Saying that he has a "clearly stated belief in AGW" is putting it a bit too strongly -- he doesn't subscribe to simplistic binaries:
"How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does. "
"It’s a scientist’s duty to be properly skeptical. I still find that much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerated or just plain wrong. I’ve analyzed some of the most alarmist claims, and my skepticism about them hasn’t changed. "
A mature opinion on AGW has to account for the inherent lack of certainty, whether it involves GW itself, the degree to which it's human-caused, the predictions of its likely effects, and the assessments about the effectiveness of various mitigation strategies. All the finger-pointing and self-righteousness among the certaintists on either side just drags the debate down.
local governments can be no better and often much worse
I'm curious about what exactly you mean by "better" and "worse" in this statement -- are you saying there's a set of "correct" answers for how the ideal local government should govern that's not relative to the particular locality? If you think it's rationally justifiable for you to pronounce the actions of a given democratic local government better or worse in some absolute sense, why aren't you then entitled to enforce your judgments on a broader scale?
Put another way, is your concession of non-perfect judgment limited to means and not ends?
The Constitution is basically the ruleset of the game -- the government has to follow those rules, at least to the satisfaction of the referees in black robes. The laws are instances of the game being played, and nothing in the ruleset prevents the government from passing legislation to alter or undo prior legislation. So I don't think your analogy really holds.
I've been saying something like your first argument to anyone who'll listen (i.e my wife, occasionally, if she's trapped in a car with me and doesn't have a book to read). Especially in the internet age, there's no excuse for voters to make their decisions based just on those expensive commercials. If they're going to put that little effort into it, then cutting out the money would just mean that their votes will be driven by other trivial or bogus reasons.
FWIW, I think this is true the way most such things are true -- technically accurate but stripped of most context for maximum effect, and then exaggerated and/or stripped of even more context in the retelling. Whichever way you go on this one is what you should expect for every other entry in the series.
I thought this bit from his reply to a commenter was interesting too:
I used to be a paperboy in a pretty bad neighborhood. I used to marvel in the fact that no one would ever steal the neighbors newspaper. It happened maybe 2 times in the 4 years I was a paperboy.
I think it has a lot to do with how people visualize “who” they are stealing from. In my paperboy experience people don’t steal cause they see it as taking from their neighbor.
when I was older I ended up working at the same paper as the assistant circulation manager. I would sometimes have to fill the newspaper racks with papers. I would often watch people put in a quarter and remove 5 or 6 papers and distribute them to people standing around in front of the liquor store or supermarket. In this case they were stealing from a Company. it made a difference to people.
If you listen to the original speech, you'll hear that he was telling a story specifically about an optometrist who needed to submit the forms to get "reimbursed by the federal government," so presumably a Medicare provider. As I understand it, to change Medicare provider info, you actually have to fill out form 855B, which is the same form the that's used to enroll as a new Medicare provider. Since it's a multi-purpose form, it's pretty lengthy -- the PDF in that link is 49 pages.
I vigorously disagree with this -- depending on how one defines art, it could be very relevant.
For example, I assume that even Sam would agree that it's justifiable to say that Kobe Bryant is a better basketball player than George Bush. We can say this even though many people in the world have no knowledge of the rules of basketball and couldn't identify any difference in the play of these two, or even if some basketball fans out there have a strange preference (fetish?) for the way that old white guys play basketball and thus would rather see George play than Kobe. The domain ignorance of the first group and the preference for domain-irrelevant characteristics among the second group don't disqualify our statement, because we're not saying that Kobe is more enjoyable to watch, just that when it comes to performing the function of playing basketball, he measures higher on every scale.
So, if one has a careful definition of "art" qua art and separates out the pure aesthetic function from all the accompanying characteristics, one can speak of the extent to which one work of art better performs that function than does another. The fact that some don't have an adequate grasp of the artistic language of the given work and others derive enjoyment from features beyond the pure aesthetic function is as irrelevant in this case as it is with the question of basketball players.
Is the discussion about art or is it about entertainment? Before you can resolve whether there's such a thing as good art, you need to settle on the question of what art is in the first place.
Stop it, you guys. There's no positive correlation between quality of post and # of comments, and you know it -- you're obviously just fishing for compliments. Which you certainly deserve.
[Note: the use of "fishing" above was not intended as a euphemism]
Calling the plan itself Darwinist is senseless -- the concept implicitly has to do with the reason(s) for cutting social welfare programs, not with the cuts themselves.
FWIW, speaking as an avid NPR listener, I can hear the liberalness in almost every program, including ATC and Morning Edition. I trust NPR to be careful with the facts, but the reporters' background assumptions leak into the interviews, the way that they present the R vs D points and rebuttals, the story selection etc. And obviously many of the non-news programs are unapologetic about their politics.
I didn't always notice this -- it was only once I started regularly visiting non-liberal blogs/sites and questioning many of my own prior political beliefs that I recognized those same beliefs at play elsewhere. I guess it was a little like quitting smoking, getting used to clean air, and then walking back into a smoke-filled room.
