- The original poem actually has two more verses, but I couldn't find a musical rendition of it, so I will place it here.
- It came upon the midnight clear,
- That glorious song of old,
- From angels bending near the earth,
- To touch their harps of gold:
- "Peace on the earth, goodwill to men,1
- From heaven's all-gracious King."
- The world in solemn stillness lay,
- To hear the angels sing.
- Still through the cloven skies they come,
- With peaceful wings unfurled,
- And still their heavenly music floats
- O'er all the weary world;
- Above its sad and lowly plains,
- They bend on hovering wing,
- And ever o'er its babel sounds
- The blessèd angels sing.
- Yet with the woes of sin and strife
- The world has suffered long;
- Beneath the angel-strain have rolled2
- Two thousand years of wrong;
- And man, at war with man, hears not3
- The love-song which they bring;4
- O hush the noise, ye men of strife,5
- And hear the angels sing.
- And ye, beneath life's crushing load,6
- Whose forms are bending low,
- Who toil along the climbing way
- With painful steps and slow,
- Look now! for glad and golden hours
- come swiftly on the wing.
- O rest beside the weary road,
- And hear the angels sing!
- For lo!, the days are hastening on,
- By prophet bards foretold,7
- When with the ever-circling years
- Comes round the age of gold8
- When peace shall over all the earth
- Its ancient splendors fling,9
- And the whole world give back the song10
- Which now the angels sing.
— Original five-stanza hymn by Edmund Sears
Merry Christmas to all!
Merry Christmas to all!
135 comments:
An interesting psychology experiment. But rather sad.
Since the beginning of the year, I started noticing a new dating profile. Flicking through Tinder, in the interest of immersive journalism, I kept seeing a biography specific to 2017. The photos were interchangeable: the look-at-me-with-my-niece-I’m-good-with-kids shot, the body-shot, and the look-I-visited-Machu-Pichu shot. (I’m starting to feel like I missed the Groupon for that trip). However, under the photos, a trend in descriptions was emerging. In Manhattan, where my app trawled for potential suitors, perhaps 1 in 20 would feature this new angle: The few short paragraphs traditionally filled with description or a witty quip were being used for political demarcation. Men and women were asking suitors to immediately discount themselves based on how they voted in 2016.
On two of the main dating apps used by New Yorkers – Tinder and Bumble – you swipe right if interested in the person (and hope they do too, for a match) and left to reject the candidate. Frequently, the people I came across seemed interested in steering clear of anyone who supported Trump. “Swipe left if you voted for Trump,” I’d see on one profile. Other versions included “If you voted for Trump, we shall not hump” and the less rhythmical, more brutal: “If you voted for Trump, swipe yourself off a cliff.”
In the already transactional world of online dating, there’s now one more thing that New Yorkers can use to dismiss each other: The President.
Not all that surprising. Twenty-something years ago, when you could still buy a book that claimed to be a directory of all the websites in the world, it was interesting to keep track of the sorts of uses the new web technology was being put too. Dating sites were among the earliest. And from early on they targeted particular subgroups. Among the ones I remember were Conservative Singles, Jewish Singles, Christian Singles, Armenian Singles, and so on and on. A quick search nowadays finds Yazidi Singles, Zoroastrian Singles, and I'm sure you'd find pretty much any group. Religion and politics may be taboo subjects at the dinner table, but they still seem pretty important to people choosing a mate.
Whatever the merits of such exclusivity, at least the aim is still to bring people together. It's the opposite of the victim mentality that seems to be driving our young people apart. The UK is having to bring in legislation to protect free speech in universities against onslaughts from student bodies! Even feminist and gay rights compaigners have been "no-platformed" for holding the "wrong" views. (I tend to think they are reaping what they sowed).
Universities do seem to have gone completely bonkers. I linked to the fiasco at Wilfred Laurier University in Ontario recently. On youtube you can find other ludicrous situations like "oppressed minorities" picketing exam halls in protest against having to take exams.
(cont'd...)
(...cont'd)
In my own discipline I came across this today about an inaugural diversity meeting by the American Astrononical Society in Tennessee a couple of years back:
Inclusive Astronomy, 2015
Dr. Rawls was one of the attendees at the inaugural Inclusive Astronomy, a meeting of astronomers, policy makers, sociologists (and who identify as working in more than one of these fields) in 2015 in Nashville, Tennessee. This meeting was convened to highlight issues affecting astrophysicists who identify as LGBTQIA*, people with disabilities, people of color, and people who consider themselves as under-represented minorities through other axes. To fight racism, sexism, transphobia, ableism and other structural modes of disenfranchisement, this meeting brought together allies and encouraged discussions on the topic of intersectionality. For many of us fall under multiple axes and labels, and some or all of those axes that form our identities may make us vulnerable to discrimination.
Inclusive Astronomy was about recognizing issues that the astronomy community faces from structures of oppression and discrimination, as well as offering robust solutions To make astronomy more inclusive, this group of amazing people chartered a living document, known as the Nashville Recommendations. These recommendations include not only a vision of the field in the future, as well as active steps that physics and astronomy departments all across the USA (and the world) need to take in order to improve the working conditions of disenfranchised astrophysicists!"
The Recommendations
The four broad areas that the recommendations, a 40 page document (so far!) touched upon are as follows, as quoted from the Vision Statement for Inclusive Astronomy endorsed by AAS:
1) Removing barriers to educational access, e.g. the use of Graduate Record Exam (GRE) scores in admissions decisions, financial barriers to graduate-school applications, stereotype threat, and accessibility problems that impede the ability of all students to directly participate in learning environments.
2) Creating inclusive climates to improve and maintain diversity, e.g. by eliminating microaggressions, honoring diversity without tokenization, using effective and accessible teaching methods, and effectively mentoring members of historically underrepresented groups.
3) Improving inclusion and access to power, policy, and leadership, e.g. by employing strategies on how to play a role in decisions affecting the astronomical community and learning how people in power can be more inclusive in their decision making.
4) Establishing a community of inclusive practice, e.g. using active rather than passive measures to ensure that astronomers’ groups, events, and institutions are inclusive.
Let us get to work
Do you identify as a physicist/astrophysicist and study/work at a university? Ask your administrator(s) about the steps that your department are actively taking to implement these recommendations. Does your department have a diversity committee, or an equity, diversity and inclusion coordinator? If yes, ask them what you can do to be a good ally and/or contribute to their labour in the community; if not, start one! Let us ensure that we push for efforts that make astronomy a diverse and inclusive community globally.
Apart from this screed sounds like it's parotted straight from a handbook of Cultural Marxism, did I actually read that right?? ... they want exam scores to not be taken into account when deciding on admissions for minorities. Apparently the theory is that these people have enough on their plate without having to worry about actually being any good at their subject. I heard someone today talking about how the diversity enforcers at many universities are employed at vice-chancellor level, and earn upwards of a third of a million bucks a year. Talk about having a vested interest in fostering division! The world truly has gone nuts.
"…there’s now one more thing that New Yorkers can use to dismiss
each other…"
Recent polling indicates that people aren't too much worried about their children dating outside their race anymore (Marcus and his ilk notwithstanding), nor do the children seem as hung up on it as the generation just immediately prior. They do seem to have supplanted that with an objection to dating or mating across political lines.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"In my own discipline…"
Yeah, right. Like you actually have a ‛discipline’ goin’ there.
As much as we would like to think of tribalism falling by the wayside in a democracy I think it still rears its head in areas we don't always think of. I suppose dating shouldn't be a surprise as most people do look for matches with similar feelings. Whether they realize it or not.
Removing barriers to educational access, e.g. the use of Graduate Record Exam (GRE) scores in admissions decisions,...
Now this does seem rather odd. I would think that any institution of higher learning would want to use grades as a criteria for admission, whoever they belong to.
"As much as we would like to think of tribalism falling by the wayside…"
I know it's popular in the press to refer to the current political polarization as ‘tribal’, but I suspect that's a false analogy. One is born into one's tribe. Assumed beliefs don't seem to me to qualify. (Don't know that I have a better one-word descriptive, but perhaps we should allow it more than one word.)
I notice that Mitch McConnell is throwing cold water on Paul Ryan's idea of entitlements cuts for next year. It will be interesting to see how the Republicans campaign for the next mid-term elections if the only thing they managed to get done was tax cuts for the rich.
Yeah, if they are smart they will hold off on entitlement cuts until after the mid-term election. Their bet being that the higher paychecks will lull people into a false sense of security.
