- Back to the Main Site
- Daily Links
- Hat and Hair
- Topics A-C
- Topics D-G
- Topics D-G
- Topics H-M
- Topics H-M
- Topics N-S
- National Security
- Not So Easy Pieces
- Nuclear
- Obamacare
- Omaha Beach Diorama
- Opinion
- Outdoors
- Politics
- Poll
- Prepper
- Privacy
- Products You Need
- Racism
- Rant
- Recipes
- Regulation
- Religion
- Reloading Series
- Reviews
- Right to Repair
- Rule of Law
- Satire
- Science
- Second Amendment
- Secret Nazi President
- Sexuality
- Social Justice
- Social Media
- Society
- Sports
- Strength Training
- Subsidies
- SugarFree
- Supreme Court
- Topics N-S
- National Security
- Not So Easy Pieces
- Nuclear
- Obamacare
- Omaha Beach Diorama
- Opinion
- Outdoors
- Politics
- Poll
- Prepper
- Privacy
- Products You Need
- Racism
- Rant
- Recipes
- Regulation
- Religion
- Reloading Series
- Reviews
- Right to Repair
- Rule of Law
- Satire
- Science
- Second Amendment
- Secret Nazi President
- Sexuality
- Social Justice
- Social Media
- Society
- Sports
- Strength Training
- Subsidies
- SugarFree
- Supreme Court
- Topics T-Z
- Topics T-Z
Select Page
The good news is Joe’s not deterioriating.
The bad news is Joe was always an idiot.
I see no bad news in that later revelation other than other idiots that believe a system that robs from the productive to help an inept and corrupt political class stay in power through government handouts (‘free shit’) will now feel even more compelled to vote for one of their own…
I don’t agree that he’s not deteriorating, although I do agree that he was never better than a 3rd rate intellect. If he makes to the nomination, Trump should campaign against him the way Clinton campaigned against Bob Dole. Honor and respect for his “public service”, but we are moving into the future now, and #SlowJoe is the past.
That’s Scott Adams take, too. No way Trump is going to do that.
Eh, the news is going to spin it anyways so might as well have some fun.
At least Bob Dole had some public service that was worth honoring.
His stint on The Real World was worth honoring.
Hey? Where’d my comments go?
They weren’t made on “Secret Nazi President”
What I like about Becky is her refreshing honesty
I can see Hannah’s links.
Family Friendly!
I particularly enjoyed the fact that Biden’s doctor said his brain is “functioning”. Quite a ringing endorsement there.
I don’t think he’ll make it. He looks like shit and is even worse with the gaffes than he was 20, 10 years ago. You’d think dementia would’ve made him less gaffe prone. You know, like adding negatives.
I don’t not know what you’re talking about.
Disagree. His gaffes have always been this bad.
I couldn’t believe Obama chose him to run for Veep after his ridiculous “clean and articulate” comment about Obama.
Never forget:
Joe Biden has actual, literal brain damage. He had more than one stroke.
I was unaware of that until his doc’s tweets. It was two aneurisms wasn’t it?
Yes. And he’s been confabulating for years. Perhaps most notably during the 2008 debates with Palin.
My mom had a series of TIAs (mini-strokes) and wound up with multi-infarct dementia.
According to the New York Times, there is no point in talking about the Greenland story unless you can link it to racism by OrangeManBad.
The Gray Lady is a tranny with her balls hanging out of her jogging shorts.
Nice.
cons: no RDA
pros: Hanna and the doc
and if not Biden, then who else will they vote for. apparently Harris is dropping precipitously in polling.
It’s sad gropin’ Joe would be the least awful dem with a chance to get nominated.
cons: no RDA
What are you talking about? They were talking about Joe RDA’s brain.
Yeah, Harris suffers from Hillaryitis. Her popularity is inversely correlated to her visibility. In her case, familiarity truly does breed contempt.
I really don’t get the criticism about Trump being an unhinged loudmouth when Hilary, Harris, Warren, etc. are exactly the same. Joe and Bernie (and Obama before them) may be calmer, but that’s because they are completely aloof as to what is going on.
“D” vs. “R”
I see Newsish is having a hard time with ratings. I for one approve of this directive to have Hanna report au naturel. Thanks oh dear Baked Penguin for this goodness.
Wonderful work, as usual BP!
I especially like Hana’s contributions!
That is a nice pair of contributions.
Awhile back, I posted about why there’s good reason to be pessimistic about the 2020 elections, namely, that the Dems could very well take control of the entire federal government.
And now we have this:
I have no idea how valid his methodology or results are, but there can be no doubt that Google is deeply in bed with the Clintons and the Democrat Party, and that they do in fact manipulate political search results. I don’t believe that doing so has zero effect.
*Not that Epstein.
Are there really that many undecided voters left? Given how far the masks have slipped, I think most people have a pretty clear picture of where the Democrat’s are at.
Undecided voters are pretty much casual consumers of news, who get their information largely mediated by the tech monopolies, which are deeply invested in obscuring the worst of the Dems and highlighting/manufacturing the worst of the Repubs.
Hell, I work with intelligent people who are totally bought into the Trump is the Debbil narrative, believe that Trump and the Russians were up to something and Trump managed to close down Mueller to hide it, and are completely unaware of the abuses of the FBI, DOJ and intelligence community in the whole Russian collusion debacle.
