Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
Found wild mulberries growing down the street, and I seem to be the only one in the neighborhood who wants any. Hooray!
I found a pink lady's slipper growing in my driveway. It's New Hampshire's state wildflow, and is supposed to be rather rare. I'd seen some before while hiking, but never any around home.
Prof. Althouse - I bought a printer from Amazon last week, but forgot to use your portal. turns out, I used the wrong card. You're in luck, you and Meade can eat tonight!
Not a fan of mulberries. They're all over the place. Weeds! And then birds eat them and find my laundry. Fiends!
More Weiner Tweeters Now!
Anyone here following the Casey Anthony trial? Any thoughts?
Can you eat wild mulberries?Sounds like they would go good in my smoothie.I fucking love smoothies.
Who needs lies, when you have stupidity:Cell Phone ScareHow can 31 scientists--possibly good ones--get this wrong? Jesus.
Just gimme some truth.Trey
Those are strange looking lilacs.Ours are about done....
@Freeman,Mulberry trees are just lying dogs that try to trick you into believing that they have something delicious, like a blackberry.Now, blackberries are God's gift to mankind.If you're serious about trying to do something with the mulberries, check a British cookbook. The Brits are into mulberries. Just like the northern European climes are into gooseberries.
Allow me to rephrase my question: Has anyone here ever heard of "Casey Anthony"?
What is truth among human souls? Stay tuned.
@RuyDiaz: What did they get wrong?
Did you read where 200 of the 70 year olds and up retired Japanese engineers and nuclear experts have volunteered to go into Fukushima and deal with the deadly messed up power plant's reactors. They explained that at age 70+ they only have 15 to 20 years of life left so that a threat of getting cancer 25 years from now was no biggie. That attitude my friends is Truth walking among us. No greater love has any man than that he give up his life for his brothers/Country.
I'd like mulberries better if the stems didn't come with. Do you cut them out first? Or screen them out later? Or ???
OriginalMike;The Laws of Physics. Radiation from cell phones is non-ionizing--it cannot break molecular bonds. Thus, if they do cause cancer, it would be by an indirect, unknonwn mechanism, e.i., cattle manure.In addition, there are at least two other good reasons to believe cell phones are safe:1) As cell phone usage has exploded, the incidence of brain cancers have remained steady. 2) The background radiation in the radio spectrum overwhelms the radiation from cell phones--it would be like throwing a buckett of water on a big pond. The effects should not be detectable.So, with so many real dangers to worry about, we will be worrying about the wrong thing, and wasting money in 'further studies'.
I just planted two lilac bushes in the back yard. And a bunch of other stuff.I need an inhouse gardener like Meade.
Looks like a Korean lilac?
Ruy...If we postulate no increase in brain cancers from microwave wifi bombardments, does that prove that it has no effect on the DNA components of humans? And what is autism while we are discussing the unknown?
Has there ever been a Huma post here?If not, I smell a conspiracy.I want Huma post and I want it NOW!
Traditionalguy;1) We know that electronic radiation from devices such as WiFi has no effect on DNA because it cannot break the chemical bonds in DNA. It is like throwing ping-pong balls at a Battleship; no matter how many ping-pong balls you thow, none will go throw the hull.2) Autism is a different discussion altogether. It is a development disorder that severely impairs human interaction in those afflicted. Hope that cell phones are not blamed for it, though.
@Titus;Mrs. Abedin is obviously a woman of small appetite, in more meanings than one....(Sorry).
"The Laws of Physics. Radiation from cell phones is non-ionizing--it cannot break molecular bonds."Not directly, but I would entertain the possibility that the RF energy could excite molecular vibrational or rotational energy states which could lead to chemical reactions."As cell phone usage has exploded, the incidence of brain cancers have remained steady."Isn't the point that these guys think they may have found excess cancers?"The background radiation in the radio spectrum overwhelms the radiation from cell phones"I suspect you're wrong on this point, given the proximty of the phone to the brain.
This is interesting...Cain is gaining ground. Fast.
"Interest rates are amazingly low and that, thanks to Ben Bernanke, is driving everything," Yastrow said. "We’re on the verge of a great, great depression. The [Federal Reserve] knows it.Here we go....
