- Zeroisanumber
- Oct 23, 2010
-
-
Nap Ghost
|
Dr. Tough posted:
The local far-right paper gets the best letters.
Yeah. Why should I need a license to be a doctor?! I can doctorfy just fine without any fancy education or experience, and I don't need the government telling me otherwise!
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 18:55
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2024 12:36
|
|
- Bruce Leroy
- Jun 10, 2010
-
|
TetsuoTW posted:
That wasn't Angle, that was Sue Lowden, who Angle beat for the nomination.
poo poo, my bad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2011 04:59
|
|
- sub supau
- Aug 28, 2007
-
|
Bruce Leroy posted:
poo poo, my bad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2011 07:16
|
|
- Bruce Leroy
- Jun 10, 2010
-
|
TetsuoTW posted:
Eh, there was enough crazy around that election that it's easy to get it all mixed up. Second Amendement Remedies, motherfuckers.
We are still living with the horrible effects of the 2010 mid-terms, but the hilarious stuff at least takes the edge off of it.
It warmed the cockles of my heart to see two titans of corporate failure, Whitman and Fiorina, lose handily after spending massive amounts of money to try and buy elected offices.
Bruce Leroy fucked around with this message at 09:22 on Aug 24, 2011
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2011 08:31
|
|
- Bruce Leroy
- Jun 10, 2010
-
|
Aw gently caress.
My local paper just had a letter to the editor about how awesome Calvin Coolidge was and how we wouldn't have nearly any of our economic and social problems if he were president instead of Obama.
I hate conservative revisionist history.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2011 13:38
|
|
- Antifa Spacemarine
- Jan 11, 2011
-
Tzeentch can suck it.
|
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/08/26/hurricane.coastal.building/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
quote: (CNN) -- As I write this, Hurricane Irene is on its way up the U.S. East Coast and, if the storm follows the current path projections, one thing is certain. Many buildings are soon to be destroyed -- perhaps numbering in the hundreds - and thousands more will be damaged.
Dozens of artificial beaches -- nourished beaches that cost millions of dollars per mile -- will be narrowed and some will disappear altogether including possibly some that are a few months old like the new beach at Nags Head, North Carolina.
Beachfront roads, like segments of Highway 12 on the Outer Banks of North Carolina, are likely to be wiped out. Sea walls will be damaged or destroyed along the East Coast from north Florida up and lots of sand and debris will cover the streets of larger coastal towns such as Virginia Beach.
A number of small communities along estuarine shorelines of the Carolinas are sure to be flooded. If Irene continues up the coast to New Jersey and even New England the damage will be even more impressive.
Unfortunately some people will die. State emergency officials on the North Carolina Outer Banks efficiently evacuate tourists, but local, year round people often stay. The refrain is that "we've been through this before." This however, may not be the case with this storm, as large and slow moving as it is.
When the storm has passed there will be a wave of sympathy for the many families and businesses that will be affected. In the beach communities, patriotism will prevail, American flags will be unfurled on makeshift flag poles and the dominant attitude will be: "we're tough and were coming back." I've witnessed this a dozen times. A better attitude is "we've learned a lesson, let's build elsewhere."
FEMA, a much-improved agency since Hurricane Katrina, will be on the scene immediately with aid and emergency provisions. In the longer term FEMA will provide money, loans or flood insurance to rebuild, clean up beaches and towns, repair the roads, water and sewer lines and other infrastructure and eventually return life almost to normal.
Almost is an important characterization because, in fact, historically, the most recent hurricanes hitting the East Coast -- Hugo (1989) and Fran (1996) for example -- have been urban renewal projects. Small beach cottages, destroyed or damaged, are replaced by larger buildings and sometimes even high rises. And the new buildings are placed on property that is now more susceptible to storms than before because the shoreline is closer and the dunes are gone.
Recognizing the futility (and stupidity) of rebuilding in very dangerous places, the states of North Carolina and South Carolina both instituted policies of not allowing buildings in beach communities to be replaced if destroyed by storms. Property owners went to court, important people were offended, politicians got into the mix and the approach did not work in either state.
"When will we ever learn" as the song goes. Why spend federal and state money to bring back roads, water and sewer lines, bridges and beaches in locations where we know for certain that storms occurred in the past and will soon occur again in the future; storms that will destroy the communities.
How long will it take the public to learn that beachfront construction is a fool's act and that we should not be responsible for such foolish acts. Ironically, although the affected beachfront property owners may lack common sense, they do not lack for money and influence, which of course is one reason that we repeatedly bail them out.
After Hurricane Irene the time may come to take a deep breath and in this era of tight budgets, ask why are we bailing these people out once again? Those who study global change argue that more intense storms are on the way along with a rising sea level. No better time than now to come to our senses.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Orrin H. Pilkey.
I guess since bad poo poo happens we shouldn't rebuild it the wake of it. Nope, no other reason why people decide to live in the areas they do. They just love getting destroyed by random natural disasters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2011 20:46
|
|
- Nathilus
- Apr 4, 2002
-
I alone can see through the media bias.
I'm also stupid on a scale that can only be measured in Reddits.
|
Good luck finding a place to live that has a 0% chance of being effected by a natural disaster.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2011 21:47
|
|
- eviltastic
- Feb 8, 2004
-
-
Fan of Britches
|
Nathilus posted:
Good luck finding a place to live that has a 0% chance of being effected by a natural disaster.
