Lately, the left has become even more unhinged than usual. This letter appeared in our local newspaper, the Chico Enterprise Record and is a fine example of that trend. It’s probably the most bizarre letter on climate I’ve ever seen, and of course, nobody in their right mind would bother responding to it. Ironically, the person writing, one Nancy L. Good of Chico, clearly doesn’t understand science herself, only rhetoric and headlines. Given her excluding viewpoint, maybe she shouldn’t be the one voting?
Here’s the letter as it appeared on chicoer.com:
The article on Page 10, June 19, about climate change, should have been on page 1. Why? So Doug LaMafia and the 52 percent of boneheads who voted for him recently would see it and read it.
Why are people still voting for a man who is ignorant concerning proven scientific evidence that we are slowly destroying our home planet by human practices? These are the same type of people who refused to believe the Earth is round and not flat. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
I propose a new voting requirement. If you aren’t smart enough to understand science you can’t vote and you can’t be an elected official. I am holding Republicans responsible for destroying my planet.
— Nancy L. Good, Chico
Wow, just wow.
Projection at it’s finest.
Here’s the article she’s upset about: https://www.chicoer.com/2018/06/19/looking-for-signs-of-global-warming-its-all-around-you/
We can all thank Seth Borenstein of the Associated Press for whipping this person into a frenzy, or as they call it these days, “triggered”.
Mark Twain said it best:
“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”
Wow. So much anger, so much dedication to… umm… something(?), and she wants to remove a legal right to determine who has a say in government.
Questions:
1 – Who died and made her God?
2 – Is she on some kind of chemically-impacted behavioral response to events she cannot control?
3 – I just wrote an article (elsewhere) about the behavior of such people. I’d like to borrow that, for another article. This individual needs as much exposure to the light of day as we can possibly give her. There are others like her.
On another note (and off-topic) a Tesla car crashed into a truck and burst into flames. Firefighters could not put the flames out. They reignited after the first attempt to smother them, and continued to burn. I did not get enough details to relay more than what I have here. Sorry about that.
Are we going to have more of these Bright Idea Club results this year? If so, how many and how often?
Once lithium gets burning it’s pretty hard to extinguish it. This is why lithium batteries are not allowed to be shippable without special containers and special handling. But it’s no problem to drive a half ton of them down the road 🙂
And carry them in your electronic devices on aircraft.
Anthony: Its not lithium burning in lithium batteries – they contain no native lithium, but a lithium salt.
Its the organic electrolytes.
Here is a decent description of a lithium polymer battery:
Cathode : aluminum foil current collector. Metal oxide active material (NMC, NCA, LCO, LFP). Binder (PVDF – Polyvinyladine Fluoride). Conductive carbon (Acetylene black, Vulcan , graphite )
Anode: copper current collector. Graphite active material. Binder (PVDF, or CMC/SBR — carboxymethyl cellulose and styrene butadiene rubber). Conductive carbon.
Separator: polypropylene film, ionically conductive but electrically insulating, e.g. Celgard
Electrolyte: carbonate solvents including ethylene carbonate (EC), dimethyl carbonate (DMC), diethyl carbonate (DEC), propylene carbonate (PC). Lithium salt, eg lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6)
Pouch material: aluminum with polymer coating.
Tabs: aluminum cathode tab, nickel anode tab.
Construction: double sided anode and cathode sheets are stacked and wrapped in separator, sometimes in Z-fold pattern. Anode and cathode Electrode stack tabs are ultrasonically welded together, placing them in series. Anode and cathode tabs are further welded to external tabs (Al or Ni, see above). Welded stack is packaged in 3-side sealed pouch, filled with electrolyte, then 4th side is sealed in vacuum pouch step.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-basic-construction-of-a-lithium-polymer-LiPo-battery
The main ‘fuel’ in such a battery is the electrolyte, which is the lithium salt (primarily lithium hexafluorophosphate). To say the lithium salt is burning versus the lithium, is a difference without a distiction. The oxidation of the lithium in the salt produces the fire.
In the anode of some lithium ion cells, Li(1+x)C6 is present. Li(1+x)C6 is not a stable salt. It’s not even a compound. It’s a lithium containing matrix. Is the lithium not in a reduced state? If the lithium is in a reduced state, then it would react with oxygen and or moisture from the air.
Since lithium is in a reduced, higher energy state in the anode, lithium can react by losing electrons to water to form hydrogen, hydroxide ions and release heat…would it not do so?
The reduced lithium can, also, react with oxygen to form lithium oxide. Moisture in the air could react with the lithium oxide to form a basic water solution that can react with or catalyze dozens of possible reactions using the other components from the lithium ion cell as well as the structural components of the car.
Chemical systems tend to go to the lowest possible energy state. The very nature of a lithium ion cell will make it react to lose it’s stored energy. It is going to burn when broken open. The batteries of a crashed Tesla should be stored in a kerosine bath, just like in it is in a chemical store room.
Wiki has a good description of the various sorts of lithium ion batteries, here.
The anode is always lithium metal, in some state. The cathode is usually some metal oxide, such as MnO2 or V2O5 (manganese oxide, vanadium oxide). In the quora description above, the lithium metal is intercalated into graphite.
The electrolyte is always the charge carrier. It provides no energy itself.
As the battery discharges, the lithium metal becomes lithium ion (Li_0 –> Li_+) and the metal oxide takes up the electron released at lithium and is reduced — either to a lower oxide or to the metal itself (manganese or vanadium).
Probably the unquenchable fire was due to the lithium metal. If it is finely dispersed as an intercalate, lithium will be very reactive and likely spontaneously flammable in air — otherwise known as pyrophoric. Many finely divided metals (nano-powders) are pyrophoric in air.
When the fire is put out, any lithium left that is exposed to air will immediately combust and start the fire again. The organic electrolytes (dimethyl carbonate, etc.) are all very flammable.
Iron burns very well in air and I have a method of cutting 2 inch steel plates using only iron wires as the fuel, pushed by oxygen. The wires are stuffed into a long (sacrificial) pipe. The end is heated with an oxyacetylene or other torch. When it is white hot, the high pressure O2 is turned on coming out the end of the hot wire-filled pipe. The result is a cutting flame the diameter of the pipe. The pipe and the wires are consumed as the cutting proceeds. The flame is about 2700 C. Use a long pipe.
Then there is this possibly involved with Nancy and science? Just sayin….
https://www.webmd.com/vitamins/ai/ingredientmono-1065/lithium
ossqss: YEP ! It’s often referred to as
“There’s NOTHING WRONG with me……. I just have a mineral deficiency !!!!
I wonder if she believes in Scientology? That was at one time touted as the new “science”.
Scientology has some slight amount of philosophical and psychological justification, as do such things as general semantics.
Neither have claimed to be science though.
In it’s early days, Scientology was indeed sold as science and scientific by L. Ron Hubbard. The name Scientology itself is a clever bit of propaganda to promote that idea. The practices of Scientology were not called services, rituals or ceremonies, but rather called “technology.” The E-meter used in almost all sessions of Scientology practice sells the notion of some objective measurable entity to your studies.
The irony is that many Scientologists believe strongly in Scientology and it’s LRH “technology” can easily dismiss the notion that they are being brainwashed by long and often intimidating and humiliating hypnotic sessions, because the “tech” tells them they are experiencing the opposite of hypnosis and are freeing their minds. As a mindf**k, for some people, the Scientology meme set is both invidious and clever.
Leftwing academics have been using the same reverse-psychological sleight-of-hand, minus the pseudotechno-dowatsits, to push their agenda on wide-eyed college freshman for decades.
Nancy Good is the perfect example of a “know-nothing ding-bat”. I am an Electrical Engineer with a good grounding in physics and chemistry. It is very clear that the AGW madness is really a far-left political movement dedicated to the goal of global “social control and de-industrialization”…the definition of pure evil.
She believes clearly in neomarxism?
Isotopes of lithium, lithium 6 and 7, were used in liquid form, called wet bombs, in the test device called “Mike” in the Castle Bravo nuclear tests in the 1950’s. The 200m wide hole is still there.
So, lithium, potent stuff.
In a fusion context yes, but then so is hydrogen. deuterium and tritium
I don’t think your average lithium battery is going to formm part of anyones nuclerar deice, however.
Dang, think of the power density if it could be managed.
Castle Bravo was a dry fusion device, not a wet bomb.
The lithium used was potent for different reasons than a Tesla fire.
The wet bomb was Ivy Mike, using hydrogen isotopes..
And the crater from Castle Bravo was 2000 meters wide.
Sara, yet I will bet old Nancy would demand an illegal alien have the right to vote.
It’s entirely possible that the illegal alien would have a better education than Nancy does.
Being uneducated is more treatable than being mis-educated.
The cars are way to expensive to leave them parked out in the weather….which means you have to park a self-igniting car in your garage…..sweet dreams
It’s easier than that, just buy a Powerwall and put it on your house. What’s to lose?
PS: Don’t tell your local fire station…
https://www.tesla.com/powerwall
Fighting a lithium fire may require a class “D” fire extinguisher, such as:
http://www.amerex-fire.com/products/class-d-stored-pressure-dry-powder-extinguisher/
See model B571.
On the other hand, LiO fires should be handled by regular agents:
http://amerex-fire.com/upl/downloads/library/32-i-need-a-class-d-extinguisher-for-lithium-ion-batteries.pdf
Might require a case of them. LOL.
I checked California education statistics and found that the largest segments of Democrat supporters are in the educationally challenged group. This would be a good idea, at least in California.
It will no doubt come as a huge surprise to Ms. Good that skeptics are somewhat more knowledgeable about climate science than are alarmists. link
One correction to that article should be noted. Because a lot of the ice in the Arctic is actually below the water level and a lot of it is somewhat salty, a new estimate is that the melting of the Arctic will cause a 20mm rise. Nothing to worry about. Less than an inch. If all 200000 glaciers in the world melted, the sea would rise 400mm. Again nothing to worry about.
