June 19, 2013Don't trust anyone under 24In fact, particularly if you're 15 or younger, you can commit capital murder and be on the streets at 43. That was the fate of Indiana's Paula Cooper: Cooper was 15 years old when she used a butcher's knife to cut Ruth Pelke 33 times during a robbery in Gary that ended in Pelke's death. Her three companions -- one only 14 --received lighter sentences, but Cooper confessed to the killing and was sentenced to death by a judge who opposed capital punishment, said former prosecutor Jack Crawford, who sought the death penalty for Cooper. Crawford is now a defense lawyer in Indianapolis and no longer supports capital punishment. Enter European "human rights" activists, the Pope and the Supreme Court, and this confessed murderer's fate takes a U-turn. Two years after Cooper was sentenced to die, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in an unrelated case that the execution of young people who were under 16 at the time they committed an offense was cruel and unusual punishment and was thus unconstitutional. Indiana legislators then passed a state law raising the minimum age limit for execution from 10 years to 16, and in 1988, the state's high court set Cooper's death sentence aside and ordered her to serve 60 years in prison. The Supreme Court seems to be sure, as does Indiana's former attorney general: In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional to execute anyone who is younger than 18 years when they commit an offense. And, it now seems, essentially get away with it.
Posted by JohnGalt at 2:22 PM
| Comments (0)
April 2, 2013However, Got yer Schadenfruede right hereThis is good clean fun (grabbed from Facebook, sorry no attribution). A very interesting blend of my FB friends is upset about the President bowing to science and reason:
Posted by John Kranz at 7:29 PM
| Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:
Racists! Why can't they leave the President alone? They just hate him because he's BLACK! Posted by: johngalt at April 3, 2013 3:02 PMFebruary 8, 2013First World ProblemsAnything interesting on Facebook today, jk?
Brominated Vegetable Oil (BVO) is banned in the European Union and Japan among many other places around the world and is believed to be a harmful additive by many. It is a member of the Bromide family which has been used in making products flame retardant! Google it. See if it's something you think PepsiCo should be putting in Mountain Dew. If they already know it's too controversial for Gatorade, why are they leaving it in Mountain Dew? Something bad in Mountain Dew? Ehrmigahd! This is funny but it isn't. The poster is a PhD who used to work for me. Super bright guy with a mortgage and kids. I know he'd laugh himself into a coma upon encountering somebody who does not believe in global warming. But he signs and posts these all the time. "Google it.' (It's on the Internet -- what else can I do to prove it?) "a member of the Bromide family which has been used in making products flame retardant!" Jeeburz -- one of the elements is four squares away from Arsenic on the Periodic Chart -- you gonna eat that? Science. Yeah.
Posted by John Kranz at 4:11 PM
| Comments (0)
December 13, 2012Best Chart Ever!
From The Skeptical Libertarian on Facebook.
Posted by John Kranz at 5:33 PM
| Comments (2)
But Ellis Wyatt thinks:
Correlation is not causation, but no causation without correlation! I'm of a mind that the federal deficit is also correlated with the rise of autism. Also the number of "reality" television shows. Posted by: Ellis Wyatt at December 13, 2012 7:04 PM
But jk thinks:
If we care about the children, we should address all of these. Posted by: jk at December 13, 2012 7:34 PMJuly 5, 2012"Colorado Burning" because "Climate Changed?"Anyone who has read many stories on the Colorado forest fires has surely seen at least one account that links the events with "climate change." Stories like Huffpo's "Stunning NASA Map Shows Severe Heat Wave Fueling Wildfires" are an extreme example. But Colorado state climatologist Nolan Doesken has a much different explanation: While it’s true that this June was the hottest June on record, averaging 75 degrees, or 7.6 degrees above normal, he said extreme heat was just one of the ingredients–and maybe not even the most important one–involved in this year’s perfect wildfire storm. The story continues, exploring more likely factors: Forest-health advocates say there’s one thing missing from the climate-change-causes-wildfires theory: The forests are so poorly managed that it doesn’t take much for them to go up in flames. Twenty years of reductions in timber sales and environmental lawsuits have gutted logging on public lands, resulting in densely packed, tinder-dry trees that are practically designed for crown fires. So one explanation is 7.6 degrees warmer temperatures for a month and the other explanation includes 15 to 20 times higher density of trees that are diseased and dead, at least partially due to that very overcrowding. Given that tens of thousands of wildfires occur each year in the United States, Colorado's fire disasters are unprecedented for their severity rather than frequency. And that severity is driven more by wind and fuel density than by a dubious, anti-scientific theory called climate change.