There's always those renovated nuclear missile silos.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2011 23:06
|
|
- Gyges
- Aug 4, 2004
-
NOW NO ONE
RECOGNIZE HULK
|
Boondock Saint posted:
A kid from an area I grew up in was killed by a drunk driver over the weekend. Tragic as it is, turns out the driver who hit him is an illegal imigrant, so bring on the retard brigade to hijack this kids memorial page to rant about everything they hate about "liberals".
https://www.facebook.com/notes/justice-for-matt/open-letter-to-president-barack-obama/260604627292885
I'd throw the letter in quotes, but it's so horribly formatted and...well you'll see.
EDIT: Couldn't decide if this should have gone in the forwarded email thread or here.
I always love letters where the writer is X years old and for the first time is ashamed of the country. It's a fun little game of bridge too far as you quickly do a historic rundown. The bigger X is, the more horrible, hosed up things have been perfectly acceptable to them. But not this!
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2011 02:49
|
|
- BrotherAdso
- May 22, 2008
-
stat rosa pristina nomine
nomina nuda tenemus
|
While you're right in principle, there are some cases in which building in highly disaster-prone areas should be subject to more stringent evaluation than it is -- and the Outer Banks of North Carolina are probably one of those places.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2011 03:19
|
|
- lothar_
- Sep 11, 2001
-
Don't Date Robots!
|
Ho no, I'm not going to be roped into another Facebook Retard hatefest. Last time I did was when Japan beat the U.S. in the women's world cup. I spent literally weeks fighting with "lets nuke Japan HURRRRRRR" idiots because my outrage got the better of me. If I'm going to get into arguments with that level of stupid, it's gonna be face-to-face from now on since those usually end quickly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2011 03:45
|
|
- Pope Guilty
- Nov 6, 2006
-
The human animal is a beautiful and terrible creature, capable of limitless compassion and unfathomable cruelty.
|
lothar_ posted:
Ho no, I'm not going to be roped into another Facebook Retard hatefest. Last time I did was when Japan beat the U.S. in the women's world cup. I spent literally weeks fighting with "lets nuke Japan HURRRRRRR" idiots because my outrage got the better of me. If I'm going to get into arguments with that level of stupid, it's gonna be face-to-face from now on since those usually end quickly.
This was especially funny when the people saying it were also "HURR SOCER IS FOR FAGS" types.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2011 07:23
|
|
- Handsome Ralph
- Sep 3, 2004
-
Oh boy, posting!
That's where I'm a Viking!
|
lothar_ posted:
Ho no, I'm not going to be roped into another Facebook Retard hatefest. Last time I did was when Japan beat the U.S. in the women's world cup. I spent literally weeks fighting with "lets nuke Japan HURRRRRRR" idiots because my outrage got the better of me. If I'm going to get into arguments with that level of stupid, it's gonna be face-to-face from now on since those usually end quickly.
Too late for me, I got roped into an argument with a friend over status updates. Her excuse was that while she's a "liberal and tolerant" person, my referring to them as "xenophobic assholes" was just name calling and wrong. I was then told that I had to understand that they are a small town, are scared about the economy and are grieving and that I had no right to feel that way. I basically concluded it by saying that I don't excuse that kind of poo poo, grief or no grief, and using the death of a drunk driving victim to push that kind of hate language, makes them assholes plain and simple.
Some people will excuse any kind of behavior I guess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2011 23:20
|
|
- lothar_
- Sep 11, 2001
-
Don't Date Robots!
|
Boondock Saint posted:
Too late for me, I got roped into an argument with a friend over status updates. Her excuse was that while she's a "liberal and tolerant" person, my referring to them as "xenophobic assholes" was just name calling and wrong. I was then told that I had to understand that they are a small town, are scared about the economy and are grieving and that I had no right to feel that way. I basically concluded it by saying that I don't excuse that kind of poo poo, grief or no grief, and using the death of a drunk driving victim to push that kind of hate language, makes them assholes plain and simple.
Some people will excuse any kind of behavior I guess.
Easy response: the xenophobes and their apologists should take the "shoulder test". If someone is writing about another group of people, would they feel no guilt if a member of that group were looking over their shoulder while they typed their thoughts out? Of course that might bring out some "Doesn't matter 'cause they can't read English anyways."  answers, but the point stands.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2011 04:03
|
|
- Marksism
- Sep 14, 2007
-
Children caught playing Imagination Games will be immediately asked to leave.
|
I saw this on a Google news feed and thought it'd be a parody. Not at  !
quote:Do We Really Need a National Weather Service?
By Iain Murray and David Bier
Published August 27, 2011 | FoxNews.com
As Hurricane Irene bears down on the East Coast, news stations bombard our televisions with constant updates from the National Hurricane Center.
While Americans ought to prepare for the coming storm, federal dollars need not subsidize their preparations. Although it might sound outrageous, the truth is that the National Hurricane Center and its parent agency, the National Weather Service, are relics from America’s past that have actually outlived their usefulness.
The National Weather Service (NWS) was founded in 1870. Originally, the NWS was not a public information agency. It was a national security agency and placed under the Department of War. The Service’s national security function has long since disappeared, but as agencies often do, however, it stuck around and managed to increase its budget.
