The really supreme Supreme Court (updated 27jun15)

George Rebane

Another dark day in the history of our Republic.  Obamacare (aka ACA) has survived its second encounter with SCOTUS.  In spite of the clear intent of Congress to goad states to get into the healthcare business; in spite of progressives in Congress intending the secretly composed and hastily passed healthcare law to promote an ultimate single payer system through the sequential revelation of ACA’s obvious shortcomings; in spite of ACA’s clear statement that subsidies shall be available to persons who purchase health insurance in an exchange “established by the state”; in spite of all that SCOTUS today struck that language and rewrote the law.  Subsidies will be available to all, whether they signed up on state run exchanges or the fed’s disastrous healthcare.gov.

The important part that most people will miss is what SCOTUS really said with this ruling.  I will spell it out, and you will read about it elsewhere later.  SCOTUS said –

• We know better than Congress what it meant when crafting a law;

• No matter what Congress stated in the law, we know what the law really should have said;

• According to our liking, we have the power to re-legislate and fix laws to make them right for the nation.

It used to be that SCOTUS only adjudicated laws and their application according their concordance with the Constitution.

“Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote in a 21-page opinion.  But for years the progressives in Congress have openly and often admitted that, while ACA is a flawed and incomplete approach to national healthcare, its obvious problems as they arise will give impetus to a single payer national health service to replace the ACA.

Again highlighted by SCOTUS, the legal industry has used a logic and inference process that is peculiar to itself.  It is purposefully intended to be fluid and poorly understood, giving rise to ad hoc interpretations, reinterpretations, and argumentation ad infinitum so as to create and sustain a fully employed and growing priesthood that can live off the productive labors of whatever land it has been able to infect.

In the schooling and professional experience of people like me, such a system of logic would not have underpinned any successful scientific experiment or engineering project.  No bridge or MRI or airplane could have been designed and built with it.  No correct medical diagnosis could be based on it, no successful search of a massive database could have been conducted using it, and no contributions to our understanding of the universe would occur under its influence.

Most informed people know that our legal system is drastically broken.  Today, along with secret courts, draconian federal grand juries, lawless government takings, and citizens being subjected to double or even triple jeopardies, the law industry employs a distinctly Queen of Hearts logic and semantic – words infer and mean when and what they want them to infer and mean.

That this rot today infects our highest legal institution – The Supreme Court of the United States – makes its power complete and totally extra-constitutional.  With this extremely important ruling SCOTUS has set new precedence to enable it to fashion laws at will through the new provisos – never mind the language of the law, we know what Congress really meant; and if the law seems broken or as the ACA, “inadvertently poorly crafted”, then we can fix it to say what Congress should have said instead.  Now we have a really supreme Supreme Court.

[update]  This post would not be complete without the words of Justice Antonin Scalia who wrote the dissent to today's horrendous ruling by SCOTUS.

“This court … rewrites the law to make tax credits available everywhere.  We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.”  And this court goes through “summersaults of statutory interpretation” that lead to “the discerning truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.”

The majority opinion and ruling, including Justice Scalia’s dissent document may be accessed in its entirety here (starting on p27).

FN reports that the latest polls continue to indicate that the entire country is still not ready to embrace the ACA (or maybe we should really call it SCROTUMscare since it hits the overwhelming number of us in the shorts); anyway 50% of Americans "wish the law had never been passed", and 45% are "glad that it was".

[26jun15 update]  SCOTUS is on a roll.  Before discussing its ruling on gay marriages, I want to point the reader to two summaries of the Obamacare subsidies ruling that concur with my take on the lasting impact (sea change if you wish) of this decision.  The abbreviated dissent by Justice Scalia is available here, and WSJ’s 26jun15 lead editorial ‘The Political John Roberts’ is available here.

So now SCOTUS has upheld “disparate impact” to enforce federal housing law in Texas Dept of Housing v. Inclusive Communities Project.  “This is the legal doctrine that purports to prove racial discrimination based on different racial outcomes, such as the existence of a neighborhood with few minorities. No evidence of discriminatory intent, or actual discriminatory treatment, is required.” (more here)

Here we see writ large the progressives’ ‘equal opportunity’ as actually being ‘equal outcome’ legislation – something they have denied for decades.  That this ruling abets existing racial differences and creates additional ones.  Justice Thomas’ dissent cuts to the fundamentals, “To presume that these and all other measurable disparities are products of racial discrimination is to ignore the complexities of human existence.”