How can 31 scientists--possibly good ones--get this wrong? Jesus."Possibly carcinogenic" puts cell phones in the same category as coffee. The problem isn't with the scientists or their review of the evidence it is with a general discomfort or misunderstanding of uncertainty.
Titus, knock yourself out.I like the girl on the train better, but that is me.
How do they smell?
Direct damage of DNA is not necessary for some agent to increase the risk for cancer. Interference with apoptosis or DNA repair, increases in inflammation or angiogenesis, alterations in cell cycle control, cell adhesion, cytoskeletal control, are all mechanisms that can change the probability of tumor promotion or malignant transformation, and this list is not exhaustive.
"The problem isn't with the scientists or their review of the evidence it is with a general discomfort or misunderstanding of uncertainty."As well as the ability of epidemiology to tease out tiny effects. I read a review article in Science several years back by a prominent epidemiologist who said that, in the absence of a credible causitive mechanism, he mistrusted epidemiological results smaller than a factor of 2 to 3 times. Remember that the next time the media reports that agent X is "associated" with a 20% increase in effect Y.
Frankly, I wouldn't mind an increased fear of cell phone use amongst the public. Might lead to a little more peace and quiet.
Herman Cain appears to be a very good man but I haven't seen all of his positions yet.And the media isn't showing them either.His resume on wicki is very impressive, yet all the media ever regurgitates is his pizza connection, typical.
... it's truth we lack, not lies.And, unfortunately, we throw flowers all over the place to cover that fact.Weird.
Someone should submit a law requiring the cell phone companies to superimpose a warning ("cell phone use may be associated with increased prevalence of brain cancer") at 5 minutes intervals over telephone conversations. I'm thinking the California legislature might be open to this idea. After all; it's for the children.
I can personally attest that Herman Cain is a genuine and good man. He speaks well, he understands the questions and makes intelligent responses. Herman would make a fine VP running mate for Palin. Since he beat a very serious cancer 3 years ago, Herman has dedicated himself to public leadership speaking and has a WSB night time radio show that primarily teaches economics to listeners.
I watched Herman Cain flub the "Palestinian right of return" question on Chris Wallace's show a couple of Sundays ago, though he did at least say he supported it IF is was agreed to be Israel.But what really got my attention is in an interview the next day he didn't make up some sort of lame excuse but rather owned up to not knowing what it was. He said something along the lines of, "I now know what it is (the right of return) and would not support it."That kind of honesty goes a long way with me.
The truth is that on lies we live,They make the world go round;The aforementioned severe truthIs hemmed in by its frown.
I thought people were kidding about Bill Clinton having officiated at the Weiner wedding. Now I know it's true.That only makes sense if you have a parody wedding.Or very very low expectations.
Allow me to rephrase my question: Has anyone here ever heard of "Casey Anthony"?Yes.
"Weiner wedding" has a great ring to it. I can't imagine how I'll work it into conversation, however.
Frankly, I wouldn't mind an increased fear of cell phone use amongst the public. Might lead to a little more peace and quiet.You are so optimistic. Once deprived of their cell phones, loud talkers will revert to loud obnoxious music. Consider yourself warned.
A few threads back, mccollough tried snarking about Palin's bus tour. Mariner pointed out that Obama does his touring at far greater expense, i Air Force One. Well, here's Chris Christie.
Having Bill Clinton officiate your wedding is a bit like asking Newt Gingrich to speak in defense of traditional marriage.
As well as the ability of epidemiology to tease out tiny effects. I read a review article in Science several years back by a prominent epidemiologist who said that, in the absence of a credible causitive mechanism, he mistrusted epidemiological results smaller than a factor of 2 to 3 times. Remember that the next time the media reports that agent X is "associated" with a 20% increase in effect Y.The problem with that threshold of belief is that the relative risks or odds ratios used by epidemiologists are unitless measures and depend completely on the scale of the risks (and the outcomes). For example, your lifetime risk of lung cancer might be 20 times higher than a non-smoker if you smoked two packs a day for 40 years. But if you put it in terms of how much higher the risk is per pack smoked, it would come out with a relative risk of 1.0001 (or something like it). The causal relationship of smoking cigarettes on lung cancer risk should not be believed any more or less based on the mathematical scale of the relative risks.
