data series like: ERR, ERR, ERR, -12.0, ERR, ERR , ERR you would be wise to mistrust the -12.0.
–
I am not sure if you are being egregariously misleading or just in Nick Stokes mode.
Or not interested.
The facts are that the AWS stations work well, record every 1 second according to one report and use said figures appropriately.
–
This comment was recently made, cannot vouch for veracity but it adds tio the flavour.
-“the Goulburn weather station accurately measured the local temperature as minus 10.4 at 6.30 am on Sunday 2 July, a smart card reader prevented this value from being recorded as the daily minimum on the Daily Weather Observations page.
The smart card reader had been pre-programmed to round-up any value below minus 10 degrees Celsius. So, instead of entering minus 10.4 into the CDO dataset, the value of minus 10.0 was entered for 2nd July instead.”
–
Your view appreciated but otherwise I feel enough on this.
Grand Jury a worry.
Here’s something that not all Gore fans know:
Al Gore’s previous film, ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ cannot be shown in British schools unless students are told that it is a propaganda piece and clearly advised that nine major ‘factual’ alarmist claims in the film are not supported by science. Here’s how the Telegraph reported the story:
“Al Gore’s environmental documentary ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ contains nine key scientific errors, a High Court judge ruled yesterday. The judge declined to ban the Academy Award-winning film from British schools, but ruled that it can only be shown with guidance notes to prevent political indoctrination.â€
North American schools and media outlets continue to treat the Gore film as a fact based documentary.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/3310137/Al-Gores-nine-Inconvenient-Untruths.html
Harold, That Lancet review is incredibly divorced from reality. There is a cognitive dissonance here. Gore seems to tout how solar and wind are becoming so cheap they will take over energy generation while bemoaning how global warming is going to kill us all. Given Gore’s track record of half truths and becoming very wealthy off the climate bandwagon, one would think his welcome would be more tepid.
As an update to the NYMag Climate Doom article last month. The Climate Feedback Network took it on (there is still hope in the science):
.
“Seventeen scientists analyzed the article and estimated its overall scientific credibility to be ‘low’. A majority of reviewers tagged the article as: Alarmist, Imprecise/Unclear, Misleading.”. For the record it avoided “Very low” somehow.
.
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/scientists-explain-what-new-york-magazine-article-on-the-uninhabitable-earth-gets-wrong-david-wallace-wells/
.
Vox’s science guy says “Yes, it is mostly accurate”, ha ha. He seems to think using emotion is important when alarmism is involved (there is no hope in environmental journalism).
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/7/11/15950966/climate-change-doom-journalism
.
OTOH they say this is the most read article at NYMag ever. Apparently a similar crazy alarmist article at Rolling Stone is also their most read article ever. I think there was a recent book on mass group delusions, maybe I should read it. Climate fear is working or else they wouldn’t still be doing it. That card can be overplayed.
When even Michael Mann thinks you’re being a climate alarmist
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/scientists-explain-what-new-york-magazine-article-on-the-uninhabitable-earth-gets-wrong-david-wallace-wells/
amazed
Speaking of The Lancet, a new article discusses weather-related hazards, claiming
[Commas inserted into large numbers for clarity.]
HaroldW,
Considering that there is no significant evidence of an increase in hazardous weather resulting from warming, it seems a bit of a stretch to start throwing around numbers like an extra 150,000 deaths per year from heat waves. One wonders if the people in Europe have ever heard of air conditioners, if they recognize that AC’s are used in really warm places like Saudi Arabia (or Phoenix!), or if they understand the technology of cooling air but would prefer to die from heat exhaustion than use an AC unit. More of the green rabble’s nonsensical alarm. Really, just utterly stooopid. How does such crap even get published? I have no idea.
SteveF,
Yes. They probably just did a simple projection assuming everybody in 2100 would be living in same conditions as today, just more of them. Oh, and they probably used RCP 8.5 and the high end of the model range for the temperature change. And that’s not to mention that heat related deaths are not considered excess mortality, just time shifted a few months.
Harold,
If you examine Figure 2 you will see that the reductions in deaths from cold waves offsets almost all other climate related increases completely (Example: cold waves -90 deaths, heat waves only +1.5 deaths). That’s quite inconvenient.
.
…ahem…
.
Except for “coastal floods” which they somehow estimate will rise by 3783%. This one trick pony is not a subtle sleight of hand. This is really a case where using the same scale on the graphs would be illuminating, thus it is not used, ha ha. There was some hand waving in there about how studies only estimated exposure to coastal flooding so I guess they just made up the deaths number to get the answer they liked. Here in Florida exposure to coastal flooding produces approximately zero deaths per year, and it is unclear how so many people would die later when this is effectively high tide flooding of a few feet normally.
SteveF: “One wonders if the people in Europe have ever heard of air conditioners…”
Actually, parts of Europe dislike air conditioners. For example in Italy, ACs are believed to create illness.
Cultural differences aside, I agree with you and DeWitt that any such projection which ignores adaptation (of whatever methods) will exaggerate actual results.
DeWitt: “they probably used RCP 8.5 and the high end of the model range for the temperature change.” In this case, no. The Appendix says they used SRES A1B, adding “With respect to the latest Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs), the A1B best compares to RCP6.0 for similarities in projected atmospheric composition, radiative forcing and climate characteristics.” Table S2 lists 4 different GCMs and 4 RCMs involved in the 5 scenarios used for heatwave prediction. I can’t say if these are at the high end, middle, or low end.
Europe doesn’t need as much AC if you check their relative latitude:
https://i.redd.it/jjv1yg2mg99x.jpg
.
Paris is the Canadian border. This is also why solar power in Germany isn’t quite optimal.
“Except for “coastal floods†which they somehow estimate will rise by 3783%.”
Does this sort of equate to 240 people from 4 people?
I guess a rise of 5 and a 1\2 feet would realise a severe demographic change to an older taller coastal population, whereas a 7 foot rise would pruduce good basketballers to export to USA?
Why they would all stand there and drown has always escaped me.
Tom Scharf (#164239): “If you examine Figure 2 you will see that the reductions in deaths from cold waves offsets almost all other climate related increases completely (Example: cold waves -90 deaths, heat waves only +1.5 deaths)”
Sorry, only noticed your comment just now. You’re misreading Figure 2; the ordinate scales for the various panels are not identical. In panel A (heatwaves), the units are 10^5 deaths [per year], so in the final 30-year period (2071-2100) the paper projects ~150K deaths per year due to heatwaves. [As compared to 2700 in the current (reference) period.] In panel B (cold-related deaths) the units are deaths [per year], and decrease from 98 (current) to 2 (2071-2100).
Per Table S8 of the Appendix, heat-related deaths dominate the figures, by far. The prediction is 150K deaths per year by the end of the century, while all other weather-related causes total less than 1K.
Harold W,
“Actually, parts of Europe dislike air conditioners. For example in Italy, ACs are believed to create illness.”
.
I do not know the cultural details, but yes, in Italy AC’s seem as rare as US built cars. I made the mistake of not confirming if a hotel in Milan had A/C when I visited in late May a couple of years back. My choices where: 1) swelter in >85F all night long, or 2) open the un-screened window and get eaten by swarms of mosquitoes. No A/C and no window screens… a sign of an advanced culture for sure, and an indication why the word “malaria” comes from Italian (;-)). I had a horrible two night stay; I won’t make that mistake again. I am sure there are lots of people with Italian heritage in Florida and Phoenix who have adopted the use of A/Cs; no doubt their cousins in Italy will do the same if it becomes too warm. Projections of climate doom are always grotesque exaggerations or outright falsehoods, motivated by green politics. The linked article is political garbage.
Of course the ratio of cold to heat related deaths will depend on the area they are studying. However, as mentioned above, the interesting thing about cold vs heat related deaths is that they are not equal.
.
In a paper a good few years ago it was demonstrated that heat related deaths have a minimal affect on life expectancy compared to cold. Heat primarily exacerbates existing conditions. Cold, through accidents (ice) and disease (flu etc), creates more “at risk” people. It is an insidious killer, not so easily teased out of the death statistics as heat.
HaroldW,
Thanks for that, it pays to read the fine print. Another reason to use the same scales.
I’m kind of skeptical about the 150K number, most heat deaths come from already ill people, the CDC stated 58% of heat related deaths in the US came from those with existing cardiovascular disease so unless that number also extrapolates with climate change it may not add up.
If you look at the latitudes the future southern Mediterranean isn’t going to be any hotter than what Florida and Texas are now which aren’t experiencing anywhere near that rate of deaths, 618 people died in the US last year from extreme heat. 80 years from now Europe will have 25x that number? It doesn’t pass the smell test.
I doubt near 3rd world Mexico has anywhere near that number today, but I can’t find any numbers.
People can make any predictions they like, I just want them to be accountable for what they predict. If one examines the accuracy of past predictions by similar alarmists there isn’t much reason to give credence to new reports.
Tom wrote: “If you look at the latitudes the future southern Mediterranean isn’t going to be any hotter than what Florida and Texas are now”
.
A very good point. You might expect these are the sorts of things to be addressed in the discussion. Putting the research into the context of current findings. We already have ample examples of areas adapted to the climates proposed in such studies. However, these studies studiously ignore comparing the results of their prognostications with the effects of adaptations that are already in place, never mind considering anything more than off-the-cuff comments of what 80 years more development could attain. Instead, we are told the Paris Agreement is the way forward.
.
Invariably these health related studies are utter garbage from top to bottom but as we all know by now, it’s all about the “message”. Let’s not forget it was The Lancet that published Wakefield’s paper that was instrumental in getting the anti-vax scare off the ground. Climate change may or may not cause more deaths in the future. The case against The Lancet is far less uncertain.
Tom Scharf (#164246) : “If you look at the latitudes the future southern Mediterranean isn’t going to be any hotter than what Florida and Texas are nowâ€.
It’s possible that the Mediterranean, being somewhat isolated from the major ocean currents, will retain more heat than the Florida coast, which can export energy to the radiating areas of the north Atlantic more readily.
I recall a conversation many years ago with Dr. Richard Betts (likely at Bishop Hill), in which he stated that regional predictions vary in reliability, but that one region where he thought they were skillful was the Mediterranean. I’ll see if I can find it, and if he gave reasons for that opinion.
Edit: Got it, thank Google! http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/8/8/green-spouts-on-drought.html#item14648070
Richard Betts:
Certainly there are regional differences between a Texas desert and the Florida tropics and so forth. Seattle doesn’t get very cold due to proximity to the ocean, etc.
Spot Check:
Avg July temp of Madrid is 76F
Avg July temp of Rome is 78F
Avg July temp of Tampa is 83F
Avg July temp of Dallas is 84F
So about 7F difference. That seems to leave a fair margin for warming to meet the existing US numbers. What one assumes here is obviously key to any estimate.
Tom,
I guess the authors would assume Dallas and Tampa have thremendous rates of heat related death, worse than even Rome circa 2100. It’s a wonder people choose to live in such dangerous places. In 2015, Dallas county reported 2 heat related deaths for June, July, and half of August… with average temperatures between 85F and 90+F for the entire period. The population of Dallas county is 2.5 million. So, if the entire USA were as hot as a hot summer in Dallas, you could expect something like 300 heat related deaths per year. Hard to see how Europe reaches astronomically higher death rares from heat.
Has anybody been following the ‘Google Diversity’ thing? Here’s one introductory link, here’s another.
I haven’t delved in all deeply yet. I was curious what folk around here make of it. Does the guy have a point (any point), or is he full of hooey? (real question)
The PC definition of “Diversity” – People who look different but think the same.
mark bofill (Comment #164251): “Has anybody been following the ‘Google Diversity’ thing? Here’s one introductory link, here’s another.”
From Mark’s link: “Damore argued that biological differences between men and women are the cause of the gender gap at Google and the broader tech industry”.
He apparently went on to say that tech workplaces tend to be more amenable to men than women and that if Google should address that if they want to increase the number of women at Google.
The left grows increasingly totalitarian.
Apple 1997: Think Different
Goggle 2017: Think The Same
.
I’ve been following this the last couple days. It’s a bit complex. First, the hysteria in the media doesn’t reflect the contents of the actual memo. The media just wants to assume this is your stereotypical knuckle dragging sexist and the memo doesn’t reflect this at all. It basically says “it’s possible there are less women in tech for reasons other than just oppression, can we have a discussion on this?”. Secondly, Google was put in a no win situation and took the predictable (and cowardly) way out given their desired culture. Thirdly, Google does and should have the right to fire people as it desires IMO. Fourthly, it shouldn’t have done so here IMO.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/the-most-common-error-in-coverage-of-the-google-memo/536181/
.
This guy is going to sue Google, and Google will likely settle this out of court pronto as they don’t want the PR nightmare, everyone “wins”.
.
The outcomes of these social media mob attacks seem to only point in one direction, progressive right-think. There is the case of a Trinity race/racism professor calling for the deaths of white people on social media, he was suspended and recently reinstated. We must have nuance here! Leftist wrong-think is tolerated, rightist wrong-think is banned.
I think these diversity issues are likely an example of winning the battles and losing the war. The left is in the worst governing position in almost a hundred years and the overbearing political correctness is part of the reason. Many committed left commenters at the NYT are fed up with this stuff, it just isn’t very popular. They need to eliminate the excesses of this movement or it will continue to hurt them.
Tom,
The progress of the suit by Asian-American students against Harvard claiming discrimination should be interesting. The Trump administration seems to be taking a different view of the controversy than the Obama administration, surprise, surprise.
http://www.npr.org/2017/08/03/541430130/trump-admin-looking-into-whether-harvard-discriminates-against-asian-americans
Tom Scharf (Comment #164254): “Goggle 2017: Think The Same”
That seems to be their private motto. Their public motto is “Don’t be evil”. Combine the two and the result would seem to be something along the lines of: Google is god, there is no god but Google.
This thing is blowing up in Google’s face, they painted themselves into this corner. Two front page stories at the NYT this morning, including the NYT actually linking to this Breibart story with screenshots of internal Google conversations on blacklisting anyone who objects to Google’s diversity first culture.
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/08/07/revealed-inside-googles-sjw-cabal-blacklists/
.
Being smart does not inoculate you from being blind to your own biases. Google needs to get a hold on this, unnecessarily alienating half your customers is just a bad idea.
.
FYI: Only 15% of computer science degrees are to women. Google has 20% women on its technical staff. It’s a supply problem, and the interesting question is why CS is predominantly white male, not Google’s hiring practices.
Thanks Tom, others.
Appears to be fact that more men than women work at Google; it appears that is is undisputed and that it is OK to acknowledge this.
There is a claim that Damore suggests that there is a biological explanation for this fact. This claim may or may not be true. It’s more fun and useful for my purposes in discussing this to suppose that it is true for the moment, even if it’s not so.
1. Is it (OK?, not OK?) to propound theories that biological differences (which I presume are still OK to recognize, although in today’s pan tran fluid sexual progressive culture this may be incorrect) can impact people’s ability to do things? I’m reminded of this skit from Monty Python’s Life of Brian. Certainly I’d hope we can still recognize this difference!
But (and let me preface this by saying, I know I’ve got a really big butt here) we’re talking about a biological difference as an explanation for differences in technical aptitude.
Anyway I digress I guess. I’m not really interested in this as any sort of question of fact as in ‘is there some biological difference that makes men better at some technical endeavors than women in general’. I’m much more interested in the questions –
1. Should I be ‘allowed’ to ask that? Is it wrong to ask that?
2. Is it ‘harmful’ in some sense to ask that?
3. Does it even matter if it might be true?
I’m asking a lot of questions here. I’m not sure if any are rhetorical. I don’t think they are- I’m not trying to make any point I think is obvious by asking these questions. These are questions I’m curious about.
Thanks again all.
In other news – I think Trump could be trying to provoke North Korea into some aggressive act he could use as a justification for a military strike.
beg pardon, screwed up my google employee demographics link above. Here : https://www.google.com/diversity/
I think that the question that needs to be asked is: Do affirmative diversity programs lead to more or less racist/sexist/whatever attitudes? I don’t think the answer is obvious. I do think that the promoters of affirmative action programs are ignoring unexpected or unintended consequences of these programs.
So, even if they weren’t rhetorical, let me put up my preliminary answers to my own questions. That way if they are not of any general interest the matter can be considered disposed of. So – first thoughts I’ve had on answering these:
.
1. Should I be ‘allowed’ to ask that? Is it wrong to ask that?
I think people should be allowed to ask any darn-fool question they want to. I think people should be free to laugh at / mock people who ask really stupid questions with some possible sexist or racist agenda mercilessly, but still – it ought to be OK to ask whatever dumb question one wants in my view.
.
2. Is it ‘harmful’ in some sense to ask that?
Maybe. Maybe asking dumb questions causes dumb people to develop cult followings to dumb answers, or something. I think such considerations are futile though. There will always be people who take things and run in the wrong direction with them. This is not a reason not to ask questions, AFAICT.
3. Does it even matter if it might be true?
Not particularly, see above.
.
I think that people fear that if a scientific basis is found for real differences between groups of humans, it might be used to try to justify political oppression. But. As if political oppression needs scientific justification in our world! Preposterous. I don’t understand why we couldn’t say ‘people are different. This said, we have agreed that politically and morally people are all equal regardless, because that’s what we want our society to be’ and be done with it.
shrug
It was easy to foresee the memo was going to go nuclear with the diversity crowd. It argues evolutionary science and ideological intolerance in a calm reasoned way to a crowd that believes they own science and tolerance. Lodging a complaint with the left controlled NLRB for ideological intolerance was also poking the progressive bear. It has been exceedingly easy to provoke an overreaction from the left post-Trump.
.
One needs to only examine perfectly acceptable theories on why women are good at certain other professions to see hypocrisy in action.
.
He makes some perfectly valid points: not allowing ideological push back can result in authoritarians taking control, and not understanding true causation inhibits effective solutions.
Manafort’s home was raided by the FBI last month. That only happens with probable cause and my guess is that this was examined very carefully. He’s going down.
SSC takes on gender differences, recommended (note: he’s a psychologist). This is the more intellectually defensible “Google sexist screed”.
.
Summary – Men like things, women like people, this is widely accepted in the field.
.
The data supports that the tech difference in some fields is likely biologically based differences in interest (STRESSED: not differences in ability), the gender differences go all the way back through high school, etc to as early as measurements are made. Curiously women with a “typical male” hormone imbalance do not exhibit the difference…
Smite Me, O Mighty SJW Smiter!
http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exaggerated-differences/
Tom,
Thanks for that link, that was both interesting and entertaining. 🙂
Tom,
I read the complete Google programmer’s message, and I also read SSC’s analysis of the relative lack of women at places like Google. The actual content of the programmer’s messages was pretty mild… mostly he was complaining about the Google’s totalitarian leftist culture…. that is a sure fired way to have a bunch of leftist totalitarians fire your a$$, and that is exactly what happened. The culture of the left seems to me to always have strong totalitarian tendencies. After all, when you are absolutely certain you are right, there is no need to suffer the disruption of opposing views being voiced, nor the inconvenience of compromise with other views, which seems Google’s philosophy in a nutshell… but increasingly one shared by most people on the political left. I find the combination of absolute certainty and a complete lack of self awareness nothing short of frightening. I suggest Google change thier motto… “Don’t be evil.. but we define what evil is.” Google is clearly run by a bunch of arrogant jerks.
SteveF,
I’m getting a 1984 vibe from all of this.
It’s only about 30 years late.
Some takes on the Google memo, and the reaction thereto, are here: http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/
On the memo: I haven’t read the memo itself. Articles don’t seem to link it and I wasn’t concerned enough about it to Google it. 🙂 think the main problem for Google was it all became very public.
The arguments about differences between men and women are perpetual. Of course there are some biological differences. I think the difference in fractions of men/women in CS are more inclination than aptitude. But it’s likely that some of the differences in inclinations are biological; others are social. But a lot of the choice vis-a-vis CS is frozen in by choices people have been making in their freakin’ teens.
I don’t know enough about Google’s policies to say what Google should do. But it’s highly unlikely that they are going to get their CS hires to 50%-50% parity. The supply of women getting degrees is insufficient to do this no matter what policies Google puts in place. (Well… since they are one employer, I guess they could do it– then other employers would have a lower fraction of women.)
DeWitt,
I agree with you. I don’t know if affirmative diversity programs lead to more or less racist / sexist / attitudes. But I will say that I believe such programs cause some people to focus more on discrimination. To skip a lengthy description of my own anecdotal experiences and cut to the chase- I have reached the point where I spend time actively looking for how any statement I make in a professional / work environment might be misconstrued (edit add: before I speak). Not out of consideration for the feelings of others, to be sure; but out of a sense of fear. I’d like to believe that creating an environment of fear was not an intended consequence of these policies, although as usual I may well be wrong about that.
Lucia,
Yeah. You’re not missing much. Reads like something I’d write. Bleh.
Sounds pretty reasonable to me.
What’s interesting to me about using fear to motivate people is that I think people resent it. I suspect fear make[s] people default hostile towards the motivational system generating and exploiting the fear and the proponents of the system. Just sayin. I suspect that given options in most situations, a Reign of Terror probably isn’t usually one of the better choices.
The activist end of political correctness is about manners, not morals. If you ask those same people whether there is less racism now due to better manners they will tell you no. Their opinion is false niceness is better than real disrespect. Perhaps this is so, but my problem is that now that we have speech code adherence in the public sphere, the witch hunts are much worse. It used to be that you could just see who was burning crosses, using the n-word, and wearing hoods to identify the racists. Now the left has gone to micro-aggressions, “dog whistles”, subtle speech code faux pas, and examining every lifetime utterance to claim everyone and anyone is a racist. That’s not a better world except for the self righteous, self elected judges of society’s inquisition. It is unearned and undeserved social power.
.
As with many things the intentions are good, the implementation has been corrupted by those who seek power using shaming as a tool. Trump was a blinking billboard that the shaming card has been overplayed. It is a good thing that a bright light is being shined on these episodes. Shaming the shamers might help.
Tom,
South Park had a season devoted to that. An example: Randy goes to the grocery store, I think it was a Whole Foods. When he is checking out, the cashier asks him for a donation to some cause or other. When he refuses, the cashier makes an announcement about it on the public address system in the store.
I don’t think it helps because people don’t recognize themselves. If they were sufficiently self aware enough to take notice, they probably wouldn’t be doing it in the first place.
Tom Scharf wrote: “Shaming the shamers might help.”
DeWitt wrote “I don’t think it helps because people don’t recognize themselves.”
I agree, but I suspect that the South Park episode was not an attempt to shame the shamers. The would-be cashiers won’t recognize themselves. Of if they do, they think “right on”. The target is the people who might recognize themselves as being potentially in Randy’s place.
I think about that scene every time I am assaulted with a guilt trip at my grocery store.
http://southpark.cc.com/clips/lit77f/nothing-for-hungry-kids
http://southpark.cc.com/clips/jdcszw/yeah-shes-a-hungry-one
It works, Randy finally gives in…with the expected result.
http://southpark.cc.com/clips/4jl17t/the-one-dollar-club
Tom,
If my grocery store gave me a guilt trip, I would find another grocery store.
lucia,
Well, yes, obviously. But the people of South Park were completely enamored of Whole Foods, mostly for reasons that wouldn’t make sense to rational people.
Re Whole Foods: no (few really) preservatives. This is supposed to be a good thing, maybe it can be. Not 100% sure what happened, will likely never know for sure, but I think I food poisoned the heck out of myself about 10 years ago in Atlanta via Whole Foods. I thought growing up that preservatives were technological progress…
Mark Bofill,
Haven’t you heard? Chemicals are bad. Categorically. I understand that all junk food and fossil fuels are just absolutely polluted with chemicals all over the place. The worst chemicals are the ones with really long names. Kale at Whole Foods is chemical free I hear, unless it is grown within a 1000 miles of a Monsanto based field in which case it is pure poison.
Mark,
I generally have no objection to food preservatives, not even if they are artificial.
Natural preservatives exist and I’m sure Whole Foods is ok with those. Hops is a preservative. That’s one of the reasons it started being used in beer. Of course it also balances sweetness, but you could balance sweetness with other things.
I”m all for preventing food from rotting.
Tom,
Kale sure came into fashion! I’m waiting for the next big veggie.
While we’re on the subject of food, what I want to know is why the penchant for organically grown, non-GMO food isn’t considered anti-science, not to mention the anti-vaccination movement (thanks Lancet /sarc). My best guess is that those things cross party lines and can’t be used as a political club like ‘creation science’ and being soft on AGW.
lucia,
Kale is so last year. Back when Craig Ferguson was the host of the Late Late Show, hardly a night passed without a kale joke or two. But that was some time ago.
DeWitt,
I don’t know. That said, there are qualitative difference between different “anti” groups. With climate, some people denying something is true (e.g. world has warmed), with GMO people don’t deny it works, they are sometimes just unduly cautious with things we can’t prove. Obviously, we can’t prove that someone would never introduce a gene into something in a way that caused something both unexpected and bad to occur. Perhaps someone would breed a variety of Kudzu that would truly take over the world. Or maybe even more powerful Asian Carp. Thinking that could happen isn’t necessarily anti-science.
On the other hand, people who agree the climate has been warmed and some of that is caused by man get called deniers. Also, not all anti-GMO people are worried about the sort of hypothetical catastrophes I suggested. They are actually against things like “golden rice” which could really help alleviate vitamine A deficiency in poorer countries.
The one that gets me is all the cured ham and hotdogs that proudly claim to contain no nitrites/nitrates. They use stuff like celery juice which contains… nitrites. Unless your cured meat is grey or artificially colored, it contains nitrites.
lucia,
But you don’t know that a new selectively bred plant cultivar is safe either. If you breed for insect and pathogen resistance so you don’t have to use synthetic pesticides and fungicides, it’s likely that the plant may be more toxic. Celery is a good example of this. The psoralens in celery can cause photosensitivity in farm workers and may be carcinogenic.
https://www.nap.edu/read/10977/chapter/5#44
DaveJR,
If you read the fine print, it should say no nitrate or nitrite added, not contains no nitrate or nitrite, and somewhere else it also says that celery juice contains nitrate and nitrite, pure marketing hypocrisy.
Bioengineering is a wonderful technology for bioweapons. If you want to make your aerosoled small pox resistant to vaccines this is the first place to go. Biotechnology bad. Then again buses can be used to run over people so…
The left’s most anti-science stance is their prohibition on nuclear energy. The message is so convoluted that it is almost never even discussed. There are endless future energy plans from the left that do not even acknowledge the existence of nuclear energy. There are also many on the left that really want to believe that everyone is born a blank slate.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #164284):
A penchant for organically grown or non-GMO food or non-GMO is a choice, and is hence not anti-science. Those choices even have some basis in (over-?) precaution.
Anti-vaccination, if by that you mean refusal to let your children get vaccinated and/or campaigning against vaccination in general, is a clear position and is pretty well into anti-science. I don’t know why you think it is “not” considered anti-science for party line reasons or otherwise. Maybe by some.
Conflating all “other” is generally a precursor to applying the political club, sure.
Tom Scharf (Comment #164290):
Again, conflation of “the left.” I know plenty of people on “the left” who see nuclear as one of the most plausible “alternative” energy sources. There are practical concerns of course.
Careful there, Tom. Blank Whiteboards too.
oliver,
I also know people on the right who don’t think global warming is a hoax. Shall we go take a look at the top 25 environmental NGO’s and see what their stance on nuclear energy is? So to make it more (ironically) accurate, the environmentalists are anti-science on this subject, who just happen to be almost universally left wing.
Nuclear is expensive compared to natural gas, that will still hold it back if the bias problem is solved.
Tom,
1. Studies seem to show that plenty of people on the right (perhaps a slight majority) don’t think global warming is a hoax. So what’s the problem here?
2. Sure, let’s take a look at the top 25 environmental NGOs and see what is their stance on nuclear. If they are anti-nuclear, then let’s also look at their reasons for taking that position. If they have anti-science reasoning, we can call it out for what it is. As I stated in my post, there are also practical concerns that might cause one to take an anti-nuclear stance. To take one example, you just mentioned cost.
3. Historically there have been plenty of right-wing environmentalists. Some more scientific than others, just as with any other group.
Global warming as such is not a hoax although the size of the problem has been twisted completely out of proportion for ideological reasons.
Kind of like Russian interference in the American election except I don’t know if there is any truth at all in the Russia story.
One of the central narratives in the Russia story is that the Russians hacked the DNC server.
According to recent evidence there was no Russian hack, there wad not even a hack:
https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/
The Nation is an old liberal, left-leaning publication.
Oliver,
I’m honestly not sure I see where you’re going. Is your point to tell us ‘don’t generalize about the Left”? Real question, and thank you in advance.
Mark,
It probably is better to just say “anti-nuclear is an anti-science position”. Avoiding associating it with “left” or “right” avoids the possibility of constructing a sentence that seems to accuse all the left of being against it.
Back to the anti-science labeling: labeling is mostly used as a political tool. It’s hard to say why climate activists adopted the “anti-science” label while gmo or nuclear advocates haven’t. I’m not convinced it’s a “left-right” thing though. But I really wouldn’t advocate it as a technique that convinces anyone. Using the label doesn’t change anyone’s mind and mostly just annoys people. If anything it hardens positions.
People in favor of vaccination generally don’t use anti-science as a label, they prefer to just talk about herd immunity and “do you really want your kid to die?” stuff. Some k-12 schools are also getting stricter about allowing parents to have their kids skip vaccines. In the past,they tended to just be willing to accept refusal was some sort of belief that fell under the first amendment. Now the schools are pushing back. (Often the parental belief is not anything remotely like a religious belief. )
Re Left: thanks Lucia.
Yes. All of these schemes to manipulate opinions and persuade people; consensus messaging, shaming, smearing, fear mongering. I don’t think any of them have much impact on actually changing peoples minds. Well reasoned, respectful discussion is probably about as good as it gets.
Still – do ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ actually stand for concrete things anymore, besides which division one sits in chamber? I get that a slur is a slur and that calling anybody anti-science is really nothing else, but. Is pointing out that the [L]eft tends to be more supportive of socialist policies a slur? It seems to me that that depends on the opinions of the company one keeps.
(My first question was meant to be introductory and may have been rhetorical. My answer – I think Left and Right mean more than where one sits in chamber. My second question is actually heartfelt and I meant my answer as well.)
Similiarly: perhaps it is counterproductive to say that the Left tends towards totalitarianism. Perhaps it is incorrect to say this. Still – I must say I understand where the sentiment comes from. Is there a better way to address the Charlie Gards and the Google Diversity Memo (I know Google is company and not a government. Google cannot be totalitarian in that sense. Still.) situations; is there a less offensive way to broach the subject? Possibly. Maybe it behooves me to think about how to express myself in a less abrasive manner, if I want anybody who doesn’t already agree with me to listen.
[Edit: I think at the end of the day the answer is that I can’t talk about the Left or the Right. That’s like talking about somebody’s favorite baseball team or something similar. It’s probably better to stick to concrete issues without attaching them to social groups.]
Lucia,
Of course generalizations (greens don’t support nuclear power, only Christians support ‘intellegent design’) are never completely accurate, since there are often many exceptions to the generalization. Still, generalizations serve as a shorthand for group political preferences, and even a liberal source like The New Republic recognizes that Democrats tend to oppose nuclear power. https://newrepublic.com/article/139700/democrats-party-science-not-really As to whether generalization hardens poilitical positions: I suspect most political positions are extremely difficult to change, mainly because they are orthogonal to factual reality, not because people tend to use generalizations.
.
I hope your vacation went well.
I think the next ‘big’ veggie is kohlrabi.
oliver,
I see that there were, in fact, pro-vaccine and pro-GMO supporters in the March for Science. They just didn’t make the news. Which says a lot about bias in the press.
There is news on the subject of Russian meddling in the election.
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) is a group formed in 2003 in opposition to the misuse of intelligence data to justify the Iraq war. Now they are saying that last year’s DNC leak was an inside job, not Russian hacking. One key piece of evidence is that the leaked files were copied in an amount of time incompatible with internet hacking, but consistent with copying onto a thumb drive.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-08-10/why-some-u-s-ex-spies-don-t-buy-the-russia-story
I think (with certain important exceptions), it is fair to say that the Left has generally historically opposed nuclear power. One example is the Sierra Club. See http://sierraclub.org/nuclear-free “The Sierra Club remains unequivocally opposed to nuclear energy.”
I am personally a conservative contrarian. I mildly oppose nuclear power on the grounds of cost and my belief that the government is too incompetent to regulate the safety of nuclear power.
JD
Mark
I wouldn’t think so. Left is generally defined either on (a) economic policies or (b) personal liberties (or both). In terms of economic policies “Left” is defined as “socialist” and “right” capitalist.
In terms of personal liberties other than those touching on economic issues, left leans to ward “freedom” and right toward “government control”.
Mind you: things get jumbled in real life. Plus the exception of “other than” those touching on economic issues is a big one for personal liberties. After all: the power to tax (and or redistribute income) has a huge effect on personal liberty. I’m not totally opposed to all taxes, but I also think not being allowed to benefit from the fruits of ones own labor is a big infringement on liberty. So taxes with an aim to redistribute enough to actually level incomes strikes me as a big blow to personal liberty. (In contrast, taxing to build roads doesn’t strike me as a big problem. In between …one has to discuss…)
Mike M.,
It’s possible both hackings occurred. Wikileaks still maintains that Russia was not their source. The Russians and Chinese trying to hack into US systems is not news. It’s totally believable they got into a poorly protected DNC, why wouldn’t they? The question is whether there is evidence they took the next step and leaked the documents. Unless they are as clumsy as Reality Winner it is unlikely that question will ever be resolved.
Thanks Lucia. As far as I can recall, it’s always been (and continues to be) a genuine pleasure to get feedback from you. 🙂
.
Lefties, do you mirror what I do in ignoring the parts of the ‘Right’ (the viewpoint I affiliate with, in the unlikely event that it wasn’t obvious) I don’t like? I tend to ignore or forget this – when I go to draw from the Rightie buffet somehow this part never ends up on my plate:
Gay marriage for instance? I’z gots nothing against it.
So – back to the question — Anybody out there with a left leaning view care to comment on whether or not there are parts of ‘Leftiness’ (or however one ought to put it) they just don’t think are all that important or essential in defining what the Left is all about? Maybe parts of Leftist thought that you just flat out disagree with or ignore?
Speaking of Whole Foods and organic foods, in CO we have grocery chain named Sprouts (not sure if national or not) that only carries organic food.
Their produce and meat departments have a tremendous waste problem. Literally a rotten mess.
So back to Google. CEO Sundar Pichai cancel diversity meeting:
.
“We had hoped to have a frank, open discussion today as we always do to bring us together and move forward. But our Dory questions appeared externally this afternoon, and on some websites Googlers are now being named personally. Googlers are writing in, concerned about their safety and worried they may be “outed†publicly for asking a question in the Town Hall. In recognition of Googlers’ concerns, we need to step back and create a better set of conditions for us to have the discussion.â€
.
Obviously if someone is outed externally for asking a policy question internally then….the person who asked the policy question gets fired, right? I’m confused. What changed? That’s a rhetorical question. I haven’t heard anyone (literally nobody) say anything about Damore’s safety.
.
Call me cynical, but this meeting was canceled because it was going to hit a hornet’s nest with a baseball bat and make bad PR a veritable train wreck of PR. I do love my mixed metaphors.
.
The media coverage of this is 99.9% of the type which dismisses his arguments without discussion, he made an absurd wrong statement (allegedly), ignore everything else he said and debate nothing.
.
Here is one of the top voted questions to ask the CEO:
“The doc asserted that Google has a lower bar for diversity candidates, This is hurting minority Googlers because it creates the perception that they are less qualified. What can we do to combat that perception?”
.
A: Not lower the bar for diversity candidates? Not have a category called diversity candidates? I’m somewhat amazed this is a top question from our best and brightest. They want to pretend they don’t lower their standards for diversity when they lower their standards for diversity?
JD Ohio,
” I mildly oppose nuclear power on the grounds of cost and my belief that the government is too incompetent to regulate the safety of nuclear power.”
.
Well, the cost for nuclear power is high mostly because of political opposition… which has lead to endless lawsuits, crazy regulations, and commonly required re-designs/re-builds during the initial construction due to ever changing regulations. So the high cost which opponents always point to is the direct result of political opposition, not a cause of political opposition.
.
With regard to government inability to regulate safety: consider commercial air transport, and how many fatal crashes take place. That is in large measure the result of government safety regulations. The total loss of life associated with air accidents is orders of magnitude greater than from nuclear power worldwide, and infinitely greater in the USA… since there is not a single death in the USA caused by a nuclear power accident. The main opposition to nuclear power is motivated by 1) irrational fear of radiation and 2) a desire to make all forms of energy more expensive, so as to reduce material wealth and so reduce human influence on ‘nature’. For the Sierra Club and their ilk, it is mostly 2).
SteveF: 2 nuclear power plants were recently cancelled in South Carolina after large amounts of money had already been spent because the builder thought it would be too expensive to continue. I think it would be instructive to know why these plants were so expensive and what work that was done was unnecessary and expensive. Do you have any ideas?
JD
Tom,
“They want to pretend they don’t lower their standards for diversity when they lower their standards for diversity?”
.
Yes, it is all absurd. Of COURSE they lower standards to hire more people with desired personal characteristics. If they didn’t, then the mix of programmers and engineers at Google would perpetually reflect the graduating classes from colleges and universities for those fields… that is, about 20% women and about 1/3-1/4 as many African-Americans as you would expect based on their fraction of total population.
.
It will be interesting to see what happens with the Asian students’ lawsuit against Harvard. I think they can easily prove Harvard discriminates against Asian candidates (number of Asians admitted to Harvard constant, despite a doubling in the number of Asians in the USA). Just like Harvard discriminates against Jews and whites in favor of African-Americans and Hispanics. I doubt the lawsuit will succeed in changing Harvard’s policies (or the policies of other competitive schools… leftists always think themselves absolutely right about everything), but it will be fun to watch Harvard suffer some richly deserved bad PR.
I guess I will have to adjust the “debate on the merits” metric down to 99.0%. Here is David Brooks from the NYT:
.
Sundar Pichai Should Resign as Google’s C.E.O.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/11/opinion/sundar-pichai-google-memo-diversity.html
.
