US Politics: Confederacy vs Nazis vs USSR

[lokisnow]

Is Grimes Iowa? because Iowa was lost a couple months ago when the dem candidate started denigrating farmers for not being as smart as trial lawyers. Also his opponent has a really kick ass ad, iirc.

[1918me]

Some good news for Arkansas: the gay marriage ban there has been deemed unconstitutional.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/arkansas-judge-strikes-gay-marriage-ban-23663065

[lokisnow]

No, Kentucky. I doubt she can beat the turtle, but she seems like a pretty strong red state Dem candidate, and maybe just maybe she can exploit the success of the healthcare law there where it's gone well on both the exchange front and the Medicaid front. The the turtle is a mighty creature and can hide its head behind its protective shell of super pac funds.

Ah, I figure Grimes has a better chance to get Kentucky for Dems than Iowa going Dem. A lot of the predictions so far have Iowa leaning dem, but the candidate quality disparity of shitty Dem candidate and awesome republican candidate mean it is about 100% republican, imo.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Ah, I figure Grimes has a better chance to get Kentucky for Dems than Iowa going Dem. A lot of the predictions so far have Iowa leaning dem, but the candidate quality disparity of shitty Dem candidate and awesome republican candidate mean it is about 100% republican, imo.

I think it might be a little bit premature to declare the Democratic candidate shitty and the race lost based on one gaffe.

[Wise Fool]

I am really enjoying this subplot in American public life where Satanists are antagonizing the Christianists:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/09/florida-towns-choice-violate-supreme-court-ruling-or-open-meeting-with-satanic-prayer/

But isn't that not really Satanism? He's more like a Satanistist.

[DanteGabriel]

Ah, sorry, I didn't mean to paint Christians with such a broad brush like that; I wasn't aware of the correct terminology to use.

I didn't mean to imply criticism of your word choice, but one of my pet issues is drawing a distinction between my conception of "proper" Christianity versus the rabidly political incarnation of it that is practiced by so many Republican politicians, that seeks to impose their faith upon others through the mechanisms of the state, and seems to constantly see themselves as oppressed and persecuted because there's a little more breathing space for other religions (or no religion at all) now. I took the term "Christianist" from Andrew Sullivan, who rightfully draws a parallel to the radical theocratic "Islamists" that have posed such a problem in the Middle East. My own term for them is "McJesusites."

[1918me]

I didn't mean to imply criticism of your word choice, but one of my pet issues is drawing a distinction between my conception of "proper" Christianity versus the rabidly political incarnation of it that is practiced by so many Republican politicians, that seeks to impose their faith upon others through the mechanisms of the state, and seems to constantly see themselves as oppressed and persecuted because there's a little more breathing space for other religions (or no religion at all) now. I took the term "Christianist" from Andrew Sullivan, who rightfully draws a parallel to the radical theocratic "Islamists" that have posed such a problem in the Middle East. My own term for them is "McJesusites."

Okay, that makes sense. I hadn't heard that term used before, but I can definitely see what's that's a distinction that needs to be made.

[Ramsay Gimp]

But isn't that not really Satanism? He's more like a Satanistist.

He's just a troll, really. An actual LaVeyan Satanist wouldn't bother with such nonsense, and an actual Devil-Worshipper....well, I don't know if they even exist

[Ramsay Gimp]

Some interesting links....

From Charles Murray, a review of A Troublesome Inheritance, a new book by Nicholas Wade (a science writer for the NYT). I'd encourage you to read it with an open mind, since Murray is often labelled a racist by hucksters who've never actually read him http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303380004579521482247869874

The third front is different in kind. This campaign is waged not against actual violations of civil rights or expressions of prejudice or hatred, but against the idea that biological differences among human populations are a legitimate subject of scholarly study. The reigning intellectual orthodoxy is that race is a "social construct," a cultural artifact without biological merit.

......

Mr. Lewontin turns out to have been mistaken on several counts, but the most obvious is this: If he had been right, then genetic variations among humans would not naturally sort people into races and ethnicities. But, as Mr. Wade reports, that's exactly what happens. A computer given a random sampling of bits of DNA that are known to vary among humans—from among the millions of them—will cluster them into groups that correspond to the self-identified race or ethnicity of the subjects

.....

Let me emphasize, as Mr. Wade does, how little we yet know about the substance of racial and ethnic differences. Work in the decade since the genome was sequenced has taught us that genetically linked traits, even a comparatively simple one like height, are far more complex than previously imagined, involving dozens or hundreds of genes, plus other forms of variation within our DNA, plus interactions between the environment and gene expression. For emotional or cognitive traits, the story is so complicated that we are probably a decade or more away from substantial understanding. As the story is untangled, it will also become obvious how inappropriate it is to talk in terms of the "inferiority" or "superiority" of groups.

