Althouse: Sunrise — 5:45, 5:47.

July 27, 2023

Sunrise — 5:45, 5:47.

58 comments:

Dave Begley said...: Guy was sentenced in federal court today in Omaha. Nine years for robbing a guitar store of about $9k in guitars. Don’t know why it was in federal court.; 7/27/23, 6:37 PM
Dave Begley said...: “Thirteen guitars and one amplifier — worth a combined $20,000, according to a GoFundMe established after the robbery — had been stolen, along with an unknown amount of cash.”

Not clear if $20k value was wholesale or retail.

Good thing Hunter wasn’t charged in Nebraska.; 7/27/23, 6:43 PM
Dave Begley said...: The woman who wanted to go out with me only got 4 years in the federal pen for stealing $1m and she had a long record. But she is white and didn’t use a weapon. The guitar store robber brandished a weapon and he’s Hispanic. Racism!; 7/27/23, 6:50 PM
wendybar said...: if you EVER wonder how conspiracy theories start...look no further...and then they call us crazy??

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12346143/Tafari-Campbell-paddle-boarding-death-riddle-Cops-left-call-log-reporting-Obama-private-chefs-drowning-BLANK-said-came-2-miles-away-refuse-reveal-water.html; 7/27/23, 6:55 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Let's see what Morrissey says about Sinead O Connors passing:

“She was dropped by her label after selling 7 million albums for them.

“She became crazed, yes, but uninteresting, never. She had done nothing wrong.

“She had proud vulnerability… and there is a certain music industry hatred for singers who don’t ‘fit in’ (this I know only too well), and they are never praised until death – when, finally, they can’t answer back.”

Taking aim at fellow musicians and celebrities directly, he continued: “You praise her now ONLY because it is too late.

“You hadn’t the guts to support her when she was alive and she was looking for you.”

The Smiths frontman also compared O’Connor to some of the biggest names in the entertainment industry who died well before their time, writing: “Why is ANYBODY surprised that Sinead O’Connor is dead?

“Who cared enough to save Judy Garland, Whitney Houston, Amy Winehouse, Marilyn Monroe, Billie Holiday?

“Where do you go when death can be the best outcome? Was this music madness worth Sinead’s life?” he continued.

“No, it wasn’t. She was a challenge, and she couldn’t be boxed-up, and she had the courage to speak when everyone else stayed safely silent.

“She was harassed simply for being herself. Her eyes finally closed in search of a soul she could call her own.”; 7/27/23, 7:29 PM
Jaq said...: Yesterday somebody linked an Axios article about the 2014 Maidan coup, an article which claimed that the Ukrainian government used violence against protesters, this was in the first paragraph, and I guess the inference was that this violent repression of protests justified the coup, and justified the US response of recognizing the government, that the coup plotters put in place, almost immediately.

Well, detailed examinations of the violence that took place have been published, and what it points to is that the nationalist Right Sector controlled a building from which sniper fire originated into the crowd, that most of the people killed were killed by these snipers, and that the forensics simply don't match up with them being killed by the police. This was also corroborated by witness testimony.

The Maidan massacre trials and investigations have revealed various evidence that four killed and several dozen wounded policemen and at least the absolute majority of 49 killed and 157 wounded Maidan protesters were massacred on February 20, 2014 by snipers in Maidan-controlled buildings and areas. Such evidence includes testimonies of the absolute majority of wounded protesters, several dozens of prosecution witnesses, dozens of defense witnesses, and 14 self-admitted members of Maidan snipers groups.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4048494

So we recognized a government formed by a group that committed a huge false-flag massacre, and then used it to take power by violently storming a sovereign country's parliament. The Right Sector snipers performed a massacre in Maidan, and to this day, regime toadies like Axios point to that massacre as a justification for the Right Sector to take power in Kiev, blaming it on the democratically elected government. Axios could have done this research.

We are not the good guys in this war, nor are we on the side of the good guys. Mostly this war is none of our business.; 7/27/23, 7:35 PM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: Tough day today. The fourth anniversary of loosing our older son to suicide. It's incredibly hard to deal with, even with a supportive wife, good relationships with our remaining two children, help from the extended family, and a baseline of mental stability.

It is incomprehensible what Sinead O'Connor had been going through.; 7/27/23, 7:41 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: More truth telling...

From a site formerly known as Twitter: “There’s no repercussions if they’re wrong. But I get all the repercussions if they’re wrong.”

I have a theory as to why talk-video beginners use a car to talk to the camera and hopefully millions of people.