Today the NWS justifies itself on public interest grounds. It issues severe weather advisories and hijacks local radio and television stations to get the message out. It presumes that citizens do not pay attention to the weather and so it must force important, perhaps lifesaving, information upon them. A few seconds’ thought reveals how silly this is. The weather might be the subject people care most about on a daily basis. There is a very successful private TV channel dedicated to it, 24 hours a day, as well as any number of phone and PC apps. Americans need not be forced to turn over part of their earnings to support weather reporting.
The NWS claims that it supports industries like aviation and shipping, but if they provide a valuable contribution to business, it stands to reason business would willingly support their services. If that is the case, the Service is just corporate welfare. If they would not, it is just a waste.
As for hurricanes, the insurance industry has a compelling interest in understanding them. In a world without a National Weather Service, the insurance industry would probably have sponsored something very like the National Hurricane Center at one or more universities. Those replacements would also not be exploited for political purposes.
As it stands today, the public is forced to pay more than $1 billion per year for the NWS. With the federal deficit exceeding a trillion dollars, the NWS is easily overlooked, but it shouldn’t be. It may actually be dangerous.
Relying on inaccurate government reports can endanger lives. Last year the Service failed to predict major flooding in Nashville because it miscalculated the rate at which water was releasing from dams there. The NWS continued to rely on bad information, even after forecasters knew the data were inaccurate. The flooding resulted in 22 deaths.
Private weather services do exist, and unsurprisingly, they are better than the NWS. When Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in 2005, the National Weather Service was twelve hours behind AccuWeather in predicting that New Orleans would be affected. Unlike the NWS, AccuWeather provides precise hour-by-hour storm predictions, one of the reasons private industry supports them.
It is not just random mistakes in crises either. Forecast Watch has found that the National Weather Service predictions of snow and rain have an error rate 20 percent higher than their private alternatives. “All private forecasting companies did much better than the National Weather Service,” their report concludes. In 2008, they found that the NWS’s temperature predictions were worse than every private-sector competitor including the Weather Channel, Intellicast, and Weather Underground. Even NWS’s online ZIP code search for weather reports is in some cases totally inaccurate, giving reports for areas hundreds of miles away.
NWS claims to spread information, but when the topic of budget cuts came up earlier this year, all they spread was fear. “There is a very heightened risk for loss of life if these cuts go through,” NWS forecasters said, “The inability for warnings to be disseminated to the public, whether due to staffing inadequacies, radar maintenance problems or weather radio transmitter difficulties, would be disastrous.”
Disastrous? The $126 million in cuts would still have left the Service with a larger budget than it had a decade ago. The massive bloat in government should not get a pass just because it’s wrapped in good-of-the-community clothing. NWS services can and are better provided by the private sector. Americans will invest in weather forecasting because if there is one thing we can be certain of, people will want to protect their property and their lives.
Iain Murray is Vice President at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and author of "Stealing You Blind: How Government Fatcats Are Getting Rich Off of You." David Bier is a Research Associate at CEI.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/08/27/do-really-need-national-weather-service/
I just...
He's pissed because they "hijack" TV stations when all those people are obviously just checking their apps (gently caress you if you don't have a smart phone) and not watching The Weather Channel WHICH USES NWS DATA.
But no, the insurance industry would "probably" have sponsored something, you know, eventually, after a few cities were leveled by hurricanes. As soon as it was profitable. And no, private companies would never use these things for political purposes, honest.
It sounds like another case of "this government agency could be doing things a little better, so let's destroy it."
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2011 04:29
|
|
- Armyman25
- Sep 6, 2005
-
|
There's rebuilding after bad things happen, and rebuilding in places where it doesn't make sense to rebuild. Towns and housing developments shouldn't be built in areas where there is a constant danger of natural disaster. I've just spent a month on flood duty near the Missouri river, and it boggles my mind that people rebuild on a flood plane.
There are low lying areas near rivers that will be flooded out if there is too much rain in a year. This isn't in dispute. I've seen it happen 4 times in the past 20 years. I do not think it unreasonable or regressive to suggest that building on a piece of land that is underwater every 5 years isn't the best idea.
If you are going to build in an area that is effected by natural disasters, then the building codes should be changed so that the buildings are capable of withstanding those disasters. We see this in hurricane prone areas, fire prone areas, and tornado prone areas. One or two houses that are specifically built to withstand the local disaster survive, while the rest of the cheaply constructed buildings are destroyed.
I am all in favor of governmental disaster management, but using a little common sense and preparation to prevent or minimize the cost is better then just rebuilding the same susceptible designs every year.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2011 17:54
|
|
- pangstrom
- Jan 25, 2003
-
-
Wedge Regret
|
I don't know why the Competitive Enterprise Institute needs more than one writer and maybe a couple research interns. It's the same 4 arguments (with the nouns switched as appropriate) every time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2011 18:29
|
|
- lothar_
- Sep 11, 2001
-
Don't Date Robots!
|
pangstrom posted:
I don't know why the Competitive Enterprise Institute needs more than one writer and maybe a couple research interns. It's the same 4 arguments (with the nouns switched as appropriate) every time.
