Look, you can diminish the value of this discussion by resorting to nonsensical humor, or you can actually add something to the conversation.

There are lots of things that irk me about this post (and its title, and some of the comments), but to suggest a link between states' rights and white supremacy is especially (and intellectually) insulting.

We (Americans) pay so much lip service to our constitution—our presidents, our congressmen, our federal civil servants all swear oaths to uphold and defend it—and yet it's continually trashed, both by the politicians themselves and by a general public which chooses either to ignore certain of its stipulations or else willingly forgo any thorough understanding of it. (With your last comment, you're showing an absolute lack of appreciation for a federal system which allots certain privileges to the federal government and certain privileges to the states.)

I happen to think it a curious thing that we're so obsessed with our constitution; I see a lot of similarities between people who worship the constitution and people who worship certain holy books. It was a remarkable document when it was written, sure, but in many ways it's outmoded, and it's certainly vague enough in some of its important passages to cause a considerable amount of disagreement in its interpretation. For better or for worse, though, it's the foundation of our government, and we can't just take the parts we like and ignore the parts we don't like. If there are things about it we disagree with, or if we no longer agree with the form of government it enshrines, then we ought to abolish it and write a new constitution, or else amend it so that certain things are made more clear, or brought more up to date with our current understanding of ethics and morality and political and social theory. I think part of what makes American politics so comically absurd, at times, is that our society is trying to reconcile two radically different ideals, namely the extreme emphasis on individual liberty (as dictated by our constitution) and the socially progressive emphasis on communal responsibility.

/end rant

(And sorry if I came off as combative; it wasn't my intention.)>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

If you consider the fact that freedom constitutions the liberty gold if freedom gold is in accordance with liberty freedom, then it should follow that liberty liberty gold liberty isn't any more constitutional than liberty liberty constitution liberty. (In other words: freedom)

>> ^aurens:
I think it's more that states' rights go hand in hand with the constitution.>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
This is driving the Paulies nuts because they can't blame it on the 'lamestream' media. 'State's rights' and white supremacy go hand and hand.

>> ^criticalthud:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^criticalthud:
just out of curiosity, in the midst of global warming doubters promoting the theory that the earth is warming through solar/cosmic/natural means... has there been much consideration into the idea that the earth is currently in a cooling phase -- enormously offset by what we're doing to it?
second,
one large concern i have with global warming is "system adaption" - that being that it generally takes the ecosystem a bit of time to adjust to whatever is happening to it (ie: glaciers don't melt immediately). Meaning that the damage we caused 10 years ago is being felt now. Meaning also that even if we were to cease mucking about right now, we could expect continued and possibly even escalating ecosystem problems in the years to come.
so, is it time to panic? dunno. could be.

Which is why it's so important to understand things better. Rapidly cutting CO2 emissions before we have the replacement technology in place would be costly, not just financially but world history shows big financial impacts generally spill over into violent impacts. Battery technology is getting very close to making electric cars that are superior in every way to their gas guzzling brethren. I truly do believe that the enormous CO2 contribution made by burning gasoline is rapidly on it's way out for purely economic rather than environmental reasons. Another reason I don't feel the need for panic.
As I stated above, I am NOT being a skeptic in declaring that H2O dominates the greenhouse effect. It is the uncontested scientific fact.
I am NOT being a skeptic in declaring that H2O's role in climate models and forcing/feedbacks is very poorly understood. It is an uncontested scientific fact, some models even disagree on whether to assign it as a positive or negative feedback.
Think about those two for a good long while before thinking everything Al Gore said should trump peer reviewed science.

you seem to mistake me as someone who is arguing with you. i'm really only interested in insights.
I'm certainly not a climatologist. I work with spines. But in answer to your proposition that it would be chaotic if we cut back, I think the strength of the human species is in their ability to adapt, and as far as i'm concerned, the ballooning world population combined with a worldwide contracture in resources makes this inevitable (not to mention the growing climate change issue) - but it's up to us on how painful we want it to be.
Our entire economic system and our culture of consumerism needs to be revised. We are mindless automatons, with little awareness to our impact on the earth as a species. Our daily lives are almost entirely self-centered.
Secondly, as to "the" question of human contribution, I would offer the microcosm of the forest fire, in which carbon is suddenly released into the atmosphere. The overall effect is, clearly, very warming, almost suffocating. On a grander scale, the species is continually burning and releasing carbon into the atmoshphere all over the planet. How that would fail to warm the planet escapes me. but, like i said, it's not my field. peace out.


Sorry if my tone comes off as combative, it's not really my intent so please don't take my vehemence on issues personally. Maybe I'm just getting older but I'm of the mindset that the fastest way to know where I'm right and wrong is to be forward and assertive with how I understand things and allow the opportunity to be corrected where I'm wrong.