If most people are aware of what the Dems have become, why all the polling showing Dem candidates beating Trump? Even accounting for push polling bias, I don’t think you can square that with most people being well informed.
The polls are all bullshit. I don’t believe any of them.
I’ll also agree that many people are uninformed.
My point is are they really undecided between a guy who is delivering on his promises, or candidates who elevate illegals over citizens.
If I was going to run one ad, it would be “free healthcare for illegal immigrants”. That shit don’t fly with the middle class who have to pay for their insurance and jump through every government hoop put in front of them.
My point is, do undecideds/casual consumers really know Trump is a guy who is delivering on his promises, or the Dem candidates elevate illegals over citizens. I see no reason to believe they do.
Isn’t the subject the state and local elections, and not POTUS?
Keep in mind that if you don’t want to hear “news” from non-leftist sources, you can swim in that soup forever without coming up for air. The same is not true on the right. People on the right are almost always aware of what is getting reported in left-wing media because it is ubiquitous. There are stories that exist in right-wing / not leftist media that most Democrats have never even heard of. I’m talking about objective facts, like how many people died trying to cross the Mexican border in the course of a year when Obama was president. This never got any coverage in the “mainstream” press, because it was covered on the right as a failure of border security under Obama. Now that Trump is president, every death is mourned as a martyr.
The majority of people are shockingly uninformed.
Apathetic and uninformed aren’t necessarily the same thing. At the end of the day, I lean towards apathy myself.
Word. I have to do a near daily deprogramming of the gf who, like her parents, mostly gets “news” from the likes of CNN and MSDNC. I told her I cultivate multiple sources to gain multiple perspectives on an event in order to get a more complete picture. That is why I am not subject to TDS.
So, how do we “fix” google and FB?
Garden shears, needle and thread, cone of shame.
Strip them of immunity under the CDA.
Even taking the generous reading of what stripping Section 230 from the CDA would mean, I don’t see how it has any relevance here. What are you going to sue Google for? NYT v. Sullivan keeps them immune from defaming politicians, and even if you got rid of that they’re under no obligation not to manipulate their search results.
It’s probably worth noting that all search results are “manipulated”. Google won the search wars because they manipulated the results better than the competition (and they tied their search business into their advertisement business). Two Google searches for the same keywords will often yield different results for different people, in different places, and at different times. This is typically done to give you more relevant results. Words have overloaded meanings, previous search times often given context to subsequent search terms, regional and temporal events give context to searches, etc.
To ban manipulation, you’d first have to differentiate “acceptable” from “unacceptable” manipulation.
google won the search wars because it became the generic term for internet search. Nobody ever said “yahoo it” “or Alta vista it”, people said “google it” even when google was in 4th place among search engines. Even today I never say “duck duck go it” even though I never use google. And google is going to be the default search on android phones, which probably has even more to do with it.
Google won, because it was fucking good.
Then it became a monstrosity as it monetized being good at search.
I never found google to be better than any other search engine. I used to use it when you could click on the “cached content” link to get around registration bullshit, but when that went away I stopped giving them my clicks.
Yahoo sucked/sucks. It was almost wholly human curated, which drove their costs up.
Altavista was Google’s real competition until Compaq acquired it and destroyed it, like every other thing they touched.
Google was excellent for a number of years, but for me it got a little too clever for its own good. I’d use an ambiguous search term (naturally, can’t think of an example right now) and it would show me what it thought I meant, which was related to previous searches but not at all what I wanted. Or it would show things that were less relevant but more popular. Nowadays, I find Bing does fine, although I personally use DuckDuckGo.
Yahoo continues to suck.
I think you are putting the cart before the horse. Yes, Google became the generic term for search, because they out-innovated AltaVista, AskJeeves, etc. That’s not to say the others didn’t put up a fight, and maybe towards the end of the wars, Google won on name as much as anything else. But, Google knocked out the competition with a one-two punch:
1. Offer “nothing but search”. The Google home page was a logo, a box, and two buttons for a long time.
2. PageRank. Sergey Brin and Larry Page developed a better search algorithm (not entirely on their own, of course) while at Stanford and that was (and may still be) the foundation of Google’s search results.
What are you going to sue Google for?
True. I think the CDA mostly protects the “platforms” – Google, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube.
To ban manipulation, you’d first have to differentiate “acceptable” from “unacceptable” manipulation.
Fair point. Perhaps require their manipulation algorithms to be “open source”, at least in the sense of “published”? Not very libertarian, I know.
Well, consumers could demand it instead of government. But Google’s consumers are advertisers, and apart from political advertisements, they don’t currently have much reason to demand greater transparency. As for the political ones, well Google hasn’t pissed off the right people yet.
Competition. There are a number of businesses engaged in anti-competitive practices which would normally merit some attention from DoJ. Setting that aside, the consumer end needs to change. TANSTAAFL, and Google and Facebook are in the business of handing out free lunches. Consumers paying for Internet services directly is likely the only way to “fix” this problem, if only by giving more opportunities to competitors. Right now, ads control the business and Google controls ads.
The sort of anti-competitive practices I’m talking about are those of the banks. Right now, the major national banks are all enjoying the privileges of Federal Reserve membership but are exercising a level of control over their associates that most other businesses are denied. If a baker cannot be allowed to choose who he bakes cakes for, why does a bank get to choose who it banks for, when the reasons for both have nothing to do with the business? Right now, some people get to have consciences, and others don’t.
