Comments for Jim's Blog http://blog.jim.com Liberty in an unfree world Mon, 15 Mar 2010 22:00:49 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 Comment on “The Goode Family” is not funny by jim http://blog.jim.com/politics/%e2%80%9cthe-goode-family%e2%80%9d-is-not-funny.html/comment-page-1#comment-9930 jim Mon, 15 Mar 2010 22:00:49 +0000 http://blog.jim.com/?p=337#comment-9930 <blockquote>The Goodes weren’t really far anything. They were probably social democrats at best.</blockquote> No. The Goodes were a lot further than Libertarians etc, but the show was reluctant to stick its claws in. The Goodes are not the center between eco terrorists and people who physically attack those they disagree with, and it is absurd to suggest that people who blow up private property are the equivalent of people who politically disagree with you.

The Goodes weren’t really far anything. They were probably social democrats at best.

No. The Goodes were a lot further than Libertarians etc, but the show was reluctant to stick its claws in. The Goodes are not the center between eco terrorists and people who physically attack those they disagree with, and it is absurd to suggest that people who blow up private property are the equivalent of people who politically disagree with you.

]]> Comment on “The Goode Family” is not funny by Jonathan http://blog.jim.com/politics/%e2%80%9cthe-goode-family%e2%80%9d-is-not-funny.html/comment-page-1#comment-9901 Jonathan Mon, 15 Mar 2010 08:34:04 +0000 http://blog.jim.com/?p=337#comment-9901 I'm liberal, and I thought it was pretty funny. You don't have to agree with everything to find humour in it. I think you can just as easily make fun of overzealous conservatives as you can liberals. Its just the truth. You have Animal Liberation front on the left, and Libertarian capitalists on the other hand that think the NWO is going to put RIF chips in them and throw them into FEMA camps. Those are both extremes, and extremes are what a lot of great comedy is based off of. Really, the far left overlaps with the far right at some point. The Goodes weren't really far anything. They were probably social democrats at best. The show made fun of eco-terrorists though in one episode where Ubuntu ended up joining one by accident, thinking it was an after school retreat. The Unibomber was essentially the same as Timothy McVeigh. One would have identified as right, the other left, when in reality they're similar. It has less to do with being socialist or capitalist and just being batshit crazy. There's certainly 'mockable extremes on both sides, and anyone who fails to see that because of a political bias is full of shit. It was just a caricature. They took a lot of shots at conservatives too. Overall, I liked the show and hope to see more. However, to be fair, you have to admit that nobody has really made a show making fun of fundamentalist, Christian, Republicans as the central characters, unless FOX intends to make a Simpsons spin off featuring Ned Flanders. I hope Cartoon Network brings it back. I like the fact that there's still some animated, prime time comedies that don't rely on disgusting, raunchy humour, unlike Family Guy and South Park, both of which I despise. I’m liberal, and I thought it was pretty funny. You don’t have to agree with everything to find humour in it. I think you can just as easily make fun of overzealous conservatives as you can liberals. Its just the truth. You have Animal Liberation front on the left, and Libertarian capitalists on the other hand that think the NWO is going to put RIF chips in them and throw them into FEMA camps. Those are both extremes, and extremes are what a lot of great comedy is based off of. Really, the far left overlaps with the far right at some point. The Goodes weren’t really far anything. They were probably social democrats at best. The show made fun of eco-terrorists though in one episode where Ubuntu ended up joining one by accident, thinking it was an after school retreat. The Unibomber was essentially the same as Timothy McVeigh. One would have identified as right, the other left, when in reality they’re similar. It has less to do with being socialist or capitalist and just being batshit crazy. There’s certainly ‘mockable extremes on both sides, and anyone who fails to see that because of a political bias is full of shit. It was just a caricature. They took a lot of shots at conservatives too. Overall, I liked the show and hope to see more. However, to be fair, you have to admit that nobody has really made a show making fun of fundamentalist, Christian, Republicans as the central characters, unless FOX intends to make a Simpsons spin off featuring Ned Flanders. I hope Cartoon Network brings it back. I like the fact that there’s still some animated, prime time comedies that don’t rely on disgusting, raunchy humour, unlike Family Guy and South Park, both of which I despise.