Scaife, Koch, DeVos, Walton, et. al hands them enough checks so that a little overhead in "research" staff isn't really a problem.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2011 02:53
|
|
- Bruce Leroy
- Jun 10, 2010
-
|
Armyman25 posted:
There's rebuilding after bad things happen, and rebuilding in places where it doesn't make sense to rebuild. Towns and housing developments shouldn't be built in areas where there is a constant danger of natural disaster. I've just spent a month on flood duty near the Missouri river, and it boggles my mind that people rebuild on a flood plane.
There are low lying areas near rivers that will be flooded out if there is too much rain in a year. This isn't in dispute. I've seen it happen 4 times in the past 20 years. I do not think it unreasonable or regressive to suggest that building on a piece of land that is underwater every 5 years isn't the best idea.
If you are going to build in an area that is effected by natural disasters, then the building codes should be changed so that the buildings are capable of withstanding those disasters. We see this in hurricane prone areas, fire prone areas, and tornado prone areas. One or two houses that are specifically built to withstand the local disaster survive, while the rest of the cheaply constructed buildings are destroyed.
I am all in favor of governmental disaster management, but using a little common sense and preparation to prevent or minimize the cost is better then just rebuilding the same susceptible designs every year.
But that's not what is being discussed in that editorial. What they are actually doing is presenting a strawman argument with a false choice. They are insinuating that their opponents just want to rebuild everything exactly as it was before the storm, but I'm fairly certain that any and all people in those areas would be eager for new technology and building codes (e.g. like those that prevented most casualties and severe damage after the earthquake is South America, compared to the devastation after the Haitian earthquake) that would prevent similar damage in the future. The authors are presenting the false choice that it's either (1) we do what they want and never rebuild in these areas and dismantle the government weather services or (2) maintain the status quo with absolutely no changes. The reality is that we can also rebuild in the same areas or nearby but change things for the better to prevent similar disasters in the future.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2011 04:04
|
|
- Tokaii
- Mar 8, 2004
-
Oldest Goon
July 29, 1942
|
30.5 Days posted:
NO ATHEISTS IN FOXHOLES
I've never understood believers using this saying. If it were true, and of course it is not, it would reinforce the atheist argument that man creates gods out of his fear of the the unknown, especially the great unknown of death.
Did god come and reveal his truth to that atheist as the shells burst closer and closer or did he cry out 'Oh God help me" much in the same way some might cry out for their mothers in times of terror?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2011 05:06
|
|
- Armyman25
- Sep 6, 2005
-
|
Bruce Leroy posted:
But that's not what is being discussed in that editorial. What they are actually doing is presenting a strawman argument with a false choice. They are insinuating that their opponents just want to rebuild everything exactly as it was before the storm, but I'm fairly certain that any and all people in those areas would be eager for new technology and building codes (e.g. like those that prevented most casualties and severe damage after the earthquake is South America, compared to the devastation after the Haitian earthquake) that would prevent similar damage in the future. The authors are presenting the false choice that it's either (1) we do what they want and never rebuild in these areas and dismantle the government weather services or (2) maintain the status quo with absolutely no changes. The reality is that we can also rebuild in the same areas or nearby but change things for the better to prevent similar disasters in the future.
We can rebuild better to prevent similar disasters, but that often doesn't happen. Look at the neighborhoods in southern California after the fires.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2011 05:20
|
|
- Pope Guilty
- Nov 6, 2006
-
The human animal is a beautiful and terrible creature, capable of limitless compassion and unfathomable cruelty.
|
Tokaii posted:
I've never understood believers using this saying. If it were true, and of course it is not, it would reinforce the atheist argument that man creates gods out of his fear of the the unknown, especially the great unknown of death.
Did god come and reveal his truth to that atheist as the shells burst closer and closer or did he cry out 'Oh God help me" much in the same way some might cry out for their mothers in times of terror?
I remember Robert Anton Wilson being fascinated with the idea of men calling out for their mothers in times of extremity.
Anyway, I find it amusing how many arguments for theism are actually hugely insulting to either believers or God if you think about them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2011 05:44
|
|
- particle409
- Jan 15, 2008
-
Thou bootless clapper-clawed varlot!
|
Marksism posted:
I saw this on a Google news feed and thought it'd be a parody. Not at !
I just...
He's pissed because they "hijack" TV stations when all those people are obviously just checking their apps (gently caress you if you don't have a smart phone) and not watching The Weather Channel WHICH USES NWS DATA.
But no, the insurance industry would "probably" have sponsored something, you know, eventually, after a few cities were leveled by hurricanes. As soon as it was profitable. And no, private companies would never use these things for political purposes, honest.
It sounds like another case of "this government agency could be doing things a little better, so let's destroy it."
The politics of it would be amazing. We'd see hurricanes routinely upgraded so insurance companies have a reason to charge more. Oh, you live in NY? We've seen a total of 5 hurricanes this year. Better raise your rates.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2011 06:21
|
|
- Bruce Leroy
- Jun 10, 2010
-
|
Armyman25 posted:
We can rebuild better to prevent similar disasters, but that often doesn't happen. Look at the neighborhoods in southern California after the fires.
I'm not saying it's perfect or that there's always a way to prevent these disasters, I'm just saying that there are multiple options other than the false choice of (1) never build here again and abandon public weather service OR (2) build exactly the same way with no alterations in location, regulations, etc.
Tokaii posted:
I've never understood believers using this saying. If it were true, and of course it is not, it would reinforce the atheist argument that man creates gods out of his fear of the the unknown, especially the great unknown of death.