You’re very correct. The banks ganging up to deny financial services to gun manufacturers or people with unpopular opinions is a foreboding turn of events.
Although I expect one of the reasons that people aren’t more upset about Google is that it is a fundamentally impenetrable problem. It’s Google’s algorithm.
The level of regulation of banks also makes it almost impossible for new player to enter the game. It’s impossible to build an alternative.
It was a stated policy if not explicitly written into the Dodd-Frank monstrosity that there was going to be a moratorium on new banks being created. I would love to see what a second-term Trump would do about that, knowing full well that a first-term Trump would never touch it. He’d have no more ass to kiss once the second term started and he’s not beholden to any party apparatchiks that would whine about “losing to the Democrats”.
It’s probably not explicit anywhere, but they definitely know that it’s easier to get the big, established banks (that were already beholden to the federal teat) to “comply”* than a bunch of upstarts.
* = Compliance with regulations is always a balancing act between the effort spend on appearing to comply and the potentially disastrous consequences of actually complying, not to mention the different “interpretations” of the same provisions
Staff: Who do we get to create a new banking regulatory framework?
Obama: Find the two most corrupt motherfuckers you can.
Well, one problem with Google and Facebook, certainly for Google, is that certain previous administrations that shall remain nameless loved “tech” so much that they would hire Google execs as technology advisors, then they’d rotate out to do lobbying. Google is embedded in K Street. When Barry was president they skated by on copyright infringement cases related to scanned and digitized images of copyrighted material that would have sunk a company without its connections.
No doubt Google is in the tank, but I do think the effect is overstated as much as Russian ad buys or such.
I don’t see how you can believe that Google manipulation of search results doesn’t have an impact orders of magnitude beyond a few hundred thou of Facebook ad buys.
Because people know what they are searching for and recognize when google is not giving them the results they want. Example, the other day I was curious what the positive effects of global warming could be. Things like how much land is freed from ice vs lost to sea level rise or longer growing season, deaths to increased heat vs deaths to cold, etc. The first 50 results were how bad climate change is and it’s going to kill us all. I can’t believe people are putting in neutral searches and buying the first result as the one true result.
You know what you are looking for. Most people don’t get off the first page of search results. Somebody who is more casually looking for “what are the effects of global warming” is never going to see what you eventually found.
You’re probably right.
*takes long pull from bottle*
You’re overestimating the intelligence and curiosity of the average person.
I’m sure there’s a term for this, but I find that libertarians also overestimate how much a person’s decision making process is impacted by reason as compared to emotion. People on the whole are much more emotional creatures than we give them “credit” for.
Sure, if political reasoning was just about the facts then libertarianism would be much more popular than it is. Emotion and things like ingrained personality traits have to be playing a substantial part in the decision making process as well.
Naw, Libertarians are just as emotional as others, just they’re bitterly shouting “Leave me alone!” instead of the various other goals spumed forth into the political ‘discussion’.
absolutely
collectivism and confirmation bias explains almost everything
Libertarians are just as emotional as others
I don’t disagree. I think we have a more rational than most community of glibs, but anybody who doesn’t acknowledge their own emotional component in their decisions is lying to themselves.
I never lie.
I don’t think libertarians or classical liberals are more or less rational, but I think, particularly with the former, they’re more likely to see reason (drink!) as a positive or even necessary component to political decision-making and ideology.
It’s far better than postmodernists who see reason as absolutely unattainable and therefore, at best, irrelevant. Feelings are where the truth lies.
Yeah, agreed. It’s ok and totally normal to have emotional stake in an issue, but that can’t be the basis of sound policy and it can’t stand in place of logical argument. Maybe that motivates you, but you have to recognize that just because you feel very strongly about people wearing sweat pants to restaurants doesn’t mean that there’s a rational foundation for having those people arrested.
I’m not denying that he may be overstating the impact. But the Russian ad buys had zero impact on voters (or near enough to make no difference), so any imputation that they were effective is overstated.
Remember also: YouTube belongs to Google. Their ability to highlight or bury information extends to YouTube as well, not just Google search results.
This.
We’re concerned about some Russian internet trolls when one multi-billion dollar company controls 85% of online search.
I think the humorous part of all this is that Google needs you to believe that they can alter consumer habits in order to sell their main product, internet ads, while they are simultaneously denying that they could sway an election with search results.
They’re not swaying it, they’re un-swaying it. All that bad influence has to go. Only good influence will be allowed to remain.
The problem of how they get to decide what is good or bad influence is at a level of intellectual honesty they have purged from their conscious thought.
This^
Adding to this problem: I just read today that 50% of Google searches do not result in a click. That means that people just read the synopsis in the results and don’t bother to click through to the source web site.
Or, they don’t find what they’re looking for and do another search.
2/3rd or more of my searches start out with one set of terms and need to be revised to clear out unrelated pages with textual overlap.
Or could be the results weren’t what they are looking for and refine the search terms.
If I’m asking a specific question, most of the time the blurb at the top of the search results is all I need.
If it’s been over fours, call your doctor.
bah
over four hours
Well, if it’s something like “What’s this metric value in real units” sure.
Or it turns out the synopsis doesn’t buttress the argument they’re making so they skip it.
I’d bet 50% of google seraches are the unidentified phone numbers on a cell phone that someone didn’t want to answer. There’s never a reason to click a link on those results.