And finally today’s SCOTUS ruling that gay marriage is to be legal in all 50 states.  First, it is interesting (but not expanded here) to see the shift in the court’s view over the last 30 years of homosexuals marrying each other.  Be that as it may, RR has never opposed homosexuals entering into the exactly same, legally binding union that has been traditional for heterosexuals in their institution labeled ‘marriage’.  In former times ‘I am married’ carried a distinct meaning and therefore more information when used to communicate such unions.  It allowed you to unambiguously identify the relationship within a social and cultural frame.  Retaining ‘marriage’ to also label homosexual unions now ambiguates ‘I am married’, requiring something like ‘I am heterosexually/homosexually married’ to transmit the same information.

Without going into the ‘slippery slope’ arguments as to who in the future can marry whom or what, it has seemed to me that expanding the language to give gays their own word for such a long-lasting, love-based union would be productive.  In a previous (5apr13) post I introduced ‘garried, garriage, to garry’ to label such a union.  Now I find that on 26 June 2013 this was also proposed and included in the ‘Urban Dictionary’.  Go figger.

In any event, there will be much more to say about the ins and outs of garriage as regards procreation, child rearing, public accomodations (‘I now identify myself more as a woman.’), couples based social norms, and so on.  But one thing is for sure, no one should ever mistake this SCOTUS as anything other than a political instrument advancing the progressive agenda for society and governance.

[27jun15 update]  Ramirez is incomparable.  H/T to RR reader for the image.

Comments

[Todd Juvinall]

They could have remanded it back to Congress as an alternative but as you say, they are now the Queen Bee, self appointed as well. Next, they will authorize that the word "marriage" isn't really what it means. After that, a 2nd Amendment redo to make sure that comma is removed because those Founders didn't really mean to put it there,.. It was actually a fly dropping, overlooked at signing.

[Jon]

So, paradoxically you agree with many of us- that GW Bush was indeed one of most destructive Presidents of all time. But your reason of course is a little different. He appointed John Roberts as Chief Justice, who is likely the main factor why you see these decisions coming down, and the country changing before your eyes.

[Account Deleted]

jon - are you saying that Bush secretly knew that Roberts would turn as did Earl Warren?
Bush was no where near as destructive as Roosevelt, Carter or Obama.

[George Rebane]

Jon 1058am - Don't exactly know how you conclude that I believe Bush2 "was indeed on of (our) most destructive Presidents of all time." Must be more of that SCOTUS logic. Presidents before Bush2 have appointed SCOTUS justices who did not turn out on the bench as their resumes would have had you believe. The blow dealt here is deep indeed, and reaches all the way down to the Great Experiment. Even with an excellent founding document, we are finally demonstrating that in the large man as a collective cannot govern himself. The Founders are saddened.

Administrivia - for late arriving readers, the 21jun15 sandbox seems to be the venue where commenters are dissecting the ins and outs of the ACA, and offering improved designs. This is proper since the current post's focus is on the new and extended reach of SCOTUS that its latest ACA ruling confirms.

[Joe Koyote]

all the talk about "turncoats" is absurd. The reason the founders made SCOTUS appointments for life was so that they would be free from political turmoil like elections. The purpose of this was so that the judges could rule based on their interpretation of the law not affiliation to the political party that appointed them. They vote their consciences and their logic, not their politics. The laugher is that the billionaires thought they had purchased 50 years of court decisions going their way. Perhaps after the disastrous Citizens United decision that handed our country to monied interests. Roberts thought he need to toss a bone to the little people. And still the right wing bitches. You really have nothing to complain about.

[Jon]

Scott 11:10/GR 11:16, simply reacting to Todd's sentiment about Roberts as near evil force (CORRUPT to use his word), and the fact there is only one man responsible for bringing him in. At the time of his appointment, yes I do believe Bush was intentionally attempting to bring in a justice of MODERATE political background. Bush and team should have anticipated this pragmatic history of Roberts tenure. The tenure of David Souter comes to mind as well, appointed by GW's dad. Bush of course was later pressured to go hard-right with his next appointment- Alito.

[Todd Juvinall]

Jonnie you don't understand what I wrote at all. Anyway, this will be worked on a lot when the people of the country ross more dems and their prez candidate out. Just like Britain just did and France is on the verge of as well. The left has driven the firts world countries into the ground and we need to act with our votes to stop it.

Regarding GW Bush. He was duped by Roberts as were the Senate voters for him. Just like Warren did the same after his appointment bt Eisenhower. Sorry but I don't trust lawyers in government. SCOTUS is now a part of the bureaucracy.

As far as doing some in the meantime. Defund! That is Congress's role in the Constitution.

