Print Story I'm trying to give up sexual innuendos
but it's hard


so hard.

I saw this article: http://www.nature.com/news/mystery-humans-spiced-up-ancients-rampant-sex-lives-1.14196 and jokingly asked my semitic philology friend if these might be the Nephilim (or perhaps the mysterious Adam and Eve animated by God). he told me i could go mystically descend the pardes and ask metatron himself.

that just got me another thread. Metatron is an archangel. he is, shockingly, sitting down in heaven, which is Not Done, as you do not sit in the presence of God. this was corrected by saying that, you know, Metatron can sit because he's the heavenly scribe. Metatron is also, by the way, often identified with the ascended Enoch, which is kind of weird, really, but that's Judeo-Christianity. 

But this brings me to my real point: R.L Burnside was a blues musician who had an album called "I wish I was in heaven sitting down". It's pretty decent. I know I've mentioned RL Burnside and Metatron before - I am nothing if not repetitive - but I don't think I connected them in this way before.

Here's a live show that's okay: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YH5yzvUtKz4

Truly an American icon: http://ditillo2.blogspot.com/2013/11/dezso-ban-may-10-1930-oct-24-2013.html

I really need to get some of this work done. otherwise my grade in life will be C (the same as the programming language i am working in).

I've had a cold for the last couple days. it has been draining my productivity. i think i'm on the upswing.

gave an exam, graded it, handed it back. things were okay. it was harder than the last, not by intentional design, but because the material is harder. this was confidence intervals and hypothesis testing. anyway, today's lecture was very uninspired because it was 8am and i had a cold. i felt like apologizing afterward. "sorry guys, i'm tired as hell and have a head full of cotton."

need to sign up the wifing unit for obamacare. hopefully a death panel won't take her away. or monitor her precious bodily fluids. but, then again, THIS IS A REPUBLIC, NOT A DEMOCRACY.

I am disappointed that there are not more sites or at least articles dedicated to making fun of Ben Swann. he's a 9/11 truther ("rethink" building 7 campaign) and a sandy hook truther (multiple shooters??). he is very brave. so brave. i would be able to take libertarianism more seriously if its major figures weren't only a nod away from conspiracy theorists, anti-semites, and neo-confederates. every political group has their shady connections, but it seems libertarian politicians are only about shady connections.

< Today has been tough | Road to Nowhere >
I'm trying to give up sexual innuendos | 23 comments (23 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
The more I look into this by gmd (2.00 / 0) #1 Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 02:36:39 AM EST
The more I am convinced that humans have been genetically modified in the past by beings from another world. I also believe that Earth has seen technologically advanced societies prior to our own. I believe we are living in some sort of post-apocalyptic aftermath with the collective amnesia that goes with it.

Then again it could be that too much Icke is bad for your mental health...



--
gmd - HuSi's second most dimwitted overprivileged user.
Genetic modifications by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #6 Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 11:55:31 AM EST
If the human genome was intentionally modified to be the way it is, then those beings where complete incompetents.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]
Given what Monsanto is up to by gmd (2.00 / 0) #7 Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 12:12:13 PM EST
 I think it's likely. Terminator seeds? What could possibly go wrong?

--
gmd - HuSi's second most dimwitted overprivileged user.
[ Parent ]
Not much, really... by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #14 Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 03:40:26 PM EST
They could accidentally not terminate and let farmers save seeds I suppose.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]
"Libertarian politician" by riceowlguy (2.00 / 0) #2 Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 10:34:06 AM EST
Is somewhere between an oxymoron and doublespeak.  A politician wants to control the levers of power so that they can dole out favors to ensure their continued employment as a politician.  A true libertarian wants to, as much as possible, dismantle the power structure itself.  There is no room for government handouts in exchange for votes in true libertarian politics, which is why it will never be successfully implemented.

To a certain extent, libertarianism, like any minority belief system, has the problem that the most famous libertarians are extremist nutcases.  Like Westboro Baptist "Christians", except that most of us probably know regular ordinary Christians who just want to believe in heaven and think it would be good if we were nicer to each other, etc.  Maybe Muslims/terrorists is a better analogy.  Most libertarians probably just think that non-coercion is a good first principle to base your political philosophy on, but they're not going around yelling about the gold standard.  I mean, maybe those folks are just trying to move the Overton Window but they're doing a really bad job of it.

westboro baptist by gzt (2.00 / 0) #4 Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 11:23:12 AM EST
are hardly the most prominent examples of Christians, as the majority of Americans profess Christian belief. you can point to... the pope.

The mainstream of libertarianism includes Ron Paul - he seems truly mainstream in that ideology. and he's one of the people i'm thinking of when i discuss association with antisemites etc. if he's not, direct me to the good thinkers. there aren't that many libertarians around and he seems to have a good following.

