A restricted set of empirical data - one that fits the conclusions that you want to come to.
SOP - Nixon did it, inexpertly enough to get caught. Reagan did it, but use d Oliver North to take the blame. Dubbya took the US into a pointless and e xpensive war with Irak on the basis of non-existent weapons of mass destruc tion, but you chose to get excited about Obama. Far-right-on.
Big Brother is embedded in your brain, so you don't think any inconvenient thoughts. If I wanted a modern example of Orwellian double-think, you'd be a perfect example.
Saul Alinsky rather than Karl Rove, but the technique is universal.
nce told you at a dinner party, rather than any considered contemplation of the scientific evidence.
First inspection of what? You found some crummy programming in a graduate s tudent sandbox and proceed to damn the whole enterprise. Never look for rea l evidence when there's a convenient red herring.
It's self-consistent, and gets published in peer-reviewed journals. Your al ternative approach gets published by the Heartland Institute, who have a ha bit of picking up shoddy papers from the fringes of academic publication, a nd trumpeting them for years, long after the original paper has been shot d own by well-informed criticism.
Dubious. You don't heat your house. We don't need to heat our flat - Sydney is warmer than California. And neither of us is emitting enough to move cl imate Armageddon by more than a millisecond, either way.
I don't go in for Quixotic gestures. And as for not understanding what's be ing said - I've got the Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry, and it did involve com puter modelling of a chemical reaction. The thesis cites Rosenbrock amd Sto rey's "Computational Techniques for Chemical Engineers" which was published by Pergamon Press in 1966, so it was tolerably up-to-date at the time.
Your own grasp of radiation balance in the atmosphere is less certain. Do y ou know what an effective emitting altitude is? Do you know what the term a pplies to?
Slowman is a political idealogue. They are always fun to poke fun at. His massive brain____ ego has him pretending that everybody who doesn't agree with him is "low information". It's a variation on the story of The Emperors New Clothes. Only people as egotistical__________smart as him see it his way. Slowman is THE expert on thermodynamics and everything he chooses to expound on. Get checked for Aspergers, Slowman.
Yup, so he starved them all to death in the great famine of 1933/34. But Slowman's so obsessed with this Leftie drivel dogma he can't see how Socialism/ Communism always fails disastrously in the end.
Well done! Learn what your enemies intend for you by reading them in their own words - but don't pay a bean to them.
Don't forget Mao's "Great Leap Forward," or Obama's ludicrous "Recovery Summer(s)," and his Laser-like Focus on Jobs (filed next to O.J. Simpson's "relentless search for the real killer").
He doesn't care. He's convinced there IS a free lunch but some rich guy stole yours, and someone needs to steal it back.
I've got a library of looters' works, including Karl's "Maninfesto"[sic], two copies of Saul, one of Big O's self-acclamations, a couple of AlGore's apoplexies, Joseph Stiglitz, plus a few others, all second-hand.
It's all centralized misappropriation by the Smarter, Nicer People Who Know Better[1]. Given three and a half years and a few billions they'll make you a broken website. Maybe.
[1] Even though they personally have no experience doing anything.
Freedom is slavery! Four legs good, two legs bad! Hope and Change! Forward!
I think Greegor meant "ideologue" - an "adherent of an ideology, especially one who is uncompromising and dogmatic".
It's certainly difficult to avoid being dogmatic when dealing with opponents as ignoratn as Greegor.
If you don't mind being shown up as an ignorant idiot from time to time. Greegor is clearly inured to that.
Not everybody. Phil Hobbs is smart, if not as well-informed as he might be.
The fact that Greegor - and John Larkin - haven't got the wit to perceive the evidence for anthropogenic global warming doesn't make it non-existent.
Being that smart isn't enough to make you egostical. John Larkin abd Greegor are the obvious counter-examples.
Not a claim that I've ever made, or that would be made by anybody with a brain in his head, but ti may look that way to Greegor, who doesn't have much sense.
Greegor's obsession with Asperger's syndrome is another bit of evidence of his weak grasp of reality.
Uta Frith certainly didn't notice my hypothesised Asperger's symptoms when we had her around to dinner a few years ago.
James Arthur's straw men are now down to krw's level.
In fact my thesis is that even the rich in the USA could become richer - in the long term - if they paid enough extra tax to support an effective educ ation system for the poor, backed up by a welfare system effective enough t o keep the children of the poor well-fed enough to take full advantage of t he education available, plus a universal health care system tp keep them he althy while they were learning.
