Open Thread: Predatory Star

This entry was posted on Saturday, May 29th, 2010 at 1:35 am and is filed under Random Stuff. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. The trackback link is: http://telicthoughts.com/open-thread-predatory-star/trackback/

58 Responses to “Open Thread: Predatory Star”

Bradford Says:
May 29th, 2010 at 5:45 pm
Profiling in ~~Arizona,~~ NYC. What the NY Times and liberal thinkers do not want you to know.

Comment by Bradford — May 29, 2010 @ 5:45 pm

kornbelt888 Says:
May 29th, 2010 at 9:57 pm
"Liberal thinkers" is an oxymoron

Comment by kornbelt888 — May 29, 2010 @ 9:57 pm

ID guy Says:
May 29th, 2010 at 10:18 pm
Bradford,

What the libs don't want you to know about Arizona is that their State law is less strict than the federal law pertaining to immigration.

And if the feds would have anted up and enforced their laws then Arizona wouldn't have had to pass a State law pertaining to immigration.

Comment by ID guy — May 29, 2010 @ 10:18 pm

Bradford Says:
May 30th, 2010 at 12:22 am
ID Guy is right on both counts. The federal law requires that ICE officers have reasonable suspicion before a stoppage is made. The Arizona law requires commission of a non-immigration violation offense plus reasonable suspicion. The Arizona statute is bi-layered and ICE has only a single compliance layer requirement.

ID Guy also is correct about the failure of the feds to enforce their own laws.

Comment by Bradford — May 30, 2010 @ 12:22 am

kornbelt888 Says:
May 30th, 2010 at 3:48 pm
just ask yourself: who benefits from illegal immigration?

Comment by kornbelt888 — May 30, 2010 @ 3:48 pm

Bradford Says:
May 31st, 2010 at 2:31 pm
This may be a contributory factor to Spain becoming a PIG nation.

The newspaper headline:

Espana admite que la economia verde que vendio a Obama es una ruina translates:

Spain admits that the green economy that was sold to Obama is a disaster

In other words POTUS was duped.

Comment by Bradford — May 31, 2010 @ 2:31 pm

Salvador T. Cordova Says:
June 2nd, 2010 at 9:13 am
An article critical of Einstein's Special Relativity appeared in the Washington Times. It was not technical, and I don't necessarily endorse it:

http://www.washingtontimes.com...

A reference to a more technical criticism regarding Special Relativity appeared in the writings of the Henry Rowland Professor of Physics at the Henry Rowland School of Physics at Johns Hopkins when I was googling the works of "Curt Renshaw":

In 2006 April I stumbled across an internet paper by Curt Renshaw pointing out that NASA’s planned Space Interferometry Mission (SIM) could test the “contraction of length” predicted as part of Special Relativity. I am very interested in physics outreach and student involvement, and I thought that “Was Einstein Right?” would be a great student experiment for SIM. So, I went through the simple mathematics … and discovered that the conventional interpretation of length contraction is wrong, and that space is not contracted in the direction of motion, but instead is curled. A different topology.

Well, my paper on the subject is still in the hands of the editors at Physical Review Letters. We shall see!

Richard Conn Henry
http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/woit....

A professor at Imperial College who occupies the chair once held by Dirac and Salaam has his criticisms of relativity outlined in his book Faster Than The Speed of Light

I have nothing to offer on the subject, it's way above my paygrade. I only provide the links for informational purposes.

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 2, 2010 @ 9:13 am

Salvador T. Cordova Says:
June 2nd, 2010 at 9:29 am
Regarding VSL from Magueijo's book:

Could Einstein be wrong and Magueijo right? Equally pressing for Magueijo, a lecturer in theoretical physics at London's Imperial College, is whether the physics editor at the preeminent science journal Nature is in fact "a first class moron" for rejecting his last paper. And did that cosmologist from Princeton steal his idea? What about all those hours wasted writing requests for funding from those "parasites," those "ex-scientists well past their prime" who dispense the monies that make contemporary science possible? Welcome to the world of career science, disclosed here in all its flawed brilliance. Magueijo's heretical idea-that the speed of light is not constant; light traveled faster in the early universe-challenges the most fundamental tenet of modern physics. Deceptively simple, the theory came to the author during a bad hangover one damp morning in Cambridge, England (many of the author's breakthroughs seem to arrive at unexpected moments, like while he's urinating outside a Goan bar). If true, Magueijo's Variant Speed of Light theory, or VSL, rectifies apparent inconsistencies in the Big Bang theory. Magueijo cunningly frames his journey with the stories of other famous, courageous heretics, notably Einstein himself, and one suspects an apologetics at work here. Magueijo, a 35-year-old native of Portugal, is opinionated and can seem immature and almost bratty in his diatribes against the banalities of academia or the hypocrisy and backbiting of peer review. But his science is lucidly rendered, and even his penchant for sturm und drang sheds light on the tensions felt by scientists incubating new ideas. This book shows how science is done-and so easily can be undone.
Copyright 2002 Reed Business Information, Inc.

I've alluded to physical observations that have always given me pause:

http://www.youngcosmos.com/blo...

