What almost everyone one gets wrong about California’s water “problem.” But as is almost always the case, it also completely misses the point that there is no market for water here; it is allocated almost completely by politics.
[Update late morning]
Fight the drought: End recycling?
California is in a huge mess of its own making.
Kicking the can down it. Anyone who is waiting for NASA to send anyone to Mars is going to be very disappointed.
A conversation with Tyler Cowen, on the future of innovation, life extension and God.
They’ve completed acceptance tests for their new suborbital LOX/hydrogen engine. Hope this means they start flying again soon.
You’re crushing it:
Yes, it was definitely the rightwing outlets calling for justice for Trayvon. National Review was first on the ground in Missouri, chanting “hands up, don’t shoot” with the protesters. Doesn’t she realize that by pointing to these examples, she’s disproving her point? That they were almost exactly like Jackie’s case: prettied up falsehoods designed to make the case for larger structural reforms? “Oh, sure, Trayvon had some run-ins with the law and clearly attacked Zimmerman, but this is about larger problems.” “Oh, sure, Mike Brown had literally just committed a strong arm robbery and was attacking a cop rather than surrendering to him, but this is about larger problems.” “Oh, sure, Jackie is a liar and a fraud, but this is about larger problems.” The right didn’t invent these people. The right didn’t bring them to light. I bet she also thinks it was also the right that tried to turn Deamonte Driver into a cause célèbre.
It’s almost like the narrative must take precedent over the truth, or something.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Yup, “Left sticks to narratives, evidence be damned.”
[Update a while later]
Rolling Stone can’t even apologize right.
Time to start accusing the media of “rollingstoning” every time they pull something like this.
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.