My opinion: take a break, see how you feel in a couple weeks, see whether your life is better or worse without the place. The only redeeming value of a blog like this is to serve as a training tool for maintaining your equanimity when encountering opposing arguments, or even arguments that offend you. If you're getting riled up, you're not helping yourself or the blog.
She said she'd love to see the guy behind bars. She also prefers to talk about things that a million other people aren't already saying, and her real point (justified or not) was that a trial and acquittal would arguably be worse than no trial at all. But obviously she hasn't engaged in the requisite amount of ritual denunciation to persuade the McArdle Derangement Syndrome sufferers not to make backhanded or even fronthanded accusations of racism or authoritarianism or whatever the hell it is that you lot are accusing her of.
<I>Well, no it isn’t reasonable doubt, unless the defense suggests that scenario ...</I>
Well, there's been no trial and no defense at all, so I'm not sure how this is a reasonable objection to a hypothetical statement. Should we never ever say prior to a trial "I wouldn't convict because I think scenario xyz provides a reasonable doubt" because they have to wait until a defense lawyer says it?
<I>...and the physical evidence is consistent with it.</i>
Is the physical evidence not consistent with it? I haven't read up on the details.
<I>You could suppose she has nefarious motives for getting that wrong,...</i>
...but then you'd be deranged. She could indeed be mixing up "reasonable doubt" with "shadow of a doubt", but people manage to do that all the time without having racist or fascist motives.
It's here -- Stillwater's being unfair though. She just said that if she were on a jury and nothing more were known than what's known right now, she'd have to acquit (probably due to that pesky "beyond a reasonable doubt" thingy).
Not sure what you mean here -- I'm sure the supposed spokespeople are more than happy to be seen as representative, so it's odd to say it's their "fault". The ones who pay the price are the more sensible or moderate folks in the same group who get lumped in.
This sort of person often gets a big assist from the other side, which is already predisposed to see the most simplistic picture of its enemies as representative of the entire group. This happens in religion as much as politics, and probably in many other domains as well.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “How To Give A Damn About Climate Change”
Saying that he has a "clearly stated belief in AGW" is putting it a bit too strongly -- he doesn't subscribe to simplistic binaries:
"How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does. "
"It’s a scientist’s duty to be properly skeptical. I still find that much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerated or just plain wrong. I’ve analyzed some of the most alarmist claims, and my skepticism about them hasn’t changed. "
A mature opinion on AGW has to account for the inherent lack of certainty, whether it involves GW itself, the degree to which it's human-caused, the predictions of its likely effects, and the assessments about the effectiveness of various mitigation strategies. All the finger-pointing and self-righteousness among the certaintists on either side just drags the debate down.
On “Justice as Map”
I'm curious about what exactly you mean by "better" and "worse" in this statement -- are you saying there's a set of "correct" answers for how the ideal local government should govern that's not relative to the particular locality? If you think it's rationally justifiable for you to pronounce the actions of a given democratic local government better or worse in some absolute sense, why aren't you then entitled to enforce your judgments on a broader scale?
Put another way, is your concession of non-perfect judgment limited to means and not ends?
On “Somebody else made that happen—and he’s here to collect”
The Constitution is basically the ruleset of the game -- the government has to follow those rules, at least to the satisfaction of the referees in black robes. The laws are instances of the game being played, and nothing in the ruleset prevents the government from passing legislation to alter or undo prior legislation. So I don't think your analogy really holds.
On “I Want The World To Know Nothing Ever Worries Me”
Has anyone here listened to the original speech? It's quite possible that his intonation on the word "that" would disambiguate the reference.
On “Managing the influence of money on politics? a.k.a the problem with democracy (or at least one of them)”
I've been saying something like your first argument to anyone who'll listen (i.e my wife, occasionally, if she's trapped in a car with me and doesn't have a book to read). Especially in the internet age, there's no excuse for voters to make their decisions based just on those expensive commercials. If they're going to put that little effort into it, then cutting out the money would just mean that their votes will be driven by other trivial or bogus reasons.
On “Win a Bottle of Delicious Whiskey with the “I Call Bulls**t” Challenge!”
Actually I'm not a whiskey drinker, so I'll happily concede the prize to Plinko -- no need for a coin flip.
"
FWIW, I think this is true the way most such things are true -- technically accurate but stripped of most context for maximum effect, and then exaggerated and/or stripped of even more context in the retelling. Whichever way you go on this one is what you should expect for every other entry in the series.
"
And I'll defer to Pinko (Plinko?), who apparently got there before me (judging by Tod's earlier reply).
"
Just occurred to me as I was lying in bed not sleeping that a 28-page 855I plus the 5-pager for the NPI change makes 33.
On “Congratulations, your generation is the first generation in history to rebel by unsticking it to the man.”
I thought this bit from his reply to a commenter was interesting too:
On “Win a Bottle of Delicious Whiskey with the “I Call Bulls**t” Challenge!”