I have in the past humorously tried to describe the situation with pictures of people. What we would expect to see in a constant speed of light cosmology is old stars nearby and young stars far away. Because of the long distance that light must travel from distant stars, presumably when we peer at stars far away, we are seeing them when they were young. If the speed of light is constant over space and time, we would expect to see a rather strong mix of young and old stellar and galactic formations. Do we see this? NO!!! We see a disturbing homogeneity.

And as a total aside, I made my own re-interpretation of the Feynman Hellman Theorem of Quantum Mechanics:

Feynman Hellman Part I

Feynman Hellman Part II

and

Feynman Hellman Part III

Bwahaha!

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 2, 2010 @ 9:29 am

olegt Says:
June 2nd, 2010 at 9:42 am
Salvador T. Cordova wrote:

A reference to a more technical criticism regarding Special Relativity appeared in the writings of the Henry Rowland Professor of Physics at the Henry Rowland School of Physics at Johns Hopkins when I was googling the works of "Curt Renshaw"

You are a master of quote mining, Sal. Henry does not "criticize" special relativity, he fully accepts it. In that same article he wrote:

As I explained to the students, “I do like [superstring theory], but it might not be right. There are other things that are right, that are so fantastic in their implications that I don’t want to waste a great deal of your time on superstrings: I am here of course referring to Special Relativity, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics.” I concentrate on teaching these three glories, as being things that we know are true, and that deeply offend our intuition⎯which must therefore be suppressed as simply wrong.

As to Bethell's criticism, it's silly beyond belief.

Comment by olegt — June 2, 2010 @ 9:42 am

Salvador T. Cordova Says:
June 2nd, 2010 at 9:43 am
Richard Conn Henry references Renshaw, Renshaw Observes here

The idea of abandoning SRT’s second postulate begins again with what Petr Beckmann [4] referred to as an equivalence—a mathematical description that, while it produces correct answers, is based on faulty assumptions. Beckman uses what he refers to as the “Grandiose Theory of Railroad Tracks,” (GRT). In this hypothetical theory, he claims that lengths contract with distance. This is demonstrated by staring down a long set of railroad tracks, and noting that the separation between the tracks becomes narrower with distance. We know this effect as perspective, and understand that it is a consequence of our field of view taking in more space proportional to the square of the distance from us as we look farther away. But Beckman's GRT says otherwise. In his example, a ruler that is twelve inches long when held close to your face will measure a similar ruler held at arm’s length to be only four inches. At greater distances, the ruler becomes even smaller. We could develop a complete mathematical model as to how lengths contract with distance, and the model would provide perfectly correct results every time it is applied.

The problem is, while the mathematical model provides equivalent results to what we see, its underlying assumptions are faulty—lengths do not contract with distance—and as a physical model the theory fails.

Renshaw is part of Galilean Electrodynamics which has a creationist founder by the name of Thomas Barnes. In fairness to Renshaw, I don't believe Renshaw is a creationist.

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 2, 2010 @ 9:43 am

Salvador T. Cordova Says:
June 2nd, 2010 at 9:58 am
You are a master of quote mining, Sal. Henry does not "criticize" special relativity, he fully accepts it. In that same article he wrote:

Since Dr. Henry reference Renshaw as well as a paper he was writing, I presumed he holds some skepticism. I would presume teaching classical mechanics as a great truth does not imply full endorsement of all of its assumptions….If I misinterpreted Dr. Henry, my sincere apologies to him.

Out of curiosity, and since I saw you made some reference to the fine structure "constant", do you have any reservations that there could be some amendments to mainstream theories like Special Relativity or the constancy of the speed of light or constancy of "constants" like well accepted physical contants (alpha, planck's (h), speed of light (c), magnetic constant (mu), electric constant (epsilon), etc.) ?

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 2, 2010 @ 9:58 am

Bradford Says:
June 5th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
'Death Panels' Were an Overblown Claim — Until Now

Comment by Bradford — June 5, 2010 @ 12:51 pm

JJS P.Eng. Says:
June 7th, 2010 at 11:03 am
Some interesting things from around the web:

Global Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination by Jason Scott Johnston, Univeristy of Pennsylvania
HT: Lawrence Solomon @ Financial Post

The University Guild vs. Glenn Beck by Amity Shlaes
HT: Meredith Jessup @ Townhall Blog

I'm not a huge fan of Glenn, but I am a fan of Amity Shlaes (The Forgotten Man is a great read!)

Apollo 13, the Gulf Oil Spill, and BP by Harrison Schmitt @ PajamasMedia

Comment by JJS P.Eng. — June 7, 2010 @ 11:03 am

Bradford Says:
June 7th, 2010 at 12:14 pm
With respect to the University Guild vs. Glenn Beck by Amity Shlaes link it is unsurprising that academics are attacking Beck. But it is not because he lacks a PhD. Rather they are upset that he has exposed a lack of integrity in the teaching process. To be more precise, crucial data has been omitted from American history textbooks so as to support a political narrative at odds with the one promoted by Beck.

Recently Beck, along with a professor and an author devoted an entire show to African-American founding fathers (there are quite a few not mentioned in textbooks) You might suspect liberals would want to set the record straight on this but if you do you are too naive for your own good. It is not as if their identities were concealed at the outset or even during the 19th century. But they were gone following the administration of Princeton Professor Woodrow Wilson, a notorious racist who wrote about US history and ethnically cleansed his versions.

