Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Staff Political Blog / Re: 2021 July 21, The Meat Mafia: The Great Reset of Food
« Last post by karen_A on July 26, 2021, 05:04:28 PM »
You can't blame this all on the Republicans because much of it happened during the Progressive era. It is important to note that those progressives could be Democrat or Republican.

I don't "blame" it on a political party, but I think its awful hard to deny that teh push for prohibition, and actually actually most (not all ) restraints on individual choice/actions/dress/relationskips/sexual practices in general have come from conservativesly minded people historically , and particularly religious conservatives...

It is certainly conservatives that are trying to legislate us out of existence today...

Quote
I don't drink or use drugs and I never have however that is a personal decision which I don't apply to others...

Same here for the general population... but not for family that I love that are destroying themselves with them (but I found out from personal experience that unfortunately that you can't save someone who does not want to be saved no matter how much you care)

But this discussion is not about you or me or any single individual, but about society as a whole.

 I would buy wine for my mother and sister. I even paid for some of the alcohol my roommate drank (we had a joint account for food and other expenses). I don't think weed is a good idea because it's still against Federal law. Once Federal law is changed it is really up to the individual and not me to determine if it's used. I hope it's not used to escape reality but is used for the proper social/medial reasons however it's not for me to judge.

As I stated above, Prohibition was a bad idea because people who wanted it still found it and caused many problems that wouldn't have occurred hand it been legally available.

I refuse to use Peer reviewed articles as proof because that is not how science works. Peer review means you give the stuff to your buddies who may be receiving the same grant and have reason to want the same outcome.

Quote
Real science requires you publish everything for anybody to review. If Joe Blow is unable to replicate your work at all stages, you are still working with a theory and not fact. For some reason, the people claiming Climate change refuse to publish everything. They claim that others will steal their work.
What work exactly is that? Links please.

Quote
Note that this was government funded and they don't own the work, the people do.

That seems to be be not legally true...Universities somehow can patent a lot of what is invented from work supported by grant money...

That said climate is all about data analysis not performing experiments so it is very different

Quote
With Climate Change, they selectively used a controlled data set and may have edited the data set. Climate gate showed us a Fortran Array that was hard wired to produce the desired output. When random nose was fed into the model, it still produced the hockey stick output.

You asserting that  does not make it true. Having read it on a climate denying website ... Again non experts simply do not understand the tools needed to understand the data which why  peer review is what is the best that can be done to ensure the analysis makes sense... Academia i HIGHLY competitive, and is a respected academic can shoot holes in someone else's work in a highly visible field successfully, it raises THEIR status.

If you read teh scientific journals and saw some of the letters to the editor arguing about previously published papers you would see that.

Quote
Over on another site I ran into somebody yelling climate change and they had an argument for carbon dioxide ocean acidification from run off water. The item was posted and it boiled down to a man got a grant and a big boat. So big he was limited from accessing some of the water in the study. He would float around taking water samples and running them through a PH meter. Never once did he take a water sample and check it for carbolic acid. The acid he was finding could have been anything and wasn't proof of anything other than acid runoff.

I guaranty you that was not published in a respected peer reviewed journal....

Quote
I started programming computers about 1972

I did that a couple of years later.

Quote
Models at best are a good approximation but can never be exact.

But are often the only way to understand and deal with a lot of complexity ... and they always being improved. Take Weather forecasting... It will likely never be exact but they do a HUGELY better job now than when we were kids, because teh models have improved (as well as more satellite and radar data)

I believe multiple groups with different models have come to the same conclusion about climate change....

Quote
If for no other reason, the word length of a computer introduces small errors that can add up over time.
64 bits go a long way! ;)

Code will always have some bugs, but when you feed in past data and teh models predict what one i seeing now, it tends to lend confidence to them.

 
Quote
In short, the lack of transparency in the Climate community and the temptation to lie about the results is far too great. Someday the current Climate study will be remembered as even worst that the Piltdown Man.
 

Again what is thsi lack of transparency specifically... And if you were looking at this objectively the most you could say is it's not proven, but instead you are pretty sure it is wrong based upon what? Your political beliefs/World view?