My thoughts on the human contribution are tempered by a few things. From the very top, that CO2's contribution is small compared to H2O(I count this an uncontested fact). Annual CO2 emissions are small(5%) compared to natural CO2 emissions(I again count this an uncontested fact). The experts do insist that the human CO2 emissions are building up and still driving the natural CO2 levels significantly higher each year. We don't understand the natural CO2 emission and absorption processes very well, so poorly in fact our margins of error on them are larger than the human contribution. There is evidence that CO2 levels are rising in the last 100 years, and there is a correlation there to human emissions. What we don't have strong evidence for yet is what impact that has on climate. We DO know it is warming effect, but the magnitude of it is still poorly understood. As I've outlined above the understanding of temperature trends over the last 2k years is still a work in progress with large margins of error(even systematic ones that are being worked out). The computer models we have by definition are no more reliable than that data, which places us without a strong correlation or confidence in what magnitude of change the CO2 will have when all other variables are considered.

As a side point, if you look at the IPCC or listen to certain climatologists, you may hear it sounding like they disagree and believe my last statement is disproven. What they have studied is the impact CO2 increases should have overall with the assumption of all other variables being equal. It's a useful figure to have, and the confidence in it is better than my last statement described. That is because I was talking about something different, I stated that CO2's impact, with all other variables being considered NOT equal, is still poorly known and has very low confidence levels. In the real world the impact of one climate variable impacts the role of all the others, and often significantly. The IPCC and a select few climatologists talk about CO2 projections that ignore that interaction as a base assumption and somewhere along the line between them and the public or them and Al Gore, that base assumption gets dropped off. That base assumption is central and vital, and it's why as our climate models improve we will see predictions for CO2 that fall outside the error margins of the IPCC models with that assumption. That doesn't invalidate the IPCC's work, it is an advancement of it and improvement upon it. Remembering the base assumptions is vital for the public to maintain faith in the integrity and reliability of scientific research. People need to know WHY the predictions they were told by the IPCC a few years back have changed so much and yet the IPCC insists they weren't wrong. The truth is simply that they were misunderstood.

As yet another rabbit warren, there is an even smaller set of people within the climate community who actively encourage that misunderstanding. They do it firmly believing that the impact of CO2 with all else ignored is still indicative of CO2 with all else considered. Which is even a reasonable and normal expectation. The trouble is it falsely communicates the level confidence and margin of error of current known facts. I can't abide that kind of thinking, it's what is supposed to differentiate scientists from priests and politicians, they are supposed to refuse to make that kind of compromise when presenting what they do and do not know is demonstrably true.

I wonder if they think he is sad or scared or something. Grooming is not just for removing parasites and combing fur. It is a social bonding reinforcement and is occasionally used to calm or console another gorilla. At 2:46 the silverback gently prods the youngster away from the man and gives him a slight push as if to say "leave him alone". Whatever the reason, it's a fascinating thing to watch. Love the look the silverback gives John at 5:13.

Hi Mintbbb,
Noticed you must have combed my Pqueues today an managed to sift a few out into the real world
Thanks a bunch

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

I should have been clearer. He's not apologising, rather acting as an apologist. Sorry.
>> ^spoco2:
>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
Weird to see Louis apologising for this sort of thing. I see no positive angle on Morgan's words, unfortunately.

He's not apologising for it. How did he apologise? He tried to explain it. He is trying to think where Tracy was coming from in saying that. He also said that it should have been a starting point for discussion, which is SO SHOULD have been (I missed this whole thing, but it certainly sounds like it should have)... having a non-accusatory, non-combative discussion about what led to him to make that joke, why he would have a problem with his son talking like that/ being that sort of gay person would have been great.
He never apologised, he just said it could have been handled better.



I'm gonna take a lesson from you and not talk. Because talking is the wrong the to do in every situation. Lets just react, no need for rational thought ever right?

Yeah fuck you.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
I should have been clearer. He's not apologising, rather acting as an apologist. Sorry.
>> ^spoco2:
>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
Weird to see Louis apologising for this sort of thing. I see no positive angle on Morgan's words, unfortunately.

He's not apologising for it. How did he apologise? He tried to explain it. He is trying to think where Tracy was coming from in saying that. He also said that it should have been a starting point for discussion, which is SO SHOULD have been (I missed this whole thing, but it certainly sounds like it should have)... having a non-accusatory, non-combative discussion about what led to him to make that joke, why he would have a problem with his son talking like that/ being that sort of gay person would have been great.
He never apologised, he just said it could have been handled better.



I agree. Because empathy, honesty, understanding and reason are approaches to conflict that need to be framed in more honest terms...as weakness.

Diplomacy is nothing more than surrendering to the opposition. The opposition that should be correctly labeled in dehumanizing terms, like "gay", "socialist", "terrorist".

Every conflict should be handled by busting down doors, guns blazing; shock and awe; give no ground to the enemy. Resolution only comes when the scapegoat is sacrificed and everyone walks away poliarized and with their pride in tact.

America! FUCK YEAH!!!

I should have been clearer. He's not apologising, rather acting as an apologist. Sorry.
>> ^spoco2:

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
Weird to see Louis apologising for this sort of thing. I see no positive angle on Morgan's words, unfortunately.

