Climate Fightin’

Recent studies have shown that surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. We saw this data and wanted to talk about it here on Leavenworth Street — but thought of bringing in a guest author. So we turned to UNL Chemistry Professor and frequent Leavenworth Street commenter — the Right Wing Professor himself — Gerard Harbison:

Gerard Harbison 01A very strange thing has been happening on the way to the global meltdown. The temperature has stopped going up. For the last 15 years. Yes, that’s quite a long time, but only recently have the mainstream media, and parts of the climate science community, felt compelled to recognize it. For example, in The Economist (previously a ‘warmist’ publication) yesterday, we read:

The rather heated debates we have had about the likely economic and social damage of carbon emissions have been based on that idea that there is something like a scientific consensus about the range of warming we can expect. If that consensus is now falling apart, as it seems it may be, that is, for good or ill, a very big deal.

Most notable of all, though, has been Hans von Storch, aristocratic granddaddy of German climatologists, and one of the ‘100 most influential Germans‘, in Der Spiegel, a newsmagazine that obligingly translates itself into English.

Von Storch is not a ‘climate skeptic’ (or ‘denier’ if you prefer). He’s been an author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment Reports, and an active and prolific researcher in the field.

Some notable comments:

SPIEGEL: Just since the turn of the millennium, humanity has emitted another 400 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet temperatures haven’t risen in nearly 15 years. What can explain this?

Storch: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We’re facing a puzzle.

CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn’t happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate  Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report
late next year.

SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we’re observing right now?

Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations.

The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase


SPIEGEL: What could be wrong with the models?

Storch: There are two conceivable explanations — and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn’t mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.

SPIEGEL: That sounds quite embarrassing for your profession, if you have to go back and adjust your models to fit with reality.

Storch: Why? That’s how the process of scientific discovery works. There is no last word in research, and that includes climate research. It’s never the truth that we offer, but only our best possible approximation of reality. But that often gets forgotten in the way the public perceives and describes our work.


SPIEGEL: And how good are the long-term forecasts concerning temperature and precipitation?

Storch: Those are also still difficult. For example, according to the models, the Mediterranean region will grow drier all year round. At the moment, however, there is actually more rain there in the fall months than there used to be. We will need to observe further developments closely in the coming years. Temperature increases are also very much dependent on clouds, which can both amplify and mitigate the greenhouse effect. For as long as I’ve been working in this field, for over 30 years, there has unfortunately been very little progress made in the simulation of clouds.

Temperate words from a wise, experienced and thoughtful scientist, who of course believes in the physics of global warming, but is aware of the limitations of modeling an entire planet, and remembers that often in the past, science has had to revise itself to accommodate phenomena it hadn’t even been aware of a few years previously.

Meanwhile, here in Nebraska, we’re not always quite so thoughtful. Of course, one expects very little from the editorial board of the Lincoln Journal Star

Nonetheless, on a 91-degree March afternoon, it was difficult to believe that some still deny that global  warming is real.

Most (almost all) scientists believe global warming is real. Whether global warming contributes to any particular  category of climate extremes is controversial. Attributing one weather event or even one season to global warming is not controversial. Everyone agrees it’s stupid.

But worse is their occasional opinion columnist and self-styled ‘environmental historian’ Francis Moul…

It is past time that we face the plain truth of a rapidly changing world climate that is destructive to humans, animals and plants from violent weather patterns, deadly warming temperatures, melting polar ice and much more.

The studies are in, the science is done and the evidence is as plain as stepping into our backyards and seeing the world outside, where spring has emerged a month ahead of time.

(If spring emerged a month early, how come my tomatoes were killed by frost on May 12 this year?)

Nor does Omaha get off the hook. Omaha meteorologist John Pollack, in the World Herald.

Omaha meteorologist John Pollack said Monday that he believes the heat wave gripping Nebraska, Iowa and much of the nation is a message from planet Earth that global warming is real.

Pollack, who retired from the National Weather Service in 2009, said other recent weather disasters such as drought, western wildfires, straight line windstorms from Indiana to the mid-Atlantic states and a rash of unseasonable tropical storms also are the results of climate change.

Even some of my colleagues got in on the act.

If you’ve been following the anti-Keystone XL campaign, you’ll realize, away from all the pretendy concern about the Ogallala aquifer and the shocking discovery that crude oil contains benzene (though it doesn’t contain as much as gasoline), their real objection is that tar sands exploitation is a source of carbon, and carbon is bad. Tar sands exploitation will be ‘game over for Planet Earth’ as nutball James Hansen memorably put it. But actually, if increasing CO2 has a smaller than expected effect on global temperatures, if it contributes to plant growth and increased crop yield (which it certainly does), and of course it fuels the energy needs of the planet, then where does that leave objectors to the pipeline? Right where they started: simple Luddism and a drive to control the lives of their neighbors. That’s what leftists do.

Finally, since I’m sure the local left will have a hissy fit, call me a ‘denier’, and denigrate my credentials as a scientist (my major research area at the moment is the radiative physics of gas molecules, so what do I know?), here is my position. The greenhouse effect is real. Carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is rising. Humans are doing that. The increase in CO2 is almost certainly increasing global temperatures, though probably by not nearly as much as the consensus estimate from 5 years ago. Warming is probably concentrated at the poles, leading to a decline in Arctic ice. But the connection to droughts, floods, tornadoes and hurricanes is unknown, and global warming might as easily decrease the likelihood of some of these phenomena as increase them. And, in return, it will make northern regions of the planet more habitable, and the whole planet more fertile. Not a bad trade-off.

Other consequences? Wind energy is uneconomic and a blight on the countryside. Nations like Germany and the UK, which have bought big into wind-farms, are looking pretty silly at the moment.

But we in Nebraska just passed an idiotic tax incentive for an out-of-state company to build wind farms here. We’re stupid too.


Street Sweeper back here.

Keep all this in mind over the next few days when you may here of some radical new climate policies coming down the track.

And then you can think: WWPRHD?

(Or, “What would President Romney have done…”)


The OWH reported on Friday two more who are considering running for the Republican nom for U.S. Senate.

One is Omaha attorney Bart McLeay of Kutak Rock. We have not heard back from McLeay after attempting to contact him but, we were wondering who may be in his corner. And, we noted that McLeay has one very high profile client: David Sokol’s MidAmerican Energy.

**UPDATE at Noon**

This from Bart McLeay today:

I am in the process of finalizing plans for what I hope will be a run for the U.S. Senate and will be able to provide more information in the near future.

Sounds like a candidate to us.


The other potential candidate is former Dean of the Creighton University School of Law, Pat Borchers.