Most people are not experts and this is something that it takes experts to understand...

Quote
We have hundreds of years of the study of nature and most people who look beyond computer models don't believe in Climate change because that's not where the real evidence points.

Again what si your expertise ins a subject that  need and a deep interdisciplinary  knowledge os several physical sciences and mathematics.

Quote
If this isn't enough, you really should look at Climate Gate and understand the extent of the fraud.

I will stick to trustworthy peer reviewed journals... I'm not going down the conspiracy theories rabbit hole...

BTW I got into this because of the government or liberals are saying/recommending/requiring whatever because 'liberals" what to control people stuff...

That is the argument 'conservatives" are against masking guidance/mandates and getting covid shots etc ...

To put it politely that is nonsense... and VERY dangerous nonsense.

What is the old saying? "Your freedom stops at my nose"...

Not getting vaccinated or wearing masks not only makes one much more likely to contract Covid, but means more incubators for potential variants that can better infect even the vaccinated and cause the economy to shut down....

So that type of  thinking that is about "control" make people think basic public health measures that are needed to keep us all safe and society functioning,  are some sort of conspiracy against their "freedom"...

Those spreading such beliefs (particularly when they know better and for political gain) are public menaces...


And as I said conservatives have historically been the ones too try and control people  LOT more than liberals ever did.

-Karen
2
Staff Political Blog / Re: 2021 July 21, The Meat Mafia: The Great Reset of Food
« Last post by Dena on July 23, 2021, 07:44:02 PM »
Four constitutional amendments were proposed in 1913, 16-19. Sometimes it takes years for 2/3 of the states to agree to it. Often they will place a deadline in the amendment and if it's not approved by that date, it can no longer be approved at a later date however others can be approved at any time. You can't blame this all on the Republicans because much of it happened during the Progressive era. It is important to note that those progressives could be Democrat or Republican. The Progressive didn't settle into the Democrat party until after 1920 and they did it because their reputation was so soiled they need to fly under another flag. First they were Democrats, then Liberals stolen from Libertarian and only recently have they returned to Progressive. Yes they always knew what they were but they didn't admit it in Public.

I don't drink or use drugs and I never have however that is a personal decision which I don't apply to others. I would buy wine for my mother and sister. I even paid for some of the alcohol my roommate drank (we had a joint account for food and other expenses). I don't think weed is a good idea because it's still against Federal law. Once Federal law is changed it is really up to the individual and not me to determine if it's used. I hope it's not used to escape reality but is used for the proper social/medial reasons however it's not for me to judge.

As I stated above, Prohibition was a bad idea because people who wanted it still found it and caused many problems that wouldn't have occurred hand it been legally available.

I refuse to use Peer reviewed articles as proof because that is not how science works. Peer review means you give the stuff to your buddies who may be receiving the same grant and have reason to want the same outcome.

Real science requires you publish everything for anybody to review. If Joe Blow is unable to replicate your work at all stages, you are still working with a theory and not fact. For some reason, the people claiming Climate change refuse to publish everything. They claim that others will steal their work. Note that this was government funded and they don't own the work, the people do.

Also remember cold fusion? We still haven't figured out what they saw or where the problem is. Was it fraud or some mistake in the materials used in the experiment? Being able to duplicate and fully understand the results is what turns a theory into science fact.

With Climate Change, they selectively used a controlled data set and may have edited the data set. Climate gate showed us a Fortran Array that was hard wired to produce the desired output. When random nose was fed into the model, it still produced the hockey stick output.

It has become so bad that if you want a government grant, you need to tack Climate change somewhere in the proposal. If you do that, you will get a grant. Without those words, you will probably have to look elsewhere for funding.

Over on another site I ran into somebody yelling climate change and they had an argument for carbon dioxide ocean acidification from run off water. The item was posted and it boiled down to a man got a grant and a big boat. So big he was limited from accessing some of the water in the study. He would float around taking water samples and running them through a PH meter. Never once did he take a water sample and check it for carbolic acid. The acid he was finding could have been anything and wasn't proof of anything other than acid runoff.

