>> ^Fletch:
>> ^charliem:
Shes way smarter than she lets on.
She is actually a constitutional lawyer herself, after watching the vids of her argue law against billo' and call him out for being the idiot that he is, you can tell shes just pushing the party line in this one.
Pretty sad really.

You've got to be joking. "Just pushing the party line" alone, if that's all she's doing, speaks to her intelligence, imvho. Bush graduated from Yale, ffs. Maybe he's smarter than he lets on, too.


Intelligent shills with no souls to mention, still go home with a paycheck

>> ^charliem:
Shes way smarter than she lets on.
She is actually a constitutional lawyer herself, after watching the vids of her argue law against billo' and call him out for being the idiot that he is, you can tell shes just pushing the party line in this one.
Pretty sad really.


You've got to be joking. "Just pushing the party line" alone, if that's all she's doing, speaks to her intelligence, imvho. Bush graduated from Yale, ffs. Maybe he's smarter than he lets on, too.

So where's this i9/11 I've been eagerly waiting for? I called BS and I stand by that call. Don't care where he graduated from, he was off his meds making a claim like that based on a single flimsy source.

>> ^nomino:
>> Ha ha. You're funny. You should go outside and play hide and go fuck yourself. Lessig is a professor of law at Stanford Law School. Lessig earned a B.A. in Economics and a B.S. in Management (Wharton School) from the University of Pennsylvania, an M.A. in philosophy from the University of Cambridge (Trinity) in England, and a Juris Doctor from Yale Law School.
Prior to joining Stanford he taught at the Harvard Law School, where he was the Berkman Professor of Law, affiliated with the Berkman Center for Internet & Society, and the University of Chicago Law School.
I think this guy knows one or two things about litigation. And I for one will take his word over yours any day, EVEN if you are named after a freedom fighting toy.

From wikipedia:

"Legal action against the guardsmen

Eight of the guardsmen were indicted by a grand jury. The guardsmen claimed to have fired in self-defense, which was generally accepted by the criminal justice system. In 1974 U.S. District Judge Frank Battisti dismissed charges against all eight on the basis that the prosecution's case was too weak to warrant a trial.[13]

In May 2007, Alan Canfora, one of the injured protestors, demanded that the case be reopened, having found an audiotape in a Yale University government archive allegedly recording an order to fire ("Right here! Get Set! Point! Fire!") just before the 13 second volley of shots.[15]

Canfora has been on a crusade since discovering the tape, hoping to get authorities to reopen the case and use new technology to perform voice analysis. Larry Shafer, a guardsman who said he fired during the shootings and was one of those charged told the Kent-Ravenna Record Courier newspaper in May 2007:" I never heard any command to fire. That's all I can say on that," Shafer, a Ravenna city councilman and former fire chief, told the newspaper. "That's not to say there may not have been, but with all the racket and noise, I don't know how anyone could have heard anything that day." Shafer also when on to say that "point" would not have been part of a proper command." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

Just to even the spin out, oh wait... not a single guardsmen was killed.

The threat of force does not always work, and it can make a bad situation much, much worse.

Which is why you should tell your CO or XO to stick it up his ass.

A new study out of Yale University confirms what argumentative liberals have long-known: Offering reality-based rebuttals to conservative lies only makes conservatives cling to those lies even harder. In essence, schooling conservatives makes them more stupid. From the Washington Post article on the study, which came out yesterday:

Political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler provided two groups of volunteers with the Bush administration's prewar claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. One group was given a refutation -- the comprehensive 2004 Duelfer report that concluded that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction before the United States invaded in 2003. Thirty-four percent of conservatives told only about the Bush administration's claims thought Iraq had hidden or destroyed its weapons before the U.S. invasion, but 64 percent of conservatives who heard both claim and refutation thought that Iraq really did have the weapons. The refutation, in other words, made the misinformation worse.

A similar "backfire effect" also influenced conservatives told about Bush administration assertions that tax cuts increase federal revenue. One group was offered a refutation by prominent economists that included current and former Bush administration officials. About 35 percent of conservatives told about the Bush claim believed it; 67 percent of those provided with both assertion and refutation believed that tax cuts increase revenue.