No "free lunch" there, but quite a lot of self-interest, properly understoo d.
.
James Arthur isn't giving the founding tax evaders due credit for setting u p a political system that catered to the interests of the rich while lookin g more or less democratic from the outside.
Even the best intentioned reforms end up lining the pockets of the well-off after the Congress lobbyists have had their way. Obamacre is a fairly obvi ous case in point.
Joseph Stiglitz does spell this out, but James Arthur's well-disciplined br ain rejects any such input without actually processing it.
Krw is a little too dim to realise that socialism threw out communism aroun d 1870. At the time Mikhail Bakunin made a remarkably prophetic prediction that Marx's communist version of socialism, reliant on "the leading role of the party", would lead to the worst tyranny the world has ever known.
Bakunin was right. Admittedly, he was championing anarcho-syndicalism, whic h Noam Chomsky still thinks is a good idea (and he may be right), while mos t modern socialists are prepared to settle for a softened version of capita lism that tempers the worst defects of the free market and confines itself to taxing the well-off heavily enough to pay for adequate education, social welfare and health care for everybody - which is to say rather less than t otal control of the means of production.
Krw clearly hasn't paid a bean to learn anything about those he perceives t o be his enemies, but - granting his restricted intellectual capacity - he probably wouldn't have learned anything if he had bought a few books.
I think "wanker" is more appropriate. YMMV. Global warming is a GIANT SCAM designed to rip us all off. A BIG LIE; nothing less. Phony, made-up pseudo science which has been taken up and repeated parrot fashion by gullible wankers like Sloman.
AlwaysWrong does have a way with words. Not one that any adult would want t o emulate.
Actually, denialism is the big lie. Somebody with just a little more sense than AlwaysWrong might have read "The Merchants of Doubt"
formatting link
for the chapter and verse. I quite liked the book when it came out, but it didn't tell me much I hadn't already known - George Monbiot's "Heat" came o ut four years earlier - 2006 - and told much the same story (though in his book the denialism business was a fairly minor part of the picture).
Then again, anybody just looking at Viscount Monckton can get a measure of the credibility of the whole denialism package. It didn't have to be endors ed by AlwaysWrong to be obvious nonsense.
We do, and they scored better *before* we started the practice of using schools for restaurants instead of education.
Wrong^3. Kids are one of the healthiest cohorts, and they're already universally covered, if needed, by CHIP and Medicaid.
And, their education deficit is a result of a dramatic drop in standards that coincided exactly with the left's coup--and subsequent monopoly-- over public education.
People don't need to be taxed by idiots to do what's in their self- interest.
Actually they did the exact opposite, but it's hard to understand without reading what they said. So let's defile their character instead, eh?
"Best-intentioned" meaning "hare-brained central-planning, sold on lies--still today--by the gang that couldn't shoot straight."
That's what you're always rooting for Bill, centralized, political solutions. They're always inefficient and corrupt. That's not an accident, it's not chance, that's built-in to your approach.
Our country was designed to prevent that, for the exact reason that it unavoidably breeds corruption.
I haven't read his book yet, only sampled some. You can often learn the most from those types (most especially when they're wrong).
- in the long term - if they paid enough extra tax to support an effective education system for the poor
In the opinion of a rabid Tea Party supporter, who thinks that some of the unemployed should be allowed to starve to death in order to motivate the re st to accept work at starvation wages.
James Arthur's appreciation of the words "enough" and "effective" are colou red by his political perceptions.
the poor well-fed enough to take full advantage of the education available ,
Evidence? I'm sure you've got some in mind, just as I'm sure that you are l ooking at it from your own remarkably selective point of view.
e learning.
Of course kids are one of the healthiest cohorts. That doesn't make them as healthy as they need to be to take full advantage of the education availab le. As the kids grow up in poverty, they get progressively less healthy as they get older ...
Any right-wing nitwit will tell you that education has gone to hell in a ha nd-basket since they were at school - Socrates was doing it a couple of tho usand years ago. More modern examples of the breed will tell you that havin g teacher who are members of trade-unions has wrecked the system.
In Australia the Catholic education system has claimed that having kids tau ght by cheap unqualified lay brothers gave better results than they get fro m properly qualified teachers acceptable to the trade unions, but they've b een muted about it recently. Too many of the celibate lay brothers weren't quite as celibate as they should have been when it came to the kids they we re teaching.
stood.
