JohnB

Is it wrong to conclude that the Democratic base is full of itself, considers itself to be mentally a superior group and only sees daylight when it yawns? No wonder partisanship is so strong over there. Has it occurred to anyone that you change minds by discussion and not by telling the other side that they are some sort of mental inferior? I notice that poll page shows 53% believe in evolution and 66% believe in creationism. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yhN1IDLQjo Says it all really.

Where is the resistence? All I saw in the article was that people in these programs were worried about how changes to the laws would effect them. This is not resistence, just sensible enquiry. They have a program that works and just want to make sure that they don't get left out under the new system. I cannot see anything that even hints that they are resisting in any way whatsoever. It appears to me that they are more saying "Let us be a part of the new system" rather than opposing it. As to bookkeeping. Sorry, but if the laws don't require adequate accounting methods from these groups, that is not the fault of the group. It would be reasonable (if you're going to include them) to have stringent accounting guidelines under the new system. Charities get audited and keep clean books, so can these guys. Not that hard really.

I have to agree with Saryctos. I don't see what's face palm worthy here. Where does i say that? All I got was that participents were concerned that their program might be left out. I saw nothing to say that they were against health care for everybody. Also, 100,000 members is hardly a "handful of congregants". Aside from being generally slanderous, do you have any evidence at all that such behaviour is actually happening? This is a program that developed because of your current system. The current system is rediculously expensive and does not in any way guarantee coverage at all. It's a bit unfair to compare a system that evolved due to the needs of the community to one that will one day, sometime in the future, after spending more money than that community has ever seen might give universal coverage. It would not appear that the scheme is new. If there is no legal recourse, that is not the fault of the program. Look to your legislators for missing the boat. If it can be easily abused (and it almost certainly can) again that is not the fault of the program, make the politicians get off the pot. As for; From the outside, that is a howler. Isn't the big problem with the current system of insurance companies that "There is no guaranteed coverage" and they "may or may not pay for them when they're sick"? How many times has it been demonstrated that these are the two major problems with the current system? Mr. Pot, meet Ms. Kettle. These programs didn't evolve to compete with Obamacare, but in response to the failings of the current system. To argue that they are perhaps unneccessary would be to argue that the current system adequately serviced the needs of the community. Good luck to anybody defending that idea. As to building churches with the money, where do people think Insurance companies get the cash to build those huge multi storied office blocks they use as headquarters? Where does the money come from to pay multi million dollar salaries? That's right, from the premiums they charge members. Next time you're in town, or see a headquarters on the news, remember this. They didn't get the money from the people whos bills they paid.

Is it just me, or would the debate on guns be entirely different if the word "responsibly" had been inserted into the 2nd Amendment somewhere?

bascule, the part missing is the complete reconstruction. However it is here. Looking at graph C, you'll notice that the MWP is barely a bump in the road and modern temps are far higher than those in the MWP. Looking at the left hand graph above demonstrates a distinct MWP at or above modern temps, while the right hand graph shows no MWP and distinctly elevated modern temps. To again quote Mia Tiljander; (Emphasis mine.) Maybe I'm a twit, but to me any reconstruction should be robust WRT the removal of some of the proxy series. As in, the shape of the graph should change, but not dramatically with the romoval of any 4 proxies. It is easily seen by comparing the three graphs that the results of Kaufman are reliant on the 4 proxies in the right hand graph. Without those 4, (if the study was of only the remaining 19 proxies), there is not much to talk about, is there? To my mind, the removal of 4 proxies, any 4, should not have a dramatic effect on the final result. In the case of Kaufman, removal of those 4 changes the graph entirely. This says to me that the Graph C in the Kaufman paper is unusually reliant on those 4 proxies. 19 proxies show the MWP as being around the same as the modern period. 4 show the modern period as nearly 3 degrees higher than the MWP. (The author of one of those 4 says that her series should not be used.) If you have 19 proxies showing one thing and 3 showing a dramatic divergence, wouldn't it be reasonable to say that those three are outliers and perhaps shouldn't be used? I don't have a problem with Kaufmans results, I have a problem with how he got them. The methodology is heavily weighted by a small subset of the proxies which is, I believe, a flawed approach. Have I explained myself clearly? I hope so. Would you care to comment on the use of the Tiljander series even though the author says it should not be used for paleoclimate research? I will give Kaufman credit in that he notes in the datafile concerning the Tiljander series. However, if you truncate the series at 1800 AD, how do you calibrate the series against temps? General note: The Tiljander series is one of the long ones and goes back some 7,000 years.

