Disqus - Latest Comments for squashed

Re: iContrarian

squashed — Mon, 07 Sep 2015 17:35:30 -0000

Mark, check the growth rate of solar and wind for the past couple years. It's not quite 100% per year--but it is decidedly exponential and can reasonably be categorized as "insanely rapid". We're already seeing weird unintended consequences like periods where electricity prices go negative because we need to figure out how to expend the excess electricity produced in order to balance the grid. We're also seeing problems like "pirate solar" where people are just feeding extra electricity into the grid and the utilities have to figure out what to do with it. (These "problems" are the sort of thing that should get balanced out pretty soon without any major drama.)

I think the growth rate of solar, specifically, is about as fast as it can reasonably grow. There are definitely barriers that we could get rid of--but as of a year or two ago, the adoption rate has been pretty absurd.

Re: Tone-deaf with perfect pitch: A new plan to chase young people away from the church, one-by-one

squashed — Sat, 20 Apr 2013 16:45:49 -0000

This sort of sideshow is really getting distracting for those of us who have found welcoming homes in truly inclusive churches. We know it's important not to spend too much time on how dumb some of the other churches have been. Because criticizing other churches is not *technically* one of the great ends of the church. That said, if there's an accident on the highway involving multiple firetrucks and a crane, I'm not above gawking. I wish I was--but I'm not.

Re: Running Chicken: A little update on last night’s post about the...

squashed — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 14:33:34 -0000

I thought about it when casualty numbers from Syria appeared but thought better on it. Because ... there are more important things to say about 4,000 deaths than that I was probably wrong on Libya. I'll give that one some time.

Re: Running Chicken: A little update on last night’s post about the...

squashed — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 13:57:38 -0000

The part where I admit that maybe I was wrong?

I think I was. I don't mention it--except in comments--because the situation in Syria is so horrific. But at this point, Libya post-intervention is clearly in a better situation than Syria. And I think we have every reason to believe that Libya was headed in the same direction.

Re: Running Chicken: A little update on last night’s post about the...

squashed — Sat, 22 Sep 2012 16:03:37 -0000

It's a tough one. He seems to be of the view that the two of you could do all sorts of damage to each other's careers and that he'd be doing you a favor by agreeing to let you remove his unprofessional comment. (Maybe he'll go public! "This one time I left a really embarrassing comment on Dr. Kohen's blog. Dr. Kohen should be embarrassed to even associate with me."
The normal reaction, of course is, "I stand by my objections but acknowledge that my tone was crass and my wording unprofessional." Defending the unprofessional tone is a bit unusual. Though I suppose I would stand by my unprofessional tone in our discussion over intervention in Libya. But that was sort of the point. (Also, the situation in Syria may be a decent reflection of what would have happened in Libya absent an intervention. You were probably right on that one.)

Re: Running Chicken: A little update on last night’s post about the...

squashed — Sat, 22 Sep 2012 14:48:45 -0000

I made an offer like that to somebody I'd written on a year or so back. I just revised the post offering to remove his name if he no longer stood behind the dumb thing he'd written. I haven't gotten a response yet.

Re: … And I’m all out of bubblegum

squashed — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 21:54:23 -0000

I don't think there's any question that our media (frequently) gets things wrong--though I do believe that it generally tries pretty hard to avoid that. The New York Times or the Wall Street Journal, for all their flaws, gets something factually wrong and doesn't take steps to correct it, we're still pretty shocked.

I think there is a more important criticism in the way that the media shapes narratives--often unintentionally. Or the way certain organizations manage to miss the significant part of a story when it doesn't fit a convenient rubric. (The soldier charged with that awful string of murders in Afghanistan gets a "why did this seemingly normal guy do this terrible thing" narrative. It might as well be, "Why did this guy who doesn't fit our stereotypes of what a terrible person looks like do a bad thing?"

But all of that aside, I still think the mainstream media is a relatively reliable source for the facts of what happened. If I read something on a blog that seems a bit fishy, I'll try to trace it back to some mainstream media source where there's at least an editor. Or somebody worried about being sued for libel.

I would never, ever advocate being spoon fed anything by any media outlet without some level of critical distance. But when Cain or Palin (or anybody) attack the media reporting an incident rather than explaining the incident (or denying the incident), I think people should realize they're being sold a bill of goods.

Re: A programming note and a song

squashed — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 22:01:38 -0000

This may be one of my single favorite hymns. My wife and I included it in our wedding ceremony. Because ... why not?

Re: Senators who voted against the National Defense Authorization Act

squashed — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 17:21:06 -0000

You're totally right--I must have gotten distracted after typing in Sanders name. I fixed my original post. Thanks for catching that.

Re: http://notthatkindagay.com/post/11277322810

squashed — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 13:06:08 -0000

I'm not quite sure what that simile means ... thank you. I think? What I would really like would be some way that we could catalog people's reactions to the 99% pictures.

Re: Sometimes, I read Tumblr instead of the op-ed pages. This is why.

squashed — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 11:55:07 -0000

I'm flattered that that link leads to my post rather than a picture of somebody who just tried to scratch out his eyes after reading a particularly awful op-ed.

Re: Poll on the draft

squashed — Fri, 09 Sep 2011 22:08:54 -0000

I'll confess to a certain amount of ambivalence on this question. I was one of the yes votes--but it was virtually a coin flip. I don't mind conscripting people to do things. Or, rather, I mind it--but I think it can be justified. I'm willing to infringe on individual freedoms for communal goods. Prisons are a fine example. Both you and I think they're over-used--but I don't think either of us thinks we could eliminate them entirely. They're a huge infringement on individual liberty--bu a necessary evil. War might be another example. Is it ever necessary? Unavoidable?