This used to be true in the US - for a while - but it's certainly not true at the moment. Reagan might not have been an idiot when he was elected, but he was certainly declining into senility when he left office, and income i nequality in the US has been going up steadily since then. The idiots in go vernment have certainly been serving the short-term interests of the rich r ather than the interests of the country as a whole since Reagan came to pow er.
ever.
n
o
ng up a political system that catered to the interests of the rich while lo oking more or less democratic from the outside.
Reading what they said doesn't trump seeing what they've done. They could w rite Moderate Enlightenment propaganda more or less non-stop, helped by the fact that the only Radical Enlightenment figure in the mix - Tom Paine - g ot shunted off to France early on, to be sucked into the French Revolution before he could point out the gap been the rich guys' noble rhetoric and th eir greedy practice.
-off after the Congress lobbyists have had their way. Obamacre is a fairly obvious case in point.
Well, it would look like that to you. The flea-brained Tea Party didn't hav e any hand in the concoction.
You prefer the commercial monopolies which that take over when the central government shirks its job (or is bought off - as with Enron).
That was the justification adduced to explain some of the sillier mechanism s in your antique constitution.
No subsequent constitution has copied them, because they don't actually wor k, but you see them as sublime inventions, rather than crass bodges.
d brain rejects any such input without actually processing it.
Nassim Nicolas Talib is rude about him in "Antifragile" but admires his eco nomic nous. You should read "The Price of Inequality" as a whole. You might learn a bit more about "adequate" and "enough" but I doubt it - you'd have to throw off more social conditioning than seems remotely likely.
You think that rubbing elbows with some credentialed shrink a few years ago in a social setting proves that you are not an Aspie, Slowman? Nice try. Apparently you've read all of the most virulent left wing propaganda authors and worship Noam and Saul et alia. You seem to think that name dropping famous rabid lefties will impress people of other beliefs. You seem to have gigged me for spelling a word wrong and immediately disparaged my intelligence. Perfect Aspie behavior, Slowman! Ask your shrink acquaintance which tests she thinks would detect your Aspergers, Slowman.
r - in the long term - if they paid enough extra tax to support an effectiv e education system for the poor
Irrelevant sophmoronic argumentation. A statement's truth doesn't depend on who's saying it.
th in order to motivate the rest to accept work at starvation wages.
No one's starving in America, that's just something you like repeating. Most Americans would rather have jobs than foodstamps, and you'd rather the foodstamps. That's a cultural difference.
oured by his political perceptions.
What you mean by "enough" and "effective" is that whatever you've taken from the people is never enough. If *only* you'd had even more control of their money, time, and choices, then looting, class warfare, character assassination, and redistribution would have worked wonders, motivated and united people, etc.
of the poor well-fed enough to take full advantage of the education availab le,
looking at it from your own remarkably selective point of view.
ere learning.
as healthy as they need to be to take full advantage of the education avail able.
B.S.
ey get older ...
More B.S.
s
hand-basket since they were at school - Socrates was doing it a couple of t housand years ago. More modern examples of the breed will tell you that hav ing teacher who are members of trade-unions has wrecked the system.
Leave aside that I was actually there, experienced it, and the data reflect it--none of those matter. Leave aside the uncontested, documented fact that the left did take full ownership of our education, and results dropped immediately, and ever since. Better we should call people names because that's our level of intelligence, right?
aught by cheap unqualified lay brothers gave better results than they get f rom properly qualified teachers acceptable to the trade unions, but they've been muted about it recently. Too many of the celibate lay brothers weren' t quite as celibate as they should have been when it came to the kids they were teaching.
erstood.
e at the moment. Reagan might not have been an idiot when he was elected, b ut he was certainly declining into senility when he left office, and income inequality in the US has been going up steadily since then. The idiots in government have certainly been serving the short-term interests of the rich rather than the interests of the country as a whole since Reagan came to p ower.
Right--people don't know what's best for them, and you do.
soever.
in
le o
ting up a political system that catered to the interests of the rich while looking more or less democratic from the outside.
ut
write Moderate Enlightenment propaganda more or less non-stop, helped by t he fact that the only Radical Enlightenment figure in the mix - Tom Paine - got shunted off to France early on, to be sucked into the French Revolutio n before he could point out the gap been the rich guys' noble rhetoric and their greedy practice.