Pat Borchers 01We contacted Borchers and he was much more responsive:

I am the father of five children and it makes me ill to think of the crushing national debt that we are loading on them. When people in Washington can say with a straight face that it’s good news that the budget deficit this year will “only” be $700 billion or so, we have a serious problem. Of course, if it were easy to solve these problems, they presumably would have been solved. I believe that all federal spending needs to be scrutinized. We need to consider automatically level funding at least some portions of the budget until the deficit reaches a manageable level, perhaps 1% of the US GDP (which would be about $150 billion this year).

I believe that in part the federal government is running deficits like this, because it has grown far beyond what was the constitutional design. The federal government was conceived of as a government of limited powers, with the states acting as “laboratories of federalism.” Now the federal government has become nearly omnipotent, with the states acting essentially as branch managers of federal policy. As a result, the citizenry becomes more disenfranchised as what were once matters of state and local policy are decided by a federal government that is more faceless and distant from them.

Some simplification and adjustment of marginal income tax rates (as was done during Reagan’s second term) would, I believe, give the economy its best chance at sustained growth. The economy grew in a nearly uninterrupted fashion after the 1986 tax bill, with the exception of the brief but deep recession in 1992 caused by an unnecessary rate hike on the part of the Fed.

I am unapologetically pro life.

We don’t have a handle yet on who Borchers may have in his corner, but the more the merrier could make certain aspects of the Senate race more interesting.

More when we have it.


And remember to make all of your summer purchases via Leavenworth Street’s links!


  1. TexasAnnie says:

    I don’t know about climate change, but I’m sure that you lost your tomatoes on May 12 because you didn’t cover them, RWP…

  2. Macdaddy says:

    It rained this morning and it’s supposed to be in the 90s today. That’s like in the tropics but this is Nebraska. We must be having global warming. Or climate change. Or whatever the latest rebranding-to-increase-acceptance is.

    Nuclear weapons and global warming. President Sparky is right on top of the pressing matters, isn’t he?

  3. ricky says:

    The vast majority of scientists recognize global warming and how humans have caused it.
    Next post by Mr Street Sweeper will be about how evolution is untrue.


  4. Bam says:

    The vast majority of research scientists get government support or want government support. The government wants humans (and as many like Ricky that they can find) to believe that they are responsible for causing climate change and only government can solve the problem. Government says to scientists “You want support? Tell us what we want to hear.”

    Ricky, you’d have been in with the torch bearers for Galileo because he disagreed with the vast majority of scientists.

  5. klem says:

    I personally know a working scientist who is a vocal climate skeptic, yet he openly admits that in order to secure his annual research funding he always links his research proposals to climate change. He says it goes against his personal convictions, but he’s a pragmatist, he does what is necessary to continue his research. He does it because it works, it keeps his staff employed and puts food on the table. His research is earth science related but it does not have much in the way of commercial application, so government funding is how he survives. He does not fudge his data, or tailor the results as you might think, it isn’t necessary. All he does is suggest a link, or merely speculate that his results are related to climate change, that’s it. Its easy. For example, a number of months ago some earthworm researchers claimed that worms contribute to climate change, they were simply suggesting a link, earthworm researchers probably don’t get much funding just like my scientist friend. Climate change is simply the path to continued research. Its not a conspiracy, its just life. I would do the same if I were in their shoes.

  6. Macdaddy says:

    Scientists are every bit as political as politicians. They are, after all, people. Just remember that when they start grabbing for your wallet, their white coats every bit as menacing as a hoodie and baggy pants.

  7. Tonic & Tonic says:

    I just cut the ‘cats off of my car last week for better fuel mileage and power.
    Unbelievable difference! Fuel mileage is way up!

    THAT’S environmental responsibility if you ask me…

  8. Gaius Gracchus says:

    T & T, where I work we occasionally have a rash of ‘cat thefts. Some crooks have so bold as to use a van that looks like it might be some kind of legit, mobile auto repair outfit. The rolled around the parking lot, taking a torch to car exhaust systems. Happens when platinum & palladium prices spike.

  9. Updated in the post:

    This from Bart McLeay today:

    I am in the process of finalizing plans for what I hope will be a run for the U.S. Senate and will be able to provide more information in the near future.

    Sounds like a candidate to us.

  10. Gaius Gracchus says:

    Re/climate change, here is a blatent plug for “The Reference Frame” by Luboš Motl. The tag line is “Our stringy universe from a conservative viewpoint.” Motl is a physicist and a clear writer to boot. Recommended.

  11. Anonymous says:

    So 11 million years ago there were huge prehistoric animals roaming around in Nebraska’s TROPICAL climate, ~ a couple of million of years later there was ICE covering Nebraska, and about 2 million years ago there was ice covering much of the upper midwest and the norther portions of the Ohio valley. Hmmm did the climate ever undergo changes prior to George Bush, or even humans? What a bunch of political theater and money grabbing this whole Global Warming/Climate change has been.

    THE FACTS are easily seen in the geologic records, the earth has undergone a number of changes over time, and will continue to do so. A major earth quake, a super volcano, perhaps and asteroid who knows. Not to mention just how screwed up things will be when the poles change and the magnetic fields shift. Think about all those GPS systems on airplanes, and satellites, and cars that will all of a sudden be worthless! Is it the R’s or the D’s fault, only if you are in politics or a desperate scientist looking for federal welfare $$$.

    So have fun on your next flight wondering if the guidance systems are going to keep working when the aircraft is on auto pilot, or when your plane is attempting to land in poor weather conditions.

  12. GPS says:

    Dear Anon @ 1:20pm,

    As tempting as your conspiracy theory might be, GPS works off of a constellation of satellites using pseudo-random code (radio waves) that are constantly in contact with ground control points (on-the-fly differential correction). It doesn’t much matter when (if ever) the earth’s magnetic field shifts, aircraft will still land (not sure about the UFO that may have abducted you).

  13. Omaha Politico says:

    To Bart McLeay….Omaha Trial Attorney won’t sell well out west. I hope you are not using your own money on this.

  14. Eric says:

    After Pat Borchers was the Dean of Creighton’s Law School, he was the Vice President of Academic Affairs which was a step up from Dean. Why is he always referred to as the former Dean and not the former VP?

  15. Eric,
    We’re happy to call him whatever he wants to be called.
    And while you’re probably correct about the jobs, “Dean” still has a much better ring to it than “VP of Academic Affairs”.

  16. Lil Mac says:

    About 65 million years ago, around the time our ancestors were licking milk laden teats without fear of being consumed by giant theropodal chickens, Omaha was prime oceanfront property, with a beautiful sunset view across the Niobrarian Sea. The vast inland oceanic waterway, nearly a mile deep, split North America in two vertically. To our west, across the 600 miles of ocean, were the sandy shores of what is now Denver. The cities of New York, Los Angeles and Washington DC were all on the sea bottom.

    If this is global warming, hang onto your local gig and stock up on board wax.

