Yes, she is a loon.
Though I don’t think this author is quite up to date on the science herself:
Coffee, before Starbucks turns it into a milkshake, is pretty healthy for you.
After, too. There’s nothing wrong with milk or fat in coffee.
Yes, she is a loon.
Though I don’t think this author is quite up to date on the science herself:
Coffee, before Starbucks turns it into a milkshake, is pretty healthy for you.
After, too. There’s nothing wrong with milk or fat in coffee.
They may come to regret them:
The revolt has begun, peacefully. In 2010, and again in 2014, the Silent Majority returned and sent an unmistakable message to the liberal elite. When Bill Clinton got that message in 1994, he recognized that opposition and worked with it. But under Obama, the liberal elite acts to ignore and delegitimize the opposition. 2014 was not a tantrum; it was a warning, and the liberals are betting that they can bluff and bluster their way through it.
When you block all normal means of dissent, whether by ignoring the political will of you opponents or using the media to mock and abuse them, you build up the pressure. In 30+ years as an active conservative, I’ve never heard people so angry, so frustrated, so fed up. These emotions are supposed to be dissipated by normal political processes. But liberals are bottling them up. And they will blow. It’s only a matter of how.
Liberals need to understand the reality that rarely penetrates their bubble. Non-liberal Americans (it’s more than just conservatives who are under the liberal establishment’s heel) are the majority of this country. They hold power in many states and regions in unprecedented majorities. And these attacks focus on what they hold dearest – their religion, their families and their freedom.
What is the end game, liberals? Do you expect these people you despise to just take it? Do you think they’ll just shrug their shoulders and say, “Well, I guess we better comply?” Do you even know any real Americans? Do you think you’ll somehow be able to force them into obedience – for what is government power but force – after someone finally says “Enough?”
I think they do think that. At its heart, this is why they want to disarm us, and why we will continue to resist.
Yes, the agency really is reconsidering it.
One can understand why PAO has to deny it, though.
[Update a few minutes later]
This looks like an interesting seminar. Things like this are why I sometimes regret not living in DC.
Jeff Foust has a report on last week’s meeting, but I can’t tell from it what actually came out of it.
Ron Bailey wonders what it would take to convince you that AGW was occurring.
Roy Spencer responds.
I agree that Ron is a smart guy, but I do think there’s some of this going on:
I hate to impute motives, but I really have to wonder if he is succumbing to peer pressure, since believing anything that smacks of denial-ism is really frowned upon in the intellectual circles I’m sure Ron is part of.
I think it’s compounded by the fact that it’s hard enough to change your mind once. It would be kind of embarrassing to revert back to skepticism. The key point, of course, is that Ron doesn’t necessarily believe that the problem demands any particular policy solution.
Rob Hoyt has a revolutionary idea. If power satellites ever happen, this would be the likely construction technique.
“This amounts to a flouting, if not a violation, of the Federal Records Act, which says all federal agency employees have an obligation to take some steps to preserve things for posterity,” Metcalfe said.
Laws are for the little people.
…were a huge loss for Tor and the SJW fascists, and a win for those interested in true “diversity.”
[Sunday morning update]
…to be asked for civility from the side that’s been emptying the slops bucket on our head ever since their favorites didn’t get the call is all too precious and rich. The people who were screaming at us that “Women are allowed to write science fiction too” apparently didn’t notice the women on this side and on the ballot (I know, we’re wrongwomen and wrongfans.) And the idiots who for years have said that this was all because Larry wanted a Hugo owe him a giant apology. Until I see that I’m all out of f*cks to give about their precious hurt feelings.
…I’ve never accused anyone of “stealing” the Hugos or of buying sock puppet memberships; other than saying that some of the nominees (and winners) in recent years have been long on social justice and short on worth (a value judgement but MY value judgement and that of a lot of fans who no longer use the Hugo as a buy recommendation), I’ve never impugned the character of any Hugo nominee/winner for being nominees/winners (I’ve pointed out bad behavior from some of them and an habit of wearing their own colon as a stylish hat in other circumstances. That’s different, but that’s frankly more descriptive than impugning);and I’ve never, not even in my worst moments accused anyone on the other side of thought crime (racist, sexist, homophobic, wrongthinker or eeeevil) or private vice (I’ve never once said I fear for my safety around them.)
I will employ civility when I see some. And some apologies, too for people like Larry.
I hope she doesn’t hold her breath.
Also, on this Easter, if you’re the praying type (or even if not) send her some best wishes for improving health.
The libertarian position.
I’m amused/appalled at the people who cannot make a distinction of what is immoral/wrong and what should be illegal. Particularly when it comes from the same people who whine about how they oppose “legislating morality.” They’re not opposed to it at all, they just want to legislate their morality.
Here are the numbers.