]]> Comment on Pedestalization of women by jim http://blog.jim.com/culture/pedestalization-of-women.html/comment-page-1#comment-9770 jim Fri, 12 Mar 2010 10:10:48 +0000 http://blog.jim.com/?p=925#comment-9770 Worked for me on IE. I suspect the problem is that it is just too huge. I should create an html version. I made a start on doing that, need to finish it Worked for me on IE. I suspect the problem is that it is just too huge. I should create an html version. I made a start on doing that, need to finish it

]]> Comment on Pedestalization of women by Occupant http://blog.jim.com/culture/pedestalization-of-women.html/comment-page-1#comment-9751 Occupant Fri, 12 Mar 2010 01:32:32 +0000 http://blog.jim.com/?p=925#comment-9751 Couldn't get your PDF of Unwin's "Sex and Culture" to download using Microsoft Internet Explorer or Google Chrome. http://jim.com/Sex+and+Culture-Searchable.pdf Downloads fine using Firefox, however. FYI. Couldn’t get your PDF of Unwin’s “Sex and Culture” to download using Microsoft Internet Explorer or Google Chrome.

http://jim.com/Sex+and+Culture-Searchable.pdf

Downloads fine using Firefox, however.

FYI.

]]> Comment on Pedestalization of women by jim http://blog.jim.com/culture/pedestalization-of-women.html/comment-page-1#comment-9713 jim Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:19:11 +0000 http://blog.jim.com/?p=925#comment-9713 JD Unwin claims that every civilization has had a woman's liberation movement shortly before it collapses. JD Unwin claims that every civilization has had a woman’s liberation movement shortly before it collapses.

]]> Comment on Pedestalization of women by Occupant http://blog.jim.com/culture/pedestalization-of-women.html/comment-page-1#comment-9701 Occupant Thu, 11 Mar 2010 03:06:41 +0000 http://blog.jim.com/?p=925#comment-9701 Conservatives are not the only ones who do this. Throw a shoe in any women's studies department, and you would be hard pressed to avoid hitting a female tending to her pedestal. It is important to recognize that a basic dynamic between men and women is a persistent female desire to be victims complemented by a persistent male desire to be heros. The two impulses reinforce each other. This dynamic is on display in all quadrants of the socio-political landscape, across time and space, in one way or an other. Conservatives are not the only ones who do this. Throw a shoe in any women’s studies department, and you would be hard pressed to avoid hitting a female tending to her pedestal.

It is important to recognize that a basic dynamic between men and women is a persistent female desire to be victims complemented by a persistent male desire to be heros. The two impulses reinforce each other. This dynamic is on display in all quadrants of the socio-political landscape, across time and space, in one way or an other.

]]> Comment on Exegesis on the Institute of Physics report on the CRU emails by jim http://blog.jim.com/global-warming/exegesis-on-the-institute-of-physics-report-on-the-cru-emails.html/comment-page-1#comment-9520 jim Sun, 07 Mar 2010 09:55:20 +0000 http://blog.jim.com/?p=920#comment-9520 Yes, but the state continues to back theocratic pseudo science. Belief is mandatory, if one hopes to get places in Academia. Yes, but the state continues to back theocratic pseudo science. Belief is mandatory, if one hopes to get places in Academia.

]]> Comment on Exegesis on the Institute of Physics report on the CRU emails by Bill http://blog.jim.com/global-warming/exegesis-on-the-institute-of-physics-report-on-the-cru-emails.html/comment-page-1#comment-9252 Bill Tue, 02 Mar 2010 15:03:01 +0000 http://blog.jim.com/?p=920#comment-9252 This was fast. There are still dead-enders (almost 100 years later, now) who claim that maybe Margaret Mead wasn't lying, and ten years after her lies, as far as I know, the great and the good all said she was telling the truth. I would have bet that nothing like this was going to happen any time in the next ten or twenty years. I would have made the bet even after climategate started to break, even after I knew the substance of the emails. There is real cause for optimism here. This is an example of what one might call real peer-review --- the opinions of smart people who are genuinely disinterested, or at least interested primarily in science. Disinterested because they are not experts in the relevant area; disinterested because they have no reason to care if they piss off climate scientists; disinterested because their opinions have no direct effect on climate scientists (no paper to be rejected, no grant to be not funded, no tenure case to be denied). One of the toxins of peer review is the idea that you need expertise in an area in order to evaluate the quality of research in that area. This idea is transparently false. Anyone who knows math and statistics well and who has thought about the epistemology of science a bit is competent to judge practically any science. This is especially true if they are willing to invest some time in learning a little of the relevant substance. This was fast. There are still dead-enders (almost 100 years later, now) who claim that maybe Margaret Mead wasn’t lying, and ten years after her lies, as far as I know, the great and the good all said she was telling the truth. I would have bet that nothing like this was going to happen any time in the next ten or twenty years. I would have made the bet even after climategate started to break, even after I knew the substance of the emails.