  17. Anon. says:

    To Ricky–

    The obvious question (with a follow-up): Did you actually read the piece? If so, are you just stupid?
    (To be clear, I mean too painfully stupid to know that the first line of your comment is what the piece pretty much says?)

  18. Tonic & Tonic says:

    to Omaha Politico:

    tell that to Lathrop! liberal trial attorneys from Omaha definitely won’t sell out West!

  19. campus reformer says:

    good luck to any universith administrator who tries not to come across as a liberal elitist… the liberal bias on college campuses everywhere starts at the top!

  20. Interested Observer says:

    I’m amused by the use of the words “climate change”, as though some might suggest that the climate is, was and always will be static. Nothing lasts forever.

    I’ve also been amused for some time that Man has been trying to monitor the weather with various weather instruments of varying accuracy for not much more than about 150 years in real time. That starting point of measurement happened to coincide with the most recent, winding down phase of “the Little Ice Age”, which is generally accepted to have lasted in the Northern Hemisphere from around 1350 to around 1850, give or take some years.

    My point being, that the start of modern weather record keeping was actually more of a brief period of transition, at best. It was more of an anomaly, rather than a permanent or”fixed” starting point for accurate comparison. Thus, some conclusions about “climate change” over the last 150 years are somewhat questionable, simply due to the irrelevance of the starting date of modern record keeping.

  21. Gaius Gracchus says:

    I have a different take on climate change. Focus, if you will, on rising sea levels and shrinking masses of ice. A complete, testable – falsifiable – theory that explains the phenomena may not exist yet. The fact remains that coastal cities are under stress from rising seas. The phenomena is measurable, repeatable & verifiable whether we have a complete understanding of the ultimate cause or not. So what do you do, say “New Orleans is not flooding because the jury is out on anthropogenic global warming?” I can make similar arguments about other phenomena attributed to global warming. To the extent that facts are clear, and life & property are endangered, some response is necessary.

  22. Macdaddy says:

    My prediction for the President’s climate speech: hot air wrapped in cliches and smothered in platitudes.

  23. Anon. says:

    Gaius– “Some response is necessary.” But if man-made global warming isn’t responsible for a significant rise in temps, what can our “response” be? What should our response be? Are we even capable of responding with something more than higher seawalls?

    You can’t simply skip to “we have to do something!” Because the next obvious response is, “Let’s get at the root cause!” If we aren’t the cause in a significant way, how do we address it?

  24. TexasAnnie says:

    We can adapt ourselves to global warming.

    SCOTUS has struck the Voting Rights Act (Sec. 4). Now Texas may proceed w/voter ID!
    Wasn’t your unicam up there dabbling w/ voter ID recently, also?

  25. Gaius Gracchus says:

    Anon at 9:04 am: thanks for helping me clarify my point. When folks doubt anthropogenic climate change, that is a way of saying “I don’t have enough information to decide if we have the problem some say we have. I don’t have enough information to decide if the remedies proposed are safe to pursue.” Faced with an apparent problem – rising sea levels in my example – but insufficient information as to cause(s), what is are some prudent, affordable, politically possible solutions? Maybe build more sea walls. Before sea walks I’d take a lot more data. I’d compare my data to the data collected from other places. I’d see if I could correlate my data with other, possibly related phenomena. I’d consider whether it worth building on the beach. I would ask the help of people most affected by change in possibly changing policy & law, based on the best evidence available.

    Back to New Orleans for a moment. We know that hurricanes and city below sea level don’t mix. Maybe new construction is best done North of Lake Ponchartrain. Maybe that will alter New Orleans character. It might. But another Katrina event could destroy what has been rebuilt. Worse yet it could kill people and result in social chaos.

    In the end I don’t have to take every measure Gore and Obama propose. But what about 50%? 40%? 30%? What is prudent, affordable & possible?

  26. Interested Observer says:

    Sometimes when people doubt things, they are saying “I have enough information to decide if we have the problem some say we have and I DON’T accept the conclusion that those people are trying to sell to me.”

  27. RWP says:


    Yep. Voter ID was filibustered. The local papers cheered on the filibuster.

    Now democrat proposals are being filibustered, the papers want to change the rules.

  28. RWP says:

    I do think adaptation is a better way to go.

    Likely changes will be slow, and not hard to stay ahead of. And in the meantime, we can research ideas for clean energy that actually work (whihc is neither wind nor solar at present)

    And we could stop doing really dumb things, like subsidizing beachfront houses. If Sandy knocked em down, let them stay down, and build somewhere else.

  29. Interested Observer says:

    RWP, I would almost tend to add ethanol to your wind and solar. What is your assessment of ethanol? Some say it consumes more energy than it “produces”.

    Also, I saw someone at a fast food business in Valentine on Sunday evening of a week ago, June 16, who looked a lot like your picture. Was that you?

  30. RWP says:

    The best data I’ve seen suggest that corn ethanol produces slightly more than it consumes, but only just. It’s not a serious way of reducing CO2. Sugar cane ethanol does much better, but we have a heavy subsidy to protect corn ethanol.

    And no. Despite all the mean things I’ve said about it on your behalf, I like Valentine, and get up there quite a lot, but not this month. That was probably Micky Dolenz.

  31. Lil Mac says:

    RWP. I commend to your attention a WSJ article, “In Defense of Carbon Dioxide”, May 8, 2013, debunking Global Warming’s key villain, CO2, specifically. I cannot assess its scientific validity but it is authored by Schmitt and Happer, one a professor of engineering and Apollo 17 astronaut and the other a Princeton Physics Prof and former director of the office of energy research at the U.S. Dept of Energy. They say CO2 is great. They seem even more forceful than you about it. Thoughts?

  32. TexasAnnie says:

    RWP: Our voter ID law takes effect NOW! It was blocked before the 2012 elections by federal judges.

    Check out Wall-O-Water or similar gardening aids. They cost about $3.50 each. We use ’em here because by mid June it’s so hot our tomato plants go dormant until mid or late September. So we start our tomato plants indoors (I use artificial light) in January and move the seedlings out by early to mid March. By April they are blooming! The unlikely 28 degrees overnight, here, will have no effect on plants inside the water walls. My husband cut the bottom from an old plastic bucket for ease in setting the walls up. We siphon the water out to remove the walls when all danger of frost (early April here) has passed.

    Adaptability or language??? Which is the BEST human trait? What say you, Lil Mac?

  33. TexasAnnie says:

    …and, after a GREAT day of federal politics, I suffered the disheartening political showdown at the state level…special session—state senate—abortion…

    In the end, the anti-choice authoritarians failed to get their vote done within the midnight deadline.
    But the authoritarian (and silly) Governor Perry will probably want to do the special session over.
    Can’t we ever get past the abortion divide? After all, political animals do have adaptability and language to rely on!

