KAL does it again…

KAL is the resident cartoonist at the Economist. I saw this one and was moved to post it. I’d really like to see some interpretations on it. I’ll be adding mine a little later.

Advertisements

169 Comments

  1. hippieprof says:

    ummmm….. surprised you posted this Alfie…..

    My interpretation? We talk a lot about developing green energy (which any fool knows we need to do) but we can’t even take the first step toward doing so (i.e., giving up driving everywhere).

    Is Sam holding bombs, or are those oil barrels with straws? Perhaps both?

    — hp

  2. Alfie says:

    ummmm….. surprised you posted this Alfie…..
    I’m biased ,but I stand by the fact that I am actually deeper than some assume.
    Thanks for commenting,I hope more do too. I will say that I think it is straws in the image.

  3. bvilleyellowdog says:

    The first step in dealing with an addition is admitting a problem. Many are not there yet.
    AA is for more than booze.

  4. hippieprof says:

    Alfie said…..

    I stand by the fact that I am actually deeper than some assume.

    Alfie, I do in fact think you are a deep thinker. It does surprise me sometimes how emotionally you react to some of the things that I say – that is the only part that seems out-of-character.

    I have said all along that what I am trying to foster conversation on tough issues. I think you do that here. Keep it up.

    — hp

  5. Tex Taylor says:

    Pretty funny. The only thing I agree with “greenies”, eco terrorists, and other vile lefty PHD blame America pinkos about the present energy policy is the need to conserve.

    However, 40 years ago, their feckless ilk stopped the construction of nuclear power plant development – the only real viable form of alternative energy at present. We could have been well on our way to energy independence if it wasn’t for the Left.

    They were in their teens and 20’s then, 50’s, 60’s and early 70’s now, and still as woefully ignorant and stupid forty years later. Forget listening to them about anything of national importance. Obama flies to ten minute speeches stiffing the construction workers out of a day’s wages, says nothing of consequence, and costs thousands of gallons of gasoline in the process.

    Perhaps when these freaks live like they preach, grab a few more hard science degrees instead of liberal arts majors, and learn something of real value about production of energy instead of what they read from the internet at their commie sites, I’ll be a little more willing to listen to their opinions.

    Until then, I consider them teats on a boar hog, or worse as parasites.

  6. hippieprof says:

    Gosh Tex, you are back….. and here I was actually hoping that you had been shamed into permanent silence….

    Funny that you post this on the heels of Alfie’s “I am deeper than you think” post. Too bad we can’t somehow harness all the emotional vitriol in your posts – that would certainly solve the energy crisis because there is either an unlimited supply or it renews almost as fast as it is spent.

    Yeah…. it is SO deep too…..

  7. hippieprof says:

    Tex said: However, 40 years ago, their feckless ilk stopped the construction of nuclear power plant development

    OK – I will call your bluff on this one.

    I don’t have the problems with nuclear that some on my side of the aisle do.

    However, how can we be sure that nuclear plants are not built and maintained by the same kind of criminally negligent idiots we find at BP? A BP-style nuclear accident will be far far worse than deepwater. What assurances do we have that corporations will pay any more attention to safety at nuclear plants?

  8. Tex Taylor says:

    Well, I don’t know Hippie. The French and Japanese apparently can do it safely. Surely if we can keep your feckless ilk of bleeding heart know nothings and other assorted leftist dumb asses from involvement in the planning and construction, safety shouldn’t be a concern.

    As far as shame. I’ll tell you who ought to be carrying shame about right now. Anybody that cast a vote for the current Sham for President or uses some deviant like Freud in his logic.

    And now you want these same cast of douche bags and numb nuts who can’t manage an oil spill 45 miles out in the ocean to manage health care? And you speak of ignorance? 🙄

    Fricking idiot. No wonder graduating seniors have to receive remedial training after graduation. I understand completely.

    How you like your messiahs approval numbers right now “Professor”? I told you so a year ago…Not worth a shit.

  9. hippieprof says:

    How you like your messiahs approval numbers right now “Professor”? I told you so a year ago…Not worth a shit.

    Interestingly, the pattern of Obama’s approval numbers almost exactly parallels those of Ronald Reagan, that Messiah-of-the-right.

  10. graychin says:

    Do the French and Japanese allow the owners of their nukes to write their own safety regulations like we do in America? Do do they let their nuclear regulators become as corrupt and incompetent as the American Minerals Management Service? I don’t know – I’m just wondering.

    Nuclear power is the only subject I know of on which “conservatives” think that we should emulate the French! 😀

  11. graychin says:

    Alfie, I like the cartoon.

    I see the barrel on Sam’s back as both a “monkey” on his back, and as his supply of the addictive substance – which he keeps close to him with a drinking straw attached.

    And Sam is all of us (most of us anyway) – realizing that we have a problem, but unwilling yet to do anything about it.

    Unfortunately, don’t most addicts have to “hit bottom” before they can shake their addictions? Even with the disaster in the Gulf, I doubt that America has hit bottom yet. Since some people still claim that the Gulf Gusher is no big deal, I suspect that we will need to cut through lots more denial before hit bottom.

    Unfortunately, the longer we wait the harder the crash at the bottom is going to be.

  12. hippieprof says:

    Nuclear power is the only subject I know of on which “conservatives” think that we should emulate the French! 😀

    Zing!!!!!

  13. Tex Taylor says:

    Do do they let their nuclear regulators become as corrupt and incompetent as the American Minerals Management Service? I don’t know – I’m just wondering.

    I thought you’d be a fun. They are, after all government – the leftist saviors of the world. We can just move them over to run health care – because that is the quality of what you’ll be getting from Bongocare…

  14. Tex Taylor says:

    😳 fan, not fun.

  15. Tex Taylor says:

    Nuclear power is the only subject I know of on which “conservatives” think that we should emulate the French!

    I think what it really shows is bunch of whiny, cowardly cheese eaters are even smarter than the American Left.

    I do have one idea about alternative energy. If we can plant all the useful idiots from the Left on top of these 300 ft tall windmills, and somehow capture the hot air that comes from their failed ideas, poor instruction, and hypocrisy – it would prove far more reliable than the breeze.

  16. Tex Taylor says:

    Interestingly, the pattern of Obama’s approval numbers almost exactly parallels those of Ronald Reagan, that Messiah-of-the-right.

    Baloney – more leftist crap trap and desperation. I certainly don’t remember parallels of Jimmah Carter comparisons – and that from libbies like Mort Zuckerman who voted for President Shank. Happy for us if this fraud were only Jimmah Carter.

    What kind of people hear this pap below and applaud (besides you and Graychin). It shows your phenomenal gullibility and deluded mentality. Gawd, you people are suckers.

    Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. This was the moment—this was the time—when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals. – Barack Obama 2008

    If Bongo can heal our planet, why can’t he get permission slips to build berms?

    What a joke…all of you hacks.

  17. Tex Taylor says:

    Good grief…claptrap. 😆

  18. hippieprof says:

    Tex said: Baloney – more leftist crap trap and desperation.

    OK – take a look for yourself. Kinda hits you between the eyes.

    http://www.pollster.com/blogs/obama_as_reagan.php

    This link, BTW, is to a website that Tex himself has been known to cite on occasion.

  19. hippieprof says:

    Tex said: Baloney – more leftist crap trap and desperation.

    OK, take a look for yourself. It kinda hits you between the eyes.

    http://www.pollster.com/blogs/obama_as_reagan.php

    Before we get screams of “liberal website” I would note that Tex himself has been known to post links to this site.

    — hp

  20. hippieprof says:

    Alfie – two posts I have made in the last few minutes have vanished into thin air. Both had links in them – are links disallowed here?

    The links were to an article showing the parallels between Obama’s approval numbers and Reagan’s. They even came from a site that Tex himself has been known to link to….

    😉

  21. Hucking Fypocrites says:

    Probably caught in the span filter. To my knowledge, Alfie’s only rule for links concerns imbedding videos that don’t go the the heart of the original post, which I believe he deals with manually.

    Sounds like an automated trigger got you HippieProf.

  22. graychin says:

    I had a similar problem on my WordPress blog. Perhaps you heard?

  23. Alfie says:

    hp they did indeed go to spam as opposed to the trigger I have for # of links. I don’t know why.

  24. Elric66 says:

    What? No one commenting on the drones’ blogs so they came here?

  25. Elric66 says:

    “Interestingly, the pattern of Obama’s approval numbers almost exactly parallels those of Ronald Reagan, that Messiah-of-the-right.”

    Reagan didnt have the MSM propping him up either.

  26. Alfie says:

    All are Welcome @ in2thefray-Alfie

  27. hippieprof says:

    Reagan didnt have the MSM propping him up either.

    Nor did he have an entire major network serving as a propaganda vehicle for the opposition.

  28. Elric66 says:

    “Nor did he have an entire major network serving as a propaganda vehicle for the opposition.”

    What MSNBC? CNN?

  29. Hucking Fypocrites says:

    “I had a similar problem on my WordPress blog. Perhaps you heard?”

    The difference is that these comments were retrieveable. The ones at your place vanished as though they never were, and many didn’t have any links.

  30. hippieprof says:

    Elric said: What MSNBC? CNN?

    MSNBC is biased, but I wouldn’t call it a major network.