I guess it depends on what weighting you give to which proxies, doesn't it? On the left are 19 of the 23 proxies from Kaufman 2009, on the right the 4 that give him his hockey stick. Damn but Briffas tree rings are popular. Just to add from Mia Tiljanders thesis. (Which is used as one of the proxy records.) Which is why she uses terms like "mild" in the paper. Due to the contamination of the series since the early 1800s it is thought impossible to accurately calibrate against the historical record. The varves can certainly show which times were relatively warmer or cooler, but absolute temperature values can't be ascribed to the series. Although Kaufman (like a number before him) seems to believe that by inverting the values in the Tiljander series, absolute temperature values can be found.

If you thought the comment was directed at you personally, I apologise as that was not my intention. I was referring to the "some" in your comment; Unfortunately comparing any sort of confinement facility that protesters or some group dislikes to a "Concentration Camp" appears to have become somewhat fashionable. I believe this to be terribly wrong as it lessens the impact of what went on there and cheapens the memory of those who perished. We even had a radio DJ suggest that an overweight Aussie actress could spend some time in one to lose weight. Yes he's been sacked, but he should have got a smack in the mouth. It's just one of those things that really p*sses me off. By forgetting the reality of what happened, we increase the chance of it happening again. I have to agree. I put it down to the era of the "sound bite". A rowdy crowd yelling nonsense will make the 6 o'clock news, a logical discourse on why your group disagrees with a policy won't. "News" is about what happened, not why it happened. Anybody who gets their information from the news, regardless of what channel they watch, is only going to get a small part of the story.

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. In which field of science would you look for evidence? I doubt physics would help, but over the years I've read reports that easily match what is acceptable in a medical "Case Study". Note the shortened paper found here. Is there a fault with his methodology?

CaptainPanic, what's the bet that your diagram is going to turn up somewhere in a year or so as the "schematic" of a flying saucer?

TBK, there might be a terminology problem here. Because the OP spoke about the "Republican Party" I am assuming the reference was to the entire party rather than just the President and some selected hangers on. The usage in this and other threads would lead me to conclude that the reference actually includes all Republican voters. The rank and file of the party. Down here we use different terminology for different aspects. If we mean the party as a whole, we would say "The Labour Party" or "Labour voters". These terms encompass everybody in the party from the current Prime Minister down to the bloke in Upper Whoop Whoop whose branch includes himself and his wife. In most of the examples you give, we would say "Labour politicians" rather than the "Labour Party" is doing such and such. This separates the actions of politicians from the actions of the rank and file of the party membership. (For those familiar with our parties, I'm not having a go at Labour. It's just that if you have to write the party name a number of times "Labour Party" is a hell of a lot shorter than "The Liberal and National Party Coallition".) Also note that I said "Left/Right" and not "Republican/Democrat". Not all right wing nutjobs are members of the Republican Party and not all left wing nutjobs are members of the Democrats. In most democratic nations the left/right divide splits the national population pretty evenly. The fact that governments change attests to this. Likewise there cannot be in the US, significantly more right leaning voters than left leaning ones, or Obama would not have won. Given the large number of voters involved, and their spread over all demographics it would be astonishing if there significantly more nutjobs on one side rather than a roughly even split. The right has religious nutjobs, the left has Marxist and Greeny nutjobs. They're all nutjobs, only the flovour varies. That was a nice bullet point list, but most of it is just politics. "Selective amnesia" is very common amoung politicians and their staffers. Wanting to bring down someone you were chummy with 20 years before? You are aware that 2 years before they blew Pearl to bits, the Japanese were your Allies in WW I, are you not? Times change and so do political alliances. The last quote of yours doesn't really help your case as sugar is involved. (and I note, 2 Democrat reps) They weren't upset about the "news" reports, they were defending sugar subsidies, which the US DOA has been trying to get rid of. From a 1998 article. Emphasis mine. Nothing has changed. http://www.tampabay.com/specials/2008/graphics/sugar-prices/ From the NYT (2007). A "little noticed" provision in a Bill? Good Lord, the Dems wouldn't do that surely? Oh wait, politics at work. Emphasis mine. I guess you can find evidence for both sides playing politics, can't you? Governments put out fake news stories, they put out political advertising in the form of "information" packs. I'm not saying it's right for them to do so, but both sides do it, always have and always will. BTW, I'll see your "deleted emails" and raise you a "White Board". A number of years ago one of our Federal Ministers (equivalent to your "Secretary of") was asked in Parliment how she allocated some $30 million in Federal Grant money. Her response that in her office she had a "great big whiteboard" has gone down in Aussie history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_rorts_affair Note: Down here, "Liberals" are right wing, "Labour" is left wing and "Democrats" are sort of centre left. (If they could ever make up their minds.)