Google also provides all kinds of inline answers to questions, too. You can convert between currencies, translate words into other languages, find the definition of an obscure term, and all kinds of other things directly from Google itself.
True, but google isn’t the only search engine that provides that.
Most people vote to signal to others in their desired social group.
This is particularly true for “undecideds” and “independents”. Their vote is the message that they wish to send to their peers.
This makes them very susceptible to misinformation and manipulation, since they’re not basing their vote on policy and data. They’re basing it on what they perceive as the best way to gain social approval.
Most libertarians don’t seem to really give a shit what other people think of them, so they have a harder time imagining Sally basing her vote on Becky’s reaction to her vote.
+1 I don’t know anyone who voted for Nixon.
If Biden is out due to senility, then isn’t it true that every plausible remaining Dem candidate is on the record endorsing reparations?
Trump’s winning strategy: equate voting for a Democrat with paying reparations.
Are there enough white cucks so Trump won’t win?
I am truly amazed that things have worked out the way they have. I felt like 2016 was this weird anomaly where the two least likable candidates ended up with the nomination.
Now the D’s have managed to field an entire squad of unlikable, flawed candidates.
A special bassist story for BP
Thanks, that kinda ties in with Raphael’s take on Newsish’s ratings and Hanna.
Classic.
A long, long, time ago, even before TOS, I used to listen to Rush Limbaugh. Didn’t he used to call out Biden for plagiarizing other peoples’ quotes in his speeches? Or am I thinking of someone else?
Yeah, he plagiarized stuff, back when plagiarism was considered bad.
Hanna Links looks familiar.
Kelly Brook. Page 2 model.
BTW, Don’t search for more than her name at work, and make sure “safe search” or whatever it’s called on your browser is on.
Not that it matters much. Tracking still works in private browsing.
Unless Trump pushes the US in to a recession, this why the Dems will not carry Iowa in 2020.
It that 40,000 the number of unemployed persons? That’s about 55% of the capacity of Kinnick Stadium.
July 2019
Labor Force: 1,723,304
Employment: 1,680,527
Unemployment: 42,777
Unemployment Rate: 2.5%
The unemployment rate in Iowa in October 2018 was 3.6%, which is around 17,000 fewer unemployed in July, 2019.
It’s because the Unemployment rate is a useless number measuring unemployed jobseekers who have held a job previously, explictly exclusing discouraged workers, first time jobseekers, and so on.
None of those stats are perfect, but Employment rate seems to be a closer measure of the real question. As you point out, unemployment measures people who are looking for work and can’t get it, so it excludes people who’ve given up looking entirely, something Obama’s team took advantage of when crowing about his unemployment numbers.
“looking for work and cant get it”
And all I hear from employers is “we cant find enough people to fill all of our positions”
I might be a bit skeptical about the ‘looking for’ and ‘cant’ parts.
“looking for work and cant get it … under the terms I want” is more complete, as is “we can’t find enough people to fill all of our positions… at the rate we want to pay”
They will eventually come together if left alone long enough.
Why not just as skeptical of employers “looking” but can’t hire. I’ve seen plenty of job offers looking for DBA / Back end/ Frontend magician coder and only willing to pay way below market rate. There is always going to be some structural friction because some employers and some employees are asking too much.
Yeah you might want to aim that skepticism at the employers because every time I hear an employer say they can’t find enough people to fill the positions it turns out they are looking for a masters degree with 25 years experience in a very narrow field for an entry level position paying $15 per hour.
Obviously that is a bit of hyperbole but the reason that employers cannot find employees is that the refuse to adjust their expectations on employee qualifications, they are terrified of ever having to train anyone on anything, and they do not respond to the inability to hire by raising wages.
Rasilio, when I was part-owner of a software development firm, us owners used to look at what other potential employers in the field were willing to offer, and we came up with “20-20-20-20” as a shorthand: employers wanted someone who was 20 years old, had 20 years worth of relevant experience and was willing to work 20 hours a day for 20 dollars an hour.
And then our competitors wondered why we had all the high-quality employees and contractors working for us. Dumbasses.
October 2018 was 3.6%
It’s been below 3% since October 2017.
Labor force and Employment have been climbing steadily for a year.
New people are coming into the labor force while unemployment hangs around 2 1/2 percent.
I think he meant October 2016. 35K more people in the labor force and 53K more jobs.
I did. Thanks for enacting my labor.
I agree this matters more than a little and is key to the swing states
will we see this effect in WI, MI, OH, and PA?
and which way will it swing ?
I think it is the only thing that matters.
The Dems showed strong in Iowa in 2018. But the unions were pretty much silent (except for supporting the twat in the 2nd district whose parents are lifetime labor activitists).
Nothing anything of the Dems are pitching are going to make blue-collar labor in the rust belt happy.
Trump will win or lose based upon what he does or doesn’t do to fuck up the economy over the next 15 months.
Looks like the news coverage is actively attempting to cause a recession by inciting panic.
I know that in the past The Economist looked at the R-word indicator to predict an upcoming recession: how often the word “recession” appeared in the media. Given that everyone in the media wants Trump’s defeat, it’s not surprising that they are happy to say “recession” over and over again.
Unless Trump pushes the US in to a recession
I don’t think Trump can “push” us into a recession, any more than Obama pulled us out of a recession.