My reading of US history did not end with my formal education but some of the names were unfamiliar to me. I'll attempt to retrieve the identities if anyone is interested. One stood out although I remember his deeds rather than his name. He was the right hand man of the Marquis de Lafayette; a young French General and enthusiastic supporter of the American Revolution. He fought alongside George Washington and his colonial troops. The African-American adjutant to Lafayette became a valued spy for the Americans and gained the confidence of British General Cornwallis. Cornwallis convinced him to become a "British spy" and he then assumed the role of a double agent whose information was invaluable to Washington.

When Cornwallis brought his troops to Yorktown he did so believing that the advice of his African-American spy about the location of American and French troops was accurate. It was not. By design. American and French troops surrounded the British. Washington knew of the location and troop strength of his enemy thanks to his spy. The British navy left Cornwallis' army in the belief it was secure- again thanks to this spy. The French navy moved in and bottled up the British. The ensuing battle resulted in a disastrous defeat for the British and enabled independence. The African-American spy performed a critical service to the cause. His name? Anyone know offhand? Without having to Google this. If you do not know then why not? Because it was not taught to you. Why? Don't implicate Wilson because he's a ~~good guy.~~

Beck and Fox News report information that would never see the light of day otherwise. The ACORN scams being an example. Viva Beck.

Comment by Bradford — June 7, 2010 @ 12:14 pm

Bradford Says:
June 7th, 2010 at 12:26 pm
Hughes, if you have nothing more than one or two liner retorts and nothing substantive to add then go back to the swamp.

Comment by Bradford — June 7, 2010 @ 12:26 pm

Bradford Says:
June 7th, 2010 at 12:29 pm
The memory hole has a malfunction.

Comment by Bradford — June 7, 2010 @ 12:29 pm

Richardthughes Says:
June 7th, 2010 at 12:31 pm
I believe I gave an accurate summarization of Beck's position by beck himself. Would you like me to get some quotes to support it? I'll post them here on this 'open thread'.

Viva Beck indeed!

Comment by Richardthughes — June 7, 2010 @ 12:31 pm

Richardthughes Says:
June 7th, 2010 at 1:09 pm
Beck:

Polarize that individual and make that individual toxic. That's not coming after all of Fox, because that wakes everybody up. Do it small. Take them out one at a time. I'm just the first. And if you take me out, then what happens? Does [Bill] O'Reilly go? Does Sean [Hannity] go? Do you go? And once they clean this place out, then who goes? Is it Diane Sawyer? Is it [George] Stephanopoulos? Who is it? Who's next? I mean, it's — I've never seen anything like it before. This, this — the Nixon enemy list? Please. This is nothing like that. This is targeting and destroying.

And here is is talking about Obama, Acorn and the usual suspects coming to kill him:

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/2...

He's smart though. By calling them out they can't do it now. I'd have used journalists and reports to get me story out, he chose Fox News instead.

Comment by Richardthughes — June 7, 2010 @ 1:09 pm

Bradford Says:
June 7th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
That's called the politics of personal destruction Richard. Denigrate your opponents. You're familiar with the tactic. It is a favored one at the Swamp.

Comment by Bradford — June 7, 2010 @ 1:53 pm

Richardthughes Says:
June 7th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
Hey Bradford. All of done is to take what's he's saying and repeat it. I don't think I've changed teh meaning. If that leaves him looking like an unhinged cook, I didn't do that to him. Now, he may be correct about certain things,. I've not claimed either way.

Comment by Richardthughes — June 7, 2010 @ 2:06 pm

Richardthughes Says:
June 7th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
That's called the politics of personal destruction Richard.

Thanks for bringing this up. Beck, who you approve of it seems, would never do this, or any guilt by association type stuff.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispat...

I love TT.

Comment by Richardthughes — June 7, 2010 @ 2:08 pm

Bradford Says:
June 7th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
From RTH's link:

Why won't Glenn Beck deny these allegations? We're not accusing Glenn Beck of raping and murdering a young girl in 1990 — in fact, we think he didn't! But we can't help but wonder, since he has failed to deny these horrible allegations. Why won't he deny that he raped and killed a young girl in 1990?

Do you deny that you like to have sex with little boys? Why won't he deny that he had sex with a little boy? This is the type of exchange leftist degenerates love. Don't get too attached to TT Richard because you may be on the way out. I see nothing but trollish comments. I may disagree with Olegt and Provon but they appear interested in the subject matter. You're playing to an audience.

Comment by Bradford — June 7, 2010 @ 3:02 pm

Bradford Says:
June 7th, 2010 at 3:52 pm
This was the offending Beck quote:

"No offense and I know Muslims, I like Muslims, I've been to mosques, I really don't think Islam is a religion of evil. I think it's being hijacked, quite frankly. With that being said, you are a Democrat. You are saying let's cut and run. And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview because what I feel like saying is, sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies. And I know you're not. I'm not accusing you of being an enemy. But that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way."

Cut and run? From where- Afghanistan? Being a Democrat and cut and run are juxtaposed. But of course that would not be racism or intolerance. Beck must be anti-Muslim. But of course. If you pat down a 21 year old Muslim boarding a plane you must prove your PC credentials by patting down an 82 year old granny.

