tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-49188673714396958742024-03-08T12:49:56.628-08:00Stoat spamThis blog consists of comments from my real blog, http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/, which I don't want to publish there.
Plus some other stuff convenient to place here.
And its becoming a convenient place for me to dump my comments on other blogs so I can find them again.William M. Connolleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comBlogger141125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4918867371439695874.post-86600671382111697572024-03-05T13:47:00.000-08:002024-03-08T04:31:44.755-08:00You're a lazy racist who indulges in victim blaming<p> <a style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Nathan</a><span face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: small;"> has left a new comment on the post '</span><a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://mustelid.blogspot.com/2024/02/the-parable-of-antheap-and-anteater.html?ext-ref%3Dcomm-sub-email&source=gmail&ust=1709761528362000&usg=AOvVaw06XhNLG4tXts5pXxpteqWh" href="https://mustelid.blogspot.com/2024/02/the-parable-of-antheap-and-anteater.html?ext-ref=comm-sub-email" style="background-color: white; color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" target="_blank">The parable of the Antheap and the Anteater</a><span face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: small;">':</span></p><span face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: small;">Your appeasement of genocide is ugly.</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" /><span face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: small;">You're a lazy racist who indulges in victim blaming.</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" /><span face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: small;">How dare you blame children for Hamas.</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" /><span face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: small;">How can you say people deserve to die because they won't repudiate terrorism.</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" /><span face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: small;">What sort of logic is this??</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" /><span face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: small;">Who are you, that you can blame people for the faults of others and say they deserve to be starved to death.</span><div><span class="im" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; font-size: small;"><span style="color: #222222;"><br /></span></span><div><span face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="im" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #500050; font-size: small;"><a style="color: #222222;">Nathan</a> has left a new comment on the post '<a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://mustelid.blogspot.com/2024/02/the-parable-of-antheap-and-anteater.html?ext-ref%3Dcomm-sub-email&source=gmail&ust=1709761528363000&usg=AOvVaw09q0KuRHxu-4M_PoqJJmp1" href="https://mustelid.blogspot.com/2024/02/the-parable-of-antheap-and-anteater.html?ext-ref=comm-sub-email" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">The parable of the Antheap and the Anteater</a>':<br /><br /></span><span face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: small;">So how many were there?</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" /><span face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: small;">These are the numbers</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" /><span face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: small;">"At least 112 people died and 760 were injured on Thursday when desperate crowds gathered to collect flour."</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" /><span face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: small;">You live in some sort of fucked up fantasy land, where quibbling about exact numbers makes for rational discussion.</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" /><span face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: small;">As we say in Australia: You're a dickhead, pull your head in</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" /><span face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: small;">Any point of view that accepts starving people to death deliberately as a fair outcome is pretty fucked up</span><span class="im" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #500050; font-size: small;"><br /></span></div></div><div><span face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div><span face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div><span face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: small;"><a style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Nathan</a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"> has left a new comment on the post '</span><a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://mustelid.blogspot.com/2024/02/the-parable-of-antheap-and-anteater.html?ext-ref%3Dcomm-sub-email&source=gmail&ust=1709986655722000&usg=AOvVaw05JNVapKFgSsAtj4mt4WFX" href="https://mustelid.blogspot.com/2024/02/the-parable-of-antheap-and-anteater.html?ext-ref=comm-sub-email" style="color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" target="_blank">The parable of the Antheap and the Anteater</a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">':</span><br style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" /><br style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" /><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">"The people who do need such courage are the Palestinians, and sadly they appear to either lack it, or worse lack the desire to repudiate Hamas, or the dead hand of their history."</span><br style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" /><br style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" /><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">I am amazed by your lack of campassioon, unwillingness to acknowledge history and your blatant racism when discussing this issue.</span><br style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" /><br style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" /><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Your racism needs to be called out, especially as you use it to justify the actions of the Israelis.</span><br style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" /><br style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" /><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Here's some classic examples:</span><br style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" /><br style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" /><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Arabs hate Jews... Racist and not-provable</span><br style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" /><br style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" /><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Arabs can't form stable Governemnts... Racist and obviously wrong</span><br style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" /><br style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" /><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Muslim Faith leaders cannot comment on morality.... Racist and not-provable</span><br style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" /><br style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" /><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Egypt should accommodate Palestinian Refugees (with an emphasis on blaming them for not volunteering... Basically racist and ignores the obvious</span><br style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" /><br style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" /><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Palestinians are responsible for the actions of Hamas... Racist and supporting war crimes.</span><br style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" /><br style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" /><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">I probably get that you don't understand the racism, but it pretty obvious.