    CNN is a major netowrk, but it presents the most unbiased news out there – and the fact that you think it is biased suggested just how far to the right you are. Sheesh… Lou Dobbs was on CNN. Beck was on CNN. Gretta Van Sustern was on CNN.

    — hp

  31. Tex Taylor says:

    Live in your purple rain world of academia. I want you to think President Useful Idiot is paralleling Reagan. The imaginary world of feckless liberal arts, convincing yourself that you’ve got the parallels figured out. I’m going to be laughing at you asshole’s expense in a little over four months when the U.S. shows you what they really think of the useful idiot.

    I will give you 100-1 odds right now and bet you $100K of my own money to $1,000 of yours that Obama will never see a thing like this in 2012. Try to remember what a real ass kicking looks like.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ElectoralCollege1984.svgtalking about Freud.

    You’re going to be eating fricking crow in both employment and politic before long. The world is turning on you – much too late, but still turning.

  32. Tex Taylor says:

    CNN. Most fair network? 😆

    Liberal arts departments wearing Che shirts would make statements like this.

    Since ’94 CNN has been known as the Clinton News Network. It’s ratings fell off the cliff years ago.

    That link from above didn’ t work, so we’ll just have to do it the long way.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1984

  33. graychin says:

    Tex, all that HP said was that Obama’s approval matches Reagan’s at this point in his administration. You didn’t believe it, so he proved it to you.

    I know it’s hard to respond to a takedown like that, but dragging out a broken link to an election of 25+ years ago? That’s just sad.

    HP, notice how the Republican bar is getting lower and lower? They used to tell us that Obama wouldn’t be re-elected in 2012. Now they are only telling us that he won’t win by as much as Reagan won by in 1984. 😀

    We’ll see. It depends on which of the many Republican superstars they nominate. 😀

  34. Hucking Fypocrites says:

    “Lou Dobbs was on CNN. Beck was on CNN. Gretta Van Sustern was on CNN”

    There sure is a lot of “was” in that proof to show what CNN “is.”

    By the way, what network do Democratic party propagandists Paul Begala and James Carville work for?

    Anyone that puts any news agency on a pedestal is a fool.

    These people sell products—information and commentary. They have shareholders and customers like any other business. That means they have an agenda—making money. Fox News makes its money by appealing to an untapped market—the conservative right. Its competitors share their primary market—everyone else. Which is why Fox News absolutely dominates the cable news ratings.

    This isn’t rocket science. This isn’t a conspiracy. This isn’t right-wing propaganda. It’s economics. It’s business. It’s that simple.

  35. hippieprof says:

    Since ’94 CNN has been known as the Clinton News Network. It’s ratings fell off the cliff years ago.

    Want to actually back that up with some facts, Tex? So – CNN was known as Clinton News Network. By who? More important, what did they actually do to deserve that title?

    As I have mentioned in the past, my political views have not always been left of center. I never liked Clinton, and never voted for him. I watched CNN through those years, and in fact never felt they had a bias for Clinton – again during a time when I was no fan of Clinton myself.

    Oh, and STFU with the “liberal arts department” crap, as if I am some kind of scientific inferior. I have a an undergraduate degree in Biology in addition to my degree in Psychology. The majority of my grad coursework was in neuroscience and related fields. Even with your Med background I would guess I have close to as much science background as you do.

    — hp

  36. Alfie says:

    Huck… excellent point!!

  37. hippieprof says:

    Huck asked: By the way, what network do Democratic party propagandists Paul Begala and James Carville work for?

    The same network that Republican propagandists Ed Rollins and William Bennett and David Frum work for, just to name a few.

  38. hippieprof says:

    Huck said: It’s economics. It’s business. It’s that simple.

    And it is also fucking dangerous.

  39. Tex Taylor says:

    Che, Inferior Liberal Arts Department Professor:

    You can kiss my ass, as I have determined from your blog you’re an asshole. Get used to it sport. Don’t like it, look me up.

    Oh, and STFU with the “liberal arts department” crap, as if I am some kind of scientific inferior. I have a an undergraduate degree in Biology in addition to my degree in Psychology. The majority of my grad coursework was in neuroscience and related fields. Even with your Med background I would guess I have close to as much science background as you do.

    We put that to the test once, and you came off looking like the inferior dumbass who couldn’t answer basic biology questions with your Piled Higher and Deeper degree. Feel free to put it to the test again if you wish. You’re an “easy” liberal arts instructor at a podunk university.

  40. graychin says:

    Huck said: It’s economics. It’s business. It’s that simple.

    Huck is basically right. But I disagree that “it’s that simple.”

    It’s one thing to design programming to attract a particular slice of the fragmented audience for cable news. And Faux has clearly done that. O’Reilly, Beck and Hannity are to Fox as Maddow and Olbermann are to MSNBC. But I think that the the spin that Faux puts on what is allegedly their straight news programming is something more sinister – made slightly more sinister by their mocking use of the tagline “fair and balanced.” Huck and perhaps even some other “conservatives” here might agree that the Faux tagline is a cynical joke.

    Would anyone deny that Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes have a clear political agenda? Is any other alleged “news” network run by a former partisan political operative?

    (Let me anticipate one likely response – that the mainstream media has been spouting liberal propaganda for years and no one noticed biased news until Faux came along. That’s nonsense – any liberal bias in the mainstream media was vinegar to Faux’s hydrochloric acid.)

  41. hippieprof says:

    We put that to the test once, and you came off looking like the inferior dumbass who couldn’t answer basic biology questions with your Piled Higher and Deeper degree.

    Yeah, Tex. Right. You just go ahead and pretend that you are such an intellectual.

    We put that to the test? I have a different recollection of who came off as an idiot. It was you who made the absurd claim that evolution somehow violates the second law of thermodynamics. Of course, by that logic snowflakes are impossible too….. and photosynthesis…. and about a billion other examples in which complexity increases locally as a result of natural physical processes.

    Tell you what. Go talk to a physicist about your claim. They won’t just tell you that you are wrong – they will laugh in your face.

  42. hippieprof says:

    Remember, Gray – it is “Pravda-FOX” – not that most conservatives actually get the analogy.

  43. Tex Taylor says:

    Now Graychin,

    As to responding to Che’s analogy about Obama and Reagan – I call bullshit. The media in 1982 was dominated by ABC, CBS, NBC and the talking heads of liberal dominion. Uncle Walty is dead.

    The American public laid down the clear indicator as to the real qualifications of Reagan in 1984, which is the only “poll” that mattered. You criticize my 25 year old link, but never said a word about the 28 year old analogy. Harry Truman left his office the most unpopular President in history too – didn’t last did it? But I do hope you keep “feeling” that way. It will make it more fun to watch your arrogant ass pucker. You think Bongo can turn it around in 30 months, power to him. I say things get worse from here on out for the empty suit. Just wait until Israel blows the hell out of Iraq.

    Of course, you were the one with the equally dumb Politico that used to keep a running count of the number of days Obama had kept us safe on the T-World blog. Yuck, yuck. Miraculously, that count disappeared last summer. You also used to boast about Conservatism being written off for a generation. That lasted six months before your mouth miraculously closed. You haven’t been too good at prediction.

    If you would like to lay some money on the 2012 results with Che, feel free to pull out your wallet. I think the odds 50/50, Obama will have Hillary Rotten to contend with before the election.

    CNN’s ratings? 😆 Before I go gather the “historical numbers”, anybody want to place a gentlemen’s bet? Che? Gray?

  44. Tex Taylor says:

    Professor Che,

    We put that to the test? I have a different recollection of who came off as an idiot. It was you who made the absurd claim that evolution somehow violates the second law of thermodynamics.

    You have a different recollection about a lot of things in the inferior liberal arts department. You’re science is laughable…

  45. Tex Taylor says:

    Your…

    By the way, you think I ought to go away in shame? For what? Wasting my time with some jackboot propagandist like you?

    I haven’t met anybody more full of shit.

  46. Tex Taylor says:

    Alfie & Huck,

    To demonstrate exactly how blind these fair fellows from the Left really are, how well the tolerate dissenting voice, and how dangerous Pravda Fox is, can anybody tell me who is the chief political correspondent for ABC News?

    I’ll give you a hint. He’s a worm with an Alfalfa like hair doo, and a former White House Communications Director.

    A perfect candidate of Che and Gray’s idea of fair and balanced…

  47. El Tigre says:

    Dan Rather.

  48. Tex Taylor says:

    Dan Rather. 🙂

    Close – Worm and Alfalfa hair, yes. I wonder whatever happened to the fair and objective Mary Mapes, whose own father even called her BDS unhinged?

    I’ll bet she was a hero to Che. 😛

  49. Alfie says:

    I am currently eye deep in the joys of homeownership. I will be putting forth my thoughts on the KAL toon. I’ve broken down per panel. FWIW I think the answers offered are pretty much what KAL was shooting for.
    HP I have to say I understand why you go the Fox/Pravda route but to people that really know Pravda or say Iran’s PressTV there is a clear difference.
    I also have to say about the Murdoch empire that the ideology is always second to the money.

  50. Tex Taylor says:

    Of course, by that logic snowflakes are impossible too….. and photosynthesis…. and about a billion other examples in which complexity increases locally as a result of natural physical processes.

    😆 You don’t have a clue what the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is, do you?

    What you do? Find this paragraph some place at one of those blogs where libs gather to talk about evolution?