  34. Anonymous says:

    That would be Charlie Janssen’s Voter ID bill that was filibustered, which the editorial boards cheered. And Charlie Janssen and the Gang of 17 filibuster of Medicaid expansion, which was jeered.

  35. RWP says:

    Lil Mac:

    I can speak to Bill Happer. When I was moving from Stony Brook to Nebraska in 1992, a really bright student came to me with an idea for MRI imaging of lungs using hyperpolarized Xenon gas. I started the project, but had to put it off because of the move, so I told the student rather than wait for me to get set up again to go see Bill Happer instead. The rest is history; Mitch (the student) and Bill got patents and papers; Mitch got a research job at Massachusetts General, and I got to say Bill Happer owes me big 🙂

    Yeah, he’s right of course.

  36. RWP says:


    I’ve heard of the water walls, but never used them. Maybe I’ll go buy some.

    We actually froze a couple of time the week prior to May 12; the forecast didn’t look bad, and I got lazy and impatient. IIRC the cloud cleared out earlier than expected, and the temperature just plummeted.

    But this wasn’t a one-off. I record all sorts of things; when spring flowers come up, when the phoebe that nests under our deck and the tree swallows that nest out in the bird boxes arrive back, etc. Everything was late this year.

  37. Macdaddy says:

    Texas Annie, by abortion divide, do you mean the one where one side celebrates the Kurt Gosnells of this world in all their grisly glory and the other one tries to save babies from the intrauterine Al Qaeda procedure? You talking about that divide? Yeah, that’s a shame we can’t just move on.

  38. Tonic & Tonic says:

    Boy that lump of animated meat that we call a President sure didn’t want an “Activist” court when it came to ruling on the biggest tax increase ever, but he sure got his wish today.
    My generation is screwed because the generation of most of my fellow commentators are a bunch of screwballs.

  39. Interested Observer says:

    BOY, what got into John McCain today? Last November he said in Omaha, “We need this kind of conservative woman senator for the good of the Republican Party”.

    Now today on the floor of the United States Senate, he said, her arguments are “so ill-informed that I don’t know where to begin.” and she had made her case with “a series of false statements.”

    Which is it Senator McCain, is she good for the Party or “ill-informed”?

  40. To: TexasAnnie @ 6:16 says:

    Your “oh can’t we just all get a long” diatribe when it concerns killing unborn babies makes me want to retch.

  41. The Genius that is IO..... says:

    Because IO, like you, McCain might be grumpy, angry and bitter whenever he doesn’t get his way….And since you plotted against a long shot candidate for 18 months to only watch her improbable rise to the U.S. Senate, I’m sure you are the perfect person to advise McCain on how to beat U.S. Senator Deb Fischer (R-NE). #keepyourdayjob

  42. Interested Observer says:

    So then, I take it that you don’t know the answer to my question, “What got into John McCain”?

    Thanks for your NOT grumpy, angry and bitter response, anyway. Have a nice day!

  43. TexasAnnie says:

    To “To:” @ 2:38. I don’t take personal offense about your belief so I’m unlikely to experience empathy on your behalf. Feel free to retch. I figure we should TRY to get along on these largely symbolic legislative and judicial decisions. (Folks are gonna do what they want to do anyway.) Because the vote on abortion in Texas came too late, now Governor Perry must call another special session, or, simply wait until the legislature returns. Trying again to impede abortion in Texas is not exactly an emergency issue and special sessions do expend tax dollars… On the other hand, we’ve got folks who are completely and permanently developmentally disabled and waiting on long waiting lists for services: care givers, housing, recreational opportunities, and/or supported workplace experiences. You know, the kinds of services that sustain life and promote happiness and which equate to universities, libraries, pools & ballparks, etc., and mega-subsidized business development, goods, and services that are routinely provided by government(s) to promote the happiness and well-being of the non-disabled. Texas is just like Nebraska in this regard!
    I WISH we could save special session monies and expend those on the DD population instead.
    Tell me please, will you retch about the same sex decisions from SCOTUS today? Just wondering.

    RWP: I don’t literally record what I’m seeing in nature, but for five or more years we have had a pair of nesting golden-cheek warblers (the listed birds) each Spring. They were a no show this year. As a bird watcher, what do you think? I hope they didn’t die. And even if they did, I figured their offspring would return to the area. I haven’t cut down any of the old growth juniper trees they like.

  44. Macdaddy says:

    McCain can go pound sand. I stopped listening to him long ago. In fact, I had to shut him out for about 6 months before I could bring myself to vote for him in 2008.

  45. Macdaddy says:

    The vote on the abortion bill came 3 minutes too late because a mob of pro-abortion activists basically rioted in the gallery which disrupted the vote. So I assume you are cool with mob rule. Just wait until the mob goes against your largely symbolic sacred cows. As for the symbolism, this means Perry has to decide on whether to spend money so that viable babies can avoid being dismembered by the Kurt Gosnells of the abortion industry. Nothing symbolic about this to those babies.

  46. RWP says:


    You should be careful. A birder could narrow down your location quite effectively knowing you have nesting golden-cheeked warblers 🙂

    My guess is that with nesting five years in a row, you might be on your second pair of warblers. It’s a shame they didn’t come back, but I’d hazard the problem might be in Central America, where they winter. Outside of big spectacular tourist-attracting species like toucans, conservation is very low on the priority list down there.

    They might simply have nested somewhere else nearby, and might return next year.

  47. RWP says:

    The silly demo was all for naught. Perry just called the Legislature back into session. This time they’ll have the full 30 days, and my guess a lot more police in the chamber.

  48. TexasAnnie says:

    Yeah RWP, Perry did. Bummer. What a roller-coaster ride my federal and state governments took me on this week! I hope the warblers come back. And it’s okay if people know I retired to South Central Texas. My county is sparsely populated, the homes are gated and hidden, and everyone has guns!

    Last winter and into this spring we did start feeding a mama fox regularly. She has at least four young’uns, two of which now come to the feeding bowl replenished every evening with table scraps and/or cat food. The fox originally came to eat bird seed fallen from the feeders. (And I previously thought foxes were carnivores!) We’ll back off the feeding now that it’s summer so mama can teach them to eat lizards and keep the rattlesnakes at bay. But again next winter if I see a fox scrounging for bird seed, well… I can’t imagine that the fox had any impact on the bug-eating warblers. You think? Besides we have always kept a diligent and dutiful cat out on the wrap-around porch.

    Macdaddy I don’t like mob rule. But those assembled last night couldn’t fit inside the chamber. I guess they got restless. Anyway, the noisy, boisterous “mob rule” as you put it IS a protected, constitutional RIGHT. Right? Do you only like the 1st Amendment when it supports your “sacred cows?” If you abhor abortion, don’t have one! If you don’t like same sex, don’t engage in it!
    Authoritarianism sucks!!!