In a paper approaching publication, Nyhan, a PhD student at Duke University, and Reifler, at Georgia State University, suggest that Republicans might be especially prone to the backfire effect because conservatives may have more rigid views than liberals: Upon hearing a refutation, conservatives might "argue back" against the refutation in their minds, thereby strengthening their belief in the misinformation. Nyhan and Reifler did not see the same "backfire effect" when liberals were given misinformation and a refutation about the Bush administration's stance on stem cell research.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-sweeney/theres-no-arguing-with-co_b_126805.html

In reply to this comment by EDD:
^ CONCERNING STRANGELETS:

First of all, strangelets are merely hypothetical type of matter. None have so far been observed or produced. We would see some corrution of Neutron stars more often if the stuff was actual and not theoretical. Lambda particles I think have happened, but they decay so fast it is not really a subject of much fear mongering

Secondly, the RHIC (Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider) in the US has been working for 8 years now and no strangelets have been produced there. In comparison, LHC collisions will have more energy, thus making it even less probable a strangelet might form (equivalent would be ice forming in boiling water). In addition, LHC quarks will be even more dilute than at RHIC.

Read this study on RHIC by MIT, Yale and Princeton physicists to find out more.


"It is believed that the higher energy of the lead-lead collisions of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), compared to the RHIC, will produce more strange quarks in the quark-gluon plasma (QGP) than are produced at RHIC's QGP. This higher production of strange quarks might allow for production of a strangelet at the LHC, and searches are planned for such upon commencement of collisions at the LHC ALICE detector."

"Angelis et al., "Model of Centauro and strangelet production in heavy ion collisions", Phys. Atom. Nucl. 67:396-405 (2004) arXiv:nucl-th/0301003 "

I thought that was an interesting read on the subject. It's all theoretical though, so far, we haven't really seen the stuff at all.

Sorry for the long gap between posts, the hurricane messed with my normal routine.

^ CONCERNING STRANGELETS:

First of all, strangelets are merely hypothetical type of matter. None have so far been observed or produced.

Secondly, the RHIC (Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider) in the US has been working for 8 years now and no strangelets have been produced there. In comparison, LHC collisions will have more energy, thus making it even less probable a strangelet might form (equivalent would be ice forming in boiling water). In addition, LHC quarks will be even more dilute than at RHIC.

Read this study on RHIC by MIT, Yale and Princeton physicists to find out more.

>> ^SDGundamX:
Such utter BS. I can't believe people are actually uneducated enough to listen to a guy like this--who presents absolutely no evidence to back up his claims. The Patriot Act was sitting around in someone's drawer for 20 years? Really? I guess the people who drafted it were psychic then since they knew about the Internet and email in advance and decided a priori that the government would one day need to do more to control it. And a large part of the Patriot Act targets immigrants. Why on earth would the government target immigrants 20 years ago back when it was a non-issue and then sit on it until now?
This guy is about as credible as most people who claim to have seen Bigfoot. The vid deserves to be on the Sift only for laugh value at the gullibility of the conspiracy theorists who eat this stuff up.


Ha ha. You're funny. You should go outside and play hide and go fuck yourself. Lessig is a professor of law at Stanford Law School. Lessig earned a B.A. in Economics and a B.S. in Management (Wharton School) from the University of Pennsylvania, an M.A. in philosophy from the University of Cambridge (Trinity) in England, and a Juris Doctor from Yale Law School.

Prior to joining Stanford he taught at the Harvard Law School, where he was the Berkman Professor of Law, affiliated with the Berkman Center for Internet & Society, and the University of Chicago Law School.

I think this guy knows one or two things about litigation. And I for one will take his word over yours any day, EVEN if you are named after a freedom fighting toy.

>> ^chilaxe:
^Logical fallacies aren't so simple. Maher is arguing the modern "elitism" criticism is just attacking people for being "elite."
Maher's problem with the Messiah College graduates is that they're being handed the top jobs in government despite having no work experience and only bottom-tier academic records.
Use spell checker.


heheh ya, sorry about the spelling. Firefox usually does it for me, but I'm on ie 7 atm . But that is not really the subject of this conversation

I think I understand the content of your retort, but it doesn't seem to hold weight when I view the content a second and third time. The idea that he trys to merge is that being elite is a good thing and trys to make that into what the idea of elitism corresponds to. Or in other words, if you are a top mind in your feild, you are elite. If you are elite, you have nothing to be ashamed of (which I agree with). And if you are elite, that makes you also subject to the term elitism which isn't a bad thing, but just a relation to your being in the elite status of your field.

This, of course, could be something that is lost in translation and I would offer my retraction if he was just asserting that this is just an inflammatory statment.

It wasn't the academic record he was attacking at all, but the location of their education...unless the statment "where else can you find people dumb enough to belive in bush but in XXX location school" is ment to be some attack on that persons actual acedimic record? That doesn't sound like a list of their GPA, what if they graduated with honors and had 15 years of public service? We don't get those facts, just the ones that paint them as mindless trolls regardless of anything to back up this claim other than they atended xxx school.