Posted by JohnGalt at 2:51 PM
| Comments (5)
But jk thinks:
I cannot believe you are letting gun owners off the hook so easily. Posted by: jk at July 5, 2012 4:29 PM
But Ellis Wyatt thinks:
Glad you provided that link to the good ol' days when the Climatgate emails came out. I've been reading some archives but there are seven years of stuff here and I doubt I'll get to it all. I read some from around the 2008 election to get a flavor, and it was Good. Classy, If BHO wins a second term I don't think I'll be able to keep as cool as you guys. Posted by: Ellis Wyatt at July 5, 2012 5:06 PM
But johngalt thinks:
Heh. If this president wins a second term I don't think I will either! Posted by: johngalt at July 5, 2012 5:27 PM
But JC thinks:
"Sometime people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief. - Frantz Fanon Posted by: JC at August 2, 2012 9:45 PM
But JC thinks:
"Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief. - Frantz Fanon Posted by: JC at August 2, 2012 9:46 PMMay 30, 2012Jenny McCarthy Body CountHeh (If your sense of humor is tuned that way).
Posted by John Kranz at 3:56 PM
| Comments (0)
May 27, 2012Eschew SanguinityOn last week's post criticizing the City of Boulder's "Climate Change Preparedness Plan" brother JK glibly (sarcastically?) quipped that "if things get too warm here [in Weld County] I can drive right over the line [into Boulder County]" where presumably he'll be "saved" from the "deleterious" effects of Seems the CCPP is part of a larger Climate Action Plan (CAP) that is enabled by a voter-approved tax that expires next March. The tax collects $1.8 million annually for the City of Boulder's pet enviro projects. Apparently Boulder County thinks the city is on to something and they are contemplating a "sustainability tax" of their own. Boulder Daily Camera: "I'm very concerned that if the county goes ahead, our CAP tax will stand a very good chance of losing," Mayor Matt Appelbaum said. "And that will just kill us. That will set us way back. It would be a huge loss for us if we lost the momentum. There are many programs that are just getting going." One wonders if Boulder County's "sustainability tax" will be more sustainable than Boulder City's CAP tax.
Posted by JohnGalt at 12:09 PM
| Comments (0)
October 21, 2011She Blinded Me with Junk Science!Saw this on the Teevee news this morning: A major study of nearly 360,000 cellphone users in Denmark found no increased risk of brain tumors with long-term use. Followed on FOX31 Good Morning Colorado by "advocates claim that the ten year study was not long enough to detect slow-developing tumors" and in the NYTimes it is followed by: Although the data, collected from one of the largest-ever studies of cellphone use, are reassuring, the investigators noted that the design of the study focused on cellphone subscriptions rather than actual use, so it is unlikely to settle the debate about cellphone safety. A small to moderate increase in risk of cancer among heavy users of cellphones for 10 to 15 years or longer still "cannot be ruled out," the investigators wrote. One of my lefty friends has become so upset over my Karl Popper "back to the caves" quote that I have been abjured from its use on Facebook. But this ain't Facebook and, at the big kids table, we can draw a generalization about junk science advocates. I suggest cell phones save thousands of lives every year, allowing people to escape dangerous situations and coordinate efforts more quickly in an emergency. I suspect it is magnitudes above "thousands" but I don't think you can argue a thinking person out of thousands. Against a real, empirical, substantive benefit of thousands of saved lives, the FACT: A cell phone can get you out of a dangerous situation because you can afford it and the person you're contacting can afford it. FACT: Thousands of people used to die of botulism and food illnesses from canned goods. Resin liners with BPA ended that. Poof. Pretty much nobody dies of that today. Vaccines, GMO crops, hydraulic fracturing, incandescent light bulbs, the list goes on. Modernity and prosperity save real lives today in large quantities. How much more, life-saving modernity and prosperity would we have with rational risk expectations? UPDATE: Unvaccinated behind largest U.S. measles outbreak in years Two hundred fourteen real kids, today. Rep Bachmann, call your office -- Jim Carrey on line one.