The NewRepublic just did a takedown of the ‛No Child Left Behind’ standardized testing procedures that you might find interesting, given that second to last comment. (Wed Dec 27, 10:44:00 am ↑↑)
So what is the solution? Obviously, there must be some educational criteria to be admitted to a place of higher learning, otherwise it would be a waste of everyone's time, and money. But, conversely, the draconian measures of W's No Child Left Behind policy have just encouraged corruption within the educational system as people fear for their jobs.
I'm hoping that was a rhetorical question, ‛cause I got no solution readily available.
Unfortunately, not many people do, they just pretend to.
[Lynnette]: "As much as we would like to think of tribalism falling by the wayside in a democracy I think it still rears its head in areas we don't always think of. I suppose dating shouldn't be a surprise as most people do look for matches with similar feelings. Whether they realize it or not."
I'm not sure you could refer to these as tribal issues. Something that pretty much splits the country down the middle (politics) or makes claims to universality (mainstream religions) isn't the domain of the tribe or clan. During the presidential election some of the news media went out of their way to find families split along political fault lines. They do exist but I guess they are notable because they are the exception rather than the rule.
The fact of the matter is that people don't just want to date people of the same political leaning, they want to form clusters and live in the same places as like-minded people, they want to consume media that reflect their views, and -- as Barack Obama rightly observed in a recent interview -- they want to live in a social media bubble and gripe about "the other side". (The leftie version of that is what I refer to as the Trump Whinge Fest™).
Those aren't my ideas by the way, I got them from a former CEO of NPR who bravely stepped outside his own political bubble in Washington DC and wrote a book about the experience. Encouragingly, he thinks people aren't as strident when you meet them in real life as they might appear in media caricatures. Maybe there's even hope for our resident troll -- maybe he's not the hate-filled bag of pus he impersonates :) :) :)
"…maybe he's not… and etc."
Here he is trolling me and calling me a troll. Fat boy's been watching Trump too long.
Pete: "The fact of the matter is that people don't just want to date people of the same political leaning, they want to form clusters and live in the same places as like-minded people"
Wait, what? What about everyone loving this multicultural thingie then? We're being told the "melting pot" is the ideal and you seem to suggest maybe it's not? I'm confused.
'Nother gangrape of a young girl here in Malmö last night. Same MO, different location, still no descriptions of perps (but as we've come to say here in Sweden lately: no description is also a description). The fourth such case in about a month. When I was a teenager this sort of crime was bascially unheard of, and any single such crime would be headlined for months. Times have indeed changed.
The police are assigning a new specialist task-force usually assigned to combat organized crime (so I guess that means organized crime will get a respite for now). They might still catch Sven, Nils and Niklas...
Pete: "Apart from this screed sounds like it's parotted straight from a handbook of Cultural Marxism, did I actually read that right?? ... they want exam scores to not be taken into account when deciding on admissions for minorities."
That's basic Affirmative Action. It's not new at all. Been around for quite some time. It's just maybe entering new arenas. And you feel a tad shellshocked 'cause it hit your arena just now.
Typical boomer mentality. Not worried at all when a white man gets passed over in favour of a woman who wants to be a firefighter, never mind it'd take her half an hour to hack through a security door with an axe, or that she couldn't lift and carry a person over 60 kilos to safety, because she's got a damned right to be a firefighter if she wants to.
But when the same sort of thinking hits "your discipline"... oh Boy, now we've got issues here!
LOL @Marcus. First of all, I'm not a boomer ... strictly Gen X here.
"That's basic Affirmative Action. It's not new at all. Been around for quite some time. It's just maybe entering new arenas. And you feel a tad shellshocked 'cause it hit your arena just now."
Bullshit. Affirmative action used to mean taking equally qualified candidates and preferring the "minority" one. It never previously meant taking completely unqualified candidates. In this particular case, the GRE tests "verbal reasoning, quantitative reasoning, analytical writing, and critical thinking skills". Nobody is going to get very far doing post-graduate astrophysics without all those things. You are not doing them any favours by waiving the admission criteria. The idea is preposterous.
"But when the same sort of thinking hits "your discipline"... oh Boy, now we've got issues here!"
The one and only reason I brought that up is because it's how I got to hear about it -- it was on a website that normally discusses the latest research papers. Personally I don't give a rats ass in the sense that I will never be in any sort of competition for a job with these losers. I DO care about standards and quality in science.
Speaking of the Trump Whinge Fest™, it's hard to believe we are nearly through the first year of it. And while nobody relishes the thought of three more years of incessant whinging, I think the political debate may be actually improving. I think some people have looked into the abyss and taken a step back. The genuine fascists on the right have not found favour by trying to ride the general conservative wave. Likewise, the crazy revolutionary socialist left are being sidelined in the universities and the public institutions. The new media contain a raft of surprisingly intelligent moderates. I am (very) cautiously optimistic.
Pete: "Bullshit. Affirmative action used to mean taking equally qualified candidates and preferring the "minority" one."
Bullshit, and you know it. AND even if that was true, which it isn't, it'd still be unfair. If I as a white male has the same score as a black tranny, then why should that black tranny get the job just beczuse? It outta ben coin toss or something.
But it ISN'T like that. In reality more qualified persons gets skipped cause PC, as I demonstrated with firefigters (and that indeed is a feal thing).
K you might not be a boomer but you sure as hell have adopted the boomer mindset. Luckily u are on the way out.
[Marcus]: "AND even if that was true, which it isn't, it'd still be unfair."
Yer a great man for the straw man arguments. Where did I ever say affirmative action was fair? All I'm saying is that admitting people to disciplines for which they are not qualified is idiotic. Your firefighter argument is neither here nor there. I know that in the UK, female army recruits get put through exactly the same physical training and must satisfy the same requirements as men. Maybe it's the same with firefighters. I dunno. What I do know is that it's different from recruiting someone with zero qualifications. And so should you.
I don't believe in such a thing as a general "boomer" mindset, though I recognise they didn't all survive the stupidity of the 1960s unscathed. You on the other hand seem to have adopted the argumentative style of the millenials... which is more about slurs than arguments.
Speaking of which, Jonathan Haidt has some good stuff to say about that. Look him up on youtube for some more jaw-dropping stuff about the upcoming generation. (Trigger warning for Millenial Marcus: he's a joo).
Btw, aren't you Gen X yourself, maybe a late one while I'm an early one? Oh yeah, and we're all on the way out, some of us less gracefully than others ;-)
Caption: The Ten Worst Things Scott Pruitt’s EPA Has Already Done from the DaileyBeast.
The fact of the matter is that people don't just want to date people of the same political leaning, they want to form clusters and live in the same places as like-minded people, they want to consume media that reflect their views, and -- as Barack Obama rightly observed in a recent interview -- they want to live in a social media bubble and gripe about "the other side".
I'll give you the media consumption thing, but the clustering in the same places thing I think is still a little bit of a stretch, despite CA & TX. I definitely am living among people I don't necessarily agree with on politics. ;)
Encouragingly, he thinks people aren't as strident when you meet them in real life as they might appear in media caricatures.
Perhaps so. It's usually the extremes that get the attention.
And while nobody relishes the thought of three more years of incessant whinging, I think the political debate may be actually improving.
Please, don't remind me that it's going to be three more years of Trump. *shudder* The first has been bad enough!
[Lynnette]: *shudder*
Well look at it this way, if Trump's burger diet doesn't kill him and the Dems don't start fielding credible candidates, it's gonna be seven years instead of three ;-)
Seven years of whinging ... it sounds like a biblical plague! :) :) :)
In the era of alternative facts, it’s no surprise that science, the scientific method, and scientists have all come under attack at Pruitt’s EPA.
To take one example, Pruitt’s climate denialism (more on this later) defies the unanimous consent of the scientific community, choosing the fake science of fake think tanks like the Heartland Institute, which regularly churns out bogus scientific reports to create the perception that there is significant disagreement about climate change.
[Petes]: " I DO care about standards and quality in science."
I wish more people did.
Well look at it this way, if Trump's burger diet doesn't kill him and the Dems don't start fielding credible candidates, it's gonna be seven years instead of three ;-)
Now you're just trying to give me nightmares!
I'm going to see the latest Star Wars moving tomorrow morning. Hopefully that will take my mind of the Orange One and his horrible policies. They don't call movies escapism for nothing! ;)
I've been watching the Republican Party's devolution here of late and wondering how that fit with or contradicted my long held belief that the Republican Party would either schism or devolve into a regional party consistently unable to win national election (i.e. the Presidency, the only national election we have).
I've come around to the opinion that it's turning out to be a bit of both rather than an either/or development.
Back in February of 2016 Lindsey Graham said of Trump, "I think he’s a kook. I think he’s crazy. I think he’s unfit for office."