“Which brings us to Pichai, the supposed grown-up in the room. He could have wrestled with the tension between population-level research and individual experience. He could have stood up for the free flow of information. Instead he joined the mob.”
Kan (Comment #164309): in CO we have grocery chain named Sprouts (not sure if national or not) that only carries organic food.
Their produce and meat departments have a tremendous waste problem. Literally a rotten mess.”
The Sprouts I often shop at has both organic and regular stuff, just like a normal supermarket. Unlike Whole Foods, it has reasonable prices. I have not noticed any waste problem.
Don’t all supermarkets have a waste problem? It seems to me that if such a problem is obvious to the customer, than the store must be grossly mismanaged.
SteveF (Comment #164311): “Well, the cost for nuclear power is high mostly because of political opposition… which has lead to endless lawsuits, crazy regulations, and commonly required re-designs/re-builds during the initial construction due to ever changing regulations. So the high cost which opponents always point to is the direct result of political opposition, not a cause of political opposition.”
.
I had long assumed that to be the case. But has that happened with the plants in Georgia and South Carolina? If so, can you provide pertinent information?
I had been under the impression that all four plants were proceeding more or less on time and reasonably close to budget. Now two have been cancelled because of huge cost overruns and it seems likely that the other two will follow. I have not seen an explanation of just what went wrong. But it would seem to be a major blow for nuclear in the U.S.
lucia,
I disagree with your characterization of Left and Right wrt government control. 1984 and Animal Farm were written by a man of the Left, George Orwell, who saw the logical conclusion of the policies of the Left. Hugo Chavez and now Nicolas Maduro are not right wingers by any stretch of the imagination. In almost any economic dispute between the government and the individual, the left tends to take the government side, see Kelo v New London, for example.
The dispute is between liberals in the classic sense of the word, i.e. liberty, and authoritarians. Most of the Left is as authoritarian as the Right, although have somewhat different agendas. The Left has perverted the meaning of ‘liberal’ and also ‘progressive’, for that matter.
Now we have Thought Police on college campuses, not exactly dominated by the Right, and moving into corporations. Google is located in deep blue territory. Freedom of speech doesn’t exist if you can’t say or write anything that offends someone.
JD Ohio,
The plants were canceled because one of the utility companies (40% ownership) backed out when the primary construction contractor (Westinghouse) declared bankruptcy. Not coincidentally, Westinghouse is a subsidiary of a Japanese company that had lots of second thoughts about nuclear power after Fukishima in 2011.
.
The contract for procurement and construction with Westinghouse was signed in 2008, long before Fukishima. It took the Federal NRC 4 years to issue a license for construction. Construction finally started in March 2013, five years after the construction contract was signed. Further construction delays and cost overruns were driven in large part by NRC regulators working at companies building major components for the reactors; the delayed major components delayed/disrupted all other construction and installation of equipment, causing huge cost overruns and pushing projected operation to sometime after 2020 (and more likely 2022-2024). Capital projects that take ~16 years to complete are never commercially viable. Regulatory delays and complexities are a feature desired by opponents, not a bug or failure of the regulations.
Mike M.
The main listed reason for one of the South Carolina nuclear plant cancellations was the bankruptcy of Westinghouse, the reactor supplier.
https://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/news/2017/07/31/construction-ends-at-sc-power-plant-with.html
Construction was not proceeding on time, nor was it on budget. Any further delay in construction would probably have cost significant tax credits.
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/03/nuclear-giant-westinghouse-files-for-bankruptcy-after-costs-skyrocketed/
Business as usual.
DeWitt,
“Google is located in deep blue territory.”
.
And run by deep blue people.
Tom Scharf
Not unlikely. But that’s not a bad reason to cancel a meeting. I suspect a fair number of people over the full political spectrum were relieved.
I don’t think the media dismissed his arguments. Initially, they didn’t have them (memo wasn’t avaiable to all.) Many have discussed his arguments and the amount of discussion appears in proportion to the actual reporting of the event.
They should also state they do not intend to lower the bar and show a tabulation of credentials of some sort to demonstrate that what they claim is true. Granted, there is some superficiality to credentials. But if you have a bunch of new hires in “group A” and “group B”, you should be able to show proportion of things like degree level, external experience before hire, average gpa and so on. At least look for something measureable that hiring managers think matters.
If one group is getting hired w/o degrees, no external experience of much lower gpa, it’s going to look like “lowered standards”.
The fact is: a lot of “diversity” verbiage does give the impression those striving for “diversity” intend to “lower the bar”. If they don’t want to give that impression, they need to find a path that does not involve “lowering a bar” and then be very specific about what they intend to do to increase diversity.
In the case of Google and hiring of developers, it’s obvious they are faced with a certain mix of people in the pipeline. There is very little they can do to change the pipeline — and what little the can do would at best affect the mix 10 years down the line. Perhaps their plan is to fund some HR people to specifically buttonhole all minority coders at job every job fair at every university with a decent technical program. That could increase numbers without lower standards. But in that case, they need to say that’s the plan. (They also need to recognize that they still probably won’t raise the fraction of minority hires a yuge amount. It will raise it somewhat.)
DeWitt,
Yeah. I think you are correct. I was thinking of personal liberties like gay marriage. But you are right that full control of the government has been mostly a socialist, that is “left”, thing.
Tom Scharf (Comment #164314),
Brooks should make sure his resume is in order. The mob of witch hunters will soon be after him.
D. Payne: “he main listed reason for one of the South Carolina nuclear plant cancellations was the bankruptcy of Westinghouse, the reactor supplier.”
Without further context, this doesn’t tend to prove that the nuclear reactors were priced out by excessive regulation. The fact that Westinghouse went bankrupt, on first blush, would seem to indicate that it is not a profitable business.
JD
JD Ohio,
Did you not read the quote from the second link in my post? Apparently not. That was the context you are asking for.
lucia,
I do sometimes wonder, though, if people like Chavez actually believe in the principles of socialism or are just conning the useful idi0ts to gain power. My guess would be that, for example, Fidel Castro was a true believer.
D Payne Sorry I didn’t read the second article. However, after reading the second article, I went to the links there to the NYTs. The NYTs stated: “At the same time, Westinghouse was trying to install a novel reactor design, the AP1000. Using simplified structures and safety equipment, it was intended to be easier and less expensive to install, operate and maintain. Its design also improves the ability to withstand earthquakes and plane crashes and is less vulnerable to a cutoff of electricity, which is what set off the triple meltdown at Fukushima.
Nonetheless, it was inevitable that expansions at the Vogtle generating station in Georgia and the Virgil C. Summer plant in South Carolina would hit some bumps along the road to fruition, nuclear executives say. Not only was the design new, but, because nuclear construction had been dormant for so long, American companies also lacked the equipment and expertise needed to make some of the biggest components and construct the projects.
Indeed, that may ultimately have been at the root of the troubles. The contractor Westinghouse chose to complete the projects struggled to meet the strict demands of nuclear construction and was undergoing its own internal difficulties after a merger. As part of an effort to get the delays and escalating costs under control, Westinghouse acquired part of the construction company, which set off a series of still-unresolved disputes over who should absorb the cost overruns and how Westinghouse accounted for and reported values in the transaction.” https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/business/westinghouse-toshiba-nuclear-bankruptcy.html?_r=1
I believe if these plants were truly economical, others would be able to step in and do the work. (including, maybe Chinese) Doesn’t appear to be the case.
JD
JD Ohio,
The NY Times is not a credible source for information about nuclear power…. they are actively opposed. Nuclear is the Donald Trump of energy sources.
Steve F: The Ars Technica article cited by DeWitt was in large measure based on the NYTs article.
JD
JD Ohio,
Of course nuclear is not economical, especially when compared to combined cycle, cheap natural gas fired plants. Neither are solar and wind without government handouts, in spite of what you may have heard about levelized cost. Levelized cost of energy is a nearly useless metric for non-dispatchable generation. The question is, what’s the least expensive, low carbon footprint generating system that can provide the high reliability required for the national grid. IMO, that’s still nuclear. But it won’t be cheap even when you get over the startup hump.
China is building nuclear power plants as fast as they can at home using the AP1000 design, among others. I doubt they would have the slightest interest in dealing with the US regulatory regime. China also doesn’t have relatively inexpensive shale resources, so natural gas is expensive for them.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-31/china-s-nuclear-power-fleet-seen-overtaking-u-s-within-decade
http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/18/fracking-sweeps-into-china/
DeWitt,
It is difficult to tell if a strong man or dictator claims to believe socialism to gain power or whether they seize power because the believe in socialism and want to impose it.
Fidel may have been a true believer in socialism. His actions did not improve living conditions for the overwhelming majority of Cubans.
DeWitt P: “Of course nuclear is not economical, especially when compared to combined cycle, cheap natural gas fired plants. Neither are solar and wind without government handouts, in spite of what you may have heard about levelized cost. Levelized cost of energy is a nearly useless metric for non-dispatchable generation. The question is, what’s the least expensive, low carbon footprint generating system that can provide the high reliability required for the national grid.”
….
Personally, a low carbon footprint is not important to me. I believe that if there is potentially dangerous warming, in let’s say 75 years, by then their will be easy tech fixes. So, from what you are saying, if economics is my concern, I should support gas-fired plants.
JD
lucia,
Sure. Juan Peron ruined the Argentine economy and Chavez and Maduro have destroyed the Venezuelan economy. Stalin caused massive starvation and on the order of six million deaths in the Ukraine. But did they know what they were doing and thought it was necessary for a future utopia or did their subordinates keep them insulated from reality? I’m pretty sure Stalin knew exactly what he was doing. He wanted the kulaks dead and he didn’t care how many other people died to accomplish it.
JD Ohio (Comment #164329): “”The Ars Technica article cited by DeWitt was in large measure based on the NYTs article.”
It is far from clear just what the story is. A $1 billion cost overrun sounds like a lot, but on a $14 billion project, it is not that unusual. It would seem to take much more than that to kill a project with billions already sunk in. Losing the tax credits would hurt the viability of project and it may well be that the plants won’t be done by the end of 2020, as required by the current law. But the House has voted overwhelmingly to remove the deadline and the appropriate Senate committee did the same. The whole Senate does not seem to have acted yet, but it seems like a good bet that they will follow suit. So I remain confused as to why these plants were cancelled.
DeWitt,
.
I haven’t studied Castro as well as I’d like, but my impression so far is that he thought early on that he’d joined the winning side and that global Communism was a historical inevitability. But I think he ultimately cared about ruling more than anything else. Che, in my opinion, was the true believer.
Mark Bofill,
“Che, in my opinion, was the true believer.”
.
Which may be why he thought nothing of murdering anyone who’s loyalty to the cause he had any doubt’s about…. even key leaders in the revolution…. sometimes with an unexpected pistol shot to the head at point blank range. That is the unfortunate consequence of having ideologues in positions of political power; there is almost no limit to the evil they can do.
Mike M: “It is far from clear just what the story is. A $1 billion cost overrun sounds like a lot, but on a $14 billion project, it is not that unusual. It would seem to take much more than that to kill a project with billions already sunk in. ”
….
My concern is that it always seems that there is something that is a cost-killer with nuclear plants arises and that over the last 20 years or so, they never seem to be completed in an economical manner. I haven’t looked at it closely, and am hoping that people here who know more about it than me can inform me.
JD
JD: “over the last 20 years or so, they never seem to be completed in an economical manner”
But in the U.S. not a single plant started in something like 40 years has been completed. It seems that plants have been built elsewhere at reasonable cost.
Steve,
There is that. 🙂 thanks for providing me with the opportunity to clarify that I’ve really got nothing but contempt for all of those bastards; Che, Fidel and so on. May they roast in hell.
Google basically hires the top 1% of candidates. They could easily hire the top 0.5% of men and the top 1.5% of women instead and even out the ranks. This probably wouldn’t hurt them too much technically but that is almost impossible to measure or predict.
.
However the total supply of candidates hasn’t changed and all that really means is that Google is taking more than its fair share of women. Somebody down the line is going to end up with an even worse male/female ratio. Good luck explaining that to the government.
.
Companies must now prove they are trying to discriminate on gender and race and also prove they aren’t discriminating on gender and race. That’s a pretty small window to stop lawsuits. Madness.
.
If the thesis is true that women simply aren’t all that interested in programming and CS then are we going to force them into it if passive techniques fail? Bricklaying is nearly 100% men, what are we to do about that? Wouldn’t bricklaying benefit from diversity? Apparently nobody is suing the bricklayers for their sexist oppression for some reason. Women should be forced to lay bricks, don’t give me any guff and pseudo-science on strength differences, some women are strong, overweight, drive pickup trucks, and like to drink cheap domestic beer. Oops, looks like I am using harmful stereotypes. For the record, bricklayers are awesome and should all get to work at Google IMO.
.
Just for fun, LA street artist puts up fake ads around Google’s LA office, ha ha:
https://twitter.com/adra21/status/896014777725575170
Tom Scharf,
If Google wanted to hire a much larger share of women for programming, they would have to offer more money. PC is nice, but increased fixed cost may be more important.
.
I’ve done some bricklaying (on my own construction projects, not for pay)… even while I was concurrently writing code. I can verify that it is possible to do both. Maybe Google could check construction sites for strong bricklaying women.. or men. On second thought, maybe not.
.
Goolag! Love it… the logical endpoint of the leftist PC culture at Google. If the founders had any sense, they would provide a sacrificial lamb in the form of the numbskull CEO who fired Damore. They don’t and they won’t.
Tom
A more extensive set of those googlag type posters are here:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/google-mocked-street-art-office-1028914
Letter to my local paper. I don’t know if they will publish it.
Beware the War Hawks.
Senator Lindsey Graham has suggested destroying N. Korea. He said “If there is going to be a war to stop him [Kim Jong Il], it will be over there. If thousands die, they are going to die there; they’re not going to die here.” (Actually the estimate is millions killed and wounded.) In earlier days he suggested bombing Iran. As Mr. Graham apparently lacks imagination about the unforeseen consequences of wars he should read Nevil Shute’s On the Beach. A few days later President Trump talks openly of Fire and Fury, that the weapons are locked and ready. But that is not counted as being aggressive – N. Korea test firing a missile needed for their nuclear deterrent is the end of the world though.
The American Civil War was expected to be over in a few weeks after the Battle of First Manassas to be followed by a quick attack on Richmond. Germany thought WW l & WW ll would be quick and easy. Iraqis would welcome American troops with flowers after the first couple of weeks.
Were we told we would still be fighting in Afghanistan after 17 years?Libya is another disaster responsible for millions of culturally different refuges flooding into Europe. France did not expect the yellow peasants to beat them in Viet Nam and of course, even after seeing what happened to France it never occurred to America that it could happen to them too. 13 wars in 30 years at a cost of $12.6 trillion,what good have any of them done those that started them?It looks like a lobotomy is performed on each new generation. The loss of life, the millions maimed and countries destroyed are forgotten. The real reasons for starting the wars are buried. The results are wonderfully embroidered as the just America, masquerading as a force for universal good, only kills those that deserved to die. Not even collateral damage. The murderers are honored for defending freedom. The UK High Court has just ruled that Tony Blair can’t be charged with war crimes, no matter what he did. Nuremburg style courts are to be run by America, not to try Americans.
George Washington’s farewell address warned: “Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove, that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.â€
Washington went on to say: “The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.†And, “’Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.â€
Yet our silly politicians, ignorant of war and fearing that America’s hegemony is crumbling, are hell bent os starting something with Iran, N. Korea, Russia and China. They have no clue how any armed conflict with these countries would turn out, but clearly any of them would be very dangerous. A recent Pew poll of thirty countries shows that America is now regarded as easily the greatest threat to world peace. N. Korea is dirt poor and could never execute a war. They would vitrified in 30 minutes if they attacked the US. They are trying to avoid America forcing a regime change.
It’s time these war hawks were not re-elected to office unless you want disaster.
Edited: strike outs added over rhetorical q’s.
Adrian: Your letter to the editor contains unanswered rhetorical quesitons. I realize they may have no rule against that, but I do. I do not make an exception to this rule for those who fearing their local paper will not post their letter to the editor decide to post it here.
In future either (a) edit your comment to conform to rules for posting here or (b) don’t post it here.
I am going to strike out your rhetorical questions.
Thank you.
I should add: it is very tempting to add “hegemony” to the “bad word list”. It is my experience that anything containing the word “hegemony” is not worth reading.
Mark Bofill –
Don’t know if you’re interested in venturing forth…and I don’t feel qualified to act as a representative of “the left”, but if you’re interested I’d be happy to share my view…
Just drop me a note here:
Hi Joshua,
Yeah, I was following the Manichean paranoia thread with half an ear (half an eye? eww) and noticed the thread over there drifted onto shaming, blaming, lefties and so on as well. I could pop over to the Trump thread to chat with you, thanks. Lemme deal with RL and see if my big boy pants still fit and hopefully I’ll wander over this afternoon.
Good to hear from you, hope life is treating you well sir.
Lucia,
You are just being picky. Would it really have made any difference if I had written
.
(a) Were we told we would still be fighting in Afghanistan after 17 years?
(b) We were not told we would still be fighting in Afghanistan 17 years later.
.
(a) what good have any of them done those that started them?
(b) None of them have done any good for those that started them.
.
Perhaps I should have altered the quotation to follow your rules, but it wouldn’t be a true quote then.
.
Congratulations though, you have effectively cut off the feedback I was seeking.
lucia (Comment #164345)
I picked the word hegemony deliberately as a dig at some elites I despise who use it regularly. I didn’t expect many to “get it.” Obviuly you didn’t.
lucia (Comment #164345)
I picked the word hegemony deliberately as a dig at some elites I despise who use it regularly. I didn’t expect many to “get it.” Obviously you didn’t.
Adrian
If so, it’s a rather ineffective communication tactic because it’s unlikely any reader will perceive your intention to use it as a dig. That said: if you prefer ineffective communication, that’s your prerogative.
Sorry for the double post. I wasn’t able to edit the typo in the first, not later delete it.
Lucia,
“it’s a rather ineffective communication tactic”
.
I would expect no less from someone so picky. You never write anything to please yourself I suppose.
.
How about explaining why one should alter a quotation so that it follows your guidelines?
Adrian
The rule against rhetorical questions is long standing, well thought out and useful. I’m sure you are aware of the rule. You don’t get to give yourself a special dispensation just because you think it’s “picky”.
As for your concern about not having a “true” quote: You did not wrap those the rhetorical questions in quote marks and cited no-one. I find it difficult to believe “13 wars in 30 years at a cost of $12.6 trillion, what good have any of them done those that started them?” was a quote of anyone (other than possibly yourself). Likewise, the other one rhetorical question was not wrapped in quotes.
If by “quote” you mean a “self-quote” of the letter you submitted to a newspaper who may not publish it, I guess that might be called a quote. But in that case, I’m not entirely enamoured with the idea that you are going to start cross-posting all your letters to the editor in comments for proof-reading here. Presumably, if the editor of your paper thinks the letter is interesting, it will be discussed in your local newspaper which in my opinion should be enough for you.
I’m sure if people find what you wrote interesting, they will engage despite my pointing out you are violating a longstanding rule and requesting you comply with it. The rule against the rhetorical qestions is an important and useful one. If you don’t want your discussions to be interrupted by my moderation, I suggest you simply comply with the rule. This should not be difficult.
Meanwhile, you can wait to see if people engage your ideas. If the do, fine with me. If they don’t: also fine with me.
Adrian
If you are quoting something written by someone other than yourself, then the quote can be posted. However, I am not going to make an exception that permits you to submit a letter to an editor somewhere else or a comment somewhere else and post it here. Sorry: But I’m not going to let you try to slyly sneak around the rule.
Should your letter have been published,it would have been fine for you to link to it and perhaps give a synopsis.
Of course I do. Obviously, you may do so as well. If you think pleasing yourself is more important than writing effectively, that’s your prerogative. But it’s a bit silly to complain when someone points out that your chose to write ineffectively.
Lucia,
“As for your concern about not having a “true†quote: You did not wrap those the rhetorical questions in quote marksâ€
..
For crying out loud, I wrote it was a letter I had sent to the newspaper. The DelcoTimes publish the majority of the pieces I send them. This one maybe a bit too anti-establishment for them to swallow. Time will tell. But I am not going to deliberately alter any quotation whether they are from me or not. Why on earth would I alter what I wrote when looking for comments on it? This self quote exception smells like something you just made up.
.
“I find it difficult to believe “13 wars in 30 years at a cost of $12.6 trillion,â€
.
“Jack Ma: America has wasted its wealth | World Economic Forum
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/01/jack-ma-america-has-wasted-its-wealth/
Jan 18, 2017 – Alibaba executive chairman Jack Ma, attends the annual meeting of … “In the past 30 years, America has had 13 wars at a cost of $14.2 trillion.â€
Lucia
I shouldn’t have relied on memory. The cost was $14.2 trillion, not $12.6 trillion.
.
Im mildly surprised you didn’t highlight the comment as an unforgivable sentence fragment.
Of course the diabolical waste of money was not important enough for you to mention.
Say Joshua, my comment’s still in moderation over on the Trump thread at Anders. I didn’t want you to think I just flaked out on talking with you. Doubtless it will clear customs at some point. 🙂
Wait. If we are going to make crazy talk, why not talk about crazy cold fusion theories…. just as productive, and arguably more entertaining.
Lucia,
May I humbly suggest you ban a certain commenter with initials AA?
Mark Bofill,
What ‘Trump’ thread? Not seeing anything at Ken Rice’s blog with that title. Engaging joshua?!? Wow. He is a loser leftist who never addresses the factual issues.
Steve,
.
Anders was gracious enough to allow Joshua and I to talk on an old thread. Joshua supplied a link here in comment 164346.
.
I don’t think Joshua is a loser. I enjoy talking with him. I believe he is indeed a lefty, but that’s part of why I think it’s fun to talk with him.
.
I get that he gets on some peoples nerves. I cringe to suggest that one has to be able to ‘speak Joshua’, but I’m tired and slower than usual right now and can’t think of a better way to put it. I can’t articulate it right now, but there’s a certain sense to what he and I consider good faith exchanges. The lines just seem intuitive to me. Besides, Joshua is one of the few out there who seems to find my conversation worthwhile enough to go out of his way to invite me to talk with him. 🙂
.
Maybe wasting my time. What the hey. It’s fun. I got the time to waste. Sometimes anyway.
.
Thanks Steve.
Adrian,
Let me be clear. Do not post anything you authored that uses rhetorical questions.
Lucia,
Even if it is now published?
SteveF
“Wait. If we are going to make crazy talk, why not talk about crazy cold fusion theories…. just as productive, and arguably more entertaining”
.
Why is it still controversial science when there have been half a dozen good replications by well known laboratories? That here have been 80 or 180 (depending on whose count you believe) other replications is icing on the cake and irrelevant.
.
See this thread on lenr-forum that has sufficient pathological skeptics for you to feel right at home.
.
https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5273-how-many-times-has-the-pons-fleischmann-anomalous-heating-event-been-replicated/?pageNo=1
North Korea is close to having nuclear armed ICBM’s. Hopefully, we will be able to get China to talk them out of going the final mile. But what if talk does not work? So far it hasn’t. I see three possibilities, all unattractive.
(1) A preemptive military strike to destroy their missile facilities, their nuclear facilities, and their ability to strike at civilian targets in South Korea. The willingness to do this has the advantage of maximizing the chance the talks will succeed. But this will likely be very nasty for South Korea and can not be done without their full cooperation.
(2) We rely on deterrence; i.e., the policy of deliberately keeping the world one step short of nuclear war and U.S. cities ones step from annihilation.
(3) We tell the South Koreans that they are on their own.
Is there another choice?
Mike M,
.
It is a thorny problem. The preemptive strike means accepting some ugly colateral damage. Stratfor had what seemed like a good five part write up on the military strike option here is part three. Of course Chinese interference or possible war or retaliation complicates the matter also.
If Trump finds another option I’m going back to believing the dude is an unappreciated genius, that’s all I can say. I doubt it though.
Adrian
I have already answered this. Please reread (Comment #164355) .
In case the reading level of that comment was too high for you: No, you may NOT quote your own rhetorical question.
Or, to restate that, let me requote myself in (Comment #164363)
Honestly, I’m not sure if you are stupid, disingenuous or just like acting like a 5 year old child who wants to “negotiate” special rules for himself. But I said this very clearly.
Lucia,
“I am not going to make an exception that permits you to submit a letter to an editor somewhere else or a comment somewhere else and post it here. Sorry: But I’m not going to let you try to slyly sneak around the rule.
Should your letter have been published,it would have been fine for you to link to it and perhaps give a synopsis.”
.
So can I quote someone else’s piece that contains a rhetorical question but not my own? Or someone could quote me, but I can’t quote myself? Doesn’t sound reasonable to me but it’s your forum and you can do what you like. I could do without the insult that the reading level of that comment was too high for me.
Mike M,
Yes, there is. The fundamental problem is, and has always been, that China supports North Korea. Without that support, North Korea collapses. Tell China that we will immediately subject their exports to the States to a heavy import duty unless they force North Korea to behave. In parallel, we should make clear to China that we will offer nuclear missiles to any of our allies in Asia who want them, including Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. We should make clear that we will send home every one of the hundred thousand plus Chinese students at our universities (that is, the kids of the wealthy and the party leadership), and stop issuing visas of any kind to Chinese nationals, including Chinese diplomats at the UN. When the ‘international community’ objects, tell them they always have the option to move the UN to Beijing, Havana, Caracas, or a similar communist paradise, and not worry about US participation in the future.
.
Nobody has ever been willing to inconvenience the Chinese, even though they have used North Korea to purposely generate endless problems since the 1960’s and are 100% responsible for the North Korea mess. Someone needs to focus their minds with real costs for their very irresponsible choices.
Adrian,
“Why is it still controversial science when there have been half a dozen good replications by well known laboratories?”
.
That you actually believe such claims shows how little you know about science, how incredibly naive you are, and how badly you suffer from conspiracy ideation.
MikeM
“(3) We tell the South Koreans that they are on their own.
Is there another choice?”
.
Not clear what you meant by that. As I suggested in my earlier comment, I don’t think N. Korea will give up their nuclear deterrent without military action. They think that is the only option that will stop America trying another “regime change.” So another option is to accept them as a limited nuclear power. They might be stopped from further tests (ie developing what they have any further) if America would stop its aggressive military games against them and lifted the sanctions. (Not likely)
.
Don’t get me wrong, I think the N. Korean regime stinks. Like the USSR that will pass if they are left alone. The worst option is to start another war where no one can tell what it will lead to and would probably kill and main millions.
SteveF: “Nobody has ever been willing to inconvenience the Chinese, even though they have used North Korea to purposely generate endless problems since the 1960’s and are 100% responsible for the North Korea mess. Someone needs to focus their minds with real costs for their very irresponsible choices.”
I like that.
You don’t unlearn how to make nukes and missiles. It’s over with Norks. This needed to be stopped 10 years ago. Compliance now doesn’t gain much when it’s simply a matter of production instead of invention.
Mike M: “North Korea is close to having nuclear armed ICBM’s. Hopefully, we will be able to get China to talk them out of going the final mile. But what if talk does not work? So far it hasn’t. I see three possibilities, all unattractive.”
….
Unless North Korea clearly and unambiguously directly threatens the US with an imminent attack, or actually launches missiles at the US, we have no choice but to defer to South Korea, Japan and China. If we attack North Korea, its first response will be to attack Seoul, which is very close. Of course, any attack on Seoul would be catastrophic.
JD
Adrian,
You seem to grasp the rule. However, bear in mind that if I develop the impression you have created a sock-puppet so you can quote them, then that’s out.
Also: You should very rarely be quoting long comments in their entirety. Quote the gist, then link. That’s just normal web use.
I mean seriously: There is almost never any need to quote an entire 6 paragraph item. Tell people what’s interesting about i, perhaps quote a few sentences and link. That’s what linking is for.
mark bofill,
I largely agree with the Stratfor link you posted. It ended by saying:
“Realistically, absent the use of nuclear weapons or the invasion and occupation of North Korea, the United States and its allies are already at a point where they cannot guarantee the complete removal of the threat of a North Korean nuclear attack.”
.
While there is no doubt about the ability of America to strike, as usual your targets depend on intelligence. Getting good information about N. Korea would be harder than for most other countries and the US has failed miserably in Iraq, Libya Afghanistan and Syria. N. Korea has submarines able to fire missiles and their ICBMs are mobile.
.
Where we possibly differ is that I don’t view N. Korea as much of a threat if it is not attacked first.
The recent Pew survey of 30 countries showed that the rest of the world considers America by far the greatest danger to peace.
Lucia,
“I mean seriously: There is almost never any need to quote an entire 6 paragraph item. Tell people what’s interesting about i, perhaps quote a few sentences and link. That’s what linking is for.”
.
If it had been posted at that time I would have given a link. As it wasn’t, I didn’t have a link to give, so a synopsis would not have helped.
I note you didn’t actually answer my last question about posting quotations.
SteveF,
“I mean seriously: There is almost never any need to quote an entire 6 paragraph item. Tell people what’s interesting about i, perhaps quote a few sentences and link. That’s what linking is for.”
.
Your comment highlights your ignorance and that you have never read the literature.
I’m sorry. That was the wrong quotation (left over from the previous comment) I was not able to edit it or felete it.
It.
.
The quotation should have been:
“That you actually believe such claims shows how little you know about science, how incredibly naive you are, and how badly you suffer from conspiracy ideation.”
.
I’m suffering from macular degeneration and it is becoming difficult for me to read stuff.
Adrian,
Look, I’m not going to answer that over and over. Please reread (Comment #164355) . It contains the answer to your question.
If you continue this, I will ban you outright.
“Nobody has ever been willing to inconvenience the Chinese”.
I am quite intrigued with advocacy of a trade war with China by USA. Since I am not in the USA I suspect I am missing some nuances here. If the USA government initiated measure like you suggest, then wont that mean US citizens paying a lot more for consumer goods which doesnt sound like a way to be popular? Not to mention seriously inconveniencing some large US firms. China is also the biggest holder of US debt. What is that going to do the cost of debt?
Isnt there also a risk that if US is going break WTO conventions, then China can retaliate to damage US access to Korea, India etc? Long term, I suspect China would emerge even stronger from a trade war.
Phil,
No idea. A trade war with China would not be good.
Phil,
Adding a duty to Chinese goods would cost consummers, of course, but rather less than a nuclear missle arriving in Chicago… or Washington. It would also cost less in money and lives than war on the Korean peninsula. A substantial reduction in Chinese imports would immediately pressure the Chinese government, because China is more heavily export dependent than most countries. I am unimpressed with arguments about the WTO. The WTO and other international organizations assume countries will act reasonably and responsibly on fundamental things (like not supporting a lunatic who is developing nuclear weapons)… but China simply refuses to act responsibly, and endangers the entire world, so nicities like the WTO, the UN, World Bank, etc. are of secondary consideration. The US can (and does) enter bilateral and multilateral trade agreements, independent of the WTO. South Korea, Japan, and India are not going to abandon the US market because the WTO is unhappy.
.
I see zero impact of China holding US Treasury debt…. I suggest they consider debt from Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina and Greece instead of Treasuries.
.
I see this as a simple question: Will the Chinese continue to allow a lunatic who regularly murders his political opponents (even in his own family!), imprisons foreign nationals, advocates genocide, and treatens his neighbors with war, to continue to develop a worldwide nuclear threat? I hope the answer from the Chinese is no. But they won’t reach ‘no’ without serious motivation. Maybe it would be best as a first step to expel all Chinese students at US universities, and stop issuing visas to Chinese nationals… or only issue the same kind of restrictive, one-entry-only-short-stay visas that the Chinese insist on for US citizens.. and make the visa process as difficult and onerous as the Chinese make it for foreigners to visit China. Our interactions with the Chinese have historically been one-sided in favor of the Chinese; that needs to change immediately, because they are behaving very badly. If China wants the many benefits of being an ‘enlightened world leader’, then it needs to start acting like one.
Instead of fighting we should just give 20,00 Afghanistanis and 20,000 North Koreans a 2 week holiday in Disneyland each year all expenses paid.
Far cheaper than fighting them.
And after 5 years of exposure to corrupt Western decadence they will all revolt at home to get American conditions.
angech
Might work. A lot might end up overstaying their visas by a considerable length of time though.
Off topic mention for those who may be interested but hadn’t heard, there’s a paper out claiming to prove P != NP (Computational complexity theory / comp sci). Link here, blog reference here. Haven’t looked at it yet.
Mark,
I think I would have to invest seveal hours just to understand what the problem is, never mind understand the proof. Now if it were related to the accuracy of climate model calculations…. then maybe worthwhile. 😉
I’m sure this must be important to some fields. Perhaps cryptography? I have to admit I’m not going to dive into that.
SteveF: “Will the Chinese continue to allow a lunatic … I hope the answer from the Chinese is no. But they won’t reach ‘no’ without serious motivation.”
Yep. Start negotiations and when they don’t make quick progress, start ratcheting up the pressure. Visa restrictions, then kick out Chinese students, then import duties, then big military buildup in East Asia.
Sadly, the courts will likely block the first two steps, because Trump. Congress won’t take action on the third. So the military option will be all that is left.
angech
.
I’m quite sure the North Koreans don’t need to go to Disneyland to want “American conditions”. They know full well what they are missing and they would love to join their brothers and sisters in the south.
.
The Afghans are an entirely different story. The poisoning of the mind caused by the religion of Islam does not go away so easily and certainly not through a visit to Disneyland.
.
A disturbingly large minority of muslim immigrants to the West – and their offspring even more so – view the Western lifestyle as decadent and muslim “values” as superior and preferable.
.
Almost three quarters of Muslims in the UK think that insults against Islam or publication of cartoons of Muhammed should be met with arrest and prosecution. Almost one fifth of British muslims outright support terror. The younger generation tend to hold more extreme views on the subject than their parents.
.
A majority of Turkish immigrants to Western Europe recently voted for almost unlimited powers to the islamist quasi-dictator Erdogan. Unfortunately, a visit to Disneyland will not make any difference at all.
Steve, Lucia,
Yes. It’s my field, and I’m not sure I want spend the time to crawl through that paper. 🙂 The thumbnail sketch of the background and question behind it all – some problems appear to be ‘hard’ to solve, where ‘hard’ means there is no known polynomial time (P) way to do it. You can ‘check’ possible answers to see if they are solutions to a given problem in polynomial time however. This is NP (non deterministic polynomial). What’s neat is that somebody realized that many of these problems can be transformed into other hard problems algorithmically in polynomial time, which means for the class of ‘NP Complete’ problems, if you can solve one in P, you can solve them all in P. So – naturally it’s been of great interest for a long time to find out if it’s really impossible to solve these problems in P or if it’s just that we haven’t been able to puzzle out how to do it. Most compsci people have strongly suspected P != NP, but it hadn’t been proven. So, it’s not really earth-shattering news, just sort of putting an old question to rest. Still sort of neat.
mark,
It may not be earth-shattering, but it is worth $1,000,000 since it’s one of the Millennium Prize problems.
Btw, I don’t think you can have an off-topic post on an open thread.
And in other news, Arctic Sea ice is running close to 2016. A simple extrapolation says the minimum will be in the vicinity of 4.2Mm². The rate of melting should be slowing and we’re slightly past the date when 2012 cratered.
Antarctic Sea ice is still setting record lows, although not by all that much. I’m a little surprised I haven’t seen much on that, although I haven’t really looked.
That’s correct. Open threads permit anything.
Lucia,
“Open threads permit anything.”
.
Save for rhetorical questions. 🙂
Niels,
“Unfortunately, a visit to Disneyland will not make any difference at all.”
.
Well, yes, Disneyland is pretty lame… but maybe Disney World in Orlando would work? No probably not.
.
I suspect the number of “true-believers” that support all the crazy stuff is smaller than some surveys suggest, because there is plenty of “name-and-shame” pressure on Muslims to conform with the most extreme Islamic teaching/rules. But there truly are a lot of Muslims who DO believe all the crazy stuff (throwing gays from rooftops, substituting religious law for civil law, killing anyone who leaves Islam, etc.), and that presents a very big long term problem for everyone else, made much worse by the absurd PC culture of the left which prohibits any criticism of wacko Islamic thinking.
Here’s one I didn’t bother to read from The Atlantic. Prepare for the book burnings. I hope anyone with the proper ethics will not be seen in public if they have one of these on their shelves.
.
Reading Racism in Dr. Seuss
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/08/reading-racism-in-dr-seuss/536625/
.
I find the hatred against green eggs and ham truly disturbing, but found the treatment of red fish and blue fish to be equitable.
SteveF
True. No rhetoricals.
BTW: I decided to moderate AA just in case. He hasn’t come back, but for the time being, I’m reading his posts before the appear.
Lucia,
That is an encouraging development, but…
.
Who think’s it’s right to suppress free speech?
Who will show some sympathy for people who are going blind?
Who could doubt the reality of cold fusion after replication in dozens of independent leading laboratories? Why will no one read links to this cutting edge research? How can there be so many people obviously involved in the conspiracy to suppress cold fusion? And more to the point: Why are there so many lunatics in the world?
.
I could go on, but won’t, because I’ve made my rhetorical case…. my arguments are unassailable! ðŸ˜
.
I think the answer is “magnets”. My Dad came home one day and told us that when he’d stopped at a lunch joint a guy at the counter started explaining that all the ills in the world were due to “magnets”. So, that’s probably it.
It’s an attractive theory.
Or repellent. Take your pick.
Polarizing.
Molecular oxygen is magnetic, so it may in fact all be due to magnets.
I did not know that about oxygen. That said: my chemistry is weak.
SteveF (Comment #164409): “Molecular oxygen is magnetic, so it may in fact all be due to magnets.”
Actually, O2 is paramagnetic, thanks to having unpaired electrons. That just means that it reacts much more strongly to a magnetic field than most substances, and in the opposite direction. But you can not make a magnet out of it.
Mike M,
Bit of a quibble, but yes, paramagnetic. Flowing O2 gas deflects in a magnetic field; that deflection is used to measure the oxygen content of many flowing gas mixtures.
For all the people who think self-driving cars and trucks are a great idea, I give you this:
http://www.smh.com.au/good-weekend/the-untold-story-of-qf72-what-happens-when-psycho-automation-leaves-pilots-powerless-20170510-gw26ae.html
They should name that plane Christine.