  49. TexasAnnie says:

    David Dewhurst has sent an e-mail. He says to pro-choice advocates: “come and take it!”
    I should drive on over to Austin July 1st and help do that…

  50. TexasAnnie says:

    Macdaddy: Texas executed number 500 yesterday! I’m waiting for your expression of remorse about the loss of human life…

  51. Pink Unity Candles says:

    Today’s paper had 7, count them 7, “news” articles on gay marriage, and a lead editorial. The giddiness reigning at the OWH must be simply overwhelming. Warren and Susie couldn’t be more proud.

  52. Anonymous says:

    It is sad that number 500 was executed yesterday.

    However, I am sadder that about 330 babies were aborted in Texas yesterday.

    The Texas bill place reasonable regulations on abortion clinics and controls to help protect the ladies seeking the procedure (nobody wants another Philadelphia). Abortion activates used the Clive & Piven strategy to subvert the will of the voters (sounds like Wisconsin to me). Mob Rule is not protected, constitutional right. It places people in physical danger. Nebraska does not have Texas Rangers, but I a am sure that Gov Dave would not let a mob trespass into the capital with the intent of causing destruction and suppressing the views of Nebraskans.

    Glad that Texas has a governor who is calling back the legislature to finish their job.

    TA…leave you gun at home. Hate to have you become 501.

  53. Remorse says:


    It is sad that those 500 individuals (who were all given fair trials and received justice, brutally raped and murdered more than 500 people in cold blood) didn’t afford their victims the same courtesy they received. My guess is those 500 who received justice were also likely engaged (prior to their arrest) in economic activity that allowed them to keep a large percent of their income off the IRS radar clearly thereby violating the principle of ‘tax justice’. Now are you incensed?

  54. Macdaddy says:

    I’ll make you a trade: abolish the death penalty nationwide in return for abolishing abortion nationwide.

  55. DOMA and Prop 8 are shot down!! says:

    In an unrelated story. Omaha young republican membership is up 400% and officially moved their headquarters to California!

  56. TexasAnnie says:

    Y’all NOTE: I haven’t taken a stand on the death penalty. Don’t jump to conclusions.
    And the boisterous chanting that took place at the capital in Austin was not “mob rule.”
    Somebody up the line of comments above called it “mob rule.” And Dewhurst did.
    But that doesn’t make the accusation of “mob rule” a truthful statement.
    And nobody need worry about me taking a gun out for any political purpose. Duh!

    Remorse: EXACTLY! The income tax system is broken beyond repair. Whether tax abatement occurs legally or illegally, I’m against it!

  57. Macdaddy says:

    When a mob of people make such a commotion that it disrupts the legislative proceedings and they are able to get what they want, that’s mob rule. Doesn’t matter whether they are using torches and pitchforks, come swinging nooses, or chanting and hollering, the result is the same. There are reasons why there are rules governing meetings and that’s so nobody can show up with a mob and force their way. I mean, you being from Texas and all, you should have seen the dangers of a lynch mob.

    Now speaking of thwarting the democratic process, you asked what people thought of yesterday’s rulings on same sex marriage. I thought the rulings were dangerous and more dangerous. The dangerous one was the ruling striking down DOMA because it paved the way for same sex marriage throughout the US no matter what states wanted. Of course, states have been giving up their rights wholesale anyway. What’s one more. The worse ruling was the one against Prop 8. That one basically nullified the ballot-initiative process which means that citizens have zero say in the legislative process other than through regular elections. It also basically gives the any chief executive dictatorial rights. A governor doesn’t like a law? Just don’t enforce it. The Supreme Court says that nobody has the standing to sue the governor to get him to enforce the law. Surely a supposed liberaltarian such as yourself, TA, should see the danger inherent in that. But then again, you like mob rule so you’re probably cool with the politician’s veto. Just as long as it’s not your ox being gored. Just remember that mobs are fickle things.

  58. Anonymous says:

    Charlie Janssen’s voter ID bill wasn’t filibustered, it never made it out of committee. Has Jansen ever gotten a bill out of committee? He is the Lee Terry of the legislature.

  59. TexasAnnie says:

    Macdaddy: I’m not aware of any rules at the Texas legislature that prohibits loud speech in the hallways. It just happened that too many pro-choice people showed up for the event to fit into the allotted space. They got boisterous with their chanting. But I’m not gonna’ spend all day arguing semantics with you about mob rule. And, I have never seen or been aware of a lynch mob in Texas! Did you see that on TV sometime? Perhaps an old western movie?

    How could the Supreme Court ruling on Proposition 8 be bad? All the court did was declare that the plaintiffs did not have standing. It was the state court that declared the initiative unconstitutional. Why did the state court do that? Because California already had a law on the books making gay marriage constitutional! Plus: I don’t suppose myself a Libertarian. (I gave that notion up when Bob Barr stood for the Libertarians in 2008.) However many of the issues that Libertarians ascribe are in line w/ my beliefs, including the citizens’ right to initiative and referendum. But I do not believe I&R may be used in opposition to constitutional rights and privileges granted to individuals, nor to state’s rights. And neither can I&R nullify SCOTUS. It appears you believe it should. What gives? Are you implying that majority rule should outweigh the law of the land. Do you deny that the United States is a Republic?

    I’ve given some thought to your earlier offer of surrendering the death penalty for a woman’s right to choose. Nope. You offer too little and gain too much with that proposition. I’ll counter your offer with this, though: I’ll give up a woman’s right to choose and a governments’s right to execute duly adjudicated prisoners, IF, you’ll give up warfare. Not defensive warfare, mind you. But all offensive warfare. And I define offensive warfare as that which takes place beyond U.S. soil, air and water spaces. Deal?

  60. TexasAnnie says:

    Is it true that Charlie Janssen never got a bill out of committee? Hmmm.

    Do you support voter identification Anonymous at 10:25?

  61. Interested Observer says:

    “that’s so nobody can show up with a mob and force their way”. Isn’t that about what happened last year with some of the Paulbots?

  62. Macdaddy says:

    You obviously didn’t see any of the video of what went on at the Texas legislature so stop speaking like you did. The gallery was packed with opponents of the law and who were yelling and screaming to create such commotion that the vote could not proceed. They refused to settle down despite repeated requests from the Speaker. It was a mob.

    The Supreme Court decision upholding the overturning of Prop 8 said that voters of California had no legal standing to defend a voter passed ballot initiative if the governor had no desire to defend the law. That gives a governor veto powers over the will of the people. It means that nobody’s vote counts except 1 person: the governor. I’m not sure I can make the explanation any simpler for you.

  63. RWP says:

    Charlie Janssen’s voter ID bill wasn’t filibustered, it never made it out of committee. Has Jansen ever gotten a bill out of committee? He is the Lee Terry of the legislature.

    Nonsense from the usual ignorant trolls. In 2012 voter ID, LB239, was filibustered. Cloture was invoked on Mar 28, 2012; it failed 30-16.