[ Parent ]
I'd start with this blog by riceowlguy (2.00 / 0) #8 Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 12:24:21 PM EST
http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/

And then Milton Friedman, whom I have read, and Hayek, Rothbard, and Nozick whom I mean to get around to reading.

None of those people are actually running for office, so maybe it doesn't count.  Politics != political philosophy.  For example, I'm not sure the current politics of the Democratic Party have much to do with John Rawls either.

I'm trying to avoid the No True Scotsman fallacy when it comes to trying to assert that the most famous libertarians (Ron Paul, Ayn Rand, the Tea Party) shouldn't be counted.  Obviously, if those folks are who average people think of when hearing the word "libertarian", and if that is how they choose to identify themselves, than maybe I need a new word to describe what I'm talking about.

[ Parent ]
uh... Rothbard? by gzt (2.00 / 0) #9 Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 01:06:51 PM EST
No. He's one of the crazies I immediately dismiss. http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch75.html

Hayek is an interesting fellow - note his enthusiastic support of Pinochet. libertarians tend to like the aspects of his work which get ignored by normal economists. At least you didn't mention Mises.

but, yes, I'm mostly asking for actual politicians. the movement sounds to me to be mostly things like Mises Institute, which is not credible and associated strongly with racists, anti-semites, conspiracy theorists, and other wacko birds.

Nozick is interesting in that he later moderated some of his positions, though it's fair to still call him a libertarian of some stripe:


"The libertarian position I once propounded," Nozick wrote in an essay published in the late '80s, "now seems to me seriously inadequate." In Anarchy democracy was nowhere to be found; Nozick now believed that democratic institutions "express and symbolize … our equal human dignity, our autonomy and powers of self-direction." In Anarchy, the best government was the least government, a value-neutral enforcer of contracts; now, Nozick concluded, "There are some things we choose to do together through government in solemn marking of our human solidarity, served by the fact that we do them together in this official fashion ..."

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/the_dilettante/2011/06/the_liberty_scam.3.html

I do realize that it's a bigger tent than that - I mean, when discussing "social democrats", I don't want all of socialism including Lenin and then Stalin thrown in (or Mao). So in a sense it's not fair to look at libertarianism and just see wackos like Rothbard and people like Ron Paul who associate with neo-confederates, racists, and anti-semites rather easily. but it's also fair to say that the movement in America doesn't really inspire anything just yet.

[ Parent ]
the particular rothbard quote: by gzt (2.00 / 0) #10 Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 01:37:46 PM EST

Two reasons we have already mentioned; to celebrate the victory of freedom of inquiry and of truth for its own sake; and a bullet through the heart of the egalitarian-socialist project. But there is a third reason as well: as a powerful defense of the results of the free market. If and when we as populists and libertarians abolish the welfare state in all of its aspects, and property rights and the free market shall be triumphant once more, many individuals and groups will predictably not like the end result. In that case, those ethnic and other groups who might be concentrated in lower-income or less prestigious occupations, guided by their socialistic mentors, will predictably raise the cry that free-market capitalism is evil and "discriminatory" and that therefore collectivism is needed to redress the balance. In that case, the intelligence argument will become useful to defend the market economy and the free society from ignorant or self-serving attacks. In short; racialist science is properly not an act of aggression or a cover for oppression of one group over another, but, on the contrary, an operation in defense of private property against assaults by aggressors.

In any case, there is cause for jubilation these days, for it looks as if the left-egalitarian blackout-and-smear gang has been dealt a truly lethal blow.


uhhhhh wtf.

also fun from him:


. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.[4] The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.[5] (Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.) This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g., by not feeding it)?[6] The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die. (Though, as we shall see below, in a libertarian society the existence of a free baby market will bring such “neglect” down to a minimum.)

You should have the legal right to let your children starve.

[ Parent ]
You also have a right to sell your baby by georgeha (2.00 / 0) #11 Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 01:59:37 PM EST
on the baby market, opening up income streams for those folk who have few other options.

I'm seeing win win here.


[ Parent ]
I didn't mention Mises by riceowlguy (2.00 / 0) #12 Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 02:32:20 PM EST
But I also read stuff from the von Mises institute.