Did god come and reveal his truth to that atheist as the shells burst closer and closer or did he cry out 'Oh God help me" much in the same way some might cry out for their mothers in times of terror?
The aphorism "There are no atheists in foxholes" is not an argument against atheism, it's an argument against foxholes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2011 07:20
|
|
- VideoTapir
- Oct 18, 2005
-
He'll tire eventually.
|
Marksism posted:
But no, the insurance industry would "probably" have sponsored something, you know, eventually, after a few cities were leveled by hurricanes. As soon as it was profitable. And no, private companies would never use these things for political purposes, honest.
Yeah, and they'd totally have sponsored research into advanced computing which makes the data meaningful, too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2011 09:44
|
|
- Bruce Leroy
- Jun 10, 2010
-
|
VideoTapir posted:
Yeah, and they'd totally have sponsored research into advanced computing which makes the data meaningful, too.
Of course, because we all know how responsible and selfless they are. They totally aren't short-sighted and myopic because of profit motives and groupthink.
I for one welcome our corporate overlords.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2011 09:51
|
|
- Sock on a Fish
- Jul 17, 2004
-
What if that thing I said?
|
Marksism posted:
I saw this on a Google news feed and thought it'd be a parody. Not at !
I just...
He's pissed because they "hijack" TV stations when all those people are obviously just checking their apps (gently caress you if you don't have a smart phone) and not watching The Weather Channel WHICH USES NWS DATA.
But no, the insurance industry would "probably" have sponsored something, you know, eventually, after a few cities were leveled by hurricanes. As soon as it was profitable. And no, private companies would never use these things for political purposes, honest.
It sounds like another case of "this government agency could be doing things a little better, so let's destroy it."
Here's a preemptive response to that:
http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2011/08/do-we-need-national-weather-service.html
quote:Do We Need the National Weather Service When There is a Weather Channel?
Several years ago during a budget hearing, a Congressman supposedly asked why we needed the National Weather Service when lots of forecasts are available on the Weather Channel. This guy was serious, but misinformed, since much of the material on the Weather Channel--the observations, the model output, the warnings---all came from the National Weather Service. President Obama knows--it seems that in nearly every speech when he talks about agencies we dare not cut the National Weather Service is mentioned.
At times I have criticized some National Weather Service policies or forecasts, but let me assure you, their forecasters are experienced and highly trained, and they make substantial sacrifices for all of us (like accepting rotating shifts). Often TV weathercasters talk about "my forecast" or the "KXXX custom doppler-radar forecast" or whatever, but let me tell you a secret--they look at and rarely deviate far from NWS predictions. Twice I had my 101 classes write down the TV forecasts for an extended period and then we compared them to the NWS predictions--no statistically significant difference. (In fact, one of the leading local TV weathercasters called the chair of my department complaining about such activities! This is why tenure is good.)
What do you have to do to become a NWS meteorologist? You need a real degree in meteorology (at least a B.S.)--which means you had a lot of math, physics, and atmospheric sciences. Getting into the NWS is quite difficult and they only have a few positions a year open--so those that get in are strong candidates. The NWS then has an extended and comprehensive training program and intern forecasters have to spend several years working their way up until they become journeyman staff.
Here in Seattle the local office is at the NOAA Sand Point facility, and they have a nice office with a wonderful view of Lake Washington. The "Meteorologist in Charge"--the head weather honcho-- is Brad Colman, who has exceptional academic credentials (Ph.D. from one of the top programs, MIT), and deep operational experience.
He is so highly thought of by NWS management that he was asked to help write the NWS vision document for 2020. The local office also has a Warning Coordination Meteorologist (Ted Buehner), who deals with local agencies and the media, particularly during major weather, and a Science and Operations Officer (Kirby Cook), who works on software development and training. Under them there are roughly 15 forecasters and interns. And there is more--there is a Service Hydrologist, working on floods and heavy precipitation, and the NW Avalanche Center, which provides mountain forecasts for the region. Plus meteorological technicians that keep everything working and administrative support staff.
The way they make and communicate their forecasts has changed radically during the past decade. In the old days, a forecaster would type out the forecast, after looking a a variety of computer-based weather forecasts, satellite and radar imagery, and a wide range of other observations. Not anymore. Now they play around with graphical renditions of the weather--drawing the fields on a screen and then the forecast text is created by a computer. You thought video games are fun. Making forecasts on their graphically oriented system--AWIPS--is better.
There are over a hundred similar offices around the U.S., each one associated with a Doppler radar. Our office will have more than one soon when our new radar is online. With so many offices, forecasters can become masters of their local weather--which is very important. How often do you hear the Weather Channel folks talk about the convergence zone, the Enumclaw winds, or the Sequim rainshadow? And it is well known that the Weather Channel ignores the West Coast. They will even admit it.
Behind each office there is a huge and expensive infrastructure--the observation systems, the computer forecasts on large supercomputers, the satellite and radar networks, and much more. It is amazing it all works so seamlessly. And there is more. There are major NWS centers for specific forecasting issues: a Storm Prediction Center for severe convection, a Aviation Weather Center for aviation meteorology, a Marine Prediction Center for the seas, etc. All the numerical weather forecasts are made by the Environmental Prediction Center in Maryland (I was there last week). They are located in an old and decrepit building worthy of a wrecking ball (no I wouldn't waste a good wrecking ball on it)--but next year they are moving to a state-of-the-art facility near the University of Maryland.