Comment by Bradford — June 7, 2010 @ 3:52 pm

Rob R. Says:
June 7th, 2010 at 7:24 pm
Get ready to have your minds blown.

Ready?

Was Barack Obama In the 1993 Music Video For 'Whoomp (There It Is)'?

Comment by Rob R. — June 7, 2010 @ 7:24 pm

JOHN_A_DESIGNER Says:
June 8th, 2010 at 9:30 am
One of my problems with so-called self described “Liberals” is that they are anything but liberal. They posture themselves as being open minded, tolerant, free of prejudice and opposing all forms of discrimination, but as it turns out that in particular those on the far left are really just very selective about their prejudices. Case in point (now former) White House correspondent Helen Thomas.

On the other hand, I disagree with conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter who label these far-left bigots as liberal. Notice how the dictionary defines the word:

Main Entry: liberal
Function: noun
Date: 1820

: a person who is liberal: as a : one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways b capitalized : a member or supporter of a liberal political party c : an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights

I agree entirely with definitions ‘a’ and ‘c’. I think it is time who believe in "small l” liberalism take back a perfectly good word.

Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — June 8, 2010 @ 9:30 am

Bradford Says:
June 8th, 2010 at 10:39 am
Hmmm. Could not connect to the "Did Glenn Beck Rape and Murder a Young Girl in 1990 website" at the Dispatches site. An observation.

This "satire":

Why won't Glenn Beck deny these allegations? We're not accusing Glenn Beck of raping and murdering a young girl in 1990 — in fact, we think he didn't! But we can't help but wonder, since he has failed to deny these horrible allegations. Why won't he deny that he raped and killed a young girl in 1990?

…is said to be analogous to this:

No offense and I know Muslims, I like Muslims, I've been to mosques, I really don't think Islam is a religion of evil. I think it's being hijacked, quite frankly. With that being said, you are a Democrat. You are saying let's cut and run. And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview because what I feel like saying is, sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies. And I know you're not. I'm not accusing you of being an enemy. But that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way.

The contrasts are telling. The first is written in a when did you stop beating your wife style. Funny. I know. To a hateful far leftist I suppose that is humorous. To those who were upset at the mention of the President's middle name, endorsement of this "satire" strikes me as hypocritical.

There is a more substantive contrast though. Beck makes his statement in the presence of the other party who has an opportunity to respond and put Beck in his place if he is out of line. The "satire" is done at a safe distance. Nothing face to face about it.

Comment by Bradford — June 8, 2010 @ 10:39 am

JJS P.Eng. Says:
June 8th, 2010 at 11:18 am
Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader? Self-identified liberals and Democrats do badly on questions of basic economics.

This makes me want to laugh and cry at the same time. I want to laugh because liberal ideals and policy end up hitting the wall of basic economic law and they shake their heads wondering what hit them and then charge full speed at the wall again. It's like Jackass, except the Jackass fools actually plan their stunts.

It makes me want to cry because these same liberals are in positions of power in the U.S. and Europe. Actually, it's more scary than sad.

As for Canada, here's (IMHO) a rising Conservative star: Maxime Bernier. (More of Bernier's articles here, here, and here)

Comment by JJS P.Eng. — June 8, 2010 @ 11:18 am

olegt Says:
June 8th, 2010 at 11:45 am
JJS P.Eng.,

I am afraid the poll had questions with ambiguous answers. Take, for instance, this:

7) Minimum wage laws raise unemployment (unenlightened answer: disagree).

If you read this review on Wikipedia, you will see that prior to the 1990s the prevailing wisdom was that, indeed, minimum wage laws raise unemployment. However, later empirical studies showed that the effect was minimal or nonexistent. A 2000 poll among economists showed that a half of them would answer the question positively, while a quarter negatively. Did those 25% flunk Econ 101? I doubt that.

Comment by olegt — June 8, 2010 @ 11:45 am

JJS P.Eng. Says:
June 8th, 2010 at 12:34 pm
Good day olegt.

If you read this review on Wikipedia, you will see that prior to the 1990s the prevailing wisdom was that, indeed, minimum wage laws raise unemployment. However, later empirical studies showed that the effect was minimal or nonexistent. A 2000 poll among economists showed that a half of them would answer the question positively, while a quarter negatively. Did those 25% flunk Econ 101? I doubt that.

You're seriously using Wikipedia as an authorative source?

As a physicist, you should know that the question is similar to a law of physics (all things being equal). It is very possible that unemployment appeared to be unaffected by minimum wage increases post 1990. However, were other factors taken into account? (less profits to re-invest in business or hire more employees, larger employers would be more insulated from effects than smaller employers, etc.)

The "Minimum wage laws raise unemployment" axiom is a generally and rarely operates in a vacuum.

However, I did notice that you didn't claim that studies showed raising min. wage reduces unemployment. That's just patently false and absurd! So the axiom could be re-worded to say "Minimum wage laws do not lower unemployment" and it would in essence say the same as before. After all, stagnation ain't growth.

As for the poll, that doesn't surprise me. I don't wan't those economists that answered positively running my country.

Comment by JJS P.Eng. — June 8, 2010 @ 12:34 pm

ID guy Says:
June 8th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
I would think-

Raising minimum wage raises the costs of consumer goods.