There is real cause for optimism here. This is an example of what one might call real peer-review — the opinions of smart people who are genuinely disinterested, or at least interested primarily in science. Disinterested because they are not experts in the relevant area; disinterested because they have no reason to care if they piss off climate scientists; disinterested because their opinions have no direct effect on climate scientists (no paper to be rejected, no grant to be not funded, no tenure case to be denied).

One of the toxins of peer review is the idea that you need expertise in an area in order to evaluate the quality of research in that area. This idea is transparently false. Anyone who knows math and statistics well and who has thought about the epistemology of science a bit is competent to judge practically any science. This is especially true if they are willing to invest some time in learning a little of the relevant substance.

]]> Comment on “One bad apple” by jim http://blog.jim.com/global-warming/%e2%80%9cone-bad-apple%e2%80%9d.html/comment-page-1#comment-7836 jim Fri, 05 Feb 2010 18:25:33 +0000 http://blog.jim.com/?p=877#comment-7836 The underlying story here is that there was an attempt to shake down the vaccine companies, after the style of silicone scam, and the attempt failed, because the vaccine companies threatened to fold their tents and go out of business, unless the government gave them special protection against lawsuits, which the government did, elevating vaccine companies above the unjust and capricious law that affects all other businesses, which action would have been a massive violation of the rule of law, were it not for the fact that judges and lawyers have already destroyed the rule of law. <em>Because</em> the vaccine companies were elevated above lawsuits, <em>then</em> it became possible for science to function. If shaking down vaccine companies was still a possibility, the externality would remain salted, and science would remain forbidden in the pages of the Lancet. Science is not self correcting when money and power depend on it. Science was not corrected by the Lancet. It was corrected by government intervening to shield the assets of vaccine companies. The underlying story here is that there was an attempt to shake down the vaccine companies, after the style of silicone scam, and the attempt failed, because the vaccine companies threatened to fold their tents and go out of business, unless the government gave them special protection against lawsuits, which the government did, elevating vaccine companies above the unjust and capricious law that affects all other businesses, which action would have been a massive violation of the rule of law, were it not for the fact that judges and lawyers have already destroyed the rule of law. Because the vaccine companies were elevated above lawsuits, then it became possible for science to function. If shaking down vaccine companies was still a possibility, the externality would remain salted, and science would remain forbidden in the pages of the Lancet.

Science is not self correcting when money and power depend on it. Science was not corrected by the Lancet. It was corrected by government intervening to shield the assets of vaccine companies.

]]> Comment on “One bad apple” by jim http://blog.jim.com/global-warming/%e2%80%9cone-bad-apple%e2%80%9d.html/comment-page-1#comment-7834 jim Fri, 05 Feb 2010 18:15:47 +0000 http://blog.jim.com/?p=877#comment-7834 <blockquote>Isn’t this call to arms a bit like the class warrior who says he is not causing division but responding to it? </blockquote>Isn’t someone who in 1938 says the Nazis intend to rule the world a bit like someone in 1938 who says the Jews intend to rule the world? No.<blockquote>Aside from that, calling for imprisonment and confiscation on the basis of fraud sound like fun.</blockquote>If you salt an ore body, you are likely to go to jail and lose your house. Salting an externality is a similar fraud, with similar, and often enormously greater, rewards, so should have similar penalties. Incentives matter. If the rules are that if they win, they get to rule a theocratic world state, and if they lose, it is business is normal, then science has absolutely no chance of prevailing against fraud. If there was no penalty for salting an ore body, all ore bodies would be salted. Because there is no penalty for salting an externality, all externalities get salted, which destroys science, thereby greatly slowing technological progress.

Isn’t this call to arms a bit like the class warrior who says he is not causing division but responding to it?

Isn’t someone who in 1938 says the Nazis intend to rule the world a bit like someone in 1938 who says the Jews intend to rule the world?

No.

Aside from that, calling for imprisonment and confiscation on the basis of fraud sound like fun.

If you salt an ore body, you are likely to go to jail and lose your house. Salting an externality is a similar fraud, with similar, and often enormously greater, rewards, so should have similar penalties.

Incentives matter. If the rules are that if they win, they get to rule a theocratic world state, and if they lose, it is business is normal, then science has absolutely no chance of prevailing against fraud. If there was no penalty for salting an ore body, all ore bodies would be salted. Because there is no penalty for salting an externality, all externalities get salted, which destroys science, thereby greatly slowing technological progress.

]]>