    Completely meaningless gibberish. Throw something out hoping people like Graychin can Google it.

  51. Alfie says:

    I wonder if anyone disagrees that the US media en total is not without serious flaws? that may seem like a stupid question but right,left or center the US outlets seem to have a common formula. Am I nuts? I don’t think so but…
    Also to the right side commenters,any thought on the toon?

  52. El Tigre says:

    The toon? Hmmm. Obama’s charge of the light brigade.

  53. hippieprof says:

    Alfie , indeed there are serious problems with the US media – right or left or center.

    I will get slammed for saying this – but a huge part of the problem is the profit motive. Networks are driven by ratings – and that in turn encourages them to dumb down the news and tell people what they want to hear.

    The solution? I would offer something like the BBC. Just take a look at their website, and compare it to the websites for CNN or FOX or MSNBC. The difference in depth of reporting is amazing.

    Yes – I know that there will be complaints about government control, etc – but I stand by the observation that the BBC produces better journalism than any of the news networks in the US.

  54. Tex Taylor says:

    Alfie,

    I pretty much gave my opinion first post. There is but one form of alternative energy both viable and cost effective at present, and of course, I had to intermingle the idea some of the Castro fans on this very board were probably some of the protesters during the Three Mile Island fiasco which stopped its facilitation across the U.S. They’d be about the right age. 🙂

    I was thinking last night as I was driving down the turnpike last night at 80mph passed by assorted SUVs and 18 wheelers, I am shocked Congress hasn’t pushed to reset the highway speed limit to 55mph.

  55. Tex Taylor says:

    The BBC? Okay, the British version of Pravda. 🙄

    Unbelievable. I can see why goose steppers would think that a swell idea. Kind of like Bill Moyer is a moderate conservative.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1554936/BBC-viewers-angered-by-its-innate-liberal-bias.html

    Ah, no thank you. I’ll let the free market determine who provides better commentary.

  56. hippieprof says:

    Find this paragraph some place at one of those blogs where libs gather to talk about evolution?

    Not sure what paragraph you are referring to, Tex, but here is a pretty discussion of the fallacy promoted by creationists in applying the 2nd law to evolution:

    http://2ndlaw.oxy.edu/evolution.html

    Yeah, probably just a bunch of liberals…. No, more like a bunch of scientists.

    I am amazed at your gall, btw, in questioning my knowledge of Biology. Your fervent denial of the theory of evolution – and your inability to put forth a cogent argument about it – shows how little you know. Oh – I forgot – the vast majority of biologists who believe in evolution are just political hacks.

  57. Alfie says:

    The toon? Hmmm. Obama’s charge of the light brigade.
    Huh! Given the founding theme of this blog that’s funny!

  58. hippieprof says:

    Huh! Given the founding theme of this blog that’s funny!

    Even funnier, Tigre apparently does not know the poem. It ends:

    Honour the Light Brigade,
    Noble Six Hundred!

    I sincerely doubt that Tigre would ever want to ascribe nobility to Obama.

  59. Tex Taylor says:

    Che,

    If you’ll remember how the conversation went, it went down like this. We started with the debate of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The argument went on for a bit until we both countered with articles disputing “pet theories”.

    I said, “okay let’s simplify this.” Let’s go straight to the heart of the matter about genetics and biology – your supposed field of expertise. I asked you some very straight forward questions with respect to biology; i.e. – major histocompatibility complex (MHC) being one. You said you’d get back with me as you weren’t sure. You disappeared.

    You’ve already showed me this article before, of which I countered with this.

    http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/37/4/1011

    You are wrong in your assessment. A majority of real researchers aren’t buying your “theory” to explain evolution. Read it and learn something, as it far more complicated than what you pointy-headed mush brains bandy about in the teacher’s lounge, thinking yourselves wise.

    I just read your article for the second time and it answered nothing. It’s total junk about the randomness of gases. Here’s a little test. Go outside with your aerosol spray can that is not empty and push the button. See what happens outside the can. When you gather the gas, get back with me and I”ll apologize for laughing at you.

    The 2nd law is simple in theory. It goes like this:

    The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that the entropy of the universe tends toward a maximum or basically that things tend to go from order to disorder without work. It is related to the concept of irreversibility – a change in the thermodynamic state of a system and all of its surroundings cannot be precisely restored to its initial state by infinitesimal changes in some property of the system without expenditure of energy (‘Chemistry’ – Brown, Lemay and Bursten, 9th edition). Using this argument, the creation of life on earth could not be a random occurrence; a simple organism could not be created spontaneously and that organism could not become more orderly or complex randomly over time without the input of work. You can’t tell me what the work is Professor Freud. What? The sun?

    Then you try and confuse the issue with more babble about open vs. closed systems with respect to the universe. Pure junk and irrelevant to the question at hand.

    —————————

    I not only question your knowledge, but question your qualifications Professor Freud. You’re a liberal arts instructor preaching the psychobabble of psychology and nothing more. The fact you delve into subjects you aren’t the least bit qualified to teach says much not only about the quality of instruction in higher education, but your methods of indoctrination.

    P.S. – I don’t have a fervent denial of the theory of evolution. I called it mass speculation and could prove the speculation 1,000 times over, starting with a finite universe. Mutation within a species is one thing – species creation from random mutation, quite another.

    And your pat answer will be “we just haven’t discovered it yet” when I start answering my questions. Convenient for you.

    Keep looking.

  60. graychin says:

    I will get slammed for saying this – but a huge part of the problem is the profit motive. Networks are driven by ratings – and that in turn encourages them to dumb down the news and tell people what they want to hear.

    You won’t get slammed by me. The fragmentation of the audience for news has created a situation where it’s getting impossible for any media outlet to pay for real journalism. So they to resort to political pandering (Faux) or news about Britney and Brangelina to scrounge for ratings to pay the bills.

    Morons who think that NPR is wildly left-wing and who can’t distinguish spin from fact will mock the BBC, but I find it to be one of the most credible news sources out there.

  61. graychin says:

    I don’t have a fervent denial of the theory of evolution.

    But he does believe that the Noah’s Ark story is literally true. And that the six days of creation and the talking snake in the garden of Eden are not allegory.

  62. hippieprof says:

    Hey Tex, I generally try to lay off the ad hominem. But, since you repeatedly want to attack my professional integrity, I guess I have no choice.

    Tex, you are nothing more than an angry, bitter failed medical student. Yeah. I went there.

    Oh, if you actually understood the things you cited above, you would realize that your logic also precludes the existence of snowflakes.

  63. graychin says:

    Since we’re talking about the news media, let’s take another look at the cartoon that HP linked on Rutherford’s blog yesterday:

  64. Tex Taylor says:

    Graychin,

    But you still haven’t admitted to me that Jesus also must have thought the story literally true. I mean, he did teach from the Torah you have determined to be bogus.

    So if I am wrong, I will consider myself in really good company.

    Whose your company? Hippie?

  65. graychin says:

    HP – you should have used the word “unemployed” somewhere in that list of adjectives.

  66. Tex Taylor says:

    Tex, you are nothing more than an angry, bitter failed medical student. Yeah. I went there.

    😆 Bitter? Hardly. Disappointed I started too late? Perhaps.

    Failed? News to me. As I have made this same bet before with Graychin, and he wouldn’t take my bet.

    I will happily forgo my anonymity and place my class ranking on this very board for a price. Would you like to see if I was failing upon departure for a price? Make it worth my while Che and this is one argument we can certainly put to rest.

  67. Tex Taylor says:

    Graychin. Doesn’t unemployed mean I would actively be seeking work? Do you see me pursuing work at this minute? How would my situation be any different than yours?

    I know this much. I’m married to an executive. Undoubtedly, for all my supposed failures at life, I certainly seemed to have married far better than you did sport. My wife doesn’t spend her days alone quilting in Shithole, OK. Some like your wife may consider that real fulfillment. We wouldn’t.

    Must have something going for me that you don’t sport.

  68. Tex Taylor says:

    Oh, if you actually understood the things you cited above, you would realize that your logic also precludes the existence of snowflakes.

    I know at the university, you find yourself in incredibly “deep” company at the legend of higher education, but exactly what is this supposed to prove? That dust particles in conjunction with ice crystals form snowflakes?

    Is this one of those profound analogies beyond mortal man? Tell me Professor – I’m all ears about how this supports your theory of evolution.

  69. graychin says:

    Tex, you have lots of company, but I wouldn’t call it “good” company.

    The Torah is allegorical. That is not a synonym for “bogus.” Is the 4000-year genealogy from Adam to Jesus “bogus” too?

    Jesus no doubt understood very well how the universe was created and where the many species came from, since he was there at the time. His teachings were heard and written down by men of Jesus’ time who had First Century understandings of cosmology.

    Many Christians still have First Century understandings of cosmology.

    a simple organism could not be created spontaneously and that organism could not become more orderly or complex randomly over time without the input of work. You can’t tell me what the work is Professor Freud. What? The sun?

    BINGO! The input of work required to make simple terrestrial organisms become more complicated is… THE SUN! It showers the Earth with huge amounts of energy every day, and has for billions of years. (Or only 6,000 years, according to some.)

    Mutation within a species is one thing – species creation from random mutation, quite another.

    Darwin’s finches in the Galapagos Islands have become separate species. Darwin’s insight was that the different finches had common ancestors that had…. evolved!