</span><br style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" /><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Especially, when you tone police your blog, while at the same time promote racist writers.</span><br style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" /><br style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" /><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">lastly this: This is not true; as so often, the desire to speak words and be noticed isn't matched by a commitment to reality.</span><br style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" /><br style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" /><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Is total denial of reality - there were almost 1000 casualties, there was clearly thousands of people attempting to get food, and the Israelis clearly fired at them.</span></span></div>William M. Connolleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4918867371439695874.post-63529217524340325052023-01-01T07:59:00.006-08:002023-01-01T07:59:54.394-08:00Just to keep the spirit of your valetesAnonymous said...<p>Re Victor Venema, just to keep the spirit of your valetes to dead climate "scientists", good riddance to the thin-skinned, xenophobic, ridiculously politically correct tosser! He won't be missed by many people</p><p><a href="http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2022/12/happy-christmas.html">01/01/2023, 15:28 </a></p>William M. Connolleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4918867371439695874.post-22500819893415268602020-04-23T14:26:00.000-07:002020-04-23T14:26:04.528-07:00So surprised you haven't posted a heageography<a href="https://www.blogger.com/profile/11007306140530173428">Graeme</a> <a href="https://mustelid.blogspot.com/2020/04/coronavirus-days-ihme-model-is-worthless.html?showComment=1587588892742#c819200372562805113">said</a>...<br />
<br />
So surprised you haven't posted a heageography of hoaxer-in-chief Sir John Houghton. Are you slacking? Or is living the preferred eco lifestyle getting to you?<br />
<br />
22/04/2020, 20:54<br />
<br />
To which I reply: oh, FFS, can't you idiots even manage to spell hagiography correctly?William M. Connolleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4918867371439695874.post-32656599618368400272019-05-30T02:51:00.002-07:002019-05-30T02:51:43.509-07:00Congress is Pissed Or <a href="http://capitalistimperialistpig.blogspot.com/2019/05/congress-is-pissed.html">so says CIP</a>. This is vis-a-vis Mueller vs Trump. I said:<br />
<br />
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #2a2e2e; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px; margin-bottom: 15px; padding: 0px;">
In Merrie Englande, "pissed" means drunk. Having said that...</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #2a2e2e; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px; margin-bottom: 15px; padding: 0px;">
I think Mueller is belatedly realised he kinda fucked up and now wants a second go. But what to make of "Mueller explained that his decision was based on longstanding justice department policy, rather than lack of evidence. “A president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office,” he said. “That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view – that too is prohibited.”" (<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/29/mueller-says-trump-was-not-exonerated-by-his-investigation">https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/29/mueller-says-trump-was-not-exonerated-by-his-investigation</a>). That sounds like bollox to me. Plenty of people (waves hands vaguely) were fully expecting and hoping that Mueller would indeed charge The Mango; only *now* claiming there is a clear policy not to do so sounds like excuse making.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #2a2e2e; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px; padding: 0px;">
Congress has I think got using to buying cheap popularity with pork and ducking hard decisions, which is why so much power has bled away to the presidency. This is not what your founders intended.</div>
William M. Connolleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4918867371439695874.post-85781957709889611052019-05-15T01:31:00.001-07:002019-05-15T01:31:25.869-07:00Talking about "The Green New Deal And A Universal Basic Income" with Thomas FullerTF posts <a href="https://thegreennewwave.com/2019/05/14/the-green-new-deal-and-a-universal-basic-income/">The Green New Deal And A Universal Basic Income;</a> I commented the below. Let's see how the discussion goes.<br />
<br />
<br />
<footer class="comment-meta" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: Merriweather, Georgia, serif; font-size: 16px;"><div class="comment-author vcard" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px;">
<span class="fn" style="box-sizing: inherit; font-weight: 700;"><a class="url" href="http://wmconnolley.wordpress.com/" rel="external nofollow" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: inherit; color: #007acc; text-decoration-line: none;">wmconnolley</a></span><span class="says" style="box-sizing: inherit; clip: rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px); height: 1px; overflow-wrap: normal !important; overflow: hidden; position: absolute !important; width: 1px;">says:</span></div>
<div class="comment-metadata" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #686868; font-family: Montserrat, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; font-size: 0.8125rem; line-height: 1.61538; margin-bottom: 2.15385em;">
<a href="https://thegreennewwave.com/2019/05/14/the-green-new-deal-and-a-universal-basic-income/comment-page-1/#comment-26" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: inherit; color: #686868; text-decoration-line: none;">May 15, 2019 at 8:28 am</a></div>
<em class="comment-awaiting-moderation" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #686868; font-size: 0.8125rem; line-height: 1.61538; margin-bottom: 2.15385em;">Your comment is awaiting moderation.</em></footer><div class="comment-content" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: Merriweather, Georgia, serif; font-size: 16px;">
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.75em;">
This is doomed in so many ways (I say that as someone definitely interested in an UBI, and <a href="https://wmconnolley.wordpress.com/2017/07/29/why-dont-people-pay-attention-to-the-future-of-their-own-world/" rel="nofollow" style="background-color: transparent; box-shadow: currentcolor 0px 1px 0px 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: #007acc; text-decoration-line: none;">perhaps even a supporter of it</a>).</div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.75em;">
> but few would argue we are doing enough</div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.75em;">
I think you’re wrong. I think many people would (in the sense of proportion of those-that-bother-to-even-think-about-it). Also, I’d guess your averages hide a lot.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.75em;">
> a permanent net loss of positions</div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.75em;">
A bit like when farming was mechanised. Or when spinning was. Oh, but this time is different… And who knows, maybe it is. But I’m dubious.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.75em;">
> primary premises of The Green New Deal is “Guaranteeing a job with…</div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.75em;">
I think this is a bad idea and it’s one of the reasons that I oppose the GND. But then I’m a small-govt person.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.75em;">
> endorsement by us for</div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.75em;">
You speak in the plural. Who is “us”?</div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.75em;">
> sovereign wealth fund</div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.75em;">
You don’t have a SWF because you don’t have a budget surplus, you have a (massive, by world standards) deficit. If you could raise extra income through magic free taxes, there would be pressure to (a) pay down the deficit; but also (see recent politics) to give out freebies and/or cut other taxes.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.75em;">