In a car you have more freedom because if you say something you shouldn't, or worse, you say something you're not allowed to say, they can seise your car, but it won't set you back like losing a house would.; 7/27/23, 7:42 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: More truth telling.

Study: 1 in 35

My father had several incidents of fast heart palpitations after taking the booster. We took him to the emergency room and a Hispanic nurse told my sister they were seeing a lot of people coming in with the same story.; 7/27/23, 7:55 PM
Gahrie said...: Randy Meisner died today. R.I.P.

Randy was part of an obscure piece of rock trivia: What bass player and backup vocalist was replaced by the same bass player and back up vocalist in two different bands?

Randy Meisner and Timothy Schmit in POCO and Eagles.; 7/27/23, 8:51 PM
Big Mike said...: I see that the feds have dropped yet another charge against Sam Bankman-Fried. Considering the scope of his fraudulent activities there are still a lot of charges pending, but I wonder if the point of the way DoJ is handling his case is to get charges down to a point where a sweetheart deal along the lines of Hunter Biden's can be made. We shall see.; 7/27/23, 10:23 PM
wildswan said...: Why doesn't the DOJ offer Trump a deal by which all the felonies they are charging him with or might charge him with are reduced to two misdemeanors, jay walking and letting the door snap in the face of the person behind him. Plus he would have to give up drugs and alcohol and get a job. After two years all his crimes would be washed right down the drain. Why not? And stamp the deal with the new Great seal of America - a ham sandwich above two crossed bananas with lines on the side.; 7/27/23, 10:33 PM
gadfly said...: Dave Begley said...

Good thing Hunter wasn’t charged in Nebraska.

Better for Don Trump and his siblings that there have never been tax and fraud charges for operating "All County Building Supply & Maintenance."

The NYT received proof of this scam from Donald's niece, Mary.; 7/28/23, 2:54 AM
Breezy said...: So we know that Biden forced the firing of the Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating Burisma and that he did so for $5 million each for him and his son. We also know that his son was hawking Biden’s influence in China and Romania. So what else did Biden actually do to earn whatever monies they received from those two countries, and what else did they do for Ukraine, if anything?

Also, in Biden’s famous video bragging about ousting the prosecutor, he claimed they could call Obama if they didn’t believe he had the authority to block the $1 B if the prosecutor was not fired. So was Obama aware of these shenanigans? And did he profit as well? It’s natural to think Biden was blowing smoke, but was he?

So many questions …; 7/28/23, 5:19 AM
wendybar said...: "Whenever I see a column in the New York Times by Maureen Dowd, writing about our liar and chief, I assume that she is talking about the current commander-in-chief who has been a congenital liar his entire life.

Anyone who believed the Russian collusion story probably still believes that Biden never talked to Hunter about his business dealings. They must be toting off the same bong as Hunter’s friend and benefactor."

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/07/maureen_dowd_cant_seem_to_figure_out_who_the_liarinchief_is.html; 7/28/23, 5:45 AM
Jaq said...: Quick and short accusations that take a long time to debunk as lies are very effective as propaganda. "When you are explaining, you are losing," is the maxim. That's why the pro Kiev people use them.

If you ever wondered why powerful people fund terrorism, it's not because they just enjoy terrorizing people, although some of the people they hire surely do. No, it's because terrorists provide pretexts to do things that otherwise would be impossible politically. You know, like invading Syria. The neocons wanted to invade Syria mainly because it is a Russian client state, so its leader must be overthrown, same deal as Libya. So Ambassador Stephens is in Libya buying up untraceable weapons to send to Syria, to justify the next US invasion, by arming, and doubtless funding, terrorists who were going to return the favor by providing us a pretext to invade. Same as the 9-11 hijackers conveniently provided us a pretext to invade another former Soviet client, Iraq. It's all so obvious. The trick to seeing it is to stop watching the news, which exposes your mind to the "drip drip drip" of their propaganda, propaganda which bypasses your rational mind and works on your judgement, which expresses itself as gut feelings, rather than going through some process of logical understanding.

That we keep invading countries on pretexts of fighting terrorism, killing and maiming far more people than the terrorists ever did, reminds me of the old saw. "If a guy gets a lemon and makes lemonade once, you figure he is lucky, but if he is getting lemons time after time, and making lemonade every time, you gotta figure that he's actually running a lemonade stand."; 7/28/23, 6:45 AM
Jaq said...: You know wildswan, the US intelligence services were actually running those bandana republics, so it's not surprising that, now that they have completely taken over the US, they run our country in the same way.; 7/28/23, 6:47 AM
Jaq said...: "Here's a wild detail from the Hunter Biden court transcript:

The infamous 'paragraph 15' -- which contained a stunning non-prosecution agreement for Hunter -- wasn't provided to the judge until just before the hearing.