Hence the protracted effort to convince us that both Greenland and the Antarctic are melting down.
….er……Bob : SSSSSHHHH !!
See Michael Combs comment :
“I checked California education statistics and found that the largest segments of Democrat supporters are in the educationally challenged group. This would be a good idea, at least in California.”
WHATEVER IT TAKES !!!
WHEN IGNORANCE IS BLISS……..’TIS FOLLY TO BE WISE !
Her idea is to not let Blacks and Hispanics vote?
Good point. Someone should tell her that her voting requirements would disproportionately disenfranchise minorities, therefore she is a ra ci ist. Then stand back and watch her head explode.
She’ll either just deny the claim, or declare that if they are less educated it’s the fault of white’s therefore they shouldn’t be included in her ban.
That was my first thought. Most of the voter base she “agrees” with would probably be excluded from voting based on her stupid “rule.” LMAO.
Of course, we must acknowledge that what she REALLY means is not that you have to “understand science,” but that you have to “accept the politically motivated bullshit that SHE believes.”
SHE might pass a voter science test, if she got to write the questions, but she would certainly fail a history and civics exam. I’m betting her maiden name was “Crow”, and her father’s name was “Jim”.
https://ivn.us/2013/10/22/history-of-voting-rights-in-the-us/
“The right way to call somebody an asshole is behind their back.”
Jerry Seinfeld
‘If you don’t understand science, you can’t vote’…Good, that would keep the Warmistas and Climate Obsessed away from the booths on Polling Day.
Only “people trained in science” should vote? My degree is Engineering Physics; after 20 years of Navy anti-submarine warfare, I also have a pretty good understanding of oceanography. I think I qualify.
For the record what’s your stance on sea level rise ?
What is your take on this Alan? Perhaps it may help with perspective and timing of such?
Yes, it is from NOAA, and that is multi-mile thick ice.
All I can say is that the warming periods(interglacials) dont last too long before the next glacial period comes along. Looking at the ice core data and the other proxies the temperatures definitely will plummet within 5000 years from now but exactly when that will happen is anybody’s guess. Too much CO2 in the atmosphere can never be a bad thing unless it was stopping us from breathing. We should err on the side of having too much than too little. With too little we all die . I think that nature moves the CO2 around so that no matter how much we pump , it may not make any difference anyway.
High amounts of CO2 will not stop, or even significantly delay the descent into the deep throes of the ice age that this planet is presently in.
The present interglacial will come to an end, probably quite suddenly, and there will be nothing that we can do about that. We will then witness proper climate change, and those living in high Northern latitudes will have to move towards the tropical regions of the planet until the next inter glacial comes along.
The ice core data are pretty clear- the glacial cycle starts with sudden warming, as in 100’s of years possibly 100 years. Then there is a peak temperature and cooling starts almost immediately in fits and starts with ups and downs of a few degrees C. Sometimes cooling is interrupted by warming for a few hundred years. Eventually, 10-20,000 years, the temperature is back down to the glacial minimum. There is at least one recorded cycle where the high temperatures stagnated for most of the cycle with a looong cold period 4-5 degrees well below the maximums recorded in other cycles.
Alan Tomalty
We are 100% agreed that to little atmospheric CO2 (below 150 ppm) will kill us all.
So far, 400 ppm has done us no harm whatsoever despite what Hanson claims.
I think it would be prudent to aim for around 1,000 ppm atmospheric CO2 so we have at least a small buffer between life, and certain death.
Perhaps there will be some downsides, but at least we’ll be alive to deal with them.
Perhaps if we started an environmental movement to promote CO2 …
It’s certainly no more insane than any of the ideas on the subject and who knows? Properly “sold” it might catch on!
The entire purpose of the CAGW movement is the enslavement, control, and elimination of the surplus population. Making anything better for humanity is antithetical to the environmentalist theology.
Newminster
I think it’s a great idea.
Perhaps a NAME CHANGE ?
Instead of calling it Carbon Dioxide it could be called
Waterless -Bicarbonate or something more devious
like DRY ICE ????
I like the idea of promoting a 1,000 ppm level of CO2. With that much water locked into ice during a glacial age, the various climates of the world would likely be much drier, and that level of CO2 would reduce the water requirements for vegetation.
“For the record what’s your stance on sea level rise ?”
I’m against it.
I’m a floating voter!
For the record what’s your stance on sea level rise?
My stance is the first step out of the sea-water.
Since nobody REALLY understands the science, nobody get to vote?
We will make an exception for you Gymnosperm. Only you will get to vote. The fate of humanity is in your hands.
That’s like the comment in one of Terry Pratchett’s books: “I believe in Ankh Morpork you have one man, one vote?” To which Rincewind replied: “Yes, I know the man, and yes, he has the vote”.
And that was The Patrician, Vetinari.
Motto – ‘Si non confectus, non recifiat’.
If it ain’t broke, do not fix it, if my dog-Latin is up to it.
If you don’t know the Discworld series – and enjoy humour and fantasy, do try it.
Auto
Joking apart, I’d say that only a handful of scientists understand science and almost none of the lay public.
Be careful what you wish for…
…If you aren’t smart enough to understand science you can’t vote and you can’t be an elected official….
She’s calling for James Hansen and Michael Mann to be taken off the voting register?
dodgy geezer
What she’s calling for undermines the principles of western politics. It’s anyone’s right to vote, and become a politician if they want, irrespective of their educational standards.
The principle even operated in the Soviet bloc:
Lech Wałęsa is an electrician and: “retired Polish politician and labour activist. He co-founded and headed Solidarity (Solidarność), the Soviet bloc’s first independent trade union, won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1983, and served as President of Poland from 1990 to 1995.” Source: Wikipedia.
Nancy L. Good, Chico is a subversive and the very one who should have her right to vote withdrawn.
I’ve toyed with the idea of only letting those who pay taxes vote.
The problem with democracy is that it’s too easy for the majority to vote to take stuff away from the minority.
vide South Africa and its ANC government…
I’ve played with that idea, too, but giving one vote for every dollar in taxes one pays. Seems like you would take stuff away from the minority primarily through taxes, which would give them votes, and keep more for yourself, by reducing your taxes, causing a loss of votes. Theoretically, a balance would be reached between the working poor and the more afluent – at least that’s what my models show 🙂
i think your dollar is your vote
if you fill the trough, they will come and glut.
you get what you vote for.
Voting age persons who “feed at the Government trough” ……… will always vote for “whatever” they think will best improve/expand the quality and/or quantity of the “food” they are being “served”.
MarkW
Too bad if you’ve paid taxes all your life, then when an election comes round you’re made redundant.
And all those unemployed miners who voted for Trump, just to get their jobs back. I reckon that’s a positive indictment of our current system.
So it’s better to have millions who have never worked and have no intention of working voting to increase the amount of free stuff they get from government?
MarkW
What’s the population of the US?
What’s the unemployment numbers?
What’s the churn rate of those unemployed?
What’s the likelihood of that small minority really making a difference to an election? It sure didn’t make any difference when Trump was elected.
And how many of those unemployed voted for Trump because he said he’s going to get their jobs back?
No country will ever get rid of it’s hard core unemployed, some people will do anything not to work. But it’s a small proportion of the total unemployed, most of whom would far rather have a job.
And if you guys in the US think you have a problem with immigration, think again. Everyone in the UK, illegal or not, gets all the healthcare they need, free; emergency, long term, terminal, hospice etc. You name it.
They are also recipients of generous welfare and housing, all of them. And the new universal credit scheme means they are weaned onto jobs. Basically welfare is now on a sliding scale, so they even get benefits when they are employed.
We have healthcare tourism. They turn up on holiday with a serious condition, mysteriously fall so ill they can’t be transported back to their own country, then the family is put on welfare because it’s inhuman to separate them from their ‘dying’ relative.
The taxpayer transports many people to and from hospital, and I can assure you, at least half of them are perfectly capable of getting the bus. One woman of my experience drives her own car daily, yet qualifies, somehow, for free transport to and from hospital.
I don’t think you realise how good you have it in the US from that perspective.
“And if you guys in the US think you have a problem with immigration, think again. Everyone in the UK, illegal or not, gets all the healthcare they need, free; emergency, long term, terminal, hospice etc. You name it.
They are also recipients of generous welfare and housing, all of them.”
That’s why they come.
Just because your country is further down the road to destruction is not evidence that we have it good.
Over half the people in this country get more from government than they pay in taxes. That percentage has been rising inexorably for decades.
Spending goes up every year, it never goes down.
Every new tax bill removes even more middle class voters from the tax roles. Lower class voters haven’t been paying taxes for decades.
More goodies for those who don’t pay taxes, and the rate of increase is increasing.
The deficit has been growing faster than the economy for most of the past decade or two. This can’t continue. How long till we reach the point where nobody wants to loan us anymore money? Who knows?
” Lower class voters haven’t been paying taxes for decades.”
..
..
Can you please explain to me how lower class voters have avoided paying sales taxes for decades?
Remy Mermelstein
I think the concept of tax, in this debate, is generally income related, not spending related.
And if we imagine income tax is bad, purchase tax is an awful lot worse. It’s one sign of a declining income.
HotScot, lower class voters pay sales taxes (and other taxes), so if you predicate voting on paying taxes, then lower class voters have the right to vote.
Remy Mermelstein
But I don’t predicate voting on anything other than one person, one vote.
No if’s, but’s, or maybe’s.
No income or spending criteria, no educational criteria, nothing.
One person, one vote.
Read my earlier posts.
I’ve had someone claim that the US Electoral College violates OPOV because it inflates the value of votes from smaller states.
The counterpoint that without it the votes of smaller states would count for just about zilch, didn’t occur to him. He lives in SoCal so maybe he just didn’t consider that a problem. 😐
Remy Mermelstein, free “food stamps” is one reason that lower class US voters don’t pay sales taxes.