And getting back to our minimum wage debate - "Krugman vs. Hazlitt on Minimum Wage: Who Is Really 'Wrong About Everything'?"

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2013/07/22/krugman-vs-hazlitt-on-minimum-wage-who-is-really-wrong-about-everything/

Krugman’s arrogance in light of his own record as truly astounding. His case that Hazlitt was “wrong about everything” is that Hazlitt argued during the Great Depression against fixing the price of wages above a certain minimum. Krugman trumpets John Maynard Keynes arguing that where there are a lot of unemployed workers because businesses would be running at a loss to hire them at the minimum wage, a reduction of wages is not the answer, that “it is a delusion” to “suppose” otherwise. Krugman quotes Keynes arguing that “if wages are cut all round, the purchasing power of the community as a whole is reduced by the same amount as the reduction of costs; and, again, no one is further forward.”

The problem is Krugman either doesn’t understand, or pretends not to understand, that this is absolute nonsense.

[BloodRider]

problem is Krugman either doesn’t understand, or pretends not to understand, that this is absolute nonsense.

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence

That article has no evidence. Just a bunch of appeals to authority and bald assertions. This is in the face of actual real evidence posted here to the contrary. Again I wonder what the appeal of someone so afraid of authoritarianism is for swelling authoritative statements.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Which article are you referring to?

[Phaing]

MC,

You don't understand. Eventually, the hearing will be done in the right way, and you'll know that's happened when it finds the Administration guilty of something. Cos you know they gotta be guilty. Of something. I don't know something. Right?

I'll settle for the first one where they tell the truth.

The new evidence shows that this has yet to happen.

But hey, who gives a crap, this was all, like dozens of lies ago, right?

Here it comes - the FBI is investigating the events surrounding the Bundy militia stand-off in Nevada.

I'm hardly a fan of the FBI, but I sure do hope those crazy fuckers get what's coming to them.

Oh, and what would that be, exactly? Shipped off to Camp Manzanar, perhaps?

You might want to consider what lead to the mass of folks coming out there, it does not fit what most of you easterners are probably thinking;

Routine extortion and violence by the BLM

Beginning in the late 1980s, BLM adopted aggressive tactics in the West, leading to large-scale cattle seizures and a disruption of life for ranchers that had utilized public lands for decades prior. While the press has showered attention on Cliven Bundy, a polarizing man who prompted a tense standoff between Bundy's well-armed militia supporters and federal police, the struggle between ranchers and the BLM is much broader

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/04/29/The-Long-History-Of-BLM-s-Aggressive-Cattle-Seizures

Satan, again?

How about something you can really sink your teeth into-

"Saturated fat does not cause heart disease"—or so concluded a big study published in March in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine. How could this be? The very cornerstone of dietary advice for generations has been that the saturated fats in butter, cheese and red meat should be avoided because they clog our arteries. But there has never been solid evidence for the idea that these fats cause disease,

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303678404579533760760481486

[Phaing]

Right, well be sure and shoot the messenger first thing.

And yes, that revelation about Fats is a lollapalooza, :thumbsup: and a stab at the heart to all the junk science out there.

"Expert" Opinions .... fucking hell.

Ex= has-been.

Spurt= a drip under pressure.

Put them together and what have you got?

A media star, apparently. And if you don't like Breitbart, I can assume you didn't read any of that. No problem, but there is a lot in there I can use the next time they try to slam all the Ranchers, again.

[Inigima]

Breitbart is partisan on the level of sites like Raw Story and both will be summarily laughed out of here like the clown shows they are.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Ramsay - I've seen a few interesting bits on the Charles Murray piece. Without endorsing any particular position, I can conceive of the possibility that such a thing as Wade asserts is true. After all, he's not really asserting epic fundamental differences between races, right? It's more like he's suggesting that that on average over large sample sizes, small statistical differences can be found. Is there a reactionary left that dismisses such possibilities out of hand? I would say for sure. But here's a Devil's Advocate position. If all that is being asserted is this tiny statistical difference, why is the thing even interesting to the people that find it interesting?

I mean, as the WSJ writer tries to suggest, the greater understanding shouldn't even lead to terms like superiority and inferiority. But I have a hard time seeing it not doing just that.

Rod Dreher weighs in here

Some guy from Slate weighs in here. Headline calls it "both plausible and preposterous."

ETA: I think BloodRider is saying that the piece on Krugman does not explain why the supposed absolute nonsense is absolute nonsense.

I'll check out those response pieces in a bit. But we're talking about statistical averages, yes.