[Jon]

"Anyway, this will be worked on a lot when the people of the country ROSS MORE dems and their prez candidate out". Todd 11:43

If you are saying there are a lot of old timer Repubs in Rossmore retirement communities that will vote against Dems, I would agree with that. Not sure its enough to win elections for your side.

[Todd Juvinall]

toss, damn I spell shitty. Anyway, DEFUND the monster you Republicans!

[fish]

Posted by: Joe Koyote | 25 June 2015 at 11:21 AM

Roberts thought he need to toss a bone to the little people. And still the right wing bitches. You really have nothing to complain about.

You can't even troll worth a shit......a whole mess of insurance execs got rich today! Your health care is likely to remain shitty.

Were I you JoKe I'd get a gym membership and take real good care of myself going forward. Make every attempt to escape the tender mercies of GovCARE.

[Todd Juvinall]

Fish, and maybe we could attend the "Death Panel" meeting when they decide JoeK's chances for a new hip?

[George Rebane]

jon 1134am - sorry to disappoint you, I reacted to nothing but this morning's news about the SCOTUS decision. You have not been paying attention to the motivations for and precursors to RR posts. Correlation, assuming there was some, is not sufficient evidence for causation.

[Account Deleted]

I can't say that this latest ruling surprises me much. There was a lot of hand-wringing during the questioning of both sides during arguments in this case where the judges fretted openly about the fall out of a decision to hold to the law. In other words, there were signals that some of SCOTUS felt it was their duty to rescue congress from their own crappy law.
We've had plenty of 'creative' decisions by SCOTUS, but this is the first one to my knowledge that openly declared it would ignore the plain and clear wording, but would just imagine what the law should really be.
I suppose it was too much to expect to appoint humans to the highest bench and then have them just say aye or nay to the cases before them.
What fun is that? Much better to inject your own desires and ego into the mix and let everyone know what a clever johnnie you are.

[Gregory]

I can virtually guarantee you that Roberts would have preferred voting with a majority... with Scalia. It was assuredly not a 4-4 split without him... it was 5-3 and he had the choice of either protesting with Scalia et al or taking over the opinion and moderate what will become settled law. Being the Chief Justice has its power.

[Gary Smith]

In the early years of our great countries history SCOTUS did not have the clout that it has now. In the Panic of 1819, Maryland and Ohio taxed the US National banks of their states. In Maryland the state marched into the bank and demanded $15K. They refused and the federal bank official was arrested and fined $2K. In McCulloch vs Maryland, SCOTUS ruled that Maryland could not tax the federal bank.
http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar21.html

Ohio,not be put off, marched into their two federal banks ignoring the SCOTUS ruling and went into the vault and took $120K from both banks. How do you think that would play out today? Anyway they ended up returning the money eventually but can you imagine the stink this would cause?
http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Panic_of_1819?rec=535

President Andrew Jackson and the Indian Removal Act, SCOTUS ruled in Worcester vs Georgia that the state could not hold the missionary Mr. Worcester for violating state law by being a white man on Indian land without a permit. SCOTUS expected Andrew Jackson to force Georgia to release him which he refused to do. He was quoted (incorrectly) as saying "Chief Justice John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it". Imagine a president refusing to enforce a SCOTUS decision.

Anyway these are 2 examples of how their role evolved. Their rulings were not always viewed as the final word by all in our early history.

[George Rebane]

GaryS 238pm - thanks for those insights into the historical "final word" from SCOTUS. However, today is a different world, and SCOTUS is discovering its new muscles every day.

[Gregory]

"Anyway these are 2 examples of how their role evolved. Their rulings were not always viewed as the final word by all in our early history."

The civil war settled the balance of power between states and the Feds.

George, what the Supreme Court says has a bigger impact on the country when the Feds spend half the national income as opposed to a few percent.

[fish]

Posted by: Gregory | 25 June 2015 at 02:46 PM

George, what the Supreme Court says has a bigger impact on the country when the Feds spend half the national income as opposed to a few percent.

I think this is a decent indication as to why John Roberts has "corrected" Obamas homework (Oooh "code language"....trigger warning) on three separate occasions.

[George Rebane]

Gregory 246pm - Well now, I wouldn't have guessed ;-)

[Steven Frisch]

Posted by: Gregory | 25 June 2015 at 02:46 PM

Federal spending is 20% of GNI. In 2014, federal spending reached $3.5 trillion. Total GNI is $16.99 trillion.

$3.5 trillion divided by $16.99 trillion = 20%

[Todd Juvinall]

The spending does not take into account the cost of compliance and regulations by individuals and businesses. That is a few trillion I would expect. Also, the amount of lost wages and time efficiencies for things like the tax codes and long haul truckers. Add it up and I would guess they are almost half the total output of America.