  70. graychin says:

    <i?Doesn’t unemployed mean I would actively be seeking work? Do you see me pursuing work at this minute?

    No.

    And no.

  71. hippieprof says:

    You know Tex, I was actually giving you the benefit of the doubt what I described you as angry and bitter. That at least gave you an excuse for acting with such downright nastiness.

    So, if you are not angry and bitter, I guess that just means you have an ugly are mean spirited by nature.

    But hey, I meant it when I said I try to avoid ad hominem. I am a bit embarrassed that I let myself do it as much as I have over these last few minutes. I am going to make an attempt at going back to being civil. You can follow along if you like. I suspect you would find the conversation would be more interesting.

  72. hippieprof says:

    Darwin’s finches in the Galapagos Islands have become separate species. Darwin’s insight was that the different finches had common ancestors that had…. evolved!

    Bravo, Gray!

    What people like Tex commonly fail to understand is that speciation can occur via an accumulation of microevolutionary changes in reproductively isolated populations – without need of major mutations. Darwin’s finches are the perfect example.

  73. hippieprof says:

    Is this one of those profound analogies beyond mortal man? Tell me Professor – I’m all ears about how this supports your theory of evolution.

    It doesn’t support my theory of evolution, Tex – it simply shows your misunderstanding of the second law.

    Free water vapor is a less organized system than a snowflake. Yet, under the correct conditions snowflakes arise spontaneously from water vapor. You made the claim that a more complex system cannot spontaneously arise from a less complex system with out application or work. I gave you a counterexample. QED.

    And yes, as Gray notes, the sun is the critical variable. Entropy only holds for a closed system in which there is no input of energy from outside the system. The sun certainly provides such energy. Again, QED.

  74. Tex Taylor says:

    Hippie,

    If you’ll recall, our conversations were for the most part civil even with your rank propaganda of a blog which I enjoyed debating, until you made one post about a neighbor screwed by the jackbooted thugs from the government, then added fuel to the fire with a cheap attempt at humor.

    I didn’t find his situation worth a chuckle, and in fact, found it an outrage. As far as I’m concerned, you started this. I’m just playing your game.

  75. graychin says:

    Would you like to see if I was failing upon departure for a price?

    Another name for layoff? You got paid to leave?

    Sorry, but it doesn’t sound like you were the “A” grade material.

  76. Tex Taylor says:

    BINGO! The input of work required to make simple terrestrial organisms become more complicated is… THE SUN! It showers the Earth with huge amounts of energy every day, and has for billions of years. (Or only 6,000 years, according to some.)

    😆 What a load of shit. Well then. Let’s put your system to the test, shall we rocket scientist? Why don’t we gather all the basic building blocks of life, you bring what you need from the lab, and we’ll set them up on your deck on the Dead Lake that you’re so proud. We’ll let them bake for a week in the Oklahoma sun, observe the results, and see what happens?

    The little dirty secret is Gray, you can take the most stringent environment in the world, add all the basic building blocks you need, provide any range of wave length across the EM spectrum you want, and you won’t be able to create a damn thing – not even a simple polypeptide. Wanna bet? 🙂

    Too bad we can’t go to the planet Mercury and really evaluate the results. Lawd Almighty. Snowflakes and the sun – examples and methodologies of evolution at work. 🙄

    Sometimes, the examples used here are so incredibly inane, I’m befuddled to the point of knowing how to respond.

    We’ll let it sit a week and come back and observe the results.

    Oh boy.

  77. hippieprof says:

    Tex said: The little dirty secret is Gray, you can take the most stringent environment in the world, add all the basic building blocks you need, provide any range of wave length across the EM spectrum you want, and you won’t be able to create a damn thing – not even a simple polypeptide. Wanna bet

    Hmm – well – give it a few million years and indeed it might be worth the bet.

    Mercury? I suspect the absence of water there would make development of life pretty unlikely.

    But, try this one on: If Great Danes and Toy Poodles existed in nature, they would be considered different species. They cannot, in fact, interbreed. Of course, they were created by artificial selection. But, as Darwin noted in the origin of species, natural selection is just a slower and less exact form of what plant and animal breeders have been doing for centuries.

    So, yes, we have seen speciation.

  78. Tex Taylor says:

    This gets more comical each response.

    Would you like to see if I was failing upon departure for a price?

    Another name for layoff? You got paid to leave?

    A layoff at medical school? 🙂 I don’t know how to respond – did something get lost in translation? You may finally have me. You’re reverted too such an abyss concerning breadth of knowledge, there may be no response possible. Is this the latest ploy in libbie land?

    Sorry, but it doesn’t sound like you were the “A” grade material.

    Somebody thought so – they let me in the doors for a time transcripts in hand.

    Actually, I was pretty proud to have made it through the non-traditional route, especially part-time. Believe it or not Graychin, I don’t consider myself brilliant – I do have a daughter that may be. I did like the information, and if I could have skipped the rote memorization part and gone right on to clinical, bet I would have stayed. Probably wouldn’t have had much of a board score… or made much of a doctor. Wait a minute – I have to resort to my Neural Anatomy book to remember what that is called. 🙂

    Memorizing neuronal routes from each segment of the CNS, dermotome classification, ispo lateral, contra lateral, etc… was becoming more difficult with age. I readily admit that. It was more consuming than I had imagined. It’s for the young, which I have already relayed to my Dr. Daughter.

  79. graychin says:

    for all my supposed failures at life, I certainly seemed to have married far better than you did sport. My wife doesn’t spend her days alone quilting in Shithole, OK. Some like your wife may consider that real fulfillment. We wouldn’t.

    You went after my mother. Now you’re going after my wife?

    My wife was an executive too. She retired at about the same time that I did – about six months before.

    If your idea of “marrying well” is to find a woman who would support your “professional student” tendencies and then support your lazy ass while you stay at home writing hateful comments on numerous blogs all day (YOUR idea of fulfillment?), then you did indeed marry better than I did. My dear wife would not have put up with that shit for fifteen seconds.

    But she is the love of my life. THAT, my friend, is what it means to marry well. Nothing else matters unless you are hopelessly shallow.

  80. Hucking Fypocrites says:

    “Remember, Gray – it is “Pravda-FOX” – not that most conservatives actually get the analogy.”

    What a friggen elitist! You really think we don’t know what Pravda is?

    You know, HippieProf., it’s comments like these that are starting to give me the impression that you really do think yourself to be more intelligent and informed than the rest of us. It seems that we are either too ignorant to comprehend your humor, or we don’t know anything about things that you haven’t heard of before.

    It’s starting to go beyond rhetoric. I think you really believe it.

    “And it is also fucking dangerous.”

    Then you must be petrified that MSNBC news anchors are regularly reading verbatim from submitted White House talking points.

    As for the toon, I don’t see much to interpret. It seems pretty straightforward. America is over-reliant on oil. I don’t think many will argue with that.

    The differences in opinion begin when we try and address solutions to that problem.

  81. Tex Taylor says:

    Hmm – well – give it a few million years and indeed it might be worth the bet.

    Give it a few weeks, and you would find a dead and evaporated petri dish.

    But, try this one on: If Great Danes and Toy Poodles existed in nature, they would be considered different species. They cannot, in fact, interbreed. Of course, they were created by artificial selection. But, as Darwin noted in the origin of species, natural selection is just a slower and less exact form of what plant and animal breeders have been doing for centuries.

    So, yes, we have seen speciation.

    No, it is not. That would be called a dead end. You’re still left with two dogs. There’s no divergence at all except two dogs who can’t breed. That doesn’t even equate to a mule.

    Graychin’s poor example of finches doesn’t illustrate data of a new species (speciation). Common myth gang.

    In fact, the beaks of the finches reverted back with no net evolution when the drought ended. We’re not arguing natural selection here. I don’t doubt natural selection occurs. But every time it has been observed (as in the finches) it has occurred only within existing species.

    I would argue that this is a better argument against evolution and speciation.

  82. graychin says:

    But every time it has been observed (as in the finches) it has occurred only within existing species.

    That’s a nonsense statement. “Every time it has been observed” limits us to phenomena that have occurred only in the last two thousand years or so. You need hundreds of thousands or even millions of years for really noticeable speciation to occur – except in the case of isolated populations -as in the various Galapagos Islands.

    Darwin’s finches can’t produce fertile offspring. Ergo they are distinct species, descended from common ancestors.

    Great danes and toy poodles are only prevented from interbreeding by their size difference. Inseminate a great dane with toy poodle sperm and you will get a litter of fertile puppies.

  83. hippieprof says:

    I didn’t find his situation worth a chuckle, and in fact, found it an outrage. As far as I’m concerned, you started this. I’m just playing your game.

    Tex, I remember the conversation well because I am still baffled by it. I made what I thought was obviously a sarcastic remark – that your neighbor was lucky to have not had his property seized under RICO. You didn’t find it funny, which is fine – but you really really exploded – which made no sense to me and still made no sense to me. I have seen you explode on others in a similar way, and I don’t get it. The impression I am left with is “gee – this guy is would wat too tight…”

    For what it is worth, the background of my RICO comment (that we never got to) was as follows: I once rented a house to someone, and their kid ended up selling drugs out of the house. I was advised by my lawyer that I needed to evict them or risk a RICO seizure. The kicker (in the context of the argument we were having) is that they were a nice white middle class family – thus making my point that race is not a great predictor of bad behavior by renters.