My layman's interpretation is that it is interesting because it points to possible genetic explanations for all sorts of things that have previously not been associated with genes. Personality traits, etc. Mankind's more recent evolution (which has apparently has been dismissed as insignificant by the "reigning orthodoxies") may also get more attention. I also just find the "social construct" people annoying, and have thought for a while that they go too far in their claims.

Like Murray says in the article, these findings could even lead to a merging of the social and biological sciences. "Superiority/inferiority" may well be claimed by idiot racists, but the fact is there is no ideal human being. To use the author's example: one set of genes may be more ideal for a parent, another may be more ideal for an entrepreneur. Most of that stuff is very far off, but the PC orthodoxies have to be discarded in order to develop greater understanding.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

Ramsay - I've seen a few interesting bits on the Charles Murray piece. Without endorsing any particular position, I can conceive of the possibility that such a thing as Wade asserts is true. After all, he's not really asserting epic fundamental differences between races, right? It's more like he's suggesting that that on average over large sample sizes, small statistical differences can be found. Is there a reactionary left that dismisses such possibilities out of hand? I would say for sure. But here's a Devil's Advocate position. If all that is being asserted is this tiny statistical difference, why is the thing even interesting to the people that find it interesting?

I mean, as the WSJ writer tries to suggest, the greater understanding shouldn't even lead to terms like superiority and inferiority. But I have a hard time seeing it not doing just that.

Rod Dreher weighs in here

Some guy from Slate weighs in here. Headline calls it "both plausible and preposterous."

ETA: I think BloodRider is saying that the piece on Krugman does not explain why the supposed absolute nonsense is absolute nonsense.

I'd certainly like to read more liberal commentary on the subject. I'm of the position that a claim being racist doesn't necessarily make it untrue and I'd be very interested in reading prominent progressives seriously tackle the issue in a way that devolve into screaming "racist" and sticking their fingers in their ears.

ETA: The best arguments I've read against the HBD/Steve Sailer types were by Ron Unz, writing for the American Conservative, and some crazy internet libertarian who was paranoid about Islam taking over the world.

[Phaing]

Breitbart is partisan on the level of sites like Raw Story and both will be summarily laughed out of here like the clown shows they are.

Shall we make a list of dis-approved sites then? I don't want to pester the community with sites they have decided are too biased.

I'm hoping the list of overly-biased sites for the Left is as long as the one for the Right, but we'll see.

[awesome possum]

And if you don't like Breitbart, I can assume you didn't read any of that. No problem, but there is a lot in there I can use the next time they try to slam all the Ranchers, again.

Do you bother to read what you're replying to or just see keywords and go red in the need to reply to what Rush told you the dumb libruls are thinking today? The FBI's investigation has nothing to do with "all the Ranchers" and everything to do with the militia members who have threatened and harassed American civilians.

Also, what do you think about the Republican-led Armed Services Committee finding nothing on BENGHAZI!!? Or the 7 other House reports that found nothing? Or the 2 Senate reports? Or the State Department review? Were all those based on lies, despite all being ordered and investigated by Republicans?

[MerenthaClone]

I'll settle for the first one where they tell the truth.

The new evidence shows that this has yet to happen.

But hey, who gives a crap, this was all, like dozens of lies ago, right?

"Saturated fat does not cause heart disease"—or so concluded a big study published in March in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine. How could this be? The very cornerstone of dietary advice for generations has been that the saturated fats in butter, cheese and red meat should be avoided because they clog our arteries. But there has never been solid evidence for the idea that these fats cause disease,

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303678404579533760760481486

Truth being defined as...what? What you're expecting to see? In which case, your stated goal of these hearings is "they will continue until I get what I want". Yeah, that's not intellectually dishonest at all.

Also, what is really funny to me about your whole "fuck experts" rant is that...the experts are the ones putting out the conflicting paper. In fact, its proof that the scientific method, while slow and occasionally unreliable, tends to self-correct better than anything else we have. In other words, your entire post is proof positive that the experts should be listened to (when that information is presented in a format that is vettable by other experts and published in a peer-reviewed journal). Incidentally, while I don't have access to the AIM at home, I do at work, and will be interested to see what the response to peer-reviewed data actually is. Good on those researchers and scientists for verifying facts (if that is actually what they did). I presume you'll also accept at face value the research they also put out that shows that mortality was significantly decreased in Massachusets following their expansion of healthcare access, and that it was basically an unmitigated good?

[Phaing]

Truth being defined as...what? What you're expecting to see? In which case, your stated goal of these hearings is "they will continue until I get what I want". Yeah, that's not intellectually dishonest at all.

Oh come on, like your side never went at it like that? :laugh:

Try again.

And the Emails showed, if you had read them... oh, wait, you won't, will you?

Nevermind.

I guess we can jabber about Satan or something "cool" like that.

Or not.