> it wouldn’t take long …. By 2030 we could have a nice nest egg built up</div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.75em;">
Sorry, but this is where you get delusional. Can you genuinely imagine a large nest egg building up, and your rapacious pols not raiding it for their own pet pork projects?</div>
</div>
William M. Connolleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4918867371439695874.post-7542585261319655002019-01-05T12:12:00.002-08:002019-05-15T01:29:27.510-07:00CIP tilts against Public Choice, againPeople don't like <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice">Public Choice</a>. The name, incidentally, is a touch weird, but never mind. It's just a name. When you know what it's a label for, you know what it is. It is associated in my mind with <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_M._Buchanan">James M. Buchanan</a>; and it came to my attention during the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_MacLean#Democracy_in_Chains_(2017)">Democracy in Chains</a> nonsense. In a way, it is just the bleedin' obvious; in much the same way that natural selection is. But the implications - towards smaller government - are strongly resisted by all those who don't want smaller government.<br />
<br />
Which brings us to <a href="http://capitalistimperialistpig.blogspot.com/2019/01/public-choice.html">CIP's take on Public Choice</a> (<a href="http://archive.vn/TNVfn">arch</a>, which doesn't include the comments), which is is reaction to my <a href="https://mustelid.blogspot.com/2018/09/the-left-has-no-theory-of-behavior-of.html">The left has no theory of the behaviour of the government?</a><br />
<br />
I assert that Plato is the archetypical believer in the virtues of govt, and ignorer of public choice. CIP asserts<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Plato and Confucius were very familiar with governments behaving badly, and had elaborate theories for how to prevent or limit the damage. You may need to reread your Republic [Hint: prevent or limit conflicts of interest].</blockquote>
I reply:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
If Plato is aware of the PC / P-A problem in the Republic, then please quote chapter and verse. I assert that he is unaware of it. Prove me wrong by direct quotation.</blockquote>
I await his response.William M. Connolleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4918867371439695874.post-90263112029696701732019-01-02T08:01:00.000-08:002019-01-02T08:01:01.338-08:00Roy Spencer and the List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming<div class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2018-0-25-deg-c/#comment-336237">Over at Dr Roy's</a>, I asked:</div>
<br />
<blockquote>
Off topic, but I have a question for you. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
You're listed in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming</a> under "Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes". Someone who thinks they are defending you has recently complained about that (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming#Umm,_isn't_it_long,_long_past_time,_to_replace_this_incredibly_outdated,_29_YEARS_old,_%22Climate_Change_Attribution%22_chart?">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming#Umm,_isn't_it_long,_long_past_time,_to_replace_this_incredibly_outdated,_29_YEARS_old,_%22Climate_Change_Attribution%22_chart?</a>). </blockquote>
<blockquote>
If you're happy being so listed, then all is well. The listing is on the basis of your 2008 testimony "I predict that in the coming years, there will be a growing realization among the global warming research community that most of the climate change we have observed is natural, and that mankind’s role is relatively minor". </blockquote>
<blockquote>
If you're not happy being so listed, then pointing to something you're written that explicitly or implicitly revises those words would be useful.</blockquote>
William M. Connolleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4918867371439695874.post-51993014958131523902018-11-17T10:38:00.002-08:002018-11-17T10:54:20.873-08:00Freedom of the Press and of Speech: True and False; By David Henderson<div class="tr_bq">
<a href="https://www.econlib.org/freedom-of-the-press-and-of-speech-true-and-false/">Freedom of the Press and of Speech: True and False</a> is by David Henderson at EconLib, which I've taken to reading recently. This discusses CNN/Acosta and the White House withdrawl of Acosta's press pass. Oddly, the article discusses only the First Amendment issue and argues (narrowly) that there is no First Amendment (freedom of speech) issue. Narrowly, that is true; I'm not convinced that a court might not construe it more broadly. But that's not important, because there is a far clearer Fifth Amendment (due process) right. As <a href="https://www.econlib.org/freedom-of-the-press-and-of-speech-true-and-false/#comment-211331">I comment</a>:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
You seem to have got the Acosta stuff wrong. The judge didn’t rule on First, he (from your link) “sided with CNN on the basis of the suit’s Fifth Amendment claims, saying the White House did not provide Acosta with the due process required to legally revoke his press pass”.</blockquote>
That gets an <a href="https://www.econlib.org/freedom-of-the-press-and-of-speech-true-and-false/#comment-211340">odd answer from another commentator</a>, to which <a href="https://www.econlib.org/freedom-of-the-press-and-of-speech-true-and-false/#comment-211363">I reply</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
"due process" is much wider than life, liberty or property. As you surely know. The odd thing here is that this article focusses on the First, even though the judgement was made explicitly on the basis of the Fifth.<br />
And when you think about it, what seems "wrong" about the press pass being revoked is indeed not a freedom of speech matter, as this article notes; the wrongness lies in the White House's treatment of an individual. The WH's action was arbitrary, and motivated by pique; this is why it falls foul of the Fifth. And correctly so: the WH (aka the Govt) should not be able to play favourites, and try to intimidate journalists by withdrawl of access.</blockquote>
William M. Connolleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4918867371439695874.post-70180552026913168142018-11-01T01:55:00.000-07:002018-11-01T01:55:01.830-07:00CIP: Of Course Trump is to Blame (for the bombings): terrorism and trolling<div class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://capitalistimperialistpig.blogspot.com/2018/10/of-course-trump-is-to-blame.html">CIP got wound up</a> about the recent "bombings". Partly because he discovered he could blame Trump, somewhat implausibly in my view. I said:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
If he's to blame for the "bombings" (which weren't actually bombings since none of them went off) he's to blame for something very dull. Except the meeja always overplay anything with bombs, because they're kinda sexy. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
> modern American has acquired such a potent appetite for this truly disgusting human being </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Indeed. But Trump isn't to blame for that, the modern USAnians are.</blockquote>
CIP wasn't happy, so I expanded:<br />
<blockquote>
> deprecate every crime </blockquote>
<blockquote>
I don't. As you've maybe noticed, I've said nothing about the recent shootings, because real people actually died. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Unlike the "bombings", where no-one died; and where the intended targets wouldn't have been affected even if the bombs had been real. It was terrorism, in the sense of attention-grabbing; more trolling than real terrorism (compare the inches of column coverage you, and your meeja, gave it compared to the recent Afghan bombings where yet more real people actually died). DNFTT.</blockquote>
People are so easily trolled by bombings. We're the same.William M. Connolleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4918867371439695874.post-40061093218646759922018-10-09T07:01:00.000-07:002018-10-09T07:02:16.890-07:00The Supreme Court - CIP<div class="tr_bq">