We certainly wouldn't want to read their writings. That would be hard.
ll-off after the Congress lobbyists have had their way. Obamacre is a fairl y obvious case in point.
ave any hand in the concoction.
Hint: the website was the best part. Awesome, wasn't it?
l government shirks its job (or is bought off - as with Enron).
No, that's your system, aggressively expanded under Obama. Obama's consolidated corrupt banks (that weren't his) to make them bigger, wiped out their small honest competitors, and consolidated another fifth of the economy under health control.
Big Bro loves the middle-earners, even as he crushes their guts out.
Sloman's a constant mystery to me. I deeply believe there's good in everyone and they mean well. That's always my assumption, even when their world-views seem perverse. That's why Bill's interesting, if tiring.
Whatever all that is, Asperger's is no one's fault, and nothing they can change. It's a condition, not a choice.
So, views and sloth are fair targets, IMHO; genetics aren't.
(And I'm not even sure Asperger's is other than a normal, useful variation, part of our evolutionary diversity.)
It obviously doesn't prove anything, but my claim is that I'm not a suffere r from Asperberger's syndrome, and the company I keep makes it likely that it would have been noticed if I were. Try to get it into your head that Asp erger's syndrome is pretty rare, and few people suffer from it. You'll soun d less like an obsessive nitwit if you can manage to absorb this informatio n and act on it.
I've never read any Saul Alinsky, nor am I likely to. I'm not politically a ctive. I've never met Noam Chomsky, but I do know quite a few people who in teracted with him at MIT and think highly of him. His politics is interesti ng, if eccentric - he can certainly do the research, even if the conclusion s he comes to are a trifle unrealistic - but he's famous for his contributi on to linguistics which was extraordinary.
Nobody sane has ever called Uta Frith or Noam Choimsky rabid. I'm not inter ested in Saul Alinsky, so I've got little idea of what rational people thin k about him. James Arthur doesn't like him. which has to be a recommendatio n.
It was a revealing mispelling.
I couldn't disparage your intelligence any more effectively than you do you rself - I do observe that you post nonsense at regular intervals, which doe s suggest that you are pretty stupid, but if you confined yourself to posti ng about subjects that you did understand, your intellectual defects would be less obvious.
Only in your demented imagination.
Observing the subject interacting in a social situation is widely supposed to be pretty informative. The emphasis does seem to be on difficulties with non-verbal communications skills, which are easy enough to assess in regul ar face-to-face social interactions. Mine are fine.
I don't count Uta Frith as an acquaintance - I did meet her once but she wa s on a kind of celebration tour, and met a great many people in a fairly sh ort time.
her - in the long term - if they paid enough extra tax to support an effect ive education system for the poor
on who's saying it.
It isn't a statement, but a claim, not backed up by any kind of evidence.
"Inequality by Design" does present evidence. You haven't produced any coun ter-evidence, which means that you are even arguing at the sophmore level.
eath in order to motivate the rest to accept work at starvation wages.
It's a general rule that most of the unemployed everywhere would prefer to have jobs than foodstamps. Dale Mortensen - who just died - pointed out tha t the economy does best if they spend some months finding the optimum new j ob, rather than taking the first job that they could find.
The fact that nobody is starving in America reflects the fact that right-wi ng nitwits of your persuasion haven't yet had a chance to dismantle social security to the extent which would match your demented ideology.
But not depend on the toxic sub-culture that you represent.
oloured by his political perceptions.
From time to time I remind you right-wing nitwits that I'm a moderate socia list, but your simple-minded world view lumps socialism and communism into one indistinguishable net of vipers. My examples of practical socialism are Scandinavia and Germany, and nobody claims that their tax regimes are crip pling anybody. Many years ago Sweden - like the UK - had a 95% income tax r ate on very high incomes, but common sense has prevailed since then.
then looting, class warfare, character assassination, and redistribution wo uld have worked wonders, motivated and united people, etc.
It seems to work pretty well in Germany and Scandinavia. But of course Amer ica is "different" so you don't have to think about that.
n of the poor well-fed enough to take full advantage of the education avail able,
re looking at it from your own remarkably selective point of view.
were learning.
y universally covered, if needed, by CHIP and Medicaid.
m as healthy as they need to be to take full advantage of the education ava ilable.