Look at just ObamaCare. For six million subsidized "poor" Americans (probably immigrants mostly) America has spent a trillion bucks already since 2010. That is quite a per capita. So the problem is the American people who are really working for their porridge are getting hosed to make a Cadillac for others who don't deserve it.

[George Rebane]

I have reported America's cost of regulatory compliance in these pages. And it is at least $1.863T with some other consumer costs not included.
http://reason.com/blog/2014/04/30/the-united-states-of-regulation-complian

[Steven Frisch]

"....when the Feds spend half the national income as opposed to a few percent."

There is the quote, Bozo. That quote is wrong, period; provably wrong.

Bu then again Todd of if you want to count 'externalities" I would be OK with that, lets count 'externalities', both positive and negative.

[Steven Frisch]

Oh, and by the way Mr. Economic Genius Juvinall, Gross National Income already includes cost of complying with regulations paid within the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_national_income

[George Rebane]

StevenF 528pm - could you explain that GNI inclusion, I've not seen that argument. Thanks.

[Don Bessee]

Oh Frishy, Intergovernmental payments from the feds are not the same thing as total costs of all required compliance, nor does it address compulsory spending matches of various formulas mandated to the states. The burdens on business is a whole different number from the feds redistribution to other governmental entities of half a trillion bucks. All of those added to the direct fed 3.5T is a more accurate reflection of the actual size of the burden the feds hang around the neck of our economy.

[Todd Juvinall]

Well I declare, Steve Frisch has finally called me a economic genius! Thanks, I knew you would come around. I see he is once again using his superior brain power by using Wiikipedia as his source. Excellent! Also, BOZO was actually an astute businessman and he never bankrupted a restaurant or stole the employees money. So thanks again for the compliment.

If one adds up all the things I mentioned I am sure the fingerprints of government, local, state, federal, mosquito District and dog catcher, levee district etc., are probably pretty close to my estimate.

[Todd Juvinall]

DonB you are correct. When I voted on my first budget in 1985 it was 43 million. The BOS just voted on one at 201 million. Now in 1985 the population was about 90,000 and today it is about 100,000. So doing the math the population went up 10% and the county budget 400 percent. I would think something is out of kilter? Must be those darn gremlins in the closet at the Rood Center. All this in our little 960 square miles!

[Steven Frisch]

First, you guys need to remember you are the ones who are against measuring externalities. If one wanted to include the regulatory burden as a 'negative externally' you would also have to calculate the benefits of regulatory policy as a 'positive externality'. Like the case I make on a regular basis that avoided health care costs are a 'positive externality' of clean air laws.

One good externality deserves another.

But the point I really made was that when someone pays an attorney or a tradesman to fix a problem, the cost of paying that person is included in the Gross National Income....

Gross National Income is:

The sum of a nation’s gross domestic product (GDP) plus net income received from overseas. Gross national income (GNI) is defined as the sum of value added by all producers who are residents in a nation, plus any product taxes (minus subsidies) not included in output, plus income received from abroad such as employee compensation and property income. GNI measures income received by a country both domestically and from overseas. In this respect, GNI is quite similar to Gross National Product (GNP), which measures output from the citizens and companies of a particular nation, regardless of whether they are located within its boundaries or overseas.

Thus my statement, "....already includes cost of complying with regulations paid within the US."

[Don Bessee]

In the OMB 2014 draft report they stated the EPA alone cost us more than USD$90,000,000,000.00 in business compliance expenses! That is only the EPA and who really pays that manipulative tax? Yes Todd, you are correct sir! It's the Tax Payer. No chili fires for the j/s/j.

[Steven Frisch]

Posted by: Don Bessee | 25 June 2015 at 06:34 PM

Oh, dear Don, see above. One cannot count negative externalities without counting positive externalities.

But since you are quoting OMB here is a quote for you:

"The estimated annual benefits of major Federal regulations reviewed by OMB from October 1, 2003, to September 30th, 201, for which agencies estimated and monetized both benefits and costs, are in the aggregate between $217 billion and $863 billion, while the estimated annual costs are in the aggregate between $57 billion and $84 billion."

Executive Summary Page 1-2.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/2014_cb/2014-cost-benefit-report.pdf

[Steven Frisch]

Ooops, that should read "....September 30th, 2013...."

[Gregory]

Frisch 4:55 I will admit to guessing off the top of my head to give you something to do.

Does that include Social Security, Medicare, Federal mandates of state and local governments and unfunded mandates?