It doesn't take a degree from XXX school in the studies of YYY to make you a genious or an idiot. If he would of just said this person is incompatant because their actions hold to it, that would be a valid assertions. But there are all sorts of Yale and harvard people out there making mistake after mistake, but no one would dare call Yale or Harvard the breading grounds of fools and idiots. Fools and idiots are everywhere, and people also make mistakes, some major. In that, wide sweeping alagations of people being morons because they went to a certain school isn't reasonable in the least; and I think is an obvious indication of his personal bias.

Thanks for your comments though, I always enjoy a differnt point of view, and you are welcome to respond to this, always like a good conversations. Perhaps I am making a mountain out of a mole hill because most likely he is just playing to the crowd and trying to insite some cheap thrills from berating his opposite demographics side.

I know he doesn't care. We ALL know he doesn't care. But what makes this special to me is that someone spoke to the President's face and held back no punches. Even with the shitty reply Bush gave, he still had at least one person tell him to his face that his actions were not well-received.

Bush thinks history will judge him the most worthy of Presidents, who stood in the face of terror and never backed down. This one man let the President know that history will judge him as the worst President, who stood in the face of terror and showed it HE COULD BE MORE TERRORIZING. And for that, alone, I applaud this one man. As isolated as the incident was, at least there was one.

>> ^Biminim:
It makes no difference whether or not one person stands up and criticizes the man. He just doesn't care. Nor will he care. I've worked with people like him, as I'm sure many have, and he is one of those semi-sociopathic folks who really cannot begin to internalize any criticism, for to do so would lead him to contemplate many other things in his life that reflect poorly upon him. In the February, 2000, issue of Harper's Magazine, an article by Joe Conason and Kevin Phillips titled, "Notes on a Native Son," laid it all out regarding George W. Bush and his lifetime of failures from which he was rescued by his father and his father's wealthy and influential friends. Every single achievement of Bush's--Yale, Harvard Business School, the oil business, being an owner of the Texas Rangers, governor of Texas, the U.S. Presidency--has been made possible by the connections and influence of his father and his father's friends. He has done nothing on his own. He has nothing of which to be proud. How could you be proud if you had never been able to accomplish anything, anything, in your life without the shadow of your father looming over you? Some say that is one of the reasons why he blundered ahead with the Iraq War--so that he could escape his father's shadow, do something his dad didn't do, and be successful on his own terms. Well, he failed.
Look at how he chuckles, hitches up his shoulders, looks down at his supporters in the front row. He doesn't give a shit. That's why he won't apologize for anything. He'll never apologize, never say he's sorry, never admit to a mistake. That kind of person never does.

It makes no difference whether or not one person stands up and criticizes the man. He just doesn't care. Nor will he care. I've worked with people like him, as I'm sure many have, and he is one of those semi-sociopathic folks who really cannot begin to internalize any criticism, for to do so would lead him to contemplate many other things in his life that reflect poorly upon him. In the February, 2000, issue of Harper's Magazine, an article by Joe Conason and Kevin Phillips titled, "Notes on a Native Son," laid it all out regarding George W. Bush and his lifetime of failures from which he was rescued by his father and his father's wealthy and influential friends. Every single achievement of Bush's--Yale, Harvard Business School, the oil business, being an owner of the Texas Rangers, governor of Texas, the U.S. Presidency--has been made possible by the connections and influence of his father and his father's friends. He has done nothing on his own. He has nothing of which to be proud. How could you be proud if you had never been able to accomplish anything, anything, in your life without the shadow of your father looming over you? Some say that is one of the reasons why he blundered ahead with the Iraq War--so that he could escape his father's shadow, do something his dad didn't do, and be successful on his own terms. Well, he failed.
Look at how he chuckles, hitches up his shoulders, looks down at his supporters in the front row. He doesn't give a shit. That's why he won't apologize for anything. He'll never apologize, never say he's sorry, never admit to a mistake. That kind of person never does.

Short answer - Canadian universities are WAY younger than those in the States, so we adopted the 'classic' European terminology. I mean, U of T was founded in 1827 (yeah, guess where I graduated from), and there may be some older universities in Canada (I don't know which), but probably not as old as, say, Harvard.

>> ^Sarzy:
I've got a question which is semi-related to the topic at hand: what's the deal with the terms college and university being seemingly interchangeable in the states? In Canada, college and university are two different things (college is generally a one or two year program in which you learn a trade, whereas university is a three or four year deal in which you learn something a bit more abstract (ie. political science, english, physics, etc.). Is this not the case in the U.S.?