Thus, I ended up as a yes. I can't rule out the possibility of a just war. It would be a last resort. Similarly, I wouldn't rule out conscripting people for a just cause--even if that could cost them their lives. So perhaps their could be a just draft. Could be.

With that said, I don't think we'll ever be in a spot in our lifetimes when we'll see a draft I would actually support.

Re: http://zombiecuddle.tumblr.com/post/6794769755

squashed — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 16:33:53 -0000

I would like to amend my previous response to:

The system effs me, that's how I live.
It's better to receive than it is to give.

Re: http://drinkthekoolaid.org/post/5464936562

squashed — Tue, 17 May 2011 09:44:43 -0000

Evidence is excluded in criminal trials all the time based on illegal searches. Affirmative suits against police officers are trickier when there aren't damages--and they're more likely to settle if an police department volunteers to improve it's procedures.

Probable cause is required to get a warrant. It can't replace a warrant.

Re: http://drinkthekoolaid.org/post/5464936562

squashed — Sat, 14 May 2011 19:41:34 -0000

You can certainly stop the officer from entering your house. You may lock the door. You may say the officer isn't allowed to enter. You can sue the pants off the officer that ignores that.

The question is whether you can beat up the officer. In the current case, the officers thought there was likely to be some imminent domestic violence. That probably wasn't enough for legal entry. (We take the Fourth Amendment pretty seriously.) The dude assaulted a cop. He tried to call it a justified assault. The court told him he couldn't.

It wasn't just a random local court. It was Indiana's Supreme Court. It was a split decision--which properly suggests controversy. But ... I don't think it was a bad decision. Others might. But I don't think they should see it as a particularly radical one.

Re: Serious Questions

squashed — Tue, 10 May 2011 11:09:59 -0000

I'm glad somebody caught that one.

Re: Squashed: Greater than Lapsed responded to my earlier post, which puts me in a...

squashed — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 09:54:42 -0000

I finally got the mortgage-backed securities writing out of the system. It turns out it's a really boring topic.

Re: I don’t get feminist blogs

squashed — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 00:31:22 -0000

I can't really respond to this. If I had a conservative alter-ego (which I totally don't so I don't know why we'd even discuss that possibility) it would be strained enough with the stress of being a conservative. I don't think it would be able to figure out how to respond to sarcasm.

Re: Could you connect the dots for me on WikiLeaks?

squashed — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 13:46:54 -0000

Before concluding that something was "clearly not an independent decision,"
I'll need some kind of evidence. Senator Lieberman, of course, is making
some public suggestions that companies cut off contact.

Right now, WikiLeaks is unpopular in the U.S.. Yes it has some
supporters--but I suspect it would poll somewhere around a 15% approval
rating. It would probably poll significantly below prostitution,
pornography, and gambling. It's entirely plausible that companies publicly
named as affiliates of WikiLeaks would want to distance themselves.

If there's some sort of nefarious conspiracy against WikiLeaks, I'd like to
see evidence of some sort of improper pressure.

Re: Could you connect the dots for me on WikiLeaks?

squashed — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 13:40:31 -0000

The source on that one is an NPR story on, I believe, Monday.

Re: Could you connect the dots for me on WikiLeaks?

squashed — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 11:21:44 -0000

I think most of that is right. The block by Paypal does seem to
involve government solicitation.

Re: I’m not happy about the compromise in tax cuts, but…

squashed — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 15:44:38 -0000

The 99ers aren't the only unemployed folks who aren't eligible for
unemployment. Those who have never been employed are also in there.
(So, recent grads). For that reason, I don't see unemployment as an
effective, broad social program. It excludes too many people.

And yes, it was like extortion. But I think giving into the extortion
is better for the country than sticking to principle.

On Tuesday, December 7, 2010, Disqus

Re: Is it really rape if he's sufficiently popular, liberal, and says he didn't do it?

squashed — Fri, 03 Dec 2010 22:40:39 -0000

I'm happy to presume Assange is innocent under the law. I've been
pretty careful to make it clear that nothing is proven. I'm also going
to extend a presumption of good faith to the prosecutors. If people
are going to accuse (alleged) rape survivors of all sorts of terrible
things because they like what Assange stands for I'll call BS.
Similarly, I'm concerned at the stories whose only source I'd the
accused's attorney.

This is not exactly like the Polanski case. Polanski was, of course,
convicted.

Re: Wikileaks and Amazon

squashed — Fri, 03 Dec 2010 19:36:12 -0000

After reading a few more quotes from Assange, I think you're right. He seems
to really dislike the U.S. government. I don't know that he dislikes it
enough for his actions to be criminal, though. I'm not familiar with the
espionage act.

Re: (Updated) Pros and Cons of the Healthcare Reform Bill

squashed — Fri, 03 Dec 2010 14:38:50 -0000

As you surely know, there are two ways to reduce the deficit. One is to
spend less. The other is to increase revenue. The bill spends $940
billion--but it is expected to increase revenue in some places and reduce
costs in other. For example, if we can get people care when they have the
flu instead of when they have pneumonia, it's much, much cheaper. There are
also some taxes on health insurance companies and some requirements that
certain businesses contribute money if they're not insuring their employees.

I'm not sure why you think subsidizing health insurance for those with a
lower income will drive the insurance companies out of business. There is no
public option for them to compete with--so there's no threat that the
government would be so good at health insurance that the clunky and
inefficient private insurers would go out of business.

Finally, your understanding of welfare law is ... flawed. I'm not sure where
to start--except to say that you need not worry that the bill will make
everybody quit working and go on welfare.