In <a href="http://capitalistimperialistpig.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-supreme-court.html">the Supreme Court</a> CIP discusses, errrm, SCOTUS. This of course is in the context of <a href="http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2018/10/der-prozess.html">Kavanaugh</a>.</div>
<br />
I jumped in because of his <i>the Supreme Court is not only the ultimate interpreter of the laws but has also appropriated the right to judge laws against the template of the Constitution and strike down those it finds wanting</i>, which I found odd. After all, some entity is going to have to do this; the court is the obvious one.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://capitalistimperialistpig.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-supreme-court.html#comment-4136506600">CIP continues</a> <i>I prefer that laws be made by the legislature rather than the Court</i>. I think that's sort-of snark; anyway, I replied:<br />
<blockquote>
Everyone agrees that the laws should be *made* by the Legislature (pace <a href="http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2018/07/politico-offers-us-various.html">law-is-custom</a>, of course). But that leaves open two issues, that need to be resolved: interpreting the law, and conformity with the constitution. Neither of these is "making" law, except in a rather stretched sense (notice we're not talking about common law at this point).</blockquote>
<blockquote>
If you're Hobbes, then the person who gets to interpret the law is effectively the legislator, but this is too broad, because the interpreter doesn't have arbitrary authority to do so, in practice. So the courts get to only interpret ambiguous bits, and therefore the legislature, if it likes, gets to have another go and remake the law if it wants to.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
The constitution could have included a clause stating that the legislature is trusted to ensure that laws that it passes are consistent with the constitution, and therefore all laws passed are automatically constitutional, but it didn't. Absent that there is an unavoidable need to some body to check this constitutionality. And (having now got to this point it becomes obvious) since the legislature can't be trusted with this task, it has to be the court.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
The constitution genuinely is there to prevent majoritarian tyranny, so yes it must be capable of forbidding some laws, no matter how much people want them. See the aforementioned church-n-state. Of course, even that can be solved if you have enough votes by changing the constitution (see-also <a href="https://cafehayek.com/2018/10/formally-amending-constitutions.html">https://cafehayek.com/2018/10/formally-amending-constitutions.html</a>).</blockquote>
William M. Connolleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4918867371439695874.post-53498035978031005872018-09-10T13:16:00.001-07:002018-09-10T13:16:26.055-07:00Modern Galileos facing the Postmodernist Inquisition?When someone plays the "<a href="https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Galileo_gambit">Galileo gambit</a>" it's a fair sign that the reader should be cautious. In this case the writer is the usually interesting <a href="https://thingfinder.blogspot.com/2018/09/modern-galileos-facing-postmodernist.html">Thing Finder</a> (<a href="http://archive.is/gvyjY">arch</a>), and the post one that segues into Global Warming and how Evil Climate Scientists have suppressed... you know the story; read the post if you like.<br />
<br />
I was interested to see if a rational discussion was possible; the answer looks like being "no". The irony is that TF is quite keen on the idea of cognitive biases but, as is commonplace, only those of other people.William M. Connolleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4918867371439695874.post-22041091317761440002018-08-29T02:15:00.001-07:002018-08-29T02:15:20.307-07:00Conservatives find liberals deficient in some other stuffCIP discusses <a href="http://capitalistimperialistpig.blogspot.com/2018/08/right-and-wrong.html">Right and Wrong</a> and I felt moved to comment:<br />
<br />
<header class="comment__header" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #2a2e2e; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1; margin-bottom: 3px; padding-right: 46px;"><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: 21px; padding: 0px;">
<span class="post-byline" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span class="author publisher-anchor-color" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #656c7a; font-weight: 700;"><a data-action="profile" data-username="williamconnolley" href="https://disqus.com/by/williamconnolley/" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #2a2e2e; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.1s linear 0s;" target="_blank">William Connolley</a></span> </span><span class="post-meta" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-block;"><span aria-hidden="true" class="bullet time-ago-bullet" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #c2c6cc; line-height: 1.4; padding: 0px;">•</span> <a class="time-ago" data-role="relative-time" href="http://capitalistimperialistpig.blogspot.com/2018/08/right-and-wrong.html#comment-4060827714" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #656c7a; font-family: inherit; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.1s linear 0s;" title="Sunday, August 26, 2018 11:29 AM">3 days ago</a></span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: 21px; padding: 0px;">
> Liberals find conservatives deficient in compassion and tolerance and conservatives find liberals deficient in some other stuff<br />You know, or can invent, the "liberal" position. But you are too deficient too know, or (it would appear) even to care, what "conservatives" think.</blockquote>
</header><div class="post-body-inner" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #2a2e2e; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">
<div class="post-message-container" data-role="message-container" style="box-sizing: border-box; overflow: hidden; position: relative; width: 710px; zoom: 1;">
<div class="publisher-anchor-color" data-role="message-content" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<div class="post-message " data-role="message" dir="auto" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 21px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: 21px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
The conversation grew heated; CIP continued in <a href="http://capitalistimperialistpig.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-conservative-position.html">The Conservative Position</a>. I replied there:<br />
<br />
<header class="comment__header" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #2a2e2e; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1; margin-bottom: 3px; padding-right: 46px;"><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: 21px; padding: 0px;">
<span class="post-byline" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span class="author publisher-anchor-color" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #656c7a; font-weight: 700;"><a data-action="profile" data-username="williamconnolley" href="https://disqus.com/by/williamconnolley/" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(33, 150, 243) !important; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.1s linear 0s;" target="_blank">William Connolley</a></span> </span><span class="post-meta" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-block;"><span aria-hidden="true" class="bullet time-ago-bullet" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #c2c6cc; line-height: 1.4; padding: 0px;">•</span> <a class="time-ago" data-role="relative-time" href="http://capitalistimperialistpig.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-conservative-position.html#comment-4062329166" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #656c7a; font-family: inherit; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.1s linear 0s;" title="Monday, August 27, 2018 9:12 AM">2 days ago</a></span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: 21px; padding: 0px;">