Yeah, American terminology like that bothers me - where's the UNIVERSITY GRAD option???

Anyway, enough people were annoyed by this like us to make a small essay on the topic - the Canadian system:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College#Canada

And here's the bit about Amerika
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College#The_origin_of_the_U.S._usage

The founders of the first institutions of higher education in the United States were graduates of the University of Oxford and the University of Cambridge. The small institutions they founded would not have seemed to them like universities — they were tiny and did not offer the higher degrees in medicine and theology. Furthermore, they were not composed of several small colleges. Instead, the new institutions felt like the Oxford and Cambridge colleges they were used to — small communities, housing and feeding their students, with instruction from residential tutors (as in the United Kingdom, described above). When the first students came to be graduated, these "colleges" assumed the right to confer degrees upon them, usually with authority -- for example, the College of William and Mary has a Royal Charter from the British monarchy allowing it to confer degrees while Dartmouth College has a charter permitting it to award degrees "as are usually granted in either of the universities, or any other college in our realm of Great Britain."

Contrast this with Europe, where only universities could grant degrees. The leaders of Harvard College (which granted America's first degrees in 1642) might have thought of their college as the first of many residential colleges which would grow up into a New Cambridge university. However, over time, few new colleges were founded there, and Harvard grew and added higher faculties. Eventually, it changed its title to university, but the term "college" had stuck and "colleges" have arisen across the United States.

Eventually, several prominent colleges/universities were started to train Christian ministers. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Brown all started to train preachers in the subjects of Bible and theology. However, now these universities teach theology as a more academic than ministerial discipline.

With the rise of Christian education, renowned seminaries and Bible colleges have continued the original purpose of these universities. Criswell College and Dallas Theological Seminary in Dallas; Southern Seminary in Louisville; Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois; and Wheaton College and Graduate School in Wheaton, Illinois are just a few of the institutions that have influenced higher education in Theology in Philosophy to this day.

In U.S. usage, the word "college" embodies not only a particular type of school, but has historically been used to refer to the general concept of higher education when it is not necessary to specify a school, as in "going to college" or "college savings accounts" offered by banks. "University" is sometimes used in such contexts by Americans who wish to avoid ambiguity, for example in the context of Internet message boards where the reader hail from a different English speaking country.

Nice speech by one of the wealthy elite, who went to the finest schools daddy's money can buy. "Cullis-Suzuki received a B.Sc. in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology from Yale University in 2002."

Ooh yes, she spent a whole day doing photo ops with 3rd world kids living in hell. How noble. Then she took her limo back to her white picket fence gated community far away from the smelly disgusting masses and their annoying problems.

If you want to impress someone put ALL those millions in a trust that doesn't pay you a dime and go LIVE your life in the slums and ghettos you claim to care soo much about.

Ben Stein is a pathetic ignoramus and (along with Bush) is another reason Yale does not even deserve to be ranked in the top 100 universities.

Gina Solomon is a specialist in adult internal medicine, preventive medicine, and occupational and environmental medicine. She is a Senior Scientist in the Health and Environment Program of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). NRDC is a national nonprofit organization with over 550,000 members dedicated to the protection of public health and the environment.

Dr. Solomon is also an Assistant Clinical Professor of Medicine at the University of California at San Francisco where she is an attending physician at the U.C. Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit. Her work has included research on asthma, diesel exhaust, breast cancer, pesticides, contaminants in breast milk, and threats to reproductive health and child development.

Dr. Solomon attended medical school at Yale and did her residency and fellowship training at Harvard.

*****

Dr. Susan Kegley is an organic chemist with expertise in pesticide toxicology, pollutant fate and transport; environmental monitoring and analytical chemistry; and experience with pesticide regulation, pesticide data sources and the pesticide toxicology and epidemiology literature.

After 14 years of teaching, research and curriculum development in academia, Dr. Kegley worked as a Senior Scientist for nine years at Pesticide Action Network North America, a non-governmental, non-profit organization that works to promote sustainable alternatives to toxic pesticides.

Dr. Kegley started Pesticide Research Institute in 2006.

*****

Tyrone Hayes is a professor in the Department of Integrative Biology, UC Berkeley. His research focuses on the role of steroid hormones in amphibian development and he conducts both laboratory and field studies in the U.S. and Africa. The two main areas of interest are metamorphosis and sex differentiation.

His work addresses problems on several levels including ecological, organismal, and molecular questions. Studies examine the effects of temperature on developmental rates, interactions between the thyroid hormones and steroids, and hormonal regulation of skin gland development.