I thought people were kidding about Bill Clinton having officiated at the Weiner wedding. Now I know it's true.That only makes sense if you have a parody wedding."In some modern societies—and certainly Britain is one of them—satire is prophecy. This makes effective satire difficult because reality so soon catches up with it.[...]" (Theodore Dalrymple, Murder Most Academic)
That kind of honesty goes a long way with me.Agreed. You can't expect candidates to know everything about everything.The cover-up of ignorance is always worse than the ignorance itself.
@PeterHoh;Please don't say things like that. You may give peoples ideas.
Very pretty, Madame. Rather like a comforter or a coverlet.Titus said...Can you eat wild mulberries?Sounds like they would go good in my smoothie.I fucking love smoothies.Don't they make gin out of mulberries?(you can tell how much I know about booze
TM: Not sure what you're arguing. I would make the observation that the risk of one pack of cigarettes being 1.0001 can be both correct and irrelavant at the same time, since smokers smoke a lot more than one pack in their lifetimes.
As to the lilacs, these look like Syringa meyeri, the dwarf Korean lilac. Quite a nice shrub.
@edutcher: They make gin out of juniper berries (though I have long suspected they throw in the entire tree. Don't like gin, much).
The smell is glorious. We have three of these bushes blooming outside our kitchen window today and I can smell their scent as I type. Which makes this a multi-sensory post!They seem to be a favorite of landscapers in our area (MI) and differ from the traditional larger flowered lilacs which bloom in early May. I love the smell of their emissions.
OMike is right about the source for classic gin -- Juniper berries. Newfangled gins have all sorts of other things as well. Some of those are horrible concoctions. Go Classic!
Smooth Sumac has begun keeping the south side of the house in the shade.
They explained that at age 70+ they only have 15 to 20 years of life left so that a threat of getting cancer 25 years from now was no biggie.That's the same approach I'm taking concerning my liver. Who cares how much I drink now, since I'll be dead before I've drunk it away?
The way cell phones are used, we should worry more if there is an uptick in the incidence of thumb cancer.
"Weiner wedding" belongs on Jay Leno's "Headlines" night.
"The way cell phones are used, we should worry more if there is an uptick in the incidence of thumb cancer."Car crashes.
Rep. Weiner Denies Sending Lewd Photo, Can't Say Whether Image Is Him.Weiner ups the ante.Now says somebody hacked his wiener recognition app ;)
Thanks, MadMan and OMike.Always happy to be enlightened.
"Rep. Weiner Denies Sending Lewd Photo, Can't Say Whether Image Is Him."The bad thing about politicians is that they do not know when to shut up.The great thing about politicians is that they do not know when to shut up.
Now you can't get Meade to work on your garden because ever since he found this blog he is only interested in planting his seed in one area.Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Allusion assistance by googleGoogle andrew.wyeth vickis.world (those two phrases with the dots) and then hit imagesIf it does what it does for me, it produces one of my photos and the Wyeth painting I had in mind across the rest of the page.It doesn't work with quotes (which I thought were equivalent to the dots, but who knows anything anymore).
Planting season is over, Trooper.
rhhardin, that is very cool.
Hey buddy you can always plant your seed. All you need is a fertile cresent .....or something. Just sayn'
I mean it is part and parcel of the courtship ritual.I remember Meade told me that in one of his first personal emails to the professor he sent her a photo of his tool.It actually worked out great for him. Just sayn'
Certainly it worked a lot better for him than it did for the Weiner.
Drudge has finally reported on Weinergate, at lesst on Twitter.
OMike:What I am saying is that choosing not to believe associations below a relative risk of 3 is meaningless because the relative risk of 3 has no meaning without defining the scale of the exposure and the outcome. Based on that commonly cited criteria one would not believe that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer because the relative risk for smoking a pack is only 1.0001.
Okay, let's try a different tact: Does anyone here own a television?
@TM: He meant an increase in incidence by a factor of 3 above background.
Persistence is a virtue, A. Ali. Kudos.
Okay, let's try a different tact: Does anyone here own a television?I'm not sure.
RuyDiaz said...I'm not sure.Try looking in your living-room, next to the 1980 Phillips stereo.