  64. Macdaddy says:

    Oh, and Annie, your deal about war is bogus. It would sacrifice just as many Americans as abortion currently takes. You do realize that there isn’t a force field around America don’t you? Besides, why do you hate the people around the world that we currently protect? An American serial killer is worth more than millions and millions of people around the world? Seriously?

  65. TexasAnnie says:

    Macdaddy: I did see the videos of the Texas abortion bill event, on both the local and national news. But I don’t watch FOX, so perhaps you saw something different? The people in the gallery were annoyed because they believed the speaker erroneously charged Senator Davis with a filibuster rules violation. But the real commotion took place in the rotunda. Here is what you can read at “In an unprecedented show of support, thousands packed the rotunda at the State Capitol, chanting ‘Let her speak’ and ‘Wendy’ so loud that their voices drowned out the proceedings on the floor. (The rotunda is three levels high at the Texas capitol!) Speaking to reporters later, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst credited the ‘unruly mob’ with the Senate’s inability to record a vote before midnight.” Again, I tell you Macdaddy, just because Dewhurst is a poor sport doesn’t make his allegation of an “unruly mob” true.

    And as to the rebuttal contained in your second paragraph @12:02: The conditional IF contained in the first sentence renders the rest of what you wrote false.

    And finally, your response @12:11 is incomprehensible. We don’t even have an accurate count of abortions and I don’t concede your notion that non-intervention in the wars carried on by other nations would take more American lives than the unknown abortion count anyway. It’s not a matter of ‘hating’ people around the world that we currently protect, but rather taking care of our own, FIRST!

  66. Anonymous says:

    “Accurate count of abortions”

    This phase is the point TA. We do not have an accurate count of abortions; you do not care. Abortion clinics are unregulated; you do not care. The abortion doctors do not have admitting privileges to hospitals;you do not care.

    You only care about yourself. You have finally demonstrated that you are selfish and do not care about anything except for your escape from Nebraska taxes.

  67. Via Twitter says:

    From @heathmello on June 4, 2013: #NELeg just passed @Charlie_Janssen’s LB 224. Bill would help veteran-owned businesses land state contracts.

    Pretty sure a bill has to get out of committee to pass the full legislature. Keep trying, Anonymous 10:25.

  68. Macdaddy says:

    Yeah, Annie. Those right-wingers (snort) at politico had a nice little clip of it, but thanks for confirming what I wrote earlier. The mob disrupted the legislative proceedings.

    As for your other points, can you even read English? I’m beginning to think you should go visit your doctor and see if Abilify is right for you.

  69. RWP says:

    What I really don’t understand is the raucous celebration for a continuation of the legal right to do something tragic and horrible. Anyone who’s spent time in a preemie nursery knows what fetuses look like in their 24th week, say. They look like very small babies. They move and react and often cry (though they sound weird).

    Surely even a doctrinaire prochoicer has to admit that an abortion at 24 weeks is evil, though I’d entertain arguments that it might in rare circumstances be a necessary evil or the lesser of two evils. But making it an excuse for a party?

  70. The Talk of What? says:

    The top banner says “The Talk of Nebraska Politics. What ever happened to that? First it was all Omaha mayor all the time. Now the blog has been taken over by a pro-abortion mob activist who lives in Texas. Remember the days when this used to be about Nebraska politics?

  71. TexasAnnie says:

    Macdaddy, be nice or I won’t play with you. We obviously do not agree on what constitutes “mob rule.” Okay.

    RWP: I haven’t ever seen a 24 week old fetus but I’m pretty sure I would be moved, emotionally, were I to see one dying. And yes, I guess you could call me a “doctrinaire pro-choicer.” But “evil?” No I won’t say that aborting one ‘IS’ evil, precisely because I have read the work of Peter Singer on the subject and am convinced by his certitude.

    At any rate, as I tried to explain to Macdaddy, the crowd that presented at the capitol and which ultimately disrupted the proceedings was not a planned & executed protest. Nor was it a “party.” It was a spontaneous outpouring of pro-choice sentiment by ordinary people who cared enough to find a place to park in Austin and get inside the building, yet untimely for securing a seat inside! I am trying to emphasize the fact that the legislature here, as elsewhere, was bullying against the will of so many ordinary people! Senator Davis was doing her best to debate on their behalf. When she was charged with straying off topic (she mentioned the 2011 sonogram law passed here) the crowd simply erupted. And for that they were charged with “mob rule!”

    P.S. Do you think the warblers are afraid of the fox family below?

  72. TexasAnnie says:

    I should have stressed these more salient points: The abortion bill not only bans abortion past 20 weeks gestation, it also seeks to close 37 of 42 clinics statewide. Texas is nearly 800 miles long AND wide and those living in West Texas will lose practical access to an abortion center. Arguably, abortion in the first trimester is safer, or at least as safe, as full-term delivery. (In the first trimester, the doctor simply gives a pill and requires a check-up in 24-48 hours.) But this abortion bill would permit abortion ONLY in a surgical facility, by a doctor w/ admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles! Full-term delivery in Texas IS NOT mandated thusly. Mid-wives may deliver full-term babies at home! Even lay persons may deliver babies in taxi-cabs without prosecution… !!!

    When conservative white males (usually Republicans) rise up against a woman’s right to choose, women mobilize and ‘temporarily forget’ other important policy imperatives they otherwise stand for. And I suspect that come next election cycle, should this abortion policy succeed in the second special session this year, we’ll have more women and more Democrats in the legislature. Way, way back up the wall here, I tried to plead for getting past the abortion divide. But again, I see my plea was for naught. Abortion policy is such a great divide that folks are able to stomach almost every other egregious public policy in hope of getting their way on the abortion issue. I, for one, regret this outcome. Legal or not, when a woman is determined to abort her fetus, she will!

  73. Interested Observer says:

    Annie, maybe an “abortion in the first trimester is safer, or at least as safe, as full-term delivery” for the mother, but it is NOT for the baby.

  74. TexasAnnie says:

    True, Interested Observer. But at one point up the wall someone declared me as ‘uncaring’ about the health of the mother. As with the ‘mob rule’ characterization, I am only trying to set the record straight.

  75. RWP says:

    For those of you keeping score, TA, trying to impress us all about her knowledge of ethics, has in the past proclaimed herself a deontologist. Singer is a utilitarian; the antithesis of a deontologist. It’s like hearing a Catholic priest singing ‘Satan lord and master’.

    You are a freaking airhead, TA.

  76. TexasAnnie says:

    Oops, RWP turned mean again!
    I do ascribe to deontology for myself.
    I do not expect the whole world to do so on my behalf.
    I respect Peter Singer and y’all should too. That is, if you respect academia, as RWP asserts you should…

  77. TexasAnnie says:

    By the way, are y’all utilitarians? When your unicameral makes policy decisions, for example, tax expenditures in support of business enterprise rather than people comforts, are they acting of any sense of duty-doing? Think about it carefully because whatever they do, they do by your will and on your behalf.

