Anchor ads are not supported on this page.
Archives
Classifieds
Stories
Events
Contests
Music
Movies
Theater
Food
Legal Guide
February 12, 2025
February 5, 2025
January 29, 2025
January 22, 2025
January 15, 2025
January 8, 2025
January 1, 2025
December 25, 2024
December 18, 2024
December 11, 2024
December 4, 2024
Close
February 12, 2025
February 5, 2025
January 29, 2025
January 22, 2025
January 15, 2025
January 8, 2025
January 1, 2025
December 25, 2024
December 18, 2024
December 11, 2024
December 4, 2024
February 12, 2025
February 5, 2025
January 29, 2025
January 22, 2025
January 15, 2025
January 8, 2025
January 1, 2025
December 25, 2024
December 18, 2024
December 11, 2024
December 4, 2024
Close
Anchor ads are not supported on this page.
Chained in a police van for hours
There must (?) me some reason (?) that no one is being prosecuted for civil rights violations. C'mon, Hargrove, do some reporting!— June 29, 2015 1:55 p.m.
But what are we manufacturing?
Dear Will: So happy to hear that you got your ouija board and crystal working again!— June 28, 2015 4:07 p.m.
Confidential emails ought to jog the memory
At the state level. School Boards are another fight . . . But first, it will take some good writing by a good investigative reporter.— June 28, 2015 3:57 p.m.
Confidential emails ought to jog the memory
Again, I repeat: ALL such fiefdoms (e.g., Port Authorities) should be dissolved and replaced with public-interest entities that are answerable to the people.— June 27, 2015 7:53 p.m.
Confidential emails ought to jog the memory
The all-time most concisely-worded perjury and confession of perjury?— June 27, 2015 7:47 p.m.
But what are we manufacturing?
Forum: As to climate change, there can be little doubt that climate changes. I, personally, do not deny that climate change *probably* is due, in some significant part, to anthropogenic causes. But so far, I have not seen a clear (in terms that the non-specialist can come to understand without getting a degree in the subjects required to reach such a conclusion) exposition of the evidence that excludes (and in what part or percentage) other causes. [Note: Given the limitations of space, I am omitting some discussion here.] Further, I have seen no quantitative, specific data that defines a goal (for, say CO2 reduction) and how the various "measures" to compensate for anthropogenic effects have been measured in terms of meeting that goal--and just how this would work over time and what the unstated consequences would be. That is, science needs to go beyond the "hockey-stick" graph; then it has to rank the various measures and set priorities from which effective policy can be devised and enforced. "Carbon credits," for example--for starters. I eagerly await said information and reasoned, unemotional correction. DO bother me with FACTS. Don't bother me with opinion, no matter how "authoritative." And please, please, do not admonish me to read books that do not contain complete chains of evidence.— June 27, 2015 7:38 p.m.
But what are we manufacturing?
Forum: Academics should have nothing to fear but fear itself, yet the academy draws the insecure; they yearn for validation, perhaps that they never got from their daddies and mommies. The insecurity spirals ever upward, and the higher one gets the farther one has to fall. What one has professed must forever remain cast in concrete, despite shibboleths about subjecting hypotheses to scientific and "peer" scrutiny. Heretics may no longer literally be burned at the stake, but the inflamed tongues of whisper campaigns of those certified superior do do their damage. Nonetheless, there are exceptions. Academics like Margaret and Noam shrug them off, drinking their own Mead and refusing to Chomsky at the bits of bites and bytes of sundry sorts. But they are rare. We should make a list. The honest scholar need not rob the piggy of her skin; like the Japanese potter who never signs his work--the work itself is sufficient. How is it that the institutionalized academic, his or her office, festooned with diplomas, awards, august memberships in *learned* societies, differs at all from the Big Game Hunter's walls and floors of heads and hides of vanquished and vanished or vanishing species about which to brag? How do they come to fear their lessers to the point of discrediting their ideas, then stealing them, not deigning to embrace the unwashed as a true colleague? How is it that they fear to openly and honestly debate the untouchables in public? I'm willing always to consider the error of my ways or of others like Mead, for example, and such as she would always be willing to do, but I will stand my ground, and stand their ground with them against sloppy scholarship that seeks pot-boiler publicity and greenbacks by trying to "take them down" to have their heads on their walls. One individual who did this to Mead did so on invalid "grounds," libeling his victim who was safely in the grave. This, to me, is the lowest form of self-aggrandizement. If you still wish to consider Mead "discredited," I will consider any actual evidence. Lacking that, I suggest that you refrain from passing on judgments based solely upon fallacious arguments from authority, the lowest form of "scholarship." Either that or retract the statement.— June 27, 2015 7:37 p.m.
But what are we manufacturing?
Re: Don Bauder June 25, 2015 @ 1:25 p.m. Twister: Have you been reading Margaret Mead? Much of her work -- particularly about sexual mores on the islands -- has been discredited. Actually, others have written what you noted. They may well have been right. And so too might have been Mead. Best, Don Bauder Not just Mead. She has been "discredited" after death by cowards who didn't have the guts to debate her to a conclusion in the open while she was alive--beyond some jealous "academics" who held Kangaroo Court on her. The Samoans, having been fed the apple by the religious zealots hit the beach, turned on her in a fit of denial because of their "enlightenment" by said zealots. At the very least, the "jury" is still out. I won't say Mead never made a mistake, but one lesson she taught me remains useful to this day--"The most important thing to know is what you don't know." If you want to challenge my point regarding an alternative to capitalism, kindly do so point-by-point, directly.— June 26, 2015 9:48 a.m.
But what are we manufacturing?
Another book! ANOTHER BOOK! ANOTHER BOOK!— June 26, 2015 9:38 a.m.
San Diego is no Charleston
Re: Don Bauder June 25, 2015 @ 8:36 p.m. Twister: Why is it that people love to speculate? They gamble on horse races, sporting events (usually illegally), the stock market. I have never understood the thrill of gambling. Best, Don Bauder Speculation is the first stage, not the only stage, in investigation. It is only when speculation is considered the END stage that it lacks intellectual merit. There was a long period of speculation before the moon landing, aka brainstorming. Speculating on the existence of, say, "Bigfoot" is one thing, but after years and years of doubtful "evidence" all of it Trumped up (can I say that in the reader) or harumped up, narrows rather than widens the possibility that one will ever be found. The distinctions are crucial.— June 26, 2015 9:34 a.m.