Fast forward to the end of November of 2017, Lindsey Graham appeared on CNN and denounced the media, Trump's chosen ‛enemy of the American people’; to wit: "You know what concerns me about the American press is this endless, endless attempt to label the guy [Trump] as some kind of kook not fit to be president."
All the old NeverTrump Republican politician have either gone over to Trump (the most common accommodation to the new realities), or they've withdrawn from political office. (Jeff Flake and Bob Corker come to mind; they've been noisy about it, but there have been several more who've faded quietly away.)
The Republican Party is now the party of Trump. It will run as the party of Trump in the next national elections in 2020.
Pete: "Yer a great man for the straw man arguments. Where did I ever say affirmative action was fair? All I'm saying is that admitting people to disciplines for which they are not qualified is idiotic."
Straw man? I simply pointed out that this shit is not new at all. In a response to your posting:
"Apart from this screed sounds like it's parotted straight from a handbook of Cultural Marxism, did I actually read that right??"
Which signals surprise, double questionmarks and all, as if it was a new revelation for you.
YOU signalled that this was somehow a new unfairness you had discovered, and I told you correctly that this sort of crap is now decades old. And then I chastised you for only givin' a fuck when it hits your "discipline".
M´kay?
That's where we were at. That's plain truth. Then you say:
"The one and only reason I brought that up is because it's how I got to hear about it -- it was on a website that normally discusses the latest research papers. Personally I don't give a rats ass in the sense that I will never be in any sort of competition for a job with these losers. I DO care about standards and quality in science."
So, it's evident than when YOUR field is in the crosshairs you suddenly give a damn, otherwise you don't "give a rats ass" because you'll not be in any "personal competition" with the "losers" who get unfairly sidelined.
How very noble of you Pete. You do come across as a nice and just person. Not.
Pete: "Speaking of which, Jonathan Haidt has some good stuff to say about that. Look him up on youtube for some more jaw-dropping stuff about the upcoming generation. (Trigger warning for Millenial Marcus: he's a joo)."
Interesting Vid.
But I am curious about that "trigger warning". Have I come off as a person who is a jew-hater here? I even remember tellin' Um Ayad to BTFO with her constant "criminal Rothchields" postings back in the day.
The only thing I can see myself is in this whole #metoo debate I did recognize that disproportionat amount of jews are named as sex perverts. But that is fact (based on the public cases so far) - not hate. And I myself would put that down to position and leftist ideology, not ethnicity or religion.
So where do you get that I would be triggered by them there JOOS Pete?
Also, the reason I thought you were a boomer is you've mentioned so much old person stuff like your retirement fund and your golf trips. You have come across as a 60+ YO to me. I was apparently wrong about that then, but you really come off as an old man Pete. I doubt anyone here would have put you under 60.
Myself, 42 btw, so a Millennial, you were correct on that. Bachelors degree in a profession I do not currently work in.
I pictured you Pete at about 62 or so. Early retired/semi-retired from a quite lucrative profession.
I picture Lee as older, about 70 or so. Retired from a white collar job in a blue collar community were he did well, but not great.
Lynnette I would put at about 58, maybe a manager of a clothing store or some similar job. Living comfortably without any luxories.
The Republican Party is now the party of Trump. It will run as the party of Trump in the next national elections in 2020.
Then they will live or die with him.
The Last Jedi was very, very good. I liked it better than the last Star Wars movie. They have also set up nicely for a new generation of movies.
I just finished watching Dunkirk. A gripping, realistic portrayal of the horror that the British and French armies faced as they were forced to retreat.
Myself, 42 btw, so a Millennial, you were correct on that. Bachelors degree in a profession I do not currently work in.
I pictured you Pete at about 62 or so. Early retired/semi-retired from a quite lucrative profession.
I picture Lee as older, about 70 or so. Retired from a white collar job in a blue collar community were he did well, but not great.
Lynnette I would put at about 58, maybe a manager of a clothing store or some similar job. Living comfortably without any luxories.
Interesting guesses. I am rather curious, though, as to what you mean by "luxuries"?
Also, I am curious as to why you are not working in the profession you have a degree in? Didn't like it? Or no good job openings?
"I just finished watching Dunkirk."
You are aware that the movie has been previously reviewed on these pages?
You are aware that the movie has been previously reviewed on these pages?
No, please remind me. (Must be my advanced age...)
The Iranians are trying again. This time they seem to be protesting the Supreme Leader Khamenei. It seemed to arise from nowhere. Probably because I have been so focused on our domestic problem that I have neglected to pay attention to other people's problems.
I think the Iranian protests have surprised everybody, not least the ayatollahs. I think they're in their fourth day now, and seemingly gaining in strength the first three days. I don't know what the turnout count will be for today.
Post Script:
Trump's meddling may turn out to be a bad thing for the protesters, who can now credibly (among the non-protesting Iranian population) be painted as tools of The Great Pumpkin.
And, on another issue…
This will be Trump's last weekend to reassert his dominion over the NFL. He's let that slide in recent weeks on account of they mostly ignored him and that made him look bad, but his base has been trying mightily to keep that dream alive.
[Marcus]: "Myself, 42 btw, so a Millennial, you were correct on that. Bachelors degree in a profession I do not currently work in."
LOL. I was being sarcastic when I called you Millenial Marcus. You are not a Millennial by any stretch of the definition. You are a Generation X'er, just like me.
"I pictured you Pete at about 62 or so. Early retired/semi-retired from a quite lucrative profession."
Sorry to bust your preconceptions. I retired at 47. I'm ten years older and wiser than you. (Hmm... I've been studying ever since, maybe an underestimate on the wisdom aspect there ;-)
"I picture Lee as older, about 70 or so. Retired from a white collar job in a blue collar community were he did well, but not great."
LOL again. I'd be surprised if "ole" Lee isn't younger than you. He's still grappling with getting over parental authority issues. Though maybe he's just a slow learner and is older than I think.
"Also, the reason I thought you were a boomer is you've mentioned so much old person stuff like your retirement fund and your golf trips."
Retiring at 47 took a bit of managing, so it wasn't "old person stuff" to me. Golf?? Ireland is without doubt the most relaxed country in the world to play golf. Kids take it up at a young age, and there is none of the decorum around it that you are imagining. It may be a stuffy old sport elsewhere, but not here.
Now, REAL old person stuff ... trips to Thailand spring to mind. Who the hell does that regularly other than perverted old sex tourists? ;-)
[Marcus]: "So, it's evident than when YOUR field is in the crosshairs you suddenly give a damn, otherwise you don't "give a rats ass" because you'll not be in any "personal competition" with the "losers" who get unfairly sidelined."
I suspect you picked up what I wrote entirely wrongly. The "losers" I referred to are the ones who expect to get hired with no qualifications. I don't give a damn because I'm not in competition with anyone for a job in "my field" or any other. I'm retired, geddit? But I am no fan of affirmative action and don't want to see standards erode. As to your claim that there is nothing new in any of this, I guess you haven't been keeping track of developments in the universities where it's now "racist" to be required to take a test ;-)
Lynnette: "Also, I am curious as to why you are not working in the profession you have a degree in? Didn't like it? Or no good job openings?"
Cause my father died in -06. I took the leagl opportunity of a 6 months abscence from my job to try and get my family buissnness going onwards, myself moving from the IT sector to the building/reconstruction and waste manageent sector.
After those 6 months I handed in my resignation at my former IT job, and from that point in time I have payed my own wages and also employed about 10 more people - never fired even one of my dad's employees. I take pride in that.
Pete: "Now, REAL old person stuff ... trips to Thailand spring to mind. Who the hell does that regularly other than perverted old sex tourists? ;-)"
Well, say folks in their early 40's who have their very best friend and his family in Thailand.
If you wanna think of me as some sex deviant, or sex addict, who goes to Pattaya for cheap reliefs, that's on you.
I've been visiting Thailand about 14 times now and I have yet to set foot in Pattaya, and I have zero interest in any other "sex vacation" spot.
My very best friend lives in Thailand where he runs a sucessful business and he's married to a conservative Lao woman (who was a virgin when they married btw) and have two lovely kids with her. I like to visit them. And I like scuba diving.
So take your filthy imaginations elsewhere, and go off jacking off in a different direction, you old perv.
Trump's meddling may turn out to be a bad thing for the protesters, who can now credibly (among the non-protesting Iranian population) be painted as tools of The Great Pumpkin.
LOL! Yes, unfortunately, they may be counted among those who have been Trumped. *sigh*
Golf?? Ireland is without doubt the most relaxed country in the world to play golf. Kids take it up at a young age, and there is none of the decorum around it that you are imagining. It may be a stuffy old sport elsewhere, but not here.