There is a lot of carping about supporting the Federal government these days, but some agencies, like the National Weather Service, are worth every penny and provide a huge benefit to the nation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2011 19:40
|
|
- Saint Sputnik
- Apr 1, 2007
-
Tyrannosaurs in P-51 Volkswagens!
|
Here's a couple retarded opinions, written in to the paper I used to work for. Background: Goshen College, largely Mennonite, decided to play America the Beautiful before sporting events instead of the Star-Spangled Banner, on the grounds that it's a warlike song. Good on them, I thought. I read an essay years ago that stuck with me, about how warlike language permeates American culture.
And it's not even like they did away with any patriotic song altogether; most people bitching about it probably don't know the difference between the two songs.
quote:Anthem action ‘appalling’
I am appalled by the powers that be at Goshen College banning the playing of the national anthem at sporting events.
As a veteran, I was at first sickened by what I heard and then read. And then I considered the source — a liberal arts college.
Chances are none of the far-left-leaning liberal people ever served their country anyway, so how could they understand the importance of our American flag and our national anthem?
Thank God I don’t have children. I don’t know what I would do if one of them wanted to go to Goshen.
— Douglas Grant
Bella Vista, Ark.
quote:GC should worry about ‘filth’
I always thought Mennonites support America and were proud to be Americans. I’d also thought college administrators were open-minded and allowed their students the freedom to think for themselves.
I’m most disappointed to hear that Goshen’s administration supports stifling freedom and is critical of our national anthem. They would better serve their students and the county by banning some of the filth their students see on TV and online. This revelation convinces me that academics are destroying our country and our freedoms by allowing filth while banning something like our national anthem.
— Linda Ferguson
Greenbriar, Ark.
No idea why two people from Arkansas are writing in to an Indiana paper either.
e: On the other hand, the guy who writes in to my current paper most often is a little-known artist who used to go by the name A. Wyatt Mann.
Saint Sputnik fucked around with this message at 02:42 on Aug 30, 2011
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2011 02:39
|
|
- Pope Guilty
- Nov 6, 2006
-
The human animal is a beautiful and terrible creature, capable of limitless compassion and unfathomable cruelty.
|
Saint Sputnik posted:
Here's a couple retarded opinions, written in to the paper I used to work for. Background: Goshen College, largely Mennonite, decided to play America the Beautiful before sporting events instead of the Star-Spangled Banner, on the grounds that it's a warlike song. Good on them, I thought. I read an essay years ago that stuck with me, about how warlike language permeates American culture.
And it's not even like they did away with any patriotic song altogether; most people bitching about it probably don't know the difference between the two songs.
No idea why two people from Arkansas are writing in to an Indiana paper either.
e: On the other hand, the guy who writes in to my current paper most often is a little-known artist who used to go by the name A. Wyatt Mann.
He was on Gangland awhile back. Looks like Aleister Crowley did when he got old.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2011 03:14
|
|
- ohgodwhat
- Aug 6, 2005
-
|
I just thought this part was too stupid to miss:
quote:The NWS claims that it supports industries like aviation and shipping, but if they provide a valuable contribution to business, it stands to reason business would willingly support their services. If that is the case, the Service is just corporate welfare. If they would not, it is just a waste.
It's either bad because it's corporate welfare, or bad because it's not corporate welfare. I wonder why this test doesn't apply to everything else, ever?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2011 04:12
|
|
- Doctor Butts
- May 21, 2002
-
|
Ok so some conservative blowhard posted a pro SB-5 editorial in The Plain Dealer.
It was kind of dumb, but a lot smarter than the arguments he usually makes.
quote:For political purposes, the "death of the middle class" is greatly exaggerated.
Clearly, it's a line that played well in some focus group, and Democrats and unionists have been shrieking it ever since. Ohioans have gotten an earful already, and will hear it incessantly as they approach the referendum on Senate Bill 5 this November.
But it's a lie, and whatever traction it enjoys is the result of the undeserved traction gained by another lie -- the notion that the United States is a nation of classes.
The short answer is, we don't do things that way here. Never have. A class system is one of the things this nation's founders consciously set out to avoid a couple of centuries ago when the Declaration of Independence formally broke us away from the Old World. It's one of the best decisions American leaders ever made.
So "middle class," historically, has had a different meaning here. It's a term of convenience borrowed from the Old World as shorthand to describe people who are neither filthy rich nor dirt poor. Unfortunately, in recent decades, it has been allowed to take on a measure of its Old World connotation.
In the Old World, classes meant something. A person was born into his class, and social and economic constraints made it terribly difficult for him to move from one to another.
Cracking the upper reaches of the system as an outsider was just about impossible, short of a successful revolution that replaced one ruling class with another. The older the money was, the more respectable. Upstarts were viewed with suspicion and derision because they had quite literally forgotten their place.
Americans tossed the whole hidebound structure aside when they prosecuted a successful revolution that was not only political, but also economic and philosophical in nature.
We chose freely -- and wisely -- to "classify" people according to their ability, not their ancestry.