I started programming computers about 1972 and am very much aware of garbage in, garbage out. Models at best are a good approximation but can never be exact. If for no other reason, the word length of a computer introduces small errors that can add up over time. More often, there may be flaws in your assumptions that occur at the most inconvenient time. I have spent years digging out other people bugs because they overlooked something when they wrote their code. Yes the code seemed to work but I was in an environment that the code needed to work for years with out failure or even resetting the unit. Even though I was able to achieve that goal, I am under no illusion that all the bugs in the code have been removed. While I reviewed much of the 100,000+ lines of code, I didn't review all of it and it's possible I missed something.

In short, the lack of transparency in the Climate community and the temptation to lie about the results is far too great. Someday the current Climate study will be remembered as even worst that the Piltdown Man.

We have hundreds of years of the study of nature and most people who look beyond computer models don't believe in Climate change because that's not where the real evidence points. Our weather isn't constant and even today, the models run far warmer that the temperatures measured today indicate. In addition, poor placement of measuring stations indicate temperatures higher than better placed measurement. Stations placed in parking lots, at the end of runways in jet blast, on roof tops or next to buildings. There are far too many people willing to look the other way as long as the money keeps rolling in.

Years ago, I asked myself is Global Warming (what they called it then before their models first failed) real? It took three days of digging to uncover much of what is in the two threads. Looking at them objectively I realized that we were being duped. Climate Gate came latter and confirmed what I had discovered. Al Gore left office worth about 2 million. He is now worth over 100 million and he obtained that money by selling Carbon credit. Think he might be motivated to continue spreading a lie? Knowing human nature, I think so.

If this isn't enough, you really should look at Climate Gate and understand the extent of the fraud.

I was willing to accept that the earth was warming when I started to study it. I am still willing to do so if the pile of evidence against it can be explained but each day the argument for naturally occurring grows stronger and the argument for CO2 warming grows weaker.

I do think we use far to many hydrocarbons for fuel and I have always been in favor of reliable Nuclear power. Unfortunately all the people against CO2 are the same people who were against Nuclear power. They were wrong once so are we going to listen to them again without some solid data backing them up?
3
Staff Political Blog / Re: 2021 July 21, The Meat Mafia: The Great Reset of Food
« Last post by karen_A on July 23, 2021, 05:16:29 PM »
      There are two link and if you really understand the content, it will convince you that the current climate isn't out of the ordinary. This information is based on real observation and not cooked up in some computer model as the climate change argument.

First, at the risk of sounding "elitist",  let me say I hold a graduate degree in a physical science and have worked in my field for 40 years...

With complex multi-factorial  phenomena (which climate certainly is) such models using sophisticated statistical techniques can untangle and pull out information that there is no way such simplistic analysis can... I have seen that in my field where data that lead to understating of complex phenomena that enabled solution of product development issues that would have been EXTREMELY difficult if not impossible to devise with simple experiments to determine...

So if you can point me to peer reviewed articles published in respected journals that came to teh same conclusions, I would certainly be willing to work through their arguments and look at their methodology and see if it looks credible to me.

That site is dedicated to climate change denying , which is it's Raison d'être...

Again it is making arguments who's main appeal is to appeal to people with certain world view and who's arguments are contradicted by the bulk of work in the scientific community.


Quote
Your history study could use a little improvement. Prohibition was proposed in 1913 along with voting for senators and the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition#United_States

To pickk a conservative source, the is not what the Cato Institue says:
https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/alcohol-prohibition-was-failure


Again it did not pass until 1920... and saying that "liberals' were teh ones pushing is simply wrong:

from wikipedia:
Quote
Prohibition was a major reform movement from the 1870s until the 1920s, when nationwide prohibition went into effect.[45] The Women's Crusade of 1873 and the Woman's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU), founded in 1874,[43] were means through which certain women organized and demanded political action, well before they were granted the vote.[46] The WCTU and the Prohibition Party were major players until the 20th century, when the Anti-Saloon League emerged as the movement's leader. By 1913, 9 states had statewide prohibition and 31 others had local option laws in effect. The League then turned their efforts toward attaining a constitutional amendment and grassroots support for nationwide prohibition.[43]

Does sound like it was being pushed by conservative groups to me.... And teh push to for it goes all he way back to the puritans... who were hardly liberal...