I know quite a few younger people here who golf. In fact, one of my former co-worker's daughter went to college on a golf scholarship.
Marcus,
I'm sorry to hear about your father, losing a parent is tough. My father just passed away this year in August.
Nor is it always easy to take over a business and run it successfully. Your father's employees were very fortunate that you decided to switch careers.
(Nope, sorry, don't manage a clothing store. Although I have thought it might be fun to run a bookstore. :))
[Marcus]: "If you wanna think of me as some sex deviant, or sex addict, who goes to Pattaya for cheap reliefs, that's on you."
And you can feel free to consider me a geriatric golfer obsessing about his retirement fund ;-)
P.S. Slightly old news but I see your government is quite anxious to prove there's nothing amiss in Malmo.
[Lynnette]: "I'm sorry to hear about your father, losing a parent is tough. My father just passed away this year in August."
I'm sorry for both of you. Both my parents died quite a long time ago. (In fact, it feels weird to say it but it'll be half a century in just a few months time since my mum died. I was a tiny toddler, obviously).
[Lynnette]: "Now you're just trying to give me nightmares!"
Just remember, the bogeyman isn't real ;-)
[Lynnette]: "In the era of alternative facts, it’s no surprise that science, the scientific method, and scientists have all come under attack at Pruitt’s EPA. To take one example, Pruitt’s climate denialism (more on this later) defies the unanimous consent of the scientific community, choosing the fake science of fake think tanks like the Heartland Institute, which regularly churns out bogus scientific reports to create the perception that there is significant disagreement about climate change."
You didn't give a link, but Google turns up this. Nice picture of Pruitt in front of those belching chimneys. I wish the econuts would learn what a cooling tower is (or, rather, that they'd stop using pics of them so mendaciously). A nice eco-friendly nuke producing not a molecule of CO2 still has cooling towers. Some folks have yet to learn the difference between smoke and water vapour.
Anyway, back to the article. Looks like a typical hatchet job without a shred of objectivity. Criticising the EPA for not showing up at a chemical plant before an accidental explosion?? Are they for real?
Also, the implication that the Trump administration is rolling back environmental regulations willy-nilly borders on hysterical. Here's one I read in detail, from the Bureau of Land Management. It concerns the rescinding of a 2015 rule requiring frackers to make certain disclosures about new wells with regard to environmental safety. It seems pretty clear that they took into account all scientific evidence and the concerns of public commenters. The fact of the matter was that the rule which dealt with federal lands overlapped with already existing state rules and was costing millions of dollars in unnecessary expenses.
I did learn a few things though. Was delighted to hear about Pruitt visiting Morocco to talk about natural gas. I have a boatload of shares in Moroccan gas exploration ;-) Also, the Moroccans took Pruitt on a tour of their renewable energy research facility. I've seen that place -- it's pretty cool and is doing a lot of valuable research. Hopefully the Dems will take this bonus eco-education into account when witch-huntin' Pruitt over expenses.
The best news of all was that article's number one concern: climate change. It's the first time I've seen anyone put a number on the casualties that will be caused -- 0.25 million per year from 2030. That's great news! It means that climate change casualties are miniscule and won't, for instance, make the list of top twenty causes of death. That means we can focus on things like the 10 million children who die every year from preventable diseases. Ninety-nine percent of those are in poor countries ... the ones that desperately need transport and electricity and proper cooking fuels so that children can go to school, and study at night, at not be poisoned by open fires in unventilated homes.
"I wish the econuts would learn what a cooling tower is…"
Why?
TrumpTweets: The NFL gets a pass for the kneelers this weekend. (Whoda thunk it?)
Both my parents died quite a long time ago. (In fact, it feels weird to say it but it'll be half a century in just a few months time since my mum died. I was a tiny toddler, obviously).
That's very sad. I hope that you and your sister were able to stay together. Having someone close to you helps.
You didn't give a link,...
Sorry, that was a quote from the article Lee had linked to. Yes, that is the one that you found.
Also, the Moroccans took Pruitt on a tour of their renewable energy research facility. I've seen that place -- it's pretty cool and is doing a lot of valuable research.
Perhaps Pruitt will learn something?
The fact of the matter was that the rule which dealt with federal lands overlapped with already existing state rules and was costing millions of dollars in unnecessary expenses.
I wish that they would always look at things from a frugal point of view. :)
The best news of all was that article's number one concern: climate change. It's the first time I've seen anyone put a number on the casualties that will be caused -- 0.25 million per year from 2030.
Ahhh, but if climate change is as unpredictable as people suggest, how can we really know for sure what its effects really will be? ;)
That means we can focus on things like the 10 million children who die every year from preventable diseases. Ninety-nine percent of those are in poor countries ... the ones that desperately need transport and electricity and proper cooking fuels so that children can go to school, and study at night, at not be poisoned by open fires in unventilated homes.
Can this not be accomplished with alternative options as well? And, even better, if they are cleaner options we can cut down on pollution, which is detrimental to health? I am thinking of all of those people in China who are running around wearing masks because of extreme pollution there. Do we really want that kind of life for everyone around the globe?
Sorry, Petes, it seems you were the one who reviewed Dunkirk a while back? I think you didn't like it? I found it rather intense, and realistic. But a friend of mine thought it slow.
Now I'm off to do my annual de-Christmasing...
Happy New Year Everyone!
(I thought about doing a new post, but I wanted to leave the sentiment of this one up for a little bit longer.)
TheAtlantic has a short piece(short for The Atlantic, middle length for some publications--not too long at any rate) on the protests in Iran. Just a basic background piece. I don't recognize the author, but the name sounds kinda Persian.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"…but if climate change is as unpredictable as people suggest…"
More than that, Petes has misrepresented what the number encompasses. It's the expected increase in death from the specific and limited causes of malnutrition, malaria, diarrhea, and heat stress. link
[Lynnette]: "Happy New Year Everyone! (I thought about doing a new post, but I wanted to leave the sentiment of this one up for a little bit longer.)"
Happy New Year back. I forgot to mention, I did read up on the author of the verses you posted, and their context. He sounds like a good character. I'll forgive him for being a Unitarian as it was back in the time when Unitarianism actually stood for something (as opposed to its current status as possibly the most wishy-washy of the formerly Christian denominations). He certainly sounds like he was ahead of the game in being both anti-slavery and pro-women's-rights.
"Sorry, Petes, it seems you were the one who reviewed Dunkirk a while back? I think you didn't like it? I found it rather intense, and realistic. But a friend of mine thought it slow."
Yeah, bored the pants off me. Lumbering, predictable, and I found the theatrical device of overlapping the timelines annoying. (A friend gave out to me for saying it was predictable as we knew in advance the Brits got whupped and had a narrow escape ... but what I meant was the fictionalised elements were predictable ;-)
Also, I found myself wishing for an enemy plane to bomb the bejesus out of Kenneth Brannagh at the end of that pier and spare us any more of his impersonations of a wooden plank. I liked the way Elgar's Nimrod was woven into the incidental music, but couldn't get excited by any of it.
[Me]: "The best news of all was that article's number one concern: climate change. It's the first time I've seen anyone put a number on the casualties that will be caused -- 0.25 million per year from 2030."
[Lynnette]: "Ahhh, but if climate change is as unpredictable as people suggest, how can we really know for sure what its effects really will be? ;)"
I don't know if you are joking but ... uh ... EXACTLY! The effects might be nil or even positive (though that does seem unlikely overall). Obviously we don't want to ignore the precautionary principle, but there has to be a price limit on what we pay up front. Especially since that money could be spent in future (when, by definition, it has a lower net present value) on more targeted mitigation when we do understand the effects. This is my absolute number one argument against currently suggested policies.
[Me]: "That means we can focus on things like the 10 million children who die every year from preventable diseases. Ninety-nine percent of those are in poor countries ... the ones that desperately need transport and electricity and proper cooking fuels so that children can go to school, and study at night, at not be poisoned by open fires in unventilated homes.
[Lynnette]: "Can this not be accomplished with alternative options as well? And, even better, if they are cleaner options we can cut down on pollution, which is detrimental to health? I am thinking of all of those people in China who are running around wearing masks because of extreme pollution there. Do we really want that kind of life for everyone around the globe?
Absolutely, but we have to separate a number of issues. First of all, those horribly polluted Asian cities are no different from the industrialised cities of the West in the 20th century. London smog killed thousands in a single weekend in 1952. I am less familiar with the US but I know you had similar events in the Ohio valley and presumably elsewhere. Those horrors were mitigated by moving polluting industries out of town, introducing smokeless and low sulfur fuels for domestic use, and curbing vehicle particulate emissions. That is not to say that the industry that was moved out of town (or shipped to China) does not continue to have problems, but it is a somewhat separate issue to urban pollution.
