I am currently on a bus, returning to Oswego, NY from my old nothome place in MassachuHampshire (there's a lot of 'bleed-over').
While waiting for a bus at Boston's South Station--one of the few, like, actually pleasant buswait envioronments--I engaged the following folks in conversation
1.) A couple from Ghana, going to Syracuse to see their family who lives there.
2.) A young, recent immigrant from Haiti who plays soccer for a Boston university and is going to Syracuse to see some of his family who live there.
3.) Another young man who is studying sociology at a Syracuse area school.
4.) An anthropologist who teaches at a SUNY campus.
4 of the 5 folks I spoke to were African or African-ish American.
The couple from Ghana; lovely, older people who seemed sweet, educated and happy to be visiting kin.
The young Soccer player; busy, as young people tend to be, with various digital accoutrement but friendly. He asked me to watch his bag, while he got a quick bite from McD's in the concourse and, after a cursory look inside, I said sure.
The sociology student, likewise, asked me to keep an eye on his huge piece of aluminum luggage. Again, I complied.
All of us had a chat, short enough to remain uncreepy, long enough to establish that we are all good with one another.
The anthro guy was not a bad person, but he was either a liberpublican or jerking my chain.
He don't like him some NPR getting money from the man. He's convinced that people who can't read and drink/drug/beat their kids or spouse, etc., would be all good if they could be made to stop drinking*. I'm running into a lot of this sort of person, lately, the person who can't understand why other people can't just get their shit together and be successful, like them, I guess.
The fact that he self-reports as an adjunct at a SUNY campus might indicate to some that his "success" is not, um, notable.
OTOH, he says that teaching people who drink, do drugs or otherwise live a less than probitive life should not have resources, such as literacy programs wasted on them, as they have chosen to be the way they are. I told him that I was on welfare (SS and VA Healthcare), I did not, however show him my EBT (good for 16$/month of sweet, sweet gummint sugar) or my Bamaphone.
He kept accusing me of changing the subject (I admit to touching on numerous, interconnected points of debate about how "welfare" can mean LOTSA different things) and asked if I just argued until people got tired of it and they gave up. I think that those of you who know me (and, in some cases, revile me) know me better than that. If I want you to stop arguing, I tell you to go fuck yourself--hey, it usually works.
It's really not so much that I want people to stop arguing. What I want is for them to stop offering up canned points that they are getting from so called, "conservative" commentators and pols.
Here's a hint: if you're telling me something that can be traced back to Rush or any of the dozens of talkingshitheads on ReiKKKwing Radio and television, well, go fuck yourself.
* FWIW making people "stop drinking" is an exercise with almost zero long term deterrent effect.
Barbs were flung or gauntlets thrown by myself and Mr. McCarthy and after a couple of sallies he left the field (not that I felt as if I had "won" anything) saying:
"I could give example after example of scientists who have committed even obvious fraud using their credentials and standings as scientists who have not been defrocked, as it were. Some retaining major academic positions and renown within the community of scientists, Fritz Haber was given the Nobel in Chemistry in 1918 when he should have been on trial for war crimes using his science, for example. But I won’t abuse the hospitality of Southern Beale to do so. Only, apropos of her post, when it comes to biological creations that could reproduce, uncontrolled and to horrific results, there is no reason to trust scientists to police themselves and good reason to not allow them to."
I made additional comments to him and other folks. The comment thread went dormant and it's now closed. That's all good.
It's not that I don't expect people to take away that I'm a prick after an exchange like the one we had--or that I actually give a fuck if they do. But, it tends to annoy me when someone does something like he did.
I went to that thread and typed a long comment which for one reason or another would not post properly. It's below this paragraph. Let me be fair, or as fair as I get, in saying that Mr. McCarthy might be a really swell person, I don't know him. I doubt that we'll be buds, but that's not terribly important.
Most of us are grown up enough to consider the source on a blog
when the other person is a frequent commenter. Apparently, you're not.
