Skip to comments.Liberals Suck at Math and Eyeballs
Posted on 04/28/2013 5:45:01 AM PDT by Kaslin
Myer2 wrote: Why is algebra such a problem? Most of you feel science is a leftwing plot (evolution and global warming)- The New Liberals’ Hymnal: The Book of Common Core
Dear Comrade No. 2,
Science is not, in and of itself, a leftwing plot. For that to be true scientists would have to be cool people, not the mathematically-gifted, socially awkward wallflowers who never really had friends- or dates- in high school.
Elbert Einstein was the greatest theoretical physicist ever. He had rather childish views about money, economics and politics however.
The idea of scientists plotting to take over the world only exists in Bond movies and cartoons. Scientists are usually just happy to be included in the office cake parties.
Science- and the scientists behind it- are only used as a “tool” in the far leftwing plot.
The cool kids in politics- the people smarmy enough to get elected- use science and scientists to make the scientists feel cool and important. And then they get them to opt-in to their plan to “save the world.”
But that’s just hogwash.
“They make you feel cool,” Lester Bangs told the nebbish teenager in Almost Famous, “And hey. I met you. You are not cool.”
Let’s face it; science is just a creative accounting gig.
But that’s only part of it. Scientists also let leftwingers off the hook for denying many proven scientific theories.
For example, leftwingers deny the link between breast cancer and abortions, the pill and cancer, although the science is clear. They deny nuclear energy- which actually is very safe- for windmills- which aren’t very efficient- and in the end they get more carbon-producing power plants, like what’s happening in Germany.
They lump people like me, who don’t think the theory of evolution conflicts with my understanding of the Bible, with the small portion of Christian Evangelicals who contend that Bible is literally true therefore the theory of evolution must NOT be true. Leftwingers propagate “settled science” theories such as “white privilege” and other radical social theories to promote inexact outcomes like “fairness”- where the government or a social scientist gets to define fairness.
Leftwingers also use sciences, like climate sciences, to promote outcomes that favor their own biases and cronies.
Cap and Trade was a great example. The only thing that Cap and Trade would have done was monetizing carbon credits for guys like Al Gore and Dick Lugar who each owned a piece of the Chicago Climate Exchange.
Here, I’ll renew my challenge: I will pledge to be shaved bald, while eating a can of dog food in Zuccotti Park, surrounded by a drum circle of Occupy Wall Streeters and SEIU community organizers, hosted by Bill Maher or Jon Stewart- their choice- if anyone can show me scientifically how the Cap and Trade bill as passed by the House Democrats in 2009 would have reduced the temperature of the earth by even 1 degree Fahrenheit by year 2050.
I love science.
I hate the people who corrupt it by claiming the Hurricane Sandy had ANYTHING to do with climate change or global warming, without having to present any scientific evidence besides their own theories.
And if that includes you, then congrats: I hate you too.
Steve of CA wrote: "Did I tell you they are getting rid of Algebra in middle school? Really, they are.” I doubt it, even if that is part of this program it is not going to happen. It seems to me the testing program begun under the Bush administration is federalization of education. The New Liberals’ Hymnal: The Book of Common Core
Dear Comrade Steve,
Yes, they are getting rid of Algebra in middle school. And yes, the federalization of local public education picked up steam under Bush’s No Child Left Behind.
Just because Bush was a Republican doesn’t mean that conservatives were supportive of his education policy.
Common Core by comparison, however, is No Child Left Behind on steroids.
If you were a liberal and objected to No Child Left Behind, you should feel even more outrage at Common Core.
Fortunately teachers are speaking out against it, while the liberal educrats are looking to it to permanently consolidate their power over education in the country.
Hypocrites all of them.
At least they won’t be able to claim, “Bush did it too.”
Oh, wait. That’s exactly what you did.
DagNabbit wrote: Ransom cracks me up: This is the same guy that screams "Burn more oil!" at the top of his lungs every week. You want to F the Saudis? Stop buying their oil. (PS: Now I'll make the Sunday edition where he goes on and on about how the Keystone pipeline will free us from the Saudi trap. Hint: It won't). - Red, White and Saudi Privilege
Dear Comrade DN,
I don’t scream, “Burn more oil!”
I scream: “Drill more oil.”
Comrade, it may come as a big surprise, but despite the wishes of liberals like you, our economy depends upon oil. That’s not a fact that’s likely not to change much in the next fifty years.
There are two ways to face this issue: 1) Use less oil; or 2) Find more oil.
I have no issue with using less oil if you can give me an economical alternative, but you can’t. Every policy that you and your liberal cadres want involves me opening up my checkbook and paying for energy schemes that don’t work, cost jobs and lead to higher prices.
And by the way, I don’t want to screw the Saudis, as you suggest I should. I was objecting to Saudi nationals being here who hate America. I also object to paying $95 per barrel of oil when the economy should be supporting prices closer to $55 per barrel. The $40 difference is mainly attributable to Obama and his nutty professors like Dr. Stephen Chu who thinks $5.00 a gallon gasoline would be a swell idea.
