Tuesday Highlights

Good morning.

  1. And meaningless jobs … don’t create happiness.
  2. Where it’s all about the team … you’ll not find citations of liberals making errors in speeches there.
  3. Weather and some predictions. Let’s see, you can’t make accurate very short term (seconds/minutes), short term (week) weather predictions, mid-term (three month) predictions. Yet the claim is that long term (decade) predictions are easy. Well, if “easy” means unverifiable you’re right. Otherwise, not so much.
  4. Yah. And he stood there in picture pose for 5 hours while it filled.
  5. Coming to a laptop/cell phone near you … in 5-10 years?
  6. Prudence.
  7. Cinema.
  8. Public unions and teaching.
  9. Speaking of unions.
  10. Words for Japan from India.
  11. Kill the fallacy.
  12. Trust.
  13. What does due processes mean, from an Constitutional perspective?
  14. A plug for courting.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


  1. Ed Darrell says:

    #2, all about the team: Maybe it’s a volume thing: 1 post at Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub for every 100 slips of the tongue.

    I’ll cover anybody’s gross errors in history. Bachmann is trying to make a career out of historical error, though — you’re surely not defending her, are you? When politicians make slips of the tongue, cut ’em a little slack. When they persist in pushing historical error, in press releases where it is clear the “error” is planned, in prepared texts where it becomes clear the twisted history is intentionally twisted, they deserve to have it socked to them, don’t you think?

    Bachmann’s average rating at Politifacts is “pants on fire.” Do you really want to defend that?

    Can you cite anyone else who is wrong in the facts so often, on either side? Cite for me any similar, intentional distortions of history, from my “team,” that I should cover, will you?

    Bachmann is a walking warning against lobotomy.

  2. Where it’s all about the team …

    LOL, pot and kettle much, Mark? For example, compare your “speaking of unions” link with your attitude about the Catholic Church and the way they protected and shuffled around priest child molesters for decades.

    A plug for courting.

    Terrible article. It makes all kinds of ridiculous assumptions like “casually” performing fellatio is debasing to women (is casually performing cunnilingus debasing to men? the article doesn’t mention it…) It clings to the notion that “chastity” is something that women should use as a bargaining chip. (They “bargained off their chastity and modesty…”) It talks about how men “stay in a state of arrested adolescence well into their 20′s” (and women don’t? And it’s a priori worse than marrying off at 19-23?) …And then it goes on to be proud of “the Board of Trustees issuing a statement affirming traditional ideas of human sexuality” (i.e. gay sex is evil, mmkay?)

  3. Ed Darrell,

    I think it was Bill Maher who said that Michelle Bachman is for people who like Sarah Palin, but wish she were a little less intellectual.

  4. Ed Darrell says:

    Be sure to see Tony Whitson’s more complete, earlier, takedown of Rep. Bachmann and her many errors:

  5. Mark says:

    So … when will we be seeing an “Obama Errors” post? Hmm. You said 1 for 100. He’s certainly thrown more than 100 boners out there to pick and he rarely, if ever, gives a talk without his crutch, err, hud. Just yesterday he offered that we really needed to get “all those 8-9 mpg” cars off the road. 8! 9! How many cars are out there with that sort of mileage? How about Biden gaffe’s. He’s probably got thousands. Where are your 10+ posts on him?

    So. You’re Obama error post is due … or perhaps you’ll offer that Mr Obama’s errors are non-substantial. They are errors of a different sort, 8-9mpg when he meant 15 is really quite different than JQ Adams as a founder in that “founder” apparently is a technical term for those who worked for the Revolution and Constitutional Convention and can’t apply to our first Presidents. So Marshall wasn’t a founder in any sense either, eh?

    Look. I get it. You’re a partisan, which is exactly what I pointed out in my link lead line. Own up to it, admit to yourself that your linking Bachmann mis-statement is a “team” thing, you do it because you are a Democratic partisan not because you have any pretense to being “fair and balanced.”

    If you don’t think or admit to yourself that this is out of partisan leanings, you might consider that you are wrong and it is … and re-examine your own objectivity regarding your instruction in your the history classes. Hmmm. In teaching 20th century world history, do you consider the commentary of Chantal Delsol for example and present that?


    LOL, pot and kettle much, Mark?

    Uhm. JA, just a reminder. Your offering this in the context of my linking to a post pointing out a GOP speaker making a gaffe. And, … on the Catholic church thing, if you recall I was just pointing out that the Teachers Unions do not get the same attack rhetoric … and they defend a likely larger number of offenders.

  6. Ed Darrell says:

    So we know you don’t drive in the heartland of America, and you have no clue about 8 to 9 mpg cars (2011 Bugatti Veyrons come in at 8 mpg around town — enough to trigger a fuel wasting tax, if we still have one; Hummer H2s have been measured at 8). There are a lot of older cars that once made as much as 12 mpg, but after years of use and some neglect, struggle to make 10 mpg with a tailwind, downhill.