We're getting fairly close to not being able to talk to each other, which would be a shame.<br />Recall that this started from your "Liberals find conservatives deficient in compassion and tolerance and conservatives find liberals deficient in some other stuff". I'm still trying to tell you that you're finding it hard to understand, or perhaps to care, what C's think about L's.<br />> Kirk... is fond of citing that old fascist, Plato<br />You mean like <a href="http://disq.us/url?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcapitalistimperialistpig.blogspot.com%2F2018%2F01%2Fplatos-nails-this-one.html%3A8Q_mpDjciV9xPx1rXYc6lQ1Sfqg&cuid=1704199" rel="nofollow noopener" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(33, 150, 243) !important; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.1s linear 0s;" title="http://capitalistimperialistpig.blogspot.com/2018/01/platos-nails-this-one.html">http://capitalistimperialis...</a> ?<br />I'm not familiar with K. <a href="https://disq.us/url?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FRussell_Kirk%3A-e5tgdCuMJVorl--aSM7v2t0-o0&cuid=1704199" rel="nofollow noopener" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(33, 150, 243) !important; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.1s linear 0s;" title="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Kirk">https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...</a> contains no ref to P. P isn't particularly in favour of pederasty any more than was common back then. Slavery wasn't uncommon then and was supported by many other than P. P's major faults are elsewhere; principally as you now note, that he was a fascist.</blockquote>
</header><br />
And:<br />
<br />
<header class="comment__header" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #2a2e2e; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1; margin-bottom: 3px; padding-right: 46px;"><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: 21px; padding: 0px;">
<span class="post-byline" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span class="author publisher-anchor-color" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #656c7a; font-weight: 700;"><a data-action="profile" data-username="williamconnolley" href="https://disqus.com/by/williamconnolley/" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(33, 150, 243) !important; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.1s linear 0s;" target="_blank">William Connolley</a></span> </span><span style="box-sizing: border-box;"><a class="parent-link" data-role="parent-link" href="http://capitalistimperialistpig.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-conservative-position.html#comment-4063481202" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #656c7a; font-family: inherit; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.1s linear 0s;"><i aria-label="in reply to" class="icon-forward" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="in reply to"></i> CIPig</a></span></span> <span class="post-meta" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-block;"><span aria-hidden="true" class="bullet time-ago-bullet" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #c2c6cc; line-height: 1.4; padding: 0px;">•</span> <a class="time-ago" data-role="relative-time" href="http://capitalistimperialistpig.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-conservative-position.html#comment-4066111289" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #656c7a; font-family: inherit; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.1s linear 0s;" title="Wednesday, August 29, 2018 10:09 AM">5 minutes ago</a></span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: 21px; padding: 0px;">
<span class="post-meta" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-block;"><a class="time-ago" data-role="relative-time" href="http://capitalistimperialistpig.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-conservative-position.html#comment-4066111289" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #656c7a; font-family: inherit; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.1s linear 0s;" title="Wednesday, August 29, 2018 10:09 AM"></a></span>You'll have to wait for my take on Burke, but he's now on my list (available at <a href="https://disq.us/url?url=https%3A%2F%2Fconstitution.org%2Feb%2Frev_fran.htm%3APCsfBF4KhKCDgZekFnqWxMgFdxI&cuid=1704199" rel="nofollow noopener" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(33, 150, 243) !important; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.1s linear 0s;" title="https://constitution.org/eb/rev_fran.htm">https://constitution.org/eb...</a>, it looks like).<br />> Plato himself was both bold and radical<br />Popper would I think disagree with you, and I feel inclined to follow him. He describes Plato as reactionary, not radical; and indeed that's a large point of TOSAIE part 1. I'd really recommend reading that if you haven't; it is very good. Recall that only slightly earlier you called Plato an old fascist. Of course fascists can be bold and radical, though B&R is usually used as a compliment. Would you call Mussolini B&R?<br />> most great advances in human history have stemmed from radical ideas<br />That's very close to a tautology.<br />> legally forbidden but ubiquitous<br />Worth dwelling on. Because it's part of the Paine/Burke dichotomy, as well as part of the Con/Lib one. You don't change a people instantly by changing their laws. Law is custom. That's what Kirk was trying to tell you.</blockquote>
</header>Some time I will read Burke.William M. Connolleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4918867371439695874.post-72870729413532333672018-07-29T08:25:00.001-07:002018-08-27T03:31:17.154-07:00The Science Video Facebook Did Not Want You To See?28 JULY 2018: <a href="https://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/2018/07/28/the-science-video-facebook-did-not-want-you-to-see/#comment-167279">The Science Video Facebook Did Not Want You To See</a> by Dan Satterfield.<br />
<br />
This is l'affaire Hayhoe, and it might be a correct account, but it might not, and I'm interested to find out the details; it smells a little fishy to me.<br />
<br />
<div class="comment-author vcard" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #272b33; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<cite class="fn" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">William Connolley</cite> <span class="says" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">says:</span></div>
<em class="comment-awaiting-moderation" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #272b33; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Your comment is awaiting moderation.</em><span style="background-color: white; color: #272b33; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"> </span><br />
<div class="comment-meta commentmetadata" style="background-color: white; border-bottom: none; border-top: none; box-sizing: border-box; color: #505561; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<a href="https://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/2018/07/28/the-science-video-facebook-did-not-want-you-to-see/#comment-167279" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0065a4; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">29 July 2018 at 15:19</a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #272b33; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 10px; padding: 0px;">
> They decided to boost the post to reach more people, and Facebook said NO, it’s too political!</div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #272b33; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 10px; padding: 0px;">
I notice you say that but provide no evidence. Is it, for some reason, so obvious that it requires no evidence?</div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #272b33; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 10px; padding: 0px;">
What, in their own words not someone else’s, did fb actually say?<br />
<br /></div>
Having looked at <a href="https://twitter.com/wmconnolley/status/1023292518706892802">my original Tweet</a> I find that KH has replied, and indeed she was somewhat economical with the truth.