  78. I googled RWP says:

    It appears that he works with peroxide explosives. Peroxide is also used to clean your ears. Shame on RWP for making ear bombs. If the terrorist get ahold of RWP’s ear bombs we are doomed!!!

  79. RWP says:

    I meant airhead in a nice way. 🙂

    No, I don’t think you should respect academia. Frankly, there’s very little in it these days to respect.

    Peter Singer is a reductio ad absurdam for all the problems with utilitarianism. For example, he spends a great deal of money caring for his aging mother. Most deontological ethicists would regard that as admirable; I certainly do. But he shouldn’t. The money could be spent in ways that give a great deal more happiness to a great deal more people, er, I mean organisms.

    Obvious problems with utilitarianism

    (1) You can’t forecast the future with any reliability, and therefore there is no way to calculate which actions will create the greatest good for the greatest number.

    (2) There are many ways to maximize overall good by doing great injustice to one or a small number of people. Shouldn’t you do those?

    (3) Since carnivores live by eating a large number of other creatures, shouldn’t we slaughter carnivores? Or should we work on developing corn-based kibble for all the big cats in the world, vegetarian krill for the whales, etc?

  80. TA - carnivore? says:

    TA the utilitarian: Justifies her actions by creating her own equality values and justifies her values/actions by attacking others.

    Texas Anne, the perfect lobbyist for Planned Parenthood.

  81. TexasAnnie says:

    WOW y’all! I had to get out very early this morning and need to get back out after this potty break.
    It’s going up to 104 here today and I’ve got plants to get watered. It’s been fun and I want to carry on. RWP did post three problems w/ utilitarianism. There are also problems w/ deontology. And problems w/ other types of ethical inquiry. Ethicists never convince everyone; usually only themselves and with a view toward what they want.

    But I still insist that on the issue(s) of human life & death, I respect Peter Singer’s certitude. My opinion of him has not changed in view of the fact that he keeps his ‘mum’ alive…

  82. Anonymous says:

    I agree with #89. Boring drivel delivered with zeal unbecoming. Isn’t there something bigger to do in Texas?

  83. Augie says:

    Isn’t the GOP mantra less regulations on all small businesses – no exceptions on the type of business as long as it is a legal product or service. Now we see how silly that mantra is and why the party continues to slide toward irrelevance.

  84. Gov Watch says:

    Court of Appeals rules in favor of Fremont immigration law, Charlie Janssen’s resume for Gov gets stronger.

  85. Around the rotunda says:

    And what a resume!! He has certainly proven that he can bring people with diverse views together to find solutions to advance important state issues. Oh wait, I was confusing CJ with someone else.

  86. to Gov Watch says:

    Charlie J. is just what the party needs the energize and mobilize for a big win in November. Democratic party.

  87. Gov Watch says:

    Yes, because if pro-gun, pro-life, anti-amnesty, anti-union Charlie Janssen emerges from the GOP primary, big city trial attorney Steve Lathrop will clean him out statewide. If this were Minnesota.

  88. Rotun-duh says:

    It’s important to be popular here. It meant great things for Tom Osborn, Tony Fulton, Curt Bromm, Kent Rogert…

  89. RWP says:


    You respect his ‘certitude’? There is some virtue in feeling certain about philosophically difficult questions? Gosh, I’d say the opposite. If they’re difficult, surely some hesitancy is warranted?

  90. RWP says:

    I am honored to be in the presence of The One Who Determines Who Is A TRVE CONSERVATIVE.

    But actually, I’m more of a libertarian. ‘Hard-core’, according to the latest ‘how libertarian are you’ test.

  91. RWP says:

    McLeay would be a great name for a chain of mass-market…er… houses-of-ill-repute. Can I say that here?

    We already have Dr. John in the race. Now we have McLeay. Any chance Anthony Wiener is interested in moving to Omaha? We already have precedent that New Yorkers can move here and run for Senate 12 hours before the filing deadline.

  92. TexasAnnie says:

    Yes, RWP! I insist that I am impressed with Singer’s certitude about matters of human life and death. (I don’t however subscribe to his notions about the lives and deaths of other species.) Years before reading Singer, I became sympathetic to the idea of a corresponding right-to-die IF one intends to make sense of a right-to-life. Singer put a public voice to my view, which, is yet to be understood and accepted in America, I KNOW!

    How is McLeay pronounced?

  93. Gaius Gracchus says:

    I think it was Bruce Sterling’s “Schismatrix,” part of his series of Shaper / Mechanist novels and short stories, where he had an orbital state called the “People’s Orbital Zaibatsu.” The government was Anarchist and there was only one civil right: the right to die. The “state” had only one other job, which was to stop any one else from killing you. It didn’t try to hard to protect you. It didn’t try too hard to restrain itself from killing you either. Simple, consistent and brutal. I wonder how Peter Singer would make out in such a place?

  94. TexasAnnie says:

    Don’t know about the People’s Orbital Zaibatsu. But, RWP, Bill Maher’s new show tonight featured Anthony Leiserowitz, Director of the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. He mentioned a six point scale measuring public reaction to news of global warming. At the top of the scale, 16% of respondents are alarmed; at the bottom, 13% are conspiracy theorists.

    He went on to say that every world religion now assumes a moral view on global warming. Folks who are most “concerned” tend to be most egalitarian, whereas folks who stress individual freedom tend to be most “suspicious” about reports of global warming.

    Like me, you have previously asserted a preference for deontology (rather than a teleological ethical system). Does your ‘moral view’ on global warming relate to your seeming ‘suspicion’ of it’s actual, verifiable effect on human existence?

  95. Macdaddy says:

    Annie, thanks for the invite, but I really don’t want to play with you. Especially since you are only playing with half a deck. You think it’s ok for women to get butchered at unregulated abortion mills, huh? It’s ok to perform surgical procedures where the staff are completely unprepared to handle the inevitable complications? This is what you are defending? Seriously? As to your admiration of Peter Singer, this is a guy who fully supports allowing parents to murder their children at up to a month of life. Let me amend that. He proposed it and propounds it. Yeah, OK. You are off the deep end. But be careful of what you wish for. As soon as the Democrats get all their votes imported, they will have no need of yours, and once you start placing a drain on Medicare, well, I wouldn’t expect to wake up from anesthesia if I were you.

  96. RWP says:

    I adhere to deontological ethics out of a sense of humility. I can determine what duty demands of me. I can’t possibly determine with any degree of accuracy, or even probability, the end results of my actions. Yet I’m moderately persuaded that if everyone acted out of a similar sense of duty, on the whole the result would be positive.