Quote
The call for Prohibition came from the temperance movement which was progressive in nature.

I don't that that characterization is accurate...

Quote
Progressive though they knew better what others should do so they had a bad habit of sticking their nose into other peoples business.
Quote

If you primary definition of liberal is anybody who tries to control other's life that makes no sense.... The Religious right has been doing that for an AWFULLY long time and I don't think anyone would call them liberal....

Quote
The roaring 20's happened because two Republican presidents had Mellon as treasure.

It might have had something to do with coming out of a flu pandemic ....

Your economic  theories and attributions are your opinions not fact, and many respected economists disagree. There is plenty of data with counter examples as well as different very credible explanations for things than yours .

You seem want to see history as contest between "liberals" and conservatives with "liberals" as always wrong....

Not my world view and it IMO is  one that is very damaging to society and this country as a whole, and what is tearing this country apart IMO.

-karen

4
Staff Political Blog / Re: 2021 July 21, The Meat Mafia: The Great Reset of Food
« Last post by Dena on July 22, 2021, 08:14:01 PM »
Climate change is something I have been studying for over 15 years I have come up with two conclusions. What we are seeing falls within normal historic standards. Climate isn't constant and we have gone from snow ball earth to a world much warmer than today. Even as little as 2,000 years ago, the earth was much warmer than today. We can't prove what causes the climate variations but we know they exist. The current theory is it has to do with solar activity. An active sun has a strong solar wind which blocks cosmic rays preventing cloud formation. This leads to a warmer, drier climate. The reverse of weak solar activity allows cosmic rays in resulting in cloud formation and a cooler, wetter climate. The sun is doing some interesting things right now that suggest we are entering a cooling cycle so the future should prove inlighting.

There are two link and if you really understand the content, it will convince you that the current climate isn't out of the ordinary. This information is based on real observation and not cooked up in some computer model as the climate change argument.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/26/a-global-context-for-man-made-climate-concerns/

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/17/climate-and-human-civilization-over-the-last-18000-years/

Your history study could use a little improvement. Prohibition was proposed in 1913 along with voting for senators and the creation of the IRS. The progressive movement ran from 1900 to 1920 which puts Prohibition right in the middle of Progressive control. All three amendments have proven destruction and I am fully in favor of eliminating all three but I consider it unlikely they will ever be negated.

The call for Prohibition came from the temperance movement which was progressive in nature. Progressive though they knew better what others should do so they had a bad habit of sticking their nose into other peoples business. Granted they had a point. Alcohol consumption was much greater and the women were unhappy with they men coming home from work drunk. Alcohol consumption was so common that was one of the major sources of funding for the Federal government. This was why they need the IRS and a Progressive income tax. Without the income that alcohol provided, the government needed another source of income and the income tax was it. The government figured they would do well on what this would provide but once they found it was easy to get more money by bumping the rates, they had set the rates well above what we pay today and that crashed the economy.

The roaring 20's signaled the end of the Progressive movement and happened because the Progressive had so run the country into the ground with extremely high income taxes that the people were ready for a change. The roaring 20's happened because two Republican presidents had Mellon as treasure. He studied the problem and determined that the government can't tax at over 20% without harming the economy. Taxes were reduced and the economy took off. Add to this that Calvin Coolidge was noted for vetoing most of the bills that crossed his desk. This had to reduce government spending and helped the government pay off some of the debt the progressive ran up with WW I.

It is important to note this is the same thing that Reagan and Art Laffer did much latter. Art was honest and said that he didn't originate the idea of reducing taxes. He had studied Melons work so Art's work was based on Melons demonstration.
5
Staff Political Blog / Re: 2021 July 21, The Meat Mafia: The Great Reset of Food
« Last post by karen_A on July 22, 2021, 05:29:14 PM »
Again this is one of their climate change ideas which is intended to gain control of the people just like prohibition.