[Gregory]

Excuse, that last point should read unfunded liabilities.

[Account Deleted]

Steven F, like most lefties, hews to the 'broken window' theory of economic activity. If some one is getting paid, it's all good.
What health benefits of clean air? Asthma was supposed to go down, but it went up. Clean air is wonderful, but we've yet to see any of the payoff we were promised. Health care costs continue to sky rocket. If folks don't die from one thing, the odd deal is they just die from something else. And they still end up in the hospital sucking up money from the public trough. We 'save' nothing.
Money I have to pay for something I can't use or is not useful to me is just an expense. A cost. There are no 'savings'.

[Steven Frisch]

GNI is a component of GDP, (see formula above) so it is a subset OF ALL ECONOMIC ACTIVITY, thus it includes social security, medicare, mandates. local government, and the carrying cost of unfunded liabilities...

But the point remains Greg, what you said originally was "....when the Feds spend half the national income...." which is clearly not accurate.

I think it is illustrative of your intellectual honesty that you would 1) guess off the top of your head and project it as fact when its a wild assed guess, and 2) be almost 250% off on your guess.

If it were me I would look it up before I guessed; which is why when I post here I post facts and you bloviate like a Fox blonde.

[Steven Frisch]

Posted by: Scott Obermuller | 25 June 2015 at 06:57 PM

I see Scott is really clear on the entire economic concept of avoided costs.

[Jon]

Steve, do you seriously mean to tell me that Gregory is not actually an expert in Economics? How can that be? Are we now up to at least two things in one day he hasn't a clue about (healthcare and economics)? Oh my. But what of those multiple advance degrees? Did I really see him called out on guessing (and missing badly) off the top of his very valuable head?

What a day!

[Steven Frisch]

You either get to count externalities in which case you must count both negative and positive externalities, or you don't count externalities.

If we don't count externalities Greg is full of sh*# by a factor of 250%, if we do count externalities, and we use the agency Don quoted as a source, Greg is full of sh*# by about 300%.

Either way, Greg's full of sh*#.

[Jon]

LOL. That we agree upon!

[Account Deleted]

"I see Scott is really clear on the entire economic concept of avoided costs."
I just pointed out that the projected 'avoided costs' never materialize.
You lefties operate on 'good intentions'.
If we never actually save anything, it doesn't matter, because the intentions were good.
If everyone is poor, we avoid the costs of having to fix the roads because no one can afford to drive. Left wing nirvana!
Yes, we can avoid medical costs if we make folks pay their own way. If they pour beer down their throats all day, it will cost them and they might wise up and change their habits. Good health is cheap if practiced by individuals who are responsible for their own health care costs. If health care is a 'right' (i.e. free) then it will continue to cost more and more.

[Jon]

Over the last week on this very board, I've now seen clear implications by posters here that both recycling and the Clean Air Act were, in reality, negative things that cost taxpayers money with no tangible benefits. Speaking of one-sided, intellectually lazy analysis...

[fish]

Boys, boys, boys why are we quibbling over small potatoes? Last weekend Steve hinted at an economic plan that "would grow the economy exponentially"......if this is indeed true then all of the difficult economic choices the country will likely need to make in the coming years are unnecessary.

...and with that.....Ladies and Gentlemen.....I give you Steven Frisch!

[Todd Juvinall]

Yes fish, I too have been waiting for that. And I give you, ladies and fish, Steve Frisch!

[Steven Frisch]

Posted by: Jon | 25 June 2015 at 07:31 PM

It is all part of the narrative that facts don't create ideas, ideas chose facts. Ideology drives what is believed here, which is the opposite of science. Which is why fundamentally the world could literally burst into flames and the regulars would be saying, "Hey, the Commies destroyed the planet!"

[Steven Frisch]

Post by: fish | 25 June 2015 at 07:38 PM

Can you point me to that post Fish since clearly you are following it...and I mean the whole post not an edited version.

[Todd Juvinall]

I have to say though fish, I read the Wiki on GDP and GNI and that tricky little Stevie copy/pasted most of them in those comments above. And I though it was his noggin doing the thinkin. Silly me.

[Steven Frisch]

Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 25 June 2015 at 07:41 PM

Todd, what do you say to the fact that Greg was off by 250%? Do you accept his error? I would guess not since last week you could not even accept a direct video from the source that you chose and misquoted. You could get hit in the head with a hammer and if you didn't think it was true say, what hammer?

I think I need to go back to reading my book.....it is much more entertaining.

[Steven Frisch]

Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 25 June 2015 at 07:47 PM

God forbid I use an actual SOURCE...which was not wikipedia it was Investopedie.