DeWitt,
If you fly on a commercial jet, most of the time the automatic system will be in control…. and that is good, because there has been a steady decline in fatal accidents with ever greater automation. Could an autopilot crash a plane? Absolutely, but the chance is much less than if a person is flying most of the time. Computers can go haywire, of course, and that is why critical systems are usually multiply redundant. But keep in mind humans go haywire as well, as the crazy German pilot who flew his plane into a mountain a few yeas back (after locking the co-pilot out of the cockpit) so clearly shows…. and he was not the only case. All we can reasonably ask for is automated systems which reduce overall risk and which are gradually improved to continue to cut risks. I have flown a couple million miles in the last 25 years, and I am not at all concerned with autopilots.
.
Properly implemented, automated cars and trucks will save a lot more lives than automated planes have.
Steve, suggestion on chinese students seems reasonable way to put pressure on. Starting a trade war? You are gambling that this would pressure China into pressuring NK whereas it could just result in retaliation, guessing that screams from within USA will break resolve before any major damage to Chinese economy. The debt? I am no expert, but USA is going to have to borrow more money, and it seems to me anyway that China could be play hardball in a couple of ways that would make it rather more expensive (eg dumping the Treasury bills).
My guesses for future?
1/ You are not going to disarm NK
2/ NK wont initiate any war with SK or USA
– and now
3/ USA is not going to start war with NK
Too much to lose with any of those options.
I wonder how hard it would be to intentionally cause an automated car to crash through external mechanisms. Wile. E. Coyote had lots of interesting ideas.
.
Trying to make a car drive like a human seems pretty hard. I would think you could make it immensely easier for a computer to drive a car with on road electrical navigation aids. Having predesignated driving lanes with navigation aids or simply knowing exactly where other cars have driven previously would make it easier. The key to making it cheap and dependable is auto-driving infrastructure I think.
SteveF,
Maybe. But cars and trucks are not the same as planes. Planes don’t fly wingtip to wingtip and nose to tail. A momentary glitch in a car in heavy traffic will cause an accident. Other than landing or takeoff, planes have room to recover. Planes also have fairly rigorous maintenance and inspection schedules. Vehicle inspection in the states that have it is hit or miss. And that’s just off the top of my head.
lucia (Comment #164403)
August 15th, 2017 at 4:21 pm
I think the answer is “magnetsâ€.
It could be “ants”.
When things go wrong there are usually ants involved in the background. Picnics obviously. Wiring in houses.
I have a joke with my mate that when our footy team loses the ants have been busy.
Note, I have not been near any magnets lately that I know of.
Still, exceptions.
Ants.
Etc.
De Witt
“Arctic Sea ice is running close to 2016. A simple extrapolation says the minimum will be in the vicinity of 4.2Mm²”
–
Neven wrote on his blog a month ago
“Dr David Schröder from the University of Reading modelled melt pond distribution maps for June. Based on melt pond fraction in May+June we predict a mean 2017 September ice extent of 5.1 (4.6 to 5.6) mill km2 (within the range observed during last 4 years). The likelihood for a new record minimum is below 1% [my emphasis; N.]”
Fingers crossed he is right.
Steve F
The problem is that it is so easy to defend wacko Islamic thinking because the “crazy stuff” in the form of how to live your life and how Allah wants the law of the land to be is right there in the Islamic texts. The Koran and the Hadiths are on the side of the “fundamentalists”. Any re-formation of Islam in the literal sense of the word wil always favor the “wackos”. There are a lot of moderate Muslims but in general they are only moderate to the extent that they are not Muslims and do not follow Muslim teachings. (Yes there are versions of Islam that are moderate but they are few and small and their followers are not regarded as Muslims by the main Sunni and Shia branches of Islam)
.
In other words: The Muslims who support all the stuff we call crazy are not wacko in an islamic context. And that’s in fact the problem at it’s core as I see it.
.
I suspect the PC’ers deep down know this but reject it because the consequences of that reality are too hard for them to face. They just hope time will solve the problem in some way through integration and assimilation and at the same time they hope that concealing any problems that accompany mass migration of Muslims to the West will somehow help. Some PC’ers hope a moderate European/western version of Islam will suddenly develop. And they keep hoping and concealing, insisting they are right even as evidence to the contrary pile up in front of their eyes (well maybe not _their_ eyes so much, the bulk of the problems usually arise in the suburbs where all the intolerant deplorables live and actually feel the consequences of mass immigration from Muslim countries) If I was American I would watch very closely what happens in France, the UK, Germany, Sweden etc as the Muslim share of the population grows. The conditions are getting worse at a very fast pace now.
Niels,
“If I was American I would watch very closely what happens in France, the UK, Germany, Sweden etc as the Muslim share of the population grows.”
.
Don’t worry, lots of people in the States have been watching, and don’t like what they see. Unless native Europeans in those countries start having babies (and/or Muslims start having fewer), those countries will ultimately become majority Muslim, and cease to be European in any meaningful sense. From a practical POV, political accommodation (partial transfer of jurisdiction to ‘Sharia’ courts, restrictions on public criticism of Islam) has already started, and will not doubt only grow. Many Europeans appear to have given up on Western culture and liberal values; I find it tragic.
.
BTW, I understand that all the “wacko” stuff is completely ‘normal’ from the perspective of a literal reading of the Koran. It’s only wacko from a Western POV. It took Chistianity 1800 years to move (mostly) away from a literal reading of the bible. For the sake of all humanity, I hope that change happens soon within Islam.
Phil,
Let’s hope the lunatic doesn’t decide to lob a missle into the center of Aukland.
SteveF
Yes I agree, it is incredibly tragic. I love my country (Denmark) and the culture and way of life that has developed here over the centuries but I’m starting to doubt very much that my children and/or future grand children will want to stay here in 30 or 40 years time. I’m really, really sad I have these thoughts but I do.
SteveF
Lets home none of the lunatics do so.
Niels,
I had a few interesting conversations with European leaning (AKA secular) Turks before Erdogan got a popular mandate to serve indefinitly and institute Islamic policies. They where ‘certain’ Turkish voters would never allow the rule of secular government (first instituted by Ataturk) to devolve into the nightmare of Islamic government. They were quite wrong, of course. But I was not at all suprised…. you have only to drive along a few small streets away from the center of Istanbul to see all the women dressed in long black gowns, with hair carefully hidden from view, to recognize that Turkey is nothing like a European country, and Erdogan reflects that. There is broad public support for fervent Islam in every Muslim majority country I have visited. Which is why with rapidly growing Muslim polulations European culture is in real danger of disappearing.
Tom Scharf (Comment #164416): “Trying to make a car drive like a human seems pretty hard.”
The advocates think that is a good thing. 🙂
On many occasions while driving I have seen a potential danger ahead and taken action to minimize my risk and/or risk to others. A computer can not do that; it can only react, not anticipate.
The self-driving car advocates count up all the cases where a computer could have avoided an accident that was caused by human error. They ignore all the cases where human intelligence prevented an accident from happening.
.
Tom Scharf: “I would think you could make it immensely easier for a computer to drive a car with on road electrical navigation aids. … The key to making it cheap and dependable is auto-driving infrastructure I think.”
But I don’t think that works when most of the other cars are being guided by wetware. Or on other than limited access roads. If self-driving cars can not operate with the existing infrastructure and investment, they will always remain in the future.
Niels A Nielsen (Comment #164420): “The problem is that it is so easy to defend wacko Islamic thinking because the “crazy stuff†in the form of how to live your life and how Allah wants the law of the land to be is right there in the Islamic texts. … There are a lot of moderate Muslims but in general they are only moderate to the extent that they are not Muslims and do not follow Muslim teachings. … The Muslims who support all the stuff we call crazy are not wacko in an islamic context.”
.
All religions contain crazy stuff. Most believers largely ignore the crazy stuff and live their lives in a manner consistent with the surrounding society. Their faith might have a big influence on how they lead their lives, but mostly by encouraging them to adhere to a high standard of behavior.
In all religions there are believers who come to take all their faith’s teachings very seriously. They end up behaving in ways that are distinctly not normal. In Christianity, the extreme example of that is Mother Teresa. In Islam, the extreme example is a suicide bomber.
DeWitt,
That account was pretty horrifying. Still, the quality and safety of semi / fully autonomous driving systems is a testable, measureable, controllable, and presumably perfectable thing. There’s no sure fire remedy I know of to fully prevent incompetent or low quality (I.E. intoxicated) human drivers.
A fun aside – I could trust a self driving car. The weird thing is I think I’d be a lot more tense about riding in a self driving car if I was the guy who wrote the code. I helped my kids build a fairly large trash can robot on wheels years back, and I came to truly dread their playing with it, always wondering if something was going to go wrong to make the darn thing go crashing full speed out of control through the garage or house. It didn’t really much happen, but still… OCPD I guess.
I agree with the comments about the problem being easier if all of the cars are automated on the same system. Easiest I’d think if they were all on the same system. Harder to integrate different ones, but the worst case is probably automated systems interacting with good old who-knows-what-they’ll-do-next / hard to predict humans driving as well.
Mike M.
“A computer can not do that; it can only react, not anticipate.”
.
Depends a little on implementation. If automated cars/trucks communicate with each other, then they may “see” things ahead that no human could see. Heck, I have many times been told by a navigation program of an accident miles abead and directed to an alternative route. But I think even more important is that a fair comparison be drawn between manual and automated driving: will automated cars/trucks lead to more or fewer accidents, and more or fewer injuries/fatalities? In the long run I think the answer pretty much has to be fewer. And then there is the very real benefit of being able to do other (productive) things instead of driving; in the long run, I believe that will lead to widespread adoption of automated cars/trucks.
Mike M. you seem to think that behaving in a “normal” way is generally the same for people from Christian and Muslim backgrounds and you believe Muslims generally live their lives in a manner consistent with the surrounding society. Neither is true when the Muslim population reaches a certain size. Just to take one example: Muslim boys are (generally of course) brought up to regard women as inferior to men and infidels (non-Muslims) as inferior to Muslims. In Denmark and European countries with a significant and fast expanding Muslim population, these religious/cultural differences cause immense problems with violence, disrespect and abuse of particularly women. This takes place in schools, at hospital admittance rooms, swimming pools, librarys, bars, discos, streets, almost everywhere. The muslim neighborhoods that have formed develop almost invariably into no-go zones where attacks, often with stones, on people of authority like firemen, ambulance drivers, policemen and bus drivers etc are the order of the day. Recently such a mundane function as mail delivery was suspended for weeks in a Muslim neighbourhood near where I live because the post deliverers refused to work there after being attacked while working. Suicide bombers are not the main problem. Development of a growing number of parallel societies of Muslims where the “wackos” rule and even replace the law of the land with local sharia courts are.
.
Sadly, Winston Churchill, who was also a historian, was right more than 100 years ago when he wrote in 1899 (The River War):
SteveF,
I hope sooner rather than later. I definitely wish they were available for my Mom. She can drive, but longer likes to drive at night, she doesn’t want to park any place “tricky” and she does get rides to church events because there are volunteers who do that.
For myself: In the suburbs, currently one must drive or be stuck in the house. That said, I’ve never ‘loved’ driving and if yuge-shit-wads of money were to rain down from heaven upon me one of the things I would prioritize is not driving without inconvenience or costs that are too high for “regular”.
(Uber is great. But their tool indicates a trip to the 95th street library in Naperville would cost me $16-21 dollars. There and back would be between $32-$42. That’s ok for a New Years Even night out on the town. But clearly, if my intention is to make money tutoring students and meeting them at various local libraries, driving my own car is worth it. Likewise, their parents would find it worthwhile for the kids to drive to the library also. And if I wanted to dine out 365 nights a week, adding $42/ night * 365 nights = $15,330 makes operating a car well worth it. That’s without adding in things like grocery runs. It also doesn’t add in the $120-$150 round trip if I want to visit my mom in Libertyville.)
So: self driving would be great and I’d pay a premium compared to not-self driving. Then I wouldn’t worry about drinking when dining out and so on. I’d take a self driving care in a heart beat.
My husband and his brothers like to drive. But even they wouldn’t mind skipping it when dining out– especially when dining at homes for family Christmas or New Year’s Eve celebrations. (Yeah. You can sleep on the couch or pull out sofa, but do you want to? A self driving car would mean you can have the extra glass of wine and still sleep in your own comfy bed at home.) For a one night thing, I guess we could spend the $42 for uber there and back though.
Sadly liberty is lost under the guise of safety. I knew Richard Spencer was coming to UF on Sept 12th and told my daughter to stay as far away as possible, but I do not support this overt repression of speech. I doubt this can stand legally if challenged. I suppose all the alt-right needs to do is make left wing speeches “unsafe” to shut their speakers down, but I’m willing to guess academia would try much harder to let these speeches occur. This is truly disappointing.
.
Aug. 16, 2017
Dear Campus Community:
Amid serious concerns for safety, we have decided to deny the National Policy Institute’s request to rent event space at the University of Florida.
This decision was made after assessing potential risks with campus, community, state and federal law enforcement officials following violent clashes in Charlottesville, Va., and continued calls online and in social media for similar violence in Gainesville such as those decreeing: “The Next Battlefield is in Florida.”
I find the racist rhetoric of Richard Spencer and white nationalism repugnant and counter to everything the university and this nation stands for.
That said, the University of Florida remains unwaveringly dedicated to free speech and the spirit of public discourse. However, the First Amendment does not require a public institution to risk imminent violence to students and others.
The likelihood of violence and potential injury – not the words or ideas – has caused us to take this action.
Warm Regards,
W. Kent Fuchs
President
University of Florida
As a further comment I am sick and effing tired of the “We completely support free speech BUT…” commentary that has become standard issue boilerplate. It is transparently false, the actions speak louder than these empty words. Also the gratuitous “we find person X’s views detestable” is unnecessary and signals their actual motivations quite clearly. I don’t care what he thinks about any particular group, I care that he treats groups equally and fairly.
Niels A Nielsen (Comment #164432): “you seem to think that behaving in a “normal†way is generally the same for people from Christian and Muslim backgrounds …”
I think that most people live in a way that approximates normal for the surrounding society. Normal in Cairo is very different from normal in Copenhagen.
.
“… and you believe Muslims generally live their lives in a manner consistent with the surrounding society.”
For the most part, yes, IF they are integrated into the surrounding society.
.
“Neither is true when the Muslim population reaches a certain size.”
I think that much of what you describe (which I agree is so) is cultural and arises largely from a lack of integration of Muslim immigrants into the larger society. In a sufficiently large, non-integrated neighborhood, the predominant surrounding culture is no longer Danish or American, it is Arabic or Somali. That leads to many problems. Muslim immigrants in Europe seem to be much more poorly integrated into society than in the U.S. and the problems you describe seem to be far worse in Europe than in the U.S.
Multiculturalism contributes to the problem by treating non-integration as a desirable thing. Attitudes in the surrounding society can contribute by making it hard for newcomers to integrate. And Islam contributes to non-integration both by being the one true faith and by seeking to control so much of people’s lives.
.
“Suicide bombers are not the main problem. Development of a growing number of parallel societies of Muslims where the “wackos†rule and even replace the law of the land with local sharia courts are.”
I agree. Europe seems to have a huge problem in that regard. But even when Muslims are pretty well integrated into society, the religion can encourage extreme, violent behavior. We have seen that in the States with some of our home grown Islamic terrorists.
Human psychology is such that people will want to control their own destiny even when evidence is shown that automated cars improve safety overall. “I would rather kill myself driving than have a computer kill me without my control” will betray evidence. There will certainly be high profile deaths caused by an automated system doing something very dumb a human wouldn’t have. This will get hyped by the media and that fear will infect the existing distrust of handing your destiny over to a computer. This will likely diminish over time but that time scale is likely a generation.
.
If automated cars go slower than manual ones, this will also be a problem for adaption. Strict adherence to speed limits will not be popular. If it can be shown that things such as all stopped automated cars can accelerate from a stop light simultaneously like a train or dynamic navigation saves actual net time then this could be overcome.
.
It seems like long haul trucking would be the first mass adaption.
Tom,
I shouldn’t wonder that strict adherence would be unpopular with the state or local municipalities that collect the revenue from speeding tickets as well. It’s puzzled me before that we don’t have widespread automated systems to keep people from speeding. Not exactly technically easy, but I’d think it’s been doable with the technology we’ve had for some time now.
mark,
They don’t because speeding tickets are a significant source of revenue for state and local governments. Speed limits are set accordingly, not just for safety, although safety is a factor. It’s a predator/prey relationship. You need a certain percentage of speeders to fund the police. Speed cameras, however, was taking it too far, at least in Tennessee. They’ve been outlawed.
Also, if you can’t speed, you can’t pass on a two lane road. You’d get long lines of cars behind the car that’s doing 5MPH below the speed limit. That isn’t safe either.
Tom Scharf,
Some people will want to control their own destiny. Others, not so much. I‘d be happy to treat an automated car just like I treat a train or an airplane. I’m not controlling either of those. Could the plane crash? Or the train derail? Of course they could. I see stories about that on the news frequently. It doesn’t make me think I need to be in control.
Humans are still in control of planes and trains and automobiles. Planes don’t need pilots to land and take off, but humans do it anyway. There are far fewer exceptions to traveling with trains and planes than there are in cars. Planes / trains can afford very expensive and complex systems for automation, cars cannot. I think I could trust a car to travel on an interstate, but they have a lot of testing to do before I will trust them in anywhere, America.
.
My current car has automatic braking for detected objects which has kicked in a couple times and is very useful. Can it pass a slow truck on a raining two lane road it hasn’t seen before at night? That’s going to make me nervous.
Tom,
Google car has had what I think is a surprisingly good track record so far, unless something happened more recently than this and I missed it. first crash February of last year.
.
Apparently it’s the edge cases like how to get around sandbags in the road that needs work. But I imagine these are cases where human drivers might do the wrong thing (or at least an unexpected thing that might increase the risk of an accident) too.
I should have added, the test driver in the google car saw what was going on but thought the google car was doing the right thing (in other words, in the judgement of the human test driver the bus should have slowed down to let the google car maneuver).
I misspoke and as a result ended up making a false claim. Google car had been involved with 17 crashes, but the claim was that all of those were due to human error. This particular crash Google acknowledges that their system bears some responsibility since it was maneuvering when the crash happened.
Sorry about that.
Tom
Yes. But my point is I am not. I don’t feel the need for control.
Sure. But that’s not the same as a person not allowing the car to drive itself because the human feels a need of control. I don’t want to be a passenger in a drunk drivers car because they aren’t competent. But doesn’t mean I’m unwilling to give up control. I’m happy to give up control provided the car is then operated safely.
If I saw lots of evidence a self-driving care drove safely, I’d be fine with it. Of course I haven’t seen that yet. Also: I wouldn’t be the first adopter, but the same holds for lots of things. I wasn’t the first to get a large screen tv either. I like to let something be in the market before I jump in.
If self driving isn’t ready, it’s not. When they are, I’m all in.
mark,
In what strange alternate universe did they recruit that test driver? (That’s sarcasm, not rhetorical) Apparently he never had a defensive driving course or never lived in a city with lots of public transportation. That’s almost as bad as a sailboat expecting a loaded oil tanker to slow down to let it maneuver. Sure, the sailboat theoretically has the right of way. So what. The tanker can’t stop or turn and won’t even try.
DeWitt,
That is sorta strange. But this is Mountain View CA, so… Who the heck knows.
No I’m joking, actually I agree with you. I don’t know. Maybe I misunderstood the link, or the link was wrong, or the test driver really was just a bad driver, or the test driver fell through a wormhole from another dimension. Here’s what it said:
shrug
Thanks DeWitt.
mark bofill (Comment #164442): “Google car has had what I think is a surprisingly good track record so far”.
What they don’t tell us is how many times the human drivers had to intervene to avoid a crash. In other words, how many crashes there would have been if everyone in the car was reading the newspaper or taking a nap.
Mike M.,
That’s true also.
Tom Scharf,
“Planes / trains can afford very expensive and complex systems for automation, cars cannot.”
.
I don’t think cost will ever be the limiting factor.. The per-copy cost for software depends on the number of copies sold, not just the total development cost. So yes, the cost per plane is extremely high (serveral thousand copies? $millions per copy?), but comparably complex software for cars would be for many millions of copies… drastically diluting what is essentially a fixed cost. Ditto for hardware, system integration and system verification. Planes / trains can afford very expensive and complex systems for automation, cars cannot. But when the numbers go up the per copy cost falls. Early adopters will pay a dear price, just as they always do, but count on the cost falling rapidly.
In one of the factories where I work they have had driverless (robotic) forklifts since the start of the year — the only accident was when one of the human driven forklifts run into the back of one of the robots because the human driver was distracted. So I’m keen to see robotic cars as there are too many distracted drivers.
“Let’s hope the lunatic doesn’t decide to lob a missle into the center of Aukland.”
Well I hope too, (daughter lives there) but rate the risks walking to work down a pedestrian-only path far higher. He is not exactly worried about invasion of kiwis.
Tim Cook of Apple says this:
The Evening Standard article I’m quoting also says:
Doesn’t seem responsive to me. Saying there is blame on both sides for violence != the sides are morally equivalent, at least in my strange little world. Perhaps he [Trump] did say the sides were morally equivalent and I missed it, does anyone know? (RealQuery)
shrug
mark bofill: “Saying there is blame on both sides for violence != the sides are morally equivalent, at least in my strange little world. Perhaps he [Trump] did say the sides were morally equivalent and I missed it, does anyone know?”
Trump did not directly say the two sides are morally equivalent. But he indirectly said that they are morally equivalent, by condemning violence on both sides. That is just as bad and exposes his condemnation of the white supremacists as a phony smokescreen.
You see, the antifas are on the right side of history and are fighting for the greater good. That makes violence understandable, perhaps even acceptable. But the white supremacists are in the wrong, so there is no possible excuse for their violence. Therefore, blaming both sides for violence is to say that their positions, not just their actions, are morally equivalent.
The reason that you have difficulty understanding this is because you are an intelligent, thoughtful, and open-minded person. Your education was obviously deficient, since you were never properly indoctrinated. You should report to a re-education camp forthwith.
Have I succeeded in violating Poe’s Law? Probably not.
Mike M.
:> Believe me, I know the feeling. But while it might seem like I ask doh questions like this just to fuel outrage, it’s not what I’m shooting for. Specifically because this type thing irritates me, it makes me error prone when I deal with it. I make mistakes when I get irritated. So, I actually really am sanity checking to see if I’ve missed something glaringly obvious to everybody else (somehow it’s the glaringly obvious oversights I’ve made in the past that are most painful and therefore they are the class of error I least want to repeat).
Thanks.
Following American public life is an increasingly bizarre experience. Is this why?
https://defyccc.com/one-nation-under-accidental-artificial-intelligence/#Introduction
Real question: What is the difference between American leftists tearing down statues of confederate generals and the Taliban destroying statues of the Buddha?
One only needs to examine what Obama said after “reprehensible and repugnant” attacks to see an unbelievable double standard in action.
.
Dallas 2016, Obama:
“The demented individual who carried out those attacks in Dallas, he’s not more representative of all African-Americans than the shooter in Charleston was representative of white Americans. Or the shooter in Orlando or San Bernardino were representative of Muslim Americans. They don’t speak for us. That’s not who we areâ€
.
The shooter was associated with several black militant groups, one calling out for the killing of cops, who the media barely ever mentioned, much less condemned.
.
Not to mention the failure of Obama to call out Islamic jihadists after numerous attacks. He typically never mentioned Muslim or Islam at all after a terrorist incident. Orlando (after it was known the shooter called in to 911 and claimed ISIS adherence):
.
“We are still learning all the facts. This is an open investigation. We’ve reached no definitive judgment on the precise motivations of the killer.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/12/president-obamas-complete-remarks-on-orlando-shooting/?utm_term=.c7385a9e0c42
.
In this case I’m not aware the killer has made any statements on his motivations (pretty easy to guess), the point is the media is fine with patiently waiting for definitive proof of motive in Islamic terror, but is willing to jump to conclusions immediately in these cases.
.
These white supremacists / neo-Nazis are crazy and should be condemned. But this media game where artificial post-hoc thresholds and timelines of how much and how fast the condemnations occur with assumptive word parsing are biased when compared to other Presidents. Certainly Obama was better at saying the right words, but the media seems to be reporting what they believe Trump really thinks, not what he says.
Mike,
I’ve tried framing an answer a few times and failed. The trouble I’m having is, obviously there are many differences. Which are substantial and which are superficial differences; this question depends on the point one is trying to make by comparing the two.
.
Not being an utter dufus, I can reasonably assume you are comparing the two to express disapproval of those tearing down the confederate statues, by suggesting that this behavior is similar to the behavior of a barbaric terrorist group in the Middle East. Reasonable, but – be it noted for the record I’m assuming & filling in what I think are the blanks in what you said the way I imagine you want them filled in.
.
With all this preliminary out of the way : Dumb as this sounds, I’m trying to understand what monuments mean to people in the first place. I’m not much of a monuments guy. Do Southerners look at confederate statues and think ‘Man, those guys were great! I wish I was a plantation owner with a bunch of black slaves back in the day!’ or something? I’m almost certain they don’t. But what the heck do they think? I don’t know. Does it even matter, am I missing the point of what monuments are for.
.
I don’t know. I’ll most likely move on to something else before I puzzle it out.
Mike M,
What is striking here is in this endless conversation on “car guy” the word statue is almost never mentioned. Theoretically that is why he was there. The PC left is going out of their way to antagonize people and those on the edges tend to blow up. This doesn’t mean arguing about statues shouldn’t happen, but when you invite conflict you sometimes get…conflict. I think both sides wanted conflict here, and in this case the far right guy went out of bounds.
.
I could really care less about confederate statues and I’m not aware anyone ever saw them as anything but historical monuments until recently. That they are racist and oppressive is an invented issue from my point of view, but if people care that much then take them down. However I think this should be a local voter referendum. I particularly don’t think people on the coasts should be telling people in the south what statues are allowed in the south.
.
My guess is after the statues are removed then the social justice folks will just move on to the next invented symbol of oppression. At some point it will go too far and more violence will occur. I believe they are just escalating (names on buildings, etc.) because the more extreme side of social justice wants a violent confrontation. This won’t end with statues. It’s unclear if they really have deep support in these issues.
Mike M,
“What is the difference between American leftists tearing down statues of confederate generals and the Taliban destroying statues of the Buddha?”
.
Not much.
“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.†George Orwell, 1984
.
The left has always recognized this. So have many religions. The common thread is the desire for absolute control of what people are allowed do… and and even more… allowed to think. Refusing to allow people to know what actually happened in the past diminishes their ability to resist changes in the present, and so makes “progress” easier.
.
Examples are everywhere. Can’t change the Constitution to say what you want it to say? Then just nominate dedicated leftists to the Supreme Court to “interpret” it to say the opposite of what the words actually say.
.
It is difficult for me to find a better example of unmitigated evil masquerading as principled belief than the left’s desire to re-write (or even erase!) history in the name of “progress”.
mark bofill: “I can reasonably assume you are comparing the two to express disapproval of those tearing down the confederate statues, by suggesting that this behavior is similar to the behavior of a barbaric terrorist group in the Middle East.”
No, it was a real question. I suspect that there might really be a difference, other than the people doing it, but I can not state what that difference is.
I liked SteveF’s answer. 🙂
There are some differences. Geography; happening in different places. I suspect the Taliban would claim to be motivated for religious reasons, I don’t think the people tearing down Confederate statues would profess that. Age of the statues. Meaning of the statues? What the statues symbolize. Note that while I don’t know what the monuments mean or symbolize, I’m willing to hazard that statues of Buddha don’t mean or symbolize the same thing Confederate statues do, mostly because I don’t think past Confederate figures have anything to do with Buddhism. I think the cultural background of the people of Afganistan and people of the U.S. are sufficiently different that comparing such events is not entirely unlike comparing ants to aluminum cans. Legal system in the two countries and how it relates. History of the two countries and how that relates. So on, so forth.
I still like SteveF’s answer. Could be.
Tom Scharf: “That they are racist and oppressive is an invented issue from my point of view … this should be a local voter referendum … people on the coasts should be telling people in the south what statues are allowed in the south.”
.
I agree. The problem is that the bullies are determined to have their way one way or another. If a city has a referendum and decides not to tear down their statues, they will find themselves the target of boycotts and travel bans. So it is impossible for this to now just be a case of the good people of some southern town thoughtfully deciding that they really don’t want a statue of Lee in the town square.
.
Tom Scharf: “My guess is after the statues are removed then the social justice folks will just move on to the next invented symbol of oppression.”
.
Of course that is what will happen. A reasonable argument can be made that statues of those who actively supported the confederacy should be moved to museums. But it won’t stop there. The left will move on to Jackson (Edit: I mean Andrew, not Stonewall.) and, eventually, Jefferson and Washington. They will restrict access to the museums, then close them, then destroy them. With the left there is always a camel attached to the nose.
.
Tom Scharf: “… the more extreme side of social justice wants a violent confrontation.”
.
They want domination and to impose their thoughts on all. Violence is only a means to that end.
.
Tom Scharf: “It’s unclear if they really have deep support in these issues.”
.
It really does not matter, since they are able to impose silence, if not insincere agreement, on a large swath of the population.
Scharf: “One only needs to examine what Obama said after “reprehensible and repugnant†attacks to see an unbelievable double standard in action.”
….
It is true there is a lot of hypocrisy here. To the examples above, I would add the case of Pam Geller who has been subject to assassination attempts for publishing a very mild cartoon.
….
On the other hand, on a practical level Trump, is being dumb, dumb, dumb. When he gets positive statements from David Duke, he should immediately and forcefully disavow them. Instead, as far as I know he is not doing so as I write this. The fascists were at fault in Virginia and they should be very strongly criticized. I believe Kasich stated that there are no good neo-Nazis. He is right. There is no need to criticize the Left at this time when the Nazis were mostly at fault. The Left will in the future be guilty of violence and intolerance. That is the time to criticize the Left, and I would forcefully do so.
….
Trump’s stupidity and insensitivity is turning away potential allies. For instance, a good long-time friend of mine from high school is Mexican-American and is more conservative than me. However, he voted for Clinton. Many Chinese people are sensitive to White superiority/discrimination narratives. The Chinese would be naturally Republican voters, but in one Obama election, Obama won 70% of the Asian vote. I am in a WeChat group and last week a friend of mine posted a story about an Air BNP host who stated she wouldn’t rent to an Asian. (See despicable incident here where the host said that she could do so because of Trump) https://nextshark.com/dyne-suh-california-airbnb-racist-trump-supporter-asian/
Trump, or someone in the White House should have tweeted that they were appalled by the host’s statement and believe that the host should be fined. (which she was)
….
People have to start thinking practically and should thoroughly and unambiguously separate themselves from people like the disgusting BNP host. To me the most important issue facing the US is stopping the open borders movement. However, many potential allies are needlessly alienated by the unthinking denigration of non-white people — many of whom are otherwise naturally conservative.
JD
SteveF (Comment #164462)
“It is difficult for me to find a better example of unmitigated evil masquerading as principled belief than the left’s desire to re-write (or even erase!) history in the name of “progressâ€.”
.
Couldn’t agree more.
.
Have you guys ever heard of antifa?
.
I googled “lucia rankexploits antifa” and came up empty, so I’m guessing not, or at least not to the level of awareness that actually gets them mentioned.
.
This article in the Atlantic Monthly, entitled: “The Rise of the Violent Left“, appeared just before Charlottesville. The Atlantic Monthly is characterized as a left leaning rag ( though I think while many authors have that perspective, they appear to be open to many ideas ).
.
Yes, the KKK is despicable. Our country is dedicated to the idea that all men ( meaning men and women ) are created equal.
.
Yes, the Nazis are despicable. Our country sacrificed millions of young lives to defeat the Nazis.
.
Yes, antifa is despicable. Antifa was at Charlottesville, though it’s not entirely clear what they did there. But we know what they’ve done elsewhere.
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qKCl9NL1Cg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-E61BTum2OI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0H27Ul9ZsHk
etc. etc. ( google and youtube them ).
.
And of course, antifa didn’t just begin with Charlottesville, they’ve been at it in the US since the inauguration of Trump.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dO2H_yT9A0U
.
antifa are agent provocateurs. They are looking for fights and violence. In many ways, they are a worse threat than the KKK or Nazis. It’s not just Trump that “antifa” was assailing. By using the threat of violence, antifa seeks to stifle opposing views, which of course, is what fascists do.
.
The false moral equivalency is this – by attacking KKK-nazis, antifa set up a false dialectic – KKK&Nazis bad, antifa good. This is dangerous! Antifa also bad, very bad.
.
It’s not just KKK&nazis that antifa opposes. It was antifa that rioted Milo Yianoppolis and Ann Coulter away from Berkley. Fine you may say – they’re both provocative with their words, though isn’t that what discourse is about? If they’re wrong, don’t other words counter them? Is violence ever justified by words?
.
More troublingly was the violence against professor Charles Murray, a social scientist attempting to provide an evidenced lecture on race. Violence to shut down a college lecture?
.
Further, antifa was a presence ( organizer? ) at the recent anti-sharia protests. Again the irony that sharia law, in prescribing death to non-believers, death to homosexuals, stoning for adulterers, inequality for women, is about as fascist as one can get.
.
Antifa are moronically fascists themselves which would be amusing were it not for danger of their appeal in these emotional, unreasoned times. There are evidently antifa “chapters” all around the country ( and world ).
.
The Atlantic article points out the antifa’s roots stem back to the 1920s in Europe, which is another irony – antifa was NOT effective in stopping the rise of fascism then. In fact, even more ironically, antifa may further fascism ( not of their own ) by galvanizing resistance.
.
You may recall, I did not and, with the strong exception of his reasonable stance on ‘climate’, do not support Trump. And Trump may be in fact appealing to racists. However, in this incident, the media have vindicated Trump:
.
1. because antifa is anti-Trump and seeks to provoke confrontations and violence and does bear some guilt of the death ( the ‘both sides’ where one side is not normal people, but antifa ).
.
2. until very recently, the antifa phenomenon was not covered by the ‘maintstream media’. I first learned of them 6 months ago from youtube videos, not the maintstream media. The mainstream have an anti-Trump agenda and didn’t inform me about antifa – the mainstream is, if not fake, very incomplete.
Mike M: “What is the difference between American leftists tearing down statues of confederate generals and the Taliban destroying statues of the Buddha?”
….
I don’t know much about Buddhism, but I would guess that it is much more humane than the belief systems of the confederate generals who fought in support of slavery. I personally wouldn’t request that the statutes be taken down because I believe it is needlessly provocative. On the other hand, other than some instances of amazing bravery, there is very little that is admirable about a soldier who is fighting to preserve slavery. I don’t like that this is being used as a wedge issue, but on a logical level there are reasonable grounds for the Left’s contention that confederate generals, on balance, were not admirable people who should be honored in today’s world.
JD
Eddie,
Yup, I’ve heard of Antifa. Thanks for the comments and particularly the link. I hadn’t seen that. I agree substantially with your comment and share your concerns.
T. Eddie: “Yes, antifa is despicable. Antifa was at Charlottesville, though it’s not entirely clear what they did there. But we know what they’ve done elsewhere.”
….
Exactly my point. Attack them later and elsewhere. From everything I have seen the Nazis were mainly at fault in Virginia.
JD
JD Ohio: “The fascists were at fault in Virginia and they should be very strongly criticized. I believe Kasich stated that there are no good neo-Nazis. He is right. There is no need to criticize the Left at this time when the Nazis were mostly at fault.”
You are mistaken. Trump did denounce the neo-Nazis and white supremacists, as he has done many times before. But the press ignores that.
There is indeed fault on “many sides” in Charlottesville. Yes, some of the supremacists came prepared for a fight. So did the Antifa. We know the latter have a history of actually starting fights, I don’t know if that is true of the supremacists. The supremacists had permits, which allow the police to plan so as to avoid trouble. The Antifa apparently did not have permits. The police not only did not keep the groups separate, they actually forced them together. Then they seem to have stood back and watched when the predictable happened. There is a lot of blame to go around.
“You are mistaken. Trump did denounce the neo-Nazis and white supremacists, as he has done many times before.”
…..
Yes but he did it in a way that could be interpreted as saying the Leftist protesters were as bad as the Nazis. If one were to take your viewpoint, Trump should have criticized Antifa explicitly. I haven’t seen where he did so. Trump is simply very stupidly playing into the hands of the Left. I have never said that Trump didn’t criticize the Nazis. I am saying he is giving others reasonable grounds to make the false equivalence argument. Also, Trump should extremely clearly and unambiguously reject David Duke, which I don’t believe he has done. When Neo Nazis issue statements in support of what you have done, you should do some serious re-thinking.
….
Also, even on the right there is major Jewish criticism of Trump. See http://nypost.com/2017/08/17/netanyahu-under-pressure-to-condemn-trumps-response-to-charlottesville/ “But Netanyahu’s reluctance to speak out on such an important issue has set him apart from the growing ranks of Israeli leaders who have been outspoken in their anger, and risks alienating Jewish American leaders already estranged by certain Israeli policies.
A growing chorus of opposition politicians, commentators and even coalition partners has urged Netanyahu to take a stronger stance, even at the risk of antagonizing the president.”
JD
Turbulent Eddie (Comment #164468);
You quoted me (Comment #164454), stopped a few words short of my mention of Antifa, then asked: “Have you guys ever heard of antifa?”
.
It sounds like you missed my Comment #164455. And that the answer to my question “Have I succeeded in violating Poe’s Law?” is “No”.
~sigh~ I no nobody really cares but to nuance my comment where I said I liked SteveF’s answer, I’d need to qualify what I mean when I say ‘the left’ and that’s a tedious thing to do. I don’t think anyone (including me) cares about the details of this, just again, a note for the record. I ought to have qualified this.
JD Ohio (Comment #164473): “Yes but he did it in a way that could be interpreted as saying the Leftist protesters were as bad as the Nazis … he is giving others reasonable grounds to make the false equivalence argument.”
.
Trump: “To anyone who acted criminally in this weekend’s racist violence, you will be held fully accountable. Justice will be delivered. As I said on Saturday, we condemn, in the strongest possible terms, this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence. It has no place in America.”