That is just an over the top conspiracy theory meant to appeal to the world view of a segment of the population, but with no basis in any verifiable facts... as is most of the stuff Glen Beck has always peddled.

Climate changes worries for most are  about a legitimate concern for the future... One may argue that the concern is misplaced (but data seems to support it), but attributing things like that to the concern is totally unwarranted as far as I can see and unnecessarily divisive. If anything is going to destroy our democracy that type of  rhetoric will IMO.

As for the historical parallel to Prohibition, IMO it is purposely misleading...

Prohibition was largely the result of the then Religious conservatives  as well as conservatives general and it backfired on them... it had an effect opposite of what they wanted on society...

And I don't think one can argue that the liberals of Roaring 20's were behind it... I kind of suspect they resented it! ;)

Historically  in this country at least, it has most often been conservatives to have tried to tell people who they can love, how they can dress and even how long their hair should be...  (Them long haired hippy freaks! ;) )

-Karen


6
Staff Political Blog / 2021 July 21, The Meat Mafia: The Great Reset of Food
« Last post by Dena on July 21, 2021, 08:39:59 PM »
I get it, some of you may not want to eat meat. I know it's possible to combine grain and beans to get the complete protein that meat provides. It's also possible to add the required B vitamins that meat provides in order to produce a balanced diet. If for whatever reason you don't wish to eat meat, that's fine with me and I would be adventurist enough to join you in a meal as I have meatless meals on a regular bases.

On the other hand, meat has played an important part in human development. Humans have small jaws which prevent them from eating grass that many animals live off. The small jaws were a tradeoff for a bigger brain. A bigger brain doesn't come without a cost as it takes a good deal of energy to fuel a large brain. That is why early humans took up hunting and as the food quality improved, the brain continued to develop.

Even today we see the result of a better diet. People think of the Japanese people as being smaller than normal. This isn't genetic as we have seen the Japanese people reach near western sizes after WW II when food has become more plentiful. Even here in the United States, I can see the difference. I am 6'2" and when I was younger, I towered over most men and women. Lately, I am still on the tall side but the size difference is much smaller. Maybe now they will space the airline seats back out so I have room for my legs.

The Progressives love tampering with anything they can. Their first attempt at healthcare was Prohibition. This didn't turn out well as people still drank and Organized Crime went from small time gambling and shaking people down to big time. When Alcohol became legal, they turned to drugs and we are still dealing with the problems a 1913 idea caused.

Glen takes on the government and the meat industry goal of making meat a luxury item that few will be able to afford. Again this is one of their climate change ideas which is intended to gain control of the people just like prohibition. You can verify this yourself if you have recently purchased meat. It's not just inflation as the supply is being restricted. Just so you understand, the only one who will have to restrict meat consumption will be the common man. The wealth and the government will not have to do without. I give you The Meat Mafia: The Great Reset of Food.

As misery loves company, we aren't the only one facing this problem. Spain also has something similar going on as the Nation Review explains.

This last little item is a really bad idea. I have known about the meat allergy for several years and fortunately few people have had to face the problem. The idea of giving people an allergy to meat so they don't eat it could result in many deaths. I have allergies but they are to the various things that float around in the air. Consider somebody who is allergic to Bee stings or peanut butter. They have to carry around an Epipen just incase they are exposed unexpectedly. What's worst is Epipens are cheap to make but the company that makes them attempted to corner the market and was charging an outrageous price for them. Also remember that Epipens have a limited life and have to be replace when they are out of date. How many people might die because somebody didn't label a food correctly or reused a contaminated pot. Normal allergy treatment is to make you resistant to something. It would be medical malpractice to make something dangerous to you. Read how they would like to make you allergic to meat.