MarkW
Now you’re beginning to sound like Nick.
Spending is going up inexorably in almost every civilised country. None of us want to deny people anything, but the fact is, everyone needs to learn to stand on their own two feet, not on our two feet.
And I think we are arguing the same point from similar perspectives, so the debate is a bit pointless.
At least you have Trump. And I never thought I would say that.
MarkW : The US doesn’t NEED anyone to loan it money !
IT JUST PRINTS DOLLARS WHENEVER IT WANTS MORE MONEY !
That is it’s BIG advantage over other countries .
It regulates ALL the oil with PETRO-DOLLARS and most
international trade is in US dollars !
AND *****MOST FOREIGN AID IS IN US DOLLARS TOO !!*******
The US provides most of the Western World’s Defence at it’s own
expense , it virtually pays for the UN ( and I wish it wouldn’t and
the damned corrupt organisation would collapse and vanish ! ),
AND DESPITE IT’S GENEROSITY ( or perhaps because the
recipients feel a sense of obligation and the word “Thankyou”
sticks in their ungrateful throats !! ) THE USA IS THE MOST
HATED NATION ON EARTH !
TRY EXPLAINING THAT TO ANYONE INTELLIGENT ENOUGH
TO VOTE !!
HotScot: Here’s another thistle UP your kilt !
WHAT YOU HAVE DESCRIBED sounds “PRETTY GOOD” to me !
Sounds like they are on a pretty good wicket in Scotland & UK !
And you ARE RIGHT ! That is WHY they are flocking there !
What YOU are bemoaning is the UNFAIRNESS to the local
tax-paying citizen in the UK ! Och ! What sort of bigotted ,
racist , homophobic , misogynistic , Patriarchal ,
white-privileged piece of expletive are YEW !!!????
Fancy standing up for your OWN VALUES and HERITAGE !
Yew, yew,…….throw-back !! Yew dinosaur !!
Och !! What a curmudgeon yew must be !
Holding back PROGRESS and SOCIAL JUSTICE and EQUITY !!
Yew should be so consumed with GUILT ( from having
possessions , a job , having been a member of a culture
which once had slaves ! ) that you should HANG YOUR
HEAD IN SHAME …………………………and STFU !!
BUT I am GLAD that YOU ARE NOT !!
WE are facing a similar onslaught here…but OUR
ISLAND HOME doesn’t have a TUNNEL and FERRIES
connecting it to EUROPE !! That is a great help !
BUT it hasn’t stopped the bloody “greens”
( the water-melons …….green outside–red inside !! )
corrupting our education system , our bureaucracy
and our media and our political system !
Sooner or later ONE HOPES that the general public
will realise what is at RISK and RETALIATE !
ONE lives in hope ! Up the Saltire !!
And as Mel Gibson said :
“They may take our lives but they’ll never take our
FREEDOM !”
and then he chucked his sword away !!
Strange thing to do as you are going into battle !!
Could be partly why he lost ?
Trevor
I love your posts, particularly this one, but please stop shouting. There’s no need, you make great points, but people won’t read them because of the capitals.
Up yer Kilt!
🙂
MarkW : What you said :
“I’ve toyed with the idea of only letting those who pay taxes vote.”
THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL GREEK CONCEPT OF DEMOCRACY .
Slaves and women and children were excluded.
ALMOST MAKES A MAN NOSTALGIC !
Seriously…….Once people DISCOVER that they can vote themselves
money then DEMOCRACY very quickly becomes COMMUNISM
……until they run out of OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY and
they RUN OUT OF PLACES TO BURY ALL THE BODIES !
Then it gets back to Anarchy and the survivors having to
re-establish CIVILISATION AGAIN !
THAT is why it is very important to HOLD ONTO FREE SPEECH
and INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS and all the other FREEDOMS we currently enjoy !
Anybody know how is Peter Ridd getting on in his LEGAL struggle
with JCU ( James Cook Uni ) ???
Seth Borenstein just makes stuff up.
After the first three Porkies, I returned to here.
If Nancy L. believes what Seth writes she should not be allowed near matches, sharp objects, or blunt ones, either.
Good grief.
Maybe she should be kept from herself too.
Someone needs to tell Ms. Good that the dead vote, the illegal vote, and the felon vote are the Democrats most reliable demographic at the ballot box.
I Doubt anyone in those groups could even fill out a multiplication table.
/s
You forgot the imaginary voting block.
We have what is called a Baker Act in Florida to protect those who seem to be not in control and putting themselves in danger….. Perhaps this one lives on Baker Street where everyone qualifies? It is Cali in the end and not surprising…
Well, what the heck: Nancy L. Good can just join the other fascists mobbing people’s homes, shooting Republican member of congress at baseball game, throwing people out of restaurants and beating up (female) college professors.
Actually, this crap has gone on more than long enough and it’s time there were real legal consequences before more people are shot or killed because on foaming-at-the-mouth fools like Maxine Waters and Nancy L. Good.
It seems to be part of a wider phenomenon, such as witnessed after the last Presidential election. People seem to have an expectation that other people are required to agree with them. Their beliefs, their voting preferences, pretty much anything and everything. Where people might previously have agreed to differ, and recognise that the world often wont conform to what we want, now there seems to be an expectation that the world must, and will, change.
Is it caused by the internet, social media, or maybe the preening self-importance of old media as it actually loses its dominant influence? I dunno. but it is both interesting and slightly alarming.
And consider the effects of Hope and Change.
“Hope & change” had effects? Who knew?
You forgot the ‘y’s — hopey changey.
It is a particular delusion of the Left that there is One True View, and they are its custodians.
The mere possibility that a view is, after all, only a view, and the truth is far greater than any view, and therefore that the world inevitably consists of many many views, all of which have a little merit, and that politics is therefore the art of balancing views in order to have a peaceful society is absolute anathema to the Left and makes them feel totally insecure.
The Left is fundamentally the refuge of those who wish to find the One True Way, if only someone will tell them what it is…and naturally there are plenty of candidates for that.
Sigh. Thats what we created organized religion you know. For all the sheeple to have a Book to Tell them what the One True Way was. Carefully organized to ensure that not a single one of its tenets had much political impact, except the general exhortation to be nice to one another and let the ruling classes rule.
Please be careful how you phrase your comments on subjects like The One True Way and a Book. This can refer to Islam. It will be taken very badly . Christians and Jews have a collection of ancient texts ( Bible) and Jews have commentaries and Torah and so on. Just have a look on line and don’t get the blog into political trouble. Check out the history of Jewish and Christian scriptures. It’s not what most people thought in the nineteenth century when Marx brought out his Manifesto.
The EU seems to be determined to censor the Internet so I suppose in the future certain American websites could be banned from appearing on the EU internet if said websites discussed subjects the EU considers taboo such as criticism of radical Islam.
I think all of us should fight back against efforts to silence people the way the bureaucrats in Europe are seeking to do. This same kind of censorship won’t happen in the U.S. At least not for a while. But had Hillary been elected, the U.S. would be headed down the same censorship road as the EU. We may have to declare Nov. 8, 2016 as Freedom Day. 🙂
Censorship is not the answer to hate speech. The answer is to counter one hateful idea with another idea. Hateful ideas can’t stand the light of day.
Speak up. Don’t let the authoritarians shut you up.
The pursuit of synthesis, the complementary dialogue, is very much a lost art in this day and age. The focus is entirely on thesis and antithesis, the adversarial dialogue.
We insist that a battle of ideas must always have a winner and a loser, then act surprised when all sides fight tooth-and-nail to not lose.
Read the juicy parts of the Talmud and discover that they hate Christians more than Islam. The 2 religions have much more in common with each other.
Most of those parts were written while Christians were doing their best to exterminate all Jews.
Beyond that, the Talmud is not sacred text. It is at best, commentary on the sacred texts.
recently read an interview of Michael Hoffman by the Saker. Interesting discussion of this very thing;
http://www.unz.com/tsaker/an-interview-with-michael-a-hoffman-ii/
No. Just progressives.
It’s actually endemic to the human condition. The individual person is very small, weak, and (albeit subconsciously for many) aware of his very finite time and place in the vast, perilous cosmos.
As such, the human person is impelled towards something greater than self. Family, clan, tribe, nation, culture, and religion all work to (and are meant to) address this need. Those structures exist both externally and interiorly, thus internal distortions of an otherwise healthy external society may cause profound anxiety on the individual. Likewise, an unhealthy society will fail to address the very need it is meant to fulfill.
How the individual reacts to these flaws and the inevitable challenges of life is where things get ugly. One of the ways people address this anxiety is through obsessive overcompensation. The result is the fanatic. A fanatic can be anything from a hoarder, tiger-mom, helicopter-dad, fascist, communist, inquisitor, etc. – it is the nature of the fetish, that is the object of obsession, and the perceived threat that determines what sort of fanaticism that is produced.
A fanatic cannot permit any credible (to him) challenge to his fetish; such would necessarily destroy his internal universe, and thereby his very psyche. Self-preservation demands that the fanatic do whatever it takes to eliminate that threat, even subverting the very foundation of his fetish. Thus we see environmentally concerned efforts to chop and fruy endangered birds, the defense of secret and post-normal science, etc.
Now suppose that one were, by malevolent impulse, to intentioally create an ideology/religion with the intent of maximizing fanatical behaviour?
First, it must be irrational and inconsistent, yet have an appearance of rationality and consistency. This is less difficult than it sounds, thanks to the art of propaganda. The subconscious mind senses the flaw, and the conscious mind is left in perpetual unease.
Second, it must insist that the only virtue is one of membership. Abuser, alcoholic, embezzler, whatever one may be is virtually morally neutral in comparison to being a member in good standing. Likewise, exclusion from or rejection of the faith is evidence of insurmountable moral failure. Stacking clericalism of any sort is, of course, natural and especially delicious.