JUDGE: 'I didn't get a copy of paragraph 15'"

The worse this gets for Joe Biden, the more charges are going to be thrown at Trump.; 7/28/23, 6:57 AM
Jaq said...: "he NYT received proof of this scam from Donald's niece, Mary."

LOL, Hunter never declared any of the money he got from Burisma, so we have a precedent now. Two misdemeanors, a small fine, and it all goes away. Right?; 7/28/23, 7:00 AM
BUMBLE BEE said...: Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer has signed two bills banning “conversion therapy” for minors who identify as homosexual or transgender, turning healthcare providers and parents who do not accept their children were “born in the wrong body” into criminals. . .
. . . House Bill 4617 defines conversion therapy as “any practice or treatment by a mental health professional that seeks to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including, but not limited to, efforts to change behavior or gender expression or to reduce or eliminate sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward an individual of the same gender.”

This language suggests clinicians and possibly parents who refuse to “affirm” so-called trans kids by dressing boys as girls and using female pronouns for them, and vice versa, could be accused of unlawful activity.; 7/28/23, 7:04 AM
planetgeo said...: Saw a movie in a theater last night for the first time in about 7 years. "Oppenheimer." Stunning, unforgettable, can't stop thinking about it. It's a Must See, and particularly in IMAX. It's like "Citizen Kane" meets "Apocalypse Now," and will likely join them in the pantheon of truly great films.

I'm told it was 3 hours. Felt like only minutes of gripping, non-stop intensity, and pure visual and auditory awe.

If your career is in the sciences, this was like being whisked through a brief history of the human gods of nuclear physics...Oppenheimer, Heisenberg, Bohr, Fermi, Lawrence, and Zeus himself, Einstein. All in the gathering moment of the Manhattan Project. Yes, it was tarted up with a few sexual scenes, but they were brilliantly done, in sync with the energy and intellectual electricity of the characters. Like a chain reaction. Or spontaneous fusion. Though I must say, I've been to Berkeley and Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos and never saw any quantum groupies like the ones here. The nude sex scene during (yes, during) Oppenheimer's security clearance hearing at the end with his wife present was brilliant. Character revealing in every way.

And above all, great character development for too many to list now. Sorry for going on so long. So much more to talk about. More than Must See. Must Experience.; 7/28/23, 8:28 AM
Iman said...: Hang in there, Ignorance is Bliss, I can’t imagine how rough that would be. Take care.; 7/28/23, 10:47 AM
Lilly, a dog said...: I watched part of a new HBO documentary called "After the Bite" last night. It's advertised as a doc about great white sharks in Cape Cod. The parts I saw featured a shark-themed Drag Queen show, a fat old surfer, a discussion about the increase in bird influenza, fishermen who have fallen on hard times, and of course, Climate Change. The title is just a bait-and-switch to trick you into watching a Climate Change documentary.; 7/28/23, 10:51 AM
Mutaman said...: tim in vermont said...

"We are not the good guys in this war, nor are we on the side of the good guys. Mostly this war is none of our business."

"The Party of Reagan has become the Party of Putin."; 7/28/23, 11:30 AM
Candide said...: Mutaman said...

"The Party of Reagan has become the Party of Putin."

This statement is completely historically inaccurate. Reagan and his successor Bush Sr. were always aware about the danger of Ukrainian nationalism and conducted US policy to counteract it. Bush Sr. even travel to Kiev to appeal directly to the Ukrainian people to warn them, "Americans will not support those who seek independence in order to replace far-off tyranny with a local despotism. They will not aid those who promote a suicidal nationalism based upon ethnic hatred."; 7/28/23, 12:17 PM
Candide said...: Reagan was anti-Communist and also anti-Nazi.

Our present political leaders somehow manage to be pro-Communist and pro-Nazi at the same time.; 7/28/23, 12:55 PM
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...: Better than Mutaman quoting TimIV is Tim quoting Reagan: "If you're explaining you're losing," which Dana Perino is also fond of saying.

