Fairweather

Kimmo, this is kind of an aside, but I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from and to what degree your position is driven by empiricism vs emotion or a particular world view. What are your thoughts on mandatory childhood vaccinations? Animal rights? Are you a vegetarian? Vegan? I'm ok with your position on 522 and I understand why a lot of folks are pushing for its passage. In fact, Jim makes a good point when he says something along the lines that "if Monsanto is against it, then I'm for it," and I'm tempted to follow this path as well. (Although it's too late; I voted No and mailed it in a few days ago.)

[video:youtube]OapaDPrOYwk

Only when I can't get my backcountry overnight permit because the quota area is loaded up with guided parties.

I'll admit, I haven't read either of them, their works have just been summarized in this study design and stats analysis book I have. But I got them in my Amazon shopping cart right now. The philosophy of science hurts my head a bit. I'd rather be out collecting data than thinking about it, since collecting data for me has meant being outside, and thinking about it has meant being in front of a computer. Good reads, both. Keep in mind while reading Popper that he recanted some of his better-known stuff later in life. Kuhn is more durable, but then again his overall premise isn't really all that deep. Mr. JayB is the real expert on this stuff. Prole says I'm just his waterboy.

My problem with GMO foods isn't that I think they are unhealthy for human consumption. Rather, I think they pose a danger to the natural environment and crops hybridized by more traditional methods. What's more, I think we're heading toward a place where science will have to keep producing ever-new variations of their GMO products just to stay one step ahead of natural selection and its penchant for favoring survivor pests, fungi, etc. When the lab goes dark, the monoculture shit we have left won't hold up. Or, just as bad, the lab owners will hold us hostage. (Which is already happening.)

A good call out--except for the part about deliberate manipulation of facts. The portion I cited was 4c: "Prohibition of Certain Uses." The subsection you cite is part 6 of 4d: "Special Provisions." This portion also says things like the following: (2) Nothing in this Act shall prevent within national forest wilderness areas any activity, including prospecting, for the purpose of gathering information about mineral or other resources, if such activity is carried on in a manner compatible with the preservation of the wilderness environment... and this: (4) Within wilderness areas in the national forests designated by this Act, (1) the President may, within a specific area and in accordance with such regulations as he may deem desirable, authorize prospecting for water resources, the establishment and maintenance of reservoirs, water-conservation works, power projects, transmission lines, and other facilities needed in the public interest, including the road construction and maintenance essential to development and use thereof, upon his determination that such use or uses in the specific area will better serve the interests of the United States and the people thereof than will its denial; and (2) the grazing of livestock, where established prior to September 3, 1964, shall be permitted to continue subject to such reasonable regulations as are deemed necessary by the Secretary of Agriculture. Shall we equate guiding with mining, reservoirs, and power transmission lines? My "worldview" as you put it, sees guiding as a legitimate activity within designated wilderness. And I think the manner with which the language in 4c has been applied to roads and "permanent or temporary structures" by groups like the NCCC is a bunch of bunk. But if the language in 4c is upheld as stand-alone law, unmodified by 4d, then it must stand alone for the prohibition of guiding too, no? This is how one of my environmental attorney friends said she would argue it anyhow--from either side. The post I put up re guiding on the Ptarmigan Traverse was meant to kind of throw up a flag on what could happen if things get out of control because the outdoor press has deemed a certain part of the Glacier Peak Wilderness Area the "holy grail" of hiking. There has already been much discussion about wilderness boundaries, exempt corridors, and guiding activities in the now-enclosed Muir corridor--and some of the concerns are legitimate.

FW, did you really think you were the only nerd around here? I will take your Kuhn and raise it a Popper: They disagreed on more than a few things, but if you want to go with Popper, you can use his version of falsifiability to refute a lot of so-called science--including the now "irrefutable" notion of anthropogenic global warming. Of course, he hedged a bit with verisimilitude.

Nice pictures and trip. We did this in 2009 and spent three of our five days in the rain and hail. But the two nice days we did get were unforgettable. Manacus, I agree. Not to sound too elitist here, but guiding should not be allowed in this area--at least not in high-ratio groups. The Wilderness Act 1964: Section 4c - Prohibition of Certain Uses: Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this Act and, except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act. . .

I don't know about kittens, but Montesano has a lot of these:

so much for Off_White enforcing the "language will get you banned" line... I suppose he feels that putting a "z" on the end of his vile misogynistic rants will keep him safe.