Silly me I check my facts before I ejaculate them.

[Gregory]

Hmm, but Stevie, total federal spending per household is widely held to be about $30K, and average household income is less than $55k.

I'm sure everyone here can Google for themselves.

It is amazing how quickly the feeding frenzy develops when red meat gets tossed in the cage.

[Steven Frisch]

You can check my sources for total GNI and total federal spending Greg.

[Steven Frisch]

Total federal spending...

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com

Gross National Income

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=US+GNI

[Steven Frisch]

Definition of GNI

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gross-national-income-gni.asp

[Steven Frisch]

By the way this is why I would wipe the floor with you in that debate Greg, you may be smart but you just say stuff without thinking.

[Todd Juvinall]

Stevie, Greg can defend himself, he is much smarter than you are and it shows.

Regarding your "sources". You copy/pasted wiki and I read it. Why deny it?

Regarding the 30-40 million in the debate by Coulter and Ramos. OK, it was 29-39 million. Or was it 40 million? Hmmm. You get hung up on the dopiest stuff. You can't even watch a video and get it right. Oops, can't copy/paste the video. Silly me.

[Gregory]

Steve, you can google "federal spending per household" and check the gaggle of estimates on the order of $30k from a mind boggling number of different sources.

The dismal science at work. Prove them wrong, Frisch.

[Todd Juvinall]

Yeah Stevie Greg doesn't copy/paste like you he actually thinks for himself.

You are frothing at the mouth and making an ass of yourself here. Go back under your bridge and let the adults have some peace.

[Gregory]

My guesses are better than Frisch's facts. Who'd a guessed? Of course, were they really guesses or a half decent memory of facts that have crossed my path?

In any case, in the dismal science of economics, the devil is in the details, and so it is in the dismal state of climate science.

So Steve, you're still dodging the solar crash that Climategater Warmistas have just published... fastest 5 year solar drop of the past 9300 years. And that mystery "conspiracy type" you tried to smear me with. Your turn.

[Gregory]

"Silly me I check my facts before I ejaculate them." Frisch, 7:52

Frisch, I think everyone has figured out you're shooting blanks.

[fish]

Posted by: Steven Frisch | 25 June 2015 at 07:45 PM

From the 19 June 2015 - Caudaphobia - The Tragedy of the Tails thread

Posted by: Gregory | 20 June 2015 at 01:17 PM

Of course I would not 'trash the world's economy' I would grow it..exponentially.

Posted by: steve frisch | 20 June 2015 at 02:15 PM

[Account Deleted]

from jon - "I've now seen clear implications by posters here that both recycling and the Clean Air Act were, in reality, negative things that cost taxpayers money with no tangible benefits."
Previously I had written - "Clean air is wonderful, but we've yet to see any of the payoff we were promised."
Maybe an adult can help jon to read. It would be a help.
Recycling has tangible benefits - to the companies in the business.
Maybe jon can point out the tangible benefits to the general public that more than offset the billions we spend on the recycling racket?
Steven F. is only capable of childish insults and has yet to respond to my post in an intelligent way.
We can have recycling done in a way that will be beneficial, but for now it seems to have not pencilled out.

[Account Deleted]

P.S. - for jon - 'wonderful' is a positive thing.
Just in case my post went over your head.

[Jon]

hey Todd, what the hell are you doing in this debate between Greg and Steve? Its good stuff. Enjoying Steve do his thing. But seriously, what are you doing here piping in? Its like those idiots who run out on the field in the 7th inning of a MLB game to get on TV. People with educated brains only please Todd. Thanks.

[Jon]

Thanks Scott. But I know you would be willing to sacrifice that clean air if your net tax rate went up and cost you a few bucks. I know your MO. No worries, Idaho is going to be great for you. Very low minority and immigrant population as well.

[Jon]

hey Scott, you know what? Everything in human existence doesn't necessarily have to pencil out. Kindness and compassion don't always pencil out.

[Gregory]

"Jon", unless you have more than the minimum for collegial sentience (major in one of the Quadrivial arts maybe, or an IT degree not granted from a discontinued business school program), maybe you should also bow out.

The Trivial arts remain trivial by definition.

[Jon]

Hey Greg, cannot compete with your superior set of degrees, but BS-finance and MBA from top 20 school is OK, I guess. I'll stay out of your struggles with Steve because he is pretty good shape in matters of real world issues that impact people and our environment.

