1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Obama Behind Pumpkin Patch Melee

tgwWhale Wrote: 9 hours ago (10:35 AM)
Isn't it odd that these riots never (NEVER!) occur when righties get together? On the other hand, they happen quite regularly with the lefties. Obozo is a classic example of a lefty who thinks that the law does not apply to him. He sets a tone. And that tone disrespects the rule of law and the rights of others. That was Ransom's point. And he is 100% right. You, kmassey, are 100% wrong -- which is typical for a lefty.
In response to:

Obama Behind Pumpkin Patch Melee

tgwWhale Wrote: 9 hours ago (10:29 AM)
+100
In response to:

Another Ebola Risk: It Eats Logic

tgwWhale Wrote: Oct 10, 2014 2:57 PM
Ebola is NOT "much more dangerous than the 1918 flu." This is because it is far more difficult to spread. As of now, a few thousand people have died of this outbreak. That is very sad, but if ebola spread like the flu spreads, the death toll would be in the millions. Ebola is not a new disease. It has been known since some time in the 1970's. The current outbreak is just the worst one so far. Earlier outbreaks were contained; this one almost certainly will be, too. Remember when we were all going to die of AIDS? Ebola is spread more easily than AIDS but far less easily than flu, so AIDS was a far less dangerous disease than flu, even though it is more commonly fatal. Medical treatment for ebola is apparently in the pipeline and it is claimed that a vaccine may be available as early as next year. i will believe that when I see it; but the point is that since ebloa spreads slowly and with difficulty, it is possible to contain the outbreak until treatments are available. Which is the yet another reason to bar travel from the ebola hotspots: the ban would be very temporary, as these things go.
In response to:

Newer New Math

tgwWhale Wrote: Oct 03, 2014 10:19 AM
The far bigger issue involved here is that the contemporary math methods fail to take into account how children learn. Young children's minds are sponges; they soak up information. (Note: the kid involved in the article was in 3rd grade = a young child.) But they don't reason much at all; those faculties have not developed yet. As they age, their logical faculties will develop -- their abstract reasoning -- but their ability to simply soak up information will decline. That is why young kids learn a language so easily -- generally far more easily than us old coots -- but are mystified when someone wants to teach them the difference between a noun and a verb. That is why the contemporary math approaches are all wrong. They are burying the kids in theory that they can't understand, because their minds don't work that way, yet. When the original "New Math" came along (in the 1960's -- I was there), they were essentially attempting to teach set theory to grade-school kids. When I earned my mathematics degree in college, I found out that set theory is the most esoteric and useless branch of mathematics. Grade schoolers as a whole were utterly incapable of understanding it. The minds of even the smartest of them generally are not developed enough to grasp it. Now they attempt to teach calculus in high school (and maybe even middle school), and we end up with a bunch of kids who can't make change. They are ignoring the way that kids learn, the way their minds develop. The "old way" tended to understand the mental-development thing better, so it worked better. Conservatism is, more than anything else, trusting tradition, experience, and history. If it ain't broken, don't fix it.
Obozo DOES have a foreign policy. It is extremely childish. Its root is in the leftist tradition of seeing everything in terms of little guys getting picked on by big guys -- or, in Marxist terms, "oppressed" and "oppressors." In this paradigm, the Little Guy is always the good guy, and the Big Guy is always the bad guy. This fool actually believed (and continues to believe) that it is our fault that there is war and destruction here, there, and everywhere, because we are the Biggest Guy and thus, by his one paradigm, the ultimate oppressor. That is why he has always apologized for America's role in the world, and so forth. He actually believed that if we just apologized and stopped exploiting and oppressing people, problems would go away. The problem with the oppressor/oppressed paradigm is that in most cases it is false. For example, the ISIS gang and the other Islamic terrorists are not wreaking havoc because of what the U.S. has done. It is not because they have been oppressed! Obozo's foreign policies, as well as his domestic policies, are all based on the usually-false oppressor/oppressed paradigm. And that is why they are all failures -- his economic policy, Obozocare, his policy with Russia, his policy concerning terrorists -- and on, and on, and on.
In response to:

Art and its Discontents

tgwWhale Wrote: Sep 27, 2014 9:33 AM
A commentary on various works of art, without pictures of the art being discussed, is rather pointless. But in any case, art has always been about money -- at least since money was invented (art is far older, apparently). The great masters got paid for what they painted. They might have had other motivations as well (religious, for example); but they got paid. Art is still done today, but, as Greenberg points out, it is done commercially -- because that's where the money is. I raise the ire of artists by pointing out that just about any comic book has better drawing in it than anything human beings produced before the Renaissance -- but I happen to believe that is true. And I have seen things in animation that I would literally consider "fine art." Art will be always with us -- it is just that you won't likely see the best of it in things like the "Delta Exhibition" -- unless somehow that's where the money is.
For a long time we have been free of this bee ess on the TH board. How this this sheet-head slip in? Flagged, of course.
Since it's the people currently in power that are wanting to hand out the "rewards" for voting, and new people might be honest and not pay these "rewards," these "rewards" would be, functionally, bribes to vote for incumbents. Else, people could run for office on a platform of increasing voting payouts -- rather like promising increased welfare payments, right? In any case this idea is so corrupt that it MUST have come from progs.
In response to:

The Lawyer on Trial for Christ

tgwWhale Wrote: Sep 19, 2014 2:16 PM
Every scholar I have ever read dates the Gospel of Thomas 100 years later than the 4 canonical Gospels. Calling a document written 100 years after the death of the last eyewitness more "authentic" than documents written during the lifetime of eyewitnesses (e.g., Mark is typically dated in the mid-60's) is absurd. And it is FALSE that the NT canon was "cherry-picked by politically motivated bishops under the Emperor Constantine in the 4th century." NT books were being quoted by the Fathers of the Church from the 2nd century on. What became the standard list was put forth by Pope Damasus about 382, and was finalized for the West (Latin) Church at the Council of Carthage in 397. The Greek East accepted the list sometime later. Note that Constantine the Great died in 337, so he had no influence on most of this process. So your so-called "fact" is no fact at all.
In response to:

The Third Rail of Domestic Violence

tgwWhale Wrote: Sep 12, 2014 8:55 AM
Many years ago (it was in 1974 or 1975) I was in a bull session in the math assistants' office at college. The discussion got around to "what do women want?" I asked why girls (as we called them then) didn't want a guy who would keep his nose clean, not run around, and bring home the paycheck without boozing or drugging it away. One of the girls simply said, "Nice guys are boring." What is missing in this discussion is the attraction many women feel towards exciting, even dangerous men ("alpha males"). When you throw in big-time fame and fortune, you have a man that is extremely desirable to many women. Not only are people like Ray Rice very attractive to many women, but the very fact that a man is dangerous can make him exciting and therefore attractive. Of course, Janay should have left him. She didn't. Just understand that there could be many reasons shy she did not. There are probably a whole lot of nerds that she could have had that would have treated her right. She did not want them. She wanted the exciting bad boy. I have worked with lots of smashed-up marriages for many years. i know what I am talking about.
1 - 10 Next