Agree or disagree?

Comment by ID guy — June 8, 2010 @ 12:40 pm

JJS P.Eng. Says:
June 8th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
ID guy: Raising minimum wage raises the costs of consumer goods.

Agree or disagree?

That runs into the same issue as the "Raise in min wage increases unemployment": 1) it's a general statement akin to "all things being equal" (which sometimes they aren't in the real word), and 2) it ignores the very real possibility that consumer prices won't be raised (i.e. the company absorbs the added wages). As I mentioned before, a larger company can absorb the wage increase more ably than a smaller company can. In fact, more often, a larger company will offer wages above the min wage levels. So a larger company can absorb the wage increase without increasing product price.

That's not to say there are no consequences. There will be less money for the company to re-invest, possibly leading to stagnation and ultimately failure.

The effect is more noted on smaller companies that cannot absorb the added wages. For them, they may have to raise prices, which in turn would lead to fewer customers able to purchase their products and thus lower revenues. This would lead to smaller profits, if not actual losses, and thus either bankruptcy or elimination of jobs. Similar results occur if the small company does not raise prices. Bottom line, governments are in a poor position to dictate employee wages. Min. wage laws have unintended consequences that hurt more than help.

Comment by JJS P.Eng. — June 8, 2010 @ 1:02 pm

olegt Says:
June 8th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
JJS P.Eng., the Wikipedia article cites original sources. A lack of consensus between experts shows that the answer is not as clear cut as Klein tries to make it. Whether you like the opinion of those experts does not matter.

Comment by olegt — June 8, 2010 @ 1:31 pm

Bradford Says:
June 8th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
Evidence of failure is before us:

http://weaselzippers.us/2010/0...

Comment by Bradford — June 8, 2010 @ 1:47 pm

JJS P.Eng. Says:
June 8th, 2010 at 2:34 pm
Good day olegt.

A lack of consensus between experts shows that the answer is not as clear cut as Klein tries to make it. Whether you like the opinion of those experts does not matter.

The issue is not whether I "like the opinion" of said experts. The issue is basic understanding of economics. Economists face little or no consequences for being wrong, even when they're in power. A consensus amongst economists means little if there are no consequences for being wrong. If I'm wrong about an engineering design, people die. That consequence keeps me up at nights and provides good incentive to be right. Show me an economist who faces those consequences.

That also does not mean there is no right or wrong in economics. Real world events show there are, as this article demonstrates:

Margaret Thatcher also made a dash for confidence and growth via a fiscal squeeze. To restart the economy in 1981, Thatcher instituted a fierce attack on the British deficit, coupled with an expansionary monetary policy. Her moves were immediately condemned by 364 distinguished economists. In a letter to the Times of London, they wrote a knee-jerk Keynesian (Prof. Krugman-type) response: “Present policies will deepen the depression, erode the industrial base of our economy and threaten its social and political stability.” Thatcher was quickly vindicated. No sooner had the 364 affixed their signatures than the economy boomed. People had confidence in Britain again, and Thatcher was able to introduce a long series of deep free-market reforms.

While Prof. Krugman’s authority is weighty, his arguments and evidence are slender.

Comment by JJS P.Eng. — June 8, 2010 @ 2:34 pm

olegt Says:
June 8th, 2010 at 3:23 pm
JJS P.Eng.,

There is an entire cottage industry of proving Paul Krugman wrong. Don Luskin used to call him America's most dangerous liberal pundit. Now that Krugman received a (fully deserved and anticipated) Nobel Prize in economics, it's an open season on him in conservative circles. Krugman enjoys the same status among libertarians as Dawkins does among creationists. Get a life, guys.

Comment by olegt — June 8, 2010 @ 3:23 pm

Bradford Says:
June 8th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
Olegt: Krugman enjoys the same status among libertarians as Dawkins does among creationists. Get a life, guys.

And liberals would excoriate Milton Friedman as do anti-IDists with Dembski etc. The beat goes on. You like to tout expertise but in economics there is rarely consensus and practically speaking no way to falsify. When the stimulus package was passed in Feb. 2009 I pointed out right here at TT that if the economy was not elevated supporters of the bill would claim one of two things or both:

1) It's still Bush's fault. All our problems stem from Bush, Bush…
2) We did not spend enough.

The other option is not possible for a Keynsian ideologue namely, hyper government spending is a flawed concept.

The trouble with expertise is the human nature factor. Subjective reality trumps objectivity.

Comment by Bradford — June 8, 2010 @ 3:50 pm

olegt Says:
June 8th, 2010 at 4:02 pm
Bradford wrote:

And liberals would excoriate Milton Friedman as do anti-IDists with Dembski etc.

That's preposterous, Bradford. Milton Friedman was a respectable economist with a Nobel prize to show for it. What has Dembski done?

Comment by olegt — June 8, 2010 @ 4:02 pm

Bradford Says:
June 8th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
Olegt: That's preposterous, Bradford. Milton Friedman was a respectable economist with a Nobel prize to show for it. What has Dembski done?

Milton Friedman was indeed a respected economist. He was also conservative. There are respected economists who disagree with Friedman and are liberal. What does that tell you about the linkage between career achievement and representing the truth? A and not A cannot both be true. As I said before and you ignored it, subjective reality trumps objectivity. There is no economic consensus; so the value of expertise is what Olegt?