Trump: “Racism is evil. And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the K.K.K., neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.”
Source: https://rebekahworsham.org/2017/08/14/video-and-full-transcript-president-trump-comments-on-charlottesville-vows-federal-response/
Sounds unambiguous to me.
.
TRUMP: “As I said on — remember this — Saturday, we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence. It has no place in America.”
TRUMP: “Well, I think the driver of the car is a disgrace to himself, his family and his country. And that is — you can call it terrorism. You can call it murder. You can call it whatever you want.”
Source: http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-charlottesville-transcript-20170815-story.html
.
When the mains stream media tells you what Trump said without giving full text, don’t believe it.
Exactly my point. Attack them later and elsewhere. From everything I have seen the Nazis were mainly at fault in Virginia.
.
Well, judging by his past, the driver was a racist and of course, bears responsibility for his vehicle.
.
Apparently, the vehicle was also attacked from behind by a rod, just before the crash into the crowd. What responsibility does this attacker on the car bear for the victims? I think a lot. The violent assault on the vehicle probably incited either rage or panic.
.
And antifa showed up specifically to incite violence:
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0s8R_cGgvFY
.
Antifa, beyond being a stupid self parody of fascism themselves, are very dangerous.
.
If the KKK&Nazis had showed up to march, marched, and went home, there would not have been a problem. They have ideas, repugnant, perhaps, but ideas. This is not a problem – this is what America stands for: freedom of speech and freedom of assembly! Antifa stands for fascism and violent opposition to freedom.
.
I oppose racist ideas.
.
I support the right of all to express their ideas, even repugnant ones.
Mike M: “TRUMP: “As I said on — remember this — Saturday, we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence. It has no place in America.â€
TRUMP: “Well, I think the driver of the car is a disgrace to himself, his family and his country. And that is — you can call it terrorism. You can call it murder. You can call it whatever you want.â€
….
He should have stopped there, but he didn’t. He stated that there were very fine people on both sides, which is exactly the wrong statement to make after a paralegal (I know of no links to Antifa) is killed by someone who supported Hitler.
JD
Eddie,
🙂 Someplace along the road the idea of supporting free speech appears to have morphed into supporting free speech except views X, Y, and Z which all forward thinking people denounce. Bah I say. If the principle doesn’t protect the expression of all views, that principle doesn’t mean anything anymore.
TE “I support the right of all to express their ideas, even repugnant ones.”
….
So do I. Unfortunately, we will have many, many opportunities to support free speech because the Left is so intolerant. We shouldn’t be talking about free speech in this context. Rather, we should be talking about free speech in the context of Pam Geller. On the other hand, in this instance, conservatives and Trump should simply strongly criticize the Nazis and move on.
JD
You see, the antifas are on the right side of history and are fighting for the greater good. That makes violence understandable, perhaps even acceptable.
.
In haste, I missed this.
.
This is of course completely wrong. Antifa are clueless fascists seeking to both provoke violence and stifle free speech and in this regard, quite vile and dangerous.
.
Acceptable violence?
.
I think this speaks to the lack of ideas. Had they any valid ideas, they perhaps would use them to prevail. Violence indicates emotion, and not any intelligence.
A lot. To begin: Conferedate generals are not on par with Buddha.
Also: generally speaking the alt-right side of the protest here is not protesting someone “tearing down” a statues or destroying them. The statue are being removed from current locations which is not the same as destroying them. The protesters could if they wish propose to buy various statues and them in a private park they own.
There are other differences.
JD,
I’m no fan of the alt-right, but they have the same rights as everyone else. They legitimately got permits for a protest and a bunch of counter protesters showed up to shut it down (at least the more extreme counter protesters).
.
We cannot have a system where in order to suppress speech one only needs to threaten violence against views they dislike, even when those views are in fact very misguided.
.
We have a system in place. Murder and assault are illegal. A police force exists to enforce those laws. I’m amazed that the police just stand by and watch this stuff happen with almost no arrests.
.
Free speech advocates are going to win every case here, as they did when VA attempted to revoke the protest permit (hilariously they didn’t revoke the counter protest permit and stood by that).
.
These groups are tiny and pose zero threat to our society, let stupid people be stupid. Stupidity is every American’s right and is demonstrated very frequently. This case is the Streisand Effect on mega-steroids. The fear that the KKK is on a comeback is absurd.
.
Silencing racists by force makes them silent angry racists. No counter protest, no deaths. The proper action is to ignore them.
.
I think the reporting on Trump has been primarily what the media believes Trump believes. Trump isn’t ever going to speak with sophistication, that’s part of his appeal, but it isn’t always a net positive. My opinion was they were going to crucify Trump regardless of what he said.
Turbulent Eddie (Comment #164481): “This is of course completely wrong.”
Myself (Comment #164455) “Have I succeeded in violating Poe’s Law? Probably not.â€
I now have a definitive answer in the negative.
I had hoped that the final paragraph of my comment #164454 would give away the game and make sarc tags superfluous, but I was overly optimistic.
TE,
It’s … what’s the word. Parody. Or mockery. Or sarcasm. One of those things where someone speaks absurdity to underscore how absurd it is.
It’s one of those odd things where the ‘in person’ subtle visual, posture, and tonal clues help a lot in distinguishing this. It doesn’t translate all that well online.
Forget about it. FWIW, I’m almost colorblind to this as well. 🙂
Scharf: “Silencing racists by force makes them silent angry racists. No counter protest, no deaths.” This is inconsistent. The counter protestors have rights too.
….
“My opinion was they were going to crucify Trump regardless of what he said.”
Yes, but Trump has made it much easier and enabled them. For instance, I believe the Russia probe is garbage, but here Trump, as evidenced by the wide range of those critical of him, is being practically stupid. When a Hitler supporter kills an innocent paralegal, it is the wrong time to argue Constitutional niceties. It appears that there was another terrorist attack in Europe today. We should be talking about that and not Charlottesville.
JD
I invite people to carefully analyze the media’s reaction to the apparent terror attack in Barcelona vs VA.
.
Are they going to demand every politician forcefully denounce Islamic Jihad immediately, and crucify those who don’t do it fast enough or forcefully enough? Is the attacker a Muslim supremacist? How carefully will they wait for proof of motive? Will they call for protecting Muslims from backlash (like they did with white nationalists, ha ha)? Will they deflect blame from religious beliefs? Will they examine the underlying social conditions which cause extremism to form (like they did with white nationalism, ha ha). Will Trump now be crucified for being too forceful and one sided in his statements?
.
These are rhetorical of course, we have seen this before. I have noticed US media is much more likely to call these things terror attacks immediately now.
.
I have no doubt my viewpoint is somewhat biased, especially on the media. Reporting on the VA attack is typical more emotionally based, Islamic (oops Islamist) terror is usually more “just the facts” and less judgmental. I will not levy any charges that they under-cover terror attacks, they cover them completely.
JD,
I’m referring to attempts to revoke their permits and not allow them to rent spaces at UF based on safety, etc. Police should not allow counter protesters to stop a protest. Counter protesters have perfectly valid rights to show up and condemn them. I personally think it is idiotic to show up to these things on either side.
lucia (Comment #164482): “A lot. To begin: Conferedate generals are not on par with Buddha.”
But that is really no different than saying that you approve of one but not the other. The Taliban probably don’t approve of the Buddha.
.
lucia: “Also: generally speaking the alt-right side of the protest here is not protesting someone “tearing down†a statues or destroying them. The statue are being removed from current locations which is not the same as destroying them.”
Yes, but there have been instances of tearing down (in Durham, for example). I have no doubt that the people pushing this would like to tear down and smash the statues if they thought they could get away with it.
.
lucia: “There are other differences.”
Such as?
As far as tearing down is concerned, I can only think of one clear difference. It is favorable to the Taliban (a consistent opposition to idolatry).
As far as relocating is concerned, I have already said that a reasonable case can be made. But that really only matters if you believe that is what this is really about. It isn’t. It is about power. “Who controls the past controls the future.” (A slogan of the Party in “1984”)
JD wrote: “He stated that there were very fine people on both sides”
.
“You also had some very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group — excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.”
.
Seems like a fair statement, and possibly quite a good one. If you want to turn any “moderates” into “extremists”, treat them as if they already are so you can ignore addressing whatever concerns they have. Get that resentment glowing!
Mike M
Wrong. Buddha is a principle religious figure for a major religion. Confederate generals are people who carried out military campaigns. These aren’t the same sort of thing and the two are not on par with each other.
Between 100 year old statutes and ancient ones? The latter being older is a difference. Between something that is easily moved and something that cannot be moved? Moveablity is one.
Sure. And in the instances where property is damaged the people doing it are wrong to do so. So is smashing windows and a variety of other things.
The person who pulled down the statue in Durham has been arrested– as she should be. Also, the statue appears to be a bronze. Other than being toppled, it seems likely it’s sustained little damage.
I still don’t think a single person toppling that statue of quite recent vintage and who then was arrested is ‘the same’ as military group moving in taking over a region destroying major religious statues from the fifth century.
The acts do share the trait of wanting to destroy something others value. But there are way too many very important differences to claim the two acts are “the same”.
If so, then it is just as much about “power” for the people who are insisting the statues stay just where they are.
WRT to Robert E. Lee, it looked like the process to move it was being discussed using our normal — that is through elected representatives. That’s still an issue of “power”– but done in the way we’ve decided we are going to do it. If I were a citizen in VA I’d be all for moving the darn thing and putting it up for auction to whoever might want to buy it. I also think the woman who pulled down the statue in Durham deserved to be arrested and charged. She has been.
DaveJR: “If you want to turn any “moderates†into “extremistsâ€, treat them as if they already are so you can ignore addressing whatever concerns they have.”
….
I don’t think many moderates would march with Nazis and the KKK. This is not a practical concern at all in this instance. I am very strongly opposed to open borders, but I wouldn’t go within 100 miles of these despicable people who organized the protest.
JD
Tom,
.
Rhetorical questions aren’t protected speech.
Don’t make me sic Antifa on yo @ss.
:>
Lucia,
Appreciate this remark, it helped me realize this: I don’t care about Confederate monuments. I find I do care about the road by which they remain or get taken down.
I think there has been a trend in recent years to take these statues down, legally and by working through whatever mechanisms local governments provide to accomplish these things. At least in some places. I think that’s fine and really have no issue with it.
I realize I do indeed have an issue with monuments being torn down during demonstrations by mobs. As you say, this is about power. I do not think demonstrators or protesters, be they Nazi, Antifa, or what have you, should have this power. I wonder and worry what such groups might move on to try next after they are done with the monuments. Enough already, is my view.
Thanks.
There is a bit of a stench of elitist northerners crapping on their backward southerners in the statue debate. The emotional part of this is not taking down relics of the Confederacy which nobody cares about, but it is more who gets to decide. Kind of like what started the civil war, ha ha. Why does someone in NYC care what statues are in the south?
.
I don’t consider myself a southerner but there is without question a moral smugness from the north that is irritating. If the southern states controlled the national media and all the north heard was how backward and immoral they were and there was an attitude that the north MUST adapt proper southern culture they might understand how this works. Enjoy your grits, college football, and country music people.
I’ve been thinking about the significance of monuments. I’ve concluded that they mean different things to different people. I mean, in and of themselves, they’re just metal or stone objects or statues, sometimes with a small plaque.
.
So I guess I agree with you here. Perhaps these monuments are symbols of racism to some. Probably they’ve got different meanings to others.
.
Maybe this (getting rid of the statues) is an extension of the ‘anything that offends me is intolerable and must go’ mentality that seems relatively common these days.
Tom Scharf
I don’t know. James Alex Fields who killed someone with his car during the Charlottesville incident was from Ohio. We may eventually learn why it was important to him that the Robert E. Lee statue remain in a prominent place of honor in VA, but I don’t think we know yet. There is some reason to believe it’s because he’s a control freak and has
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/judge-denies-bail-for-man-accused-of-ramming-car-into-charlottesville-protesters/2017/08/14/2177a028-80fd-11e7-ab27-1a21a8e006ab_story.html?utm_term=.d50bd5b8bd92
I’m sure protestors from outside VA were present on both sides of protest/counter protest. I suspect many people on both sides were singularly unpleasant sorts. But clearly, some Northerners are sufficiently upset that VA appeared ready to remove the statue that they arrived to protest the actions of elected representatives in VA.
Tom Scharf,
To be clear, the reason the protestors were present was to protest the decision by the Charlottesville, VA City Council to remove the statue. That is the city government for a Southern city was following the normal process of deciding what sorts of things their city wants to commemorate.
There doesn’t seem to be much evidence that removal of the statue is something being imposed by smug Northerners on Southerners. It looks like the decision to remove it is following our normal governmental processes: Those elected to the city council are have decided from their city’s park.
At least some of those protesting removal are Northerners.
lucia: “The person who pulled down the statue in Durham has been arrested– as she should be.”
It seems like a number of people have been arrested and charged with felonies. I hope the authorities follow through.
The monument in question was a memorial to Confederate soldiers. I find destroying that more objectionable than pulling down a statue of Lee.
lucia: “Also, the statue appears to be a bronze. Other than being toppled, it seems likely it’s sustained little damage.”
I believe that large bronze statues are typically hollow. The one in Durham was pretty much destroyed: http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170814205825-durham-protest-confederate-monument-torn-down-00001415-exlarge-169.jpg
I am sympathetic to an open, honest, bully-free process arriving at a decision to relocate a monument. But I don’t think that is what is going on in most of these cases. And so far as I know, not a single monument has actually been relocated, other than to a packing crate in a warehouse.
There have already been attacks on people who had nothing to do with the civil war. Woodrow Wilson, Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson. This is ultimately about rewriting history. I find that unacceptable.
Mike M
Perhaps. I still don’t think destroying it rises to the level of destroying art that’s lasted since the 5th century.
Looks to me like there is the normal amount of contention. We have contention in the Illinois state house over lots of stuff. Chicago has contention over lots of stuff. I guess people might see the “other” side as “bullying”. But that’s just the way democracy is.
This doesn’t bother me. It would take some time to find places. If I were in a state warehousing this stuff, I’d suggest putting it up for auction.
Woodrow Wilson: Most overrated president ever.
I’m not sure what you mean by “attacks”. Some people critize these people. That’s free speech, something most amearicans value. I would find surpressing it unacceptable.
Some of the criticism of these people is fair. The two who are not Wilson had some good points also. I don’t see open discussions about any of the three as “rewriting history”. Or if it is, I don’t see that as necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes first accounts are biased. Further discussion, which can lead to further writing is fine with me.
I’m mostly referring to outlets like the NYT being quite clear in their moral judgement on southern Confederate statues. WV don’t sell your coal! VA take down your statues! There are almost no cases of southern busybodies telling NYC how to run their affairs.
.
I’m not sure if this was a local issue originally or a national one that was injected there. Clinton carried this county by 25% so it is reasonable they might vote to remove the statue.
.
It is arguable that the “north (the left)” is on a campaign to designate southern cultural symbols as racist and exerting their power to have them removed. Why? To save the south from itself? It annoys people.
.
I think this is just a case of cultural bullying for little end benefit. Has anyone previously connected confederate statues as some kind of racist icon? If they really are I support taking them down. If this is just about cultural power then I don’t. If this was the last racist symbol that will be objected to then I say take them all down today. Confederate flag, statues, the end? I’m not aware of the next one and I suggest it may be invented.
The southerners find the symbol of Lincoln in Washington DC as a very hurtful reminder of a time where 258,000 of their citizens were brutally slaughtered by the Northern aggressors who dispensed with diplomacy and instead participated in a campaign of oppression and subjugation. The Lincoln memorial should be taken down and he should be removed from currency as this is a constant reminder of a very shameful time in this nation’s history which nobody should take pride in.
Tom
I don’t subscribe to or read the NYT.
West Virginia broke from Virginia during the civil war. WVa was in the Union, so wrt to the civil war “North”.
I think Southerners are sufficiently well able to think for themselves. I don’t see any reason to assume they are somehow succumbing to the pressure of the NYT.
If something really is a racist symbol and put there for that reason, I’d be for taking it down even if it meant we were going to continue to take down additional ones. That would be my vote. Others can vote otherwise.
That said: My reason for thinking it’s perfectly fine for the individual cities and states to decide to take these things down is I believe in democracy. If duly elected governments decide to take these utterly unnecessary statues down, that’s fine with me. If Chicago decided to take down the Picasso: ok. They get to do that. Same with the Marylin Monroe statue or the statue of Kazimir Pulasky. If East Peoria Il wants to rename Woodrow Wilson Elementary and name it “Lady Gaga Elementary”: Fine by me.
With respect to statues, I think it would be fiscally prudent for Chicago to sell any that most prople don’t want around and the city council decides to get rid of. I suspect they could get a lot of dough for the Picasso. I suspect there are still too many Polish voters in Chitown for them to decided to get rid of Kazimir. I don’t think East Peoria will get very much if they sell the name plate on their Elementary
If the people wanting to take it down want it because they think it’s racist: Ok. If the others want to argue they aren’t. Fine. Neither argument changes my mind: If the majority of people don’t want those there, and the elected reps vote to get rid of them, get rid of them.
Tom
If Congress makes such a decision through the normal democratic process, then it will be done. I happen to be against the decision to take down Lincoln, but that’s democracy.
Chicago can do what they normally do, sell the naming rights, the Apple Picasso. I’m all for local control of statues. National media has a lot of reach and so can exert cultural pressure unevenly. I’m not proposing anything change, just an observation.
lucia: “I’m not sure what you mean by “attacksâ€. Some people critize these people.”
There have been protests in New Orleans demanding the removal of the statue of Andrew Jackson. Andrew Jackson. In New Orleans.
Jefferson-Jackson Day dinners are becoming a thing of the past. Democrats still have the fund raising dinners, but the name is disappearing.
Students at Princeton have demanded the removal of Wilson’s name from buildings.
Students at Missouri and at William and Mary have demanded the removal of statues of Jefferson.
A committee at the University of Texas recommended removing a statue of Wilson because he was a racist. The administration removed the statue, but said it was for symmetry since they removed the nearby statue of Jefferson Davis.
I suspect there are many more examples. If not, there soon will be.
Tom:
I would be cautious about believing the Southerners are being oppressed by national media. For one thing: Lots of white people in the South are not descendants of people who lived there during the Civil War. Lots of Southerners are not white. A not insiginficant number were descendants of slaves.
There are plenty of reasons to think quite a few people who currently live and vote in the south do not consider the “Confederate Heroes” or even individual confederate soldiers something worthy of honoring and that their notions about who is worth honoring are not the result of “bullying” by “northerners”.
Tom Scharf (Comment #164502): “The Lincoln memorial should be taken down and he should be removed from currency as this is a constant reminder of a very shameful time in this nation’s history which nobody should take pride in.”
Of course it should be taken down, but not for the reason you give. Lincoln was on record as being firmly opposed to miscegenation. He wanted to relocate freed blacks to Africa. He was no doubt against gay marriage, and as for his attitude toward transsexuals, don’t even ask. A caveman whose memory should be erased from history. [/sarc off]
.
lucia: “If Congress makes such a decision through the normal democratic process, then it will be done. I happen to be against the decision to take down Lincoln, but that’s democracy.”
No. That is not democracy. Sending the past down the memory hole is totalitarian.
Plus many. He went bonkers sometime during the negotiations on the end of the Great War and his wife ran the show from then on. Too bad we didn’t have the 25th amendment then.
The Swiss, especially in Geneva, love him, though. I bet they made a lot of money from the League of Nations.
By the way, my browser still doesn’t automatically fill in Name and E-mail. At least it doesn’t lose the text when it gives me an error message.
MikeM
Our bill of rights guarantees the right to free assembly. A protest is not an “attack”. The statue is still there. If it wasn’t…. I wouldn’t care.
So? If people don’t want to host them, have them or attend them, then they will be in the past. Debutant balls aren’t as popular as they sued to be either. Or cotillians. Not seeing a problem here.
Most overrated president ever. I get he was associated with Princeton and he later became president which many would consider a feather in their cap. So they likely wanted the braggign rights. But I’m not really seeing a problem if his name is no longer on a building in Princeton. Princeton can decide what to do.
I think that’s silly. But I don’t see any problem with people discussing whether they want his statue there. So far it seems like they are staying.
He was a racist. He also didn’t have many good points to speak of as a President. I don’t quite understand why U of Texas had statue of him there– he’s not especially connected with TX. If UT wants it there, ok with me. If they don’t fine by me to. The presence or absence of that statue won’t change history.
Weird reason. I suspect they are prevaricating. I suspect the got rid of the Wilson statue because, in the end, it’s hard to admire the guy. If he’s not balancing someone else, there seems little reason to keep him.
I’d admire them more if they were frank, had balls and said they got rid of the Wilson statue because he was a crummy president undeserving of a place of honor. But there you go.
Most of your examples are cases where people are exercising free speech. I also hope people will continue to do so. I realize you don’t happen to like the content of their speech but I would find it rather appalling if the reason you think statues shouldn’t come down is that people are exercising their right to express an opinion contrary to yours.
I am not remotely horrified that anything honoring Woodrow Wilson comes down. The guy was a two faced sneaky schnook fighting secret wars, having his administration resegregate the post office and so on. Wars: https://www.uncpress.org/book/9780807849583/americas-secret-war-against-bolshevism/
I’d rather have a statue of Jefferson Davis in my alcove than one of Wilson.
Re: Rewriting History
….
What one chooses to focus on is ultimately always subjective. For instance, I am half-Italian (father’s parents from southern Italy) and until I recently watched a documentary I had no idea how poorly regarded Southern Italians were in the early 20th century. For instance, the Irish thought so little of these Italians that they forced the Italians to attend church services in basements. (Seems hilarious to me now. Almost certainly not funny at the time.)
….
One issue in today’s world that is rarely discussed is the role of Black Africans in enslaving other Blacks. For instance, “President Mathieu Kerekou’s apology[ized] for his country’s role in “selling fellow Africans by the millions to white slave traders.†“We cry for forgiveness and reconciliation,” …. Tribe stalked tribe, and eventually more than 20 million Africans would be kidnapped in their own homeland.
Historians estimate that ten million of these abducted Africans “never even made it to the slave ships. Most died on the march to the seaâ€â€”still chained, yoked, and shackled by their African captors—before they ever laid eyes on a white slave trader. The survivors were either purchased by European slave dealers or “instantly beheaded†by the African traders “in sight of the [slave ship] captain†if they could not be sold.” See http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/41431
……
The author of this article stated that: “My 2003 study of 49 state U.S. history standards revealed that not one of these guides to classroom content even mentioned the key role of Africans in supplying the Atlantic slave trade.”
…..
Of course, the Left in its attempt to delegitimatize white countries and culture and particularly, white males, will try to rewrite history. On some occasions, it will have points to make. On the other hand, there are many, many historical facts that are swept under the rug. I say let them all come out.
JD
Well, I read here that saying there was blame on both sides deserves impeachment. Steve Cohen (D) from Tennessee.
These people exhaust me.
Lucia — Wilson Bolshevik Link.
….
Wasn’t aware of that history. Thanks. It is also relevant to the current Russia election intervention controversy. Wilson intervened in Russian affairs and Russia ran a propaganda campaign in the US during the time Wilson was in office.
JD
mark,
Too bad Steve Cohen didn’t have the same outrage over Obama’s similar waffling about cop-killing.
JD Ohio,
The Wilson administration resegregating the US Postal service, instituting the policy of requiring photo of job aplpicants to federal jobs (so as to screen out black), demoting blacks already employed were demoted or fired and so on may well have been the reason we later needed the civil rights movements. It wasn’t just employment either. Lunchrooms and restrooms in buildings with Cabinet offices were segregated.
Blacks had been making advances in employment. But suddenly…. certain jobs were closed.
The reason people think Wilson was a racist is there is every reason to believe he was a racist. Wilson may not have thought himself a racist. He may truly have believed that segregation was somehow “good” for black. I’m sure lots of slaveholders in the South would reject themselves as having been unfair to their slaves and would say they were being “good” to them too. That would, of course, depend on your definition of “good”.
National media outlets are centered in cities and besides CNN none of them are in the South. As of 2013 only 7% of journalist identified as Republican. The majority of major media outlets reside in a county that Clinton carried by 30% or more. 92% of journalists have college degrees. Only 2 of 59 newspapers endorsed Trump. Trump carried the entire south. Etc. Etc.
.
Does this mean they are biased against the “south”? Not necessarily but it implies they aren’t likely to know southern culture very well (when that may be important) and coverage of southern culture is more likely to be biased. It is more a rural /city divide than a north / south divide.
.
I don’t think anybody cares about the confederacy. I can’t recall our local media ever even mentioning it except for the confederate flag controversy which mirrors this one.
Careful DeWitt. It almost sounded like you were implying moral equivalence between President Obama and President Trump. Somebody might move to bring an impeachment against you or come protest in your yard and pull down that concrete bird bath that stands as a symbol of .. well, they’ll think of something I’m sure.
Tom Scharf,
“Of course it should be taken down, but not for the reason you give. Lincoln was on record as being firmly opposed to miscegenation. He wanted to relocate freed blacks to Africa. He was no doubt against gay marriage, and as for his attitude toward transsexuals, don’t even ask. A caveman whose memory should be erased from history. [/sarc off]”
.
Many (many!) years ago in high school I researched original writing and speeches by Lincoln, in the period leading up to the civil war. He routinely wrote/said things about people of African descent which would be utterly unacceptable today (or for that matter, in the late 1960’s). I wrote a report, with extensive quotes, showing clearly that Lincoln thought people of African descent were broadly inferior to people of European descent. My report was not well received. The urge to re-write history is strong.
Tom,
I have no idea if the media is biased against the south. The media may not understand the south well.
But even if both those things are true, that doesn’t mean southern cities must be deprived of the right to decide to remove statues they don’t want. They are the ones voting to get rid of these things. The media wasn’t voting southerners were.
I get that some people from places in the North– like Ohio– may not understand why the Southerners are voting to remove these things. But people in Ohio don’t need to understand those votes. Southerners seem to be generally deciding to get rid of these things. As far as I’m concerned: fine. If they don’t want them, they can remove them.
I don’t think the feds, CNN, northerners nor crazed young men from Ohio should be marching in to force Southerners to keep these dang things up.
Lucia,
“I have no idea if the media is biased against the south.”
.
I do. They are. Horribly.
So in Tampa a confederate statue is getting taken down. I, like probably everyone else, never knew it was there. In June the commission voted 4-3 to keep the monument and paint a mural behind the monument. They re-voted Wednesday 4-2 to take it down, but they aren’t paying for its removal (a reasonable compromise in my view). $140K was raised almost immediately and its getting moved.
.
I’d still prefer a voter referendum but realistically nobody cares about these things other than for culture war purposes.
.
I would be remiss not mention the speech given at the dedication ceremony in 1911:
“The South stands ready to welcome all good citizens who seek to make their homes within her borders. But the South detests and despises all, it matters not from whence they came, who, in any manner, encourages social equality with an ignorant and inferior race.”
.
So, uhhhh, yeah. Not going to endorse that one.
lucia,
I suspect that may be the reason why the local police herded the protesters from both sides together. The plan was to let the outsiders, otherwise known as yankees, from both sides bust each other up and then the police could finish the job in the name of breaking things up. Unfortunately, things didn’t go to plan.
Before the narrative about James Fields, the Charlottesville killer, goes further I would mention that he is really a Kentucky person and not an Ohio person. He moved to Ohio about six months ago and grew up and went to a high school in Boone County Kentucky, where his Nazi beliefs were very evident. See http://reason.com/blog/2017/08/16/james-fields-former-classmates-speak-out
…..
Lucia Re: Woodrow Wilson. In a very small coincidence my high school history teacher told me what Wilson did to Black people. However, I never did detailed reading about it.
JD
Tom
Voter referenda are expensive. I’d be pissed at hell if someone wasted my taxpayer money that way. Decide. Risk getting voted out or not. Just like other much more important decisions.
Tucker Carlson: “We made the point that the sudden outrage over confederate icons isn’t entirely about slavery horrifying as slavery is. It’s also part of a larger effort on the left to discredit the founders of this country and the beliefs they enshrined in law. Once you believe that any figure in history who once owned slaves is inherently illegitimate and should be erased, it’s hard to take our founding documents very seriously.”
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/08/17/tucker_carlson_rips_bill_kristol_like_a_slot_machine_junkie_using_twitter_to_say_i_rationalized_slavery.html
.
I think he is right as to the real agenda.
A wonderful story of how the thought police handles their affairs. That NPR covered it is a bit surprising and encouraging. Absent is journalistic outrage at wrongful treatment.
http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/08/17/543980653/kyle-quinn-hid-at-a-friend-s-house-after-being-misidentified-on-twitter-as-a-rac
Mike M,
I think Bill Kristol has become essentially irrelevant, which is a bit sad. I suspect the moment that defined him as such was publication of “the flight 93 election”, which specifically called establishment conservatives like Kristol little more than useful intellectual foils (and ineffective token opposition… like the Washington Generals vs the Harlem Globtrotters) for liberal Democrats’ endless quest for ‘social progress’ (AKA subversion of the Constitution and individual liberties in pursuit of ‘social and economic justice’).
.
Kristol may be only 64 years old, but he looks, acts, and thinks (to the extent we can determine from his writing) like he is much older. I think his influence is near zero.
NPR publishes a curious puff piece today:
Between Swimming And S’mores, Young Muslim Campers Learn To Cope With Rising Hate
http://www.npr.org/2017/08/17/544145281/between-swimming-and-smores-young-muslim-campers-learn-to-cope-with-rising-hosti
.
I guess Barcelona is learning to cope with hate as well, shall we ask those victims? I don’t wish ill upon any innocent people but if you are going saturation coverage on Charlottesville (125 stories at NPR this week) I do expect coverage of the Islamic terror attack to get a bit judgmental at some point for journalistic integrity.
.
“My father, he saw Islam as a force for good, equality, social justice and pursuing knowledge,”
.
Really, social justice? Come on, this is stretching things beyond the realm of fantasy. I’m not even talking terrorism but the attitudes of Muslims towards Jews and gays aren’t exactly shining examples of cosmopolitanism.
.
Pew 2011, % Favorable View Of Jews
Turkey – 4%
Egypt – 2%
Jordan – 2%
Lebanon – 3%
Palestine – 4%
Indonesia – 9%
Pakistan – 2%
.
That’s >700M people with unfavorable views of Jews.
.
Pew 2013: Should society accept homosexuality?
Pakistan – 2%
Indonesia – 3%
Egypt – 3%
Palestine – 4%
Turkey – 9%
Lebanon – 18%
.
Muslims in US – 52%
All of US – 63%
Republicans – 48%
.
Few Muslims like ISIS (< 10%).
Tom Scharf (Comment #164526): “Absent is journalistic outrage at wrongful treatment.”
Yeah. The final words of the NPR piece are “in this case, maybe it would be better to leave photo identification to the experts.” That implies that mobbing people is OK, as long as you are careful about the ID.
SteveF,
Isn’t Bill Kristol one of the gang who promoted Palin to McCain, who had never before heard of her?
Mike M.
Robert E Lee and the rest of the confederate ‘heros’ were not founders of our country. Nor was Woodrow Wilson. Or even Andrew Jackson.
j ferguson,
I don’t know. I do know Palin was badly out of her depth when she ran for VP.
lucia: “Robert E Lee and the rest of the confederate ‘heros’ were not founders of our country. Nor was Woodrow Wilson. Or even Andrew Jackson.”
You don’t seem to have paid attention to how the left works these things. They start with Confederates. Next they move on to the likes of Jackson and Monroe. Then they will be ready for Madison and Jefferson. And finally Washington.
Tom,
“Few Muslims like ISIS.”
.
Shocking, since lots more than that think throwing gays from rooftops is perfectly OK…. which is one of the more outrageous things ISIS does. Maybe they just don’t like the negative publicity for Islam that ISIS generates with all the beheading videos.
By all means let’s judge historical figures not by the social standards they lived in, but by today’s social standards. But let’s make sure and isolate that newfound historical standard to those of our out group. It’s nice to know that we are the finest most morally superior people in the history of earth. Everyone else in history is a repugnant human being because Nazi! Slavery! Bigotry! Sexist! Homophobe! Eugenics! Poor dresser! Don’t fold their toilet paper! I’m feeling rather good about myself. Our social standards aren’t merely different, they are on the right side of history. To top it all off those ancients believed they were the morally superior ones in their day, what a laugher.
Mike M: “It’s also part of a larger effort on the left to discredit the founders of this country and the beliefs they enshrined in law. Once you believe that any figure in history who once owned slaves is inherently illegitimate and should be erased, it’s hard to take our founding documents very seriously.â€
….
I agree 100%. However, sometimes the Left will stumble on legitimate issues — for instance Confederate War Generals. I would also add that there is much that was not admirable about Andrew Jackson. For instance if the book Jacksonland is correct, it appears that Andrew Jackson had many flaws. A reviewer of the book stated that: “Jackson was a deeply flawed person who owned hundreds of slaves, executed American soldiers for desertion, and forcibly relocated many native American tribes from lands they had been promised in previous treaties and which they had inhabited for centuries.” See http://www.businessinsider.com/new-steve-inskeep-book-reveals-andrew-jacksons-flaws-2015-5
….
George Washington is the firewall against the Left’s attempts to delegitimaticize the US. He was an honorable figure who freed his slaves. (Of course, I realize that the Left will still try to destroy him) The world was a very different place in the latter part of the 18th century and people then shouldn’t be judged by the standards of today. On the other hand, if more details are revealed about historical figures, in some cases, those figures should be re-examined.
….
Getting back to Trump. If Trump had simply left out the both sides have issues narrative, he would be in a very strong place to call out the Left and remind it that the Islamic Terrorism in Spain should be explicitly denounced.
JD
SteveF,
Muslims don’t like ISIS now because they’re looking more like losers. If they’re losing, they can’t really be true believers. I’d be more interested in comparing to polls back when ISIS looked more like winners.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/palins-talent-scout
missing apostrophe, but in politics, wth.
Mike M
Huh? Yes. I have paid attention to how “the left” works things. I’ve also paid attention to how “the right” works things. I’m the person who voted for Gary Johnson. So yes: I know.
Beyond that: given the context of your statement… Are you trying to suggest that friggin’ Robert E Lee or Woodrow Wilson were founders of our country?! Because if you are, you better support it with something other than, “The left. But the left… Oh. the left…!”
If “The left! Ohhh… the left! ” is the main argument for keeping the statues, seems to me there is no good argument for keeping them. If the city of Charlottesville VA wants them off city property, they should be off.
If someone wants to buy them and erect them somewhere else, they should approach the city and offer to buy them. My understanding is Trump is rich. He could buy them and create a park. Sounds like a fine solution to me.
lucia: “Are you trying to suggest that friggin’ Robert E Lee or Woodrow Wilson were founders of our country?!”
I never said that. I never said anything that could be reasonably interpreted as that. In fact, I very explicitly said something very different from that.
There’s a wonderful park in Budapest where they’ve collected a lot of the more florid communist era statuary. It’s called Memento Park. I couldn’t find a photo on the web that does it justice.
A parking lot of confederate generals sitting on horses could be pretty amazing. If it was not located too far from here, say less than 100 yards, I’d go see it.
Mike M
Perhaps not. But for some reason you injected this into a conversation about removing or retaining statues of confederate war heroes into the conversation:
Given that you threw that in here, I think it’s important to point out: These confederate war generals, and various “heros” were absolutely not founders of our country. They have no connection to the founders. I think people trying to “save” these statues by pretending this has something to do with saving the founders is odd. In fact, I think it’s worse than odd.
I think it’s a wrong to try to “save” the statues of these confederates by pretending that arguments for keeping them bear any resemblance at all to arguments for keeping those of the founders. I find it rather shocking that someone who thinks highly of the founders would try to use their reputations and achievements to “save” a statue of Robert E. Lee.
J Ferguson — Architects
….
This is off topic of current discussion, but I think you might get a kick out of it. I was visiting Wuhan China and ran into the wife of an architect. I asked her what she and her husband thought of architectural work. She thought he worked too hard and wasn’t paid enough. She also said that the only way her husband’s firm could get paid decently was to work with a foreign firm. Apparently, the difficulties of architectural work are cross-cultural.
JD
j ferguson,
If the statues were put up for auction, such a park could exist. Imagine 50 Robert E Lees all side by side? Could be awesome! Worth $2 admission for sure!
Seriously, if city councils and states don’t want them any more, that seems like a great possibility.
I’m starting to become a bit wary of our history as (re)written. It seems it is being reinterpreted a little too often, but it could be my imagination. I think I would like to see the account as described by newspapers at the time before I started swallowing increasingly critical views. If they start denigrating Reagan en masse I’m burning the library down. Of course it is valid sometimes, it was an eye opener to me to see who really did all the dying to defeat the Nazis in WWII (Soviets). It isn’t even close. If a war is going to be a sufferathon my money is on the Russians.
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/images/wartwomilcas.gif
NYT profiles Antifa and reports them saying the stupid things they typically say. These aren’t anybody’s heroes. It will be unsurprising to see them kill someone soon enough.
Antifa’ Grows as Left-Wing Faction Set to, Literally, Fight the Far Right
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/us/antifa-left-wing-faction-far-right.html
Tom Scharf,
Remember at the beginning of WWII, Hitler and Stalin were allies. They divvied up Poland early on. Stalin was shocked when Hitler turned on him. The global communist propaganda mill had to do a complete about face. Now we’re supposed to believe that National Socialism was a right wing movement.
“Voter referenda are expensive. I’d be pissed at hell if someone wasted my taxpayer money that way.”
–
We are about to have a voluntary postal expensive referendum on gay sex marriage in Australia.
One of the complaints is your comment.
Another is that it might lead to hate acts and speech like happening at your end.
Personally I think that referenda on important controversial matters do clear the air in a way that elected persona with views they often did not put to the electorate voting does not.
–
A big shock when catholic Ireland voted it in recently and very cathartic.
Hopefully if and when it gets up it will show that most people realise the importance of trying to treat people equally where possible.
angech
At least gay marriage is a big decision, so the expense might be commensurate with the impact. Gay marriage is also not easily reversed without injecting serious disorder in people’s lives.