For developing areas there are definitely good reasons to start as you mean to continue where that makes sense. Look at mobile phone usage in Africa, it completely leapfrogged the wired infrastructure which was impractical for large low population density areas. Do a Google image search for Maasai people of the Serengeti on their cell phones ... it's quite entertaining ;-)
If those places can use solar power and avoid fossil fuel imports, so much the better. But it's not true everywhere. And as one Indian environmentalist put it, the West needs to eat its own dogfood before it starts preaching to developing nations about clean energy. What's more, if we look at that WHO prediction about the effects of climate change, there is something jarring about the increased malnutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress. How many of those sorts of deaths will be in the rich West, do you think? I would hazard a guess of approximately zero.
Look at the WHO solution: "Reducing emissions of greenhouse gases through better transport, food and energy-use choices can result in improved health, particularly through reduced air pollution". Yep, and I'm going to also predict (as I did in my quote above) that increasing fossil fuel use, electricity generation, and safer domestic cooking fuels will have almost identical effects in the areas that need it. Telling people in dire need to reduce emissions is like telling a suffocating man not to worry -- the trees will produce plenty of oxygen in due course.
Once again let the West eat its own dogfood first. However -- and this is a crucial point -- we cannot ignore the fungibility of certain commodities. Let's suppose the US introduced a ban on fracking tomorrow. Would fuel costs go up? Of course they would. Also demand would go down. A new equilibrium would be reached with some of the reduced output being offset by higher prices paid for fuel imports. The US would import LNG and refined products instead of exporting them. That would increase the price everywhere. In the US it would be an annoyance. In parts of Africa it would be existential.
Anyway, I could go on but you get the picture. I consider myself a pragmatic greenie but I don't have much time for bleeding heart environmentalists.
I also think people are naive about what's coming down the tracks. Marcus thinks Africa is full of layabouts too stupid to be capable of industrialisation. That's stupid. Africa is industrialising at an increasing rate that will eventually dwarf China. Indeed, Chinese investors are helping to make it happen. The entire continent has a median age of 19. Just thirty years from now, one in every four humans alive will be African. These people are already pouring into African megacities which are racing to install necessary infrastructure.
Anyone who thinks the 20+ million population of Lagos (soon to double) are going to wait around for a utopia of windmills and Nissan Leafs to arrive, is nuts. Lagos is an economic powerhouse and the IT hub of West Africa. Yet a large chunk of its population lives in slums. Those people want transport, electricity, education and food now. Nigeria is a major oil producer. It doesn't take a genius to figure out how the infrastructure is going to evolve, given current technology. Nigeria also has a moribund coal industry that is itching to restart. This stuff is real and it's happening today.
What I hope is that here in the West we will do less of the pious talking and more inventing of the new energy technologies that we're going to need.
"It doesn't take a genius to figure out how the infrastructure is
going to evolve, given current technology."
Current technology has places with high sunlight and an already evolved large central power-plant infrastructure switching over to rooftop solar. It pays for itself in equatorial regions, over the price of paying the power companies. With only a little encouragement we might expect the people of Nigeria to skip past the central power-plant technologies just as they've skipped past copper phone lines. We'll need to ignore the council of fat Irish Luddites, but we can get ‛er done.
And, just for what it's worth, I think those numbers were probably just for infant mortality, although that wasn't clearly enough spelled out for me to make the assertion.
Interesting discussion. I will have to look at the links tomorrow as I *sigh* fell asleep and am now out of time tonight. It took me almost all day to de-Christmas.
Anyway, an interesting article here about why we need to keep the whinge fest going. :) Seriously, sometimes it's too important to stay silent.
Just a quick comment:
[Petes]: What I hope is that here in the West we will do less of the pious talking and more inventing of the new energy technologies that we're going to need.
[Lee]: With only a little encouragement we might expect the people of Nigeria to skip past the central power-plant technologies just as they've skipped past copper phone lines.
I agree. Nigeria has a blank slate, they can write a different story than was ours. The West, or more likely the way things are going given our current leadership, the Chinese, can help.
"This is my absolute number one argument against
currently suggested policies."
Of course it is. You like that it's good forever. (Once you get the rubes to go for it the first time.) Wait until tomorrow; we'll know more tomorrow. But, tomorrow never comes. By the time we get to tomorrow it's already become today and tomorrow's still out there with the eternal hope of even further delays.
You stare at the horizon and pretend. Some things need fixed now. If you stare at the horizon and pretend then at least you're mostly out of the way.
"I consider myself a pragmatic greenie…"
I don't think so.
LOL. The naivety is truly mind boggling. Yup, 10 million Lagos slum dwellers are going to install rooftop solar on roofs they don't have. Those majority without paying jobs to go to will have all the time in the world to polish their panels like good little Nigerifornians and ponder on the divide-by-zero error they keep getting when they try to calculate the payback time. ;-)
Here's a novel idea. Let's listen to some actual Nigerians. Here's one that thinks Nigeria should exploit the crap out of its petroleum resources. His idea of sustainability is to grow African markets for Africans, and not wait for the World Bank version of sustainability to rob the country blind.
And here's another who thinks Nigerian agriculture needs a) all the fertiliser it can get from the petroleum industry, b) reliable centrally generated power for its farmers to lift their yields by the 500% they would need to match those of US and Chinese producers. Yes, they mean YOU, the people who are deoxygenating the Gulf of Mexico with the runoff from your over-fertilised fields, while telling the slum dwellers of Lagos to install rooftop solar.
How about they get back to you when you demonstrate how you're getting on with all those things yourself? How about you lead by example instead of the command to "let them eat cake". Cue cries of "boohoo, Trump won't let us". I say that when those technologies are ready for prime time, neither Trump nor anyone else will be able to stand in their way.
It would appear that Petes has been ‛googling furiously’ and to no real effect.
"Here's one that thinks Nigeria should exploit the crap out of
its petroleum resources."
But, he doesn't get around to mentioning any need for central oil-fueled power-plants, being enamored instead with the promises of petrochemicals.
"And here's another who thinks Nigerian agriculture needs
…reliable centrally generated power for its farmers…"
Nor does he mention this supposed need for ‘reliable centrally generated power’ that Petes is nevertheless so certain must be foremost on his mind.
That's the best ya got I take it?
Nigeria's population is exploding right now, correct. It's a country of soon 200 million. It's about evently divided along muslim 45, christian 45 with a reminder of 10 percent others. It's a clan-based society.
Part of an "economic powerhouse" that dwarf China, or instead a place of war and carnage that dwarf that in Congo?
I am not as optimistic as ya'll. And as for the Chinese in Africa, ya'll have have a look at this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LhSjLNyM-s
That chinaman is less than impressed.
"I am not as optimistic as ya'll."
You must be thinking of the fat Irishman. I don't recall having expressed any undue optimism.
Bannon "has lost his mind". According to Trump. Funniest line of the whole news feed.
LOL!
Whatever else you could say about Trump, he has turned out to be pretty low class.
"…he has turned out to be pretty low class."
And, of all his many transgressions, you remark on his lack of class when he gets crossways with Bannon?
[Marcus]: "Nigeria's population is exploding right now, correct. It's a country of soon 200 million. It's about evently divided along muslim 45, christian 45 with a reminder of 10 percent others. It's a clan-based society."
Yep, that's a lot of people to keep entertained ... or, more to the point, employed. And its economy is torpid for a resource rich nation. It needs to start using its physical and demographic assets. What it doesn't need just now is pious greenies yakking on about rooftop solar. People need the bare necessities first. The fine tuning can come later.
"It needs to start using its physical and demographic assets."
It appears that you mean Nigeria needs to follow 19th Century economic models of development. The inherent wisdom of that approach is rather dubious in the face of 21st Century technology.
Post Script:
One thing we ought to get into before we switch subjects for permanently: Why is Petes continually yakking on about ‛rooftop solar’ in Nigeria, when he's the only person who's ever proposed ‛rooftop solar’ for Nigeria?
We'll maybe get to that later. I think it should be an interesting sidebar.
Caption: Conservative media stands by Trump over Bannon
Looks like Petes picked the loser this round. Maybe he'll have better luck next time.
But there is still the affects of climate change to be considered in the future of Nigeria and, indeed, the rest of Africa. As Petes pointed out earlier it is not the West that may experience the more severe stresses on populations. The mega-cities of Africa, and their governments, may prove the least able to deal with those stresses.