Thirdly, it must alienate its adherents from all healthy relationships and social structures. Failing that, it must attempt to pervert those relationships into unhealthy ones.
And there you have it, the stuff of my nightmares.
I find it quite interesting that all of the low-knowledge imbeciles belong to the other political party.
The current position of the Left seems to be: If I disagree with what you say, I will fight to the death your right to say it.
Voltaires they are not.
Some SJWs try to justify their calls for censorship as a defense of free speech. The speech of the privileged must be restrained, y’see, so that they don’t intimidate the oppressed into silence.
A claim both insultingly patronizing and smelling of rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul duplicity.
Well there will be lots of pro-choice folks unable to vote for their unscientific views on the beginning of life. Lots of folks confused on anatomy and biology when it comes to gender and genitalia, too.
What is the scientific answer to the beginning of life, then?
…..42
Life on Earth began a few billion years ago and since the beginning, there has been a continuous “chain” that passed life through the intervening years and successive generations until the present day.
The eggs of the female have life. The sperm of the mail have life. When they combine they produce the possibility of there being brought into existence a unique organism that has never lived before in the entire long history of the chain of life and which has one chance — this one — of ever experiencing a unique life. Most potential life comes into existence as just that — potential — and then fails to reach fruition. Most female eggs die without having been fertilized by a sperm. Just about all male sperm die without having found a female egg to fertilize. Life is a tenuous condition. Enjoy the one that you have while you have it. Most potential unique organisms fail to achieve the unique life that your parents passed on to you and that you have now achieved.
I “believe” in a creator. You “believe” in evolution. I “believe” in adaptation within species. You “believe” that one species can transform into another. Neither or our beliefs are verified. Other than adaptation.
Something that is dividing and respiring is surely alive?
Are you claiming that a fertilised egg does all that stuff without being alive?
Eggs respire.
Leaves transpire.
WUWT inspires.
Russia conspires.
Or so I’m told
There isn’t one. Only hypothesis
”Lately, the left has become even more unhinged than usual”
It’s because the Conservatives are winning. Bigly.
I don’t know if I can take much more of this Trump, SCOTUS, Pruitt-EPA winning!
OK, I lied. I can take a lot more of this winning.
And that means the Left is just getting started with the unhinged thing.
Maybe you missed the protests, progressives defecating in the streets and hauling suspected Trump voters out of their cars?
It’s going to get a lot worse before it gets better. Below I give a link to an article about a young “progressive” who is predicting a return to bombings to punish those who fail to follow the progressive path.
I’ve always felt that one should have to be a US citizen, alive, and both literate and numerate (SAT scores > 700 in both domains) to hold office or be allowed to vote. It would help to have the basics in science, for which there could also be an SAT-like test. And one should have to be knowledgeable of current affairs. And this would have to be applied especially for anyone seeking elected or appointed office – especially.
Note, before exploding, that I said everyone – regardless of race, creed, color, national origin, or previous condition of servitude.
The problem with this is that the current affairs test would be based on what’s reported in the MSM, and the ETS would be forced to lower the standards for the SATs.
We send our representatives on expensive trips abroad. But they keep coming back.
High IQ or SAT is not a guide.
Angela Merkel has a Ph.D. in Physics.
I asked a friend about if she was bright enough to advance that far in Physics how could she be so stupid in politics?
The answer was “She grew up in East Germany.”
It is a common misconception that politicians actually believe in what they say.
Merkel is bright enough to understand that in politics no one really knows, and therefore the common currency is not Truth or someone’s vision of a better future, but simply credible blatherskite.
That is, they will say and do anything to get elected, (or appointed, in non-democratic countries), and once there will do and say whatever the powers that be tell them to do.
The quality of Trump is that he does precisely this BUT he doesn’t even bother to pretend he isn’t doing it, and he seems to be less beholden to the Powers That Be than most, so he is actually able to achieve change.
Trump does not need other people’s money (OPM) he has enough of his own F U money to allow him to make change so freely. I think someone made a post about “scientists” of old had enough F U money to make a difference whereas most “climate scientists” today just fall in line to continue to be paid.
Men are more about logic, women, emotion, that’s why. Women arent leaders of men by nature. For this very reason. Despite your feelings on the subject. IQ has little to do with it.
Retired_Engineer_Jim
My belief is that western democracy is founded on the belief that everyone has a vote, irrespective of their education, or lack thereof. Moreover, anyone can become a politician, irrespective of their education.
I posted a few comments above yours about one Lech Wałęsa, a Polish electrician who, arguably, lit the blue touchpaper that eventually saw the fall of Russian communism.
Now, whilst he had a basic education and an electricians qualification, he was not conventional political material. But were he an illiterate labourer, would he have achieved less than as an electrician. And I imagine he would be the very one to fight for the right of an illiterate labourer to achieve high office.
On the other hand, my belief is that immigrants should demonstrate a grasp of literacy and numeracy to their host’s standards, but that’s only to ensure they don’t retreat into enclaves that eventually become slums because people can’t, or won’t communicate.
“My belief is that western democracy is founded on the belief that everyone has a vote, irrespective of their education, or lack thereof. Moreover, anyone can become a politician, irrespective of their education.”
Well, of course. It’s called democracy after all. But that doesn’t make it right. It’s circular thinking to believe that the goal of democracy is to provide democracy. The woman in this article is wrong, and I don’t think only scientists should vote, but I do find it absurd that in order to drive a car you need to go to school and learn it, but in order to vote you only need to be citizen and right age. Both are things many people get automatically. Because politicians only decide about small things like war and peace, poverty and wealth. Even Socrates and Plato criticized democracy calling it illogical and mob rule.
Political philosopher Jason Brennan said that even though everyone gets a vote, in practice this vote is meaningless. You get so little power that it doesn’t matter anymore. The chance of you influencing an election is very small. There is no penalties or rewards so you might as well follow your biases. He also argues that political participation is not interesting or useful for most people, and in fact just makes people jerks. The right to vote is more like “feel good” symbolic argument. He is not advocating for expert rule, but only argues that voting should be slightly more restricted. Atleast experiment and try it out. More info on his views: http://jasonfbrennan.com/videos/brennan
I believe that some kind of education or “voting school” should be necessary. Atleast in order to expand people’s views. Especially for politicians. In fact I would make it mandatory for a politician to learn some goddamn economics before becoming a politician. It wouldn’t be perfect and there would always be people trying to game the system, but maybe then we would have lot less socialists and protectionists, and especially “Green” politicians brainwashing people using good feelings.
Fredar
I can’t say I disagree with you about the car driving/political education system. It seems bizarre except that people learn to drive cars because they want to learn to drive. If people don’t want to learn politics, no one can compel them to. Most schools have some sort of extra curricular debating classes where they can get a taste of politics but there’s enough pressure on the existing curriculum with some calling for financial education on top of everything else.
I think the best way to learn politics is to grow up in a politically aware family, which I didn’t. It took me until I was 45 before I started looking into it.
And I’m not sure I agree with Jason Brennan, every vote is vital, we all get to make decisions about the small things if we care to vote, and that installs MP’s (Members of Parliament in the UK) to represent us on those, and the bigger issues they have educated themselves in, even if we haven’t. And how ‘slight’ would the restriction be on voting rights? As soon as the individual right to vote is restricted, it can be restricted more, until, by stealth, the right to vote is eventually withheld from all of us because we don’t qualify.
Look around you, that’s almost precisely the tactics adopted by the greens and the left relative to climate change. Without any evidence whatsoever, they have seized the initiative to, as Christiana Figueres says, “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,”
Changing what, to what? “The only economic model in the last 150 years that has ever worked at all is capitalism. The evidence is prima facie: From a feudal order that lasted a thousand years, produced zero growth and kept workdays long and lifespans short, the countries that have embraced free-market capitalism have enjoyed a system in which output has increased 70-fold, work days have been halved and lifespans doubled.” https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/
So, in other words, utilise the climate change movement to overthrow a successful political, social, and economic system with, say, socialism? How long will the individual vote last under her vision of a perfect political future? Or perhaps she has ambitions on a religious future?
Finally (sorry to go on) I read somewhere a saying, “never trust a career politician” because they’ve never done anything worthwhile in their lives. Requiring people to learn economics before entering politics is as much use as demanding them to understand climate change before they become an MP and would only encourage people to embark on political education as a career path.
Our best politicians are invariably the ones with a proper job before entering politics, Churchill was in the Army and fought the Boer war; Margaret Thatcher was a Chemist, and Trump is, of course, a businessman. And a country is nothing, if not a huge business, with a balance sheet that demonstrates it’s success or failure. And whilst the left bleat about the ‘humanity’ of spreadsheet politics, no businessman wants a single person in his organisation to be unemployed. So it is with a country.
Employ everyone, raise modest individual taxes, and generate trade internationally. That’s democracy and representation of the many over the few. Socialism turns that on its head, pandering to the minority with scant regard for the majority. Our current politics are littered with minority lobbyists and pressure groups, perverting the course of good governance.
If Trump continues the way he’s going, he’ll have a landslide second term because people are beginning to recognise he’s not bothered about the distractions, he has one goal, to make his country as successful as it can be. Then he can sit back and address the minority issues.
Fredar,
Sadly, in much of the US, you don’t need to go to school in order to get an operator’s permit.
Retired_Engineer_Jim, ….. is there a State DMV in the US that does not require any and/or all “non-licensed” applicants to be, per se, sufficiently “home schooled” on vehicle laws and regulations in order to “pass a test” prior to being awarded a “Learner’s Permit” that is prerequisite to their obtaining a Driver’s License.
Non-licensed illegal immigrant “applicants” not included in the above, …….. of course.
Hot Scot
Always enjoy reading your posts. I will, however, take small exception to this one. Our Western democracy (I’m in the US) was also founded upon the idea of a well-informed electorate. I can’t perceive a voter being well-informed if she/he isn’t also educated. It also requires a free press which actually reports the news without editorial embellishment. Leave the editorializing for the Op-Ed pages.