Which science?

My apologies. I didn't realise that the protest was called the "9.12" project. I thought you were talking about the twit in the first vid. On that basis I have to agree with you. "9.12 Project" is in, at best, extremely poor taste. Hmm, talking past each other I think. My point was simply that it is fashionable to call your opponent a nazi for political purposes. To me such things are nothing more than political rhetoric and are used by both sides with vigour. I would think that the only people who would compare Gitmo to a concentration camp are those who have no idea what a concentration camp actually was. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQd0XWKnxes (Warning, wartime footage taken by Allied troops to document concentration camp atrocities.) Still think the comparison is in any way reasonable? Gitmo might be the worse aspects of an internment camp and prison camp, but concentration camp? No way.

So it's your opinion that all the nutjobs are on only one side of the fence? Both sides of the Left/Right divide have nutjobs and I would guess that they are in roughly equal proportions. Given the large population of a nation, I would expect there to be little statistical difference.

Not really, it's politics. Note the picture with this news article. One poster says "USA-Saudi-Euro Fascism" complete with a nice swastika. Here we have protesters carrying signs that read "Impeach Bush for War Crimes." At this London protest, placards show Bush with the comment "World's #1 Terrorist." An interesting blog here has quite a few photos from the 2007 anti war in Iraq protest in San Francisco. Just scroll down and have a look. We have someone hanging a President Bush doll. Book stalls selling everything from Karl Marx to the latest in conspiracy theories. Bumper stickers. I like "The war is a lie. 9/11 was an inside job." I see the "International Solidarity Movement" was there. I remember them from years ago telling all and sundry that the stories of "Killing Fields" in Cambodia were CIA fabrications. Well these people didn't need Fox to stir them up, they were quite capable of doing it themselves. I mean these were peaceful protesters. Yeah, wow.

TBK, I think your system might differ from ours. Down here propective teachers spend 3-4 years getting a degree in education before going out to a school. We have some incompetent teachers too. I have to wonder how they got their degree in the first place. Surely they didn't suddenly become dolts once they were employed? So to be fair, the problem is a bit deeper than it might at first seem. (I think.) People are getting teaching qualifications who shouldn't. Unions are defending people they shouldn't. and Administrators are keeping people they shouldn't.

I'm not sure it was. It appeared to me that the person doing that (and calling repent) was stationary and not with the march at all. Marchers were moving past him all the time and some were clearly disgusted at his actions. Look at their faces. The individual concerned was invoking 9/11, not the rally or marchers. If a Democrat rally walked past some neo nazis, could I conclude the neos were part of the rally? Could I conclude that Dems support the neos? Nope.

So, what's it like to live in a nation where 50% of the population are ambulatory narcolepts, easily swayed by propaganda and generally incapable of intelligent, rational thought and the other 50% are shining examples of purity, light and rationality? In every other nation on the planet there are whackos and nutjobs on both sides of the political divide. Partisanship is so deep in the US that you'll need to devise new deep mining techniques just to find out how far down it goes.

TBK, that could be part of the problem. Even if the union is well aware the person is an idiot and incompetent, they are required to defend if the person chooses to fight. I'll bet there are many union officials who dearly wish that they could tell the person to go away. Bearing in mind that such action can and will be used as ammunition in intraunion factional fights. "He let the ABC board dismiss 3 teachers without a fight! Vote for me and I'll defend your rights!" Is it not also fair to ask how an incompetent teacher occurs in the first place? During their 3-4 years of training, did nobody notice that the teacher was incompetent? How did they get a pass from their teachers?