But here’s the main point. We got a lot of oil here. Five years ago liberals teamed up with the “settled science” crowd to claim that we didn’t have enough oil and gas here in the United States to make a difference in our dependence on foreign sources of oil.
But that’s not true, as even scientists now have to admit.
A new report from the UK research team at Price Waterhouse and Cooper confirms what we knew all along: We’re right and they’re wrong.
Really wrong; once-in-a-lifetime, disastrously wrong if grading on the scale the rest of us are subject to.
Grading on the liberal scale, however, it’s just normal, everyday, run of the mill errors in judgment, math, worldview, physics and fluid mechanics that liberals deal with all the time in an effort to “wish” the world to Utopia while their leaders are busy creating Dystopia for all but a select few.
This latest discovery that we are right and they are wrong, shouldn’t shock us.
Here’s the frightening truth: “Shale oil (light tight oil) is rapidly emerging as a significant and relatively low cost new unconventional resource in the US,” writes PWC in its February, 2013 report Shale oil: the next energy revolution. “There is potential for shale oil production to spread globally over the next couple of decades. If it does, it would revolutionise global energy markets, providing greater long term energy security at lower cost for many countries.”
PWC estimates the GDP increase to be between 2-5 percent in the US. Using today’s GDP figures that’s between $300 billion and $750 billion, with my estimate being a nice midway point in the PWC estimate.
As I have pointed out all along, the Keystone pipeline issue isn’t about the safety of a pipeline. Obama and enviro-whacko friends know that if they allow Canadian tar sands oil to be developed via the Keystone pipeline, that the US will also start to develop their own tar-sands and shale oil. The US contains well over 600 years of known reserves and that would allow the US to be a net exporter of oil. If that happens, the “green” economy ruse that the left has sponsored, already reeling from bankruptcies and cronyism, would collapse.
It would show that there is no shortage of oil and “green” energy can not compete with fossil fuels.
And of course the Left cannot afford that kind of nonsense. Jobs and economic growth? Peace and prosperity? Where does it all end?
I can tell you this much Comrade Dag: In the future, it’s going to suck to be a liberal like you.
Janet355 wrote: John....This is a really serious question...and I'd like to hear your take on it. Its obvious to most folks paying attention, that Obama is a fraud and has committed crimes against the country . Why has no one in DC even talked about impeachment? I don't understand how this brat has not been thrown out on his ear. Thoughts? - Red, White and Saudi Privilege
Dear Sister Janet,
Hopefully you got the answer to your question in Saturday’s column on Benghazi:
It would be nice if the GOP in Congress did the job that they wouldn’t do on Fast and Furious, crony capitalism, Solyndra and several other violations of the law taken under the Obama administration. When people ask how Obama always gets away with it, the answer is easy: the GOP lets him.
We have a judicial system to deal with some of it, but we have a political system to deal with the rest. Too bad the GOP doesn't have the guts to use it.
JasonQ42 wrote: "Obama proposes tax increases on energy and financial products, which will ultimately end up charged to you at the pump, on your utility bill, or in your bank account." I thought it was worth pointing out that prices are determined by a variety of market mechanisms; sellers in general cannot simply pass on all costs to consumers at will. Additionally, when it comes to financial transactions, the whole point of the taxes is to, in fact, slow the whole market down . Given the reckless behavior of financial institutions in recent years, this does not seem like such a bad idea. - A Tax Increase For Every Home
Prices aren’t solely determined by costs, correct. But when every competitor faces the same costs, the consumer will pay for it.
Not just part of it…ALL of it.
You can wonk yourself out with denying it but you need only look at your utility bill to see what I’m talking about. Or take a look at your phone bill.
Here’s one below:
Now as to the idea that a financial transaction tax will “slow the market down,” yes it will, but only liberal would see that as a benefit not disadvantage.
The idea behind the transaction tax is to get banks and financial institutions to “pay for” the bailouts. The argument against is that it wouldn’t pay for the bailouts, but would only make financials markets less active.
If you want to make the markets more orderly, and fair, then there are tons of great ideas to do that like getting rid of high frequency trading.
But a financial tax is a wrong-headed, wonk-oriented, Obamapated policy that will be about as efficient as the Great Stimulus Program of 2009.
It will bring the dollar all the strengths of the Euro (insert joke here!) with none of the stability (rim shot!).
Please tip your waitress.
David4 wrote: I agree with the direction of Ransom's article, but I wish for a rewrite, to get the descriptions right. For example, on capping charitable deductions, the rich will still give to the charities, but not so much, more from the heart and less with one eye on their wallet and the other on the taxman. Those eyeballs will be looking for other ways to avoid taxes (, which they may not find). Result is a bit less for charities, more attention to whether the contributor really likes the charity, and more FAIRNESS; generally an improvement over today's tax-results. - A Tax Increase For Every Home
Dear Comrade 4,
Suck... That’s Swedish for “Sigh.” Or American for Comrade 4.
FAIRNESS? You don’t even understand what fairness means. Or math. Or gravity. Or reality. Or even eyeballs, apparently.