Otherwise, I agree, and, of course, the idea I proposed would never be implemented. Just a thought.
So sayith: Hot Scot
“Being educated” is a highly subjective subject matter. And the “# of years” of attendance in public/private schools, colleges or universities ……. and/or Degrees awarded, …..is not a literal proof that one has actually been “educated” in/on the various subject matters that elected officials have to deal with.
And worse yet, both educated and uneducated voters have no “say-so” about the “political appointees” who actually make most of the per se “government decisions”.
Retired_Engineer_Jim
Jim, and I yours.
In most western countries, basic education is normally free and readily available. We are probably talking 99% of the population of N. America, western Europe and Australia having a secondary school education.
Whilst China and India may not achieve quite that, I don’t imagine they will be too far behind, but lets say 50%. And bearing in mind that in India, English is something more than just a second language, the country is the base of innumerable call centres because their command of the English language is so good. Their accent is a problem, but that’s another discussion.
Back to the point. Education per se isn’t the problem, it’s the subject matter that’s problematic. It’s multi faceted, often complex, long winded and frequently boring. The only people really interested in it are we old fogies who occupy blogs which allow its inclusion because science, particularly climate science, is so wrapped up in it.
The problem isn’t education, it’s persistence. And youth has no persistence whatsoever, other than a few individuals. I have a daughter who graduated in Zoology (now completing her Masters). She hasn’t a clue about politics, she would know who our PM is but probably couldn’t explain the difference between capitalism and socialism, despite my best efforts. I also have a 37 year old son who is utterly brainwashed by socialism, and Scottish National socialism at that. I had no influence over the first 30 years of his life (long story) and he has been infected by the idealism. However, he probably couldn’t explain the difference between capitalism or socialism either. We had a heated discussion on the subject the other night, as well as the climate. To no avail, he’s none the wiser.
My point being that if there were a case for voting restriction, I would suggest it be by participation. If people care enough to engage in the political discussion in years prior to elections, by joining clubs, or debating groups, or even political parties, of their own free will, then perhaps there’s a value that could be attributed to their vote.
My personal view is that children should be seen and not heard. We attribute far more value to the intelligence of youth than they deserve when it comes to the bigger picture. They may be great at focussing on tasks, but what’s discussed on this blog is invariably beyond them when it comes to the politics of the matter. There are, of course, exceptions.
And of course, I think it was Churchill who said ‘If your not a socialist before you’re 30, you have no heart, if your still a socialist after 30, you have no brain’. I paraphrase of course.
The result of our over valuation of youth in modern culture is that we are swamped with ignorant, over enthusiastic, puppy idealist’s who don’t yet realise that socialism is, historically, an abject failure wherever it has operated.
Engagement and persistence with the electoral system is the only means of ensuring an intelligent political dialogue is maintained in western cultures. The desire to effect change in a structured and patient manner is far more valuable than climate change marches motivated by mis information fed to our gullible youth by a media desperate to ensure its bottom line is maintained.
Our youth turn on us like a pack of rabid dogs, accusing us of ruining their future. Yet it was our parents that fought wars to ensure their freedom to vote for a free world. We asked little of our parents for our future, we boomers just got on with the job of ensuring our children’s future was as good as it could be. Snowflakes have no concept of global war, they think the world is a violent place now, yet it’s more peaceful that it’s ever been in it’s history.
They should be making hay, but instead, they are whinging and complaining about what they don’t get from life.
Education has noting to do with voting privileges in my opinion. Caring for your fellow man by engaging in the process is much more important.
When the US was founded, states had the unrestricted right to determine voting rights. For most states, one had to be a free man (almost exclusively white), over twenty-one, and own property. Universal suffrage is a rather recent development, not achieved (at least under law) until 1920. Considering the person under discussion here, I’m beginning to wonder if giving the group granted voting rights in 1920 was such a good idea 🙂
The problem is that the government designs the test. Yes, the SATs and such are at present relatively content neutral. But base voting on them and all sides will immediately start fighting to have these tests slanted their way.
A while back I told an online friend of mine that I thought it was wrong to sack people because they did not believe in climate assumptions, groupthink, or ‘consensus’. She said she’d have no hesitation sacking climate ‘deniers’. If she had the opportunity. Since then, this climate mania has taken on an entirely different meaning for me. It really is a disease trying to rot the soul of Western thought; often succeeding.
Its groupthink. Bandar Log
A whole generation of people who never could think for themselves have been taught to think in a way that a certain power bloc wants them to think, so their reactions are predictable and they can be conditioned to all behave in a uniform way if certain psychological buttons are pressed.
That way the unelected elite can use these buttons to achieve what they want by disguising it as ‘social justice’ or ‘ecology’, whichever is more convenient.
Now I realize why I was the kid in the class that was asking more questions to the teacher than the rest of the class combined in every class I ever attended. Most of us are never taught to think for ourselves. I dont know who or what taught it to me. But I am glad that I always look for the other side of the argument. Amazing how often it has more merit to it than the original argument. I now consider that my life has been ruled by scams. Everyday I get 2 telephone calls trying to scam me. I even get them in Chinese.
Reading Orwells 1984 should be mandatory.
Orwells’ “The Animal Farm” is likely a better fit for the set of conditions by which we find ourselves virtually imprisoned.
Animal Farm – Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm
The animals revolt, driving the drunken, irresponsible farmer Mr Jones, as well as Mrs Jones and the other human caretakers and employees, off the farm, renaming it “Animal Farm”. They adopt the Seven Commandments of Animalism, the most important of which is, “All animals are equal”.
“Animal Farm” is how is how you get there.
“1984” is what happens once you are there.
Start them on Animal Farm, first. It really does all build from there.
Awesome idea! You need a degree in science – an engineering degree (BSEE here), physics, chemistry, biology. Geologist. Hard sciences. We MAY let mathematicians into the fold, too (applied, none of you theoreticals)…
Any other degree? You don’t have the proper standing to vote. No degree? No vote. Degree in business, English, history? No vote.
Works for me!
As a Chemist by profession and education, I have met plenty that shouldn’t be voting. Politics is emotionally driven. You can see where I’m going with this?
I’ll take that requirement. How many Democrats will be left who don’t:
1) Oppose nuclear power
2) Oppose GMO/believe “organic” is healthier
3) Oppose vaccination
4) Believe fracking causes groundwater pollution
5) Think that the Earth is running out of landfill space
6) Think that recycling of anything but a few metals is energy efficient
7) Believe in the Precautionary Principle (corollary: Do not understand the null hypothesis)
And so on…
Oh and they all believe in the Ozone hole scam as well
Oppose which vaccinations? Those proven safe? Are there any?
Those that save far, far more lives than any side-effects (which everything has) kill.
And those that prevent far, far more suffering than the occasional side-effect.
Nothing is “safe” – try sticking your head in a bowl of water for a few minutes.
“Those that save far, far more lives than any side-effects (which everything has) kill.”
Another faith based assertion.
What about the lives broken by MS caused by the hep B vaccine?
Another faith based assertion.
Nearly all studies found increased number of MS after hep B vaccine, most “non significant” (by design).
Is there anything in medicine more certain than the hep B vaccine/MS link, which is of statistical nature? (except the effects of low dose rate radiation)
How safe do you need to feel? Before the polio vaccine there were over 10,000 cases a year (often WAY over, +40,0000) with over 1,0000 deaths, just in the US.
Within a decade of the vaccines release those numbers had dropped to under a hundred, and a decade after that into the single digits.
As with all injections there is always a small chance of a side effect, like an allergic reaction or infection. In the US there are only a couple each year.
Since the late 1980’s there has been a worldwide push to eradicate polio. In 1988 there were over 35,000 documented cases worldwide, and estimates put undocumented cases at 10 TIMES that.
In 2012 there was still over 200 new cases of Polio worldwide, mostly in Nigeria and Pakistan. Last year there was 22.
~¿~
Interesting. That were so perfectly brainwashed.
So why why “polio” redefined just when a vaccine became available?
Ah yes, anyone who doesn’t believe as you do has been brainwashed.
You aren’t at risk for Smallpox because millions of people like me were vaccinated. You are welcome. Now do your part by getting vaccinated for those plagues not yet wiped out.
Which vaccines are not unsafe?
Close enough to all of them that the difference doesn’t make any practical difference.
So what caused the 50 000 more cases of MS in France alone?
What causes the ever increasing cases shaken babies in the US? The allergies? Autism?
Actuaries know not to insure vaccines for
manufacturers against vaccine complications
And if we add in at least the basics of economics as a science…
Phoenix, unfortunately — since there is a certain logic employed — economics remains witchcraft, not science. 😉
I propose a different voting requirement: only people who pay net tax get to vote.
If you aren’t helping to carry the load, you don’t get a say in where the load is going.
In the USA, I believe you originally had to own land in order to have a vote.
Even better, one vote for every dollar of net taxes paid.
Here is a copy of a post I made to Larry Kummer’s website. Larry was complaining that the climate scientists were not acting in the best of manners to further their cause.
“The IPCC is a joke. In the 1995 IPCC report Ben Santer single handedly completely changed the conclusions of the working group which were at that time they had no evidence of AGW. He wrote the policy for policymakers and it was a 180 degree turn of the scientists conclusions.
NOAA, NASA. NCAR, BOM , the MET Office and the New Zealand climate agency , and Michael Mann all either fudged data by adjusting the temps up or produced fake graphs. Tony Heller ,Paul Homewood, Ross Mckitrick and others have proved this.