If you listen to the original speech, you'll hear that he was telling a story specifically about an optometrist who needed to submit the forms to get "reimbursed by the federal government," so presumably a Medicare provider. As I understand it, to change Medicare provider info, you actually have to fill out form 855B, which is the same form the that's used to enroll as a new Medicare provider. Since it's a multi-purpose form, it's pretty lengthy -- the PDF in that link is 49 pages.
http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/CMS-Forms/CMS-Forms/downloads/cms855b.pdf
On “Hi-Dee Hi-Dee Hi-Dee Ho! – or, continued musings on relativism in art”
I vigorously disagree with this -- depending on how one defines art, it could be very relevant.
For example, I assume that even Sam would agree that it's justifiable to say that Kobe Bryant is a better basketball player than George Bush. We can say this even though many people in the world have no knowledge of the rules of basketball and couldn't identify any difference in the play of these two, or even if some basketball fans out there have a strange preference (fetish?) for the way that old white guys play basketball and thus would rather see George play than Kobe. The domain ignorance of the first group and the preference for domain-irrelevant characteristics among the second group don't disqualify our statement, because we're not saying that Kobe is more enjoyable to watch, just that when it comes to performing the function of playing basketball, he measures higher on every scale.
So, if one has a careful definition of "art" qua art and separates out the pure aesthetic function from all the accompanying characteristics, one can speak of the extent to which one work of art better performs that function than does another. The fact that some don't have an adequate grasp of the artistic language of the given work and others derive enjoyment from features beyond the pure aesthetic function is as irrelevant in this case as it is with the question of basketball players.
"
Is the discussion about art or is it about entertainment? Before you can resolve whether there's such a thing as good art, you need to settle on the question of what art is in the first place.
On “Enough already with the “Socialist this,” and the “Social Darwinist that””
Stop it, you guys. There's no positive correlation between quality of post and # of comments, and you know it -- you're obviously just fishing for compliments. Which you certainly deserve.
[Note: the use of "fishing" above was not intended as a euphemism]
"
Yeah, the topical political posts tend to bring out the least interesting discussions, even if the post itself makes interesting points.
"
Calling the plan itself Darwinist is senseless -- the concept implicitly has to do with the reason(s) for cutting social welfare programs, not with the cuts themselves.
On “On “Truth” and Its Consequences – Why We Need A New Business Model for 21st Century Journalism”
FWIW, speaking as an avid NPR listener, I can hear the liberalness in almost every program, including ATC and Morning Edition. I trust NPR to be careful with the facts, but the reporters' background assumptions leak into the interviews, the way that they present the R vs D points and rebuttals, the story selection etc. And obviously many of the non-news programs are unapologetic about their politics.
I didn't always notice this -- it was only once I started regularly visiting non-liberal blogs/sites and questioning many of my own prior political beliefs that I recognized those same beliefs at play elsewhere. I guess it was a little like quitting smoking, getting used to clean air, and then walking back into a smoke-filled room.
On “Privacy and Girls Around Me”
I need to start working on a "Guys Using 'Girls Around Me' Around Me" app...
On “Near-Tragedies in Civillian Police Work”
The rest is entertainment. But it's damn good entertainment!
"
My opinion: take a break, see how you feel in a couple weeks, see whether your life is better or worse without the place. The only redeeming value of a blog like this is to serve as a training tool for maintaining your equanimity when encountering opposing arguments, or even arguments that offend you. If you're getting riled up, you're not helping yourself or the blog.
On “The Violent Gang Member in This Picture Is Easily Identifiable By His Tell-Tale Outerwear”
She said she'd love to see the guy behind bars. She also prefers to talk about things that a million other people aren't already saying, and her real point (justified or not) was that a trial and acquittal would arguably be worse than no trial at all. But obviously she hasn't engaged in the requisite amount of ritual denunciation to persuade the McArdle Derangement Syndrome sufferers not to make backhanded or even fronthanded accusations of racism or authoritarianism or whatever the hell it is that you lot are accusing her of.
"
<I>Well, no it isn’t reasonable doubt, unless the defense suggests that scenario ...</I>
Well, there's been no trial and no defense at all, so I'm not sure how this is a reasonable objection to a hypothetical statement. Should we never ever say prior to a trial "I wouldn't convict because I think scenario xyz provides a reasonable doubt" because they have to wait until a defense lawyer says it?
<I>...and the physical evidence is consistent with it.</i>
Is the physical evidence not consistent with it? I haven't read up on the details.
<I>You could suppose she has nefarious motives for getting that wrong,...</i>
...but then you'd be deranged. She could indeed be mixing up "reasonable doubt" with "shadow of a doubt", but people manage to do that all the time without having racist or fascist motives.
"
It's here -- Stillwater's being unfair though. She just said that if she were on a jury and nothing more were known than what's known right now, she'd have to acquit (probably due to that pesky "beyond a reasonable doubt" thingy).
On “The Silence is Deafening, but not Illuminating”
that’s their own damn fault.
Not sure what you mean here -- I'm sure the supposed spokespeople are more than happy to be seen as representative, so it's odd to say it's their "fault". The ones who pay the price are the more sensible or moderate folks in the same group who get lumped in.
"
This sort of person often gets a big assist from the other side, which is already predisposed to see the most simplistic picture of its enemies as representative of the entire group. This happens in religion as much as politics, and probably in many other domains as well.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.