We chose the polar opposite of the class system: individual economic freedom and mobility. We chose the uncertainties of rough-and-tumble competition and churn over the stultifying stability of the Old World.
So when people refer to the "middle class" -- or any other "class" -- in America, the understanding should be that they're talking about something fluid and flexible.
Using the American connotation, the term "middle class" truthfully can apply only as a snapshot, and even then the picture is fuzzy, because the people in it are in constant motion.
For every Bill Gates climbing toward the top of the economic heap, there's some Carnegie or Vanderbilt headed back the other way. Our system rewards industriousness, intelligence and good ideas. It doesn't give a fig for surnames.
Obviously, there's a downside to competition and churn. In competitions, not everyone comes in first. With churn, the possibility of falling exists alongside the possibility of rising.
But that's not death. That's life, adapting and evolving as better ideas come along. That's the car key putting the buggy whip on the shelf. All of society adjusts accordingly, but no one adjusts more than the person who can no longer earn a living making buggy whips.
If Ohioans are wise enough to vote "yes" on Issue 2, thereby upholding the law known as Senate Bill 5, state and local governments will be free to do some things in different ways that suit today's economic realities.
Some people now on the public payroll will have to find other uses for their talents. But none of them will be asked to do so the morning after the election.
And we'll have to come up with better ideas for running some public institutions with smaller staffs and leaner budgets. Other institutions eventually will go the way of the buggy whip. (Given the debt situation across the board, that's an inevitability, with or without Issue 2's passage.)
So, yes, significant changes lie ahead for public employees and their agencies.
But to even suggest that a "yes" vote on Issue 2 could, by itself, produce some material change in the composition of the "middle class" is to insult today's public employees by casting unfounded doubt on their ability, their industriousness and their willingness to support themselves.
The case against Issue 2 is emotional, and it cannot bear logical scrutiny.
When Ohioans vote in favor of Issue 2, they won't be voting to end fire or police protection, because they themselves will decide how best to allocate public resources. Nor will they be voting to abolish public education. And they certainly won't be voting to kill the "middle class," whatever it may be at this moment.
"everything is fine, nothing is ruined", etc.
So, yea, this isn't the worst editorial in the world. However, I'm posting this because this one dude's response is awesome:
quote:In over 20 years of reading PD editorials, I have rarely seen such a poorly written argument for a plea to vote against a statewide issue (in this case, Issue 2). While there are certain aspects of Kevin OBrien's argument about classes in the US that hold some credibility, he appears to completely miss the point. The reality is that our country has become the most economically stratified it has been since the days of "robber barons" (back to the 1920s) Let me illustrate what this means for the majority of Ohioans. David Schweikart (an author skeptical of some of the present trends in capitalism) has stated:
"If we divided the income of the US into thirds, we find that the top ten percent of the population gets a third, the next thirty percent gets another third, and the bottom sixty percent get the last third. If we divide the wealth of the US into thirds, we find that the top one percent own a third, the next nine percent own another third, and the bottom ninety percent claim the rest. (Actually, these percentages, true a decade ago, are now out of date. The top one percent are now estimated to own between forty and fifty percent of the nation's wealth, more than the combined wealth of the bottom 95%.)" (beyond capitalism)
Notice that wealth startification is much worse than income stratification according to these numbers (and this is inconsistent Kevin's assertion that people earn their wealth on their own independent of inheritance). Also, the strtatification in 1970 was much less skewed. Again, according to these numbers, the top 1% wealthest Americans account for 40-50% of total US wealth. In fact the 5% wealthest Americans now have more wealth then the rest of America. Surely Mr. OBrien is aware of these results and knows that when wealth is so stratified, too many people cannot afford to buy the products that are produced-and this is precisely what is happening in our country right now. This is what has to be of great concern to real Capitalists (not silly journalists that are ruining the PD's long history of caring about the "common man").
Now let us return to why one should consider voting against Issue 2 if one is a true capitalist. Namely, allowing collective bargaining to work more efficiently will lessen this over-stratification of wealth to the point that more people will be able to afford more products (the majority of respected economists openly question whether "trickle-down" economics worked). Certainly unions have not always acted like model citizens. However, they, more than any other group, led the transition from the 1920's to the 1970's toward greater wealth for those "middle class" (or less wealthy) individuals. Quite simply, does anyone other than our Govenor's rich buddies really want to depend on this guy (Kasich) for ensuring that we get paid a reasonable amount? Instead, US history has suggested in no uncertain terms that the only way to ensure that a chunk of the lower-income 70-90% of our country gets reasonable compensation is through something like collective bargaining.
One last point to document how capitalism really works. According to the tour directors at Greenfield Village (Ford's place in Michigan), Ford did not come up with the idea of using an assembly line. Instead, it was one of his engineers that did not appreciably share in the gains from this valuable intellectual property. Another more modern example is that of Bill Gates. He did not develop the dos operating system that resulted in him personally becoming the wealthiest person on earth (it was a rather minor variation on the CPM operating system that was in the public domain--apparently Zerox did the original work). Both of these examples illustrate how Capitalism is frequently not rational or fair. One can work very hard and come up with clever ideas and another person (or company) can reap the financial benefits unless one protects these benefits. As Mr. OBrien should know, most individuals do not have the resources to adequately represent themselves. Unions have been a valuable tool for protecting the income of large groups of people that would otherwise not have this protection. Therefore, I recommend that all PD readers vote NO against Issue 2.
http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2011/09/the_middle_class_will_be_fine/4702/comments-9.html
Really gets to the heart of the matter, from the capitalist perspective.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2011 15:03
|
|
- Shipon
- Nov 7, 2005
-
|
I live in the infamous Orange County, California. The local paper, the Orange County Register, runs all sorts of amazing editorials and letters to the editor such as these:
quote:Amazing. Our country is on the verge of bankruptcy. People need real, long-term jobs. Taxpayers need relief from government theft. What do we get? A president who insists we must “Pass this bill immediately” to create jobs. In the bill are government jobs that will not help.