Purcell and Dessler are only 2 examples of scientists that are PhD’s that are a disgrace to the scientific profession. I can provide you with a 100 other examples of climate scientists that should have never got their PhDs. They arent scientists. They are followers of a religion as are you Larry because you have fallen for this hoax. Any site I visit that allows a true debate, the skeptics are now ridiculing everything that the alarmists are saying. I have looked for 30 years and I ask everyone I meet Have you seen global warming yet? No one has been able to say yes. This is such a joke I am amazed that groupthink could be so powerful. I am not a scientist but after looking at both sides of this for a year 8 hours a day, I am amazed that there has not been 1 piece of evidence that global warming is real. At least for a valid debate you would think that the alarmist could point to something. Oh yah I forgot. There was one study recently that showed the plants grown with high CO2 levels had slightly less vitamins. I don’t think that anybody will be malnourished because of that . I know enough now that I could debate a team of climate scientists and would relish the debate and would win it. But the alarmists are too scared to debate. Our PM Trudeau in Canada wants to put on $75 billion on carbon taxes in the next 5 years. The stupid thing is that if the companies pay, the CO2 won’t go down. If they switch to another more costly fuel, the temperature of the world will go down 5/1000 of a degree C in 82 years. We are living in a world of Oz; all caused by 1 crazy idiot James Hansen.”
According to The Goreacle (and many other warmists), you don’t have to be. They just look out the window.
……. and still get it wrong !!
The same people who say that, also declare that those without degrees in climate science aren’t allowed to disagree with them.
I swear this global warming hoax has made most of the population dumber. Here is a tweet by Rebecca Willis of England yesterday.
“I was a victim of climate change yesterday, with trains delayed by hot tracks getting me home from London 1.5 hours late. Small inconvenience for me but a sign of significant impacts of climate change on infrastructure “
There was another significant impact of climate change on infrastructure in the UK in 1940, when trains were blocked by snowfall. But I don’t suppose that counts, ‘cos it’s the wrong date…
dodgy geezer
A more recent example was leaves on the line.
Presumably they were falling in the wrong place because of climate change.
But snow is a result of climate change, dontcha know?
Yet it was nowhere near the hottest June day ever in the UK – five or six degrees off how hot it was in June 1976.
You do know how fast (or not) Indian trains are, don’t you?
They are always slow compared to the UK.
That this may correlate with temperature does not of course mean that temperature is the cause of slow trains in India 🙂
It may be that UK trains have always been slowed in (for the UK) temperatures as high as they are today. It may be that such slowing is new.
In any event conflating such delays with climate change is of course gonads, oblate spheroids (or more politely utter rubbish).
I’ve been on UK trains. They are no faster than trains in the US. We routinely get summers hitting 100 F here with no impact on rail (neither freight nor city commuter systems), and we are far from the hotest climate in the US. The mid-eighties temps the UK is having is our normal daily summertime temperatures.
Perhaps the UK should not have constructed rail lines out of silly putty…
The railroad track can shift out of alignment in very hot weather. The term we use in the U.S. is “sun kink”. They can cause derailments.
I didn’t realize that CAGW had been connected to sun kinks. These alarmists don’t miss a trick.
There are some good pictures of sun kinks at the url below.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sun-kinks-in-railways-join-the-list-of-climate-change-s-toll/
I used to work for a couple of railroads (M-K-T and UP) and we would send track inspectors out ahead of trains to check for sun kinks when the temperature got above a certain level.
Schitzree, it depends on what the system was designed to handle.
Emotionally driven drivel
Well, I hate to break the news to Nancy, but if we try and determine if a voter understands science prior to registering, we need a metric to measure their knowledge. So, I propose registrars administer one of those pesky student measurement tests for high school level science. (Although in my state they quit doing high school, and an 8th grade test would have to suffice. Seems the pass rate for high school was not very good. Solution: quit giving the test.) But, even 8th grade level science only has a total pass rate of 66%. Guess we could use a high school math assessment as a science proxy. Oops; pass rate is about 26% for 11th graders. As others have mentioned above, here is where Nancy’s suggestion and my solution would run out of gas with “progressives” real fast: when numbers are crunched for “student groups” (i.e. ethnicity) by the local school districts, it points to 75% of future Democrats denied the right to vote if we test them first. Now that I think about it, Nancy has a great idea. /s
I was thinking you shouldn’t be able to vote unless you graduate high school with a B average. That would no doubt get her blood boiling. A throwback to the times of only landed gentry being able to have a say. 🙂
Her suggestion she likes because “understand science” to her means “parroting the ‘correct’ answers”.. ie. only those who agree with her politically should be able to have a say.
Back in the day, most taxes were land based. So restricting voting to those who owned land was a roundabout way of restricting voting to those who paid taxes.
That got me thinking.. Who was the congressman that was worried the island of Guam would tip over because there were a lot of troops on it?
[rummage].. This guy:
Most on the left probably think he is a genius and should be able to vote 3 or 4 times !!
……And you think there were no voters who voted for Hank Johnson more than once the last time he was elected? Actually, there is a bit more to the Guam story: I heard the same comment when I passed through Anderson AFB, Guam, in early 1964. That was during the beginning of the build-up for the escalation of the war in Southeast Asia.
The comment was an ironic “G. I.” joke. The rest of the story is that Guam was going to tip over and sink because of the amount of military hardware that was being accumulated and stored on one end of the island.
Some “G. I.” jokes achieve near immortality and then live on long after their original meaning has been disconnected, lost and scattered “on the sands of time.”
What is really sad is that he is more intelligent than the representative he replaced, Cynthia McKinney.
If those two, plus Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters were on a game show, none of them would be able to correctly answer the question, “What is your name?”
Why just science? How about history and government? Then this fool would know poll tests are unconstitutional.
Confidence is inversely proportional to knowledge. QED.
If she is really into science, I suggest that she might like to go any count the polar bears herself. I’ll chip in for a seal carcass that she can use.
An awful lot of people I know in the UK who are confirmed Alarmists are university educated, but with Arts degrees.
In the 2015 general election, out of 650 MPs, only 26 had science degrees! That’s 4%.
By contrast there are 94 MPs with history degrees, so four times as many.
Sadly over 150 have social science degrees….Maybe that explains the state we are in?
…..And of course there are those whose “learning” mode is rote memorization of “facts” that are being regurgitated by a classroom lecturer whose learning mode was rote memorization of “facts” that had been memorized and regurgitated by a classroom lecturer of an older generation of lecturers.
“CO2 is a greenhouse gas” is a simple, easily memorized little factoid that is becoming a part of universal scientific knowledge. And that little factoid has the advantage of being true as is stated in that simple statement. It’s easy to remember which makes it hard for a true believer to believe that there may be others who just don’t get it.
factoid
noun
1.an insignificant or trivial fact.
2.something fictitious or unsubstantiated that is presented as fact, devised especially to gain publicity and accepted because of constant repetition.
Factoid indeed!
I don’t know how many people can cope with all the different principles and concepts in every field so I’m not sure how any test could work without bias. Would they do a test like Dr. Tim Ball referred to a few days ago “This is like some 40% of the European and American public still think the Sun goes around the Earth even though Copernicus showed it was the opposite 475 years ago.” I don’t how many were ignorant or had put more thought into it than the questioner but its not something that Copernicus did do.
If you were to start to figure out what the celestial bodies were doing from observations on Earth wouldn’t you start with 0 for the x, y and z coordinates of the place from where observations were made? For anyone who can’t do calculus, why wouldn’t you keep Earth at the centre of your universe rather than the centre of mass? The question is about as unscientific as asking how many colours are there in the rainbow https://www.the-scientist.com/foundations/newtons-color-theory-ca-1665-31931
If your eyes have glazed over, you’re probably hung up on the centre of a circle needs to be equidistant from every point on the circumference but it was known by even Kepler’s time that the Copernicus’s heliocentric system was just as poor as the Ptolemaic at predicting the movement of planets. What Copernicus showed was that insisting on circular paths was wrong. The real paradigm shift came with Kepler. Not so much the choice of elliptical orbits but that it was a the better choice solely because it worked – or at least it worked much better than the other two.
Nancy, the Earth is neither round nor flat (which can be the same thing), it’s spherical. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
How is this woman so stupid when she only has one head?
A government-administered test to see who can vote for the government. No, I don’t see any problems…
I think the voting age should be raised to 25. I was going to put a smiley face there, but then I thought, “No, I’m serious.”
I would allow exceptions for those who served in the armed forces. The objective is to have mature voters. I know 18-year-olds think they know everything, but they don’t. When they get a little more mature, they will realize this. 🙂
I read something a few months ago about a group of people who want to lower the voting age to 16.
I read that, too. Bad idea!
I think we should go back to only allowing men to vote.
She is just disguising her true ideology: “anyone who disagrees with me cannot vote”. Typical modern progressive.
At least she isn’t demanding that they be sent to the gulag.
Yet.
I saw the quote attributed to Mark Twain. My favourite that I was told was a quote by him but have never found is
Never argue with an idiot, you sink to their level then they beat you with experience
I prefer the Mark Twain comment, “Never argue with stupid people, they’ll drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”
Seems that Nancy needs to pass what was a 5th or 6th grade test for me, if she wants to be eligible to vote, so here it is.
1 – Does the Moon orbit the Earth? How long does it take? Why does it change shape?
2 – Does the Earth orbit the Sun or does the Sun orbit the Earth? (Okay, I made that one up, but it fits right in here.)
3 – Why do some trees change color in the fall and others do not?
4 – What is the difference between “new” mountains and “old” mountains? Give examples of each.
5 – Why do we have seasons?
6 – How long is the longest day, and when does it happen? How short is the shortest day, and when does it happen?
7 – Why does the ocean have tides? Are there tides on any inland lakes?
8 – What is a solar system? How far away is the nearest star, other than the Sun?
9 – Who invented the electric light bulb. How many experiments did he create?
10 – What are the chemical formulae for the following: A) water; B) salt; C) dry ice; D) household ammonia (a common cleaning product)
11 – What is the biggest difference between fish and land animals?
12 – What is a good way to stop erosion in farmland?n (Got this in 4th grade)
13 – Why are crops rotated?
14 – What kinds of plants fix nitrogen in the soil?