    — hp

  84. hippieprof says:

    Memorizing neuronal routes from each segment of the CNS, dermotome classification, ispo lateral, contra lateral, etc… was becoming more difficult with age. I readily admit that. It was more consuming than I had imagined.

    Tex, I do indeed understand what you are saying. It is why having an MD should never be equated to being a scientist. Sure, some MDs do get additional research training and do know how to do science – but most do not.

  85. hippieprof says:

    Great danes and toy poodles are only prevented from interbreeding by their size difference. Inseminate a great dane with toy poodle sperm and you will get a litter of fertile puppies.

    Gray, I am not entirely sure that is the case – a great dane female might not be able to carry offspring that small. The opposite certainly could not occur.

    Besides which, my point was that they could not breed naturally.

    — hp

  86. Tex Taylor says:

    Graychin, I think you’re a prick. In fact, I know you’re a bullying prick. You have no problem mocking my faith, so I’ll feel free to mock anything of your persuasion. You don’t like it, tough. You started it, and I’ll feel absolutely free to play along.

    My wife was an executive too. She retired at about the same time that I did – about six months before.

    I thought you told me that is was your uncanny ability to retire rich on behalf of your profound holdings? Selling out for millions. The story changes from week to week…

    If your idea of “marrying well” is to find a woman who would support your “professional student” tendencies and then support your lazy ass while you stay at home writing hateful comments on numerous blogs all day (YOUR idea of fulfillment?), then you did indeed marry better than I did.

    How does this differ from you? You not only write spiteful, patronizing comments all day long, you also constructed your own feckless blog to do so. That’s me, times two sport. From one lazy ass to another. Look at it as I helped you branch out from your non-existence at your blog of two useful idiots.

    My dear wife would not have put up with that shit for fifteen seconds.

    So you leave your best friend all day for blogging, hey? Morning, noon, and night. Got news for you pal. Did you notice I was AWOL for 99% of the weekend? You know why, or are you smart enough to perceive why? I don’t believe your life is near as fulfilling as you’d like me to believe. I knew that from the start… You’re retired. Why aren’t you with other retirees fishing, boating, golfing? My friends still work. I’m bored. What’s your excuse? Happy marriage?

    No doubt I did marry better than you. My wife has not only tells me she my best friend, but demonstrates it. My wife’s first concern were her children, who she did not wish to relocate to the only home they’ve known when she was transferred unplanned and unannounced shortly after I had left corporate America. She’s far more successful than I was and far more talented. I kept my children all through their high school – while I went to school after their school. Something I doubt some mealy-mouthed, irreligious asshole like you capable.

    The kids didn’t miss a beat, much to your chagrin. You do what you have to in life. We made the best of an unplanned situation.

    When you start to tick-a-lock your big mouth, then and only then, will I shut mine. Otherwise, either avoid me, ignore me, or remove yourself back from that shithole of a blog whence you came.

  87. Tex Taylor says:

    That’s a nonsense statement. “Every time it has been observed” limits us to phenomena that have occurred only in the last two thousand years or so. You need hundreds of thousands or even millions of years for really noticeable speciation to occur – except in the case of isolated populations -as in the various Galapagos Islands.

    Little circular logic there Rocket. You’re actually confusing your own point. You just tried to demonstrate speciation, even called it proof, and I called your bluff. Now you’re down to hey, hey, hey that’s only a couple of thousand years. We can’t do that! If they can’t reproduce, you’ve got a real problem, don’t you?

    You undoubtedly don’t understand the word “speciation” either. I’ll add that to my burgeoning list of Graychin’s malapropisms.

  88. Tex Taylor says:

    Alfie,

    I will apologize. I take these liberties on Rutherford’s blog but only after I asked him for permission. I didn’t ask you before taking liberty. You deserve better.

    Forgive me for using your board to take Graychin to task. I’m not about to visit his blog of two useful idiots, where comments have bad tendencies to disappear.

    I’ll try to behave myself better and stick to the subject at hand.

  89. Tex Taylor says:

    Hippie,

    Tex, I do indeed understand what you are saying. It is why having an MD should never be equated to being a scientist. Sure, some MDs do get additional research training and do know how to do science – but most do not.

    Trying to be a little more civil here, many MDs are also PHDs. In fact, at least 25% of my medical school class came from a background of research requiring a PHD, mostly affiliated with the biological sciences. Most colleges even have combined degrees (pathology, for instance). They are not mutually exclusive fields. Many of the instructors, in fact all but one of my instructors, was a PHD in the particular field of expertise. Believe it or not, it causes some consternation amongst the PHDs, because it’s a bitter pill to swallow that many of these experts, and no doubt they are experts, will be making significantly less than the very students they are teaching 6 or 7 years later.

    My point was simply that I was taken back by how much of a medical degree, at least the first year, requires little critical thought and too much rote memorization – so much so, I went to talk to my own two doctors who said they both thought it a real weakness of the current medical school curriculum. While I understand the concept of having a foundation to build upon, much of the curriculum is based on passing a board review. I understand this is changing.

    You do start being introduced to the clinical side in the 2nd half of your first year, but I learned far more about the practice of medicine from some of the guest lecturers than I did memorization of the base proteins of a desmosome for instance. I’ll bet I couldn’t name one now.

    If you haven’t furthered your own education recently, and I’m not sure why you would, I think what you would find is after having taught for years, knowing what you know now about real life practice, you would become somewhat cynical of what passes for real world, practical knowledge.

    It actually was a disadvantage to be older I felt – and for sure, your ability to memorize becomes compromised. What would have taken a couple of runs through 25 years ago, started to take me an entire evening of repetitious, mundane check lists.

    Give you a better example of what happened to me. I took a practice MCAT. Part of the testing concerns a section called Verbal Reasoning – anybody could take this section as it purposely composed of everything but science. It’s in paragraph form, but not simply reading comprehension, but supposed reasoning. Usually, really off-the-wall stuff. Everything from the universe, to social security, to womens suffrage, to ballet, to deciduous tree rings. I mean anything.

    Anyway, its a timed test and you have to read quickly and move fast. I was ready one article and recognized I had read it before – it was something by Tom Hayden. You are suppposed to put yourself in the position of what is the author trying to say. My own preconceived biases of Tom actually worked against me and I ended up missing several of the questions, even though I could have told you who wrote the entry.

  90. Tex Taylor says:

    ready/reading…. 😳

  91. hippieprof says:

    Tex said: My point was simply that I was taken back by how much of a medical degree, at least the first year, requires little critical thought and too much rote memorization – so much so, I went to talk to my own two doctors who said they both thought it a real weakness of the current medical school curriculum. While I understand the concept of having a foundation to build upon, much of the curriculum is based on passing a board review. I understand this is changing.

    I think we are in complete agreement here. Much of medical school – as well as virtually the entire Pre-med curriculum – is rote memorization. Part of it is about developing a vocabulary – but part of it, I think, is just about making you jump through hoops.

    Here is a dirty little secret: The majority of medicine practiced by GPs and Pediatricians could be handled by Physician’s Assistants – do you agree? Your generic GP needs to know how to go through a diagnostic tree, how to read the PDR, and how to recognize when something requires a specialist. Those are not skills that require a full medical degree. We could save a lot on health care simply by using PAs more.

    Yes – I do know that there are a lot of MD/PhDs out there. I was simply noting that the average med school curriculum does not include much in the way of research training. I think this is why I took offense to your remarks about my degrees. My Biology degree, though supposedly harder and more scientific, was mostly about memorization. My Psychology degree – supposedly the “soft” science degree – included a lot more about how to actually do research and how to analyze research results. The same holds true to this day – Psychology majors require at least a year of methods classes. Biology majors often require none.

    I like civil a lot better.

    — hp

  92. Tex Taylor says:

    I think we are in complete agreement here. Much of medical school – as well as virtually the entire Pre-med curriculum – is rote memorization. Part of it is about developing a vocabulary – but part of it, I think, is just about making you jump through hoops.

    Actually, other than some of the biology, I didn’t find the pre-med to be rote memorization. Remember, a big part of the curriculum is chemistry. Even bio-chemistry isn’t necessarily rote memorization (amino acids and structures are, CAC, glycolysis, ETC are – but physiological buffers for instance surely aren’t). In addition, the MCAT requires 8 hours of physics and that certainly isn’t rote memorization. Physiology, histology and microbiology – probably not. Genetics to a lessor degree,; basic biology, evolution, cell biology, and anatomy – most definitely.

    Much of the rote memorization is in your first semester and second semesters of med school and I absolutely hated it. However, the guest lecturers were either practicing physicians, or at my school, we had a world renowned pathologist who does most of the education for the boards – explaining why the board scores are higher than average. He was fabulous. He actually made us put away our computers when he guest lectured; no notes. He made us learn it. If that had been medical school, I would have stayed. I was dreading pharmacology which is all memorization. Walked before I took it.

    The majority of medicine practiced by GPs and Pediatricians could be handled by Physician’s Assistants – do you agree?

    Some of it could, but not all. PA training is not anywhere near as vigorous as the curriculum for doctors. Check up and physicals – sure. Prognosis, and diagnosis – I would certainly prefer a physician, because in essence, your GP is supposed to be in theory as capable as a specialist in most basic practice and instruction.