    Getting older cars off the road and replacing them with new, fuel-efficient and lower-polluting cars, is great policy. It clears our air, it fights CO2 pollution and global warming, and it puts autoworkers to work.

    At an absolute minimum, Obama is perfectly correct on principle:

    A focus on fuel consumption makes clear the benefits of removing the most inefficient vehicles, as in the Car Allowance Rebate System program. Seemingly small MPG improvements on inefficient cars saves a large amount of fuel over a given distance of driving. For example, replacing a car that gets 14 mpg-US (17 L/100 km) with a car that gets 25 mpg-US (9.4 L/100 km) MPG saves 3 US gallons (11 L) of fuel every 100 miles (160 km). Because 1 US gallon (3.8 L) of fuel emits 20 pounds (9.1 kg) of carbon dioxide,[9] saving 3 US gallons (11 L) of fuel every 100 miles (160 km) saves 3 short tons (2.7 t) of carbon dioxide every 10,000 miles (16,000 km) of driving.

    It’s probably fair to say Obama exaggerated, overstating his case, though he’s absolutely correct in principle (and in fact, your only quibble being how many such vehicles are stil in operation). That’s no gaffe. Correct in principle and in fact, with slight exaggeration for rhetorical effect, is no gaffe.

    Similarly, had Bachmann been doing standup about her inability to read maps or history, her line would have been funny (I laughed, you should have). Bachmann gives the stereotypical dumb blonde a good name and a shot at a Rhodes Scholarship.

    Of course, she wasn’t. She was serious, absolutely wrong and absolutely convinced she was right, again. Again. Again. Average rating at Politifact, “Pants on Fire.”

    I asked for examples from Obama, you came up with a half of one, and a weak one at that. If we exaggerate it, if we pretend like Bachmann does that facts don’t matter, it’s a misstatement.

    See, that’s the deal: You won’t defend Bachmann’s twisting of history because you still have integrity. But you’ll hedge on your integrity a bit to suggest that her lack of integrity is not a problem because, well, um, because “they all do it, right?” even though you offer no examples to back your claim.

    You guys gotta get out of that fantasy la-la land and spend some time in reality. America needs help, not buffoons.

  7. Mark says:

    You don’t drive in the heartland if you think there are lots of Buggatti Veyron’s are in big numbers in said heartland and Hummer H2s on the road (btw, I drive in the Chicago area) … and no 8-10 mpg gallon cars are rare and you know it. There *aren’t* a lot of older cars like that up here. We have winter and salt our roads.

    Question … have you ever even seen a Veyron on the road? I haven’t. I’m guessing you haven’t either. Was that a gaffe? 😀

    I’m awaiting your Biden gaffe post.

  8. Mark says:

    PS, the H2 costs $50k, the Veyron $160k. You figure us heartland types are just rolling in disposable cash.

  9. Mark says:

    Your gas discussion highlights the stupidity of the US to use mpg vs the inverse (gallons/100miles for example or the international liters/100km).

  10. Ed Darrell says:

    So, change the rating method. Fact is that there are still lots of low-mileage vehicles on the road.

    You don’t read much, you don’t study energy use much, you lack a sense of humor, if you think I was saying there is more than a handful of expensive gas guzzlers around. Why do you say Obama’s claim was a gaffe? Can you explain that?

    What error Biden’s do you wish to see me write about?

    I keep asking for errors, you keep back-pedaling. You’re a bicyclist — you know that’s not right.

  11. Mark says:

    Hmm. So I need to do your math for you. Let’s see, the low mileage cars on the highway, as you noted are really getting ~15mpg not ~9. Which means Mr Obama’s error is to mistake 6g/100 for 11 which is an error of just about 100%. At least when he quoted the number of states, he didn’t suggest 100. If he did, would that be a gaffe?

    Your defense was to note that there do indeed exist cars that get 11g/100 … but of your examples one costs almost as much as the average house and neither you nor I have ever seen or another car which is just a little less rare … and also priced beyond the common buyer. So to cover his gaffe you make some of your own.

    Speaking of energy use … let me quiz your hypocrisy level. When was the last time you checked your tire pressure? Do you know the mfg max tire pressure? How close do you run your car to that value? When was the last time you drove under the posted speed limit to conserve fuel (for example driving 55 in a 65 or 70)? Yet, you claim that conserving fuel for energy and CO2 is important. But … I’m guessing you your answers to those questions are not in the set {less then 2 weeks, yes, within 1-2 psi, and yes … normally} … which paints you as a bloody hypocrite on energy yourself. Float that in your humorless boat.

    You want Biden errors? Examine any given speech. He’s a gaffe machine.