Own: Full access.Yes or no?
Almost Ali, I have a TV. I don't have cable. I didn't know who Casey Anthony was until I used Google.
Yes, for the love of God, yes. Now who is this person with whom you are preoccupied?
Thanks, Peter.I was curious because it's an interesting trial. Which I [mistakenly] assumed many people were watching. The trial itself is the culmination of a tremendous rush to judgement, especially by the liberal media. They want Casey Anthony's head and they don't care how they get it.Fortunately, the prosecution is not up to the task.
Okay, yes, but I thought her name was Caylee, so did not know you meant her.I don't like to read or hear about such cases because they are so damn sad.
"...next to the 1980 Phillips stereo."Ahh...1970 Pioneer, actually.
Troop, just like Elliot Spitzer, gardeners enjoy a dirty hori-hori.
We are the makings of an untainted jury pool.
@ Irene: heh
Almost Ali, I've been following that trial, and every time I think there could be nothing worse than killing your own beautiful child, Casey Anthony takes another breath and adds one more blow to her family's total destruction.
Good object lesson here. Actually, several.
Ali, don't make us drag it out of you again. What do you mean?
Penny, I think you've rushed to judgement; the charge is thus far unproven. They haven't even determined the cause of death. The state is grasping at straws, what I call; accusing the nearest warm body.From a personal perspective, Casey's mother (Cindy Anthony) appears to be the catalyst behind the horror. A genuine article, the mother from hell.
I change the channel when the trial comes up. There's enough in life to be bummed about. Don't need to go looking for more.
You are correct. I've judged, and on the internet, where we don't need to concern ourselves with case law.So am I to assume you will be the internet lawyer for the defendant, Almost Ali?
Ali, the case may end up being a good lesson for those who don't understand the "reasonable doubt" concept.
Deborah - For one, my assumption that everyone watches TV - more specifically cable or satellite. In which case the Casey Anthony trial would be unavoidable. Peter undid my assumption.
Penny, I'm pro-defense - at least until the prosecution proves otherwise.
"Ahh...1970 Pioneer, actually."Hey, I had one of those, Original Mike. Then I got a job and bought a Marantz 4140 which I have to this day.
Usually I watch TV because my daughter wants me to watch something with her, or I walk by and see something she's watching and sit down. Currently I'm only watching the new episodes of House on Hulu.On cable, they don't have news interruptions, so if you're not watching cable news/infotainment you won't see it.
Irene - Yes, it seems reasonable doubt is a crazy concept to some folks. But in their defense, the media's guilty-drum has been constantly beating for nearly three years. And now they certainly don't want to disappoint Nancy Grace.
Irene and Ali, your points are valid.I took the liberty of having an opinion before her lawyers have a chance to build a defense.It should be interesting to meet up here after that, and have this discussion again.
Ali, that's right. The more I talk to people, the more I see that they apply a "more likely than not" standard to the clips they've seen on TV.PS. I watch a lot of TV.
Penny, no harm done. I am the queen of opinions.
It should be interesting to meet up here after that, and have this discussion again.It's a date. In the meantime, it would be interesting to hear reactions as the case proceeds. As it looks now from here, the state doesn't have a case, much less a death penalty case. We also have an otherwise smart Judge, the honorable Belvin Perry, who struggles with English diction. I imagine the jury is really straining to understand some or many of his words/rulings.
I have a TV Almost Ali. But I only watch reality shows, the Yankees, the New York Football Giants (who will win the Super Bowl this Year) and my new favorite show "12 Corazones."I am trying to get Lem on it.
Armstrong and Getty on Mitt Romney is very entertaining. The first 3 minutes or so.
I got turned on to this show because they always have it on in the Mexican Restaurant that we go to on Court St.All the cooks and busboys and everybody comes out to watch it. You have to wait for your dinner but they give you a free drink so that's cool.Cause I seldom drink beer...but when I do I drink Dos Equis.
@Penny: I have the still have the stereo I bought at the beginning of college. Pioneer receiver, AR turntable, Sony reel-to-reel tape recorder (cassette tape was brand new, and not up to snuff yet), a separate Dolby noise reduction unit (also brand new technology).Now that I have a job, I have been thinking about upgrading.