15 – What is the difference between deciduous trees and non-deciduous trees?
Now, if Miss Nancy can answer those basic science questions, she can vote, according to her demand for qualifying to vote. Personally, I don’t think she can answer them, but that’s just me.
Yes, we had good teachers and good science school books back in them there Dark Ages. Maybe it’s time we brought that back and demand an end to the ‘feelz’ stuff and groupthink.
Oh, yeah — you have to answer those questions without looking them up, ’cause we weren’t allowed to look them up, either.
Sara, Nancy could possibly get 9, 11, 12, & 13 right.
9) Algore and lots of experiments
11) Fish are in water and land animals on land
12) Plant the farm land with trees
13) If they weren’t rotated then the roots would be sticking up
That’s a bodacious giggle and a good way to start the day. Thank you!
OK, Sara. I will try.
1 – Does the Moon orbit the Earth? How long does it take? Why does it change shape?
A. Depends on your coordinate system. B) 28 days. C) On a large scale, it does not change shape, a few feet either way, gravitational tidal forces.
2 – Does the Earth orbit the Sun or does the Sun orbit the Earth? (Okay, I made that one up, but it fits right in here.)
Again, depends on your coordinate system. (Anybody who can not plot the correct orbits in a geocentric coordinate system flunks!)
3 – Why do some trees change color in the fall and others do not?
Evergreens have no sense of color and style. They need to take an art history course featuring the Impressionist masters, such as Monet. Hardwoods are not so artistically challenged.
4 – What is the difference between “new” mountains and “old” mountains? Give examples of each.
New and Old are relative, all I know is “The Old Man In The Mountain”, the state icon of New Hampshire.
5 – Why do we have seasons?
To make our food taste better. Otherwise, we would all get tired of our own cooking.
6 – How long is the longest day, and when does it happen? How short is the shortest day, and when does it happen?
A) The Longest Day is a classic movie showcasing the events of June 6, 1944: the Normandy Invasion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Longest_Day_(film)
B) The Shortest Day is also known as “Groundhog Day”, a romantic comedy where the same day happens over and over again.
7 – Why does the ocean have tides? Are there tides on any inland lakes?
A) People who ascribe things that happen on Earth to the moon are called “lunatics”.
B) Opinions vary. Great lakes – tidal, or wind driven depending on who you ask.
The Baltic Sea, same answer, same reason.
8 – What is a solar system? How far away is the nearest star, other than the Sun?
I scream every time someone mentions that Han Solo made the Kessel run in 9 parsecs. A parsec is a measure of distance, not time.
9 – Who invented the electric light bulb. How many experiments did he create?
A) My pet dog, which I named “Edison” for his inquisitive and pesky nature.
B) Created none, conducted many.
10 – What are the chemical formulae for the following: A) water; B) salt; C) dry ice; D) household ammonia (a common cleaning product)
A) wet
B) Lithium Aluminum Hydride, LiAlH4. My favorite salt, useful in organic reduction reactions.
C) Ice – Wet == Dry Ice.
D) Yukk – use Windex instead, and stop stinking up the whole house.
11 – What is the biggest difference between fish and land animals?
This is a tough one. I know some *very* fishy people. Cold blooded, you might say. I know people like that. Scaly, swims with sharks, lays eggs, has gills. Ditto, ditto, ditto, and ditto.
12 – What is a good way to stop erosion in farmland?n (Got this in 4th grade)
Stop farming that land.
13 – Why are crops rotated?
So they always face the sun.
14 – What kinds of plants fix nitrogen in the soil?
Nitrogen is not broken, it does not need to be fixed. For a hundred years, the N-N triple bond was the strongest bond in all Chemistry. This was supplanted in the early 1970s with the discovery of the Ru-Ru quadruple bond by Soviet Scientists. The discovery was so momentous that the Soviet Union issued a postage stamp commemorating the event. That was, and is, the only postage stamp ever issued by any country to recognize a discovery in chemistry. (True, sadly)
15 – What is the difference between deciduous trees and non-deciduous trees?
Some have stamina, and some fade out. See my above comment about conifers needing an Art History course.
I hope this helps.
Best answers ever!!! I hope for more participants. Thank you for the hearty laughter on my part!!
And I ‘d bet the cost of a Rosati’s pizza that Miss Nancy couldn’t answer even one of those questions.
Cheers, and all the best.
>>
I scream every time someone mentions that Han Solo made the Kessel run in 9 parsecs. A parsec is a measure of distance, not time.
<<
I believe the boast was 12 parsecs. Obviously, George Lucas thought a parsec was a unit of time. The Star Wars fan base and the latest movie have been trying to explain the mistake away. The second in parsec is an angular measurement–not time, i.e., one second of arc. It’s used to define a measure of distance. A parsec is about 3.26 light-years. Neil deGrasse Tyson says light-year has nothing to do with time, but it’s the distance light travels in one year–so time is involved in its definition.
Jim
>>
Sara
June 27, 2018 5:04 am
6 – How long is the longest day, and when does it happen? How short is the shortest day, and when does it happen?
<<
Your question is very ambiguous. A Solar day is defined as the time between the Sun’s position at one meridian and the next meridian. That used to be exactly 24 hours. But now the second is based on a number of cycles of cesium, so a Solar day is increasing slightly over time (due to tidal friction). The actual rotation of the Earth, i.e., one complete rotation in relation to the stars, is called a Sidereal day. Because the Earth is revolving around the Sun, after one Sidereal day the Sun hasn’t quiet reached its meridian. A Sidereal day is slightly shorter than a Solar day.
If the definition of a Solar day is (roughly) 24 hours, then every day is just as long as the next (ignoring the slowing effects of tidal friction). Of course, you probably mean: when is the day of longest daylight? Well that’s ambiguous too. In the Northern hemisphere it’s on Summer Solstice. In the Southern Hemisphere it’s on Winter Solstice. At the Equator, the length of daylight and night-time are about equal all year. In the tropics, they only have two seasons: wet and dry. Tropical deserts only have dry and drier.
Your question is obviously phrased from the biased position of a Northern Hemisphere person who experiences four seasons during the year.
Jim
Well, this would eliminate the current crop of “scientists” claiming humans are making the climate change, so, OK . I can go to my kitchen right now and prove I understand science, so I get to vote. I don’t see a problem with this one! 😉
Actually, I agree with Nancy. If you do not understand science, you do not vote.
Voter Registration Question: What is the Ideal Gas Law?
Answer: “PV=nRT” : You pass
Answer: “PV=nRT AND DON’T YOU EVER FORGET IT” : TonyL was your instructor, yes?
The Ideal Gas Law is based on the probability that there are beans available which will not produce flatulence in the consumer.
They mean to make logic out of their politicized “science”. Either you made it or you support the agenda behind it. The rest is just, what did Hillary name it? Deplorable people
If you do not pay net share of government spending you cannot vote. That would pretty much end almost all the insanity happening in governments.
The Earth is not round….it is (almostly) spherical.
I think the technical term is oblate.
Meaning flattened. A bit.
Not the same as “flat” I guess?
The Earth is shaped something like a bagel or a frosted doughball, but without the frosting or cream cheese.
Dang, and I was about to mount an expedition find and bring back the frosting.
Democrats lost the election. Most of them fooled themselves into thinking they’d win. They wanted to win. Some non-rational part of their minds still thinks they did win. They are in that word starting with ‘d’. They didn’t get their way, and they can’t accept that. Many/most of them have collectively gone insane simply because their believed-sacred Will has been thwarted. Things will get worse until their mental health issues are addressed. The media are enthusiastically promoting this insanity. I’d bet fully half of US media poisonalities have already prepared crocodile-tear speeches blaming others for the inevitable assassinations.
A week or so ago Hillary gave a speech in London, during which she whined about how awful the Electoral College was.
Last time I checked, Brit’s don’t vote directly for Prime Minister any more than Yanks vote directly for President.
In the US we vote by state for a panel of electors, who then in turn vote for president.
In Britain they vote by precinct/district/? for a party, then if that party gets a majority, that party’s leader becomes PM. If no party has a majority, they bicker and barter amongst each other and if they can come up with an agreement, somebody becomes PM.
If anything, the American system is a tad more direct.
If I had my druthers, here in the US we would divide the Electoral college electors, one per Congressional district, with the two senatorial electors decided by who wins the state.
Careful what you ask for.
If you use Congressional districts, you inflict the same district Gerrymandering on the E.C. which plagues the House of Representatives.
I do not know if Gerrymandering is a big issue where you come from, but the state I come from actually *invented* the term “Gerrymandering”. It has been a pox on our house ever since.
************************************
The term was first coined by a local newspaper commenting on the newly created district.
The guy who did it was some “Gerry” something or other.
The “mander” part was because the district had the shape of a *salamander* snaking it’s way across the state, avoiding hostile territory along the way.
And so “Gerrymander” was born.
The problem now is that all of the votes for a state tend to go however the one or two biggest cities vote.
With district level voting at least some of the rural votes will still matter.
The other difference is that vote tampering in those cities have the potential to flip the state and gather all the votes for that state.
With district level voting, vote tampering only wins you that one district.
This is what happens when your kids are not allowed to play in games/sports that have a risk of losing the game. The ‘everybody gets a prize’ is a disastrous way to raise kids. They do not know how to accept failure. They have rough lives ahead, poor things.
“The media are enthusiastically promoting this insanity.”
And this is very dangerous because this spewing of Leftwing hatred is agitating the psychopaths out there, and is no doubt causing them to consider turning violent. The next “baseball practice shooter” is already out there.
The Democrats are promoting violence and giving unstable people permission to act out their violent tendencies.
Perfect example of a snowflake: Clueless, livid that Trump won, self-righteous, virtue-signaling, and highly emotional, particularly about the things she has no clue about such as what science really is.
The left has always been looking for an excuse to outlaw opposition to itself.