He's not apologising for it. How did he apologise? He tried to explain it. He is trying to think where Tracy was coming from in saying that. He also said that it should have been a starting point for discussion, which is SO SHOULD have been (I missed this whole thing, but it certainly sounds like it should have)... having a non-accusatory, non-combative discussion about what led to him to make that joke, why he would have a problem with his son talking like that/ being that sort of gay person would have been great.
He never apologised, he just said it could have been handled better.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

Weird to see Louis apologising for this sort of thing. I see no positive angle on Morgan's words, unfortunately.


He's not apologising for it. How did he apologise? He tried to explain it. He is trying to think where Tracy was coming from in saying that. He also said that it should have been a starting point for discussion, which is SO SHOULD have been (I missed this whole thing, but it certainly sounds like it should have)... having a non-accusatory, non-combative discussion about what led to him to make that joke, why he would have a problem with his son talking like that/ being that sort of gay person would have been great.

He never apologised, he just said it could have been handled better.

*geek *wtf

Article: http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/nstv/2011/12/one-minute-math-why-you-cant-comb-a-hairy-ball.html

militant: adjective and noun; usually used to mean vigorously active, combative and aggressive, especially in support of a cause.

Anyone with a cause is sort of de facto militant about it, i mean... its your cause.

Socialism: An economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and cooperative management.

To QM, it means "a centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production".

See how not understanding nuance leads to such frustration

I'm looking to sell my own version of this... can only produce a few litres a day (with adequate hydration)... so there should be a substantial markup


it's also useful for disinfecting combs at the barbershop too

I don't see here is any real denying that she's (A) left her family to (B) hang out with a bunch of hippies. 'Left' doesn't mean she has divorced or seperated. It just means she's out doing an activity. Families do things like that all the time, and as long as the husband is on-board with it, supportive, and things have been arranged to have been taken care of while she's gone then fine. What's the problem?

However - what if the husband WASN'T exactly on board with this? What if she just told him "I'm going" and then upped and took off without making arrangements or otherwise taking the steps to make sure her kids were looked after? What if she just really wanted to go be part of this OWS thing, ran out the door, and expected other people to pick up the slack 'indefinitely' as she puts it? I'd say that's quite another story, and I would also agree with F&F that a person who does such a thing is scum. Family comes first.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/she_plans_to_stray_awhile_opuo0dDOjE39dfRDdUZ1sM

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/awol_fla_mom_off_wall_39RPeFcS8xHypyOrCbeh4I

None of the news I've seen so far has obtained the words of the husband. All references to him and the kids are second or third-hand "they said" kind of stuff. I'd be interested to have someone in the media talk to the husband and get his official story about what happened. The interviews with this woman don't inspire confidence in her reasoning capabilities. She seems high-strung, combative, highly emotional, and subject to outbursts. I'd rather get the opinion of someone a bit more steady. Maybe she's right. Maybe she's full of crap. I don't know. What's the husband got to say? The only quote I've seen of his says that he is "puzzled". That doesn't exactly tell me what he really thinks, whether they planned this, or whether he is supportive or not. It implies that he doesn't really have any interest in OWS, but not much else.

Um, sorry, I don't agree with this -- are you implying that @quantumushroom should be banned?

You talk of derailment -- that only happens when folks choose to engage. It takes two -- or more -- to derail. He drives you nuts? Stop engaging with him. Then he is reduced to one comment and then silence. Works great.

I don't agree with him, hardly at all, ever, but I will defend his right to be here. Besides, he is much less offensive and combative than many others on the Sift. In fact, I can't remember him personally attacking anyone. But then, my memory is shite.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

Ok, I think we've actually put up with QMs bullshit for long enough. He has crossed the line from being a misguided, moronic, but occasionally funny, troll into either deliberate spiteful trolling or full-on bigoted fuckwadery. I fail to see how his contribution to this community outweighs the numerous threads he has derailed with his own unique brand of portmanteau-based idiocy.
HERP DERP, I'll call it "the Gay"... for fucks sake, grow up. I haven't hit anyone outside of a dojo in years, but I think I'd punch you in the face if I met you.
And actually, while I'm on the subject, who fucking cares if being gay is a choice? If two consenting adults decide they want to screw each other, who is anyone to tell them not to?
Man, I've got to stop watching american politics on this site. It's so depressing to watch the worlds biggest economy dictated by a political scene that the rest of the world regards as frankly retarded. Honestly, when Obama came along I had some hope, but it's just more of the same shit.

>> ^kraun124:

Aren't baby bees inside the little cells in the comb at some point? Is there certain times when babies aren't present? Doesn't sound as yummy if you think about crushing in little dead baby bees when you crush the comb.
afaik(from reading wikipedia) broodcombs exist only during specific periods of the year and they are usually darker in color.

Aren't baby bees inside the little cells in the comb at some point? Is there certain times when babies aren't present? Doesn't sound as yummy if you think about crushing in little dead baby bees when you crush the comb.