That level of expense for deciding whether to remove or install a statue in a park is ridiculous. Right now, most of those statues are warehoused. That means if people really don’t like the administration and they can vote them out. The next administration can put the statue back. The entirely thing would have little effect on people’s lives.
Even if the statue were sold off (which would me my preference to avoid costs of housing the things) the next administration could commission and install a new one– possible at less cost than running a referendum.
We have representative government for a number of good reasons. One of them is to not spend jillions on every piddly little administrative decision. The cost of referendum can be worth it if the decision is important enough. The decision to remove a statue isn’t up there. I bet there was no referendum to install it precisely because this isn’t the sort of thing that merits a referendum.
Lucia,
Yes. They are certainly not the founders of our country.
The way I have heard the argument introducing founding father monuments into this issue presented goes like this:
1. The Confederate monuments are symbols of racism because the Confederacy ‘championed’ slavery. Or ‘stood for’ slavery. Or however exactly one wants to put it, different people put it differently I think.
2. We have monuments of others, founding fathers, who owned slaves.
3. Therefore it is inconsistent to insist on taking down the Confederate monuments when we leave the founding father monuments up.
.
For my part, I am not particularly impressed by this argument. I think for example one can make a case without much trouble that the Confederacy had a lot more to do with slavery than the founding fathers did, or that the Confederacy is a bigger symbol of slavery than the founding fathers. I think there’s some knocking over of straw men going on here; if somebody has said that any statue of anybody who owned slaves needs to be taken down, I’m not aware of it.
.
shrug
.
[Edit: However, Angela Rye of CNN has just disabused me. It’s not a straw man, she’s actually made exactly this argument. here.
I should fact check better before I post. When will I learn…]
angech,
What is a “postal expensive referendum”? Do you mean a referendum done by mail, which is also expensive? Or does that (sarcastically) mean the referendum done by mail is not expensive?
.
Some policy questions can be reasonably answered via referenda, but not all. (A city wide plebiscite on statues in a park? Sure. A nation-wide plebiscite of Federal tax laws? No.) Too often the result of a referendum can be foolish public policy of very questionable constitutionality, or even blatantly unconstitutional. Referenda can lead to the tyranny of the 50%+1 majority. The structure of the US Federal government exists to avoid that specific type of tyanny.
mark bofill,
I have been hearing the “constitution is immoral because it was written by a bunch of old white slave owners” since I was in college, and that was a while ago. The argument is regularly raised by people on the left, and seems to be sincerely believed. Note here that the principles of self governance embodied in the constitution are what they are complaining about. The left rejects the legitimacy of the self governing nation state, and has since Marx and Engels. This is not going to change. And leftist on the Supreme Court will continue to subvert the Constition via Orwellian ‘interpretation’.
mark bofill,
Another big distinction: The founders statues aren’t up there because they fought to maintain slavery. They are honored for other reasons– founding the country.
It’s true the funding fathers weren’t perfect. Few claimed they were.
I really can’t see any danger to statues of the founding fathers except that those trying to “save” the confederate statues are trying to suggest some level of parity in order to elevate the historical importance of all these confederate statues. In otherwords: I see more danger in people like Mike M bringing up the founders in these arguments than in the stray lefty who criticizes the founders.
SteveF,
Yep. I’ve heard people criticize the founders for slave owning. Whether the statues are up or down isn’t going to change this– it’s been going on pretty much forever.
The founders weren’t perfect. I think it’s fine to acknowledge that. Some did own slaves. Some didn’t. Some freed their slaves; some didn’t. I don’t expect the Jefferson monument to come down any time soon.
Lucia,
I think the ‘friction’ is that the Constitution does not directly address nor prohibit slavery, even while the plain words of the Constitution appear inconsistent with the existance of slavey. That friction was the result of a political compromise between Northern states opposed to slavery on moral grounds, and Southern states where slavery was crucial for maintaining trade in cotton and tobacco. The common desire for liberty from the King and Parliament was stronger than the disagreement about slavery, but within “four score” that friction was enough to cause the Civil War. Could the Civil War have been avoided? I don’t know. But I very much doubt the United States could have come into existance unless the states had agreeded to disagree on slavery in the late 18th century.
SteveF,
Thanks. I agree with you (I find I generally do) except that I’d prefer to qualify what I mean by ‘the Left’. I don’t actually know exactly who I’m talking about, in fact. Some on the left, perhaps. Totalitarians on the left, I speculate. Not sure but I’m working on it. In fact, so as not to clutter by reiterating this constantly I’m calling this my boilerplate standard disclaimer #1; this is my default qualification when I talk about ‘some on the left’.
.
Lucia,
Agreed.
SteveF (Comment #164551)
What is a “postal expensive referendum�
–
It’s complicated.
A bit like your Democrat obstruction in the Senate.
One lot was elected promising a referendum, compulsory voting.
The other lot blocked it claiming it would hurt feelings.
The alternative to an expensive [100 mill dollars] referendum was a free postal ballot [still 100 mill] of those who wished to respond.
Funny but the people with “hurt” feelings who were going to abstain now actually want to vote.
–
As I stated Australian people do actually value individual freedom of choice so it should get up on this basis.
SteveF,
Yes. Slavery was a compromise. Many new it was a deferred argument. I also don’t know if civil war could have been avoided. I think it would have been difficult to avoid.
The US definitely would not have come into existence if the compromise had not been made.
mark bofill
I’m pretty sure your “some” includes Antifa. Most on the left are not members of Antifa.
angech
Not too surprising– and I don’t even know which side they were on. I can’t decide which is more probable. The ones who were going to have “hurt feelings” were
1) People who wanted representatives to vote thinking they’d get SSM put in place more easily by having representatives vote or
2) People who wanted to prevent any vote at all thinking they’d block SSM by coming up for lots of reasons to defer action, possibly forever.
Both are strategies that can work. Democracy can be contentious so both get used. I don’t really object to maneuvering– but I know it when I see it!
WRT to the “statues” issue: My guess is the call for a ‘referendum’ for a very low level decision that is well within the remit of a city council falls in category (2). The import of the decision over art work in city parks is clearly not sufficient to call for a referendum. It’s highly unlikely anyone thought it was that important when the statue was first erected and equally unlikely referenda have been called in the past for things like deciding how to decorate or use the park. People who want to block a decision about something to do with the park are asking for something very expensive and rather extraordinary.
Many governments even have things in place to determine when a referendum is called and when the decision lies with a body like a city coundil, state legislature and so on. (Often those things are called “the state constitution” or something like that.)
So my guess: People who don’t want the statues taken down are suggesting the referendum be called precisely because they know it’s ridiculously expensive. So no one will have the referendum and then the statue will remain in place.
In fact, I’d hazard a guess that some of the people may want suggest a state wide referendum for a city decision. A state wide referendum would run counter to the system in place which gives cities some autonomy that can’t be taken away. It amplify the cost. Those calling such a referendum would include a mix of people who don’t have a clue how our system of government works and others who do know but are willing to take advantage of confusion to get what they want using a strategy they think will make them sound “reasonable”.
lucia: “are trying to suggest some level of parity in order to elevate the historical importance of all these confederate statues.”
I have not seen any such argument from anyone opposed to taking down the monuments.
The objection is to sending history down the memory hole. People in Charlottesville did not wake up one day and decide they didn’t want the Lee statue. They came to that conclusion as a result of some people putting a lot of time and effort into convincing them. Why invest so much into something that no one cared about? Because there is an ulterior motive. That motive is to get us used to sending history down the memory hole. The reason for that is that it is useful to totalitarians.
.
Here is an apparently liberal, black scholar arguing that the statues should remain up: https://fabiusmaximus.com/2017/08/18/why-we-need-confederate-monuments/
Stephens: “Our incessant focus on memory holing history is idiotic and ridiculous. Why is it that we put more time into complaining about statues and flags than our kids killing each other on the streets of Chicago, Baltimore, New Orleans or Memphis every day? Why do we spend more energy on superficial actions when we can go around to any government public school and find more than half of the kids not proficient in ANY subject on grade level? Now these are worth attention, but nope, not sexy or dramatic enough (Deray trained yawl hypocrites well).”
Kumar: “Revolutionaries like to destroy our past because it makes us weak and more easily manipulated. Spitting on the dead is a fun easy way to the arouse emotions of mobs, making them feel virtuous. First direct them at easy targets like monuments, than at their political foes. For good reason the Founders saw mobs and factionalism as the chief enemies of the Republic. We might soon learn why.”
MikeM
Removing statues from parks does not send history down a memory hole.
Presumably it happened over a decent span of time. That’s exactly the same as all sorts of decisions. So I don’t see this as a reason that someone not for Charlottesville should be able to decree that those in Charlottesville don’t have the right to elect who they want nor for their elected officials to decide what to do with their park.
Oh. Heavens. Political campainging, ads and so on are routine in this country. It’s called “freedom of speech”. As far as I can tell, no one has hypnotized people of Charlottesville into acting against their own will. At most someone persuaded those in Charlottesville using arguments. That’s totally fine with me.
Are you asking why the protestors came to protest? I’m guessing you are not. But I agree with you they may have an ulterior motive. I don’t think they are just a bunch of art lovers nor do I think they are just people concerned about “history”.
Sure. Some people want them up. They get to express their view.
Our normal procedure remains let the people in Charlottesville make decisions about their parks. I’m really not understanding why you seem to object letting democracy take its course on the decision about this stupid statue you think no one cares about.
The answer to this scholar’s rhetorical is we don’t. In fact, we spend plenty of time talking about kids killing each other on the streets of Chicago. And if the stupid idiot protestors hadn’t gone to Charlottesville to promote attention to the rather mundane decision to remove a statue, decided to do “ZeigHeil” salutes and one of them hadn’t decided to run his car into a group of people killing them, we’d still be talking about killings in Chicago instead of being distracted by this story about the stupid statue the city of Charlottesville decided to take down.
Hi Lucia,
There something really comical about the R. E. Lee and Horse statuary parking lot. What if it turns out that dozens of these things are identical and their owners thought they were getting original art? And Lee wouldn’t be the only one. There would be dozens of other stars from those times. I don’t know who recognized the “trash heap of history” but maybe this is a physical opportunity to have one.
In the ’60s when the Washington Cathedral was still under construction there was a fenced in area containing dozens of the limestone gargoyles and grotesques (look like gargoyles but no plumbing function). The stone carvers had gotten ahead of the erectors. I thought the scene was immensely funny.
I suggest that those who think that we are trying to erase elements of our history by removing confederate statuary consider whether erecting statues of Rudolf Hess, Goebbels, Ribbentrop, or Goering would contribute to our appreciation of history.
The right controls enough states that they could almost call a constitutional convention on their own. The possibility of the left changing the constitution under the current rules are zero for at least the next few decades. Their city centric strategy does not allow this. I am very thankful that document has stood the test of time, there are a lot of wackos out there who believe they can make a better society if only they had control.
When I was referring to a voter referendum I meant putting it on the ballot in the next general election so the costs wouldn’t be that high. I might have used the wrong term. The issue isn’t important enough to me for this but it seems to be quite important to others.
.
A point worth remembering. Lots of emotions swirling around, but ( hopefully ) most remain sane.
.
However, antifa does achieve sympathy, especially after something like Charlottesville. Antifa cynically gains the most from the tragic death. Even Andrew Ross Sorkin on CNBC asked something like: `Nazis bad, how could those opposed to fascism, as antifa‘s name claims it is, be bad?`. It doesn’t take much thinking to understand that antifa is bad also, which is more or less what Trump said.
.
Most of those on the left are not members of antifa but evidently many are giving antifa a pass or even encouraging them. They evidently gave a pass to the DNC for staging violence at Trump rallies during the campaign. Given that the left also tolerates George Soros funding both antifa and the Trump campaign bum fights, they are guilty.
.
Now, Trump, and Trump supporters may be guilty also. The DNC abandoned the white working class during the Obama campaigns. Trump’s rhetoric may indeed be designed to appeal to racial identity. The uninspired black vote did not turn out while the Trump rabble roused white working class vote did.
.
All this is pretty disgusting to those who have or think they have an ideological basis for their party affiliation. Trump was never a ‘conservative’ or ‘rightist’ and the ‘alt-Right’ isn’t about the role or extent of government. Similarly, if antifa[sic], is the ‘alt-Left’, they don’t really have a clue about how the world works or even the fascism that’s in their name. Those rabble rousing in the streets have about street level mentality.
.
Another interesting aspect to this to me is Soros. His father was a Jewish turncoat in Nazi Germany? On one hand, one could imagine this instilled a lot of residual guilt, which would lead him to somehow try to make restitution by actually being anti-fascist. On the other hand, agent provocateurs manipulating the masses and using violence and threats is very fascist.
j ferguson,
I would be very surprised if a lot of them weren’t mass produced. I seriously doubt that the purchasers of copies weren’t aware that they were copies.
lucia,
It is sending it down a memory hole. Go visit Germany. Good look finding any remnants of WWII, it is illegal to sell or pretty much talk about that stuff and they have removed almost every vestige of that time period. The irony is they claim their attitude is “never forget” when their actions are “forget ASAP”. We have done the same thing with Indians here in the US, there is almost no indication they ever existed beyond casinos. Movements to ban teams from using Indian names for “cultural appropriation” removes it even further. Cowboy and Indian movies? Gone. Gunsmoke? Gone. When’s the last time you saw a kid dressed up as an Indian? We played cowboys and Indians when I was a kid. A lot of this was stereotyping but it at least acknowledged the time period and what happened.
.
What gets me is this certainty people have that future people aren’t going to look back on their own generation with “shame”. Divisive identity politics may not stand future scrutiny very well.
I would guess a large percentage of wealthy people owned slaves during the time period. It was accepted. How many you owned was probably a status symbol. We draw a very bright line with slavery but pretend low cost “guest workers” are perfectly OK. We are perfectly happy to buy cheap crap built in sweat shops overseas. Lots of these factories have dormitories so the workers live there full time and they end up sending all their money back to their family in a village. This isn’t very far from slavery.
.
If a much wealthier future generation looks back and asks “how could you allow that to happen?” the answer will effectively be “it’s just the way it was”. It’s an imperfect world, we should keep grinding to make it better, and spend less time sneering at our forebearers.
“consider whether erecting statues of Rudolf Hess, Goebbels, Ribbentrop, or Goering would contribute to our appreciation of history”
.
This is only a function of who won the war. These statues would very likely exist and be seen as honorable if the Germans would have perfected the nuclear weapon before they were defeated. Do you think there would be statues of Churchill if the Germans won?
As the old saying goes, history is always written by the winners.
Tm Scharf,
But weren’t the R.E. Lee statues erected by the losers? Obviously what statues are erected has nothing to do with winning or losing.
Hi DeWitt,
Maybe there was a Confederate Statuary Catalog. It would have had a checklist for use in ordering up this sort of thing. Name, mounted or unmounted, size (percentage of life-size), how many of horse’s hoofs are on ground, with pistol, drawn or undrawn, flag, sword, sword overhead, or pointing earthward, flag, etc.
1 NYT Op-Edit On Barcelona Word Count:
Islam – 0
Muslim – 0
.
3 NYT Op-Eds on following day after Charlottesville
White supremacist/nationalist/bigot
#1 – 7 times
#2 – 12 times
#3 – 10 times
.
It’s becoming propaganda. There has also been several instances (SF) of cities refusing to release security camera video of group robberies to the media because they don’t want to stereotype or stigmatize certain groups.
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/07/09/bart-withholding-surveillance-videos-of-crime-to-avoid-stereotypes/
.
“To release these videos would create a high level of racially insensitive commentary toward the district,†she was told. “And in addition it would create a racial bias in the riders against minorities on the trains.â€
Tom Scharf
If it’s important enough to someone in Charlottesville, I have no problem with them looking up the rules for getting a referendum on the ballot and trying to place it there. I haven’t heard any rumors that anyone relevant is trying to do this.
If I were a voter in Charlottesville, I would be against this.
The descendants of prominent civil war generals don’t object to the removal of the statutes — See https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/us/confederate-monuments-stonewall-jackson-lee-davis.html and Lee himself objected to confederate monuments at Gettysburg. See http://www2.vcdh.virginia.edu/saxon/servlet/SaxonServlet?source=/xml_docs/valley_news/newspaper_catalog.xml&style=/xml_docs/valley_news/news_cat.xsl&level=edition&paper=rv&year=1869&month=09&day=03&edition=rv1869/va.au.rv.1869.09.03.xml
….
This is an issue that should be put behind us. I would personally favor the retention of Union and Confederate monuments at Gettysburg in recognition of the huge loss of life, but if others disagree my opinion is not strongly held.
JD
Tom Scharf
I’m pretty sure Germans (a) know WWII was fought, (b) know which side they fought and and against whom the fought, (c) know who the Nazi’s were, (d) know who Hitler was and so on. They don’t need a statue of Hitler to remind them. So it seems to me your example proves that taking down statues does not put the history down a memory hole.
We aren’t going to forget the Civil War was fought for lack of statues of Robert E. Lee in various dignified or heroic poses.
I’d suggest you are wrong about there being no indications that Native Americans exists. There reservations themselves. We stopped by the Umatilla reservation in WA state. Umatilla weren’t doing much at the time, but it’s still theirs. The continued presence of these reservations would seem to indicate the Native Americans still exit. In Illinois, we have Starved Rock Park. We’ve also got the Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site. Heck, in the Netflix series Longmire, there are American Indians living on a reservation.
What do you mean “dressed up as an Indian”? I guess I’ll answer your presumably rhetorical Q with this one: When was the last time you saw a kid dressed up Pilgrim? Because the only times I remember people dressing up as either is for kids play acting out the Thanksgiving story.
I’m a bit mystified that you think Gunsmoke being “gone”. TV guide lists it as still running. http://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/gunsmoke/tv-listings/100194/
Even if “only shown in reruns” means gone, I’m mystified that someone would think that show being gone was a symptom that history is going down a rabbithole. MASH is probably equally “gone” but I don’t think people have forgotten the Korean War. Lots of tv shows are “gone”, for example “Seinfeld”. Lost in Space is probably closer to “gone”. Shows get stale.
We played hopscotch and jacks. I’m not seeing a lot of either any more. I don’t conclude that means history has gone down a memory hole.
Likely not.
I only hope that we’ll still allow elected city official do things like choose whether to install or remove a statue from their park. It would be a shame if fear of demonstrations by white nationalists made elected officials too afraid to remove statues for fear of angering divisive white nationalists.
J ferguson
that would be a fun way to organize the park:
(1) No horse, Lee standing.
(2) No horse, Lee seated.
(3) Horse, all four legs on ground
And so on.
Perhaps someone who wants to preserve these historical statues can start an Indie-Go-Go campaign to acquire the land and the statues.
JD Ohio,
I’d be for keeping those for pretty much the same reason. Recognition of huge historic battles is historically important. Mentioning both sides is required.
Gettysburg was important as a battle and also as the site where the Gettysburg address was read.
I’m not aware of anyone wanting to get rid of monuments there though I wouldn’t be surprised if someone can’t find a person somewhere who has called for it. Lots of people say lots of things. We have freedom of speech, which is a good thing.
If you want to see people playing cowboys, outlaws and Indians, go to Tweetsie Railroad, a western theme park with a coal-fired steam engine driven train, near Blowing Rock, NC. I think they sell more cap guns there than the rest of the US combined.
Guardian reports the suspect in the Barcelona attack said this on social media:
.
“Asked what he would do on his first day if he became absolute ruler of the world, he replied: “Kill the unbelievers and leave only Muslims who follow their religion.†Asked in which country he would never contemplate living, he answered: “The Vatican.â€
.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/18/accidental-blast-thwarts-huge-bomb-attack-by-spain-terror-cell
.
Some Spanish Rambo cop personally gunned down 4 of 5 terrorist suspects.
Clint Eastwood – The Good, The Bad, The Ugly. Real Cowboy. He also directed Unforgiven which was also excellent.
Tom Scharf,
“It is sending it down a memory hole. Go visit Germany. Good look finding any remnants of WWII, it is illegal to sell or pretty much talk about that stuff and they have removed almost every vestige of that time period.”
.
The slate is now clean. About 18 years ago we had a German exchange student live with us for a year; she was 17 when she arrived and 18 when she returned. One time I happened to be watching a history program on TV, having to do with WWII, and on the program there was a clip of Adolf Hitler addressing a huge crowd (with the typical shouting of ‘Heil Hitler!’, of course). When she heard this clip on the TV, her eyes got very big, and she exclaimed “I can actually understand what he is saying!”. She had NEVER in her life seen a film of Hitler, nor heard a recording of his voice. She actually had no idea that her German and Hitler’s were one in the same…. almost as if she thought Hitler was something other than a native German speaker. I did not insist on further discussion, but I very much doubt that she understood anything of substance about WWII, the Holocaust, the pursuit of “a pure Aryan race”, etc. I was astounded; for her, it was as if it all never happened.
Tom Scharf:
Tom,
The thing is, there isn’t much to have an “opinion” on. Nobody notable is arguing publicly about whether there were “good people” among the Barcelona attackers, or that there were free speech issues at stake, or that the attackers are being either unfairly maligned or undeservedly supported by public officials.
There are several articles on the news pages about the Barcelona attack.
oliver,
I think you mean “fine” people. 😉
😉
oliver,
You are missing the point. The media isn’t isolating their criticism on just one misguided “car guy”, they have thrown their blanket of condemnation over any group that has a whiff of white supremacy or white nationalism in their opinion as if they drove the car themselves. They are horribly inconsistent when it comes to their in-group Muslims. This was a perfect test case for media consistency and it was an utter fail. Here we have a coordinated group of Muslims with a terror event a magnitude larger. Just the proven facts on the Barcelona attack, film at 11, now back to drawing Trump with a Klan hood on and pretending half his supporters are the Aryan nation about to invade Austria.
.
With the Dallas shooter and several ISIS killers they go out of their way to exonerate peaceful BLM members and Muslims (as I think they should). If the violence is right wing then the culture war knives come out.
.
This is really just business as usual, but these are professional media people who supposedly take their job seriously. Only 14% of Republicans trust the media, this is why. Perhaps 86% of Republicans are delusional and don’t have critical thinking ability, but my guess is there is truly a there there. Possibly I am just too biased in my own view, but the media bias has become blatant and shamelessly transparent.
Tom,
Perhaps the media would tell you that you are drawing a false moral equivalence between white nationalists and Muslims. I’m not actually joking or expressing sarcasm.
Tom,
You really are lacking some perpective on when concluding coverage is somehow unbalanced. There are lots of reasons the attacks in Charlottesville are getting more coverage. Attacks in the US are going to get more coverage. Attacks organized to get protest are likely to get more coverage. Death’s in context of a situation with lenghy back story are going to get more coverage. ( The brouhaha over the statue has been going on for years. There has been a court case to block the cities decision, yada, yada, yada.)
The Antifa riots got lots of coverage too. So did Ferguson.
The fact is *I* care more about attacks, deaths and riots in Charlottesville than in Barcelona. I don’t care WHO the perpetrators are. So do lots of Americans. That’s why our news covers these more.
I should add: I don’t think the media is blaming everyone on the right here. These kooks in Charlottesville were definitely Nazi-wannabees. Most of the right is not Nazi wannabees just like most of the left is not ANTIFA.
I heard a comment on the radio. At the time of the Civil War, the people cared more about their State government than their Federal government. We know the Federal government hardly existed then compared to now. I recall something some Minnesota Regiment that did something at Gettysburg.
This is my State. Now the Federal government that never did much for us is going to tell us what to do. So as we defend our state, we have our leaders. Not too much unlike fighting the Redcoats, semantics aside.
As the shooting started in a battle, were the Southern soldiers fighting the Blacks or the Northerners?
The Northern Generals. Responsible for many war time atrocities? There are shades of gray all over the place. Clear answers and solutions backed by a lot of confidence and calls for immediate action simplify too much.
Well I hope a 170 stories on NPR in the past 7 days that mention Charlottesville is adequate to inform people (Barcelona = 22). This is a narrative the left likes so it goes into saturation coverage. It’s just disproportional to an extent of irrationality. If furniture is more dangerous than terrorism, it’s way way more dangerous than white supremacists.
.
Consider how many white supremacists there really are. The KKK supposedly has about 3,000 (Wikipedia) to 6,000 (SPLC) members, several hundred who showed up last week. Maybe all the other nutty off shoots and Europe have some more, so let’s call it 10,000.
.
Google:
“white supremacist” charlottesville – 944,000 news hits (note: google counts are a bit screwy)
.
So we have 94 news hits for every single member.
.
These guys aren’t a threat, one member has killed someone I know about, but lets say they have 10 legitimate killers. We have 94,000 news hits for every serious militant member.
.
For reference, ISIS = 16,000,000 news hits, 30,000 fighters = 533 news hits per soldier.
.
94,000 / 533 = 176x
.
The media is covering white supremacists at a rate of about 176x more than ISIS if you gauge it by ready to kill soldiers. But, but, but, this and that. Let’s just call it 10x. I don’t think white supremacists are 10x more dangerous than ISIS.
.
The media never made a promise they would cover things proportionally, and they will pander to their audience (Trump KKK = 836,000 news hits). But are they reporting the news here or inventing it? News + Twitter = Herd mentality. For example, how quickly and forcefully a denouncement is made seems to be a Trump/Charlottesville only standard.
.
I promise I will now drop the subject, unless I don’t.
Boston had a (mostly) peaceful free speech rally / counter-protest today.
Best sign.
Ragnar
It was hard to grow the Fed gov before the income tax. . . which was passed during the Woodrow Wilson administration. You know. The guy whose statues we are supposed to worry might come down.
HaroldW,
Evidently some counter protestors were arrested in Boston. I think, among other things, they were throwing bottles filled with pee at the police.
Boston Police Dept. tweeted: “#BPD is asking individuals to refrain from throwing urine, bottles and other harmful projectiles at our officers.”
Do people really need to be told that this behavior is out of line?
Sorry, that’s rhetorical. My answer: adults don’t.
Lucia,
“The guy whose statues we are supposed to worry might come down.”
.
I don’t worry about Wilson’s statues comming down; he was in fact a racist, but more importantly, dedicated his presidency to doing things harmful to the country… arguably the first ‘progressive’ president. In my opinion, Wison was on balance a strong negative influence. However, I do worry a bit about declaring any historical figure unworthy of being remembered, and their positive contributions discounted completely. I do worry about the tendency of totalitarians everywhere to re-write history… or simply erase it… for political expediency and consolidation of power by limiting what people can know and believe. The issue is closely related to efforts to limit what people can say, which sadly, have been remarkably successful, even in many democracies in Europe, where the only ‘hate speech’ allowed is that which is motivated by hatred of personal liberty.
SteveF
Sure. But saying they can’t come down is also forcing people to speak. In the case of the statue in Charlottesville, the city council voted to take it down.
The problem with public statues is that they do represent the community saying something. Obviously, some members of the community don’t want to be saying that thing, so they will ask that not be “said”. Since the way it is said is by displaying a statue, the only to not say it is to take the statue down. In some cases, the community will decide to take it down. That’s fine with me.
So: I’m not upset if some group decides to take down a statue. I’m no more upset about it than I would be upset if a private person bought an estate that included a statue and decided to take their private statue down.
Now: I would be against a federal or state law that barred for either putting up, taking down or continuuing to display any particular type of statue. But as far as I am aware no one has passed a law saying Woodrow Wilson or Confederate statues can’t be erected or displayed.
So our current state is as it should be: We all get to discuss and decide whether we want to erect these statues or take them down. We get to demonstrate to express our opinions.
What we don’t get to do is run people down with cars, destroy property, throw bottles of piss at police in the process of demonstrating to express our opinion. That’s wrong.
On the erasing: Of course history should continue to be taught. That doesn’t mean we need any particular statue. We’ve got plenty of civil war movies. We also have plenty of federal monuments and so on. I don’t think we’re going to forget it happened.
BTW: I am surprised the German girl hadn’t seen and heard the famous clip of Hitler speaking. That clip is shown so often in the US. Of course, it’s not a statue. My understanding is Germany has gone about over-the-top with Nazi stuff and supression of discussion. No hate speech codes.. right? That’s bad.
HaroldW,
Yes. Of course the people throwing piss and rocks at officers knew perfectly well it wasn’t allowed.
It’s was a bit puzzling. It seems the crowd consisted mostly of counter protestors. My guess is they had arrived hoping to throw rocks and piss at Nazis. There weren’t any there, so they used all their pent up energy to throw the rocks and piss at the Police.
I think something like two or three dozen were arrested.
Here’s the Boston Police Commisioner sounding very Bostonian
This is local Boston coverage
Lucia,
“I would be against a federal or state law that barred for either putting up, taking down or continuuing to display any particular type of statue.”
.
How about a City ordinance against the display, anywhere visible to the public, of a statue of any person who ever held slaves? It is a serious question… where do you (Lucia) draw the line? If someone wants a statue of Adolf Hitler or Joe Stalin in their yard, do you think a local ordinance should be able to block that?
Lucia,
“This is local Boston coverage”
.
I sure hope the crazies don’t tie up traffic the next time I need to get to the airport.
SteveF
Yeah. But that’s not what happened in Charlottesville.
Lucia,
No, not exactly what happened in Charlottsville, but I see it as the next logical step.
SteveF
I’d be against such a law. I also suspect it would violate the 1st amendment. It’s not a content neutral. People are allowed to display things. I should be able to put statues in of a slaveholder in my yard. I don’t happen to want to do so.
If a neighbor put one up, I might need to erect a statue of Harriet Tubman or something. Maybe I’d have it be similar to the one featured in the movie “Butter”.
I think people should be allowed to erect the Hitler or Stalin statues in their yard provided it meets any content neutral requirements. (When I was a kid a guy who owned a lumber yard wanted to put up a huge statue that violated height requirements. He did put lots of stuff up but there were long discussions about code: http://www.roadsideamerica.com/tip/5952 )
Obviously, other people will form opinions about the family with the Hitler or Stalin statue in their yard. There will also be a heightened risk of vadalism relative to other statues– for which perpetrators should be arrested. The risk will exist nonetheless.
With respect to individuals, my lines are “No laws prohibiting free speech by individuals. No laws forcing individuals to make unwelcome speech.”
SteveF,
Large protest crowds have blocked traffic and interfered with pedestrians trying to move. That’s wrong too.
It doesn’t happen to be what happened in Charlottesville. A kook just decided to run people over.
On statues, I should add in addition to the huge Ramses statue in the link above, the Onan’s also erected Onan man
http://www.roadsideamerica.com/tip/9386
Mom taught in Gurnee. We saw this statue all the time.
Lucia,
“A kook just decided to run people over.”
.
Sure, and a bunch of other kooks arrived carrying clubs and baseball bats, prepared to assalt those who they disagree with politically. And with containers of piss. There was an awful lot of “you’re not allowed to say that” going on, and I think the news coverage has been shameful to not point this out. To their credit, the ACLU stood up for free speech. The news reports? Not so much. In fact, almost not at all.
Yes. There were kooks on both sides. Neither one excuses the other. I just want to be sure people have facts right. Earlier in the year there were kooks who blocked traffic and endangered people in cars. I think some were even rocking cars back and forth. In that instance, one might have excused the driver plowing into people who were attackers.
But in this instance, there was a crows and cars. But the crows was not attacking the car. It slowed them just like a traffic jam would. The guy just decided to plow into people. Here’s the drone view.
I’m not sure if there was piss in Charlottesville. The police in Boston did a good job not allowing things like clubs and bats. They evidently didn’t allow flag pole either– nothing that could be used as a club.
Lucia,
Well, Alabama has passed the Alabama Memorial Preservation Act of 2017.
I read:
.
wrt Boston: yes, police were very good at keeping the groups separate. I still don’t see the “free speech = hate” connection, but then that may just be me.
.
“Onan man”…I’m glad you included a link. I thought it might be the Biblical Onan, and was quite puzzled that someone would want to erect a statue. I was imagining something like the Brussels statue.
Harold,
There isn’t any connection between free-speech and hate. I think many of the counterprotestors just assumed the free-speech group was the same as or affiliated with the group in Charlottesville. The one in Charlottesville did have people in Nazi uniforms, carrying Nazi flags and so on. This one did not.
The fact is in politics– and on both sides– people use rhetoric. And the Nazi-wannabees do often dress up some of their rhetoric with things like “free-speech”. Then they also add in other stuff– like “kill jews” or carry swastikas.
The Antifa side on the other hand, wants to say they are “anti-fascist”. But really, they are “anti-anything-not-far-left”. And that includes being anti-free speech.
There are lots of people between these two extremes. The smallish free-speech group who had a permit a are free speech people. They did not include a contingent of people wearing Nazi uniforms or carrying Swastikas.
marc bofill,
I’m against such a law. I think cities and communities should be allowed to take things down just as they are allowed to put things up.
Heck, I’m pretty dubious of many of the “historic” listings especially when the impede the ability of owners to modify their property. It doesn’t bother me too much if the current owner inflicts it on themselves, but sometimes it gets inflicted by non-owners on owners. I think that’s not right.
Lucia,
.
Yes. After thinking it through I’m against it too. I sort of scratched my head earlier on this thread looking for examples of totalitarianism on the right that didn’t involve anyones sex life; this may be such an example.
.
It may be that I show totalitarians on the right too much tolerance under the justification that ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’. It’s not necessarily so; the enemy of my enemy might just be my other enemy that hasn’t gotten around to fighting with me yet.
shrug.
Thanks Lucia.
lucia:
lucia, Harold,
The connections were between “Free Speech” — the rally, not the issue — and some people also affiliated with the Charlottesville rally. The organizers had previously held a rally on Boston Common in May of this year, and the connections weren’t any big secret then.
Oliver: Thanks for the menion of the May event. Local radio station WBUR mentioned the other event: “In response [to Charlottesville], Boston Free Speech, the group behind both rallies, has announced hurried adjustments to Saturday’s schedule. It has cancelled a planned march, the program has been shortened by several hours, and three of the four most controversial headliners — including Invictus, who was also present at the Charlottesville rally — have dropped out.”
WBUR also mentions that “The organizers who first planned that protest [the “counter-protest”] were responding to the violence in Charlottesville, and weren’t aware at first that the free speech rally was due to happen at the same time.”
On second thought, I don’t know. I go back and forth on it. I think it’s possible (in fact, not unlikely) the only reason the ” the Alabama Memorial Preservation Act of 2017.” was passed in the first place was in response to this movement to tear down Confederate monuments under the premise that they are racist. I wonder what is really behind this movement. My thinking so far is that most people really don’t give a darn one way or another about monuments; tearing them down or protesting about them is a vehicle for something else. What, exactly? If I understood would I support Alabama Memorial Preservation Act? I don’t know the answers to these questions for sure.
It is not just a free speech issue. It is a right to assemble issue as well.
Lucia – there were many reports of urine filled balloons be thrown in Cville.
“be thrown” = “being thrown”
Lucia said -“Large protest crowds have blocked traffic and interfered with pedestrians trying to move. That’s wrong too.
It doesn’t happen to be what happened in Charlottesville. A kook just decided to run people over.”
The intersection – two blocks away from Emancipation Park – where Heather Heyer was killed was being blocked by the counter protesters. They people were standing in the middle of it and had cars surrounded from all directions. The car that ran people over did not go onto the sidewalks at any time.
The driver intentionally rammed into them and is a kook. But to say that the counter protesters were not blocking traffic is not accurate.
Oliver,
I think the people connected to the Charlottesville rally were dis-invited.
Kan,
Yes. In the later one I added the detail of protestors actually attacking the cars.
Obviously, there was a large number of people in the street. But they weren’t all placing their hands on the cars, pounding them and shaking them. The people in the cars were not endangered. The people in the street were blocking in the sense of being there– as happens in a traffic jam. Of course it’s unlikely this one would clear.
I imagine (possibly incorrectly) that someone could have turned their vehicle around to get to most destinations. (I don’t doubt it would have been hard to drive to a parking lot near the statue.)
Kan
Of course. The police in Boston acted well in this case and supported the right of assembly and free speech. They kept the two sides separated, which was a good thing. No deaths was certainly a good outcome.
HaroldW,
It’s interesting that the counter protestors weren’t initially aware the free-speech rally was happening and were actually organized to “counter” the Charlottesville event.
It’s nice to see the free-speech groups separating themselves from the Nazi groups. They should do that. I think it’s important for the free-speech groups to focus on their own message and not join with other messages that have nothing to do with free speech and which they disavow.
Nazi uniforms, kill Jews, Swastikas and so forth aren’t “free speech” messages. Also, when present they distract from the topic intended by free speech organizers. So organizers going about getting permits for their events should do as much as possible to not allow the Nazi wannabees to try to ride on their tailcoats.
So, I’m glad the free-speech guys excluded the Nazi-wannabees.
That said: you couldn’t really expect counter-protestors to know the Nazi-wannabees were disinvited until a bit after it happened. So even if the counter-protestors had organized because of this rally, I wouldn’t have expected them to know the difference between who was speaking in August and who was planned to speak in May.
.
And it’s not clear for how long he decided.
.
The video doesn’t exhibit any indication that the driver intends to plow into the crowd until being struck by the flagpole, immediately after which one starts to hear the screams.
.
Has the flag pole assailant been identified? arrested for incitement? can he be? should he be?
.
It will be interesting to see how or if this plays out in court.
.
It doesn’t appear as if the driver intended to plow into the crowd before being struck. Are panicked, or even enraged responses ‘crimes of passion’ rather than premeditated murder?
.
I certainly don’t support the bigots or even Trump, for that matter, but I’m very suspicious of the nefarious activities of antifa and dark money manipulating public opinion.
The free speech crowd (I count myself among them) aren’t exactly thrilled to have neo-Nazis co opting this subject and electing themselves as spokesmen. Historically Nazi parades are the academic hypothetical example of free speech debates. There aren’t that many people really interested in preventing neo-Nazis from making fools of themselves, however there are plenty of people who will look the other way if someone else does the dirty work. Defending free speech is not defending Nazis but it sure may look the same if you squint hard.
.
As you guys might suspect, I don’t need gas poured on my confirmation bias fire in this subject area. I turned to CNN for the first time in a few weeks to see the Boston protest and in the first 15 seconds saw this – Left split screen – Interview with Boston cop who was very happy to see so many people protesting against racism, Right split screen – Somebody walks by camera with a “White People Suck” sign. Hilarious. The media is water boarding me.
Turbulent Eddie,
That looks similar to this video. But if the guaridan one is original, it appears someone might have fiddled with slo-mo and regular mo in the one you showed. Because in the guarding one which starts earlier, the car was moving along when someone hit it.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2017/aug/13/fatality-car-attack-anti-fascist-white-supremacist-rally-charlottesville-video-report
Mind you: someone shouldn’t be thwocking cars. But it looks like someone may have fiddled with time in your version.
Tom Scharf
It will look that way if you have Nazi’s speaking at the same events the free speech guys speak at. Likewise, an event can look like “Antifa” if antifa people are traveling along in the group and making trouble.
Both violent groups do have the strategy of mixing in with others.
Kan “there were many reports of urine filled balloons be thrown in Cville.”
could you provide links.
JD
.
That’s possible, though the camera work is disorienting.
.
It’s difficult to tell how fast the vehicle is going.
.
On one hand, on the guardian video, you do hear screaming before the vehicle approaches, but also, how slow does the vehicle have to be going for the flag holder to be able to see the car, identify it as a target, and then effectively whack the bumper?
.
The flag pole guy certainly didn’t dress like antifa, which has been my focal bias toward the story.
.
I guess I’ll try ignore the street things, hope that radicals ( KKK,Nazis,Antifa ) are not taking over the country, and go back to thinking about climate stuff.
My guess is a person seeing a car approaching over a block could time a ‘jump/ thwock’ if the car was doing 30 mph.
Calc: (60 min/hour) / (30 miles/hour) = 2 minutes/mile. That’s for any sustained run, but not so fast a person couldn’t time a jump and thwock.
30 mph is slow for getting anywhere. It’s fast if you are approaching a crowd.
He’s not wearing a mask.
There is going to be more rioting next year. I suspect the driver will be found not guilty of major charges and instead will get a max sentence for minor things like leaving the scene of an accident.
The media stories I have seen say
1) He rammed/ran into a crowd of (counter)protesters
2) He then backed up and sped away
3) He was driving a Dodge Charger or Challenger
Take a look at the video Lucia posted in 164609. The vehicle does not back away, and is not a Dodge Charger/Challenger. I’m not even sure it’s a car.
The driver did not drive forward into a crowd of protesters. He drove into a car that then hit another car/minivan that then hit this crowd. It would explain why only one person died. I’m surprised he could generate that much speed in a 3rd vehicle. Europe would love it if ISIS attacked in this fashion.
MikeN,
It does look like the car moving at a higher speed hits one or two other (probably two). It also looks like the more serious injuries (and fatality) came when the struck second car rolled over a couple of people. The Gardian clip shows a silver colored Dodge Charger with a severely damaged from end backing up the street, away from the accident scene…. which is going to add to the charges, no matter the details/motivation for plowing into the other cars. It is also possible he hit one or more people just before hitting the other car(s). The guy is going to do some serious time.
MIkeN,
I agree. The vehicle in the drone video looks like a maroon minivan driving into a group of people.
In the other pictures, it looks like a grey car had smashed into a minivan or another car.
I guess we’ll read more about the case later.
Type “charlottesville car” into Google and go to images. This guy is very likely going to get convicted. He drove over people and then hit the cars.
.
None of the pictures I have seen make it obvious he is actually driving the car (I personally think it was George W Bush). Maybe the police pulled him out of it later, but if he simply owns it and it is circumstantial that he drove it that could make it a hard conviction. Conversely if he hasn’t made any statement and comes to the trial with a “I panicked and hit the gas instead of the brake” story the other evidence will be vital.
.
It would be more reasonable to be second degree murder unless they have evidence he planned it. People routinely get only 15 years for 2nd degree murder. It would be political suicide not to add hate crime to the charges for a prosecutor, but hate crime curiously does not include politically motivated killings (in VA). I don’t think he has much of a record.
.
Getting an unbiased jury will be a bit of a challenge.
So….our Navy is incapable of navigating it ships without hitting an oil tanker? If only they had access to technology that could allow them to see where they are going.
Tom Scharf
Never underestimate the ability of people to avoid reading news.
Here I am… in Chicago. And it’s cloudy. Not good for eclipse viewing.
“Getting an unbiased jury will be a bit of a challenge.”
It will be virtually impossible. Whether people have read the news clippings or not, they will have strong feelings on both sides. Some jurors may say the right things, but deep down they will have strong views that will help or hurt one side or the other. Hopefully, the case will be tried at least 75 miles away from Cville, which would help a bit.
JD
Mostly cloudy here in MA. But in the early stages, there were enough clear spots to see. The birds definitely noticed.
We just set a record by a huge margin during the eclipse for the longest consecutive period in the last year in which the media stopped talking about Trump. I’ll take eclipse hysteria over Trump hysteria any day.
.
It was partly cloudy in FL but good enough to see it at its peak in my location.
Tom Scharf,
I expect he will go to prison for 20+…. maybe even life; second degree murder (maybe first if he put something crazy on twitter or Facebook), multiple batteries, leaving the scene, etc. The optics are all terrible, and the guy backed away at high speed after injuring/killing people… so could easily have run over more people if they hadn’t gotten out of the way. I think he is burned toast.
Some eclipse photos for your entertainment.
Just to be clear, he deserves to be punished pretty severely. I hold anyone who murders an innocent bystander in contempt. The victim here had no reason to believe the rally would be life threatening, although it is reasonable to assume that a fight might break out. Most people just aren’t going to go to these things but if they feel especially strongly about this, then protest should be feasible without nut jobs going into murderous rages while the police stand around acting like this possibility doesn’t exist.
.
The police question is pretty interesting. They obviously have a non-engagement policy going on that is newish, police running around beating people is bad optics, but I think they may have over learned that lesson. I’m really torn on this subject, it is probably the best way to do things, until it isn’t. I know in middle school it was pretty much standard practice to allow two people who wanted to fight to fight for a while before separating them. It allowed them to kind of get it out of their system. Note: This was the fist fight era. I find the lack of arrests for clear criminal behavior a bit hard to swallow and not much of a deterrent for future protests.
Here is an interesting photo I took. This is looking straight down on my driveway under the shadows of a tree in front of my house. Lots of pin-hole projectors provided by nature.
https://goo.gl/photos/4D6Bg5aYDYnB8CWa6
Clear skies and a great view here in eastern TN, specifically Loudon, just south of Knoxville on the Tennessee river just off I-75. I parked in a fast food place, at a late lunch and stayed there for the eclipse along with a lot of other people. It was fun. The corona wasn’t particularly detailed by eye, but it did get fairly dark at the peak.
Fantastic eclipse viewing in Wyoming. A total eclipse is a qualitatively different thing than a partial or annular eclipse. Amazing. Well worth the trip.
P.S. – Sometimes government does things right. The Park service did a terrific job at Fort Laramie.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450665/debbie-wasserman-schultz-it-scammers-indicted-mysteriously-narrow-and-low-key-way
I wonder if any of those folks ever got anywhere near the ‘hacked’ DNC computer. They would seem likely candidates for a thumb drive file transfer. Given that a Clinton holdover is in charge, I doubt we’ll find out.
I agree with Mike M. A partial eclipse is ho-hum compared to a total eclipse.
Tom Scharf:
That is a great image. Thanks for sharing.
DeWitt,
I think Julian Assange claims he never pays for information. Hard to imagine the Awan scoundrels would just give him the DNC emails without compensation. Besides, as far as I know, the Awans had no direct connection with the DNC. The ‘restrained’ prosecution is likely just Democrates trying to limit very bad publicity for a very embarrassing lack of judgement by Wassernam-Schultz. I would not be surprised by a plea bargin with little jail time, followed immediately by Awan’s permanent residence changing to Pakistan.
Interesting thermal energy alternative to lithium ion batteries for renewable energy storage: https://x.company/explorations/malta/
Joint project between Google and Tesla. Still in design stage. Uses electric energy to drive a heat pump to create a temperature gradient, and then heat engine to convert thermal gradient back to electricity.
Owen –
Any idea what the overall conversion efficiency of such a system is? That is, how many kWh can be recovered from storage, for each 1 kWh collected.
I wondered also about projected efficiency, but they gave no details. I would think that the efficiency of the heat pump that creates the gradient would drop off as the thermal gradient increases. If they get to the point where they build a utility-scale demonstration plant, we’ll know more.
Perhaps there are more charges in-line for the Pakistan conspiracy and the attempted flight forced the FBI to go with what they had to keep him in jail. There’s smoke there, but no fire yet.
I was standing on the road and a truck drove by causing a total solar eclipse! So I saw one too, ha ha. For anyone who hasn’t seen them, the SDO (Solar Dynamics Observatory) has some crazy cool videos of the sun.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwo65pER39oXYspE4CTeQqjVjAsw2FUCk
Off-topic — well off the several topics…
If you have Netflix, watch “What Happened to Monday?” A cut above the usual dystopia flick.
Just for fun, someone ran the numbers and the eclipse apparently overwhelmingly voted for Trump. The most amazing thing about this is someone ran the numbers.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DGLRvSeUMAANVt4.jpg:large
Some early steps in developing a molten salt reactor, in Europe.
Enough is enough, ha ha. Can’t we just leave college football out of this miasma of political correctness? Is nothing sacred anymore? This is probably the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of.
.
ESPN Pulls Announcer Robert Lee From Virginia Game Because of His Name
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/23/business/media/robert-lee-university-virginia-charlottesville.html
Tom Scharf,
I saw that on twitter. Firing an employee who announces games because his name is “Robert Lee” It is truly stupid. That the employee is asian and almost certainly did not pick the last name “Lee” to revere Robert E. Lee and his parents probably did not pick the extremely common first name “Robert” with “Robert E. Lee” in mind is icing on the cake.
You’d think that at most if someone was worried riots would break out when people heard his name, they’d ask if he didn’t mind using the name “Bob” while announcing. Then let him decide. Maybe he’d mind and stick with Robert which would be fine; let them risk the riots. Maybe he’d think it was worth changing his name to avert the chance of riots and suggest he’d like to be called “Bubaa Lee” from now on. Sheesh.
They just reassigned him to another game, not fire him. It shockingly turns out he is not related to the confederate general. ESPN is trying to squirm out of it by saying they feared social media would make fun of this, so they moved him. Spectacular backfire.
.
Earlier last week they had an NFL fantasy football “auction” (that is normally called a draft) and the usual suspects interpreted this as a slave auction. ESPN apologized.
Lucia, not too far from you there is an Adolf funeral home. It’s a little jarring to see, especially when they have ‘and cremation’.
The kerfuffle about Mr. Lee reminded of this commercial:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYZjWzpX1cQ
Tom,
Just one more of the incredibly stooopid things ESPN has done in the last couple of years… comparable in stupidity to their decision to make pro sports boadcasting yet another arena for PC virtue signaling by left wing broadcasting ‘personalities’, who are themselves quite stupid. They will be greatly diminished in size and infuence in the future, and deservedly so.
I’ve never subscribed to ESPN. But my impression is that the ability to sound stupid is nearly a requirement for sports broadcasters. Mind you: I don’t think they are all stupid. In fact, many show bursts of intelligence from time to time. But the “patter” seems designed to intentionally make even fairly dumb audience members feel at home– like they aren’t outwitted by really smart guys.
So: even if someone is smart, they are required to sound dumb from time to time.
Apparently the Lee decision was his own choice: https://nesn.com/2017/08/espn-president-defends-pulling-robert-lee-from-game-in-charlottesville/
They do typically know the sports they are covering very well. I’ve watch college football for over 30 years (I just like it, I do not ask myself to explain it to myself rationally as that would be a difficult conversation). There are definitely some good broadcasters, and some not so good ones. I agree with Lucia that they talk way too much and much is simply filler. Some are like that person you know who just totally dominates a conversation at all times. The very best ones know when to shut up.
.
After 30 years they aren’t providing a lot of insight, but the good ones still do and you can tell that they are really enthusiastic about it, not fake enthusiastic. Kind of like a good teacher. But yeah, SAT scores aren’t that important here.
.
ESPN does college football the best, they paid $7.3B for the right to broadcast just the college football playoffs over 12 years. In 2015 the playoff was the highest rated show in cable history.
.
When you look at those numbers and see how the NCAA forces players to live at near poverty you kind of laugh when academia tut-tuts others for social justice issues. Players on high value teams are generating great value they are not getting fairly compensated for because of an academia monopoly on the business. It’s actually pretty ugly when examined closely.
A few notes of interest. Generally speaking college football produces about 6x the revenue of basketball. Even at Duke football revenue is about the same as basketball.
.
About half of college football teams lose money, but accounting here is indecipherable in many places. Many schools use football to pay for all other academic sports. Annual profit from football:
.
Texas – $92 million ($165M in revenue)
Tennessee – $70 million
LSU – $58 million
Michigan – $56 million
Notre Dame – $54 million
Georgia – $50 million
Ohio State – $50 million
Oklahoma – $48 million
Auburn – $47 million
Alabama – $46 million
.
My school earns $20M per year for just being a member of a “Big-5” conference. Television contracts are more important than ticket sales. Costs are very high: Stadiums, scholarships, coaches salaries (millions), travel, etc.
HaroldW, if the boss is a multibillion dollar corporation and comes to you with a suggestion, you are likely to agree with that. Particularly if agreeing means you have less travel. I wonder if this was a step up for Lee to do this game, he is being put in to a national pool, that got stunted.
>I’ve never subscribed to ESPN.
Unless you don’t have cable, it takes some effort to do that. ESPN has sued cable networks that offered packages without ESPN. It’s more common now, with $8 a month fees.
Tom Scharf,
The “loose money” how? Real question. Is it by paying the coaches and staff lavishly? By building huge sports complexes?
It seems to me if they are “losing” money, they ought to reduce their expenditures. It would see this could be done by (a) not building or improving stadiums, (b) having fewer scholarships, (c) paying coaches less, (d) moving to a division that requires less travel. There isn’t a rule that says schools have to have big, lavish football programs.
If the argument is they need it to bring in alumni donations, then they aren’t ‘losing’ money on football. They just aren’t accounting for the “revenue stream” of alumni donations that arise from football. If the argument is they need it to make their school visible and attract students, then they aren’t losing money. They are aren’t crediting the “value” the team gives in reduced expenditures on advertising.
HaroldW,
They are selling, I’m not buying. They contacted him and asked him to move to another game. He is a low level announcer at ESPN that just laid off a bunch of people, he has only one “stay employed” answer to that request.
.
For the record President Skipper worked 8 years at Rolling Stone and this is exactly the kind of crap they troll in constantly. Skipper’s job is looking increasingly fragile, he has unnecessarily politicized ESPN and its finances have taken a nosedive since he took over.
Tom,
I don’t have cable. I haven’t had it for over a decade; we have an antenna. That was enough even before streaming services becames widely available.
I also think didn’t get ESPN when I did have cable. It was an add on and I was never willing to pay for that.
Did ESPN win the suits against the cable companies? If they did, that’s seems ridiculous.
The short answer is the other 127 college football Div 1 teams are not Alabama or Texas. Then there are 500+ lower division schools.
Debt from lavish “facilities” (stadiums, academic dorms, weight rooms, locker rooms, practice fields, etc.) and very high salaries for coaches.
.
The longer answer is winning is VERY profitable and that requires good players and coaches. You can’t get good players without good facilities and brand name coaches. Hitting the top tier is very hard so establishing a winning tradition is part of getting there. That’s at least a decade long investment and it is extremely competitive.
.
As you mentioned there are also intangibles such as raising the profile of your school and the very real but totally invalid connection between athletics and academics. Michigan must have good academics, right?
.
And other real things like in my home state WV there are no pro teams so WVU is it. The state loves the football team (when they aren’t hating it). They want it invested in and feel great pride when it is successful. Most of that WVU gear is not being sold to alumni. The state may be sh** hole, but at least it has a good football team every now and then, ha ha. Let’s all look away when the fact that the roster is completely full of out of state people comes up…
Tom Scharf,
Actually it does.
That said: I do agree with your point. People tend to assume schools they heard of have better academics than schools they have not heard of. People often hear more about schools with winning football and basketball programs.
ESPN has forced cable companies to put them on upgrade tiers and not a-la-carte them for decades. I don’t think that has changed. It used to be mandatory carry. I appreciate others subsidizing ESPN for me. Thank you. ESPN’s biggest problem now is cord cutters. They are offering up their own streaming service to bypass cable companies completely.
.
The only thing keeping me from cutting the cord is live sports.
Tom Scharf, live sports you can still get with HD for broadcast networks via an antenna. ESPN’s live sports is pretty substantial, but with Monday Night Football weak the last several years I can do without it.
Having their own subscription streaming service doesn’t help ESPN like it helps others. They are getting $8 a month from almost all subscribers. Replacing 90(used to be 110) million $8 a month subscribers with 10 million(I think this is generous) subscribers paying $10 a month won’t work, especially now cable companies have no reason to put you in a broad tier and subscriber losses will accelerate. The ESPN sports contracts run out in 5-10 years, and I doubt they can afford to bid again, but without the live content they can’t get the subscribers.
They’ve released audio clips of Hillary’s new book, What Happened, with her complaining about Trump stalking her at the debate.
At the time, I wrote here it was deliberately to show that he is taller than her. However, later I noticed it looked like he was reading Hillary’s notes. Checking again I realize Trump was not stalking her at all, he was moving to his podium. Between the stage, audience, and cameras, we got the wrong impression.
I am not getting the impression the world really wants to know HRC’s thoughts about the election, again, again, again. Such a victim. Losing to the most unlikable candidate in election history has got to be a conspiracy of OTHERS, unless of course you are the second most unlikable candidate in election history. Not too many people on either side want to think about this election any more.
MikeN, Tom Scharf: For the record, I agree with you that ESPN likely put its weight behind the suggestion to reassign Lee to the other game (which presumably has less exposure), and Lee acceded. One can easily feel pressured in such situations.
Funny thing is, ESPN didn’t escape criticism. Had they continued, people would no doubt have tweeted about the “insensitivity” of assigning Robert Lee to a game in Charlottesville. As it is, people are tweeting about the chicken-s***-edness of the reassignment. ESPN couldn’t win.
Tom
I didn’t purchase upgrade tiers. The regular levels already had more than I wanted to watch. I didn’t get HBO either. So I know once upon a time I could get cable without getting either HBO or ESPN.
I’d virtually never watch ESPN. I’m fine watching HBO shows later when they become available on video or Netflix. Of course HBO also has methods for people to get it a la carte now.
I think what you now mean is ESPN wouldn’t let them sell it a la carte, but would let them sell it in a tier. That’s a different thing from “forcing” them to put it in the tier. The cable company could have decided not to carry ESPN. I assume how the cable company carries ESPN is negotiated in a contract.
And…apparently the Lee move is discrimination.
At least, according to a Tx Representative named Lee:
https://twitter.com/JacksonLeeTX18/status/900475721881145345
I really need a new dictionary.
HaroldW,
As far as I know not a single human being brought up that Lee might be a problem except for an internal ESPN worry wart, but it’s a bit fuzzy. Had it actually happened saying something about it would have been on the level of tweeting a cat picture. America is ready to accept this situation. I think it struck a nerve because CEO’s and college admins have become exceedingly cowardly in confronting silly demands, and this is preemptively cowering to a non-existent silly demand. It’s not good that CEO’s are thinking this way.
.
Fear of social media mobs has become a problem. I’m not sure how libertarians are supposed to act when organized thought police mobs are winning the day. Reactionary push back is inevitable.
An interesting rant from the left about the exhaustion of everyone around you being the police.
https://medium.com/@freddiedeboer/planet-of-cops-8917cfc01fc9
.
It talks about a strange case of a punk band named PWR BTTM who had their entire careers erased nearly overnight based on a Facebook accusation.
Lucia, no, ESPN wouldn’t let cable companies sell in a tier. This was in their contracts. That you didn’t get it in your basic package is unusual, especially if it was some time ago. Their is generally a superbasic that the cable companies don’t like to talk about that has broadcast networks, CSPAN, and maybe a few more channels, generally around $10. The next basic tier, around 40 channels, almost always had ESPN
>I’d virtually never watch ESPN.
This makes sense if you didn’t have the channel.
Do you mean to say you had the channel but never actively subscribed to it like you would with HBO?
MIkeN,
Well… perhaps I mis-remember. I know I didn’t watch ESPN and certainly didn’t value it. Jim also didn’t value it. Our desire to watch ESPN is about the same as our desire to watch the Kardasians, which is to say: not at all.
It’s also possible that I didn’t know our complete package. We can program our tv to only show the channels we want to see. So we would always cut out some to make surfing more efficient. Home Shopping Network? Various religious channels. We’d just program the tv to skip those. Maybe we got ESPN and programmed it out and consequently I don’t remember getting it.
Whatever the case, we cut the cable long, long ago because the price of cable was ridiculous relative to what you got. Lots of things are available on antenna in the Chicago area.
MikeN,
I mean if HBO or ESPN magically appeared on my tv for free, I would sometimes watch an HBO show because I like some of their shows. I would never watch ESPN. I generally don’t watch sports.
The only circumstance in which I sit in a room with sports on is if someone else is watching it. In that case, I’ll likely be doing something like knitting or socializing. We own more than one tv. Generally speaking, if Jim wants to watch sports we go to different rooms and watch different shows. There are some things I like he doesn’t and some things he likes I don’t. So neither one of us feels any need to force the other to watch something they don’t enjoy.
Oh– correction. I do sort of watch the baseball if it’s the world series. But I pop in and out of the room a lot— like listen while surfing the web or something. I wouldn’t pay to watch it. But if it’s free, I’ll pay some attention to it.
Next thing you will be telling us is you don’t watch NASCAR.
Because nobody asked for it, here is the politics vs sport breakdown:
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/79/f2/60/79f260b86779aaa105af02b7c21a794b–basketball-players-pro-basketball.jpg
.
Having a hard time believing the WWE is a left thing.
Tom,
WWE/Left: It hardly matters since apparently they don’t vote very often. But if, like the people of South Park, they actually believe that Pro Wrestling and the drama surrounding it is real, not scripted, they’re gullible enough to be lefties. /sarc.
Tom Scharf,
“Next thing you will be telling us is you don’t watch NASCAR.”
.
Never once in my life. Some things are below even thinking about, never mind watching.
Lucia,
“…ability to sound stupid is nearly a requirement for sports broadcasters.”
.
Maybe. I think it comes naturally to far too many. Especially the virtue signalers. There are some who know what they are talking about, at least wrt the sport they cover, but not too many.
I’ll bite. How or when do sportscasters signal virtue? i wouldn’t have thought they had any to bring to our attention.
Everyone here is probably too young to remember televised bowling, but it used to consume a lot of air-time in the mid-fifties and in Chicago was doinated by an announcer who whispered; maybe like the guys who do golf today, you know, the ones we listen to when we thought we’d be watching 60 minutes.
WWF is a Democratic skew?
John Cena hosting SNL, “I’m John Cena. For those of you who voted for Hillary, I’m a wrestler.”
John Ferguson,
ESPN was in full virtue signaling mode in support of Colin Kaepernik over his refusal to stand for the national anthem (and his vocal support for Black lives matter… and his claims police target black people for murder… even if the data say they don’t). They also were wildly in virtue-signaling support of championship teams refusing to go to the White House, ‘because Trump!’ There are many other examples. They are purposely and consistently offending half their customers; it is a dumb business model, and they are suffering because of it. Nobody cares what a sports anouncer thinks of Colin Kaepernik, Black Lives Matter, or Donald Trump… they should just shut up 100% about politics.
.
Sorry about the golf running over into 60 Minutes; at least on 60 Minutes virtue signaling is a long-standing tradition. The on-course golf announcers wisper when they are close to a player making a shot…. when at some distance from the players, they speak normally.
John Ferguson,
BTW, it appears NFL owners are not willing to offer a contract to Kaepernik…. bringing charges of ‘racism’ of course… but the real issue is that NFL teams don’t want a player who goes out of his way to offend half the team’s customers. They recognize they are in the entertainment industry, and reject ESPN’s business model of driving away half their customers.
john ferguson,
I remember tv bowling!
Lucia,
So do I… the pro bowler’s tour. It was on air mostly Sunday mornings in winter, so unless you liked ice fishing or broadcasts of local church services (very Catholic Massachusetts!), tv bowling was it.
Tom Scharf (Comment #164685)
.
From your link:
“the only acceptable reaction to an accusation is enthusiastic and unqualified acceptance.â€
.
Yes, that seems to be the case when the accuser is in any shape or form left-wing or “progressive”.
If the accuser can be construed as in any shape or form right-wing then the only acceptable reaction to him or her is outrage and counter-accusations of racism, naziism, conspiracy-thinking or the like.
I guess that is “The Closing of the American Mind” (Allan Bloom). No rational discussion is possible in a climate of evil, evil moralism and self-righteousness.
j ferguson,
Earl Anthony was my hero. I bowled a 256 in a league game when I was 14. Sadly that was a fluke and the PBA was never in my future. Bowling was on TV a lot back then.
Hiring Kaepernik wouldn’t be so bad, everyone praising you for your enlightenment. The fans would be uptight but that would pass. The problem is firing Kaepernik, the same people would tar and feather you for life and you would become a social outcast. A Strange Game. The Only Winning Move is Not to Play.
.
I think it is inappropriate what he did (he promised to stand this year) because it is intentionally disrespectful to people who believe in patriotism and it is their paid entertainment. At least Hollywood doesn’t lecture you in the middle of a movie and keeps it off screen.
The NFL also happens to be a round hole / square peg here, probably the best example of a racially blind meritocracy there is.
The 12 year major hurricane drought may finally end today. Looks like a lot of flooding, the last thing you want is a hurricane to get on land and stand still. Epic rain.
The 12 year major hurricane drought may finally end today. Looks like a lot of flooding, the last thing you want is a hurricane to get on land and stand still. Epic rain.
Yes, stalling out along an August stationary front.
Dangerous setup.
The Lancet used to be about medicine.
Now they’re opining about Charlottesville.
I’m going to make a crazy prediction: Trump’s response to the hurricane will be deemed inadequate. The term “Trump’s Katrina” will be used within 2 seconds of landfall.
.
In reality it doesn’t make sense for a city to be “fully prepared” for this kind of disaster. That means all cities must be fully prepared for all disasters. It’s more economical for there to be federal “inusrance” for this group risk. So FEMA. In FL they are pretty clear you need to have 3 days of food/water if you plan to stay. Don’t expect the government to be there any sooner.
Tom Scharf, your prediction is already correct. Salon blasted him yesterday.
http://www.salon.com/2017/08/24/trump-just-flunked-his-first-natural-disaster-test
HaroldW,
I seriously doubt that Trump could adequately censure them in the eyes of the anti-Trump fanatics. Once again,there is no mention of the Antifa crowd.
When I was looking into the connection between Hayek and Pinochet I came across a capsule definition of fascism, attributed to Mussolini, IIRC (I haven’t been able to find it again). It was something like do whatever you have to do to accomplish your goals. IMO, that isn’t extreme right or left. It’s a philosophy of how to use power, not an ideology. As such, it applies to any totalitarian government regardless of their claimed ideology. Stalin, Mao and Chavez were just as much fascists in practice as Mussolini.
This judge is going to join the Billy Madison judge.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/08/total-eclipse-of-the-fun.php
MikeN (#164711) — thanks for that!
Tom Scharf (Comment #164705): “The 12 year major hurricane drought may finally end today.”
Harvey is now Category 3. It seems likely that the flooding will be serious.
Al Gore was right! Not.
MikeN (Comment #164709): “Tom Scharf, your prediction is already correct. Salon blasted him yesterday.
http://www.salon.com/2017/08/2…..aster-test”
Salon: “His tweet did not include basic information, like who is in danger, how to be prepared or what the government is doing to prepare.”
Because that is what tweets are for.
What does the creationist say when the missing link is found? There are now two gaps!
OK, my new speech is “we have only had 1 major hurricane make landfall in the last 12 years…”. They will say “we have tied the record for the most major hurricanes making landfall over one day”.
France’s Emmanuel Macron approval rating is now 37%, right there with Trump. Down 20% in 3 months. It just came out he spent $30,000 on makeup, ha ha.
I remember the last one as Katrina, but apparently it’s Wilma. At the time the statement was this was because of global warming and it was going to get worse.
If A then B, is the same as If NOT B, then NOT A.
By making these predictions, they are declaring there is no global warming.
MikeN: “I remember the last one as Katrina, but apparently it’s Wilma.”
I remembered it as Rita, also that same year.
Of course, there have been some very near misses since then. Like Ike, which dropped down to Cat 2 just before the eye made landfall. And Matthew, that lashed the Florida coast as, I think, a Cat 4 but with the eye staying just offshore. And Sandy, that was not even a hurricane when it hit, but was so big that it had a huge storm surge anyway.
Harvey is apparently now Category 4.
The real problem is that Harvey is just going to sit there, blow and dump rain over a relatively small area because there are no steering currents to make it go somewhere else.
And you’re going to do that in 140 characters. Someone and their editor at Salon is out of touch with reality.
SteveF (Comment #164699)
August 25th, 2017 at 5:00 am
I think the reason no one wants Kaepernik is because he is not a very good quarterback anymore. He had a season and a half in SF that was good with a good team and coach, but the last time I saw him play was agaianst my inept Bears. He looked terrible and called a Bear player by the N word.
If a Tom Brady were to leave the Patriots after sitting out a National athem do you think he would be blackballed – and neither do I think a QB of color and of Brady’s caliber would either.
Kenneth Fritsch: “I think the reason no one wants Kaepernik is because he is not a very good quarterback anymore.”
Kaepernik is surely better than many backup quarterbacks in the league, but he may want to be paid a lot better than a backup. I suspect that is why Seattle passed on him.
MikeM, I think you’re on to something. Quarterbacks who have played in the Super Bowl should have a market value. Kap should play. However, Kap left a really good contract and may not want to take a pay cut.
Kaepernick may be better than a number of backup quarterbacks, but teams do not place a lot of value in having a better backup. If Kaepernick were playing at a high level, he would be signed. As a good backup or mediocre starter, teams are taking lower quality QBs who aren’t a media distraction.
Nope, it’s definitely not stopping at a few Confederate statues. It’s gone off the rails.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/25/us/monuments-confederacy-remove-rename.html
It’s all a cunning plan, apparently.
From Tom’s link above,
A debate over statues has somehow morphed into a debate over statues. Trump is indeed a genius. I have no idea what Columbia University is going to do. The shame.
Gosh, we better boycott Columbia Pictures movies too, for that matter all Sony movies since they own Columbia Pictures. The depiction of Columbia may be female, but we know it’s really Chris in drag.
Of course The Emoji Movie probably deserves to be boycotted. Spiderman Homecoming was pretty good, though. But now I feel bad for having paid money in a movie theater to see it. /sarc
Justice O Neill of the Ohio Supreme Court (a Democrat) surprised me when he vehemently objected to Cleveland Browns players kneeling when the National Anthem was played. He stated: ““I will not pay to witness the disrespect of the American flag. It really is that simple. Yes folks. You have freedom of speech. I also have the freedom of not paying $75 to listen to you. And if freedom of speech is so clear here. Why not burn the flag on the 50 yard line.†http://www.dispatch.com/news/20170823/justice-bill-oneill-calls-out-browns-for-kneeling-during-national-anthem
Undoubtedly hurt himself with Democrats and helped with Republicans. I dealt with him directly during my workers’ compensation days, when he was simply a staff attorney, and to his credit, he never once mentioned his Army service.
Also, Jim Brown criticized Kaepernick. See http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/25/jim-brown-criticizes-kaepernick-style-protests-dont-desecrate-my-flag.html
JD
> repetition of message and over use.
This is exactly what Trump wants to do, to ensure his message is received.
Classic after Rubio crashed with his ‘dispel with the fiction’ routine, he joked to Trump at the next debate,’Now you’re repeating yourself.’
Trump: “I don’t repeat myself. I don’t repeat myself.”
OK, alternate universe time. First I need to link to the “celebrated” statement from the UC Berkeley chancellor a few days ago.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/08/23/uc-berkeley-chancellors-message-on-free-speech
“The university has the responsibility to provide safety and security for its community and guests, and we will invest the necessary resources to achieve that goal.”
.
A “No to Marxism in America†rally in Berkeley was denied a permit by the city.
.
The latest Antifa attacks at Berkeley yesterday. Morning Joe not impressed. Where are the police? Who knows? Behold the not hate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2N7LCAnp78
.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/28/black-clad-antifa-attack-right-wing-demonstrators-in-berkeley
.
The NYT rationalizes Antifa the very next day, ha ha. Sometimes the enemy of your enemy is not actually your friend. This is one of those times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/28/opinion/antifa-trump-charlottesville.html
.
Vox does the same a few days ago, almost a puff piece.
https://www.vox.com/2017/8/25/16189064/antifa-charlottesville-activism-mark-bray-interview
.
Antifa being “anti-Fascist” has got to be history’s biggest case of psychological projection ever. I’m waiting on all the forces for good and right to immediately and forcefully condemn a bunch of masked “violence first” thugs, but I may need to wait a bit longer. As far as I can tell the defense of Antifa is “but Hitler!”. It’s amazing what behavior is OK once you deem an opponent Hitler, racist, or a hate group.
Tom,
Black is the new brown, as in brownshirts. Mussolini’s thugs did wear black shirts.
Offered without further comment:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DHjV6flUwAAOk04.jpg
The Maxine Waters quote appears to be bogus, both on the face of it and after investigation: http://www.snopes.com/maxine-waters-north-korea/
Mike M.,
Oh probably. However, when politics is involved I don’t consider Snopes to be a reliable source.
Berkeley Police Chief Andrew Greenwood said he ordered officers to abandon the park when the black-clad activists arrived. Confronting them would have risked escalating the violence and jeopardizing the safety of the peaceful protesters, Greenwood said.
“It played into the false narrative that some conservatives have spun,” about violent left-wing stifling of free speech, Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguin said Monday, a day after the anarchists assaulted the people they thought were right-wing extremists and pepper sprayed Gibson.
The mayor said the police acted appropriately, saying the anarchists “were trying to provoke the police.”
“Protecting a piece of grass in that situation was not worth it,” Arreguin said.
Yvonne Felarca, a spokeswoman for the militant left-wing organization By Any Means Necessary, defended Sunday’s violence, calling it self-defense — even though it there were no indications anyone one tried to physically harm the anarchists at the park.
She said right-wing extremists are often armed and want to fight left-wing opponents, concluding that Sunday’s violence was a “success” and sent a message that speech her group considers fascist will not be allowed in ultraliberal Berkeley
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/free-speech-safety-debated-rally-turns-violent-49475559
.
This article is a self parody. Berkeley’s mayor is a bit crazy. The media may be a lot of things, but they are no fans of suppressed speech.
T. Scharf: “The NYT rationalizes Antifa the very next day, ha ha.”
I agree. Not a very good article. However, one has to give Gitlin some credit. Bud from Mckinney Texas commented that: “Antifa just proved Trump’s point about violence on both sides.”
Gitlin responded: “You’re right.”
JD
Tom Scharf (#164731): You use words very loosely. “Rationalizes”? “Fascist”? Do you know what these words mean? The NYT writer at the link you provided did say, among other things, that so far “antifa” had not killed anyone. On the other hand, the extreme right has a significant number of murders attributed to it. It is amusing that not only Trump, but some people here, appear to believe that “antifa”, a fringe group that hardly anybody had heard of a few months ago, is a bigger threat to liberties than the extreme right, and are willing to describe both in terms that suggest “equivalence”. Shame on you.
PeteD,
Interesting. Can you link me something or elaborate on the extreme right murders of which you speak?
[Edit: Oh, I see. You are referring to this, I suppose.]
Well, good. Thanks for prompting me. I abhor all of these acts. Drunk people shooting immigrants, people attacking minorities with swords, people attacking muslims with knives.
.
I actually do still think organizations like Antifa are more dangerous to our liberties than individuals though. Even more so when intellectuals on the left feel compelled to defend or justify them, instead of joining me in denouncing them.
mark,
Try Timothy McVeigh and Oklahoma City.
Speaking of which, the FBI recently arrested a man for the attempted bombing of a bank in Oklahoma City.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/politics/fbi-oklahoma-jerry-drake-varnell/index.html
However, the fact that Antifa hasn’t killed anyone yet isn’t what I would call a good reference. I think they’re still in the same class as the brownshirts and the Klan if they feel the need to wear masks and black clothing to disguise themselves.
There were at least five violent assaults in Berkeley:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/27/right-and-left-facing-off-as-berkeley-protests-turn-tense.html
mark bofill (Comment #164740): “I actually do still think organizations like Antifa are more dangerous to our liberties than individuals though. Even more so when intellectuals on the left feel compelled to defend or justify them, instead of joining me in denouncing them.”
Spot on. I also denounce both the neo-Nazis and Antifa.
Another reason that Antifa is far more a threat than the neo-Nazis is they are treated with tolerance, and even support, by supposedly responsible people on the left. Every responsible person on the right joins Trump in denouncing the neo-Nazis.
DeWitt,
.
Yes, that’s a good example. I don’t really care what the ideology is. Right, left, libertarian, anarchist, totalitarian, whatever. I don’t care if you think you’re John Galt himself. At the end of the day, if you’re trying to kill people or blow up buildings or any of that in my society, you’re my enemy.
.
Antifa doesn’t stress me out too badly though. One of Isaac Asimov’s characters had a saying I liked about violence being the last refuge of the incompetent that I think applies. Antifa and their intellectual supporters do not realize that by embracing violent tactics and by trying to justify them they do more harm to their cause than any number of Donald Trumps tweeting 24/7 or holding rallies day and night. I believe extremism and violence alienates most of the folk at home. They don’t like it, they don’t identify with it, and they don’t like or identify with groups that associate themselves with it.
.
So … knock yourselves out, Antifa fools. Try not to block traffic in my backyard while your movement burns itself out.
.
[Edit: Thanks Mike M.]
PeteD,
Sorry, but mindless shaming is not an instrument that works universally.
.
Rationalize: attempt to explain or justify (one’s own or another’s behavior or attitude) with logical, plausible reasons, even if these are not true or appropriate.
.
As in the NYT pretending Antifa is an organization with humanitarian goals and fighting the good fight in spite of all evidence to the contrary. I suppose one definition of fascist somehow includes Ann Coulter, Milo, the GOP car in the Portland Rose Parade, and every Trump supporter. Everyone seems to look like Hitler lately.
.
Both Antifa and the fringe right both pose exactly zero threat to society. I only bring up Antifa in relation to the hyperventilating currently under way in the media about the fringe right. The fringe left shot 5 police officers dead last year and shot up a Republican baseball game but I suppose they “don’t count”.
.
Antifa is quite clear about their violence first shut down of people’s assembly and speech they don’t agree with, i.e. liberties. You don’t have to be on one side or the other here, one can be against both of these fringe elements at the same time.
If you read the comments thread on the NYT Antifa article it is a bit distressing how many people actively support them, although they are still a minority even at the NYT. I think some of this is just partisan red meat and reflects who’s in power and who isn’t. The media cheering on a “civil war” is highly irresponsible.
.
At this point fringe left vs. fringe right is mostly just Fight Club.
PeteD,
Read Mussolini’s The Doctrine of Fascism and tell me again that it’s a right wing philosophy.
http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm
It’s no different in practice than Marxism-Leninism under Stalin or Mao other than pie in the sky about the eventual withering away of the state. Mussolini was more honest about that.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #164746): “It’s no different in practice than Marxism-Leninism under Stalin or Mao other than pie in the sky about the eventual withering away of the state. Mussolini was more honest about that.”
You are badly mistaken. You obviously overlooked the section titled “REJECTION OF MARXISM”. Fascism and Communism have in common that they are extreme statist systems. But there is statism on the right (Bush, McCain, Santorum) as well as the left. Fascism is an extreme form of right-wing statism. Right and left are inadequate for describing location in a multidimensional space.
As essentially totalitarian, but otherwise very opposing, systems, Fascism and Communism could not possibly co-exist. Both Hitler and Stalin understood that they could never be other than implacable enemies. In contrast, both Fascists and Communists could co-exist with liberal democracies, although the latter were confident that they would eventually overwhelm the democracies.
mark bofill (Comment #164743): “I believe extremism and violence alienates most of the folk at home.”
I sure hope you are right about that. I think you probably are right. But I find myself thinking that there were people in Germany saying the same 90 years ago, and I know how that turned out. So the tolerance on the left of the Antifa criminals makes me nervous.
Mike M.,
.
Me too. I’m not suggesting that it’s impossible to get people sufficiently riled up that they’d get behind mob violence on a large scale. I’m really saying the leverage is better / the job is easier without adding violence to the mix.
.
I could be wrong, as always. I remember my personal reaction to hearing about torch carrying neo nazi’s demonstrating in Charlottesville – it was one of disbelief. It astonished me (still does, frankly) that in this day and age people could still be found to light torches and march in a white supremacy rally. I suspect it astonished others.
.
This was the moment that Antifa wasted. If the left had gone in with an MLK non violent protest, they could have scored big points with me in that moment. I would have been at that point sufficiently surprised to rethink a lot of my assumptions and reconsider my distaste for lefties in general.
.
Anyway. I ought to know better than to generalize from my own perspective, but it’s just so darn convenient to do so. shrug I think they misplayed that and continue to misplay it. They make it easy for those who aren’t already on their side to dismiss them.
.
Thanks for your thoughts Mike.
…should have said, if some sort of social / societal change is the goal. As in the original American civil rights movement.
I wonder how many people are truly devoted to these fringe movements, and how many are there for belonging to the edgiest anti-social element they can find to piss off Mommy and Daddy or other psychological issues. At least you are a somebody when you are a Nazi, ha ha. If there was a more extreme baby eating Nazi movement they might lose a few members.
.
For reference the Church of Satan can get as many people to show up to a meeting as these groups can. There was a Satanist panic many decades ago with similar characteristics. Play your albums backwards for Satanic chants! I loved that my Mom hated AC/DC. Now they play them during commercials and football games, ugh. No fun!
.
ISIS also has that “most evil thing ever” draw. Being more extreme than Al Qaeda was a plus, not a minus.
.
Being a member of a violent street gang isn’t exactly a path of upward mobility but many do it anyway as a replacement for family when there are no other options.
.
Lashing out at a society that has rejected you as a big L loser probably plays a bigger role than “I think Nazis are neato” is my guess. For all the torch carrying there aren’t many who truly act on this and a precious few who have any social power to get it anywhere near mainstream.
Tom,
That could be. I’ve wondered about the psychological draw of Antifa as well. [Edit: I got that you were talking about the draw of being a neo nazi. The ‘as well’ in my sentence was sort of ambiguous. Sorry] Perhaps kids are bored and long to do something they can consider significant and romanticize without incurring much significant personal cost. I don’t know.
Mike M.
Oh, really. Hitler may have understood that and always planned a double-cross, but Stalin certainly didn’t.
Hitler and Stalin got along for nearly two years until Hitler invaded. Stalin didn’t believe it at first.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2015/04/23/hitler-stalin-monsters-together/
Then there were the Secret Protocols.
That doesn’t sound like mortal enemies to me, at least not until Hitler decided invade.
Also, please cite examples of Bush, McCain and Santorum wanting anything even vaguely resembling a totalitarian state. Realizing the need for a government of laws as opposed to anarchism is not what I would call statist.
Shameless climate opportunism is in full force. Every major media outlet is gorging on it.
.
Does Harvey Represent a New Normal for Hurricanes?
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/08/hurricanes-harvey-climate-change/538362/
.
“Yet Harvey also seems to break with a recent trend. Technically, the storm is the first major hurricane to make landfall in the United States in more than 11 years. The contrast may prompt some to say, well, what gives? Are hurricanes getting any worse, or not?
The answer, in short, is: Yes, they are getting worse.”
Mike M.,
Btw, Leninism or Marxism-Leninism is not classical Marxism. It’s possible that Marx would not have supported the Soviet Union or Red China. His model was the Paris Commune. Therefore Fascism’s rejection of Marxism does not necessarily apply to the Soviet Union under Stalin.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-Leninism-and-how-does-it-differ-from-Marxism
The main thing, though, is that it’s not at all clear that either Hitler or Stalin were ideologues. It was likely more about power and stabbing your ally in the back at the most convenient time, sort of like a game of Diplomacy only with lives in the balance.
DeWitt,
They were both profoundly evil totalitarians, who individually murdered many millions. Were I a religious type, I could take solice they now suffer in hell, but I am not. I can only wish each had suffered much worse fates on Earth, or that each had died in their youth.
Tom Scharf (Comment #164754),
Those folks are both badly uninformed and quite below shame. Such is the life of a leftist politician/journalist. You could call them whores, but that would unfairly denigrate respectable women of the night.
Tom Scharf (Comment #164754):
Tom,
Several news sources are also posting articles on the near-opposite, i.e.: no, Hurricane Harvey was not caused by climate change, although the jury is out on how much climate change affected the result.
I agree with oliver. I’m reading news sources reporting this cannot be attributed to climate change. (This is not to say climate change has zero effect.)
I think the main issue here is building in flood plains. Building in flood plains, overbuilding near flood plains (especially paving surfaces), rebuilding in flood plains and not putting in adequate volume for retention and detention are a widespread problem in the US. It’s sufficiently bad that it’s the main contributor to many floods in the US and it’s important this be recognized and addressed or we will continue to have disasters of this sort.
lucia,
I think what experts would have considered adequate drainage in Houston, not that it existed, would still not have been able to deal with Harvey.
DeWitt,
Houston would have flooded anyway. Still, there is flooding and there is flooding.
Evidently, Harvey was the most stalled out post landfalling storm in Atlantic history ( since 1850 ).
.
So it wasn’t so much the rate, but the duration of rain that made it the record breaker.
.
And Harvey stalled because it was blocked by a polar air mass in its path, marked by the stationary front on the Gulf.
I didn’t say they said “it was caused by climate change”.
.
The climate opportunism here is claiming that climate change is making it worse by 30%, 30% more rain, it’s a “fact” climate change is making this worse, 6 inches of sea level rise in the past few decades, and 100 other varieties of misleading claims.
.
I haven’t read them all (only scanned about 10 of them), but not a single one of them referenced what the IPCC says:
“Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basinâ€
.
Only a single article even referenced the long term trend. I could go on for hours about the data. I want to stress that since the IPCC report came out we have had quiet years relatively. Here is the top level:
.
100 year US landfalls
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-V9Zqz_djQhw/U5ZjNCvNY_I/AAAAAAAADhk/UahVOH12Hic/s1600/noaa.hurrfreq.jpg
.
Global tropical cyclone frequency
https://i1.wp.com/policlimate.com/tropical/frequency_12months.png
.
Hurricane dissipation power index
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gvGJwPddn60/U5ZjIv5x0hI/AAAAAAAADhc/xl3hIezzQ0g/s1600/noaa.hurrint.jpg
.
Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE)
http://models.weatherbell.com/tropical/global_running_ace.png
.
Atlantic ACE from 1950
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/outlooks/figure3.gif
.
I am not aware anyone has ever accumulated rainfall statistics for hurricanes or if they are even meaningful due to variance of conditions. Harvey’s flooding is 95% due to a hurricane stalling, not climate change.
.
It’s been warming for a 100 years, we have a 100 years of hurricane landfall data and about 40 years of satellite era data. The media covers this like something new just happened and gets misleading quotes all over the place.
.
One example: Atlantic, NYT: “observed upward trend in North Atlantic hurricane activity since the 1970s.”.
.
That’s blatant cherry picking if you examine the graphs above. It’s dishonest. I don’t know if the scientist or report told the journalist the whole truth and they chose to print only what they wanted to believe. The history here is that environmental journalism is more at fault here.
.
Most experts believe hurricanes probably run in a multiple decade hi/lo cycle when the long term data is examined, jury is still out.
.
The data is too noisy to find a climate change signal at this point, perhaps in another 50 years it will emerge. Claims it is a “fact” the signal has emerged are wrong. If it does emerge the effect size is likely to be small. 5% more powerful, 5% more rain, that type of level.
Turbulent Eddie,
There is always an angle. Some people are trying to claim that climate change caused it to stall. Jet stream blah blah blah. This is an extraordinarily speculative claim.
The bulk of the damage from Katrina was primarily because people are *** living below sea level *** and a bunch of mediocre constructed dikes failed. Do they still live below sea level? Yes. They actually reconstructed neighborhoods again below sea level. That also isn’t caused by climate change unless it is making people stupider somehow.
DNA – 23 and Me keeps adding new reports. They now tell me locations of my “DNA relatives” in the US / World. Realistically it just points to high population areas in the US, but it did nail Germany in Europe. They are also adding a lot of genetic marker tests for things like macular degeneration.
.
And then there are strange things like me and my DNA relatives are 60% less likely to be a vegetarian than than the rest of their customers, 59% more likely to have worked as a lifeguard (not sure I follow causation here), etc.
lucia,
Four feet of rain in a couple of days is going to cause flooding. If Houston had better drainage, the water would be somewhat less deep, but houses would still be wet.
The Sebring race track uses a WWII air base, lots of flat concrete. When we get a typical Florida afternoon frog strangler during the 12 Hour race weekend, you get inches of standing water on the old concrete pavement because it’s too level. The water simply can’t flow that fast with the low slope even though it would either soak in or run off once it reached the edge of the pavement.
I have the same problem with the rain gutter on the back of my house. Either the house has settled or they neglected to put any pitch in the gutter. During a heavy rain, the gutter overflows even though the downspouts aren’t clogged.
Houston has the same problem. It’s too level.
Another race track where I go, Summit Point Motorsports Park in West Virginia (barely) has worked very hard on drainage. It was still underwater after the torrential rains hit the DC area a few weeks ago. That was a first as far as I know. I cleverly arranged to not go that weekend. I thought it was going to be too hot.
The good news here is that downstream from Houston is the ocean, which won’t appreciable rise no matter how much it rains. If this happened in Iowa everyone down stream on the Mississippi would be having a bad few days eventually.
.
The infrastructure cost to handle 50 inches of rain in Houston without large damage would probably cost more than the damage. It’s just not worth it. At some point you just say this is a rebuild situation.
This says that as of Monday, Harvey had dumped 9 trillion gallons of rain on Texas.
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-rain-hurricane-harvey-has-produced-2017-8
Let’s see: 0.0045 m^3 per gallon, 3 days = 2.6e5 seconds, that’s an average of 156 thousand cubic meters per second. Nine times the average outflow of the Mississippi. Yikes!
Yeah, that will cause flooding, no matter how well prepared people are.
DeWitt
Yes. But wet isn’t necessarily waist high in water.
Even with the flooding, there are spots above water. For example: see the dry parking log
https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/59a6e42824000036004ba76d.jpeg?ops=scalefit_970_noupscale
![]()
Or here: The center is under water, the houses on the upper right edge are not underwater. I suspect the all have seepage of some sorts. Most those houses probably do not have basements. Still, unless elevated, they are wet but not underwater. There is a big difference.
https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/59a6e3fd1e00002700c6004d.jpeg?ops=scalefit_970_noupscale
I’m not trying to make light of this, but the fact is, part of the problem with flooding is where development took place. Houses just shouldn’t be built in some places. (We’ve got houses in inappropriate places in Illinois too.)
Wise. Before the rain hit the governor of TX (wisely) advised people that it would be wise to elect to leave the city even if they were not evacuated. Paul Krugman emitted a nasty tweet criticizing the governor for potentially inducing a panic evacuation which would itself result in deaths. (The governors words did not induce a panic evacuation).
But you know what? If a hurricane is scheduled hitting your low lying city on the weekend it is wise to decide to take a nice long 3 day weekend inland.
lucia,
I suspect that Paul Krugman would have had something nasty to say about the Republican governor of Texas whatever he said. See, for example, Salon’s comment about not enough information in Trump’s tweet linked somewhere above.
According to an article on the Weather Channel, it’s going to take weeks for the water to drain away. I don’t think three days would be long enough. But if you’re already not there, you have more options.
I would bet that as far as flooding is concerned, a lot of people don’t understand that it’s altitude, not distance that makes the biggest difference. But even if your house survives, the area won’t be livable for a while, assuming that you could get back there at all.
Houston shouldn’t build there…I think the answer by John Schilling made the most sense in a discussion on this that I will shamelessly copy:
.
Houston isn’t a major labor market because somebody said, “hey, wouldn’t it be neat to build a whole lot of expensive industry on an easily-flooded swamp?†Houston is a major labor market because it is a major sea and river port convenient to, initially, a bunch of prime agricultural land and, lately, even more oil. That geography isn’t going anywhere. The infrastructure that has been built up over the past century and a half to exploit that geography, isn’t going anywhere. Houston’s industrial base and associated labor market, isn’t going anywhere.
It will be protected from flooding by whatever means its owners and their associated government deem necessary, and if that means private dikes and expensive insurance, so be it. If, in addition to this expensively protected industrial base, there is adjacent land that is defined as cheap and useless because we are resolved to point and laugh when anyone who builds there suffers and dies (see HBC regarding the political implausibility of that), then a whole lot of desperate poor people hoping to improve their lot by working in Houston’s industries are going to take their chances and build there, hoping to better their circumstances and move up and out before they lose everything to the next flood.
So, the Greater Houston Shanty Town. Or some more profitable and durable sort of industrial, commercial, or residential development. Take your pick, but leaving the land idle isn’t on the table unless you’ve got men with guns tasked with shooting anyone who sets up a shanty there.
DeWitt,
Three days won’t be enough to drain. But being out of town when it goes under water means you are out of town. If the town is under water, you stay away longer. This is better than being there when the town goes underwater and figuring out where to be as it starts to drain.
Of course it’s altitude that matters.
Tom,
I’m not laughing at those in Houston. Leaving some land idle is on the table. Just as it is everywhere else.
Why can’t people be allowed to assume the risk and live there? The land that isn’t flooded now probably costs a lot more.
.
Obviously there are limits, but if that limit is only flooding during a 100 year flooding event then maybe that is OK. The land is cheap, they have to pay more for flood insurance, and they don’t have to live 45 minutes out of town for the same price. Downtown has access to cheaper labor.
.
If their house floods every 5 years then sure, restrict it.
Looks like there is a large difference between Berkeley the city and Berkeley the college. The new chancellor looks very committed to allowing speakers. That’s very encouraging.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-berkeley-far-left-protests-milo-20170830-story.html
.
“We’re doing what we can to support an academic mission to provide a wide view of opinions and perspectives,†he said. “For those who choose the path of violence and confrontation, we will meet them head on.â€
National rainfall trend
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/large/public/2016-07/precipitation-download1-2016.png
.
Global rainfall trend
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/large/public/2016-07/precipitation-download2-2016.png
.
https://opentextbc.ca/physicalgeologyearle/wp-content/uploads/sites/145/2016/03/precipitation-2.png
.
Looks like an increasing trend. Although the effect size is fairly small at this point. Average rainfall in eastern US is about 40 inches, and may have increased about 1 inch over the past 100 years, of which the last 50 years would be AGW.
.
If we say 2.5% x 50 inches, about an extra 1.25 inches in Harvey. YMMV.
.
As usual there are mysterious multipliers in the media, Vox today:
“Adam Sobel, an atmospheric scientist who directs Columbia University’s Initiative on Extreme Weather and Climate, estimates that 5 to 10 percent of the rainfall was due to global warming (more conservative than the 30 percent estimate from Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research).”
lucia (Comment #164771): “Even with the flooding, there are spots above water.”
Has anybody here heard anything about how much of Houston has significant flooding? Some news reports seem to imply that the whole city is underwater, but that is surely not the case.
.
lucia: “Wise. Before the rain hit the governor of TX (wisely) advised people that it would be wise to elect to leave the city even if they were not evacuated. Paul Krugman emitted a nasty tweet criticizing the governor for potentially inducing a panic evacuation which would itself result in deaths.”
Krugman may be just sniping at a Republican, but there is a deeper problem with his attitude. It is that the government knows best and therefore should decide for everyone. But the government can’t consider all the individual factors, so the decision tends to be either “everybody evacuate” or “everybody stay in place”. But both were bad ideas in this case. People in areas likely to flood should have been encouraged to relocate to drier parts, even if only a relative’s spare room across town.
.
lucia: “But you know what? If a hurricane is scheduled hitting your low lying city on the weekend it is wise to decide to take a nice long 3 day weekend inland.”
But the lefties think that you should not be allowed to make such a decision for yourself.
If you need further proof that special counsel Mueller is engaging in a witch hunt, now he is working with the NY AG (lowlife) Eric Schneiderman. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/30/manafort-mueller-probe-attorney-general-242191
This is the person who filed the fake RICO action against Exxon for the supposed reason of discovering financial fraud. In reality, it is abuse of process by Schneiderman.
JD
Re: Time for Water to dissipate
Almost certainly it will take several months. There was an amazing small storm that dumped 20 inches of rain on Southern Lee County Florida [Fort Myers] (near Collier County border) in the late 1990s. It took several months to drain. (20 miles from the center only about 5 inches fell) Harvey should take much longer. (My parents owned land about 8 miles South of the storm’s center in Collier County ). Tried to quickly find link, but couldn’t.
JD
JD Ohio,
Is it possible that Mueller may, in his enquiries (as they say across the pond), have detected some mischief better prosecuted at the state level? Or something prosecutable by New York but not the US?
The noise in the media seems to be that this move is intended to prosecute at the state level since a conviction would not be pardonable by Trump?
Were Manafort to be pardoned could his testimony then be compelled without him enjoying 5th amendment protection? it seems to me that if this were the true, evading federal scope of pardonability would not be a reason to inclulde New York in the investigation.
btw, thanks for thinking of me upthread. compensation was the least of the problems with attempting architecuture; so to speak.
j Ferguson,
Bringing a financial case against Trump or one of his family under NY law may well be the strategy. The objective here seems to be to drive Trump from office by any means possible.
J Ferguson “Is it possible that Mueller may, in his enquiries (as they say across the pond), have detected some mischief better prosecuted at the state level? Or something prosecutable by New York but not the US?”
… .
It is theoretically possible, but to reach that conclusion you would have to assume that a fair investigation was being conducted. I think exactly the opposite is occurring. Mueller is using Obama loyalists to conduct the so-called investigation. Now he adds a real low-life State Attorney General who is responsible for a really despicable lawsuit. It all points in the same direction. Witch-hunt .
Remember that Comey stated that a prosecutor would not bring a case for criminal gross negligence again Clinton for the email server issue. He didn’t say that the law had not been broken. Think about it. If the same issue arises with Mueller, what do you think he will do?
JD
Mueller is seeking to apply pressure to Manafort, who will then be expected to reveal something on Trump. Unless Manafort knows that Trump was secretly spending large sums of his own money and not reporting it, I don’t see what he could reveal from his two months as campaign chairman, and three months as ‘delegate corraler’. I think bribing the delegates is legal.
JD, I do assume a ‘fair’ investigation although certainly not without some motivation. I don’t kn ow but I would assume that many if mnot most investigations proceed on the basis that something wrong has been done. Maybe they don’t always know what it is in the beginning – “a crime has been (must have been) committed but we’re not yet sure what it is.
If it is something lie the above then I would say it entirely accurate to conclude that they are out to get someone.
I don’t mind if you blow up this line of reasoning because I can be pretty naive.
j ferguson Re: Fair Investigation
Here is what I said on Climate Audit
“If I didn’t know the way that Washington worked, I would say this has to be a joke. Latest hire by Mueller:
“Most recently [Greg Andres] a white-collar criminal defense lawyer with New York law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell, Andres, 50, served at the Justice Department from 2010 to 2012. He was deputy assistant attorney general in the criminal division, [worked for Obama] where he oversaw the fraud unit and managed the program that targeted illegal foreign bribery….
He is married to Ronnie Abrams, a U.S. district judge in Manhattan nominated to the bench in 2011 by Democratic President Barack Obama.â€
See http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-lawyer-exclusive-idUSKBN1AH5F9
….
Apparently, Mueller can’t find qualified non-political Attorneys and on top of that he can’t find Attorneys who aren’t Democrats. If he was really conducting an objective investigation, he would never hire people like this who are intimately connected to Obama and the Democrats. It should also be noted that Mueller was the head of the Justice Department unit that improperly (according to 9-0 Supreme Court decision) put Arthur Anderson out of business.”
My basic point is that there are at least 10s of thousands of attorneys who are competent to assist the investigation. If Mueller was being fair, he would go out of his way to use them. Instead he chooses blatantly biased Obama loyalists. (A Holder AG, whose wife was appointed as a federal judge !!! Please) Also, as Alan Dershowitz has pointed out, there is no underlying crime. It is not illegal (maybe it should be) for Russia to interfere in US elections. Of course, the US has interfered in the elections of many nations, such as Italy and Chile, [also, Brexit, openly by Obama] which makes the whole matter even more hypocritical. Finally, Mueller was also responsible for the Anderson fiasco, which put Arthur Anderson out of business for no reason.
JD
If they take Trump out on what would be viewed as legal chicanery it would unleash social forces that absolutely do not need to be unleashed. This is the Pentagon’s win the war, lose the peace strategy.
Tom,
How taking Trump out would be viewed depends on the reason for taking him out and the evidence available to the public.
I wouldn’t mind if he was out provided the reason was sound. I’d be perfectly happy with Pence. (I continue to hope Trump will be struck by a lightening bolt hurled by Thor, god of thunder. )
Why try to take him out on an obstruction charge or such? Realistically with Trump you just need to wait him out, he will shoot his own foot eventually. If the Mueller investigation turns up nothing significant it’s going to be hard to justify starting another one. Pence is much worse for the left IMO. He’d probably be semi-competent and people who were buying “the system is rigged” are going to have pitchforks and torches in their hands. It would flip the script on emotional outrage.
Tom S: ” If the Mueller investigation turns up nothing significant it’s going to be hard to justify starting another one. Pence is much worse for the left IMO.”
….
Whether there is anything out of the ordinary by the standards of Washington DC or not, Mueller will find something. That is what he has signaled by moving some of the prosecution to a grand jury in Washington DC, which would be more hostile to defendants than Virginia. If you seized the computers of top government officials [be very interesting to see Mueller and Comey computers and those of their associates] and looked at them with a fine tooth comb, you would find something to charge with respect to about 80% of them. If Comey had seized the computers of Clinton, her aides and of people working for the Clinton foundation, additional (to server issue) chargeable offenses would be found.
….
What is so irritating to me is that Comey plays the Boy Scout and doesn’t even tape Clinton’s testimony. Total joke. Then we have Mueller who illegitimately put Arthur Anderson out of business and who is giving free reign to Obama supporters to conduct fishing expeditions into the computers of Trump supporters and associates. It is not a question of whether there will be charges. Rather, it is a question of who will be charged and what the charges will be.
….
As I have said before, I would much prefer Pence to Trump. Unfortunately, Trump, so far, has shown zero ability to grow in office, which I previously had a small hope for. However, this whole special prosecutor thing is getting really dirty.
JD
JD Ohio,
When has a special prosecutor thing not been really dirty? I can’t think of any, and that includes Ken Starr. Their remit is different. In theory, IIRC, prosecutors can’t go on fishing expeditions to find a crime. There must be some probable cause. The remit of a special prosecutor is almost by definition a fishing expedition. If he doesn’t charge anyone, he’s going to be thought to be covering something up or is incompetent or both.
This statement is total hogwash:
“Humor, ar-ar!” as Mork from Ork would say.
Steven Mosher says: August 31, 2017 at 5:45 am at ATTP
“Bigger problem might even be that a GCM year is 360 daysâ€
Now that is a can of worms.
In the simplified world that climate models represent the Gregorian calendar of 365/366 days is not always used. For historic reasons some GCMs have been set up to have a ‘simpler’ calendar. Some models omit the leap day and use a calendar of 365 days. And a few models use a 360 day calendar in which each month is assumed to be 30 days.
So much for yearly energy balances then.
Do they take the whole years 365 days heat and stuff it into 360 days?
No wonder the world is heating up.
–
I realise I am naive but is this an issue that everyone knows and just goes ho hum or does it on many levels invalidate the models.
How many of the IPCC models are 360 days if any?
–
Lucia, hate him or hate him life is just so much more interesting with Trump than Pence.
Plus on the Skeptic, not your lukewarmer side the arguments, poor as they are, are at least getting an airing.
How he got this far I do not know.
No Bill Clinton teflon.
More the incredible absorbing man or the Blob from Marvel.
angech
“May you live in interesting times.” is a curse, not a blessing.
lucia,
Yes. And these are also curses, not blessings: “May you get everything you wish for.” and “May people in high places notice you.” As I remember, they’re from China.
IDK. I blush to admit, I experience a certain degree of schadenfreude watching how severely Trump pisses off certain folk in the media, as well as in our government. It’s childish, but I’m not eager for that to end.
.
It’s the little chuckles that keep us staggering along through life, in my view.
>doesn’t even tape Clinton’s testimony.
Standard FBI procedure, even with McNally(and I think without this you don’t find Brady guilty).
They might find some sort of tax fraud for Trump, or breaking other laws with his real estate including mafia dealings. Gone far afield from Russia, but still criminal actions. What would Congress do?
Seems to me there is a path to get Sessions to unrecuse by asking him about whether it OK with him that his underling ignores regulations on appointment of a special counsel.
Happy wife, happy life.
Trump seems happy and in control at the moment.
He is not a naturally grumpy old man.
Some directed anger perhaps.
Also chuckling away.
Feel 9 meter high plastic walls with alarms would be as good as silly concrete blocks.
I thought most of the border is already walled anyway??
Mike N: “doesn’t even tape Clinton’s testimony. Standard FBI procedure …”
It used to be has somewhat changed. See https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/23/us/politics/justice-dept-to-reverse-ban-on-recording-interrogations.html?_r=0 In any event, it is standard in most states to tape interrogations, and it should be done by the FBI to ensure accuracy. My understanding is the FBI historically refused to tape interrogations, so that it could massage the testimony — juries would believe agents more than defendants. An unjustified reason for the policy.
Additionally, when you are dealing with a known, powerful liar like Clinton, for the purposes of that particular case if you are in fact serious, you need to exercise your discretion and record her testimony. Comey didn’t do so simply because he had already decided to forego prosecution, and the questioning of her was simply a fake show for most of the public so that the FBI could pretend that it had seriously questioned Clinton.
Also, the Brady situation was purely a private matter and had absolutely nothing to do with the FBI.
JD
That’s the real FBI, Hoover’s creation, not as shown on TV or the movies. Hair and fiber experts that aren’t actually experts, for example. Or if they are, they’re giving false testimony in court. But since they’re the FBI, a jury will believe them anyway. The list goes on and on.
JD Ohio,
Of course it is a political witch hunt… one that started as soon as Trump won in November. It is not going to stop. Muller and his posse will use a grand jury to get one or more criminal inditements against Trump’s associates, Trump family members, or both, which will have absolutely nothing to do with collusion with Russia. These will be classic ‘a grand jury will indite a ham sandwich’ type inditements, and almost certaintly related to financial transactions, that when viewed in the least favorable light possible, might be considered to have crossed the line between legal and illegal. The objective is and will remain to pressure Trump to resign, and at some point I suspect Muller will let Trump know who is going to prison…. unless he resigns, that is. I am sure Muller believes driving Trump from office is worth political corruption of the Justice Department, just as I am sure he is mistaken about that.
I’m a little confused here. If an interrogation of a target of an investigation has been recorded is that recording later admissable in court? I suppose it would be useful for the internal development of a prosecution even if not admissable. I’m assuming that the contents of an interrogation can be used in court but am asking about the tape itself. In other words is not recording really that big a deal?
I’ve seen only one reference in the media to the idea that having been pardoned a person can no longer rely on 5th amendment to avoid testimony related to the subject of his pardon. If this is the case, then all this stuff about Mueller wanting to expose Manafort to a State level prosecution to get him to tesitfy assuming he will be pardoned is nonsense.
Ford’s pardon of Nixon would seem to have been an obstrruction of justice since the gears were just beginning to turn, but it derailed his impeachment and prosecution in the Senate, not the machinations of our justice department. So there is a precedent for a pardon of a hypothetical crime. Those who suppose that Trump may pardon some of his colleagues prior to their indictments may be thinking that this would be obstruction which I imagine it would be but he wouldn’t be the first. Ford and maybe some others have already done it.
From a NYTimes discussion of Bush’s pardon of former Defense Secretary Weinberger et al.:
SteveF,
I completely agree that corrupting the justice process to rid us of Trump is too high a price. It would be devastating to the assumptions we’ve heretofore tried to run our country on.
I suspect there are a lot of folks out there that would think it’s worth the price, but not me.
From what I’ve seen so far, i can’t imagine that they are going to be able to make a substantial case of conspiracy to involve a foreign power in an election, which is what I think this thing would come down to.
j ferguson,
My understanding is that any recording would have to be made available to the defense… which is why the prosecutors might not want to record an interrogation. JD Ohio can correct me if I am wrong about this.
.
‘Contemporaneous notes’ like Comey’s (about Trump conversations) can be tilted/biased in ways a disinterested party listening to a recording of a conversation would not be. Which of course is why Trump bluffed Comey with the possibility of audio recordings of their conversations. No matter what you think of Trump, he is not so dumb as to let Comey use biased ‘personal notes’ to inaccurately portray their conversations. I have no doubt Comey understood Trump’s message: “If you lie to Congress about those conversations, you could end up in a jail cell.”
angech (Comment #164799): “Feel 9 meter high plastic walls with alarms would be as good as silly concrete blocks.”
Only if the border patrol can respond in a timely manner. That is not usually the case. Building a road on the U.S. side is probably at least as important as a wall, and is quite possibly the main cost of building a wall.
There are many proposals for the design of a wall, at least some of which are being tested.
.
angech: “I thought most of the border is already walled anyway??”
No, it is only walled in urban areas. Most of the rest has some sort of “barrier” such as the Rio Grande River (which one can often walk across), a couple strands of barbed wire, or vehicle barriers that one can walk around.
j ferguson (Comment #164803): “If an interrogation of a target of an investigation has been recorded is that recording later admissable in court?”
Of course it is admissible, at least as long as it is not made surreptitiously. Why wouldn’t it be?
.
j ferguson : “Ford’s pardon of Nixon would seem to have been an obstrruction of justice since the gears were just beginning to turn, but it derailed his impeachment and prosecution in the Senate, not the machinations of our justice department.”
The pardon had no effect on impeachment since that was no longer possible once Nixon resigned. A pardon can not possibly be obstruction with respect to the individual being pardoned. One might argue that a pardon of an underling might be used to obstruct an investigation into someone higher up. Some have claimed that Bush’s pardon of Weinberger was a coverup. But legally, I don’t think it is possible for a pardon to be deemed obstruction.
mark bofill,
One of Trump’s few redeeming characteristics is the ability to make the left look like screeching maniacs. Trump gave $1M of his own money to Harvey victims and I could just feel the pain and suffering it took for some of the media to even write that story. An all time troll, WH spokesman to the press:
.
“He actually asked that I check with the folks in this room, since you are very good at research and have been doing a lot of reporting into the groups and organizations that are best and most effective in helping and providing aid, and he’d love some suggestions from the folks here and I’d be happy to take those,â€
.
I think a few media members had to check in for psychological counseling after that one, ha ha.
.
The NYT, naturally had to add this to their story:
.
“But Mr. Trump reportedly donates far less of his income and assets than many of his ultra wealthy peers, and this donation comes with questions attached. In the past, he has failed to follow through on promised donations from his nonprofit foundation.”
.
NPR:
.
“Trump has had a spotty record when it comes to pledging and then actually carrying through on his promises to donate money to charities. He has in the past also exaggerated the amount of money he has given through his now-shuttered charitable foundation. In January of 2016, then-candidate Trump pledged to give $1 million to veterans charities, but it wasn’t until reporters pressed him months later that most of the money was doled out.”
.
Never let up, not even for a minute.
Tom,
🙂 Indeed. Sometimes I think this was the real reason, maybe the main reason even, that Trump got elected. Just enough voters distributed out across America wanted to say ‘screw you’ to … somebody. I’m pretty sure it was a factor at least.
.
What better way than by electing Donald Trump.
They can record an interrogation if they want to, but I certainly want to record it for myself.
.
Does the interviewee have the right to record their own interrogation?
If instead of a wall we built an army of about a 1000 hunter killer drones that would probably be cheaper and more effective. I jest in doing this for real, but it would be more effective. After about two weeks and several high profile “leaked” surveillance videos attempted border crossings would stop almost completely. That’s what the psychopath side of my brain recommends.
.
ISIS has this kind of mentality, have you noticed how many reporters are covering the Syrian civil war? I mean the ones that still have heads?
.
End morbid humor.
Tom Scharf (Comment #164813): “If instead of a wall we built an army of about a 1000 hunter killer drones that would probably be cheaper and more effective.”
Trump has already implemented a more humane version of that. By making it clear that our laws will now be enforced, he has significantly reduced the number of attempted crossing.
We can not build a wall that would be some sort of passive, impenetrable barrier. It needs to be combined with surveillance, so that the Border Patrol knows where the violators are, and the Border Patrol must be able to respond quickly. Then the purpose of the barrier is to slow the violators down enough so that they are still in the process of crossing when the Border Patrol arrives on the scene. That usually requires at least a double fence.
If the odds of successfully crossing are low enough, the number attempting to cross will drop dramatically.
Tom Scharf – “Just enough voters distributed out across America wanted to say ‘screw you’ to … somebody. I’m pretty sure it was a factor at least.”
.
Which is essentially what Michael Moore thought when he predicted Trump would win. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lMp_363B2c
Tom Scharf (Comment #164813): “If instead of a wall we built an army of about a 1000 hunter killer drones that would probably be cheaper and more effective. I jest in doing this for real, but it would be more effective.”
Maybe instead of bullets, the drones could fire exploding dye packs like the ones used to foil bank robbers. Perhaps a really putrid mercaptan could be added, as a further aid to detection and as a disincentive.
DaveJR,
.
Actually you were quoting me, not Tom.
.
Pointing out that I share views with Michael Moore… You sure know how to put me in my place! Ugh. 🙂
.
Thanks Dave.
Tom Scharf,
“Never let up, not even for a minute.”
.
The left never does. Nor do the greens. Nor do the crazy Nazis. Totalitarians never do.
.
The left and the greens want a very different world from the one that exists, where ‘enlightened global leaders’ of the left, like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bernie ‘USSR’ Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and a host of obnoxious Davos types (AKA self-congratulating elites) dictate which activities are and are not allowed, quite independent of what the public wants, and quite independent of what the plain words of the US Constitution say.
.
It’s always ends-justify-the-means with the left, which is exactly what we saw with Mr. Obama’s many extra-legal and/or unconstitutional executive orders, international ‘agreements’, and regulations (which, not coincidentally, mostly took place after he didn’t face re-election).
Steve,
.
I get what you’re saying about Bernie and Elizabeth. I didn’t think the Onion Knight fairly ought to be counted in their ranks though…
:p
Davos who?
Global Economic summit Davos I guess? https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/01/top-photos-from-davos-2017/
DavidJR,
That was pretty good. Michael Moore Oct 2016: “Trump’s election will be the biggest F U ever recorded in human history….and it will feel…good”. He is definitely a self promoter but he does understand blue collar mentality.
.
Watching national TV on election night was pretty entertaining. OK, we had our hit of crack, now what do we do? What is going to be interesting is to see what the establishment learns from this. They are still in the rage and denial phase, but my guess is politics in 2018 and 2020 will be much different. They may really hate Trump, but they will be trying to learn from him in the end.
.
A lot of the establishment rage is sourced in fear. Fear of loss of their “privilege”. How dare those commoners! The scariest thing that can happen is when Harvard, Yale, and Princeton no longer matter.
Mike M,
Thanks for straightening out my memory of the sequence of events associated with Nixon’s departure. Given what you’ve reminded me of, what I wrote makes no sense.
Vox hard hitting journalism on Antifa. Somehow the recent Berkeley beat downs, the destruction of the press’s cameras who tried to cover it, and why they cover their own identities while doxxing everyone else doesn’t come up. Apparently they are peaceful and want dialog with conservatives. No hilarious laughing occurs.
https://www.vox.com/2017/9/1/16202908/antifa-charlottesville-alt-right-white-nationalist-protest
Tom Scharf (Comment #164823): “Vox hard hitting journalism on Antifa.”