I don’t think Trump can “push” us into a recession
Ok. I over stated.
But his trade wars can certainly disrupt segments of the economy that provide the paychecks to the people he needs to win the election.
The single best thing he could do for his reelection chances right now is use his pen and phone to cut a bunch of economic regulations back and squash these recession rumblings.
I don’t think Trump can “push” us into a recession, any more than Obama pulled us out of a recession.
I think it is far, far easier for the government and members thereof to destroy things than to build things. Therefor, I am much more confident that the government is able to destroy a good economy than to create one.
The Bee is on fire!
Portland Police: ‘We Wish There Were Some Kind Of Organized, Armed Force That Could Fight Back Against Antifa’
Bernie Sanders Arrives In Hong Kong To Lecture Protesters On How Good They Have It Under Communism
The people writing this stuff have to be at least lurking here.
“Just think—in America, we have to pick between 14 different types of deodorant!” he said, his fingers flopping around like limp sausages.
SF writes for the Bee?
If I was making that sweet BBee money, I’d be out of here.
If I was making that sweet BBee money, I’d be out of here.
We know this to be false. You need somewhere to publish your darker thoughts. Even if you were rolling in BB cash, you would still publish here pro bono.
True. I doubt anywhere else would publish Warty Hugeman and the Lake Monster from Beyond Infinity Lake.
A new work in need of art?
Not yet. I generate more titles than I do stories to go with them.
We need a title for this
You don’t want to know his darker thoughts.
from their ‘about’ page:
That is just wonderful. They’re doing an amazing job.
LOL holy shit, that’s a fight Snopes should not have picked.
Maybe. Snopes is a right-thinking institution that has worked closely with social media, (non-social?) media, and search engines. The Babylon Bee is one wrong move away from getting blacklisted by the same.
Its pretty clear to me that Snopes is trying to lay the groundwork for BB to get deplatformed and downranked by the tech monopolies.
Nobody at Snopes is self-aware enough to know they are badly losing this fight.
Tlaib And Omar Try To Sneak Into Israel Stacked On Top Of Each Other Inside A Trenchcoat
They might have noticed how many people navigated from Glibs to their site and looked us up to see who we are.
Then quickly closed their browser and purged the history!
Nicely done BP. I like the modifications:)
We need an episode with Hanna AND the hot Latina from the early episodes
“I do think, at a certain point, you’ve made enough money”
Gee, how much is that going to increase his carbon footprint?
Not him, you.
Doesn’t apply to Obama, who has never made any money.
Sure he has, if you credit him with the mint continuing to operate under his administration.
Do we also get to credit him with the devaluation of the currency already in circulation?
Sure, it seems standard fare to credit/blame the guy in office with whatever happens during that span.
Afraid not. It is now standard fare to blame the previous Republican President for anything bad that happens during a Democrat administration, and to credit the previous Democrat President for anything good that happens during a Republican administration.
I don’t work for CNN
14.8 Million?! How the hell does Obama get the money to afford that? (I know, I know)
With a $65 million Netflix payoff for supporting Net Neutrality
Did you know that netflix unfairly throttles the bandwidth of some, and prioritizes that of others, based solely on willingness to pay?
It’s true — one day it just happened, I tried to watch a movie, and my bandwidth had dropped LITERALLY TO ZERO. And it has not improved since that day.
I can’t see why people are willing to pay ANYTHING for such service. I certainly am not.
That’s why I’m for Netflix Neutrality.
He had his name on the cover of two autobiographies that no one purchased.
Question for the author: was it intentional for reporter “Hannah Links” to refer to “Dr. Jeri Castle” as “Jeri Links”? It is not clear from context whether this is a typo or intentional characterization.
Overall, I rate this comic 4 Dr. Castles out of 5.
It was obviously intentional, and totally not an alcohol induced typo.
Seriously, though, I do like to put in small mistakes the things NEWISH says, but that was a typo.
Seriously, though, I do like to put in small mistakes the things NEWISH says, but that was a typo.
Which is why I had to ask. For all I knew, Ms. Links refers to everyone as Links. I do know that Random Drunken Asshole will be pleased to meet Ms. Links, though.
“let see dem…uh, already seeing dem…”
The farce that is the Children’s Crusade:
Or, you know, look up the other side of the argument and not just spout warmist pablum like a scold?
Energy use for me and not for thee peasant.
I don’t think there is a single watermelon activist out there that expects they will have to give up a thing to achieve zero carbon emissions or whatever nonsense they are peddling.
True but that’s because, electricity comes from the electrical outlet and food comes from the supermarket.
^This. As bad as people who work in agriculture are about rent-seeking, you’ll be hard pressed to find a farmer who isn’t really good at reducing, reusing and recycling. The farmer doesn’t do it because he’s forced to or because he wants to ‘save’ mother Gaia, he wants to maximize his outputs and profits. The world would do well if more teenagers threw hay bails, shoveled shit and pulled tits for a summer or two.
I’m sure the last one is still a popular teen activity.
Or did you mean bovine?
/snickers mischievously, touches nose
Your single status suddenly makes more sense.
I had some experience with summer tits and I really think it made me a better person.
We’d be better off if they’d just hang out, get drunk, and grope each other in the back seat as kids in the past rather than scolding everyone else 24/7.