    (And obviously, Kant would argue any single action should be the result of application of a universal maxim)

    Utilitarianism is the original sin of liberalism, if I may use a religious metaphor. It is overweeningly arrogant to think you can forecast what will result in the greater good. The world we live in is far too complicated for us to be able to do that. All we can do is to try to be good. It’s a modest goal, but even so it defeats most of us most of the time.

    Here endeth the lesson.

  97. RWP says:

    Let me incongruously defend Peter Singer. He has taken the position that you can define life as more or less worthy based on (one might say cynically) how similar it is to the life of a Princeton Professor of ethics of Australian extraction. So newborns, being both messy and unable to pull a voting lever for Obama, are less worthy, and so are old folks who might be addled enough to think that maybe traditional ideas shouldn’t be randomly discarded. Once you’ve done that, obviously said defective old people and young uns can reasonably be discarded to improve the well-being of the Ubermensch.

    Well, yes, this is all evil, and quite reminiscent of several other philosophies we’re all acquainted with, but Singer is not a freak. In fact, he’s quite sincerely taking contemporary liberalism to its logical conclusion. There is no logical distinction between a late term fetus and a newborn. And once you have Alzheimer’s, or even before, it’s all downhill, and why should you consume resources better allocated to someone younger, more vigorous and more correct-thinking?

    The man has laid it all out for you in stark detail. Please don’t shoot the messenger.

  98. TexasAnnie says:

    Good grasp of the macabre interpretation, RWP.

    Need I remind Nebraskans that not too long ago, y’all sat idly by while those BSDC deaths were taking place…

  99. Interested Observer says:

    I thought that Pete Singer was that weird old guy who sings “Where have all the flowers gone”?

  100. TexasAnnie says:

    It’s Peter Singer, Ph.D.
    And he’s not pro-death, as radical readers interpret.
    He’s pro-right-to-die.
    The difference is quite significant!

    If it weren’t so sad, it would be funny that y’all practice utilitarianism via Nebraska public policy.

  101. Talk Amongst Yourselves says:

    Kant, Locke, Hobbs, Cummiskie, Singer. Duty, virtue, vice, non-consequentialists. Watering plants in Texas, Birds.

    A bird, once thought to be extinct, flies into a wind generator is is killed. The body is sent to a museum.

    Talk amongst yourselves. When the topic returns to Nebraska politics, I will return. When Sweeper returns, so will I.


  102. Anonymous says:

    No—it starts off as a big snore than slowly winds down to a dribble. Like this:

  103. Anonymous says:

    134, 135, you have finally given us something interesting to talk about, i.e. your odd behavior. When a wise person has nothing to say, they say nothing. Yet you come here and demand everyone run off at the mouth, even as you too obviously have nothing to say, lest you’d be saying it.

    Discussion isn’t a spectator sport, it requires participation. If you want to get a ball game going, kick out a ball. If it isn’t interesting to others they will not respond. Or they may find your logic flawed or your facts wrong or your expression lacking. That is always a risk, but one you may come out of as a winner. You cannot possibly look worse than you do coming here to bitch about people not entertaining you. One might as well go down swinging for a lion as a lamb. So, what is it that you want to talk about?

  104. To Anonymous @ 5:53 says:

    You ragged on #134 and #135. Did you know you are #135? And what really did you say that added anything to the conversation except bitching about someone else?

    You are #135. What a hoot. But then you are an expert on odd behavior,so how can I complain.

    Always have a drink AFTER you post here please.

  105. Macdaddy says:

    RWP, having taken liberalism to its absurd and ghastly conclusion, Singer still wholeheartedly advocates it. At the risk of invoking Godwin’s law, you know the Nazi’s were quite consistent as well and they lived out their beliefs, unlike Herr Professor. Currently the Islamists are running rings around the good doctor in both their adherence to a consistent set of beliefs and their willingness to live, or die, by those beliefs. I have troubling admiring or defending any of them. I guess you do have Texas Annie on your side, so there’s that.

  106. Global Worming says:

    How exactly do we get rid of all these worms? And where do we find them? If they exit the external posterior oriface of a nation as they do in most creatures should we start looking in Wash DC?

  107. TexasAnnie says:

    Clearly, Macdaddy doesn’t get it. And he’s probably never even read Singer. Maybe he’s even one of those conspiracy theorists who believes liberal politicians are out to kill off our grandmothers! At any rate, I don’t defend liberalism and I sure as hell don’t support conservatives seeking only to ‘conserve’ injustice (particularly tax injustice). But y’all DO PRACTICE utilitarianism in your public arenas, like it or not, although Macdaddy doesn’t realize it. Hopefully, at least in your private lives you give some consideration to duty-doing. Of course it’s up to you to define your duties, and this is the biggest problem w/ deontology, it’s not universal!

    Tomorrow my Lt. Gov. and legislature will begin trying to impose their notion of duty-doing on too many who don’t agree with that notion: abortion. So, I predict, come next election cycle we’ll have fewer Republicans and more women running things down here in Texas. It’s a tale that’s being told across this nation. Republicans are losing face because they can’t stop being authoritarian, and most Americans just don’t like being told how to live their lives! Add this fact to the changing demographics, and in just a few election cycles y’all will be hard-pressed to find any Macdaddy’s left!

    If you don’t like this topic, ZZZzzz, what say you about the utilitarian proposals to global warming?

  108. Macdaddy says:

    Annie, if you’re saying I don’t get you, you are right. As for Singer, I’ve read plenty. As for utilitarianism, what is the point you are trying to make? Politics and philosophy are not the same. At the very least, even you should recognize that there’s no y in politics and no t in philosophy. I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you.

    Anyway, good luck with your fantasy that there will be fewer Republicans in Texas.

  109. Anonymous says:

    Excellent point Comment #136. I fear when the conversation has declined to comments about potty breaks and y’alls, it’s nappy time for local politics having any meat and commenters who occasionally have a life. Meanwhile, unrest in Egypt seems to be growing while our nation celebrates the Fourth with a congressional approval rating of…..10%.

    BTW #135? I made no demands nor did I “bitch.” Just offered an observation and thanks for yours.

  110. Anonymous says:

    147. Nearly 24 hours after it was noticed that you bitch about people not entertaining you with political discussion while you offer no political discussion, you come back here with this stuck under your skin, denying your odd behavior by applauding yesterday’s denial, and then make an attempt to offer political discussion which was what you were criticized for not doing before, but you cannot leave it at that as you launch into another defense of your previous behavior. You intersperse attempts to correct your behavior with denials of anything being wrong with it.

  111. Anonymous says:

    148. Judging by the rambling sentence structure and need to argue a dead horse into living again, you’ve got to be an attorney. Scott is that you?

  112. Uh, what? says:

    Stopped going up? 2012 was the hottest year on record. Stop denying. At least clean up your act for the sake of your own pulmonary health.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.