I think the only factor that might increase the validity of pre death opinions is that the consequences of holding those opinions don't matter any more. You can speak freely and honestly on something without worrying about whether it will adversely effect your career. On that basis, I think that they are a good idea. However, they should be sponsored by the campus itself, not a pre biased section of it. I would think that a "Last Lecture" on retirement might be a good thing too. So long as the person isn't bagging the faculty etc., let them go. There might be a small part of his science that he could never get to quite make sense in his own mind, let him talk on that. He might lecture on half finished speculations that might be the seed of an idea for someone else. Personally I can't see much of a downside if it a general thing rather than sponsored by a specific group. How would feel about them if they were sponsored by the campus "Atheists Association"? Would that be any better?

My apologies, you are correct. The Marine Corps Gazette did allude to the situation with mention of a "National Volunteer Force of militia officially put at 28 million". So to be certain; Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volunteer_Fighting_Corps http://www.waszak.com/japanww2.htm http://www.operationolympic.com/p1_defenses.php http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/arens/chap4.htm Not really. I brought up the tactic to show how such things really screw with the minds of troops. You don't think that fighting poorly armed militia would be worse? You are aware of the Military Maxim that "No battle plan survives contact with the enemy", are you not? Beside the point really. What were US troops going to do when attacked by 1,000 screaming children armed with pointed sticks? One answer. Kill or be killed. It's not that hard a question. Nice try, and if I were attacking in such a situation I would agree with you. This option is frankly just not there when you are defending a position. The situation after the invasion would not have been the enemy advancing behind children, but the children being the enemy. For example: You're a GI defending an airfield. Over the hill come 100 odd 15 and 16 year old kids brandishing sharp sticks and screaming. They are coming to kill you. Could you please enlighten the rest of us as to how you propose to stop the attack without slaughtering the kids? There is so much wrong with this it is difficult to know where to start. Firstly. Bombing had already severely damaged some 67 Japanese cities, how many more would need to be destroyed to get the point across? Firebombing would kill millions before the goal you suggest could be achieved. Secondly. "Just leave." I know that MacArthurs propaganda machine has convinced many Americans that they were the only ones fighting, but that isn't true. Would you turn your backs on your allies? Late to the party and p*ss off early, is that it? Like anyone on the planet would ever trust the US after that sort of cheap stunt. Do you think the war would have ended if you had just left? Without a surrender the war goes on. Even if you buggered off, the rest of us would have kept going. Without a surrender a "State of War" still exists. Are you under the impression that the Japanese had been driven back to the home islands? Guess again. Areas coloured light green and white show Japanese control as of August 1945. The bulk of the Japanese army had not been defeated. The true brilliance of the "Island hopping" campaign was that it allowed strikes on the Japanese home islands without having to engage most of the military in battle. A very different situation to Europe. Fourthly. "What's the nation going to do?" Rebuild and rearm. Your bombing campaign only effects the home islands. Japan still had 4 million troops under arms controlling a vast area. (See map above.) Let's add a few more facts. In June 1944, the Japanese transport submarine I-52 took aboard 800kg of Uranium Oxide for transport to Japan. In November 1944 U-219 and U-195 arrived in the East carrying parts for 12 V-2 rockets. (This information was known to Truman, BTW.) The Japanese had 7 centrifuges for the refining of nuclear material. (We know this because they were captured after the surrender.) In May/June 1942, Germany successfully testfired missiles from a submerged submarine. (U-511) Germany continued the program and developed plans for water launching V-2 rockets. In 1944 under the codename "Prufstand XII" construction began on the launchers. (These plans were used by the Russians as the basis for their Golem towed missile program) The Japanese C-3 class transport subs were the largest non nuclear subs ever built at 2,095 tons displacement. What's a nation going to do? I'd bet that in about a year or so after you "sail away", it's going to get really, really hot in major industrial and governmental centres in the US. You would not be given the option to retaliate. Your "sailing away" would have left the military in control of the Japanese gov and they were not dumb enough to make the same mistake twice. Fifth. Under what International conventions are you going to demand reparations? Without a surrender, Japan is under no obligation to comply. As for your threat, that would be rather moot by then, would it not? The bomb had been tested. If it hadn't been used, how long do you think it would have been kept a secret? Once the secret was out, everybody would be out to develop their own. Your alternative of continuing conventional warfare in the company of the Russians would not have made any difference in that respect. Nuclear proliferation would still have happened, but without the ghastly lessons that Hiroshima and Nagasaki provided. So your argument is without foundation. Quite easily. The Japanese were willing to sacrifice those millions if they were taking a heavy toll on the Allies. The belief being that the Allies would rather a conditional peace than suffer heavy losses. (A not unreasonable assumption, I think) However the bombs showed that we could inflict horrendous losses to the Japanese without loss to ourselves. Because of this factor, the suicidal policy was abandoned as pointless. Generally concerning the Russian entry into the conflict. This was not a surprise to anybody. The Western Allies were certain that Russia would declare and invade the day after the "Neutrality Agreement" expired. Many in the Japanese gov thought the same way. Another point that might have forced Trumans hand is that Operation Downfall was basically dead by July 1945. Military doctrine (gathered from centuries of experience) is that to succeed, an invasion or attack against fortified areas requires a three to one numerical advantage in favour of the attacker. Once the figures came in about the reinforcement of the Southern Island it was readily apparent that the invasion would face odds of one to one or less. On that basis, Operation Downfall was doomed to fail. Regardless of the opinion of MacArthur, the invasion option was dead. Note: You too are a fair challenge and have taught me new things. I had no idea that the censorship was as great as it was. I also had no idea that Germany had developed submarine launched missiles. To be honest, I think the race was a lot closer than most people think. From here. The Type XXI was the best sub of the war, silent and deadly. Fitted with submerged launch anti ship missiles. "Oh Sh*t" is the only way I can describe this development. And from here. This is a Luftwaffe map of lower New York showing the blast damage expected from a V-2 carried nuclear weapon. I have also become increasingly sceptical about the casualty counts for the fire bombing raids. Some 4 million people lived in the area of Tokyo firestormed in July. Since the Japanese didn't have the systems of air raid shelters as existed in European cities, most of those 4 million people would have been asleep in their homes when the raid came. Yet the claim is that 11 out of 12 people survived the firestorm. Having read German accounts of the Hamburg and Dresden raids, such a low death toll is extremely unlikely. During the Dresden raid people jumped into the river to escape the flames only to be boiled alive by the river. Others in well constructed shelters died from the heat and had the fat rendered from their bodies. So 11 out of 12 surviving a firestorm without shelters? I'm smelling a lot of bovines somewhere.