I don't particularly care how credible any of this stuff is.  A school of economic thought that concludes that most of what working economists do for a living is somewhere between useless and harmful is probably going to be discredited by mainstream working economists.  Oh, whoops, now I'm a conspiracy theorist.  Except that I'm not.  I don't think that Paul Krugman and Ben Bernanke have secret meetings in smoke-filled rooms to talk about how they must discredit the Austrian school, I just think that if your whole career is based on econometric modeling and central banking and advising politicians on how to fiddle with interest rates and the money supply and aggregate demand, and there's somebody over in the corner saying that a fixed hard currency supply is logically adequate to run any system of economic exchange and that the best thing to do to an economy is leave it the hell alone, you're not likely to find it at all credible, and if asked what you think about those ideas, you'll say they're not credible.  Individual actors all reaching the same conclusion for their own personal reasons isn't a conspiracy, but it may still lead to a distortion of the truth.

As far as whether racists, anti-semites and conspiracy theorists tend to be associated with the Mises Institute, nothing I've read so far on their website seems to me to be racist or anti-semitic, but I haven't been reading it much.  I'm new to this stuff, give me time.  I may come around yet.

The Rothbard quotes are pretty ugly, yes.  Like I said, I haven't read his works yet.  He has been cited as an influential writer by other authors whose work I've read in this sphere.

Is there a catchy phrase to describe the following?

  1. Somebody has some interesting, reasonable ideas or does some legitimate research...
  2. Those ideas or that research is latched on to, taken out of context, and completely misunderstood by an unsavory political group and used to justify their unjust policies.
  3. Therefore, the interesting/reasonable ideas and/or legitimate research is discredited and/or declared off-limits for serious discussion.
It's probably easy to understand why Austrian economics would be appealing to racists and other assholes in general.  I don't think that should automatically discredit it.

[ Parent ]
the thing about von mises by gzt (2.00 / 0) #13 Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 03:38:23 PM EST
...okay, I'm going to link to an article by an extremely libertarian economist who wants to be as austrian friendly as possible: http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm

there's another very libertarian economist who wants to be as friendly to austrians as possible, robin hanson, who says much the same thing, but I can't find one single place where he discusses his problems with it - he's in an academic department with several austrians. one of his problems is that he can't figure out what the hell their claim is. if you're interested, i can dig around and see if there's a unified discussion somewhere.

or, to quote an economist friend of mine who did a postdoc with somebody you have heard of, when asked about austrian economics: "what economics?" it's not that people go out of their way to discredit it or anything, it's that it's not even a thing in academic circles.

there's some good mockery of von mises  here: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises

and the institute: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute

most of my ire toward libertarians is due to the von Mises institute, actually. if VMI disappeared completely, I would be a lot more okay with "libertarian thought". it's not that VMI is liked by racists and anti-semites, it's that it associates with them and is run by lew rockwell, a racist and anti-semite. there's a real difference between being liked by racists (can't choose who likes you) and associating with them (can choose who you associate your institute with).

[ Parent ]
The Caplan article was good by riceowlguy (4.00 / 1) #20 Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 08:53:43 AM EST
I hadn't realized the nature of Austrian a-priori economics claiming to be untestably right, which is obviously unscientific.  Thanks for the link to that.

I haven't read too much Rational Wiki stuff but it occasionaly strikes me as smug and self-important in the same way certain religious groups are.  It's fun to read them tearing into people I disagree with, but I imagine it would not be so fun if the eye should turn on any of my irrational beliefs.

The testability of economics is kind of a gray area for me - I've read Freakonomics and I listen to their podcast, and they discuss how difficult it can be to do scientific research in their field because of the lack of controlled experiments.  They have to wait for data to fall in their lap, so to speak (for example, there was a study recently done in Oregon, I think, on a group of people who had applied and qualified for Medicaid, but since there were only a certain number of slots available, they were randomly assigned to two groups, one who got Medicaid and one who didn't, and were therefore able to actually test some hypotheses about health care - although how much of that is economics and how much is sociology, I don't know).

This blog post explains much more clearly what I was trying to get at.


[ Parent ]
yeah, RW is somewhat of a circle-jerk by gzt (2.00 / 0) #21 Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 10:32:49 AM EST
basically, if you want to find something mocked, go there. i find it helpful for getting over hero-worship and getting pointed toward a more subtle view of things, but it's not, uh, a good source. it points to decent sources, though.

interesting idea about the divorce. austrian economics as astrologers and alchemists makes sense and suggests why they should be ignored.

[ Parent ]
more by gzt (2.00 / 0) #15 Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 04:00:11 PM EST

A school of economic thought that concludes that most of what working economists do for a living is somewhere between useless and harmful is probably going to be discredited by mainstream working economists.  Oh, whoops, now I'm a conspiracy theorist.  Except that I'm not. 