So, while those populations may want the amenities of a modern society right now, it is those very amenities that may prove detrimental to their future. A strange catch-22, yes?
I can understand where people don't want to listen to those in the West who lecture, but it is not the West that has the rising populations that will suffer under extreme climate change. Oh, we will be affected, certainly, but we, hopefully anyway, have the resources to mitigate some of the extreme events. At least for a while. The people of Africa do not. Which is why we will probably see more migration to other areas of the world, such as Europe.
That chinaman is less than impressed.
This actually brings up another facet in the Africa/China bromance. If there have been tensions between Africa's former colonizers and its various countries, there are also problems with this new relationship that my prove to be a stumbling block to the development of Africa.
Manafort is suing Mueller. This is getting dirty quickly. Hopefully they were prepared.
"Hopefully they were prepared."
Rather off the wall legal maneuver. I don't know that anybody'd have been prepared for that one. I suspect it won't survive the first motion hearing.
Look, Rocket Science:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/study-young-male-migrants-fuel-rise-violence-germany-52113402
"The recent influx of mostly young, male migrants into Germany has led to an increase in violent crime in the country, according to a government-funded study published Wednesday."
They reached a conclusion nobody could ever had predicted through sheer tenacity. No one could ever have seen this coming though. It was a complete surprise. To everyone.
It's pretty damning tbh.
"The authors concluded that 92 percent of the additional crimes recorded could be attributed to the increase in refugee numbers."
Stop calling the invaders "refugees" damn it! It's almost as silly as calling grown men "children". Some are refugees, some are even children, most are neither.
"So, while those populations may want the amenities of a modern society right now, it is those very amenities that may prove detrimental to their future. A strange catch-22, yes?"
This is often cited, mostly by guilt-stricken Westerners, or by maritime micro-nations who do genuinely have a reason to fear sea-level rise. Also by low-lying coastal countries like Bangladesh. The effects of climate are likely to be far from uniform. Nigeria is a big country (40% bigger than Texas) and only has an arid climate in the north east. Most of it is either tropical savannah or monsoon climate. It already has a problem with growing the wrong crops, either because of colonial legacy or external pressure to produce crops for export. It currently has a programme to move farmers over to more suitable indigenous crops. If they prove adaptable this way, they will be well positioned to mitigate any effects of climate change within reason.
But much more to the point is that climate change for Nigeria is a secondary concern compared to health services, employment, and power for agriculture. Suppose someone gave you the choice right now -- turn off every fossil fuel power plant in the country for an uncertain mitigation of climate change ... but you will have instant outbreaks of cholera, meningitis and monkey pox (like Nigeria had last year) plus 25% youth unemployment (in a country full of youths). I bet I know what most rational people would choose.
"Manafort is suing Mueller."
And Trump is threatening to sue Bannon. Politico.com
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
How unremarkable has duplicity become? Caught Petes faking cites, claiming some articles about Nigeria said things that they do not say ↑↑ (Wed Jan 03, 01:54:00 am), and he just shrugs it off as no matter. Got caught again, so what?
Man's been studying on Trump, sure ‛nuff.
Something to keep an eye on:
"Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI
Director Chris Wray made an unannounced visit to Speaker
Paul Ryan's office Wednesday…"
Politico.com
I can't stand Steve Bannon, but this almost makes me want to buy his book.
President Trump is using hardball tactics in an attempt to blunt the impact of Michael Wolff's bombshell-filled book about his administration.
Charles Harder, an attorney representing the president, sent a cease-and-desist letter to Wolff and his publisher, Henry Holt, on Thursday morning.
The legal letter, a copy of which was obtained by CNNMoney, demanded that the publisher "cease and desist from any further publication, release or dissemination" of the book "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House."
Oops, guess I should have read the comments first. I see Lee beat me to that lawsuit against Bannon thingy.
Rather off the wall legal maneuver.
I think the DOJ called it "frivolous".
But much more to the point is that climate change for Nigeria is a secondary concern compared to health services, employment, and power for agriculture. Suppose someone gave you the choice right now -- turn off every fossil fuel power plant in the country for an uncertain mitigation of climate change ... but you will have instant outbreaks of cholera, meningitis and monkey pox (like Nigeria had last year) plus 25% youth unemployment (in a country full of youths). I bet I know what most rational people would choose.
Of course they will choose to remain with what has been the tried and true. And even if they did switch over everything to new sources of "clean" fuel it would not help, if not everyone is doing so. That is why the likes of Donald Trump are so dangerous, not just to the US, but to the world. It will take the whole world to participate in this transition.
The effects of climate are likely to be far from uniform.
This is true. They also may not happen slowly, but abruptly. At least the further along we go down the climate change path. If we can at least slow that trajectory we may be able to find ways to adapt, or mitigate, climate change's effects. Those islands or low lying areas that are disappearing
are only the canary in the coal mine.
There have always been great needs out there, there always will be. Some have no opportunity through their own poor choices, or through the choices forced on them by others. Yet, as Marcus may argue, it is not fair to penalize those who have worked hard to establish societies that work and are successful at supporting their populations. How do we be fair, just, and compassionate to the less fortunate? It is a good question as to how we allocate planetary resources.
Btw, I read the Atlantic article about Iran last night. Interesting. But it does sound like the same old same old with regards to possible real change there. I think, for sure as long as Khamenei is alive there will be no change.
Before Khamenei there was Khomeini.
After Khamenei there will be another.
Preachers do not willingly let go of temporal power once they've acquired it.
[Lynnette]: "I can't stand Steve Bannon, but this almost makes me want to buy his book."
You and everyone else ... I believe it's due to be top of the bestseller list based on preorders. If Trump was actually a savvy businessman I'd believe he might have concocted this little spat just to share the proceeds ;-)
[Lynnette]: "Of course they will choose to remain with what has been the tried and true."
Naturally. You don't make life-altering decisions on a whim, especially when resources are scarce (or under-developed, as in the Nigerian case).
"And even if they did switch over everything to new sources of "clean" fuel it would not help, if not everyone is doing so. That is why the likes of Donald Trump are so dangerous, not just to the US, but to the world. It will take the whole world to participate in this transition."
That's simply not true. If the world stopped emitting CO2 and Nigeria didn't, nobody would notice. You don't need the world to participate. CO2 emission numbers are utterly dominated by a handful of countries -- 70% of global emissions from just six countries (if you count the EU as a "country").
The US produces sixty times the CO2 emissions of Nigeria. Even on a per capita basis, Nigeria is inconsequential ... less than one thirtieth of US per capita emissions. The only measure on which Nigeria is doing worse is energy intensity, that is, the amount of energy used to generate each dollar of GDP. There, Nigeria only does half as well as the US. But it could do a helluva lot of growing before that became a problem, and by then the changing mix of economic activity would change the picture anyway.
"They [the effects of climate change] also may not happen slowly, but abruptly. At least the further along we go down the climate change path. If we can at least slow that trajectory we may be able to find ways to adapt, or mitigate, climate change's effects."
I'm not getting you here. Isn't it one or the other? If it's abrupt then there is no trajectory to be slowed.
"How do we be fair, just, and compassionate to the less fortunate? It is a good question as to how we allocate planetary resources."
With respect, "we" don't get to allocate planetary resources. Sovereign countries get to decide what goes on inside their own borders, at least according to the UN Charter. A country can voluntarily agree to be bound by a treaty, so for instance the EU can fine Ireland if it doesn't meet emissions targets because we signed up to them.
Nigerians are not "less fortunate" from a resource point of view. They are, in fact, minted. All they need to do is get on with things. And on that score, their biggest problem is not lack of resources, or lack of rooftop solar, but corruption.
Slightly on topic -- see second vid here. One of Marcus's low IQ Africans is investigating climate stress in plants through gene sequencing, and plans to take her knowledge home to Senegal.
Never said every African has a low IQ. They do have a significantly lower average on the Bell curve though. Many studies have come to this conclusion. The world IQ-map corresponds very well with the world poor/rich-map where Sub-Saharan Africa is dark red in both.
Thing is you actually know this. You are too intelligent not to realize this is true, on some level at least. But you can't admit it because it conflicts with your worldview or triggers your Catholic guilt or makes you suffer because of your "white privilege" or something. So you toss out straw-men to try to make arguments that are in fact not arguments at all.
"The world IQ-map corresponds…"
Hell, I wasn't even aware that the racist bastards had promulgated a ‛world IQ map’. Apparently it's mostly a matter of ‛estimates’ made by a couple of smug white guys. Wiki say
[Marcus]: "Never said every African has a low IQ."
That's right. But you generalised about them anyway, the sure sign of woolly-thinking racism. What you said was that you didn't need any of them in your country -- "the last thing we need is an influx of unskilled labour. They will end up leeching on society rather than contributing to it, which all current evidence also point to."
When I pointed out that not every African has a low IQ you said that "picking examples out of a larger group is dishonest arguing". So you doubled down on your lazy generalisation and now you're claiming you didn't generalise at all. Get your story straight.
Pete:
"When I pointed out that not every African has a low IQ you said that "picking examples out of a larger group is dishonest arguing". So you doubled down on your lazy generalisation and now you're claiming you didn't generalise at all."
Nope. Wrong. YOU still cherrypick. I still generalize. How is that not plain to you?
And what's more logical when debating whether a large influx of un-known individual economic migrants from Africa (posing as refugees) is good or bad for our society and economy?
1. Comparing with the average African in terms of skills and intelligence?
2. Or comparing them all to your gene-splicing Senegalese?
Riddle me that.
On another matter… We have a new nickname; "Sloppy Steve". Guess who that is. TrumpTweets
I think this means Bannon will not soon be forgiven.
"YOU still cherrypick. I still generalize. How is that not plain to you?"
That IS plain to me. That's what I'm accusing you of.
"And what's more logical when debating whether a large influx of un-known individual economic migrants from Africa (posing as refugees) is good or bad for our society and economy? 1. Comparing with the average African in terms of skills and intelligence? 2. Or comparing them all to your gene-splicing Senegalese?"
Neither is logical, because your problem is not primarily with their intelligence. It is with the fact that they are a large group of economic migrants, difficult to assimilate and causing economic harm to your country. I was with you that far. I AGREE with you up to that point. Any sufficiently large group of economic migrants would be problematic, it is characteristic of them as a large group. Despising them for their intelligence was not germane to your point.
Speak of the devil. Turns out we have a problem here in Dublin with Scandinavian economic migrants. They're pushing our natives out of the city. Go home to your own country you Abba-lovin' meatball-gorgin' brännvin-swillin' blondie swines!
Oh hang on ... the multinationals need them in order to maintain their European HQs here, where they employ 10% of the Irish workforce too. Maybe your predilection for meatballs was irrelevant after all.
Wolff's book is top of the Amazon bestseller list already. He wants to know "where to send the box of chocolates" in return for Trump's legal threats helping him sell books.
From Wolff via Hollywood Reporter:
"Reigning over all of this was Trump, enigma, cipher and disruptor. How to get along with Trump — who veered between a kind of blissed-out pleasure of being in the Oval Office and a deep, childish frustration that he couldn't have what he wanted? Here was a man singularly focused on his own needs for instant gratification, be that a hamburger, a segment on Fox & Friends or an Oval Office photo opp. "I want a win. I want a win. Where's my win?" he would regularly declaim. He was, in words used by almost every member of the senior staff on repeated occasions, "like a child." A chronic naysayer, Trump himself stoked constant discord with his daily after-dinner phone calls to his billionaire friends about the disloyalty and incompetence around him. His billionaire friends then shared this with their billionaire friends, creating the endless leaks which the president so furiously railed against."
I doubt Wolff is very objective, but it's not a pretty picture if his staff really are as consistently negative as he makes out:
"For Rex Tillerson, he was a moron. For Gary Cohn, he was dumb as shit. For H.R. McMaster, he was a hopeless idiot. For Steve Bannon, he had lost his mind."
A longer extract from Wolff.
From that nymag extract:
Ailes, a veteran of the Nixon, Reagan, and Bush 41 administrations, tried to impress on Trump the need to create a White House structure that could serve and protect him. “You need a son of a bitch as your chief of staff,” he told Trump. “And you need a son of a bitch who knows Washington. You’ll want to be your own son of a bitch, but you don’t know Washington.” Ailes had a suggestion: John Boehner, who had stepped down as Speaker of the House only a year earlier.
“Who’s that?” asked Trump.
Doesn't ring very true. Even I know who John Boehner is without looking him up. But other people are starting to see cracks in Wolff's story:
“... a simple Google search proves Trump has previously spoken about Boehner at length, making the notion that he would respond ‘Who?’ to a mention of the former House Speaker feel dubious at best. But such details are what gets shared or aggregated, often uncritically.”
And about that "treasonous" meeting between Kushner, Don Jr., Manafort and the Russkis? ...
"Bannon went on, Wolff writes, to say that if any such meeting had to take place, it should have been set up “in a Holiday Inn in Manchester, New Hampshire, with your lawyers who meet with these people”. Any information, he said, could then be “dump[ed] … down to Breitbart or something like that, or maybe some other more legitimate publication”."
Would Bannon likely have referred to Breitbart as less than legitimate?
(splinternews.com)
The one thing for sure is that this is gonna sell a lot of books.
Trump has a history of pretending to not know people who've displeased him or let him down.
He barely knew Paul Manafort, or so his press office maintains, for just one example.
From slate.com (not noted for right wing nuttery): "Take the Latest Explosive Trump/Bannon Stories in the Context of Their Source, a Notoriously Unreliable Narrator". Makes Wolff sound as economical with the truth as Trump himself. The libs are still gonna lap it up though.
"Makes Wolff sound as economical with the truth as Trump himself."
That's a fairly extraordinary claim.
I only had time to read some of the comments, I'll have to finish tomorrow.
If the world stopped emitting CO2 and Nigeria didn't, nobody would notice. You don't need the world to participate.
Perhaps not from a pure CO2 emission count, but there are those who would object to having to cut their own emissions while others out there, even a small country like Nigeria, do not.
The US produces sixty times the CO2 emissions of Nigeria.
Indeed. So if we do not participate, because of a non-believer in the White House, even if Nigeria did adopt clean energy policies it wouldn't do much good. Thus making Donald Trump a danger, not just to the US, but to the rest of the world, if they actually did want to reduce emissions.
Nigeria is inconsequential ... less than one thirtieth of US per capita emissions. But it could do a helluva lot of growing before that became a problem, and by then the changing mix of economic activity would change the picture anyway.
Well, it is their choice as to how they want to grow.
... their biggest problem is not lack of resources, or lack of rooftop solar, but corruption.
Yes, that seems to be an issue with many countries.
With respect, "we" don't get to allocate planetary resources.
You make the assumption that my "we" meant the West, when I was actually referring to the population of this planet. That is whey I said "planetary" resources.
The allocation process has been via sovereign states, yes. And those states enter into agreements with others via treaties.
There are those who have been blessed with more resources than others. For instance, water comes to mind. At some point in time will there be those who are blessed with life because they have plenty of water, while others perish because they have no access? Those people, who are a part of my "we", will have to make a choice as to whether or not they help those in need, or not. At that point in time they will be deciding the allocation of a planetary resource. Or, conversely, if there are those who are "blessed" with too much water, to the point where they are flooded out and their land becomes uninhabitable, where do they go? Will there be someone to take them in? Sharing their resource of land? Those are all decisions "we" will be making as climate change occurs.
If it's abrupt then there is no trajectory to be slowed.
If it's abrupt, no, it doesn't matter. But that is not the only possibility. We don't know. As you keep pointing out, there are a lot of variables. But it certainly appears as if climate change is affecting various aspects of our lives right now. Do we sit by and do nothing? Or do we try to find ways to adapt, or possibly affect the process in such a way as to slow it down? To give us more time to adapt?
I don't know, I would like to think that we could have some effect, but I honestly don't think that the US has the leadership it would need to be effective.
Now, it's past midnight here and my coach is turning into a pumpkin...night all.
[Lynnette]: "...there are those who would object to having to cut their own emissions while others out there, even a small country like Nigeria, do not."
But on the other hand there are those who say they haven't yet done any of the polluting that developed countries have, and they want a chance to develop before they have to bring in emissions targets. Why should Nigeria generate less CO2 per capita than the US? Even if the US had stayed in the Paris Climate Agreement and hit its target of 25% below 2005 levels, Nigeria would still have to increase its emissions per capita by a factor of twenty before it hit the same levels.
The US's problem is that it cannot afford for developing countries to do anything even close to the polluting that the US has done. But how do you sell that message? I don't believe you can, which is why global emissions will keep increasing until the arrival of technology that makes low carbon energy preferable on a pure immediate cost basis.
"So if we do not participate, because of a non-believer in the White House, even if Nigeria did adopt clean energy policies it wouldn't do much good. Thus making Donald Trump a danger, not just to the US, but to the rest of the world, if they actually did want to reduce emissions."
The US will reduce its emissions in spite of Trump, because that is the trajectory they are on anyway. Just as the previous eight years had nothing much to do with Obama. The shift from coal to natural gas for electricity has worked wonders. And coal isn't coming back no matter what Trump says. Natural gas is more versatile.
"You make the assumption that my "we" meant the West, when I was actually referring to the population of this planet."
Apologies. My mistake.
"For instance, water comes to mind. At some point in time will there be those who are blessed with life because they have plenty of water, while others perish because they have no access? Those people, who are a part of my "we", will have to make a choice as to whether or not they help those in need, or not."
Another reason why I think we need to move to a more energy intensive economy, not less, with new technology. Large scale desalination would revolutionise the world economy and make deserts bloom.
"But it certainly appears as if climate change is affecting various aspects of our lives right now. Do we sit by and do nothing? Or do we try to find ways to adapt, or possibly affect the process in such a way as to slow it down?"
We're not doing nothing. This year we're paying out $135 billion in insurance for the five big Caribbean hurricanes plus the Mexico earthquake (which is not climate obviously). It remains to be seen if those sorts of costs are repeated. When we find out we'll be in a better position to know.
"The US's problem is that it cannot afford…"
It is peculiar (and telling) that you consider this to be ‛The US's problem’.
A ‛greenie’ you most certainly are not, neither pragmatic nor otherwise.
"This year we're paying out $135 billion in insurance for the five
big Caribbean hurricanes plus the Mexico earthquake…"
I rather doubt that Ireland's expenses include any such payments.
Something to keep an eye on: [ visit to Speaker Paul Ryan's office ]
Another thing that came out of left field. So what do Ryan and/or the FBI have up their sleeves?
This is turning into one of those daytime soap operas I never watch!
One of Marcus's low IQ Africans is investigating climate stress in plants through gene sequencing, and plans to take her knowledge home to Senegal.
What an amazing woman! She, and others like her, are the best hope for Africa. She also is evidence that there is real concern in Africa about climate change and the consequences for that continent.
"So what do Ryan and/or the FBI have up their sleeves?"
It's being said that they were there to try to get Ryan to rein in Congressman Devin Nunes, who's been running interference for the Trump administration in the House of Representatives (enough so that he was force to ‛recuse himself’ from leading the House Intelligence Committee investigation into potential Trump/Russia collusion/contacts--although he routinely meddles in that affair still, his supposed recusal notwithstanding). It's also being said that Ryan rebuffed their requests.
Gotta run, back later...
Wolff's defence of his book and Trump's responses on Twitter are turning into quite a pig fight.
[Lynnette]: "What an amazing woman! She, and others like her, are the best hope for Africa."
Agreed.
"She also is evidence that there is real concern in Africa about climate change and the consequences for that continent."
Regardless of modern climate change, drought tolerance and other beneficial plant attributes would have applications in many places, including 3 million sq.km. of Sahel and 13.5 million sq.km of African tropical savanna. So yeah, it's all good.
It appears that Bannon was actually set to defend Trump and Don, Jr. after his "treasonous meeting" quote came to light from Wolff's book. Sources say he changed his mind after Trump came out swinging.
See, now, it's things like that that make the book believable on a general level.
Here is a Trump biographer's take on Wolff's book.
Some of what Wolff presents is so speculative that his critics, and the President's most ardent defenders, will be able to pick his work apart. These excesses will diminish the book's impact and, ultimately, do a disservice to the historical record.
The President and his allies perhaps would be right to express outrage over how Wolff and his sources -- Bannon chief among them -- treat his family.
However, the impression conveyed by "Fire and Fury" is true to both the man and what we have experienced, together, since he campaigned and then took office. It sketches the outline that will no doubt be filled in by future events and accounts, and is thus essential reading.
No, I haven't bought it. I haven't run across a store that had it in stock and I'm not sure that I want to spend the money on a hard cover book that just shows how dysfunctional the Trump White House really is. I see enough of that in the news.
A longer extract from Wolff.
Long, yes, but I read it. It actually sounds believable, especially the part about Trump not expecting to win.
[Lynnette]: "It appears that Bannon was actually set to defend Trump and Don, Jr. after his "treasonous meeting" quote came to light from Wolff's book. Sources say he changed his mind after Trump came out swinging."
I read that too. Trump may be a spiteful shitbag to his "enemies" (e.g. the Scarborough and Brzezinski tweets) but you'd think he would have the basic self-preservation instinct to not shit all over Bannon who probably shares support from some of the Trump base. As I said, this is turning into a massive pig fight, with Trump being very much Pig in Chief. I reckon Wolff's book is mostly idle gossip, but Trump's reaction has finally tipped me past the point where I no longer think he's fit for office (not that my opinion matters a fig).
"See, now, it's things like that that make the book believable on a general level. Here is a Trump biographer's take on Wolff's book."
I Googled a whole bunch of reviews, and that one was definitely the worst (not surprising it's on CNN). The writer is one of the many who will want to believe Wolff's screed. I reckon objectivity isn't all that important to the baying anti-Trump mob. "Believable on a general level" will do just fine. What're the bets we won't be seeing parodies like this about Wolff? ;-)
I thought this review from salon.com was a bit better ... it considers Wolff's reliability a bit more closely before reaching the same conclusion as me -- it ultimately probably isn't going to matter!
...Trump's reaction has finally tipped me past the point where I no longer think he's fit for office (not that my opinion matters a fig).
No, he is not. And I don't just say that because I don't like him as a person or that I strongly suspect he has early stage dementia. Despite his platform of running for the "little guy" that no one has been listening to, his policies since he took office have very little to do with supporting the "little guy", and more to do with helping the wealthy. It is a poor way to govern. You set your country up for trouble down the road. He has also, along with the GOP controlled Congress, passed a tax reform bill that will add to our deficit, showing poor fiscal responsibility.
I just heard a little snippet of a comment made by a Republican elected official. I didn't even catch who it was. But he said that perhaps if the Democrats would stop, and I paraphrase here, "demonizing" Trump he might be able to get something done. What he fails to see, is that is the whole point. We live in a country that has over the top everything. How do you get people to actually listen to you, without emphasizing whatever extreme behavior Trump is currently exhibiting? And they do that because there are many people out there who are completely opposed to Trump and the GOP controlled Congress's policies. This isn't just about social issues, it's also about living standards for everyone.
it considers Wolff's reliability a bit more closely before reaching the same conclusion as me -- it ultimately probably isn't going to matter!
No, it probably won't. As one person was just saying, yes on CNN, the book is basically just snippets of things we have already heard, the treasonous Bannon quote aside. People who support Trump will discount it as all lies or exaggerations and those who oppose him will say, see I told you so. It probably won't change anyone's mind. What he did say that was more interesting about the book was that it shows the deep split between Bannon and Trump.
It's being said that they were there to try to get Ryan to rein in Congressman Devin Nunes,... It's also being said that Ryan rebuffed their requests.
Yes, probably a huge waste of time to talk to Ryan. The self-satisfied look on his face after that tax reform bill passed could have told them that he won't rock the Trump boat now. He is going to work for more of his policies to get passed.
The reason Wolff's book isn't going to make any difference is that the dedicated Trumpkins already know most everything that's in the book (or they strongly suspect it). They may not know the particular details covered by the book, but they've got the general outline down already. They don't care. They make up a dominating majority of the voters who show up for Republican primaries, and they already know and they don't care.
And as long as they stick by Trump the Republicans in Congress will cover for him.
This billboard showed up in a Minnesota county that has been voting Republican.
I'm guessing you're meaning the billboard that says ‘Big Mistake’? It's the larger on that page.
Yup, that's the one.
One of the news channels interviewed a few people to get their reactions. It was a mix. One person said it was freedom of speech, and others agreed with the sentiment. One person said we should give Trump some time to accomplish something. Personally, I do not agree with much of what he does, so I am good with the "Big Mistake" sentiment.
I see he is set to deport 250,000 Salvadorans that have been here since the 2001 earthquake. Sad, very sad.
There is an odd thing I notice going on with Trump's support among Republicans. He's losing support among the real populists as they begin to notice that he's actually governing as a traditional Republican, i.e. rhetoric for the ‛base’ and tax cuts and regulatory repeal for the donors. At the same time he's gaining support among the ‛establishment’ Republicans who've seen him sign pretty much whatever those ol’ establishment folks, Ryan and McConnell, can get to his desk.
The exile of Steve Bannon has further delighted the establishment ranks.
Gain a little here; lose a little there. Still hangin’ in there well above impeachment territory.
At the same time he's gaining support among the ‛establishment’ Republicans who've seen him sign pretty much whatever those ol’ establishment folks, Ryan and McConnell, can get to his desk.
Yeah, they'll try to make hay as long as the sun shines.
*whispers softly*
Are you hiding down here?
No.
Post a Comment