Comment by Bradford — June 8, 2010 @ 4:20 pm

olegt Says:
June 8th, 2010 at 5:17 pm
Bradford, it's an own goal!

If you think economists are not to be trusted then there is no point in bringing up Milton Friedman. I don't share your pessimism. My point was not quite as sweeping: the influence of minimal wage on unemployment is in dispute at this time, so it makes no sense to use it on a test for beginners. That does not mean, however, that consensus is lacking on any question in economics. For instance, here is a great question. Cutting taxes in the US increase tax revenues. (unenlightened answer: disagree). Here is Bruce Bartlett and other conservative economists on the subject.

Comment by olegt — June 8, 2010 @ 5:17 pm

JJS P.Eng. Says:
June 8th, 2010 at 6:40 pm
Good day olegt.

There is an entire cottage industry of proving Paul Krugman wrong.

And I am pretty sure there is a "cottage industry" of proving Paul Krugman right. So what does that prove? Robert Murphy's hobby at mises.org is picking apart Krugman, David Frum and others.

What you didn't point out or counteract was the points made in the articles that showed how wrong Krugman was on those topics. On the specific subject of "analysis of trade patterns and location of economic activity", I'm sure Paul Krugman was a worty recipient of the Nobel Prize. However, his macroeconomic Keynesian views have been shown to be wrong time and time again.

Bradford: There is no economic consensus; so the value of expertise is what Olegt?

olegt: Bradford, it's an own goal!

If you think economists are not to be trusted…

That is not what Bradford said, olegt. He said there is no consensus amongst economists, not that they cannot be trusted as a profession.

Comment by JJS P.Eng. — June 8, 2010 @ 6:40 pm

Bradford Says:
June 8th, 2010 at 6:55 pm
Olegt: If you think economists are not to be trusted then there is no point in bringing up Milton Friedman. I don't share your pessimism.

It's not a matter of trust Olegt except in the sense that you cannot trust that professionals can dispense with subjective influences on their views. That is checked to a degree in the natural sciences by nature. There is empirical evidence in the social sciences as well but unfortunately an ability to spin obscures its utility. Greece is empirical evidence for dysfunctional effects of bloated public sectors. Greek leftists will argue against the reality of the evidence. That phenomenon in turn limits the utility of fact finding and expertise as agents for beneficial change.

Comment by Bradford — June 8, 2010 @ 6:55 pm

olegt Says:
June 14th, 2010 at 5:10 pm
J. M. Bernstein, a professor of philosophy at the New School for Social Research, writes at his New York Times blog on the subject of the very angry tea party:

The seething anger that seems to be an indigenous aspect of the Tea Party movement arises, I think, at the very place where politics and metaphysics meet, where metaphysical sentiment becomes political belief. More than their political ideas, it is the anger of Tea Party members that is already reshaping our political landscape. As Jeff Zeleny reported last Monday in The Times, the vast majority of House Democrats are now avoiding holding town-hall-style forums — just as you might sidestep an enraged, jilted lover on a subway platform — out of fear of confronting the incubus of Tea Party rage that routed last summer’s meetings. This fear-driven avoidance is, Zeleny stated, bringing the time-honored tradition of the political meeting to the brink of extinction.

Comment by olegt — June 14, 2010 @ 5:10 pm

JJS P.Eng. Says:
June 14th, 2010 at 5:32 pm
The seething anger that seems to be an indigenous aspect of the Tea Party movement arises, I think, at the very place where politics and metaphysics meet, where metaphysical sentiment becomes political belief.

Political movements generally arise from anger, not contentment. Thus that statement from Bernstein is quite empty of meaning.

…the vast majority of House Democrats are now avoiding holding town-hall-style forums — just as you might sidestep an enraged, jilted lover on a subway platform — out of fear of confronting the incubus of Tea Party rage that routed last summer’s meetings.

False analogy alert! This isn't Days of Our Lives, or some cheesy soap opera. Members of Congress/Parliament are elected representatives that must face their electorate as part of their job description.

This fear-driven avoidance is, Zeleny stated, bringing the time-honored tradition of the political meeting to the brink of extinction.

More accurately, it is fear of angry voters. Voter-accountability (or lack thereof) doesn't even seem to register to Bernstein/Zeleny as a probable reason that these cowards are avoiding town hall meetings. I find that disconnect more disturbing than an excercise in democracy.

Comment by JJS P.Eng. — June 14, 2010 @ 5:32 pm

olegt Says:
June 14th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
JJS P.Eng.,

Read the whole thing. Bernstein has a theory that explains the peculiar contradictions that are so characteristic of the views expressed by Tea Party adherents. Here is an old quote that should serve as a hint:

Heav'n has no Rage, like Love to Hatred turn'd,
Nor Hell a Fury, like a Woman scorn'd.

Comment by olegt — June 14, 2010 @ 5:36 pm

chunkdz Says:
June 14th, 2010 at 5:44 pm
This fear-driven avoidance is, Zeleny stated, bringing the time-honored tradition of the political meeting to the brink of extinction.

What a nation of candy-ass sissies we have become.