That is kind interesting. I’m describing what teenagers did 3 generations ago and you summed up the last two. I’m thinking about the cycle that someone else posted a while ago. Hard times make hard men, hard men improve things and create good times. Good times create soft men and soft men create hard times. Or something like that.
I figured I was setting a more realistic target.
Maybe Ed Begley Jr, that’s about the only one I can think of.
He’s nuts, but I respect that he practices what he preaches.
Are they all flying personal charters? Even if they each take 3 and 5 separate commercial flights, respectively, that’s not quite the same as chartering 8 flights specifically for the purpose of this endeavor.
If you look at actual carbon, round trip flights for greta and a guardian (never mention the possibility of remote communication) amounts to two eastbound and two westbound person units of fuel burned. These are separate, because it takes different amounts of fuel for those flights.
That is at the very least one eastbound and three westbound person units less than this situation, and that’s assuming Greta sails back east again.
If every publicity stunt pulled highlights the hypocracy, you start to notice these things.
The autistic girl is saving the environment by not flying. But that requires a large number of crew members to fly back and forth across the Atlantic to accommodate her ostentatious display of virtue.
Yeah, there’s definite hypocrisy there. But there aren’t 8 flights resulting out of this, there are 8 commercial passenger tickets. By OMWC’s math, that’s 4 tickets (and associated amortized expenses) more than if she and a parent had flown here and back, but it’s not like they put 8 planes in the air that wouldn’t have been there otherwise.
Then again, you are right that the whole point of this was not to fly. Even if it was the same number of tickets as if she had flown herself, it defeats the entire purpose. I just don’t like the wording of the snippet.
Yes, people often make unnecessary mistakes even when their main message is correct.
I just don’t like the wording of the snippet.
Me neither. Overegging the pudding.
That creepy thing is headed this way?!
Only to New York City.
The rats will kill it.
That was my thought when this silliness started. You still get to signal, and without the hypocrisy everyone knew this stunt was going to be.
Dammit, I posted that in the Afternoon Links That Weren’t.
My favorite, though, was that her “carbon-free” boat is actually made out of . . . wait for it. . . carbon.
It’s “Sequestered”.
But seriously, your options are iron and carbon (steel), silicon in a carbon matrix (fiberglass), or carbon (carbon fiber, wood, etc). Aluminum boats are not that common.
I don’t think they pulled the carbon in that boat from the air.
But that’s GOOD carbon!
Like the Curb Your Enthusiasm episode where Larry babbles about “good Hodgkins” versus “bad Hodgkins”
I’m still rooting for “becoming shark food” as an outcome for this.
Why do you hate sharks?
Sharks have a real distaste for autistic Swedish teenagers
I really don’t hold it against Greta. She’s been indoctrinated and is the tool of some truly bad people.
Sail, Greta, sail! Somebody has offset my six return flights to Europe or Middle East this year. Each one was in business.
has to
I don’t think Trump can “push” us into a recession
If I were advising the President, I’d urge him to tone down the trade warmongering. The election is a short run proposition, so valid long term plays (whatever those might be) and childish pot-stirring should be minimized and left for another term when it would have zero administration consequences.
In no small part, short-run economics is a study in confidence: consumer and commercial confidence. There are chips that have been taken off the table because the trade wars cause a lack of confidence; investors and business managers are less sure that they are plying known waters than they might be. Whether you are a farmer, an exporter, or a domestic industrialist looking to expend, you’d love to be able to tell yourself surely-the-president-won’t-do-X . . .
and yet you can’t. And there is zero percent chance that helps anyone except market straddlers.
The Chief Executive Yapper has no risk to his base; he is expert at throwing them tasty, meaningless morsels, and I would advise he do that in a low-risk way. But will-he-or-won’t-he trade ping-pongs simply can’t help, so he should shove a sock in those. This is the recipe for getting the truck-drivers, church-ladies, and Rotarians all pulling in the same direction.
He is probably getting this advice, as he pushed back a round of tariffs on the Chinese until after Christmas.
But, the Chinese economy is not in good shape right now. This is a good time to put pressure on them to do a deal. So backing off does have downsides. It depends on how you prioritize winning an election v. doing what you said you would do.
winning an election v. doing what you said you would do
If I wasn’t clear, my advice was about winning the election. In direct Glib tried and true answer to you: why not both? Ergo, minimize optional foodfights until after re-election.
I got that you were playing a soulless political consultant who thinks the only thing that matters in the world is seizing the reins of power.
What I was trying to get to was that pushing off the hardball negotiations for a year and half may have a real world cost. It may not, of course.
But consider: our economy is still good, and the tariffs are having a trivial effect on us. The Chinese economy is struggling, and the tariffs are hitting them noticably. In a year and a half, our economy may be struggling, and the Chinese economy may not be. By waiting, we may lose our strong position in the negotiations.
tariffs are having a trivial effect on us
I’m arguing that’s not true with my uncertainty thesis: there is some non-zero number of jobs not created due to the what-will-he-do-next quality of the trade wars. I don’t want to pursue a Hihn-esque, unending thread of restatements, so I’ll leave it at that. Each is free to speculate whether this effect is significant. If the President doesn’t want to take a knee and run out the clock while he’s ahead, there’s nothing I can do about it.
there is some non-zero number of jobs not created due to the what-will-he-do-next quality of the trade wars.
Oh, I agree. I believe that non-zero number is probably trivial in the big scheme, but I really don’t have a clue.