Posted by John Kranz at 2:23 PM
| Comments (1)
But Boulder Refugee thinks:
Dude, you are on fire! Posted by: Boulder Refugee at October 21, 2011 10:51 PMApril 21, 2011Try to Teach a Pig to Sing...I posted a few days ago (Scientific Fact, Yawn!) on the refutation of the junk science on plastics. I lamented (what I whiner I can be...) that "None will be disabused of their junk-science asceticism." (a whiner with bad grammar, "None" should be singular...) A good friend who used to work for me is on Facebook today with "Chip in $5 today to our 'Get BPA out of canned goods campaign!'" I'll save you a click to see the linked page:
Moms! And the people who love them! Versus a bald libertarian with a beard! Whom you gonna believe? This is the most insidious campaign. If my buddy wants to forego the convenience of a water bottle, he's not hurting anybody. But BPA linings have virtually wiped out Botulism and the thousands of deaths it caused annually. This junk science will kill. I passed along a link to the AEI piece. We'll see if my PhD friend is educable.
Posted by John Kranz at 6:20 PM
| Comments (3)
But Boulder Refugee thinks:
...women and minorities most affected. Posted by: Boulder Refugee at April 21, 2011 6:49 PM
But jk thinks:
Friend has not commented, but friend-of-friend asks: John: That group cannot be trusted when it comes to protecting consumers against businesses. Do you have any links to an organization who actually cares about people and not only profits and that says BPA is safe? No, Porky, breathe from your diaphragm! Posted by: jk at April 21, 2011 7:07 PM
But jk thinks:
For those playing the home version, friend-of-friend is pretty nice and gives my response a possibly kinder reception than it deserves. Posted by: jk at April 21, 2011 7:16 PMApril 19, 2011Scientific Fact...YAWN!Looks like we may not all die from water bottles after all: A comprehensive review by the German Society of Toxicology of thousands of studies on BPA concluded, "[BPA] exposure represents no noteworthy risk to the health of the human population, including newborns and babies." The group, which included several scientists who have advised regulatory caution on BPA, bucked calls by advocacy groups to lower safe exposure levels. This is near and dear to my heart since I know a lot of these people. They are shocked that I tempt fate by drinking water out of plastic bottles and regale me with tales of outrageous hoops they jump through to avoid it. I mention that about 10,000 people die of food poisoning for every one that dies from the plastic that prevents it. They usually recommend some documentary I have to see. And I could forward this story to them, but it would be a waste of ones and zeros. None will be disabused of their junk-science asceticism. It's much better to store your mayonnaise in an old clay pot...
Posted by John Kranz at 1:52 PM
| Comments (3)
But Boulder Refugee thinks:
...an old clay pot with traces of lead, zinc and uranium in the soil. Posted by: Boulder Refugee at April 19, 2011 2:54 PM
But Keith Arnold thinks:
I know whereof you speak. Whenever people see me actually drink water from the kitchen faucet, I never have to wait long for someone to freak out about how dangerous it is. From the municipal water supply! And then they rave on about how I really need to buy water in bottles... My response to them is that I wish they'd seen me as a kid, drinking water from a hose in my yard while I played. Five decades later, and I have no ill effects. Except for this twitch. Well, it's actually more of a tic than a twitch... Wimps. Posted by: Keith Arnold at April 19, 2011 2:55 PM
But johngalt thinks:
I thought I could just quip that the scientist who "discovered" these "scientific" conclusions merely needed to be excommunicated from whatever society he's a member of. Then I read the article and learned there isn't just one individual that the enviros can blame. The author naively asks, "At what point should science prevail?" Why, whenever it agrees with the worldview of them that does the reporting of course, and never otherwise. Posted by: johngalt at April 19, 2011 2:59 PM |