    They are using techs more (PAs, nurse practitioners) and I believe the quality of care will suffer. However, I do believe they are useful for screening, so you have some validity to your statement.

    Now maybe you can see why I was hesitant to go further. It’s expensive, I’m old, feeling mortal, many doctors aren’t making what they used to, and I started wondering “what happens if I try to establish a practice and my health fails? What’s going to happen to medicine? What if I come out and PAs start substituting for Internal Medicine?” Which is a good possibility.

    I tried voluntary emergency medicine and I will tell you that after eight hours of being on my feet, I was starting to wear out. And I’m still in pretty good shape. But after a time, my joints did begin to ache. I was too old to specialize anything beyond a four year residency and that was pushing it.

    As a risk to give Graychin ammunition, as he doesn’t need

    My wife was transferred unexpectedly two weeks after I left Corporate America. Arm chair quarterbacking, I would have never did what I did had we had any inkling that was a remote possibility. I guarantee you I went thru a period of time thinking, “What in the hell did I just do?” It took a lot longer to receive a biology and chemistry degree for me than it should have. At the time, neither one of my kids was even driving, so I was for two years for all practical purposes a homemaker and small part-time student. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, but as a mother, I wasn’t worth beans. 🙂 We ate out every night and I had to be back at school at 3:00 PM each day. Funny story – my youngest was a cheerleader for a short time. I attended her meetings – me and 35 females. I felt like I was standing naked in the room each and every time. I have never been happier than when she quit.

  93. bvilleyellowdog says:

    Both France and Japan have had serious nuclear accidents – look it up.
    Chin is exactly the right – there is no way to defend against nuclear power being sold and supported by the same ilk that causes oil spills. Que Barton.

    And after all these years there is still no way to dispose of waste.

  94. Alfie says:

    Actually its called Yucca,of course Obama opposes it.

  95. bvilleyellowdog says:

    Yucca was determined unusable under Bush.
    And the part about France and Japan is ignored because the truth is “off message”.

    Wind is cheaper and wind is not poisonous unless it is downwind of a reactor or refinery.
    Solar soon will be.

  96. hippieprof says:

    Bio-diesel and ethanol aren’t bad options either. Not terribly clear in the air, but you won’t see corn fields gushering oil either. Plus, of course they are renewable. Heck – with enough demand we could do away with farm subsidies….

  97. bvilleyellowdog says:

    Bio-diesel and ethanol not good. Do an honest energy balance on them and they cost energy.
    Not to mention they raise the cost of food.
    Then there is the harm ethanol does to hoses, gaskets, and metal in your engine. It is also a fraud at the pump. Fewer mpg/same cost. I go out of my way not to use it.

  98. Alfie says:

    Yucca was not found to be unusable under Bush in fact under Bush it’s earliest opening date was 2013. yucca was killed by Obama.
    Many of the bio fuels cause a number of concerns. Competition for food,calls for GM and all along false renewability.

  99. hippieprof says:

    calls for GM and all along false renewability.

    Alfie, I don’t know what you mean by these last two.

    As far as competition for food – we subsidize farmers now – and even pay them for NOT planting. Seems like with added demand we could stop doing those things – things which, BTW, the right should just hate.

  100. bvilleyellowdog says:

    Yucca was found to be unstable under Bush by professional geologists. He did not close it for the same reason Cheney the Dick pushed off shore drilling. Oil at any cost – of life, and health, and safety. Barton was no aberration – he echoed the public opinion of all 114 members of the GOP conservative caucus.
    You prove exactly the point Chin and myself were making up above. Shills will push it and safety be damned.

  101. Alfie says:

    biofuels have been shown to cause market increases for food stuffs. Especially corn and sugar.
    GM=genetically modified,usually a bane of the left and fwiw not something I’m a big fan of. You want MORE corn MORE sugar or MORE saw grass you’re gonna need to go GM.

  102. Tex Taylor says:

    Dawg is correct. Biofuels at present have a net negative energy balance. In addition, we spent over 40B to attempt the production of synthetic fuels which didn’t work.

    Wind is unreliable – and the grid doesn’t exist. Light years away because of cost prohibition. Worse, when peak requirements are required, wind is generally limited (winter and summer).

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/electric-grid-myths-part-ii-the-effect-of-alternatives/

    Solar energy – also unreliable and generally requires copper, indium, gallium selenium which is essential in the production of some thin film technologies. Indium, is difficult to obtain and on the verge of disappearing. Resources are expected to last less than 10 years at the current rate of consumption. The cost of rare metals are likely to spike sharply. They don’t call them rare metals for nothing.

    There is only one cost alternative energy that currently exists – nuclear. And I agree nuclear has obvious dangers of its own.

    Conservation is a must – hydrocarbons are still the best alternative aqt present. I would suggest T. Boone Picken’s recommendation of methane and propane which are still abundant a possibility, but mass consumption is currently limited by and would require a substantial logistical investment.

  103. Tex Taylor says:

    There is only one cost alternative energy that currently exists – nuclear.

    Should have read there is only alternative energy that is not cost prohibitive and proven – nuclear.

  104. bvilleyellowdog says:

    “As far as competition for food – we subsidize farmers now – and even pay them for NOT planting. Seems like with added demand we could stop doing those things – things which, BTW, the right should just hate.”
    They didn’t get the tongue in cheek part hippie.

    “Conservatives” love subsidies as long as they go to big business. Big Oil has been sucking in massive subsidies for many years. Ethanol only makes money for the producers because it is subsidized. Who gets them? Big Ethanol – Archer Daniels Midland being number one.

    Take all those subsides and put them into alternative energy infrastructure and R&D and energy conservation and we will get there sooner than most think. While you are at it make sure gasoline is $4.00+ a gallon. Now there is a motivator – worked two years ago.

  105. bvilleyellowdog says:

    Japanese nuke accident:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/461446.stm

    French nuke accident
    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008060759_nukes19.html

    Took me one minute to find – there are more.

  106. hippieprof says:

    So – I am not finding any references to the “biofuels are net energy negative” claim. Can anyone provide one? You aren’t including the solar energy used to grow the plants, are you?

  107. bvilleyellowdog says:

    bio energy positive?
    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:SwFGgSmQYwoJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel+net+energy+balance+biodiesel&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

    Debatable at best. Not economic without subsidy. At current pricing not economic for any end user.

  108. hippieprof says:

    Debatable at best. Not economic without subsidy. At current pricing not economic for any end user.

    Yeah – but that is the problem pretty much across the board, right? Nothing is economical right now. But, our reliance on oil is unsustainable and will only get worse if we don’t do something.

    It seems like the wisest choice is to bite the bullet now and do develop energy sources that may not be economic now but will be at some point – and thus head off even worse oil crises of the future.

    We aren’t willing to do that, of course. That goes right back to the cartoon at the top of the pare, huh?

  109. Hucking Fypocrites says:

    “Yucca was found to be unstable under Bush by professional geologists.”

    This is about the place where we start asking people to offer proof of their claim.

    Got any?

    “he echoed the public opinion of all 114 members of the GOP conservative caucus”

    See above.

  110. Tex Taylor says:

    Another lefty ecological lie bites the dust.

    Studies show that modern farming techniques — reviled by environmentalists — not only saved billions from starvation, but are tremendously more eco-friendly than “organic” farming practices.

    Now maybe they’ll own up to the lie called global warming next…

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/greens-apologize-to-high-yield-farmers/

  111. bvilleyellowdog says:

    “he echoed the public opinion of all 114

    http://rsc.tomprice.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=191125members of the GOP conservative caucus”

    GOP press release – truth is a bummer for regressives.

  112. bvilleyellowdog says:

    Some clearly do not know how to Google….
    do “yucca mountain problems” and you get 95,000 hits going back to the start-and suggestions for many other searches.
    DUH

  113. bvilleyellowdog says:

    And anyone still flogging global warming – they probably push creationism as well … or is that cretinism?

  114. Tex Taylor says:

    And anyone still flogging global warming – they probably push creationism as well … or is that cretinism?

    Where you still that one from – you’re not smart enough to be cute. The only flogging you’re able to do is your small penis.

    Climate Gate, Rain Forest Gate, Himalaya Gate – and Al Gore moving to the shoreline – lest it be President Douche Bag healing healing the seas.

    Enough said.

  115. Tex Taylor says:

    Crap. Where did you steal… 😳

    Dawg, you’re just dumber than shit. What you tell me your “PHD” was in again bottle filler?

  116. bvilleyellowdog says:

    too funny – I prove his lies and he ignores it..
    Tex and I traded credentials, I’m pH.d and he’s a failed premed – so so he slithered off…or like here tries lame put downs.

    Grow up.

  117. Tex Taylor says:

    Yellow Poodle – what did you prove again? If you’re a PHD, I’m the Pope. At least you got yourself a spell checker. Used to be you couldn’t spell dog right if we spotted you the ‘D’ & the ‘O’.

    Another in a long list of lying credentials from the Left.

    I’m surprised after you were humiliated here last time by the rest of the room, your forked tongue showed back up. I think what has happened is I’ve dragged your better half over here to slap him around from your Two Useful Idiots blog, and you got nobody to blow.

    Better get yourself a new pair of shorts. Looks like global warming has hit again.

  118. Hucking Fypocrites says:

    “GOP press release – truth is a bummer for regressives.”