[Don Bessee]

Dr.R.! Who appointed the 'jon' as moderator @ 848ppm? ;-)

[Account Deleted]

from jon - "Thanks Scott. But I know you would be willing to sacrifice that clean air if your net tax rate went up and cost you a few bucks."
You know? Proof?
Hey jon - why don't you explain to us all about how the word 'wonderful' is a negative thing?
"Kindness and compassion don't always pencil out."
Ah - exactly as I had said - it's all about good intentions.
Steven had said there were 'tangible' benefits.
Are jon and Steve standing ready to empty their wallets for my good intentions? I see that 'tangible' has different meanings according to who is saying the word.
And of course, it gets down to what I somehow knew was coming -
"No worries, Idaho is going to be great for you. Very low minority and immigrant population as well."
Actually, jon, the immigrant population there is pretty darn near 100%.
And I'm not sure what 'minority' you refer to, but there's plenty of folks that speak a language other than English. Hint: Espanol! The leading food and culture festival is the Basque:
http://www.basquecenter.com/
You'll need help looking that up.
So 'wonderful' is a negative word and 100% is 'pretty low' to jon.
Must be a confusing little world you live in, jon.

[Jon]

Don, I did at that moment. Couldn't fathom the sight of Todd's mug wedged between a couple of actual brains with facts and logic.

[George Rebane]

DonB 914pm - I think Jon took it upon himself to raise the flag and see if anyone would salute it. Your call.

[George Rebane]

Re proposed debate. I inserted my two cents worth about the continuing debate challenge that SteveF is laying at Gregory's feet. What I haven't seen any response to is my points about the conduct and profit from such a debate as I proffered in 'Scattershots - 22jun15'. Unless those points can be successfully addressed, I think talk of such a debate is just empty flapping in the wind.

[Todd Juvinall]

Jon, why don't we meet for a debate? Alas, you are just a whiny little girl. I think my brain is much larger than yours. Besides, you are a troll under a bridge. What a hoot.

[Account Deleted]

Oh Todd, now you've done it. jon is now having to scan through dozens of DK comments to find enough childish personal insults to feel he's ready to 'debate' you.
You know what they say about wrestling with a pig. 'nuff said.

[Todd Juvinall]

Headed to the sack. ScottO you are right. If you debate a troll like jon, people might mistake me. I am wondering why jon is so afraid to tell us who or what he/she is and does. What a wimp. But that is a liberal. LOL!

[Gregory]

George, I didn't elaborate my differences with your "debate" analysis, it seemed to be pointless, but as long as you ask... I think you were substantially off base. For one thing, Frisch was promising a duel, not a debate, and seemed to think he could design it all by his lonesome. Not a chance.

You were correct that Frisch wouldn't bring any useful knowledge... he's shown no talent at all for discussing the science in the past. However, your expectations were "The TB will have no alternative but to spout today’s made-simple for broad, unread audiences, and politicized ‘consensus science’. And the Skeptic will be forced to take his refuting arguments to the next technical levels where few, if any, will be able to follow – all the while the TB baselessly disparaging every one of those arguments in a manner that elicits uncritical nodding heads among the gruberized, and leaves the others numb. Everyone knows that such audiences have been meticulously prepared to either ignore or mistrust all uncomfortable and confrontational arguments about AGW aka global warming aka climate change."

Almost entirely off base. No, one does not get ever more technical with a lay audience, one gets simpler. There are simple arguments to be made and a real debate is where one would make them. I recall that Breaking Bread you did with Paul Emery and Company a while back; you went off on a systems sidetrack which was entirely off the mark, lecturing the viewers, a perfect way to lose the audience.

For an idea how to win over a liberal audience, the IntelligenceSquared debate of the question "Global warming is not a crisis" is a great start. Video of the event (eight years ago) is now online
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-28qNd6ass

NASA/GISS and RealClimate's Gavin Schmidt has been avoiding debates ever since, an epic loss to Crichton, Lindzen and Stott.

[Gregory]

Regarding degrees, BS Finance and MBA (if true, you wouldn't be any of the usual suspects that youve been channeling) would give you ZERO serious study of the sciences. No chemistry with chemistry majors, physics with physics majors, math with math majors, engineering with engineering majors. Top liberal arts colleges of math science and engineering are remarkably similar, a real hard core of everything for several semesters before you go off and specialize. We didn't even formally declare a major until the sophomore year, it was the 4th semester before a majority of work was in ones intended field.

It isn't where you study as much as what you study but there are a few schools that are particularly good at science and that's why they have a cachet, not because the children of the rich want to go there. Frisch studied to be a left of center policy wonk and he may be OK at that but it isn't science. I've known first rate engineers who studied CS at CalState Sacramento and I've met incompetents. I've never met an incompetent from CalTech or MIT. There's a reason.