If the President doesn’t want to take a knee and run out the clock while he’s ahead, there’s nothing I can do about it.
I think he has taken a knee.
i think the Chinese govt can hold out against unhappy voters longer than Trump can.
-1 tank man
The pressure on the ChiComs isn’t from their huddled masses and their wretched refuse. Its from the economic impact on the businesses that line their pockets.
^THIS
The ChiComs at least play hardball with foreign debtors that don’t pay. The US is sap: Oh, that’s OK if you can’t pay, we’ll take three cents on the dollar and call it even., we’ll just get the rest from our own taxpayers.
I’m not sure I totally agree. Even ignoring the long-standing history of, and thus ingrained cultural fear of, peasant uprisings, the Chinese government has always sought to mollify their rural base out of a very real fear that while it is easy to control an urban population through force, it is not as easy to control a rural one, particularly in the mountainous terrain that makes up much of western China. Added to that is the need to maintain kayfabe as a “Communist” country.
I agree. I was thinking more that the immediate pressure being felt by the ChiComs is more financial than pitchforks-and-torches. I suspect its lurking in the backs of their minds, though.
One thing I have to give Trump, he is certainly better in the ‘doing what you said you would do department’, especially vs. Mr. “Most transparent administration in history” guy.
Sadly, he seems to prioritize doing the things he said he would that I don’t like (starting trade wars) vs the things he said he would do that I do like (ending actual wars).
Admittedly it’s easier to start a war than it is to end one in this country.
The Chief Executive Yapper has no risk to his base
Eh. As Emily Ekins at Reason of all places (and others) showed, much of Trump’s “base” is “disaffected” voters. If you don’t do enough to show that you’re following through on what you said you would do, you’re just engaged in business as usual, and that doesn’t turn out the votes that won him the election. While Trump won the EC by a margin of multiple states, he barely won a few of those states. Too many people staying home relative to the opposition and you’ve lost.
Of course, the condition of the economy brings its own set of variables affecting the election.
Too many people staying home relative to the opposition and you’ve lost.
absolutely
I think most of the formerly disaffected have assimilated into the Fox-and-Friends base and now think of themselves as winners because they’re owning the libs by proxy with each and every helicopter press conference. No one burned their Bama sweatshirts last season even if they didn’t win it all. I’ve argued here widely that the discrete economic impacts and how they show up at the EC is primary.
My point was that the own-the-libs contingent is just one segment. And yes, Trump has that segment locked up. But I don’t think the “formerly disaffected” and “own-the-libs” contingent are one and the same (probably some overlap). There’s a lot of people who don’t watch the (cable) news or follow political twitter, and not out of some high-brow feeling of being smarter than they are (looks uncomfortably in the mirror).
no doubt: these short notes usually over-simplify, mine as much as any
The question there is: where ya gonna go? If you’re sitting in Michigan and voted Trump because you make $25 an hour instead of $40, maybe that didn’t change under Trump . . . maybe you’re up to $27 now? Did you win or lose? If $27 is still losing, do you abandon your AmericanFirst neighbors and run into the waiting arms of Warren or Sanders? I’m trying to picture the guy who swallows all the Trump distastefulness to vote for him in 2016 who isn’t still rationalizing his $27 situation 24/7 in 2020.
In that interim, did your wife’s plant close?
Loss aversion is a strong cognitive bias. This is why Trump will be reelected in 2020.
I’ve failed to convince anyone here that everyone who ever wanted to vote for Trump has already done so. That’s shorthand, but I do believe 2016 was a popular ceiling for him.
Whether someone else can turn suburban moms and enthuse minorities (more oversimplifications) in the right districts to undo his EC win is a question left to be answered.
The presidency is wont by electors, not voters. Electors are people that tend to pay attention to politics. Don’t put too much weight on the average voter. The popular vote means nothing.
If the electors threw an election, you would see an end to the electoral college for good. It is true that the EC decides the election, and “faithless elector” laws are questionable at best, but if you want to see real strife, have an election be decided by the electors instead of by the states.
Trump has yet to hit the WAR button. What if he starts a legit war with China?
In the short run, we’re all dead?
That would be bad news. We would win and be stuck with…..China.
No reason to shit the bed over tariffs when the corporate income tax rate is lowered, it’s just rearranging the way the revenue is collected. To think the corporate rates would be lowered without tariffs at the same time spending is increased is naiive.
And I sure ain’t gonna fall for the over-leveraged farmers bit like I did in the 80’s.
nobody cares about farmers
and nobody cares about the deficit
Calling Tundra –
No Reserve: 27k-Mile 1988 Ford Bronco II XLT
I want to know if it comes with or without the “Slippery When Wet” cassette. Friend had an earlier year Bronco II in high school and I spent lots of time in it. Eddie Bauer edition which meant POWER lumbar support!
2.9-liter Cologne V6 produced 140 horsepower and 170 lb-ft of torque when new
that’s all? i’m a little surprised by that.
2.9-liter Cologne V6 produced 140 horsepower and 170 lb-ft of torque when new
It’s probably dead on.
3L x 60 ~ 180 in^3, so pretty much 180 lb*ft or a bit less: 170
HP is probably a matter of RPM: 140*5252/170 ~ 4400RPM, a typical rating speed in those days.
It checks out.