You didn’t happen by chance to vote twice, did you?
Because if that’s the case, I have a new understanding of our problems as a country.
Ortheadnew wrote: A gas station near me sells E-Zero, which is gasoline with no alcohol. I tested the mileage with gasohol (gasoline with ten percent alcohol) versus E-Zero which contains no alcohol. With gasohol, I get 22.5 miles per gallon in my 1999 Chrysler. With E-Zero, I get 25 miles per gallon. I other words, the mileage difference shows me that the alcohol produces no power from the engine. Ten percent alcohol results in ten percent less mileage. They might as well be adding water.- At Least Fisker's Cars Didn't Spontaneously Catch Fire...Oh, Wait
Ethanol, methanol and alcohol each have less energy than gasoline does. Adding ethanol, for example, gallon for gallon, will produce less mileage than straight gasoline.
To figure the economics of it, you always have to add at least 15 percent to the cost of ethanol because of the differences in energy output versus gasoline.
adendulk wrote: John the man who stand up against innovation he who would rather use the horse and buggie you go Johnny- At Least Fisker's Cars Didn't Spontaneously Catch Fire...Oh, Wait
Dear Comrade Dulk,
(This space intentionally left blank)
supercarp: I have not seen a lurch to the left. Obama by any intelligent measurement is a moderate. I am not a Republican or a Democrat because I have severe issues with both parties. One of the worst things that both parties do is what is demonstrated here: demonization and hyperbole with very little fact. Congress has done nothing but block the country's forward movement on nearly every front. The only bills they can pass are bills that forbid the passage of other bills. - Country Infected with Virus Democratus
Dear Comrade Devil Demon of the Lower Regions of Hell,
Is there a Moron Party then? Because you should either join it or form it.
You too can find instructions about forming your own political party by going here: http://www.wikihow.com/Create-a-Political-Party
Once done, report back to us, but, not too soon. Take a few years.
About the only thing slimier than a liberal is a liberal who tries to hide it by pretending to be independent.
I know you find this hard to believe but the country can do quite a bit without an Act of Congress.
hal_incandeza wrote: Ransom writes "The word “signature” here is key. A signature—not a stamp or autopen—means that Clinton must have seen and signed the cable personally." He is totally wrong. As the Washington Post fact checker notes, Ransom has no idea of what a "signature" is in cables. WaPo goes on to say "At this point, Issa (Ransom) has no basis or evidence to show that Clinton had anything to do with this cable — any more than she personally approved a cable on proper e-mail etiquette. Four Pinocchios.
Dear Comrade Pinocchio,
I’m wrong because Glenn Kessler said so? The Washington Post fact-checker?
Ok seriously. Totally.
I don’t have a problem with Kessler thinking that Issa could be wrong about the signature- although without revealing my sources and methods, I don’t think he is wrong- but he seems to be avoiding the very same standard that he himself wants Issa to adopt.
Issa would be on much stronger ground if he didn’t claim that Clinton signed it, but that it was fishy and he was seeking more information on who had crafted and approved the cable. The House GOP report also veers close to the edge with its phrasing about Clinton’s “signature.”
I’m assuming that Kessler then knows more about what the actual cable contains that Issa does. Or maybe I’m not, because Kessler himself is only guessing that Clinton didn’t see the cable in question. Kessler’s claim is that the word “signature” can be misinterpreted to mean Clinton saw the cable and approved it when she did no such thing, that we all shouldn’t jump to conclusions.
But isn’t Kessler doing the same thing by jumping to the conclusion that he- Kesseler- knows whether Clinton’s actual signature appears on the bottom of the cable. Shouldn’t he know the facts, first, if he demands Issa to declare the facts?
And here’s the main question: Did Clinton know of the request for more security and if not why not?
Because we can argue about signatures all we want but the real question is who would make a decision to deny extra security when the consulate on the ground asks for it- which they clearly did and the administration clearly tried to deny they did at first?
Let’s get the answer to that.
In the meantime, for his answer, I award Mr. Kessler four Noble Prizes.
And may God have mercy on his soul.
That's it for this week,
I live for these Ransom columns.
Not to mention toes and....other stuff.
I'm not a real scientist, but Valerie lets me play one on TV when we need to pretend we know what we are talking aboutElbert O'Einstein
I look forward to them also
Definition of ELBERT, MOUNT
mountain 14,433 feet (4399 m) cen Colorado in Sawatch Range; highest in Colorado & Rocky Mountains
Perhaps if you had done what I did and searched if there was even such a word you would have found it. Instead you criticize the author about one letter.
Shame on you
Easy there, Kas. Shame? I thought it was just a little good natured ribbing in the spirit of the article itself. But at the very least it is an object lesson in why one aught not overly rely on spellcheckers.
Ouch. Ouch. Ouch.
This was the story of my life in high school, but still--ouch.
At least, since most of the people in my social circle these days are scientists, I don't need to feel socially awkward any more. Dates are a rather moot point, I think my husband might get upset if I went on one.