William M. Connolleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4918867371439695874.post-58789545425969509982018-02-21T06:27:00.000-08:002018-02-21T06:27:02.647-08:00Freeman Essay #93: “The State is the Source of Rights?CH regurtigates old posts. <a href="http://cafehayek.com/2018/02/freeman-essay-93-state-source-rights.html">Freeman Essay #93: “The State is the Source of Rights</a>? contains some mistakes about Hobbes - the same one everyone makes - but also an interesting discussion on the source(s) of Rights and the source of Law. the discussion there is largely focussed around DB's - interesting - interest in Libertarianism, but coming from that it is also possible to look more fundamentally at rights. I plan to expand this at some point, but for now I'll just quote my comment:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Your discussion of law-from-govt isn't terribly convincing, but I think that is less interesting than the question of rights, so I'll comment on that. I think a more coherent view of "rights" is the (Hobbesian) idea that in a "state of nature" everyone has a right to everything (unlike Hobbes, you don't provide a coherent defn of "rights"). Accepting a government (whether a formally constituted one or even your merchants court) means losing some of your freedom of action (aka rights) in exchange, presumably, for law-n-order. On that view a govt is, intrinsically, not a "source" of rights by its very nature. It is something that naturally removes rights, and this is only to be expected. Your Dec of Indy says "all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable...", which is the same thing: those rights pre-date govt.</blockquote>
William M. Connolleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4918867371439695874.post-90573646217983433592018-02-21T01:58:00.002-08:002018-02-21T01:58:37.572-08:00Those not subject to confiscation could still be used illegally<span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2e2e; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">A comment at </span><span style="color: #2a2e2e; font-family: Helvetica Neue, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><a href="http://blog.independent.org/2018/02/20/commonsense-firearm-regulation/">Commonsense Firearm Regulation</a> (found via <a href="http://cafehayek.com/2018/02/some-links-1128.html">CH</a>):</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2e2e; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2e2e; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">> those not subject to confiscation could still be used illegally</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2e2e; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2e2e; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">This doesn't really make sense as an objection. Most (I didn't check this, but I think it is true, including the most recent) mass shootings with AR-15s involve youngish people buying newish AR-15s. Taking out all the legal ones - most obviously including those in gun shops - would significantly raise the barrier to acquiring them. AFAIK, in general, school-type mass shootings don't involve criminals; so, ironically, you're not terribly worried about criminals possessing these weapons (for these purposes).</span>William M. Connolleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4918867371439695874.post-80417204893459428602018-02-18T07:25:00.001-08:002018-02-18T07:25:23.097-08:00Your assessment is inevitably worthless<div class="tr_bq">
Via <a href="https://www.facebook.com/chapmancentral/posts/10214132310569335">fb</a>, via <a href="http://cnsnews.com/">cnsnews.com</a>, I come to <a href="https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2017/11/creationists-wikipedia-page.html">Panda's Thumb, Creationist's Wikipedia page removed</a>, and I say:</div>
<br />
<blockquote>
Late to the party, but I don't see anyone making the obvious point. You say:<br />"I am not at all familiar with how Wikipedia applies its guidelines, but I would have guessed that..."<br />Which essentially means, you don't know what you're talking about. If you don't understand wiki's guidelines for notability, or how they are applied, you[r] assessment is inevitably worthless. How addicted to your own opinion do you have to be not to realise that?</blockquote>
William M. Connolleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4918867371439695874.post-65320104943515214352018-02-04T14:03:00.002-08:002018-02-04T14:03:53.547-08:00God You are right, I should look elsewhere this is very boring<a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en-GB&q=https://www.blogger.com/profile/12139055978545659341&source=gmail&ust=1517867870833000&usg=AFQjCNGGxTBE49P2KOodhEpfUbK76l6WgQ" href="https://www.blogger.com/profile/12139055978545659341" style="background-color: white; color: #1155cc; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" target="_blank">Nathan</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;"> has left a new comment on your post "</span><a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en-GB&q=http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2018/02/men-spake-from-god-being-moved-by-holy.html&source=gmail&ust=1517867870833000&usg=AFQjCNFUzTL7oE538WRCQ4IFlTvZ8PBpAQ" href="http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2018/02/men-spake-from-god-being-moved-by-holy.html" style="background-color: white; color: #1155cc; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" target="_blank">Men spake from God being moved by the Holy Ghost /...</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">": </span><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">God</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">You are right, I should look elsewhere this is very boring.</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">I think the problem is that you choose to direct conversations in THE MOST boring direction possible. </span><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">You are not playful with conversation, you don't use it as an opportunity to explore concepts, or to expand an understanding of something. </span><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">So rather than explore the question of how regulation becomes Law (and therefore different and apparently better) you would rather discuss that you didn't literally say regulation is bad.</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">IT'S REALLY BORING.</span><span style="background-color: white; color: grey; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><br /><br />Posted by Nathan to <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en-GB&q=http://mustelid.blogspot.com/&source=gmail&ust=1517867870833000&usg=AFQjCNGrmpzPTmeKsljeJzEwOuj5LoN97A" href="http://mustelid.blogspot.com/" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">Stoat</a> at 9:57 pm</span>William M. Connolleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4918867371439695874.post-25212677318971449212018-01-31T07:13:00.002-08:002018-02-02T11:17:26.426-08:00IPCC Communication handbook<div class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/01/ipcc-communication-handbook/">IPCC Communication handbook</a> at RC. I could have been more cynical but contented myself with:</div>
<br />
<blockquote style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 12.96px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: 16.2px;">
1 and 6 fail the “does the negative make sense” test.<br />
4 seems doomed to generate those stupid stories that focus on some bloke wot has seen see rise over his lifetime, oh yes, and have zero scientific content.<br />
2 seems a bit dubious; abstract ideas are valuable and powerful.<span style="background-color: transparent;"> </span></blockquote>
<br />
And the exciting follow up:<br />
<br />
<div class="comment-author vcard" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 14.4px;">