Comment by chunkdz — June 14, 2010 @ 5:44 pm

chunkdz Says:
June 14th, 2010 at 5:59 pm
To date, the Tea Party has committed only the minor, almost atmospheric violences of propagating falsehoods, calumny and the disruption of the occasions for political speech — the last already to great and distorting effect. But if their nihilistic rage is deprived of interrupting political meetings as an outlet, where might it now go? With such rage driving the Tea Party, might we anticipate this atmospheric violence becoming actual violence, becoming what Hegel called, referring to the original Jacobins’ fantasy of total freedom, “a fury of destruction”? There is indeed something not just disturbing, but frightening, in the anger of the Tea Party.

-Bernstein

Olegt, why do you support this kind of fearmongering?

Did you ask yourself why Bernstein didn't mention that the last time Nancy Pelosi was shouted down and had objects thrown at her it came from liberals, not tea partiers?

Perhaps you should critically think about such things before you endorse such vapid politically partisan crap.

Comment by chunkdz — June 14, 2010 @ 5:59 pm

JJS P.Eng. Says:
June 14th, 2010 at 6:07 pm
From Bernstein's blog: My hypothesis is that what all the events precipitating the Tea Party movement share is that they demonstrated, emphatically and unconditionally, the depths of the absolute dependence of us all on government action, and in so doing they undermined the deeply held fiction of individual autonomy and self-sufficiency that are intrinsic parts of Americans’ collective self-understanding.

*sigh* I'd like to say that the above hypothesis was well supported by Bernstein in his blog post, but I can't. It was a jumble of (sometimes incoherent) thoughts that grasped for any reason to explain (away) the Tea Party except for the most obvious one: too much goverment control over the economy. Note that I said too much. Most Tea Party activists/protestors advocate for limited government, not no goverment (that would be anarchy – the ugly step-sister of the left).

Again from Bernstein's blog: The implicit bargain that many Americans struck with the state institutions supporting modern life is that they would be politically acceptable only to the degree to which they remained invisible, and that for all intents and purposes each citizen could continue to believe that she was sovereign over her life; she would, of course, pay taxes, use the roads and schools, receive Medicare and Social Security, but only so long as these could be perceived not as radical dependencies, but simply as the conditions for leading an autonomous and self-sufficient life. Recent events have left that bargain in tatters.

That disconnect exists in us all. I am one to protest against government intrusion into the private economy, yet I took advantage of the Canadian government's tax rebate on renovation. I think that the rebate skewed the reno market (work done in present taken away from future, bad contractors could have been financially eliminated by lack of work, etc.). However, that did not stop me from taking advantage of the tax break.

That is not to say there isn't a better way. The same goes for Medicare/Social Security. In the 90s, the U.S. reformed welfare because it was being abused and not used in the way it was intended (a temporary financial safety net). Dr. David Gratzer lists better ways that Medicare could be implemented in his book The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care.

Bottom line: another so-called free-thinker who pathetically struggles to explain the Tea Party movement when the answer is right in front of him/her but cannot bring him/herself to even consider it. Boring!

Comment by JJS P.Eng. — June 14, 2010 @ 6:07 pm

Bradford Says:
June 14th, 2010 at 6:15 pm
As Jeff Zeleny reported last Monday in The Times, the vast majority of House Democrats are now avoiding holding town-hall-style forums — just as you might sidestep an enraged, jilted lover on a subway platform

What a bunch of hypocritical pansies. These are the wealthiest and most powerful people on the planet but they cannot be bothered wth some anger when it comes from the plebians. If there is to be anger let it come from leftist zealots. Lord knows we saw an abundance of it during the Bush and Reagan years. Don't forget Watergate and the Vietnam War while you're at it. Ah but those angry ones had a reason(s). And all Tea Partiers have to gripe about is a no growth economy, no jobs, a government that spends what it does not have and sticks posterity with the bill, expanded opportunities for gubbermint workers and a declining private sector, a coming bailout of underfunded teacher, police and other public sector pensions to the tune of trillions, raises for public sector employees while cutbacks are in vogue in the private sector, monumental debt problems in Europe where the PIGS of that continent stand poised to sabotage any meager recovery, congressmen who are in bed with lobbyists even while they verbally and insincerely flog big corporations, leaders who insist on pushing unpopular legislation, universal healthcare which will add millions of new customers while doing nothing to increase the number of doctors caring for that extra burden, a nation known for fiscal responsibility and prosperity witnessing the financial gutting of their country, socialism for the very poor and very rich while the middle class gets to foot the bill for welfare for the poor, bailouts for the rich and cushy pensions for gubbermint workers able to retire at 50+ while the rest of you non-wealthy suckers get the privilege of supporting all this into your old age. To add insult to injury you get a philosopher who would not know the real world if he bumped into it pronouncing hogwash about liberty. The USA needs a revolution- like 1776 not 1917.

Comment by Bradford — June 14, 2010 @ 6:15 pm

Bradford Says:
June 14th, 2010 at 6:41 pm
Oh yes, I almost forgot that the transformation of a beautiful body of balmy water into an oil infested swamp is not worthy of resentment either. Ought to have a tea party to celebrate the event. Invite some slick wildlife and make sure we put our priority on the real threat- global warming.