Ignorance, I am praying for you today. Grief is so heavy sometimes and there is so little comfort here on Earth. I hope God soothes your soul and am glad you note your family is loving and supportive. That's the best salve.; 7/28/23, 1:46 PM
Jaq said...: Notice how Mutaman has no answer for the substance of the post, I prefer to think that Reagan would not crawl into bed with the kind of people who would commit mass murder to create a pretext for a coup, then install a leadership that thinks highly of a man who was responsible for killing civilians for the purposes of ethnic cleansing in the hundreds of thousands, but I could be wrong. Reagan and the Soviet Union are both gone.; 7/28/23, 2:05 PM
gilbar said...: from the WSJ's Best of the Web.. Large Flavors, the taste of small flavors!!!
A New, Boulder Flavor!
WallaWallace Witkowski reports for MarketWatch:
Grocery store chain Trader Joe’s said Friday it recalled lots of its frozen falafel on reports that the product may contain rocks, the second such recall in a week from the supermarket chain."; 7/28/23, 3:55 PM
gilbar said...: tim in vermont said...
... We are not the good guys in this war, nor are we on the side of the good guys

IF that were true, you'd think the side that we were on, would be using Nazi emblems and icons..
Oh, Wait!; 7/28/23, 4:03 PM
Michael K said...: "The Party of Reagan has become the Party of Putin."<

"There are some ideas that are so absurd that only an intellectual (or a leftist) will believe them."

So, the guy who won the Cold War is now on Putin's side ? You idiot. Roosevelt, a member of your party, delayed entering WWII until the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. That made his party the party of Nazis ? Well, you may have a point there on second thought.; 7/28/23, 5:36 PM
gilbar said...: here's ANOTHER Opportunity for Dr We evil to say:
"It's ALL LIES"! and besides, we always knew about that.. It's No Big Deal!!
https://www.zerohedge.com/military/pentagon-approves-hazard-pay-us-troops-ukraine-paving-way-possible-expanded-presence

"The Pentagon has authorized additional hazard pay for U.S. troops serving in Ukraine, a defense official confirmed Thursday.."
..The statement also interestingly said that qualifying troops in Ukraine will be authorized back pay as far back as April 24, 2022—which strongly suggests a significant US presence inside the war-ravaged country since then, or from the opening months of the conflict.

Go Ahead Dr We evil! Say it's ALL a LIE!!! Say that 'zerohedge Never tells the truth!'

Then.. You can explain away this one Too!
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2023/07/27/us-troops-in-ukraine-can-now-earn-hazard-pay/#:~:text=The%20bonus%2C%20known%20as%20imminent,base%20salary%20and%20other%20bonuses.
The Pentagon has authorized additional hazard pay for U.S. troops serving in Ukraine, a defense official confirmed Thursday..
Service members in Ukraine can now earn an extra $7.50 per day, capped at $225 per month, in addition to their base salary and other bonuses. Troops who qualify will get back pay dating as far back as April 24, 2022, the official said.

Go Ahead Dr We Evil, i'll wait for Your denial; 7/28/23, 7:19 PM
Dr Weevil said...: Looks like gilbar's masters forgot to keep his rabies and distemper vaccinations up to date: he's barking way too loud and foaming at the mouth. Hope they don't have to 'put him down'.

What he thinks his links prove is unclear. We already knew there were a few dozen (50 or 60, I think it was) U.S. military in Ukraine, some of them USMC guards at the embassy in Kyiv, some of them accountants keeping track of deliveries of munitions and ordnance.

It's not surprising that the Pentagon would decide they deserve hazard pay. Just in the last week Russia destroyed the main Russian Orthodox (not Ukrainian Orthodox) cathedral in Odesa and damaged a Romanian ship sailing in Romanian waters on the Danube. Putin's increasingly desperate recklessness means that chances the U.S. Embassy will be hit just went up.

If anyone is thinking "Aha! This proves it! We do have troops in combat in Ukraine!" they might want to think again. $7.50 a day may be reasonable compensation for living in danger of being hit by a long-distance missile, bomb, or drone, but I'm pretty sure combat pay would be way higher than that.; 7/28/23, 8:07 PM
Dr Weevil said...: As for 'tim in vermont', since he keeps repeating and repeating the claim that the 2014 Maidan uprising overthrew the "democratically elected government of Ukraine", it's necessary to say:

1. In his previous run for president in 2004, Yanukovych originally won the runoff, but cheating was so blatant and obvious that a second runoff (third election) was necessary. Under intensive scrutiny from national and international observers, he lost decisively, thus proving that the first runoff had indeed been fraudulent.

2. During the same 2004 campaign, his opponent, the incumbent Yushchenko, was mysteriously poisoned with a massive dose of dioxin, which gave him a case of chloracne he still hasn’t entirely recovered from. Did Yanukovych order that? Maybe not, but whoever did it seems to have been trying to help him by permanently ruining his opponent’s good looks.

3. Did the known cheater of 2004 fail to cheat in 2010, or just do a better job of concealing his cheating? He won the runoff by 3.5%, but his opponent, Tymoshenko, refused to concede, alleging that there was massive ballot-box stuffing in pro-Yanukovych areas. He had her locked up for his entire term. Yes, what Trump joked about doing and Biden has been trying and failing to do for 2 1/2 years now, Yanukovych actually did: he locked up the loser of the election he won (or ‘won’). The list of things she was accused of before she was locked up looks a lot like what Trump’s been accused of: crimes old and new, major and minor, piled up until one of them could be made somehow to stick – or look like it stuck.

4. As soon as he was in office, Yanukovych got the constitution changed to give him more power. It had been amended in 2004 to reduce the power of the president, and the Constitutional Court had been fine with that change for six years. Then Yanukovych was 'elected', four members of the C.C. suddenly resigned all at once, and the rest decided the 2004 changes were unconstitutional. Everyone assumed that extreme pressure was used to get four top judges to resign all at once.

Even the article ‘tim in vermont’ links in his 7:35pm comment refers to Yanukovych’s “semi-democratic, corrupt, and relatively pro-Russian government”. Did ‘tim’ read that far? It’s the first sentence of the actual 75-page paper, but I suspect ‘tim’ only read the 1-page abstract. By the way, it may look like a peer-reviewed article in a scholarly journal, but SSRN is in fact a site where scholars upload advance copies of papers that have not been peer-reviewed. The author has a Wikipedia page, which makes it clear that his “False flag theory of Euromaidan” is “not widely accepted” in the scholarly community. In short, gullible ‘tim in vermont’ has once again been taken in by pro-Russian propaganda.; 7/28/23, 8:30 PM
Drago said...: Mutaman: "The Party of Reagan has become the Party of Putin."

The BlueAnon crew has been hardwired by the establishment to forever believe in the Russia Russia Russia hoax...with Mutaman front and center in the DNC-NPC Mindless Mob Muttering Pre-Programmed Meandering Missives.

Wanna have fun with Mutaman? Ask him where the hoax dossier came from and then sit back with a cold beverage and witness first hand the pure lunacy and stupidity on display.; 7/29/23, 2:25 AM
Drago said...: Bdr Weevil: "By the way, it may look like a peer-reviewed article in a scholarly journal, but SSRN is in fact a site where scholars upload advance copies of papers that have not been peer-reviewed. The author has a Wikipedia page, which makes it clear that his “False flag theory of Euromaidan” is “not widely accepted” in the scholarly community."

Note: this was written by someone in 2023, not 1963.

Looks like someone has come out strongly for Fauci leadership on Covid and Michael Mann on climate change.

After all, when has blindly following "peer review" and whatever is "accepted in the scholarly community" ever gotten us in trouble?

We desperately need the "Best And The Brightest" to lead us on gender and immigration and financial policy as well. After all, where is the bulk of peer review and scholarly agreement (and funding...oh yes, the funding by all the usual suspects) leading us?

Why bother asking? Just. Get. In. Line. And. Shut. Up.

And dont look now but that Brennan and Clapper and Comey and Garland are looking pretty darn sweet on what exactly a fair and just process is on investigating and prosecuting Americans for treasonous behavior. And just take a gander at all that peer reviewed scholarly content backing them up every step of the way.

Why, that sort of establishment volume is nigh unassailable isn't it you stupid deplorables!

Defer to your betters little peons and always follow the lead of Victoria Nuland as we continue our Round The World Of Color Revolutions In 80 Days!

Would Bill Kristol, Tom Nichols and Alexander Vindman steer you wrong?; 7/29/23, 2:41 AM
Dr Weevil said...: Several commentators here are in the habit of saying things that are so obviously and blatantly untrue that it's hard to tell whether they're deeply dishonest, fundamentally stupid, more than half-drunk, or some combination of all three. Case in point: Drago's 2:41am post. (Interesting timing: if he's in the continental U.S., after midnight on a weekend night is a very likely time for a drinker to be drunk.)

I am of course well aware that passing peer review is no guarantee of truth or even of high-quality argumentation, particularly in a field so corrupt as 'Climate Science' or 'Gender Affirmation Theory', though I was writing about contemporary History. I've published enough peer-reviewed journals in my own field (Classics), and reviewed others as a peer to know this. My point was that a long, closely-argued, and heavily-footnoted (well, end-noted) paper that hasn't even been through peer review is even more likely to be bullshit than one that has. I might go so far as to say that peer review is a necessary but not sufficient condition of quality, though even that is going a bit too far. It's possible that something unreviewed can still be true and important - I've had a couple of blog posts quoted in good books - it's just a lot less likely.

"Looks like someone has come out strongly for Fauci leadership on Covid and Michael Mann on climate change." If so, that someone is not I. I've been commenting here for ~20 years and haven't said or suggested any such thing. Nor anything to suggest that I approve of anything that "Brennan and Clapper and Comey and Garland" have ever said or done, or have ever or would ever read anything written by "Bill Kristol, Tom Nichols [or] Alexander Vindman". I suspect my contempt for every one of those named is every bit as deep as Drago's, and a lot better-informed.

Why does Drago feel entitled to tell such bald-faced lies?; 7/29/23, 10:43 AM
Drago said...: Wibble: "I am of course well aware that passing peer review is no guarantee of truth or even of high-quality argumentation, particularly in a field so corrupt as 'Climate Science' or 'Gender Affirmation Theory', though I was writing about contemporary History."

LOL

Wibble, peer review and scholarly volume only appllies to corrupted subject matter areas and certainly not "contemporary history".

I wonder if Wibble typed that with a straight face?

The 1619 Project salutes you Wibble, assuming the tsunami of peer and scholarly reviewed contemporary history which "proved out" the "tenets" of the 1619 project and the dystopian fascist-land of the Trump administration still allow salutes.

I wont know for sure until we actually weigh the competing papers to see which stack weighs more.

In the immortal words of Rodney Dangerfield in Back to School when weighing his soon to be turned in paper by hand: Feels like a "B". Add about 50 pages.; 7/29/23, 10:59 AM
Drago said...: Wibble: "Looks like someone has come out strongly for Fauci leadership on Covid and Michael Mann on climate change." If so, that someone is not I. I've been commenting here for ~20 years and haven't said or suggested any such thing. Nor anything to suggest that I approve of anything that "Brennan and Clapper and Comey and Garland" have ever said or done, or have ever or would ever read anything written by "Bill Kristol, Tom Nichols [or] Alexander Vindman". I suspect my contempt for every one of those named is every bit as deep as Drago's, and a lot better-informed."

They have all "won" the peer and scholarly review volume wars. For obvious reasons. And its your clearly stated standard.

So now you get to live with your standard.

Why aren't you pleased?; 7/29/23, 11:02 AM
Dr Weevil said...: Still drunk 10 hours later, Drago?

Think (if you can) about what I wrote about necessary and sufficient conditions. Have you really never heard of that concept? Again, my "stated standard" is that passing peer review is not a guarantee of quality, but not even submitting to it is a sign of likely even lower quality.

And the 1619 Project is not "contemporary History". As the very name implies, it's a fraudulent interpretation of events that started more than 400 years ago. The Maidan Revolution or Uprising (or "coup" if you're trying to misrepresent it) was less than 10 years ago. That's contemporary, the history of slavery in America is not.; 7/29/23, 11:16 AM
Drago said...: Wibble: "And the 1619 Project is not "contemporary History". As the very name implies, it's a fraudulent interpretation of events that started more than 400 years ago. The Maidan Revolution or Uprising (or "coup" if you're trying to misrepresent it) was less than 10 years ago. That's contemporary, the history of slavery in America is not."

I gave you 2 examples of contemporary historians torturing both recent events and wholesale rewriting of history further back and "winning" your all important peer and scholarly review hurdle.

Well within the acceptable bounds of this discussion, though regrettably I lack peer review backup on that which is likely a rhetorical death knell for my hesitant-to-defer-to-modern-peer/"scholarly"-review position.

As for staying drunk for 10 hours or more, I must admit in my navy flying days there were times....but those times now seem long past.; 7/29/23, 11:40 AM
Drago said...: Wibble: "Again, my "stated standard" is that passing peer review is not a guarantee of quality, but not even submitting to it is a sign of likely even lower quality."

I dont need your assistance in advancing my point, but thanks for doing so anyway.

Can you think of ANY scenarios where NOT immediately deferring to the bulk of peer and scholarly review with contemporary historians/history is currently justified and quite likely NOT "a sign of likely even lower quality"?; 7/29/23, 11:46 AM
Rusty said...: Mutaman said...
tim in vermont said...

"We are not the good guys in this war, nor are we on the side of the good guys. Mostly this war is none of our business."

"The Party of Reagan has become the Party of Putin."
Why are financing this war?; 7/29/23, 12:00 PM
Dr Weevil said...: Drago:
What is your problem? I've left at least 5,000, probably well over 10,000, comments here over the last ~20 years. Can you name any instance in which I have ever said anything positive about Fauci, Michael Mann, Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Garland, Bill Kristol, Tom Nichols, or either one of the Vindman brothers? You can't, because my contempt for all of them is every bit as deep as yours, and probably more solidly grounded. (Possible exception, Tom Nichols: not sure who he is or what he does and no one who has ever mentioned his name has made me want to look him up.) So how about admitting that I generally agree with you (and tim in vermont, for instance) on all these people, even if I disagree on Ukraine. Do you divide commenters into allies and enemies, angels and devils, and insist that they agree with you on everything or nothing? That would be really childish, like your name-calling.

Since when has the 1619 Project "won" the peer review hurdle? Plenty of eminent historians, many of them on the left, have called it out for falsifying history, and the main author has already retreated from calling it history. I believe she now calls it 'activism'. And yes, peer review continues after publication: many a book that's managed to get into print ends up disgracing the author when word gets around about its quality.

Finally, thanks for providing another instance of what I have found to be an absolute rule: commenters who alter the chosen pseudonyms of others in sophomoric ways invariably prove themselves lying assholes in their arguments as well.; 7/29/23, 12:22 PM
Drago said...: Weevil: "Finally, thanks for providing another instance of what I have found to be an absolute rule: commenters who alter the chosen pseudonyms of others in sophomoric ways invariably prove themselves lying assholes in their arguments as well."

Apologies for that. Wont happen again. I really just dropped the ball on that.; 7/29/23, 12:34 PM
Dr Weevil said...: You just dropped the ball again, Drago. My name is Dr Weevil, not 'Weevil'.; 7/29/23, 12:40 PM
Drago said...: Weevil: "So how about admitting that I generally agree with you (and tim in vermont, for instance) on all these people, even if I disagree on Ukraine."

There is no disagreement on this point or on most other issues of the day.

Very similar situation to Greg The Class Traitor and other like-minded folks as well.

I am, however, spring-loaded on how peer-reviewed, "scholarly research" and publishing disciplines/media amplification have almost universally been irretrievably weaponized in nearly complete Soviet-like fashion in the west writ large with green shoots of pushback popping up only thru the cracks and often being trampled by the far too deferential-to-peer-review crowd as if we were still in an era of objective analysis.; 7/29/23, 12:41 PM
Drago said...: Weevil: "You just dropped the ball again, Drago. My name is Dr Weevil, not 'Weevil'."

Nope. Weevil is acceptable, unless you're pulling a Jill Biden.

But since you've double-downed on that, and given the point under discussion, I am compelled by cosmic forces beyond my control to inquire as to whether or not you are either a medical doctor or academic PhD?; 7/29/23, 12:45 PM
Rusty said...: we; 7/29/23, 1:07 PM
Dr Weevil said...: Do I really have to explain that Dr Weevil is a play on words, a joke on Dr Evil, and that omitting either half ruins the pun? Or that no one has ever had a problem calling me that unless they were losing an argument with me?

As for why I picked it, what difference does that make? Am I a real doctor? I've already told you I've published peer-reviewed articles in my field and peer-reviewed others: can you figure it out? Did I pick it because I'm bald and look rather like Dr Evil? Because I once aimed at a career in Entomology, until I realized that I like Greek and Latin names more than I like the actual bugs? Because I love horrible puns? Why do you need to know why I picked the name? I've never asked why commentators at Ace of Spades call themselves 'Charlie Brown's Dildo', 'bear with asymmetrical balls', and 'Masturbatin' Pete', partly because I don't really want to know. I do appreciate them picking distinctive names: way better than having a 'Chuck' and a 'chuck' commenting on the same site.

I will say that you don't know seem to know much about peer review. In fields that are actual fields of study, like History, it is still useful, though far from perfect, and yes it is useless in some highly-politicized fields like Climate Science. Certainly better than any alternative yet devised. You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about it.; 7/29/23, 2:24 PM
Drago said...: Dr Weevil: "Do I really have to explain that Dr Weevil is a play on words, a joke on Dr Evil,"

No. You don't HAVE to explain anything.

It was just a question and quite frankly, your "play on words" could just as easily been a reference to Russell Crowe's joke from Master and Commander or a dozen other things.

No biggee beyond the apparent bee in your bonnett about the clear corruption in academia/peer review/publishing realms.

Across the board.; 7/29/23, 2:54 PM
Drago said...: Weevil:"Why do you need to know why I picked the name?"

Just curious given your defensiveness over the mere idea of a lowly peon looking askance and being reluctant to automatically defer to the credentialed and published self-anointed "elites"

Weevil: "I've never asked why commentators at Ace of Spades call themselves 'Charlie Brown's Dildo', 'bear with asymmetrical balls', and 'Masturbatin' Pete', partly because I don't really want to know."

Simple prudence dictates giving a wide berth to questions regarding those particular nicknames.

Unless you're feeling frisky and possibly reckless that day.; 7/29/23, 3:00 PM
Drago said...: Weevil: "I will say that you don't know seem to know much about peer review."

A counter observation that has been noticable for quite some time: the growing number of exposed, debunked and (forced by public pressure) retractions of "peer reviewed" work, though far too few given the number of exposures, demonstrates that there must be quite a few people who dont understand the peer reviewed process...and it "ain't" just the outsiders.

More than enough doubt to question rigorously and nethodically anything and everything emerging from the credentialed peer-reviewed academic corridors, no less than government and business.; 7/29/23, 3:11 PM
Dr Weevil said...: Jesus Christ, three more comments? What a bore you are! And you keep misrepresenting what I said. My point was that a paper that hasn't been submitted to peer review is even less convincing than one that has passed peer review. Of course passing peer review is not a guarantee of quality, much less a proof of correctness. When reading peer-reviewed papers in Classics (Latin and Greek) I find fewer than half of the arguments convincing, but I am at least pretty confident that few of them are quoting nonexistent books or falsifying quotations. The only Classics papers I've heard of being retracted were plagiarized, not falsified. That seems to be more of a Science and Social Science thing.

There may be some fields so corrupt that passing peer review makes a paper less convincing. In Climate Science, for instance, I suspect all the "sky is falling, we're all going to die!" papers are accepted, no matter how poorly argued, and the more sensible papers rejected, no matter how well argued and firmly supported by facts.

But we're not talking about 'Climate Science'. We're talking about what really happened in Kyiv in 2014. A paper on Maidan could come under several different subjects: Modern European History, Slavic Studies, Political Science. Are all the journals in all three fields corrupt? I seriously doubt it.

And no, I'm certainly not asking you to "automatically defer to the credentialed and published self-anointed 'elites'" or treating you like a "peon" if you don't. Just asking you to admit that the paper 'tim in vermont' linked to is less impressive than it looks at first glance.

Of course, he (and gilbar) should be here rebutting my arguments himself, since it's 10-1 he's read them. But he drops a big glistening turd of pro-Russian propaganda on every open thread and then pretends not to see the refutations, so he can repeat the same lies on the next thread.; 7/29/23, 4:50 PM
Drago said...: Weevil: "Jesus Christ, three more comments? What a bore you are!"

3 short posts responding to 4 of your comments.

How intolerable it must be for you...having people respond to your comments.

And not always in agreement!

Weevil: "Are all the journals in all three fields corrupt? I seriously doubt it."

Why?; 7/29/23, 6:23 PM
Dr Weevil said...: 'ago':
Don't like me omitting the 'Dr' from your name? Put mine back, I'll put yours back.

You did not post "3 short posts responding to 4 of [my] comments". You posted twelve comments replying to six of mine, including three in a row to my last one, just as I said. Learn to count.

Why do I doubt that all journals in all three fields are corrupt? Because the journals in the field I know best are not in fact corrupt. You seem to assume that all journals in all fields are corrupt, and I know that's not true. Of course, peer review is an imperfect method. For instance, in Classics, there are trendier and less-trendy ideas and methods and it's easier to get a mediocre paper accepted if it's trendy, but it's still quite possible to get excellent non-trendy papers published even in the best journals. The main problem in Classics (and, I suspect, in every field) is that there are way too many journals publishing way too many mediocre papers cranked out by academics desperate to earn tenure. But there's still plenty of gold among the dross: you just have to find it.

By the way, your false accusation that I think peer review is an infallible sign of truth might (if true) have justified accusing me of admiring Fauci and Michael Mann, but what the Hell do Victoria Nuland, Bill Kristol, Alexander Vindman, and all the other names you threw in have to do with peer review? Why do you make shit up, 'ago'?; 7/29/23, 7:33 PM
Dr Weevil said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/29/23, 8:09 PM
Drago said...: Weevil: "'ago':
Don't like me omitting the 'Dr' from your name? Put mine back, I'll put yours back."

LOL

Looks like we have a ' exi an' 'st n ff'.; 7/30/23, 11:53 PM