I see you've shifted from "you're lying" to a more informed "who cares, you have it coming." Well done. Medicare is great since it supports older, typically retired folks. But it's supported by the larger system and most I know--including my parents--have to spend between $200 and $350 per month (each) in additional private insurance to cover the "gaps" that the government won't pay for. What's more, Obama is taking $700Bn out of Medicare over the next ten years to pay for...Obamacare. Kind of a shell game. Finally, I don't expect a civil discussion with cc.com's resident thug, but if you could avoid this in the future, it would be great.

...and that Vasque Juxt he's wearing is on sale at REI for $99.00(for the pair). Seriously though, what keeps a guy like that from going into shock?

Whether it was a lie or a broken promise doesn't really make any difference to me--or millions of other middle-class Americans. As for the law being a "poor product of compromise," well, I recall one party rule at the time it was passed. The fact that it was seen by most Democrats and Obama as a "stepping stone" to single-payer was no secret then, and it's no secret now. In the long run, it may be exactly what Generation E wants. But there are still a lot of us who don't, and I don't think it's going to work out well for the Dems in the near or medium term. The Republican bungling that shut down the government will be a thing of the past by Nov 2014--but this healthcare fuckup will still be on everyone's mind.

Not sure how this can be spun as an "unintended consequence." (Or how you can justify it.) He and his fellow Dems wrote the law and this was clearly a lie. [video:youtube]CuLp--VveIA

Looks like somewhere between 2 and twelve million of us "aren't paying our bills" as cc.com's well-insulated-from-reality-resident-know-it-all believes. CBS News Sometimes it's just sad to see how long slow kids will keep trying to fit that peg in the wrong hole--and likewise to hear the stories they'll concoct to explain their failing worldview. Single-payer? Heck, this idiot president and his Democrat moron worshipers can't even get a much simpler program right with four years of lead time. I'd say that Obamacare hasn't done single-payer socialist dreamers like TTK any favors this go-round. And it's gonna get worse for them as more Obamacare bullshit is revealed.

Yep, I think there's gonna be a lot more of that. "You mean...it's not gonna be FREE???" Once the bulk of the middle class realizes they were lied to about keeping their doctor, insurance, etc., the party of social engineering is going to pay dearly--as they should.

Geeez, and you wonder why people don't like you? The reason they gave is the provision under the ACA that, for all intents and purposes, eliminates the catastrophic plan my wife and I preferred. You never learn do you FW? A leopard does not change its spots. Yep, you were right. Note to self: do not share personal anecdotes in the presence of tools--particularly ones that fly in the face of a particular utopian worldview. Of course I can't just "fix" my problem since I can't get straight answers from OB & Co--or even a legitimate quote! Well done TTK & friends.

Geeez, and you wonder why people don't like you? The reason they gave is the provision under the ACA that, for all intents and purposes, eliminates the catastrophic plan my wife and I preferred.

I'm glad you're amused, but I don't need FOX News to tell me the first part of your post is true. My wife and I received our cancellation notice from United Health Care last month telling us that our coverage ends this Thursday. Well done, Democrats; we're much happier now.

This seems to read like a defacto admission that your fellow Ds are more likely to be lured in by the folly of this initiative than those on the other side? As for the tomacco, well, I was mildly disappointed when I bit into this vegetable (or is it a fruit?) and discovered it contained a pig's eyeball and a cuttlefish tentacle that tasted like Roundup.

I522 - Nothin sweeter than being in the know at the same time you're gettin even with big evil corporations...

I'm voting no on 522 simply because I think it will fall prey to the rule of unintended consequences. Still, I think there is an unspoken problem with genetically altered food. As science continues to expand the possible vis-a-vis food production, the human population continues to expand commensurate with available resources--just as Malthus predicted. And the natural environment and the social fabric will continue to become more and more marginalized. I'm not saying we should dial back or that people should be allowed to starve, but there is a correlation between plentiful, cheap food and an expanding human population. (1900 <2Bn; 2013 >7.5Bn.) When it comes to genetically re-sequenced food, I think a line will need to be drawn at some point.

Yeah, but the scene at the end--with the glorious dam run by Tanya--clearly a statement that Russian communism had "worked out the bugs," no?

As you know, I'm not a big fan of the Catholics or the commies. My opinion of the latter was trying to reconcile the writings of Alexander Solzhenitsyn and maniacal commie behavior in places like Hue and Phnom Penh with the largely favorable portrayal they received right here in Doctor Zhivago. I do remember following Apollo 13 though--just like the rest of the space program. As for the Apollo-Soyuz, wasn't there initially some kind of dispute over which side was going to have the "male" appendage in the docking mechanism?