Sheesh, literalists. tar, I don't think that you quite got my point. "I don't knows" are good because they represent the opportunity to learn. When we run out of them, then we are in trouble. However, as IA said; so I don't think this is likely in the short term. (Say the next 100,000 years or so.) In the context of this thread the only possible answer to the OPs question is "I don't know". While you correctly (I think) differentiated between things that can be explained now and things that science will never explain, I believe your conclusion to be in error. To assume that science would never be able to explain something is actually making a prediction concerning the future development of scientific thinking and knowledge. I believe such a prediction is impossible to validate in any way. Who could have predicted 400 years ago Relativity and Quantum Physics? Or even the knowledge of the EM spectrum that gave rise to radio? On this basis, it is quite possible to have a real experience that science cannot currently explain, but will be explainable in the future. So while experiences can indeed be divided into "real" and "imagined", the criteria for making the distinction is not as clear cut as you might think. IMO we live in a world typified by two words, hubris and impatience. Impatience because people want their answers now, right now and have great trouble with the idea that right now, there isn't one. Hubris because many take the POV that if our science, knowing all as it does, cannot explain it right now, then it is imaginary. Personally I take the words of Isaac Newton to be as true now as then. If you take the long term view, we are still children playing on the sea shore and compared to what there is yet to know, we know so very little. I kinda like it that way, far better a "great ocean" to explore than a puddle. Two other quotes that I think are apt; Charles Darwin; And Bernard Bailey, physicist; It should also be tempered by the acceptance of the possibility that you may never know. As tar pointed out, virtually all discoveries are based on previous ones, so if the neccessary previous ones have yet to be completed, then you will never be able to find the last piece of the puzzle. To quote Ned Kelly;

I don't understand. "I don't know" is wonderful, it means that there is something still to learn, to dream about knowing. "Nobody knows" is even better. Because one day somebody will know and they will share that with the rest of us. The day we run out of "I don't knows" is the day we end as a race, because it will mean that all the questions have been answered and that there is nothing new left in the Universe. No more questions, no more impossible dreams. Nothing left to contemplate but continual boredom. We should treasure the "I don't know"s for they lead to growth and knowledge.

Something exploited constantly by TV psychics and stage magicians.

I'm in two minds on this. I enjoy Sawyers books immensely and if they've changed the time frame from 20 odd years down to 6 months, I wonder what else gets butchered.

To a great degree I agree with you. I just think that there are some instances where it's a bit more complex than that.