<cite class="fn" style="font-size: 12.96px; font-style: normal;">William Connolley</cite> <span class="says">says:</span></div>
<div class="comment-meta commentmetadata" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 14.4px;">
<a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/01/ipcc-communication-handbook/#comment-690378" style="color: #335522;">2 Feb 2018 at 2:16 PM</a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 12.96px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: 16.2px;">
> 17: Radge Havers says: WC @ ~ 3: 1 and 6 fail the “does the negative make sense” test: Huh? How so?</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 12.96px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: 16.2px;">
Try their negative:</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 12.96px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: 16.2px;">
not-1: Be an unconfident communicator<br />not-6: Use the least effective visual communication</div>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 12.96px;">These make no sense. Which is a hint that the “positive” or original versions are largely vacuous.</span>William M. Connolleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4918867371439695874.post-7856259262434047212018-01-24T13:39:00.004-08:002018-01-24T13:39:55.793-08:00ShitholeTrolling (no, not really, I just like to see if people are capable of thinking) on <a href="https://twitter.com/wmconnolley/status/956279604653838336">Twitter</a> (<a href="http://archive.is/qHCt6">arch</a>):<br />
<br />
Bess Kalb: When my great grandmother came to America from her shithole, she ended up creating two physicians, a professor, four attorneys, a Harvard economics Phd, an MIT-trained engineer, and a mouthy little bitch who harassed the racist President until he blocked on Twitter.<br />
<br />
Me: Hey, that's great. But doesn't it kinda prove his point? Would she have created two physicians, etc etc, if she'd stayed in the shithole?William M. Connolleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4918867371439695874.post-53638277972041076132018-01-10T11:45:00.000-08:002018-01-10T11:45:39.827-08:00Soc Flop<div class="tr_bq">
CIP has a <a href="http://capitalistimperialistpig.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/not-exactly-socratic-dialog.html">series</a> <a href="http://capitalistimperialistpig.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/socrates-now-didnt-we-say-earlier-that.html">of</a> <a href="http://capitalistimperialistpig.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/truthy.html">posts</a> based on Readings in Ancient Greek Philosophy: From Thales to Aristotle (p. 364). Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.. Kindle Edition; the latest being <a href="http://capitalistimperialistpig.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/soc-flop.html">Soc Flop</a>. As you can tell, he isn't impressed. To prove my credentials, in 2015 I said <a href="https://wmconnolley.wordpress.com/2015/01/04/watn-force-x-from-outer-space/">the Republic, I think it was. Anyway, that’s a despicable piece of propaganda masquerading as philosophy</a> or <a href="https://wmconnolley.wordpress.com/2012/01/30/justice-and-injustice/">the wordy windbagging twaddle of Plato</a> from 2012.</div>
<br />
My comment which is long enough to preserve is:<br />
<blockquote>
My impression is that Soc/Plat is reasonably good on the negatives: using questions to expose flaws in the opponents reasoning and ideas. But poor when attempting to put forward his own ideas as positives. Which ends up making the questioning seem cheap: it turns out that exposing at least a minor flaw in someone else's ideas is really not that hard; building something able to withstand close questions is difficult.<br />
And to be sort-of fair it is the questioning that he is remembered for; no-one actually remembers the city-state-building in the Republic (and if they do remember it, they hate it).<br />
There is also (sorry, I'm getting carried away, stop me when you're bored) possibly a very big philosophical error in all this, if you believe Popper's analysis. It's also quite subtle so I may get it wrong. It's in TOSAIE vol 1 I think. His point is that definitions - like "what is a puppy?" - in the hands of Plato turns into the Ideal Form of the Puppy, in order to explain how we all see young dogs and all these disparate objects are recognised as a puppy. Popper asserts that instead that it should be read in reverse, as a description. This does away with any need for Ideals, but it also implies that focussing on the meaning of a word - like "the Good" - becomes as pointless as focussing on the True Meaning of the word Puppy.</blockquote>
I find I've touched on this before; <a href="https://wmconnolley.wordpress.com/2012/01/30/justice-and-injustice/">Justice and Injustice</a>.William M. Connolleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4918867371439695874.post-45073061279161562652018-01-09T07:11:00.000-08:002018-01-09T07:11:07.773-08:00Where are the corpses?<a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en-GB&q=https://www.blogger.com/profile/08596778928978024642&source=gmail&ust=1515596576856000&usg=AFQjCNFXZmaYleXPBfWqxghF7M1mwXk9qw" href="https://www.blogger.com/profile/08596778928978024642" style="background-color: white; color: #1155cc; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" target="_blank">John Bowles</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;"> has left a new comment on your post "</span><a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en-GB&q=http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2018/01/another-koch-up.html&source=gmail&ust=1515596576856000&usg=AFQjCNHdLHL1FbA9VJmXQsz626e1esrBYg" href="http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2018/01/another-koch-up.html" style="background-color: white; color: #1155cc; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" target="_blank">Another Koch-Up</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">": </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">We are already two degrees warmer than the 1850’s … more than that since the early 1800’s.</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">So my question to the assembled masses is … now that we’ve breached the all-important two degree Celsius climate limit, where are the corpses? Where are the unusual disasters? Where are the climate-related catastrophes? Why are there no flooded cities? What happened to the areas that were supposed to be uninhabitable? Where are the drowned atolls? We were promised millions of climate refugees, where are they?</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">In short, where are any of the terrible occurrences that we’ve been warned would strike us at the 2 degree Celsius limit?</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Seriously, we’ve just done the natural experiment. The world has warmed up the feared amount, and there have been no increases in any climate-related disasters.</span>William M. Connolleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4918867371439695874.post-52624425276523076572017-10-28T14:52:00.001-07:002017-10-29T11:37:25.155-07:00Quandaries about ethicsIn <a href="https://initforthegold.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/quandaries-about-ethics.html">Quandaries about ethics</a> mt is anguished. I try to help, but I'm not sure I have (<a href="http://archive.is/9MNkI">archive</a>).<br />
<br />
<a href="http://archive.is/VM4xb">Updated archive</a>. New comment:<br />
<br />
I don't think I'm making my viewpoint at all clear. I may be forced to write my own post; everyone should re-invent their own wheel after all. But<br />
<br />
> if the optimal pathway is one in which we could cross a number of climate tipping points, then how much confidence should we place in such an analysis? It may well be that it's been done as well as it possible could have been done, but if we aren't sure of the consequences of passing these tipping points, how do you incorporate them into the analysis?<br />