Also, government is spending money the government does not have to spend. He wants the bill passed immediately, just like his health care bill. No one knows what is in it. No one knows the cost. We know the taxpayer will get screwed again. Everyone knows how to get America back to work except the government.
Cut government regulation, cut government spending. Cut taxes. Enough of the lip-service from all these politicians. Give them all the boot. Put people in who care about America. quote:Today, the President will make another speech detailing his latest plan to stimulate the economy and create jobs. He will, no doubt, propose another stimulus scheme that will waste billions or trillions of tax dollars and result in little or no benefit to our economy. Here’s why his plan will fail. The problem is that government doesn’t produce anything. Assuming the government is 100 percent efficient, (and not even the Democrats believe that) one dollar spent results in one dollar of benefit. You will never be able to grow our economy with a 1:1 cost to benefit ratio. The solution is for the President to take his boot off the throat of private sector business and allow them to begin to grow again. Since private sector business actually produces products that are more valuable than the sum of its parts, one dollar of investment results in two or more dollars of profit. That is how you grow your way out of a recession. Unfortunately, I don’t believe this is the approach the President will take. 2012 cannot come fast enough for our nation. quote:It’s a horrid plan, Big Government on steroids and more costly than we can afford, meaning either more taxes or more printing of faux money to feed the debt and inflation. But what would happen if President Barack Obama’s jobs plan was adopted by Congress and signed into law?
Our guess is nothing good, and nothing of lasting value. Which is not to say nothing would happen and that what would happen wouldn’t last for years. For one thing, the added debt would metastasize with interest. The bloated bureaucracy – an infrastructure bank? – would worsen an already impervious federal Leviathan. Voters would be lulled into semi-complacency with the token reductions in payroll taxes. Obama and crew would get political mileage out of claiming to have helped employers – but what company in its right mind would hire a $50,000 worker because it gets a paltry tax credit once?
On the other hand, if Obama’s plan passes, it could have greatly beneficial results, in one sense. It might be the nail in the coffin. It might be Obama’s Last Stand. It might be the final measure of proof that the rest of the nation needs to see this emperor has no clothes. (77 percent of us already believe the nation under Obama is headed in the wrong direction.)
Erick Erickson over at Red State has an interesting thought piece on the possible consequences of Obama getting his way with Congress.
Says Erickson: “No jobs will actually be created. The recession will double dip. But Barack Obama will have gotten his bipartisan jobs plan. So he will not be able to blame the GOP. He’ll have to blame mother nature again. By then, voters will have had enough. They will blame Barack Obama. They will see his ideas are failures. Barack Obama sowed the seeds of his own destruction by offering up just enough acceptable bipartisan compromises to make himself look leadenly, but those compromises are not what will create jobs. Obama will get blamed.”
Yeah, that could happen. Having raised teen-agers this pundit is painfully aware that sometimes learning comes only the hard way. We’d prefer the nation not have to crash and burn to come to its senses. But as Erickson points out, out of the ashes can rise new hope. And maybe then some worthwhile change.
This one's actually interesting because he's unintentionally right in a few parts, but for the completely opposite reasons than what he believes. The jobs plan will fail precisely because it contains a good deal of tax cuts and not nearly enough spending on measures that will increase employment.
The worst part is that I wrote a letter to the editor about two years ago defending single-payer health care, and not only did they devote an entire section of the letters just to responses to my reply, they also changed the wording of my letter in ways that would be the polar opposite of its intent (monopsony being changed to monopoly).
To its credit, at least I see a decent number of semi-liberal or moderate comments from time to time. I'd like to be hopeful that it's a sign that Orange County is slowly losing it's conservative "values".
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2011 08:23
|
|
- VideoTapir
- Oct 18, 2005
-
He'll tire eventually.
|
Shipon posted: they also changed the wording of my letter in ways that would be the polar opposite of its intent (monopsony being changed to monopoly).
Jesus loving christ, I learned that word in HIGH SCHOOL. It was actually taught in my loving high school.
Your local newspaper has loving subliterates running it.
God drat America.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2011 16:52
|
|
- Huitzil
- May 25, 2010
-
by elpintogrande
|
VideoTapir posted:
Jesus loving christ, I learned that word in HIGH SCHOOL. It was actually taught in my loving high school.
Your local newspaper has loving subliterates running it.
God drat America.
You may have learned it in high school but that doesn't mean everyone else did, or everyone else remembered it longer than the 2 weeks from hearing it to passing the test.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2011 09:09
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2024 12:36
|
|
- sub supau
- Aug 28, 2007
-
|
You'd kind of hope professional editors were somewhere above average in their linguistic knowledge, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2011 09:21
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 18:55