    That’s a Tom Price press release. And I think the House Minority Leader trumps him.

    “Some clearly do not know how to Google….”

    Is that how you defended your dissertation?

    You’re not going to get away with unsubstantiated claims around here. It’s not the place of others to do your research. If you have a point worth making then it is worth you taking the time to support it. And when you don’t, be prepared to be called out.

  119. Hucking Fypocrites says:

    And to pre-empt any attempt by yellowdog to say that the Price press release is really a RSC press release that speaks for all members of the RSC, I will point out that Cantor and Pence are on that members list, and make it pretty clear in the link I provided that they disapprove of Barton’s remark.

    My guess is that they are not the only ones on that list who have made similar statements concerning Barton.

  120. bvilleyellowdog says:

    No you have it wrong. That was not just a press release in Tom Prices name. It is very clear that those words looked a lot more problematic on C-SPAN than they did on paper. 114 Congress critters signed it.
    This issue is splitting the GOP. It’s everywhere. You have the GOP leadership who – irregardless of thier real views – knows that shilling for BP is not a good idea if you want votes.
    Then you have the usual suspects who spew nonsense in the from of the cameras every day. They reflexively spew the pro-business line no matter how idiotic. Palin, Bachmann, Limbo and ,many others who are concerned only about thier own camera time. The ORally skewering of Baucham on the subject was hilarious.

  121. bvilleyellowdog says:

    More…
    “Barton’s remarks were no spontaneous gaffe. They came in a prepared statement and represent his genuine view of the situation: that the rights of a private company are absolute even when weighed against the clear interests of the public.

    While the party leadership has managed to squelch members of Congress who might have been tempted to weigh in on Barton’s side, the conservative amen chorus can’t help itself. Rush Limbaugh called the agreement on the $20 billion escrow fund “unconstitutional” and accused the administration of acting like “a branch of organized crime.” Newt Gingrich said the White House was “extorting money from a company.” Stuart Varney of Fox News claimed — falsely — that Obama had moved to “seize a private company’s assets” and complained that the action was “Hugo Chavez-like.” Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol said that “I have no sympathy for BP,” but then proceeded to be sympathetic, offering that “it’s not helpful for the country, for the economy as a whole, for the president to bully different companies and different industries.” I’d advise these people to get a grip, but they’re just saying what they believe. It just happens that what they believe is absurd. ”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/21/AR2010062103699.html

  122. bvilleyellowdog says:

    “The numerical calculation of entropy changes accompanying physical and chemical changes are very well understood and are the basis of the mathematical determination of free energy, emf characteristics of voltaic cells, equilibrium constants, refrigeration cycles, steam turbine operating parameters, and a host of other parameters. The creationist position would necessarily discard the entire mathematical framework of thermodynamics and would provide no basis for the engineering design of turbines, refrigeration units, industrial pumps, etc. It would do away with the well-developed mathematical relationships of physical chemistry, including the effect of temperature and pressure on equilibrium constants and phase changes.”

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html

    One of the common ploys of quack science (and religion) is techno-babble. Use lots of big words that show you’re “smart” and hope nobody wades through it.

  123. bvilleyellowdog says:

    A famous techno babble site…don’t believe a word…

    http://www.blacklightpower.com/

  124. Tex Taylor says:

    One of the common ploys of quack science (and religion) is techno-babble. Use lots of big words that show you’re “smart” and hope nobody wades through it.

    I noticed how conveniently the “progressive giants” that frequent this board ignored my link from above about the inherent weaknesses of Darwin’s Origin of Species and evolution. Oxford, academia, peer reviewed, just like they always demand. But no comment.

    Two reasons: (1) They have no idea how to read it, because their knowledge is gleaned from the internet, and they have no real foundation in the subject (which I already knew); (2) It doesn’t agree with their preconceived notions of what they want to believe in the Abstract.

    Shills, shysters, hucksters, one and all. 😉

  125. bvilleyellowdog says:

    OK – so I read it. if you think that in anyway “proves” creationism – or disproves Darwin you did not understand it.
    Anyone in science knows that scientific theories mature – they are not static. Newtonian physics was tuned around the edges by Einstein – and Einstein was not always correct as Bohr pointed out.
    Evolutionary theory has moved far far beyond Darwin. he is hardly discussed in modern bio-science – that says nothing about creationism. I see that creationism museum in Arkansas is having a going out of business sale. Event the bible thumpers could not deal with dinosaur saddles.
    Evolution is a highly predictive and valuable theory – one of the best in all of science.

    Let’s see graduate courses in physical chemistry, kinetics, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, statistical thermodynamics – that probably qualifies me to comment.

    Every site needs it fool. Tex fills the bill for this one.

  126. Tex Taylor says:

    OK – so I read it. if you think that in anyway “proves” creationism – or disproves Darwin you did not understand it.

    What are you? The Evelyn Woodhead sped ridden winner? It has nothing to do with “creationism” you lying sack. 😆 😆

    You’re a joke who couldn’t find his butt cheeks with both hands. You’re such a joke, you’re hardly worth toying with. Go back to you Two Useful Idiots blog where you can remain in anonymity and fill bottles.

  127. bvilleyellowdog says:

    The site clown spouts…. His words speak for themselves…

  128. Tex Taylor says:

    Let’s see graduate courses in physical chemistry, kinetics, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, statistical thermodynamics – that probably qualifies me to comment.

    Bullshit. 😆

    I’ll bet a thousand bucks, you can’t do simple arithmetic. You damn sure can’t read or spell.

    Graduate courses in physical chemistry… 🙄

  129. Tex Taylor says:

    Dawg, you’re one of the dumbest people I’ve read on the net. So let’s see. You’re telling me your field of expertise is what? Chemistry?

    How about we put your qualifications to the test. Something a little less esoteric than quantum physics. How would you like to do a simple chemistry problem for me? Something to do with molarity and pH? Can you handle something that simple? Surely a physical chemist can do a little simple calculation for us?

    Shall we put it to the test and I’ll give you ten or fifteen minutes to conclude a result for us?

  130. bvilleyellowdog says:

    Do you always allow personal attacks Alfie? It does not improve your site.
    You have a couple of rotten eggs who cannot win an honest discussion so they slime.

  131. Tex Taylor says:

    It does not improve your site. You have a couple of rotten eggs who cannot win an honest discussion so they slime.

    What’s more honest that putting that vast knowledge of yours to the test Dawg? I can’t think of a faster way to shut my “slimy creationist” mouth than for you to demonstrate your intellectual superiority. Right Professor? 🙂

  132. bvilleyellowdog says:

  133. Tex Taylor says:

    Dawg,

    You finally posted something that I can’t find anything to argue with or debate. That is your best post and you are to be commended for it.

    😆

  134. Hucking Fypocrites says:

    “114 Congress critters signed it.”

    Can you show me where they signed it?

    And how do you explain the fact that at least 2 names on the list have spoken out against what was said? That right there proves that Price was not speaking for all names on that list. Can you prove otherwise?

    You are aware that Rush, Kristol, Varney, Newt, et al are private citizens and not GOP leaders, aren’t you?

    “Do you always allow personal attacks Alfie? It does not improve your site.”

    At least all of our comments get posted here.

  135. Hucking Fypocrites says:

    Hey, we don’t spam videos that don’t address the topic here.

  136. Alfie says:

    bville….I’ve been extremely busy but I will take a moment to answer your query of:
    Do you always allow personal attacks Alfie?
    The short and most honest answer is -no. Up a tick there is the reality that if there is a ying and yang going within a thread and it doesn’t involve me I ignore it. And at its fullest my answer falls on my About&Policy entry for comments:
    All comments should adhere to the WordPress terms of service and should refrain from personal attacks and obscenities. Your comments are a form of communication and reflective of one’s character.
    Views of opposition are welcomed as this is consistent with the purpose of this site. Comments should focus on the post not personalities.
    Comments are subject to moderation by blog owner. Comments containing excessive language or other incendiary content are subject to : deletion,editing and blocking. I’m all for free speech however this is about communication. Rants,unrelated views and arguing on personalities can be done on your blog.The views and opinions of those that comment are not necessarily the views of the Ed BO (editor,blog owner).
    Comments should be your view not multiple links or clippings from somewhere else.

    It ultimately amounts to a time issue.-Alfie

  137. Alfie says:

    As for the KAl toon I repeat my agreement with some of the earlier observations and that they indeed seem to be what KAL was shooting for.
    I also find in panel 1
    Obama is concerned,Sam is addicted and trying to absorb the interventions statement.
    Panel 2
    Its the partisan in me for sure but I start getting the scent of “no crisis….” and plans other than what is really needed.
    Panel 3
    The “Good News” moment,excitement and desire flows.
    Panel 4
    Unclear on the concept AND a lack of real leadership and or confidence in where we’re about to be lead isn’t necessarily where we need to go.
    All in all I really did like the toon and find KAL a very thought provoking editorial cartoonist.
    Thanks for playing along gang.

  138. bvilleyellowdog says:

    The trolling is still there.. The proof is in the action and lack thereof

  139. Alfie says:

    Well I spend my time the way I want,if you’re really near tears spend yours elsewhere.
    On a side note and of an energy related slant either bville or graychin have posted this:
    http://thegreatspot.wordpress.com/2010/06/21/do-not-count-on-any-fossil-fuel/
    What the post is based on is not without interest.