<br />
I think is typical of the incompatibility between my (and std.econ) and mt / ATTP, I think. I find it very hard to understand what anyone means when they write stuff like that; it seems to imply a complete failure to understand the std.econ viewpoint. So I'll make one last despairing attempt here: the std.econ viewpoint takes into account all those tipping points, costs then as best it can, and then balances all the different costs in an attempt to provide a view of competing costs and benefits. This is fundamentally incompatible with your viewpoint, as I understand it, which is (I exaggerate for effect) "woo tipping point scary lets not go there". Which is to say you substitute your (and others) intuitive ideas of damage for the std.econ analysis.<br />
<br />
There's probably an analogy here with the denialists; there usually is. The std.econ folk, if challenged, could write all their stuff down in numbers and equations. Just as std.gw folk could do the same for their calculations of warming, or of sea level rise. But the denialists that write bollox about "cooling is about to start" or "the GHE doesn't exist" can't write their stuff down in that way, and we are contemptuous of them for it. Why do you expect protection from contempt when you do the same for costs?William M. Connolleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4918867371439695874.post-11135932342163656042017-10-28T14:10:00.001-07:002017-10-28T14:13:09.830-07:00But Tim is an idiot<a href="http://capitalistimperialistpig.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/a-brief-segue-into-contestable-markets.html">A Brief Segue Into Contestable Markets by CIP</a> (<a href="http://archive.is/77gf4">archive</a>). Not I think a post of any quality. I continue in the hope of converting him, with out any real hope. My comment below may be too provocative to live.<br />
<br />
See-also: <a href="http://capitalistimperialistpig.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/one-more-try.html">One More Try</a> (<a href="http://archive.is/5qt5Y">archive</a>).<br />
<br />
> But Tim is an idiot.<br />
<br />
No. You're being silly; and you're being silly from within the comfort of your own bubble. In any actual discussion of economics Timmy would rip you to shreds. Being Brave calling him an idiot here ought to be beneath you.<br />
<br />
> Mr. Connolley<br />
<br />
I didn't waste three years of my life for you to call me "Mr".<br />
<br />
> A perfectly contestable market is not possible in real life.<br />
<br />
Sigh. Yes, of course I read this. I almost wrote something pointing out that of course the theoretical perfection isn't actually met with in real life, but I thought: no, I'm talking to someone intelligent, I won't bother.<br />
<br />
Consider physics. Often, physics problems neglect friction; air resistance. They do so because the fundamental features of the problem can be described in this way, without obscuring the essentials in pointless detail. Naturally, if making exact calculations this can be factored in. You know all this. I'm patronising you. You should not deserve this.<br />
<br />
As to contestability: Micro$oft probably does have a genuine monopoly, but as I've already said, no-one really gives a toss any more. They are history.<br />
<br />
Amazon and Google are I think contestable. It isn't free, but there are no real barriers, at least not compared to the scale of what is required. And of course Google is indeed contested.<br />
<br />
Fb might be different due to network effects. But actually it is contested: many young folk head off to Instagram and so on. You're making the typical unimaginative "there is no alternative" when actually there are choices.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
William M. Connolleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4918867371439695874.post-45074227704609114382017-10-25T12:37:00.002-07:002017-10-25T12:37:50.766-07:00The Things You Can't SayAt <a href="http://johnlawrenceaspden.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/scott-alexander-speaks-to-us-of.html">http://johnlawrenceaspden.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/scott-alexander-speaks-to-us-of.html</a><br />
<br />
PG is vair sensible; I came to his blog late, so have never read that one. But his "would have gotten me in big trouble in most of Europe in the seventeenth century, and did get Galileo in big trouble when he said it—that the earth moves" is probably wrong. G was stomped on for a variety of complex reasons; e.g. https://thonyc.wordpress.com/2014/05/29/galileo-the-church-and-heliocentricity-a-rough-guide/. And he loses points for linking to Crichton, of course.<br />
<br />
Is Galileo a side issue or not? Maybe; but people using him as an example and getting it wrong deserve correction. scottaaronson also gets him badly and naively wrong. Note that Galileo's only "firm" proof of the Earth moving (as opposed to a Tychonic system), the tides, was bollox.William M. Connolleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4918867371439695874.post-13074719028005775522017-10-11T13:07:00.000-07:002017-10-11T13:07:01.267-07:00You keep parroting yourself on this point<span class="im" style="background-color: white; color: #500050; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">New comment on your post "Morality and economics"<br />Author: Kevin ONeill<br />Comment:</span><br />
<span class="im" style="background-color: white; color: #500050; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">WC writes<i>:"[...But the criticism of Stern was by mainstream economists, and doesn’t. I can’t decide if you’re so out of touch with the mainstream that you don’t know where it is, or if you’re being deliberately misleading -W]"</i></span><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">You keep parroting yourself on this point, but you never really have offered any evidence of it. Stern's formula was based on *mainstream* economic theory. It was supported by many *mainstream* economist.</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">What is true is that Nordhaus denigrated his choice of social discount rate and that the only real difference between the two was more specifically within the social discount rate the PRTP.</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">So there were *mainstream* economists that lauded Stern's Review and there were some that didn't. I've never seen *any* evidence - nor have you ever provided evidence - that the majority fell one way or another at the time of publication.</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">We *do* know that since then the majority believe Stern's discount rate was too *high* and by inference Nordhaus was really, really wrong. And that's the point you still refuse to address; who cares if mainstream economists thought he was wrong then? Today they think the discount rate should be even lower. Recent observatios and experience suggest they may *still* be too high even yet as more and more economists tend toward a belief in negative discounting.</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">I'm really not sure why you put yourself in a position of defending a past criticism that proved out to be incorrect - whether it was held by the majority or not. Is it that difficult to admit that Stern's discount rate turned out to be appropriate after al and that maybe it should have been even lower?</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">BTW, Richard Thaler gets the Nobel Prize for Economics this time around. That's two shots at the whole EMH and Rational agents crowd in just the past 5 years. I think we know where mainstream economic thinking now lies. Some people adjust to new evidence. The Nobel Committee has, that's for sure.</span>William M. Connolleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.com0