They quote the Antifa spokesman: ““White supremacists are more afraid of us than we are of them.”
Of course. Law abiding citizens are more afraid of violent criminals than vice-versa.
Thanks for the link Tom. It almost reads (to me) as if the dude thinks he’s Batman, only without the money or the brains.
.
Vigilantes. It surprised me, maybe it shouldn’t have, that some think this is a good idea. Over here I see that out of any three (3) people who troubled to voice an opinion, two (2) though that vigilantes are a good thing.
I sometimes wonder if the progressing generations of humans aren’t slowly losing their abilities to understand abstract concepts.
shrug
As an update to #164434 (UF refuses Spencer speech), the evil Nazi’s threatened to take righteous UF to federal court and UF caved. Yes! Victory for the Nazis!….ummmm….well….Victory for free speech!
.
http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/gradebook/under-pressure-uf-opens-door-for-richard-spencer-to-speak-on-campus/2335944
.
I can see what they are doing here, delay, let UC Berkeley and others be ground zero first.
Tom Scharf,
“The scariest thing that can happen is when Harvard, Yale, and Princeton no longer matter.”
.
They matter a lot less than they think they do. I am reminded of William F Buckley’s comparison of governance by the Harvard faculty with governance by random people drawn from the Boston telephone directory… and how he would much preferred the later.
I suspect antifa has been threatening some Democrats and made them change their tune.
Re: Unrecorded Interrogations
….
When in the course of looking at the Hillary Clinton FBI “questioning” I discovered that the FBI had a long history of not recording investigations, [substantially modified shortly before Clinton “questioning”] I was astounded. [wtf] In my workers’ compensation practice, my clients were routinely deposed, and neither I nor the defense would even consider having a deposition that was not videotaped or transcribed by a court reporter. That the FBI would be so callous and cruel concerning its duty to discover the truth, is truly ethically disgusting. Unfortunately, it is not unusual for prosecutors and the police to knowingly hide or oppose highly excupatory evidence — quite often, simply to avoid embarrassment for defective prosecutions. See for instance, https://jonathanturley.org/2013/12/05/prosecutors-oppose-dna-testing-for-inmate-dna-tests-then-link-different-man-to-murder/comment-page-2/
JD
In getting the url for Turley article, I noticed another one where he goes through the sordid history of presidential pardons. For instance, Truman pardoned a Louisiana Democrat (convicted of bribery and tax evasion), George Caldwell. Caldwell had one of the biggest mansions in Louisiana even though he was supposedly living on a public salary. https://jonathanturley.org/2017/08/31/the-checkered-history-of-presidential-pardons-from-from-lupo-the-wolf-to-big-george-caldwell-to-sheriff-joe/
I have mixed feelings about the Arpaio pardon, but in reading Turley article, no matter what your view on Arpaio, Trump’s pardon ranks way down the list of ill-advised presidential pardons.
JD
JD Ohio,
.
You keep sugesting that sending Arthur Anderson & Co. on a perpetual vacation was unwarranted and perhaps a misapplication of prosecutorial power. I agree that their case seems to have come undone, but cannot it be one of those sorts of things which in th UK would be charaterized as un-proven rather than just plain wrong?
.
I had concluded at the the time of the Enron revelations that Arthur Anderson, either Arthur as it was called by some of its employees or Andersonville by others, fully deserved to find some other line of work. It seemed to me that they were blessing (or overlooking) some very unusual bookkeeping practices at Enron, practices which would deceive Enron’s shareholders into thinking that the business was much more productive than it actually was, practices which included crediting the amounts of loans to their net while not recognizing the liability.
.
It may be that you know a whole lot more about this than I do, and if so, it probably isn’t worth anyone’s time to hash this out.
.
Suffice it to say I have relatives that were toilng in the Dallas office of Anderson at the time who were much put out that the company was being prosecuted. They seemed convinced that their charge in their business with Enron did not include detection or reporting of fraud nor really much due dillgence beyond review of their books in accordance with GAAP. I would submit that Enron’s books couldn’t possibly have conformed to GAAP. So putting them out of business may have been warranted even if the exact means was defective.
.
I suppose you could say that Arthur was no worse than the others and that any knowledgeable investor should know that audits are not a good guide to much of anything.
I have become a bit frustrated that some CEO’s aren’t getting thrown in jail for obscene practices at their company. Have you seen the latest at Wells Fargo? There was a big scandal last year, and now they have uncovered a lot more of the same thing.
.
“That question took on greater urgency Thursday after Wells issued disturbing new disclosures about its customer dealings. The bank concluded that it had opened as many as 3.5 million unwanted accounts for customers, 1.4 million more than previous estimates. What’s more, Wells admitted a new impropriety: enrolling more than half a million accounts into its online bill pay service without customers’ permission.
The mounting infractions at Wells Fargo are getting hard to track without a scorecard. Unrequested auto insurance that affected 800,000 people — check. Unauthorized changes to mortgage repayment terms in bankruptcy — check. Improper withholding of refunds to some car loan customers — check.”
.
If CEO’s are going to get paid huge salaries because of their “responsibilities” then they should also actually have some responsibility for illegal practices. They inoculate themselves by leaving no paper trails. They don’t use email, they don’t use social media and typically conduct business with a high emphasis on plausible deniability. They are corporate Antifa.
.
I’m sick of it. They need to be responsible for things like “making sure the company maintains proper procedures so you can’t cheat on emissions tests”, or “having an embarrassingly criminally corrupt sales team”.
.
If we need to make a new law to the tune “you are a shyster CEO and you should have known, we don’t care if you really knew or not” then so be it. Go rob the 7-11 down the street for $100 and you get 25 years. Rip off a million customers and you might get fired. Typically the justice department just settles with companies for sums of money that don’t even represent a year of profits.
.
Some CEO’s are “fine people”. Holding them accountable for others may seem unfair but at some point a threshold is crossed and they need to be held criminally responsible for their company’s actions. Wall Street was barely punished for the 2008 financial crisis, and I don’t think anything has changed.
Encore, encore Tom. I couldn’t agree more.
.
I was astonished that the folks who were trading in lousy-mortgage backed securities didn’t become guests of the state. Our advisor suggested that everyone knew they were no-good. BS. Trading in a bubble shoyuld probably be legal but maybe there wouldn;t be a bubble if all of the players actually understood what was going on.
.
It’s amazing to me that what looks a whole lof like fraud may not be.
.
oh my. I’m getting froth on the keyboard.
i don’t want to get started on Wells Fargo. But it is amazing that the guys who ran the place and inspired (term of art) the amazing practice of improviong returns by creating new accounts for their existing customers kept their positions and income while the folks who were forced into this (what should have been criminal) activity lost their jobs.
.
It might be helpful to read De Toqueville’s very instructive book, The Revolution and the Old Regime, to get the flavor of how the peasants (most of us) can only be screwed so long before the tumbrils are trotted out.
.
Our very wonderful banking relationship with Wachovia was absorbed by Wells Fargo which then proceeded to carve back the perks which came with our balance and try to separate out parallel services such as on-line account review AND mailed statements such that you couldn’t get both no matter what.
.
This may not seem like a big deal but it is when you are trying to manage an account of an ancestor who is 102 from afar. There are other failures by them to provide the same services which I could easily get from my Mom’s bank, but alas not from them.
.
I wonder if they were any good with horses.
.
Tom, I see you are in Tampa. Sometime we need to meet, maybe with SteveF when he gets back from the Cape and work ourselves into the lather I can easily imagine.
J Ferguson: “You keep sugesting that sending Arthur Anderson & Co. on a perpetual vacation was unwarranted and perhaps a misapplication of prosecutorial power. I agree that their case seems to have come undone, but cannot it be one of those sorts of things which in th UK would be charaterized as un-proven rather than just plain wrong?”
….
Theoretically, you can say it is unproven, but that is always the case when a conviction is overturned on appeal. However, what is reprehensible about Mueller’s (and the prosecutor’s) actions is the extent he went to stretch the meaning of this statute: “In this [Supreme Court] case, our attention is focused on what it means
to “knowingly … corruptly persuad[e]†another person “with intent to … cause†that person to “withhold†documents from, or “alter†documents for use in, an “official proceeding.†See very readable Supreme Court case here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-368.ZO.html
….
The Supreme Court commented that: ““We have traditionally exercised restraint in assessing the reach of a federal criminal statute, both out of deference to the prerogatives of Congress, Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985), and out of concern that ‘a fair warning should be given to the world in language that the common world will understand, of what the law intends to do if a certain line is passed,’ McBoyle v. United States, 283 U.S. 25, 27 (1931).†United States v. Aguilar, 515 U.S. 593, 600 (1995).
Such restraint is particularly appropriate here, where the act underlying the conviction–“persua[sion]â€â€“is by itself innocuous. Indeed, “persuad[ing]†a person “with intent to … cause†that person to “withhold†testimony or documents from a Government proceeding or Government official is not inherently malign.8 Consider, for instance, a mother who suggests to her son that he invoke his right against compelled self-incrimination, see U.S. Const., Amdt. 5, or a wife who persuades her husband not to disclose marital confidences, see Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 (1980).
Nor is it necessarily corrupt for an attorney to “persuad[e]†a client “with intent to … cause†that client to “withhold†documents from the Government.”
….
Mueller didn’t go after any fraudulent activities of Anderson — he stretched the statute very far, and in the anti-Enron atmosphere the prosecution was able to get an instruction to the jury that did not require bad intent for a conviction. Virtually never do you get the ideologically fractured Supreme Court to agree 9-0, but that is what happened here, which is a strong indication to me of gross over-reaching. Personally, I see a lot of what happened to Anderson in the way that Mueller is going after Trump. Didn’t see the same fervor when Comey was supposedly investigating Clinton.
JD
In comment no. #164791, I stated what a joke it was for Comey not to tape Clinton’s testimony. The recent revelation that Comey drafted a letter exonerating Clinton prior to questioning her and other very important witnesses, supports my contention about what a joke the “questioning” of Clinton was. It wasn’t real questioning; rather, it was window dressing to give the public the false impression that Clinton had been thoroughly investigated.
…..
One summary stated: “It appears that in April or early May of 2016, Mr. Comey had already decided he would issue a statement exonerating Secretary Clinton,†the letter said.
“That was long before FBI agents finished their work. Mr. Comey even circulated an early draft statement to select members of senior FBI leadership,†it said. “The outcome of an investigation should not be prejudged while FBI agents are still hard at work trying to gather the facts.â€
“As of early May 2016, the FBI had not yet interviewed Secretary Clinton. Moreover, it had yet to finish interviewing sixteen other key witnesses, including Cheryl Mills, Bryan Pagliano, Heather Samuelson, Justin Cooper, and John Bentel,†it said.” See http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/01/james-comey-moved-exonerate-clinton-long-email-investigation/
JD
Thanks JD.
“Finally, Mueller was also responsible for the Anderson fiasco, which put Arthur Anderson out of business for no reason.”
Thanks JD. I did not know this. I need to go back and refresh my memory of how bad that was.
To get an idea of the arrogance and obtuseness of some prosecutors, here is the statement of the trial lawyer in the Arthur Anderson case: “[Leslie] Caldwell laughed off the reference and refused to take blame for Anderson’s demise. “I don’t believe the Justice Department is responsible for what happened to Arthur Andersen,†she said in the Sept. 5 interview. “I believe Arthur Andersen management is responsible.†see http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20140912/NEWS01/140919932/enron-buster-is-back-at-justice-taking-aim-at-individual-bankers
…..
This link shows Mueller’s involvement in Arthur Anderson although the writer has virtually no understanding of the Supreme Court case. http://reverbpress.com/politics/enron-robert-mueller-everyone-trumpland-worried/
JD
Mark Bofill (#164739):
Apparently, you are unaware that counts have been made of killings attributed to the “far leftâ€, to “Islamistsâ€, and to the “far rightâ€, in the USA. The Government Accountability Office tallied the murders attributable to the far right and to Islamists, over the period 2001-2016. See the following document, pp.28-35.
http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/683984.pdf
There seem to have been far more murders committed by the far right than by the far left. In fact, from this document, it looks as though the score is 106:0.
To Tom Scharf (#164744):
“Both Antifa and the fringe right both pose exactly zero threat to society.â€
I disagree with you. You seem to think that they’re “equivalent†phenomena. Again, I point you to the obvious fact that the far right in the US has killed far more people than have been killed by the far left. See my separate reply to Mark Bofill. Why do you find it so hard to admit this?
SteveF (#164818)
“The left and the greens want a very different world from the one that exists, where ‘enlightened global leaders’ of the left, like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bernie ‘USSR’ Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and a host of obnoxious Davos types (AKA self-congratulating elites)†[my emphasis]
And “It’s always ends-justify-the-means with the left,……â€.
A couple of quibbles.
(1) In fact, “the leftâ€, to the extent that one can describe them as speaking with any kind of united voice on any issue at all, are very much against the governance by self-elected elites, of which you write. That’s precisely what all the demonstrations against the World Economic Forums have been about!
(2) To describe Clinton as being “of the left†is risible. Presumably, you are unaware of the contempt in which Clinton is held by large sections of the left. I think it would be truer to say that Clinton is held in regard only by wishy-washy liberals. And by “liberal†I do not mean a synonym for “left†or “socialistâ€.
(3) I do not disagree with you about the use of ends/means arguments in justifying policies. I do not, however, agree with you in your implication that the use of “the ends justify the means†philosophy is restricted to the left. In fact, the use of such justifications has been widespread in recent political history, on all sides of politics (to justify the torture of suspected Islamist terrorists, for example). What else is the conventional defense of the atomic bombings of Japan but an appalling application of “the ends justify the means� (The philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, perhaps more than almost anyone else, has pointed out where this can lead: to the justification of any enormity.)
To De Witt (# 164746, and elsewhere)
DeWitt, I think that you make a mistake that many have made before you, in equating totalitarianism of the left with that of the right. I have a colleague who passed from the observation that the Nazis called themselves “National Socialists†to the conclusion that there was, therefore, no difference between Nazis and socialists (!!!). But there is! At the very least, one would have to explain why “national socialist†regimes in Germany and Italy went to war against the communist and socialist parties, within their own countries. We must recognize that both fascism and communism are doctrines that are at odds with the assumptions of individualist liberal democracies. But they face one another not from the same side of the divide, but from opposite sides. For fascism is a doctrine born of irrationalist notions of blood and soil. Communism (in its Marxist variant) is, whatever one might think of it, based on perfectly rational beliefs about the future of capitalism and the role of the industrial working class in its overthrow. This is why, in case you hadn’t noticed, fascist regimes, or strongly authoritarian regimes, grew their deepest roots in countries- Germany, Italy, Spain- in which liberal democracy had not taken root in the way it did in the USA, Britain, and France. (I will also note in passing that these countries were- are- predominantly Catholic. Now there’s food for thought!)
I also think that by applying the word “fascist†to people who are merely nasty, or whom we don’t like, we are debasing the word and impoverishing the language. For we are taking a word that has a meaning in describing the wholesale re-organisation of entire societies along lines of blood and soil (and not of class membership) and thereby emptying it of meaning.
Final word to you: anarchists also wear black.
PeteD
Communism also grew their deepest roots in countries in which liberal democracy had not taken root as it did in the USA, Britain and France.
PeteD,
What is truly risible is someone who thinks ‘liberals’ like Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton, who fashion their policies along the lines of Robin Hood’s, are not of the left. The fact the Hillary is personally corrupt and famously money grubbing, despite being already very wealthy, does not make her any less ‘of the left.’
PeteD,
“What else is the conventional defense of the atomic bombings of Japan but an appalling application of “the ends justify the meansâ€?”
.
I nearly snarfed my coffee.
.
You have swallowed the liberal koolaid my friend.
PeteD,
.
Hi. I’m a little perplexed at what we are talking about and why. If I understand you correctly, you argue that more murders have been committed by the far Right than the far Left and cite a GAO document to support this.
So what?
I enjoy engaging different viewpoints, but. Help me out here. What are you saying?
Ahh.
If your point is that Antifa has not killed a lot of people, or that the left has not killed alot of people, and therefore they are benign, … Ok. I’m not particularly impressed with that notion of ‘benign’. It’s not my position that Antifa is a problem because they have a large body count.
But let’s get to the heart of the matter:
Antifa uses thuggery and intimidation to suppress views and speech they consider undesirable. This is, if not unhealthy for our society, [is] at least not to be admired. Not in my view, at any rate.
Take us for instance. I disagree with you, but I welcome the discussion and prefer that you air your views honestly and without regard to how I feel about them. Do you not prefer this to the antifa approach, personally? Real question (astonishing as it seems to me that I need to ask that), but my answer is ‘I sure do!’
Thanks Pete.
I think one of the main problems Antifa defenders have is they seem to advance the argument that either Fascists are bad or Antifa is bad. Both appear to be bad. Both should be denounced.
Also: just because a group calls itself “antifacist” doens’t mean it’s actually “antifacist”. I don’t think the riots we’ve seen with people breaking windows has anything to do with protesting facism.
Obviously, some right wing groups and people are a problem. Which is the bigger danger is whichever one manages to get more people to not denounce them.
Thanks Lucia. I was considering making a similar comment. It’s not inherently a ‘right / left’ issue. Anybody in my book who uses mob tactics and violence to intimidate and silence people is a problem. I don’t care what side of the political spectrum it comes from.
Pete,
.
I see here in comment 164843, point 3:
that you understand that … what shall we say.. ‘bad behaviors’ perhaps, are not unique to either side. Perhaps we have no disagreement. I condemn the neo-nazi’s. I invite you to join me in condemning antifa. What say you?
PeteD (Comment #164841): “”http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/683984.pdf There seem to have been far more murders committed by the far right than by the far left.”
But that is very questionable. Many of the cases seem to be just murders, without a political component. Zero murders by people on the left defies belief. And there is a glaring mis-categorization on page 36: “Anti-government violent extremist flew a small plane into an Austin, TX office building with U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) office in it to protest the IRS and the government”, 2/18/2010, Austin, Texas. That would be Joseph Andrew Stack who appears to have been mad at the government for being on the side of the evil corporations. Two quotes from his manifesto:
“The recent presidential puppet GW Bush and his cronies in their eight years certainly reinforced for all of us that this criticism rings equally true for all of the government.”
“The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.”
http://www.businessinsider.com/joseph-andrew-stacks-insane-manifesto-2010-2
“
Thanks JD, for your further thoughts on Anderson. proving intent seems a high (and worthy, I might add) hurdle for some sorts of activities where there may be equivalent chance of bad results with one possibility being bad luck, another incompetence, and only the last ill itent – and yet the results all look the same.
We’re off to OZ, so less frequent reading here.
Pete D: “There seem to have been far more murders committed by the far right than by the far left.â€
….
Couldn’t get to link. However, that seems to be a very misleading statement. Although I wouldn’t characterize Muslims as being Leftist, they are aligned with the Left on most issues. (Such as advocating for de facto open borders and Muslims voting 70% Democratic) Thus, if you consider 9/11 and the multiple Muslim terrorist attacks, the larger number of deaths is caused by the Left and those aligned with the Left.
JD
PeteD,
I suppose the starting point for that stat in 2001 was just random, right? I’m going to go waaaaaaaay out in left field and suggest 9/11 matters in these counts. If you don’t count Charlottesville, recent Nazi killings also aren’t so bad. If white supremacists killed 3,000 people in 2001 I also suggest that would be meaningful to you. Starting any terrorism stat with since 2001…usually involves me not finishing the sentence.
.
I’m not really that interested in who has the highest death count recently left vs. right, nor do I care who thinks what is equivalent or not. Evil is in the eye of the beholder and miraculously one’s ideological opponents tend to fit that eye rather nicely. Both sides are despicable with regards to violence. I’m also quite cognizant that touting death stats like these doesn’t always age well. I dislike political violence, end of sentence.
.
These extremists groups pose zero threat to society in the sense that these movements have zero hope of becoming mainstream.
j ferguson,
Yes, we can an enjoy an ideological bubble of titanium. It looks like this weekend might be a bad idea with Irma, ha ha. Darn that global warming.
http://s7d2.scene7.com/is/image/TWCNews/0904_nc_irma_spaghettimodeljpg?wid=640&hei=360&fmt=png-alpha&fit=stretch,1&
I have heard from the left’s highest moral authority (The Daily Show) that Antifa is to be called “Vegan ISIS”. It seems the practice of labeling random people Nazi’s and then unleashing a mob beating isn’t a very popular tactic after all. Something I read: “One of the least safe places to be in Berkeley, Calif., is in the vicinity of someone holding a “No Hate†sign.”. Most of the crowds are peaceful protesters. If they want to rage at the machine, have at it. It’s probably a bad idea to invite in Darth Vader as protection though, he’s a bit temperamental.
PeteD,
So the Nazi’s went after socialists. The Trotskyites and other communist variants didn’t do real well under Stalin either, not to mention a lot of the old Bolsheviks. Totalitarians annihilate the competition.
I looked at Pete’s reference and the starting date is the first indication of bias. It also omits the spate of executions of police officers by Black nationalists. Dallas (where 5 died) was July 17, 2016. Just last month 2 offices where executed in Florida. Surely, such black nationalist attacks should count as “left wing”. They are certainly not right wing. So why were they omitted since Dallas was within the period studied? Obama whitewashing of BLM comes to mind as a possible cause.
The criteria for classifying something as “right wing” is very broad and is really pretty meaningless. So “anti-globalist” is apparently “right wing” even though many on the left are “anti-globalist.”
In short, this report looks to me like its carefully designed to arrive at a pre-ordained conclusion. Much like Comey’s investigation of Clinton.
J Ferguson: “We’re off to OZ, so less frequent reading here.”
Enjoy your trip. I have gotten used to 15 hour trips to China and in fact, quite often enjoy reading on the trips. Don’t know if I could take what I am assuming is a much longer trip to OZ.
JD
Obama did exactly what Trump is accused of, obstructed justice. The fix was in in April. Comey’s statement exonerating Clinton repeats Obama nearly word for word.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/451053/not-comeys-decision-exonerate-hillary-obamas-decision
Dewitt, I’m appalled how some people are truly above the law in your country. I really am.
The queen and her royal family are above the law in my country but the people of Denmark decided i that way. It is in our constitution and it serves a purpose.
It could be that I am naive but it is my definite impression that no member of our government or our administration are immune to criminal prosecution.
Why is this not the scandal of the century in your news outlets? A former secretary of state breaks the law and it has absolutely no consequences for her because she has friends in the government? I’m not impressed by the Danish media to say the least but I’m actually very confident a story like that would clear all headlines for weeks and weeks in this country. Even if it could somehow be argued that she didn’t break the law.
JD Ohio,
LAX to Sydney is just under 15 hrs direct flight. Of course, most people have to first fly to LA, so 20+ hrs total travel time is typical.
Niels ,
The lawlessness of the Obama administration was perfectly consistent: Obama consistently chose to ignore the law when he disagreed with it (eg immigration laws) ignore the US Constitution when it was convenient (eg international treaties like the Paris Accords) and nominated judges to the Supreme Court who were quite willing to “interpret” the words of the Constitution to mean the opposite of what they clearly say. Making sure Hillary was never prosecuted for her lawbreaking is just a small part of Obama’s lawlessness. As I noted above, it is always ends-justify-the-means with the left, and always has been. (Even if many empty headed “progressives” think otherwise.)
DeWitt,
“The fix was in in April.”
.
The fix was in a long time before that.
Niels A Nielsen (Comment #164863): “I’m appalled how some people are truly above the law in your country. I really am.”
I very much doubt it is really any different in Denmark. It is an undeniable fact that nobody in the U.S. is truly above the law. But like everywhere else, if you have powerful friends you might get away with things that others would not get away with.
Mike M. (Comment #164867) “I very much doubt it is really any different in Denmark.”
.
That’s your privilege of course.
But that doesn’t change my mind. I’m sure it is different. It’s a matter of degree of course but yes, it is very different in that regard.
.
“It is an undeniable fact that nobody in the U.S. is truly above the law.”
Is it? Nobody? It seems to me in that Hillary, Obama, Comey and others in this case are very much above the law. That nobody is above the law means that the law applies to everyone, no one is above it, we all must follow it. That seems to me to be very much an illusion in your country, I’m sorry to say.
.
AND I allege that the ideal “nobody is above the law” is actually true to a much larger extent in my country than in yours. I cannot remember thinking that someone in my country was not prosecuted just because he had influential friends. I really can’t.
It may have something to do with the size and homogeneity of the population. Corruption is almost absent in this country. Really.
lucia (Comment #164850)
September 4th, 2017 at 7:10 am
“… the bigger danger is whichever one manages to get more people to not denounce them.”
I appreciate the insightfulness of that comment and agree with it.
SteveF,
Sure. But in April we have hard evidence in the form of Comey’s memo detailing how he was going to exonerate HRC, long before the ‘investigation’ was complete.
Niels A Nielsen (Comment #164868),
I think we have a semantic disagreement.
You made reference to people being “truly” above the law in the U.S. The issue here is the word truly. Including that makes this a claim that the law says that some people are above the law. That is absolutely not the case in the U.S.
.
You wrote: “It seems to me in that Hillary, Obama, Comey and others in this case are very much above the law.”
Just because someone sometimes gets away with breaking the law does not mean they are above the law. Enforcing the law always has an element of discretion. If you have powerful friends, you will likely benefit from that discretion. If you have powerful enemies, you will likely be harmed by that discretion.
.
You wrote: “That nobody is above the law means that the law applies to everyone, no one is above it, we all must follow it. That seems to me to be very much an illusion in your country, I’m sorry to say.”
That is the ideal. The real world always falls short of the ideal. Failing to recognize that is an illusion.
.
You wrote: “I’m sure it is different. It’s a matter of degree of course but yes, it is very different in that regard.”
I don’t doubt that it is different in degree. Denmark is a very homogeneous country, making it easier to treat everyone the same.
.
You wrote: “AND I allege that the ideal “nobody is above the law†is actually true to a much larger extent in my country than in yours.”
That is a logical impossibility. It is either nobody or not nobody; either true or false. Perhaps Denmark come closer to the ideal than the U.S., but that is hardly justification for the looking-down-your-nose tone of your comment #164863.
Subjective opinions are useless for judging things like this. I know plenty of people who would be deeply offended by the suggestion that Hillary, Obama, Comey, etc. have done anything that requires prosecution.
I went to Walmart for something, people are in full hurricane freak out mode in Tampa already. No carts. No water. No hurricane essential anything. Parking lot completely full. Harvey apparently spooked them. Typically this doesn’t happen until 2-3 days before, not 5 days. Big lines at gas stations, one of them totally out of gas.
.
Curiously Goldfish appears to be an essential hurricane food item, ha ha. My kids grew up on those.
SteveF (Comment #164865)
September 5th, 2017 at 6:40 am
“..The lawlessness of the Obama administration was perfectly consistent..”
Steve, Obama and his administration certainly attempted to stretch the powers of the executive branch of government and Trump has been and will be no different in these regards. The issue in my mind is not Obama and Trump but rather that we in the US have ceded
too much power to government. I once argued, with a defender of Obama when he observed that Obama was not involved in the IRS differentiating politically between those groups getting tax considerations and adding that he thought Obama was an honest man (before perhaps “you can keep your plan”), that having what he thought was an honest administrator and still having a bureaucracy out of control was even more troubling and that was an obvious problem related to government power and even with unelected officials. I also see an arbitrariness in judicial rulings that fit with their political agendas as troubling and not an issue of personalities but rather of all branches of government having too much power and power that is often arbitrary. Comey’s arbitrariness is just another example of something that goes back to J Edgar Hoover who had no checks or balances for years.
Tom,
People preparing for the Hurricane is wise. Getting in early means Walmart may be able to restock the shelves for key items.
Tom Scharf (Comment #164872): “people are in full hurricane freak out mode”
I think if I were in Irma’s path, I’d be running. Some forecasts show Irma becoming the strongest Atlantic hurricane on record, with 200 MPH winds and a pressure below 900 mbar at landfall. Scary.
Mike M. (Comment #164871)
.
I don’t think we are in any fundamental disagreement. I just heard your comment “I very much doubt it is really any different in Denmark” as a resignation on the terrible state of the public life in your country. I thought what you said was that you see the same kind of preferential legal treatment of the rich and powerful everywhere. I thought you were saying that you believe that this is a normal/unavoidable state of affairs.
.
I wanted to point out that political and legal corruption as revealed by the Hillary, Obama, Comey case would spark extreme outrage in Denmark. Also among a lot of Danish leftists among whom simple decency can stil be found. Not all leftists act as if the end justifies the means, believe it or not Steve F 🙂
A very large percentage of Danes would agree that noone (except the queen/king) is above the law in their country and not just in theory.
.
“Subjective opinions are useless for judging things like this.” I don’t agree. I learn a lot from listening to different subjective opinions on things like this. What do you suggest we use instead to determine a country’s closeness to the ideal of “nobody above the law”?
Would you rather exchange “objective” data like the Corruption Perceptions Index from Transparancy International? http://www.transparency.org/cpi2016
.
1 Denmark
1 New Zealand
3 Finland
4 Sweden
.
The US is #18 on the list.
@Tom, re the “no water” — I thought that in FL people would save empty, sealable waterproof containers for just this sort of thing. I know in the USVI they do. Hell, I’m in MN, where we have no chance of getting hit by a hurricane, and I can think of ~200 gallons of potable water containers in different sizes off the top of my head. If I had 5 days to prepare (hell, one day) I could up that by 10x.
Tom,
I agree with Mike M. Riding out a potential Cat 5 hurricane is not a good idea. Leave. Now.
Well, board up your windows first, if you can find plywood.
Niels,
That’s #18 out of 176, so not too bad. A lot of people thought “the fix was in” from the beginning with Clinton and that may have proved to be true, but realistically it may have cost her the election. Most people found her very untrustworthy.
.
It’s unclear to me whether politicians are attacked with the same zealousness in Denmark as the US, if you are running for high office your closets are going to be searched thoroughly with a hyper-critical eye.
.
The argument for Clinton was she technically broke the law but “normal people” who did similar things, sending classified documents over email, without nefarious intent weren’t typically prosecuted. They might have been fired or reprimanded. I’m not necessarily agreeing with this view, I believe she obstructed justice by destroying her server after she was told to conserve records. The Clinton machine is pretty defensive in nature, but you can get that way when getting impeached for (not) having “relations” with interns. You are not paranoid when everyone is actually out to get you.
.
Witch hunts are standard practice in US politics now.
Kenneth Fritsch,
“Obama and his administration certainly attempted to stretch the powers of the executive branch of government and Trump has been and will be no different in these regards. ”
.
I must respectfully disagree. Trump has an array of opponents dedicated to making sure he is able to do almost nothing of substance. Even the tinest hint of stretching of presidebtial powers by Trump will be instantly blocked by an unruly hoard of “progressive” Federal judges (many no doubt wishing they could swap their black robes for black antifa garb… and punch out some conservatives just for fun). Federal judges only rarely stopped Obama, in spite of his grotesque flouting of the law. Besides, I suspect Trump is far less inclined to boss people about to promote his political agenda than Obama, who was IMO, the quintessential budding totalitarian who constantly disregards the Constitution. History will not be kind.
Niels A Nielsen (Comment #164876): “I don’t think we are in any fundamental disagreement.”
Maybe.
.
Niels: “I just heard your comment “I very much doubt it is really any different in Denmark†as a resignation on the terrible state of the public life in your country.”
Politicians in the U.S. are putting bickering and self-interest ahead of the good of the country to an unacceptable degree. I am not resigned to that. Trump gives me hope. But the issues with Obama, Clinton, and Comey are a different thing.
.
Niels: “I thought what you said was that you see the same kind of preferential legal treatment of the rich and powerful everywhere. I thought you were saying that you believe that this is a normal/unavoidable state of affairs.”
Of course that is the case. Only a fool would say otherwise. The only difference from one country to another is a matter of degree. The U.S. is a lot closer to perfect that it is to most countries (probably the large majority). Denmark might well be even better.
.
I wanted to point out that political and legal corruption as revealed by the Hillary, Obama, Comey case would spark extreme outrage in Denmark.
I am skeptical. I lived in Canada for 25 years; my guess is that Canadians would overwhelmingly take exception to any claim that their government is corrupt. Obama’s behavior would get a big fat yawn there. I suspect that would be so in most parliamentary democracies (certainly in Germany, from what I hear). The Clinton foundation might spark outrage (as in much of the U.S.), but the possibly criminal stuff she did, not so much. If Comey really put the fix in, that probably would spark outrage in Canada. I think it will here as well, if the news spreads and is confirmed.
.
Niels: “I learn a lot from listening to different subjective opinions on things like this.”
Well, yes. Such things can be interesting and instructive. But one should not confuse the resulting impressions with facts.
.
Niels: “What do you suggest we use instead to determine a country’s closeness to the ideal of “nobody above the lawâ€?”
Don’t know.
.
Niels: “Would you rather exchange “objective†data like the Corruption Perceptions Index from Transparancy International?”
I don’t think it is possible for a “Perceptions Index” to be objective. Might be useful for broad stokes, but not fine distinctions.
.
Niels: “1 Denmark …The US is #18 on the list.”
Is there a meaningful difference between #1 and #18?
Lax to Sydney 14 hours via AA.
Following a 4+ hour flight from Miami and followed in turn by one hour flight to Brisbane then 5 hour drive to Torquay, Queensland. Oog.
j ferguson,
Including drive time to Miami and time awaiting flights at airports, that sounds like 30+ hrs door to door. Ugh. Some people (rarely me!) break up that kind of travel with a night in LA or Sydney (I think Sydney is nicer).
When it rains, it pours. First Harvey stalls right on the coast, and now Irma is predicted to go right up the Florida coastline. Yikes.
+-50 miles is going to be a huge difference with this one. FEMA better check their bank account balance. It’s going to take a huge turn north on Sunday and the uncertainty is such that almost the entire state is threatened, even on Sunday.
.
For those interested the European model is the best single performing model. Drag the slider:
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/models/?model=ecmwf
Tom,
If Irma somehow manages to get into the Gulf and goes up the west coast of Florida, it will be even worse. There are a lot of cheaply built condos located on sand bars on the Gulf coast of Florida. The storm surge on the east side of a hurricane moving north will be higher than for the west side.
If you wait until you know where Irma is going for sure, it may be too late to leave.
Evacuation is kind of a problem. Typically you can just go elsewhere in Florida, as it sits now everyone on the coasts would have to leave the state or else risk evacuating right into the hurricane. I-95 and I-75 would saturate quickly. My guess is most people are going to sit tight until they determine which side of Florida it’s likely going to go. Except Miami. It’s not Florida’s first rodeo. Here are all Florida landfalls in the past 100 years, 28 major hurricanes:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/10/05/see-every-florida-storms-path-past-100-years/91637546/
.
Florida current building codes are about a Cat3 storm. Significant updates after Andrew. When I replaced the roof last year it had to be upgraded to new code, good timing.
Tom,
Isn’t that going to happen anyway? Best to get an early start.
From our vantage point in east Oz, the storm is a bit of an abstraction. The landlord was unable to muster the troops to erect our storm panels for Matthew (last fall’s blow), but we lucked out and had no damage. the property manager had caused the trees to be thinned out and we (well all of us) only lost one.
.
Doubting that the landlord would ever be able to get storm panels erected during the panic which precedes a real storm, we asked him to install impact glazing. He wouldn’t do it because he said he’d never recover the cost. So we split it with him and now we have them and they are quite stout. Our place in Delray Beach is stucco on CMU with concrete slabs except for the frame roof – built in 2004. It is probably about as good as you can get down here for residential construction so we are optimistic.
.
i only worry about my old 1992 Sun SPARCstation 10 system. It is backed up 3 different ways, but I had to jigger the hostid number to make it work with my software RTU and I’m not sure I’ll be able to remember how I did it if I have to buy a replacement.
.
I think heading out to the turnpike or up 95 from south florida late in the overture is nuts – go out there and be killed, if its path crosses yours.
.
we lived in Miami for Andrew’s visit. The great revelation was how resourceful people can be but you find that out in the aftermath. There were a lot of deaths at signaled intersections. the electricity was out and thus no red lights so people just drove through them. In a couple of days there were civilians directing traffic – all acapella.
we didn’t get electricity back for 3 weeks but guys across the street had it next day. There was an inventory taken of freezers and we all shared the capacity.
one of the funnier episodes was an encounter with a woman in a corvette who was impatient. we were chain sawing a tree which was blocking traffic at east end of our street. she drove up and after a couple of minutes started to honk, one of my neighbors who was one of the chainsaw wielders walked over to see how he could help. She asked us to hurry up , she was late for an appointment. We were gaining on it but it would be another 30 minutes. She had a fit and was unresponsive to the idea that she turn around and go out to LeJeune and go that way. Soon she was screaming at us and honking wildly. Our hero fired up the chain saw and bounced it a few times across her hood – which on fiberglass makes impressive grooves. she shut up, turned around and in 20 minutes was back with a cop.
.
we explained and he told her to forget it.
.
In retrospect the chainsawing of a corvette hood was probably inappropriate but we were tired.
Lucia,
Hi. Do you suppose you could start another thread? I wanted to kid you about the vaca thread but thought you might have a cow.
ah well.
thanks much.
Most people die from drowning in a hurricane, not wind. Even Andrew only had about 18 deaths.
.
I-95 and I-75 and turnpike are starting to slow down, you can see it on Google maps. It was going about 30 mph today. I do not want to be stuck on an interstate. It’s looking like east coast landfall and it might actually miss entirely. Miami is under heavy threat and I don’t think you can evacuate that many people without making things worse. It’s likely a bad weekend in Florida for a lot of people.
.
It’s hard to get a realistic view of actual damage. Media tend to go to trailer parks or frame shots for maximum apparent damage. Here is a flyover of ground zero of Harvey.
https://youtu.be/_eE2oyarSN8
.
They did a lot of assessments after Andrew. Concrete and block walls rarely failed. The leading cause of roof failures was inadequate attachment of roof sheathing. Most window failures were caused by flying debris. In the hardest hit areas most shingle roofs had significant damage. Hip roofs were better than gable roofs. Garage doors detached from their rails. Manufactured/mobile homes were catastrophically damaged. Poorly constructed homes were a problem, not built to code. Roof damage > water damage > large losses.