The 1980s were bleak times. The mighty 5.0 Mustang in 1988 produced only 222 HP.
https://www.americanmuscle.com/foxbody-mustang-info-specs.html
They also had fairly high gearing.
notice the 4400 RPM as promised
lots of those cars would wake up with modern springs and bumpsticks (ie: spin up to 5500 RPM)
We changed the exhaust, gears, cam and put aluminum hi flow heads on my friends 1986 5.0 and it made a world of difference.
blame Carter?
HP numbers seem to have really taken off in the last ten years as selling points. My 02 F150 with the smaller V8 , which was the midrange engine option then, advertised at ~230HP. The smallest engine last year was 250 and most were at or above 300, some well above that.
Like I said: bumpsticks and springs
Volumetric efficiency is up with multi-valve, combustion is better do to CFD head designs and multi-spark, and the the whole mess is spinning harder so you get more bites at the torque apple
due
ugh
’80s American cars. Blecch. Just . . . ugly.
Damn that looks good! That’s whats a SUV should be like.
Addictive little web site, isn’t it?
Oh man, that one brings back memories. Amazing condition, too.
What in hell are y’all talking about? Neither Greta nor any of the AGW grifters give a shit about any of that. Virtue signaling is the new currency among the elite and the more hypocritical it is the more valuable it is. It is like the acolytes reciting nonsense so the priests know who is a loyal subject and who isn’t. Y’all are counting beans like that means something. You aren’t understanding how this game is played.
Ah shit. Threading fail. That goes under the Children’s Crusade link upthread. It’s hot as hell and I have been cutting grass, what can I say.
90F on Tuesday and 59F yesterday. My wife turned on the living room heat, which makes the 8th month she’s turned it on at least one day because she’s been cold. I can’t remember ever doing that in July or August and June has been rare to non existent.
I’m not even sure if our furnace works. I can’t remember the last time it was on.
Now, the AC is a different story.
Usually I turn it off at the box around April, maybe May if it’s really cold, and don’t turn the power back on until late October.
Never apologize for brooksing.
What would happen if we all brooksed? Fuckin anarchy that’s what. We need order and law in the comments.
what would happen? pre-threading hit & run ..
so yeah, anarchy
sweet, sweet anarchy
People must enjoy when I yell at them. Why else would they continue to do stupid things?
Is it Friday yet?
OMG, this just happened and I had to share. I was picking up my kid from work, and saw a tanker filled with liquid CO2. When I thought of all that CO2 raping our beloved Gaia, it made me cry that like that fake Indian in that commercial. My son asked why I was crying, and I suddenly realized that the planet will be destroyed long before he reaches my current age. Like that tanker full of gas had already killed him, he just didn’t know it yet.
Pray for me. Pray for us.
zero sum, right? it’s not like they burned something to create the dioxide
yay: no tears
Fuck you and your cis normative privilege. I can’t believe you gendered your child without waiting till they were an adult.
Adult?!? They know at 5. And it might be different at 6!
Woah! Timeout there. Don’t you know you need to help your kid discover their correct gender and sex, preferably with irreversible surgery and medical treatments, before xer hit puberty?
One does wonder how the “surgery now!” movement is squared with gender fluidity. It’s not like you can go back…
Or outlawing conversion therapy.
Add a Velcro option for interchanging equipment?
You joke, but I guess now we get to look forward to the coming purge of carbonated beverages.
Gonna be interesting reading, the 23rd-century best-seller: “How a death-cult took over the world and nearly sent us all back to the stone age”
If there’s still a written language then
Can you say “Bottle Conditioning”?
They already want to ban sugar for dietary reasons. Throw in some mumbo-jumbo about de-sequestering carbon and it’ll be gone in a week.
you’re in my thots and prayers.
Who do I pray to?
Look, having thicc—my “uncle” was a great moderator and writer and satirist, Sugarfree at Glibertarians; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, Pornhub, very good, very smart—you know, if you’re a Glibertarian, if I were a Reasonite, if, like, OK, if I still posted at Hit and Run, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world—it’s true!—but when you’re a Gilbertarian they try—oh, do they do a number—that’s why I always start off: Went to Pornhub, was a good “student”, went there, went there, did this, uploaded an entire hard drive’s worth of Jade Kush porn—you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged—but you look at the Thicc Thursday deal, the thing that really bothers me—it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are (thicc is powerful; Sugarfree explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right—who would have thought?), but when you look at what’s going on with the four Tulpa handles—now it used to be three, now it’s four—but when it was three and even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years—but the Cato Institute are great negotiators, the cosmos are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.
+1 Authentic frontier gibberish
SHUT THE FUCK UP, LIBTARD!
Thanks for introducing me to Jade Kush!
I’m just here to educate.
The Blue Angels and other military flying teams are practicing for an air show this weekend and it’s causing me to poop my pants every so often. Additionally, “Blinded By The Light” is one of the worst movies I have ever seen and Bruce Springsteen and all of his fans should be tarred and feathered.
We had them practicing right over our house a couple of times, and it was awesome.
Back when I lived in Pensacola, we were right near the base and could watch them practice from our backyard all the time.
Living in the Miramar flight path and also not far from Camp Pendleton, I routinely hear sonic booms and see/hear military jets overhead, and hear artillery booming in the distance.
I love it.
name checks out
Another excellent edition.
Excellent. Next I hope to get to see Becky’s and Greenland’s tits.