7
I am not really sure that fraud took place in Arizona. We have vote by mail and close to 80% of the population uses it but we also have verification which should prevent most of the fraud. If we had fraud, I don't suspect Maricopa county as that county is pretty well watched. It would be more likely the fraud occurred in Pima or Pinal county as along with Maricopa county, they took a long time to count the votes. Counting past election day is risky at best because once you know the vote you know how many additional votes would be required to shift the vote. To show you the nature of the problem I found this from the Atlantic which pretty well sums it up. I voted by mail but I voted early enough that my vote was counted two weeks before the election. Maybe others should consider this in the future.

On the other hand, it's entirely possible that the fraud occurred with the blessing of the Republicans. The Democrats had a huge war chest going into the election and they spent a sizable amount of it on lawyers who went about changing the election laws. Some how or another they managed to talk the Republican into something that wasn't in their best interest. I wrote an article for the local paper and while they were interested in it, it wasn't published. Had they published it, maybe this mess wouldn't be going on today. Watch me labor to explain the problem in 1500 characters. Note that the link wasn't part of the article but I provided it so you you don't have to go looking for the source. You will have to create a free account if you want to view the source article. As I subscribe to the paper, I have paid access.

Arizona isn't Blue
The election results suggest that Arizona has turned blue and at first glance, that appears to be correct. Drilling in to the numbers tells a far different story. Currently Biden has 49.4% of the vote and Trump has 49.1% of the vote. Overlooked is Jo Jorgensen(Libertarian) who received 1.5% of the vote. If only part of the Libertarian vote had gone to Trump, it would have been enough to put Trump over the top.
More important is what's missing from this discussion. On December 2,2019 the Republic published an article (Green Party no longer recognized as a political party in Arizona) explaining how the Green party was removed from the ballot through a combination of low voter turnout, higher signature requirements and an earlier deadline for filing signatures. Had the green party been on the ballot, based on 2018 results, they could have claimed as much as 2% of the Democrat's votes.
Any Democrat elected to office in Arizona should be aware of the state's conservative values because while the vote was blue, Arizona's heart is red.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2019/12/02/arizona-green-party-ballot-loses-status-as-political-party/2585927001/
8
Also, CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER: Karen Fann Has Authority, With Arizona House, To Decertify Fraudulent Election
"We don't have to live with a fraudulent election."

Apparently we do ('ave to "live with it") >:(
9
Staff Political Blog / 2021 July 20, Glen Beck's CPAC 2021 Speech
« Last post by Dena on July 20, 2021, 07:32:12 PM »
You may have heard about CPAC but it's likely that you haven't seen anything that happened there. It's a yearly meeting of conservative where they exchange conservative ideas that hopefully will direct the course of the party. Unfortunately far too often the ideas are ignored by the candidates once they are elected but CPAC is where the heart of the party is.

Glen Beck has been a regular speaker at CPAC and this year he decided on a little history lesson combined with some of the charges made against the right by the left. He starts out with a list on his reliable chalk board and one by one discuss the charges made against the right. This history isn't taught in school but yet he has both the facts and the artifacts to back up his statements. Unfortunately he was time limited because he has more artifacts that I would love to see but the story behind each one adds to the time of the presentation. I hope you find this enlightening.

Glenn Beck’s EPIC Takedown of Leftist LIES About America at CPAC 2021
10
           Am soooo PO'd . . just witnessed another i liked, on another forum, get BANNED for opinions I, more or less, agreed with in the short course of three days!

All over the term "autogynephilia"?

Quote
. . other words have been far fouler for far longer and yet have been redeemed. It may be I will convince no one today or this year. But maybe in ten years, or twenty, people will come around . . Of course, maybe I will not have a chance to persuade; it may be that I will be shunned if I try.

       Screw you "Lindsay" for complaining so much no Biden "socialist leftist" wants to be called a Blandchardian androphilic any more than a Nazi-Fascist but, if the shoe fits, then one must WEAR IT! You complain of "Trumpians" wanting to invade, possibly trash the Capital Building down in "protest" on Jan 6th but you folks want to tear this entire Country down instead? "Rubber and Glue. Learn long ago whatever you accuse US of YOU are indeed GUILTY of yourself!

And, for all ye distraught, "anti-trans parents" out there it appears that the "overmedicalization" of our youth STARTED WITH YOU?
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10