Past bedtime, but one more thought that was shared by a fellow physicist a few days ago: anytime you see a sentence with Denier in it, substitute "heretic" and it will make perfect sense.

[Steven Frisch]

Posted by: George Rebane | 25 June 2015 at 09:51 PM

I found it ironic George that you had anything to say about debate format or ethics since the last we met in informal debate you immediately broke the rules of engagement we had set through Mr. Emery. I think you lost your credibility as a judge.

[Todd Juvinall]

No, GeorgeR would actually be a good judge. You Steveie have been given reprieve after reprieve for you bad behavior here.

[George Rebane]

Gregory 1224am - apparently your cited debate still needs some work. I'm not aware of any liberal audiences anywhere who have been "won over", else you could just mail in this link when such debate talk comes up.

[Gregory]

George, what work so you refer to? I gave you a link to the IntelligenceSquared debate and it has been discussed here before. From the transcript, at the very end:
And now the results of our debate. After our debaters did their best
to sway you…you went from, 30% for the motion that global
warming is not a crisis, from 30% to 46%.
[APPLAUSE] Against the motion, went from 57% to 42%…

In other words, at the beginning of the debate the audience was against the statement Global warming is not a crisis 57 to 30.

Afterwards, they were for the statement 46 to 42.

Quite a shift for sixty minutes of seat time; it was very possibly the first time much of the audience had actually heard climate heretics make their case without the filter of the New York Times editorial staff.

[George Rebane]

Gregory 853am - you misunderstand. Your cited debate to work would then be the template used over and over again to sway audiences by AGW skeptics. Since there is no evidence that such audiences have been swayed, and since that debate has not enjoyed a wider audience through print or its video going viral, it must still have some shortcomings, or to use your phrase, to still be somewhat "off base".

[Gregory]

George, you misunderstand and misjudge... there have not been further debates, no series of audiences to be swayed one way or the other. Schmidt has even refused to share the stage with skeptics, explaining that he didnt want to bestow any credibility on them.

Members of the climate clergy do not debate, they show up, like Bill McKibben (who is not a scientist, was the editor at the Harvard Crimson) at the Miner's Foundry event with Jerry Brown in attendance, and give a sermon to adoring followers who pay handsomely for it.

Have you not heard? The time for debate is over. It's settled.

A skeptic might say the debate avoidance is because Schmidt really doesn't like getting a Bronx cheer from a Manhattan audience. He prefers control of the message and the medium and in a debate, you have little control over what the audience hears. They will judge you, your opponent(s) and the messages.

The template for someone conversant with the science to speak plainly about the science and not talk down to the audience.

[George Rebane]

Gregory 1032am - Well yes, in that sense my 908am point stands a fortiori, as equivalently stand our frequent misunderstandings of each other. (Don't know why we're discussing this under the SCOTUS post.)

[Todd Juvinall]

Looks like we will have a true "busing" solution to neighborhood life now. Boyz N the Hood has a whole new meaning.

[George Rebane]

ToddJ 221pm - Yes indeed, if the national percentages of 'minorities' are not replicated in your neighborhood, someone can and will bring suit against the local jurisdiction. No further evidence of racial discrimination will be needed.

The interesting thing to watch is to what smallest community size must these percentages be applied. Things will quickly begin getting more than a little silly in the small isolated jurisdictions. There may have to be new federal programs put in place to relocate appropriate numbers of, as you say, BoyZ N the Hood living with single moms into more genteel neighborhoods.

The number of federal initiatives already here and coming down the pike that will ultimately elicit armed resistance is now legion. And the feds know it, hence preparations like Jade Helm. A hot time in the old town tonight is assured for our kids and grandkids - else '1984' as never imagined will be needed to keep everyone quietly compliant. 'The Giver' comes to mind.

[Todd Juvinall]

What should the allotment for Nevada County be I wonder? Let's see. We ar 90% white or something like that and we must get that down to 70% as that appears to be the national percentage of white folks. I suggest we hire a vendor, maybe SBC, to travel to LA and recruit people for the bus trip here. Then the other non-profits here can supply the housing, say a few in the Cedars, maybe Martis Camp in Truckee? They need more folks in those 10 million dollar subdivisions up there. This is Lawyer food until infinity!

[Bill Tozer]

Now, who exactly is the biggest debater here? No need for a debate, gentlemen. Just ban everything, including debates. It's how control freaks show their Frisco Values.

http://patriotpost.us/posts/36042

As far as SCOTUS goes, ban the black on the page and rule on the white part of the page. Their imagination ran wild.