Comment by Bradford — June 14, 2010 @ 6:41 pm

Bradford Says:
June 14th, 2010 at 6:58 pm
How to Plan For a Double-Dip Recession

Shhhhhh. Don't tell the Tea Party about this. Might make them elevate their voices at the next meeting.

Comment by Bradford — June 14, 2010 @ 6:58 pm

Bradford Says:
June 14th, 2010 at 7:08 pm
And don't tell those Tea Partyers about this either:

Oil Boom Manufacturer: We Notified Government 4 WEEKS AGO That We Have Product (Video) …Update: Team O Learns of Maine Company in Live Interview

Hey baby, all is fine on campus. What's a bureaucracy for if not to throw a glitch into a process?

Comment by Bradford — June 14, 2010 @ 7:08 pm

JJS P.Eng. Says:
June 17th, 2010 at 5:19 pm
Sometimes you can read a book that will change your mind on some fundamental issue. Rarely, however, is there just one page that can undermine or destroy a widely-held belief. But there is such a page– page 77 of the book "Out of Work" by Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway.

…What is on that one page in "Out of Work" that could change people's minds? Just a simple table, giving unemployment rates for every month during the entire decade of the 1930s.

Those who think that the stock market crash in October 1929 is what caused the huge unemployment rates of the 1930s will have a hard time reconciling that belief with the data in that table.

Although the big stock market crash occurred in October 1929, unemployment never reached double digits in any of the next 12 months after that crash. Unemployment peaked at 9 percent, two months after the stock market crashed– and then began drifting generally downward over the next six months, falling to 6.3 percent by June 1930.

…Within six months after [President Hoover's] intervention, unemployment shot up into double digits– and stayed in double digits in every month throughout the entire remainder of the decade of the 1930s, as the Roosevelt administration expanded federal intervention far beyond what Hoover had started.

-Thomas Sowell @ Townhall

The referenced table can be seen here.

Comment by JJS P.Eng. — June 17, 2010 @ 5:19 pm

Bradford Says:
June 17th, 2010 at 5:29 pm
JJS, it's amazing to look back at (successful) attempts to create a mythology that favors statism. That's why it is imperative to counter lies put forth explaining the genesis of the bailout. The mythology is that it was the consequence of a failure of free enterprise and the greed of Wall Street bankers. The truth is we were nudged toward the crisis by regulations promulgated during the Clinton administration, pushed further by government created monsters Freddie and Fannie and waved through the stop signs by prominent members of congress like Barney Frank.

Comment by Bradford — June 17, 2010 @ 5:29 pm

JJS P.Eng. Says:
June 17th, 2010 at 6:18 pm
Bradford: JJS, it's amazing to look back at (successful) attempts to create a mythology that favors statism.

I'm not sure I would use the word amazing. Sad, pathetic, redonkulous are better words.

From the same creative minds that keep bringing back Keynesian economics: "reality" TV like Jersey Shore* and whatever athlete/wannabe actor/actress profiled (here's looking at you T.O., Kardashians, Hilton, etc.)

*I only watched 5 minutes of that s*!t and I'll never get back those destroyed brain cells!

Comment by JJS P.Eng. — June 17, 2010 @ 6:18 pm

olegt Says:
June 26th, 2010 at 3:34 am
Some soul searching from (of all people) Matthew Continetti of The Weekly Standard: The two faces of the Tea Party.

The Tea Party, like the Roman god Janus, has two faces. One looks to the future. The other looks to the past. One wants to repair deformities in the American political structure and move on. The other is ready to scrap the whole thing and restore a lost Eden.

They are the faces, in other words, of the cable TV stars who are arguably the Tea Party’s two founders: Rick Santelli and Glenn Beck.

Comment by olegt — June 26, 2010 @ 3:34 am

ID guy Says:
June 26th, 2010 at 10:15 am
So just because someone has sez something about the "Tea Party" that makes olegt smile it is gospel.

Got it….

Comment by ID guy — June 26, 2010 @ 10:15 am

Bradford Says:
June 26th, 2010 at 10:17 am
From Olegt's link:

First, the Tea Party is unified by the pervasive sense that the country is wildly off course. It believes the establishment has bent and twisted the rules for its own benefit. America, the Tea Partiers believe, is headed for a fiscal reckoning unlike any it has ever seen.

Tragic but true. Welfare for the poor and welfare for the very rich under the too big to fail rubric. A contracting middle class. 3 trillion in unfunded obligations for public sector employee pensions and a looming bailout that will dwarf 2008 in magnitude when those pensions systems go bankrupt. A broken housing market which has been historically an engine for economic growth in the USA. Problems on the horizon for medicare funding. A stagnant private sector and expanding public sector. An unbelievably stupid effort to expand health care without expanding the supply of MDs and health care facilities. A war in Afghanistan that is looking increasingly like Vietnam. Demonizing Glenn Beck and the Tea Party is the stuff of demagogues, not problem solvers.

Comment by Bradford — June 26, 2010 @ 10:17 am

Pez Says:
June 26th, 2010 at 10:20 pm
A party sans tea.
http://thestar.blogs.com/g20/

Comment by Pez — June 26, 2010 @ 10:20 pm

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Open Thread: Predatory Star

58 Responses to “Open Thread: Predatory Star”

Leave a Reply

Featured Books