  140. graychin says:

    The Dog posted that jewel.

    Alfie, thanks for the shout-out.

  141. Tex Taylor says:

    Alfie,

    I broke a promise and watched the “Sundance Film” award winner on the site of Two Useful Idiots blog. Rank propaganda that would make even Michael Moore blush.

    They’ve drilled over a million wells utilizing “fracking” over a span of 60 years with few complaints. There’s hundreds of thousands of active gas wells across the U.S. alone as we speak, most of which use hydraulic fracturing.

    Brought to you by the same fine people that like Fidel care.

    Unless somebody is getting their well water from several thousand feet below the surface (and that would be a hell of a water well :lol:), this baloney can be discarded as junk science. If it’s leaking up to the surface, somebody must have busted the casing. Methane is quite common even in very shallow wells and is quite common along all coast lines. In fact, my own grandfather’s water well on grand lake sometimes produced methane.

    But the best part of the movie is that it’s Graychin’s representative from Oklahoma (the only Democrat of note in the state besides the Governor) who is doing most of the questioning! Imagine, a Democrat with a brain!

    Part science fiction, part junk science. Every geologist and geophysicist across the U.S. just laughed out loud at that link.

  142. Hucking Fypocrites says:

    I guess yellowdog isn’t up to the task of showing us where all members of the RSC signed the Price statement, as he has claimed they have done.

  143. bvilleyellowdog says:

    The member list

    http://rsc.tomprice.house.gov/aboutrsc/memberlist.htm

    That memo was not a personal document. it was issued on the name of the committee.
    Was it in error? Did they complain? Has Price been dismissed? No.

    If you look at thier individual websites – or even watch the news many are still out there saying that stuff in spite of thier leadership. Ain’t cat fights great!

  144. Tex Taylor says:

    Ah, as the military turns on the gutless useful idiot-in-chief. Obama’s domestic policy failures pale in comparison to his woeful foreign insight. How’s that dialogue with Mahmoud working for you numb nuts?

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38837.html

    The community agitater has been a monumental disaster and it took about a year and a half for at least 25MM people to figure out they had a real, bad case of buyer’s remorse. They bought into the proverbial lemon of the used car salesman reading the company brochure. Underpowered, steers hard to the left, blows nothing but hot air through the vents, bald tires.

    They yearn for the days of Jimmah Carter now.

  145. Hucking Fypocrites says:

    Yes, I have seen the members list. I don’t consider a name on a members list to be a signature of endorsement, do you? If so, then you must have been of the opinion that Van Jones believes the government orchestrated 9/11?

    And as I have already said, there are at least 2 of those members who are on record speaking against what you say they are for. I showed you the link proving that. That alone shows that Price was not speaking for everyone on that list.

    “Barton was no aberration – he echoed the public opinion of all 114 members of the GOP conservative caucus.”

    “If you look at thier individual websites – or even watch the news many are still out there saying that stuff in spite of thier leadership.”

    Which is it, “all” or “many”? It can’t be both.

    And I doubt you have looked at each of their individual web sites. But since you claim many of them are on the news saying it, you should be able to show a link proving that, right?

    Shall I wait, or are you ready to concede that your claim of 100% support is a bunch of baloney?

  146. El Tigre says:

    Bville, you’re complaining about personal attacks on someone else’s blog? Gimme a break.

  147. bvilleyellowdog says:

    well the attacks are Alfie’s choice – but they are detrimental to the credibility whole site.

  148. Hucking Fypocrites says:

    While I am waiting, I decided to do your research for you and am visiting each of the individual websites. So far, I have gone through to Bachmann. And so far hers is the only website that has mentioned the BP fund. And here is what she says about it

    It’s a good thing that BP agreed to put $20 billion into an independently-run escrow fund to pay for economic damages from the Gulf oil spill, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) said in an interview with CBS Minneapolis station WCCO Wednesday. She added, however, that the next step is to make sure the money is distributed appropriately and not misused for political purposes.

    Can you point out the portion where she agrees that it is a slush fund forced onto BP by the government? I seem to have trouble locating it.

  149. Hucking Fypocrites says:

    “well the attacks are Alfie’s choice – but they are detrimental to the credibility whole site.”

    Yeah and your unsubstantiated claims are detrimental to your credibility. Maybe you should focus on that and leave the site credibility to its owner.

  150. bvilleyellowdog says:

    “Shall I wait, or are you ready to concede that your claim of 100% support is a bunch of baloney?”

    Well it looked bad on C-Span didn’t it…. They supported it alright. But expressing thier true beliefs is not healthly for regressives. Many still say it in public amazingly. Just ask Paul or Angel how well honesty works. Why do they flee the media? – It is obvious. Thier whack-nut beliefs cannot stand sun light.

  151. bvilleyellowdog says:

    I suggest you watch the O’ Reilly Bachmann interview
    that paints an ugly picture.

    What many have done is say BP needs “due process”. That worked out so well that 20 years latter many still have not been paid for Exxon-Valdez. Heck many are dead. Crooks hiding behind suits.

    http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/oreilly-gives-bachmann-hard-time-accu

  152. hippieprof says:

    Can you point out the portion where she agrees that it is a slush fund forced onto BP by the government? I seem to have trouble locating it.

    Not five minutes ago I saw a video clip of her calling it extortion….. right here (as featured by Jon Stewart):

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/

    Graychin posted this somewhere else – thought it was here.

  153. Hucking Fypocrites says:

    “Well it looked bad on C-Span didn’t it”

    Yeah, it looked bad for the guy who said it. The guy who made it a point to say that he was speaking for himself. The guy who was later forced by GOP leaders to retract it. Specifically what support are you referring to?

    “Many still say it in public amazingly.”

    Then show us a clip of it. You are getting these facts from somewhere. Please share.

  154. Hucking Fypocrites says:

    Lots of clips at that link. Since I don’t care to fish through clips of John Stewart, I’ll have to take you word for it.

    So we’re up to 1 of 114. Neither “all” or “many.”

  155. bvilleyellowdog says:

    Exactly right hippie. The level of denial is just incredible. I saw a half dozen of the clips on the tube last night. MB is far far from alone.
    As I said many are hiding behind a thin veil of legalize. “Due Process” my ass.

  156. Hucking Fypocrites says:

    And no, I don’t really expect someone to produce links for all of those people, or even many of them. The point of all this is to show how these blanket statements that generalize are for the birds.

  157. bvilleyellowdog says:

    “Spoke for himself”. Yeah right. It was a prepared remark that parroted GOP talking points….
    DUH.

  158. Hucking Fypocrites says:

    So we have gone from “all 114 members” to “many,” and now down to “half a dozen.”

    Talk about moving goalposts…..

  159. Hucking Fypocrites says:

    “It was a prepared remark”

    You can prove it was a prepared remark?

  160. Tex Taylor says:

    Jesse Jackson Shake Down – Chicago mob style. Anybody forget about the CEO of Humana called upon the hill when he was critical of BombaCare? Or Toyoda? Firing the CEO of GM and stealing money from Delphi bond holders. It’s a pattern of a thug. Can’t solve the problem, resort to the blame game. Barton will act as shield to hide the incompetence.

    Obama has about as much credibility as a Pet Rock about now. I think sometime, he’ll suffer a nervous breakdown, M.I, or quit. He’s looking the beaten man and has resigned himself to the Audacity of a Dope.

    Keep pushing… 🙂

  161. Hucking Fypocrites says:

    I find it hilarious that people actually believe Barton was reading a prepared remark, was forced to say he was speaking for himself while reading it, and was then forced by GOP leaders to retract the statement that they prepared for him to read.

  162. El Tigre says:

    Bville, your latest comment is. . . well. . . typical. All you manage to do with anyone that disagrees at your blog is name call. Curious that you take issue with it when it’s someone else.

  163. bvilleyellowdog says:

    Gee Barton seems to have scrubbed his remarks from his site – imagine that.

  164. bvilleyellowdog says:

    …and I see you have folks here parroting Barton. GOP talking points…..imagine that.

  165. Alfie says:

    I’ve watched a number of cuts of the Barton opener and I believe he was using a prepared statement.
    I further believe he prepared it.
    I also think people are forgetting/denying he made comments that questions must be answered,AG rightfully pursuing action and then some.
    I find it rather odd that people are so entranced by the apology which in total was in correct context to Bartons full statement.
    an ABC mini here
    I’d like to add that I also watched about 5 minutes of Barney Frank lie his ass off today in committee,between the two I think the latter far more egregious.

  166. Alfie says:

    Uh-huh…everyone knows there’s never been a case of Democrat talking points.

  167. bvilleyellowdog says:

    This pretty well summarizes it….

    “The way the Republicans reacted to Congressman Joe Barton’s “apology” to BP at the hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee reminds you of what happens when a group of teenagers find out that a member of their “secret club” has revealed the secret handshake to the school principal.

    Barton had the audacity to say out loud a secret that everyone else in the Republican fraternity knows very well — that the Republicans are a Party of, by and for Big Oil. From Cheney’s secret oil executive populated “Energy Taskforce” to “drill baby drill” — and for decades before – the oil industry has held the Republican puppet strings.”

    Shill Baby Shill…

    Everyone has talking points – but “Shill baby Shill” is a loser.

Comments are closed.