Section 201 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 reads as follows (in part):
No citizen shall be denied because of his failure to comply with any test or device, the right to vote in any Federal, State, or local election
Ms. Good would have to contact her congressman or a California Senator to have the law repealed. That state’s delegation is nutty, but not that nutty.
This morning I read an article about a young progressive who is predicting a return to 70’s style bombings in support of “progressive” causes. From the article the young man seems close to giddy at the prospect.
http://www.wnd.com/2018/06/up-next-1970s-style-bombings-warns-progressive/
The 1970s radicals mostly blew themselves up. Yes, there were a few fatalities among the innocent, but the radicals doing the bombings did not last long, for the most part.
People who took chemistry in college knew better than to have anything to do with that stuff. The ones who did not know better were the ones who got involved. The results were predictable.
********************************************
Questions:
Who is Bill Ayers and what was his connection to a group called the “Weather Underground”?
Why did Bill Ayers sponsor an upstart politician named “Barry Soetoro”?
“The 1970s radicals mostly blew themselves up. Yes, there were a few fatalities among the innocent, but the radicals doing the bombings did not last long, for the most part.”
I think the bombers thought that there was going to be a huge uprising among the people and against the government and they thought their setting off bombs would spark this uprising.
But just the opposite happened and the American public was calling for the bomber’s heads, not praising them or joining them.
I think that is why the bombings were few and far between. I think that will happen again if the radical Leftists try it in this day and age.
The Left deludes itself into thinking most people see the world the way they do. They had a rude awakening on Nov. 8, 2016, but they seem to be sinking back into their dream state again.
These days they have the internet, plus various jihadists who would be more than willing to give some training.
Oh, yes, the 1970s. I remember the horror in Philadelphia (because I worked there) over the bombmaking death of the daughter of a wealthy Mainline Philly family who blew up herself and her friends (except for Ayers and Dornn) when pipe bombs they were making detonated and destroyed half a block of housing in a Florida community.
Those were the days, my friend, and this clown thinks there’s nothing to bombmaking, huh? And we’re all Nazis because we don’t agree with his political views.
Well, gee whiz, Myra, now that he’s announced it, the stuff he boasts about knowing – that insider thing, you know – are already under inspection.
Lefties suffer from projection; transferring their genetically inferior pathetic self diagnosis onto others. The more dead someone is, the more qualified one is to vote. Their hypocrisy is blatantly obvious. lol !!!
https://www.nbcnews.com/video/freak-low-water-levels-in-venice-italy-cause-problems-593347651990
Just a few months after the high water levels in Venice she was wailing about……guess what?!
Well if those that don’t understand science can’t vote, then that would eliminate the voting by 97% of alarmists, journalists, and university professors.
Would voters need to pass an IQ test or a literacy test? That may not be a bad idea, although it was rejected in the past because it discriminated against Black people.
The land of the fruits and nuts.
And flakes. We call it the cereal state.
Tempting! It would eliminate 90+% of all elected politicians from voting!
The problem with Ms. Goods post and the article referred to is they’re only talking 30-40 years. That is to short a period to make a difinitive statement on climate, especially world climate.
In the same spirit I’ll make the following observation:
The sun is showing signs of going into an extended period of low activity. Historically it is similar to the 1800’s with an extended period of late springs, excessive rain, heavy snow,cold winters, and bad weather in the Central and Eastern United States, and hot, dry, weather with erratic rains in the Southwest. Globally the unscientific global temperature may go up a few tenths of a degree C, but unlikely.
It’s climate change alright, but not the kind being hyped in the media and by Ms. Good.
So you need to pass a calculus test, computer modeling, statistics, etc? I’m okay with that.
Science encompasses many, many things. I’m good with geology, meteorology, botany, biology, agricultural science, animal husbandry, etc.
Amazing how the SJW crowd thinks it’s unjustified to require someone to provide identification to prove who they are in order to vote, but thinks it’s OK to bar people from voting based on their lack of “scientific knowledge” – of course, that’s the pseudo-science SHE “believes,” anyway, not even ACTUAL science.
I’ll “translate” her “rule” for her –
“If you aren’t gullible enough to accept the pseudo-science that I believe in, you can’t vote and you can’t be an elected official.”
Classic projection combined with classic hypocrisy on Ms. Good’s part.
Never argue with an idiot. They’ll just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Thomas Jefferson promoted that only landownership qualified a citizen to vote. He lost that argument.
Well that would rule out most Climate Scientists from voting…… 🙂
When I go to the link where the letter is, the website begs me to turn off my ad blocker, which, of course, I refuse to do — there’s a reason I have it, and I automatically click out of any websites begging me to turn it off.
But I get the drift.
The letter that would write in response would consist of three words, … actually the same word used three times in succession, mirroring the hypocrisy of Ms. Good:
Dear Ms Good, … stupid, stupid, stupid.
And I wouldn’t sign it, because that would take up too much of my time.
While all of us here could pass a general science test, NONE of us could pass her “fantasy science agenda test”.
She should be careful what she wishes for. Her perceived opponents might do better on a science test.
As a Chemical Engineering major, I took the same University level classes (English composition and literature, etc.) that the liberal arts students took. They did not take the standard chemistry classes we took, but an easier level (think Chemistry for non-majors). I think the other majors should take the real physics and chemistry classes like the rest of us. Otherwise, they don’t have enough foundation in science to decide whether something is scientifically accurate to be able to make a rational decision. Has this person, who implies that she is scientifically literate, since it’s obvious that she includes herself as worthy to vote on environmental policy, demonstrated that she has enough scientific training to meet her own criteria?
Does Borenstein realize that folks who are smarter than himself find him boring? I wonder if that runs with the name.
At the risk of being misjudged by onlookers:
“These are the same type of people who refused to believe the Earth is round and not flat.” Actually those who in the past believed the Earth was flat are throe who went along with the “expert” consensus.
It didn’t happen, at least not for something like 1300 years. A myth made up by fairytale writer Washington Irving. Still taught in classrooms though.
Hey, ANOTHER basic right the progressives would take away.
Either a) understand science, or, b) possess a photo ID card. Both are apparently a bridge too far for many.
KEEPER: Stop! What is your name?
ARTHUR: It is Arthur, King of the Britons.
KEEPER: What is your quest?
ARTHUR: To seek the Holy Grail.
KEEPER: What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?
ARTHUR: What do you mean? An African or European swallow?
KEEPER: What? I don’t know that! Auuuuuuuugh! (plunges into the abyss)
BEDEMIR: How do know so much about swallows?
ARTHUR: Well, you have to know these things when you’re a king you know.
In the good old days (up to 1950) Cambridge and Oxford and some other universities had their own MPs. Ireland still has university senators.
The College of William & Mary held a seat in the House of Burgesses of the Virginia Colony in 1693.
Now, of course, the brain boxes would vote against Trump and Brexit so thank God they don’t get the chance!
Newton was an MP for Cambridge U. His only recorded utterance during Parliamentary sessions was a request to close the window because it’s too cold LOL
On other occasion he said “I can calculate the motions of heavenly bodies but not the madness of men.” He could be thinking of MPs
Science question for Nancy:
Please explain “Exothermic oxidation reaction”, since you are so concerned about it.
I have proferred the idea here in australia that all greens and their voters should be forced to live on 100 percent renewable. Absolutely no backup. As i see it its not really coercion. Its what they want.
amendment –its what they want for other people to do
We had a similar Green demand Down Under a few years ago
Dr Clive Hamilton standing as a Green candidate opined that if the public were not prepared to vote for Green policies designed to save the planet, then maybe democracy would have to be taken away from them.
( No doubt leaving political decision making in the hands of a self- chosen elite group -of which naturally he would be one )
Happily this latter day autocratic did not win the seat he stood for and I think may have lost his deposit for not gaining enough votes
Clearly show that theme is poltical. Politicized “science” is only logical for those that made or support it.
I’d like to know what Nancy Good’s scientific qualifications are. I wonder if she could pass her own voting test. I’d like a chance to put money on it.
“of course, nobody in their right mind would bother responding to it” – except you
And does one letter represent the entire ‘Left’?
Nancy Good is a real nut case, a very common critter now days. Not much can be done about such stupidity.
First of all, what this person is describing is a “poll test”, where a prospective voter has to display some level of education in order to be allowed to vote. Perhaps she needs to read up on her history, but this was tried once, in the South, in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Until it was ruled unConstitutional. You see, though it might seem like a good idea to prevent idiots from having a say in how our government is run, in practice, such a system is far too easy to corrupt. In the South, white men (Democrats, every one of them, by the way) wrote the questions, with the obvious intent of making sure blacks (and possibly females as well) couldn’t answer them. The point is, whoever is in charge at the time gets to write the questions, and therefore has the power to determine who gets to vote and who does not. Even if they don’t consciously set out to skew the test results in favor of one party over another, the bias will still come out through subconscious effects.
But IF we’re going to enact a poll test, why should it be solely based on science? I happen to think that, if there’s any knowledge that should be considered a pre-requisite for voting rights, it’s a working knowledge of the US CONSTITUTION. After that would come Basic Arithmetic, Basics Language skills (any language), US History, Logic, then Economics, in that order. Science would come after that, tied with World History, Basic Accounting/Finance/Banking/Consumer Credit, Basic Statistics, and Basic Law (criminal and civil).
I’m pretty sure Ms. Good would fail four of the top 6.
I could go for this. However, since if you cannot follow the math, you cannot understand the science, and are just substituting faith in God for faith in Science, FIRST you have to pass a math test. Which will include statistics, differential equations and matrix algebra….without which you cannot understand statistics, and therefore know nothing of what you are talking about. When one of them shows me he understands the Laplace transforms, what they do and why they are important to DoE, then I will listen to them about science.
There is a reason I do not opine on string theory. I get lost in the math. 99.9% of people get lost in the math. And 99% of liberals get lost on the math on Climate “Science”. But they believe in it by Faith.