Tuesday Highlights

Good morning. And I don’t know how old the earth is … I was taught (and believe) that every number stated in science needs units (unless it’s dimensionless) and error bars. But an interesting exercise for the  reader is to use make estimates based on things you know to estimate age and error … what do you get and how do you get it? If you can’t get the age, about about some bound like the Parker limit on monopoles? For example, the moon’s spin is synchronized with the earth’s spin. That’s a quadrupole coupling … that should give you a way to make a  lower bound estimate on how long the earth moon have been a system. Right?

  1. Union wages and Hostess.
  2. Of Mr Gailbraith and the twinkie.
  3. Kindergarten humor hits the beltway pressroom.
  4. Growsing justly about bad maths pedagogy.
  5. High control democracy.
  6. Yes, CPT is invariant. This is really nice, because nobody has the slightest idea how what a non-CPT invariant field theory would look like.
  7. Our Arab spring notion.
  8. Slack cutting and Benghazi.
  9. More thoughts on Benghazi here.
  10. Where the conflict lies.
  11. My guess is … no.
  12. Consequences of the victory of the possessors.
  13. Note to poster … blood sausage tastes really really good.
  14. Reverse the roles of the sexes in assault situations and do you get humor?
  15. Stuffers of stockings.
  16. Cross (angry?) stitching?

5 Responses to Tuesday Highlights

  1. 8. Slack cutting and Benghazi here.

    Wow, it’s amazing how bad right wing commentary is inside the bubble. For example:

    But former Director David Petraeus reportedly testified to Congress that the CIA’s original talking points explicitly mentioned al Qaeda involvement in the attack but were changed by unknown officials to delete references to al Qaeda. If true, the administration’s failure to acknowledge the attack as a terrorist strike is no longer an understandable cognitive failing; it is the blatant politicizing of intelligence. Someone changed Congressional testimony to sound more favorable to the Obama administration’s preferred narrative.

    errr

    1. Talking points != Congressional testimony

    2. Even more amazing is what has been left flushed down the memory hole. Petraeus testified two sets of talking points were made. Classified talking points pointed to a terrorist attack (and NO it has not been confirmed it was by Al Qaeda). Unclassified talking points deleted the reference *because* the CIA did not want to tip off terrorists that they had picked up intelligence leading to that conclusion (again since the testimony is classified and behind closed doors we have no idea what this might be, intercepted communications, informants inside terrorist groups, etc.). This was widely reported by multiple mainstream sources yet multiple times seems to be totally absenst from right wing commentary.

    This seems to be the general pattern here. The left tries to get at the truth by adding facts while the right seems to take a set of facts and delete off ones that they don’t like till they get ‘a truth’ they want to have.

    So let me ask this one more time, what exactly is the Republican complaint about Benghazi? We’ve been through half a dozen attempts by the GOP to make a case, all falling apart including Mitt Romney’s debate disaster.

  2. Good morning. And I don’t know how old the earth is … I was taught (and believe) that every number stated in science needs units (unless it’s dimensionless) and error bars

    Mr Rubio asserted ” “I’m not a scientist, man. … Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries.”

    So we know ‘days’ are units and while Mr Rubio didn’t think to include ‘error bars’ of plus or minus 5B years with his estimate we do, indeed, know the earth was not created in 7 days. If he had simply left out the 7 day part of the comment no one could fault his statement as there’s no clear cut understanding of what an ‘era’ is. He left it in as fodder to anti-science Republicans

  3. Boonton,

    So … was Mr Obama also leaving the same sorts of comments for anti-science Republicans? (see this)

    Perhaps you want to modify your remark.

  4. Boonton,

    Petraeus testified two sets of talking points were made. Classified talking points pointed to a terrorist attack (and NO it has not been confirmed it was by Al Qaeda).

    I see. Ms Clinton, Mr Obama, Ms Rice and the rest of the White House spokespersons don’t have classified access. Interesting tack. As unbelievable as the not-coordinated riots.

    What exactly is the complaint. Well, let’s see. The complaint in this particular piece is that someone felt they had to hew to a party line because their message didn’t match expectations. Why?

    Perhaps the GOP complaint should be the Democrat-Johnny can’t read. Let me help you parse it:

    But former Director David Petraeus reportedly testified to Congress that the CIA’s original talking points explicitly mentioned al Qaeda involvement in the attack but were changed by unknown officials to delete references to al Qaeda.

    and

    That does not lessen the charge of politicization. The intelligence community, ever sensitive to its precarious relationship to its consumers in the policy community, can sometimes censor itself for fear of offending a policymaker with bad news or with a judgment that policymakers could interpret as a criticism of policy. The fault lies with the intelligence community for caving in and showing no spine, but also with the policymakers for allowing or encouraging a culture of censorship and politicization.

    He continues

    The troubling thing is that the Obama administration has apparently insisted on their narrative so much, so loudly, and so vociferously that analysts in the intelligence community no longer feel able to state simple facts that contradict the narrative.

    Got it?

    Talking points != Congressional testimony

    Looks like a typo. You ever do that?

  5. I see. Ms Clinton, Mr Obama, Ms Rice and the rest of the White House spokespersons don’t have classified access. Interesting tack. As unbelievable as the not-coordinated riots.

    Irrelevant, what’s relevant here is two issues:

    1. Your source strategically omitted a highly relevant fact, claiming that the CIA director simply said it was always known that the Libya attack was not spontaneous. By not reporting he also asserted an intelligence necessity not to let on immediately that this was known your side is treating the truth a bit like Pravda did in the old USSR.

    2. Whether or not they had access to classified info is irrelevant. The CIA was putting out two different sets of talking points, a public one feigning uncertainity about the nature of the attack and a private classified one that was more direct. Whether or not Rice read the classified version before appearing on Meet the Press is irrelevant. She was not authorized to release classified info.

    Get this straight about ‘not coordinated riots’. Nothing revealed to date indicates anything other than non-coordinated riots over the video throughout the Middle East at that time. Your side has morphed a single attack not being about the video into some type of proof that everything else going on in that world was all ‘in on it’. You’ve presented no evidence to support this and cannot present any evidence to support this because there is none.

    What exactly is the complaint. Well, let’s see. The complaint in this particular piece is that someone felt they had to hew to a party line because their message didn’t match expectations.

    What party line? Your yourself gave us a link to a timeline of Obama quotes, all of them along the lines of “the investigation is ongoing…” Even Rice’s statement on Meet the Press is prefaced with a lot of ‘this is all preliminary info, investigation may change all of this’ type of fair balance. This hardly seems like much of a party line to me, let alone anyone ‘insisting’ that this one particular attack had to be about the video. Like the so-called apology tour, this all exists as 10% vague quotes from the real world and 90% imaginary quotes in the minds of the right.

    Also as for ‘deleting reference to al Qaeda’, you might want to mention that Libya believes the attack was from a local militia/warlord. Fox News has reported that one possible motive for the attack might not have been the consulate but the related CIA compound about a mile or two away which reportedly was holding militia members….in other words it might have been neither about a video or about terrorism but an attempted ‘jail break’. Al Qaeda was probably deleted because while the CIA believes it was planned, it isn’t clear that it was al Qaeda.

    BTW, have a good Thanksgiving, Pumkin pie is done, hens will go on the roaster soon.

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>