We're entitled, Irene. Neither one of us are on the Florida jury that will determine Anthony's fate.Ali's also right that Nancy Grace has beaten the guilty drum since the very early days. Is she "media"? Sure. But she's what I would call, "opinion media". She has a point of view...and she's stickin' to it!
Penny, I agree. I barely can watch even a clip of Nancy Grace these days.I'd rather watch Judge Judy.
"I am trying to get Lem on it."Ha ha Lem starring as the pole?
I suppose you're going to tell us that bowl overhand, Trooper
In other news, a bat at the Madison zoo has rabies."The bat was not a zoo animal."
rhhardin, did you notice your other dog picture on page 3 google images?
Almost Ali,Okay, let's try a different tact: Does anyone here own a television?What is this "television"?(I'm trying to be nice too.);)
Trooper York said, "Cause I seldom drink beer...but when I do I drink Dos Equis."MORE on "The Most Interesting Man in the World".
rhhardin, did you notice your other dog picture on page 3 google images?Google must award points for "being on the same blog as ..."There's nothing textwise to point to it though. Maybe they're matching colors.It's a nice pic if you go to it and click on it to enlarge - her eyes are on the smaller star like a Man Ray Weimaraner pic that I liked very much once - formally posed dog subversively spots tennis ball.
Sheesh, Irene! Another bat on Althouse? And this one with rabies?Ha ha This is like aversion therapy, for cripes sake. Next thing you know we'll be eschewing friggin' baseball bats.And dammit...I draw the line at giving up wood...for good. Evil that way. ;)
Weiner ups the ante.Here's a pathetic scenario:According to John Stewart, Weiner's junk isn't that big. So Weiner bought a strap-on to place under his briefs for the flirty pics he sent out to young coeds. This is why he doesn't want to admit anything. Its the only thing that explains why a man of his intelligence would willingly make such a PR hash of the tweet incident.
mariner said...What is this "television"?Go next door and look in their windows. But be careful, they're real reactionaries.
Casey Anthony aI don't watch TV, so I've seen nothing about it, but my mother is a crime buff and has been following this case from the very beginning when the little girl was first reported missing.According to her, Anthony is clearly guilty and has changed her story multiple times.That is the sum of everything I know about this case.
According to her, [Casey] Anthony is clearly guilty...Of what, exactly?
There is a forum called Web Sleuths that is all about crime. If you're into following crimes and trials, that would be the "it" place.
Guilty of what?Initially? Manslaughter.
I prefer Althouse, thanks. Besides, I'm curious about your mother's belief that Casey Anthony is guilty of murdering her own daughter. What was Casey's motive? Sex?At one point during the trial, for example, a thoroughly dubious Judge Perry asked the prosecution outright why Casey didn't also "murder her parents" in order to better facilitate her supposed sexual rendezvous.
Sorry, my previous post should've been addressed to Freeman Hunt.
And then the cover-up.
In my opinion, Casey Anthony never set out to kill her daughter.She "only" intended to SILENCE her daughter...temporarily.
Penny - The problem (for the prosecution) is motive. If you've been following the trial, you know that virtually all the prosecution's witnesses have stated without reservation that Casey was a loving, caring, and attentive mother. Even her own mother (Cindy) said as much while on the stand.Murder is a huge leap based entirely on the fact that Casey is a compulsive liar - more, a person who apparently lives much of her life in an imaginary universe. IMO, a defense against her mommy dearest.Regarding the "chloroform" theory, all they've got is an internet search by an undertermined user - on a laptop that seemed to live life on its own.
IANAL, but I don't believe motive is an element of the crime.That being said, if prosecutors can describe a plausible motive it may help jurors overcome their reasonable doubt (if they have any to begin with, as they should).
Caylee Anthony is dead. And while I am more than capable of assisting her ride on "metaphorical buses", here and there around the internet, suiting one special interest group after another. I will leave it to the "fabulists" to keep her spirit alive.Me? I gave blood at the office, and now take my transfusions as they come.
I don't know anything about the case. You'd have to ask my mother, and she's not here, she's at Web Sleuths. Like I wrote, she's been talking about this case since the girl first went missing.
Post a Comment