Read your Scientific American. Of course, since it isn't Murdoch owned, it can't be relied on to suppress scientific evidence which doesn't fit the ri ght-wing point of view.
they get older ...
The illegitimate children of black US servicemen who grew up in Germany wen t through the German school system looking exactly like all the other child ren as far as academic achievement went. The legitimate children of the sam e servicemen growing up in the US dropped further and further behind their white age-ates as they went through the education system. Think about it.
s that coincided exactly with the left's coup--and subsequent monopoly-- over public education.
a hand-basket since they were at school - Socrates was doing it a couple of thousand years ago. More modern examples of the breed will tell you that h aving teacher who are members of trade-unions has wrecked the system.
ct it--none of those matter.
And we get to see how thoroughly you were brain-washed by the process whene ver you apply your fingers to your keyboard.
ownership of our education, and results dropped immediately, and ever sinc e.
People stopped faking the test results? Or tested all the kids, rather than just the bright ones?
ce, right?
Sadly, you are a right-wing nitwit. You aren't stupid, but you are brainwas hed, and any evidence that doesn't fit your preconceptions doesn't get proc essed. It does make you look stupid, though you are clever enough with thos e bits of evidence that can be interpreted to support your daft ideas.
taught by cheap unqualified lay brothers gave better results than they get from properly qualified teachers acceptable to the trade unions, but they' ve been muted about it recently. Too many of the celibate lay brothers were n't quite as celibate as they should have been when it came to the kids the y were teaching.
nderstood.
interest.
rue at the moment. Reagan might not have been an idiot when he was elected, but he was certainly declining into senility when he left office, and inco me inequality in the US has been going up steadily since then. The idiots i n government have certainly been serving the short-term interests of the ri ch rather than the interests of the country as a whole since Reagan came to power.
People mostly do know. In the US the rich certainly know what's in their sh ort term interest, and they are in a position to make it happen. The other
99% of the population may have an equally clear idea of what they'd like to happen, but the political system gives them little chance of getting the s ystem to work for them
atsoever.
em in their own words - but don't pay a bean to them.
o" [sic], two copies of Saul, one of Big O's self-acclamations, a couple o f AlGore's apoplexies, Joseph Stiglitz, plus a few others, all second-han d.
e Who Know Better. Given three and a half years and a few billions they'l l make you a broken website. Maybe.
etting up a political system that catered to the interests of the rich whil e looking more or less democratic from the outside.
hout reading what they said. So let's defile their character instead, eh?
ld write Moderate Enlightenment propaganda more or less non-stop, helped by the fact that the only Radical Enlightenment figure in the mix - Tom Paine - got shunted off to France early on, to be sucked into the French Revolut ion before he could point out the gap been the rich guys' noble rhetoric an d their greedy practice.
No. Boring and pointless. Like the theory behind MS/DOS. Political science has moved on a bit since then. Jonathon Israel has made the historical int ellectual issues interesting, but even he can't afford to pay much attentio n the self-interested vapourings of the founding tax evaders if he wants to keep his audience.
well-off after the Congress lobbyists have had their way. Obamacre is a fai rly obvious case in point.
ies--still today--by the gang that couldn't shoot straight."
have any hand in the concoction.
One more big software project gone wrong. This has political significance?
olutions. They're always inefficient and corrupt. That's not an accident, it's not chance, that's built-in to your approach.
ral government shirks its job (or is bought off - as with Enron).
Enron was all yours, with Dubbya appointing one of the chief crooks to some regulatory position.
, wiped out their small honest competitors, and consolidated another fifth of the economy under health control.
As if your health care system wasn't a smoking ruin to start with.
The top 1% of the income distribution aren't being crushed at all, and they continue to do very well while the rest of the country stands still and go es backward.
Big Brother does seem to like the well-off.
t unavoidably breeds corruption.
nisms in your antique constitution.
I don't understand your constitution in the way you do. You see it as some divinely inspired mechanism which is entirely perfect - so if it isn't work ing it isn't being used correctly. I see it as the MS/DOS of political oper ating systems, designed around the political equivalent of the 640k barrier .
Understanding your constitution is a waste of time. It needs to be junked a nd replaced by any one of the numerous superior alternatives available as s oon as possible. Getting from here to there without having a revolution wou ld be a good idea, but not one that the Tea Party would embrace - their pol icies are designed to provoke a revolution (not that they've got the wit to realise this, any more than you do).
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.