Your first post was an
accusation. You said:
"His faith in the
benevolence and omniscience of scientists who are just as corruptible as anyone
else is willful blindness."
That's an accusation of all scientists as
being corruptible; but wait, there's more.
"Science, as a
profession, isn’t notably good at following its own rules, as the frequent
retraction of papers, at times due to fraud, quite often due to the review
process being either faulty or fraudulent, itself."
is your reply to my
comment that scientists, as a class, are no more or less dishonest than other
Did you miss the bit in
my second comment where I said:
"Right. That shit
happens in every profession except politics and religion."
"I don’t believe in omniscience, being atheist I expeshly
don’t believe in GODLY omniscience." ?
It was you who first
brought up omniscience which, though you may be unaware, is a faculty that is
demonstrably unavailable to humans.
FWIW, I don't accept as
"settled" the issue of the safety, efficacy or economic fairy dust of
GMO's, NuKiller power, U.S. foreign policy or any of a large number of other
products and enterprises that public and private corporations or the gummint
You never answered this question:
"So, who brought
the fraud to the attention of the scientific journal? It had to be someone with
at least a modicum of scientific training, yes?"
So, who was it that
broke the story and what is the level of their scientific expertise? For
that matter how do MOST of these stories wind up being told? It's not like
anyone who has no understanding of science is going to be able to refute it.
It's a classic slippery slope argument.
You seem to have a
hard-on for science; why do you even use sciency stuff like the internet?
If you're coming here from FTB, welcome. Unless you're one of the several trollishfuckbags that have infested the blog of late. If that's the case, Fuck OFF!
Comments are moderated because some of my lurkers are very sweet people who do NOT want to read comments by people who use words such as, "Fuck", "Fucker", "Asshole", "Douchebag" and other profane or obscene terms*.
He's right that they weren't REAL immigrants, expeshly if you think of MurKKKa being more like Sudetenland in 1938 or Silesia at around the same time. Not immigrants, except in the same sense as the Scots-Irish in Belfast and other parts of Northern Ireland were in the period ca. 1600--1750. After 1715 a lot of the Scots-Irish came to the colonies and did much the same as they done in Ireland, supplanting the original inhabitants (and in both cases helping the Crown to rid itself of "troublesome" individuals, tribes and nations.
and that's only ONE of the numerous, assholishly obnoxious and completely fucking WRONG memes that Pat is pushing in his latest Op-Fucked-in-the-head columns @ WND. How anyone can consider people like PuKKKecannon, Scalia and other ReiKKKwingers to have EVER been intelligent is way the hell beyond me.
is one of my favorite t-shirts, since the first time I ever saw it. I'd buy one if I did that sort of thing.
Needless to say but the current FUKKAK** at the U.S./Mexico border is sorta pickin' up where Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and some other places since 1945 left off in the area of killing totally innocent people for being fucking alive and hurting our fee-fees.
It appears that the largely KKKristianist ReiKKKwing of the GOP* has decided that flogging one dead horse, The War on Drugs, is not enough.
Now they want to show the same level of the Burnin' Stoopit indignorance and bigotry on another front--the War Against teh GAY!
I don't got no crystal ball but I can see a line clear to the horizon, starting with the Chik-Fil-Aholes who will now want to restate their "religious convictions" that require them to be complete dicks. Not that they need to tell us twice that they're complete dicks.
says that Ukraine (of which Crimea WAS a part) had something like 6+ gunz per person. And we're not talkin' bout single shot, bolt action .22 cal. "plinkerz*"; nosireebob, we're talkin' bout AK-47's and other military weppins--a fuckton or so of them.
I gotta do some more googlin' and Buddy the Wonderdog sez I need a walk** and so there's that. This might get more treatment later.
* According to at least one FBI source the round used most frequently for killin' people. The source is several years (or more) old so it may have changed, still....
** I have not, to date, had to kill anyone or even carry a Colt 1911 in my Kimber 4000183 CC holster. And Buddy never says "HooooooooooooooooooooAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!", neither.