Actually, you are, or perhaps, more charitably, that you don't know what economists do (and neither does that school of thought).
I don't think that Paul Krugman and Ben Bernanke have secret meetings in smoke-filled rooms to talk about how they must discredit the Austrian school, I just think that if your whole career is based on econometric modeling and central banking and advising politicians on how to fiddle with interest rates and the money supply and aggregate demand, and there's somebody over in the corner saying that a fixed hard currency supply is logically adequate to run any system of economic exchange and that the best thing to do to an economy is leave it the hell alone, you're not likely to find it at all credible, and if asked what you think about those ideas, you'll say they're not credible.

So... earlier suspicion confirmed. There are many aspects of economics. Austrian economists make strong claims about all of them. And are generally considered either wrong or not different at all depending on the field. The above is one aspect and not even all neoclassical economists are in agreement with Krugman and Summers - but they all disagree with the Austrians. When real economists read von Mises, they typically stop after the first couple chapters when he claims his axiomatic system is true and his system is not falsifiable. Not falsifiable? Goodbye, you're not science. He's hostile to, um, math. Any sort of math. And empiricism. This is a complete non-starter. That's why they're discredited - they don't believe in testable predictions in any field. They believe what they say is true because it comes from their undeniable axioms. When they seem to describe reality, great. When they don't, it's reality's fault, it doesn't provide evidence against them. You may think this is a caricature, but it is not (at least, of von Mises's methodological Austrian school).

[ Parent ]
let's break this down by gzt (2.00 / 0) #17 Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 06:49:25 PM EST
if your whole career is based on:
  • econometric modeling This is all of economics, and not just the Krugmans, either. Rejecting this puts them in the "nutter" bin.
  • and central banking There are macro people opposed to this that aren't among the crazies and micro people won't have a strong opinion because they're micro people
  • * and advising politicians on how to fiddle with interest rates and the money supply and aggregate demand* Again, there are neoclassical macro people who don't like this
  • and there's somebody over in the corner saying that a fixed hard currency supply is logically adequate to run any system of economic exchange This is indeed unique (perhaps not totally) to Austrians and gets them called crazy. Especially since they argue this on non-empirical grounds and there are empirical grounds suggesting it's bad.
  • and that the best thing to do to an economy is leave it the hell alone Lots of normal economists believe this part. If you want this part, you emphatically do not have to go Austrian.


[ Parent ]
Ron Paul isn't really a libertarian by lm (2.00 / 0) #19 Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 08:48:31 AM EST
He's an anti-federalist. His problem is with the federal government stepping on the rights of individuals and states. What it comes to the power of the local government to take away almost any liberty it pleases, he's down with that.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
what do you can an Italian suppository? by nathan (4.00 / 3) #3 Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 11:20:23 AM EST
"innuendo" 

Breeding by ucblockhead (4.00 / 2) #5 Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 11:52:15 AM EST
The notion of "species" in biology is nowhere near as concrete as many think.  It is not a surprise that the species in genus homo are no different.

The more exciting thing in my mind is the identification of a human subspecies for which we have no fossils.

Maybe it's those mysterious "hobbit" people from Indonesia.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman

Once they allowed "seperate" speciec by wumpus (2.00 / 0) #16 Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 04:48:53 PM EST
to produce breeding offspring, I doubt that the term means anything without carefully understanding both the plant/animal/virus in question and the ecology around it before understanding what "species" means in that instance.

I understand why they did it, but I also think too much was lost (of course if most species are bacteria, why care?).

Wumpus

[ Parent ]
Well, they kind of had to go down that road by lm (2.00 / 0) #18 Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 08:45:41 AM EST
The largest reason that most mules are sterile is that (a) they tend to castrate all male mules and (b) they tend to keep female mules out of situations where they get bred.

There are recorded instances of both fertile male and female mules. What would happen in a state of nature is probably quite a bit different than what happens when most mules are kept in artificial surroundings.

If, if you don't like that example, then there are bison and cattle ...

They would have had to reorder large swaths of the taxonomic tree once they started figuring out just how many species were assumed to not be able to interbreed but are, in fact, able to interbreed.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
My favorite example by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #22 Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 12:01:57 PM EST
It can go the other way.  There is a species of duck where those in Nova Scotia can breed with those to the West.  In each area, the ducks breed with their neighbors fine, all the way around the planet, until you get to Ireland, where you find that ducks of that "species" can't breed with those in Nova Scotia.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]
"breeding" is itself a grey area by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #23 Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 02:49:21 PM EST
If you've got two groups of crickets, which are perfectly interfertile, but one emits 58 chirps a second to attract mates, while the other emits 54 chirps a second, and the females perfectly go for crickets in their own group, are they two species or one?

You could say they are one, because they could in theory breed true.  On the other hand, genetic drift will drive these two groups apart.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman

[ Parent ]
I'm trying to give up sexual innuendos | 23 comments (23 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback