Thanksgiving assorted links


Number 2's link doesn't work for me. It would be a good question had they started bringing in Muslims yesterday. Something like two generations have already passed with insufficient assimilation, despite the newer generations not having the language barrier that I've read unassimilated Mexicans have in the US. And it's not like the success of assimilation can be improved while bringing in even more Muslims at the same time.

Woohoo first? I dedicate it to Ray Lopez.

I think the link is good and it is a site problem. Going via Google News also fails.

Believe this is the article:

The week that Paris was attacked, a team of economists and political scientists — Claire Adida, David Laitin, and Marie-Anne Valfort — published their new book “Why Muslim Integration Fails in Christian-Heritage Societies.” The Monkey Cage has featured their research before, but this is clearly an important moment to delve into the book’s broader argument. The authors answered my questions via e-mail. A lightly edited transcript is below.

Your book begins with a look at discrimination against French Muslims in employment and hiring. What are the most important findings about this form of discrimination?

We show Muslims that are discriminated against in the French labor market, and it is because they are Muslims. Previous work has shown that discrimination exists against people who originate from Muslim-majority countries; but this work doesn’t isolate the source of discrimination. Is it Islamophobia or is it xenophobia? Our study, relying on a population of Senegalese immigrants to France that is both Christian and Muslim, and that is similar in all other regards, successfully isolates religious-based discrimination.

There is a chapter on what you call “rational Islamophobia.” People might be surprised to hear Islamophobia described as “rational.” What is your argument here?

We think it’s critical to distinguish between “rational” and “legitimate.” We use the term rational in the way economists use it when they distinguish between what’s called “taste-based” and “rational” discrimination. The former is based simply on taste: I discriminate against Muslims because I prefer not to be around them, even if it means I have to bear a cost when I discriminate. The latter is based on beliefs: I discriminate against Muslims because I believe that Muslims, on average, act a certain way or exhibit certain traits that are undesirable. I apply this belief about average Muslim behavior to all Muslims I encounter, even to those who may not exhibit such behavior at all. This is rational discrimination. It is absolutely illegitimate, but it is rational.

But at the same time, you also see a lot of irrationality in anti-Muslim prejudice, correct?

We find that French society also exhibits taste-based discrimination. (You call it irrational, but we prefer to call it non-rational). Even when French people do not hold any particular beliefs about how Muslims behave, they discriminate against Muslims.

You talk about how these various forces constitute a “discriminatory equilibrium”? What does that concept mean?

Muslims exhibit cultural differences — such as more conservative views toward women and a higher degree of religiosity — that threaten (legitimately or not) their French hosts. The French, partly in response to this threat but also purely as a matter of taste, discriminate against Muslims. Facing no incentives to integrate, Muslims withdraw even more, thereby exacerbating the threats perceived by their French hosts.

This concept captures the fact that both parties act in a way that reinforces the status quo of failed Muslim integration, and that neither has incentive to change its behavior. Muslims experience taste-based discrimination on the part of their hosts, thus facing no incentives to try to integrate. The French hosts see a Muslim community in withdrawal, which confirms and reinforces their prior beliefs about an immigrant community that cannot or will not integrate.

Is the French case unique? Have other countries managed to integrate Muslims more successfully than France has?

France is not unique. We show that the discriminatory equilibrium exists in Europe more broadly and the United States.

But the reason to focus primarily on France is because it has the largest Muslim community in Western Europe — approximately 7 percent of France’s population. This heightens the fear the French have about Muslims’ inability — what they see as refusal — to integrate into French society. Moreover, French “republican” myths — in which ethnicity is not formally recognized (and data not officially collected) — has allowed French society to ignore the levels of discrimination that their Muslim citizens experience.

The title of the book sounds pessimistic. Do you think there are any concrete steps that might help Muslims integrate into predominantly Christian countries?

We spent a long time reflecting on this, because none of us are pessimists by nature. So our book offers concrete steps for achieving a better integration outcome at the individual, societal, and macro levels. We believe that most of our efforts should focus on the societal level. Here are three examples that we elaborate in the book.

First, the job market. Here, we envision a set of diversity training programs that would highlight to recruiters their current discriminatory behavior, as well as the demonstrated benefits of diversity for a firm’s reputation and productivity. Muslims for their part will have to juggle their religious convictions and the smooth functioning and safety of the firm.

Second, the educational system in France remains harmfully elitist: It leaves far more children behind than that of most other Western democracies. It has truly failed in attaining its goal of equality of opportunity. We offer suggestions for significant reforms at this level aimed at enhancing the integration experience of France’s immigrant communities.

Finally, Islamic representatives in France play an important moderating role, and this needs to be emphasized. Currently, the Ministry of the Interior estimates that only 10 percent of France’s 1,800 imams are trained in France. The French government must prioritize the training of imams in France and in French, in collaboration with the French Council of the Muslim Fait (CFCM).

The title of our book reflects the current state of Muslim integration in France and other Christian-heritage societies. For that reason, it sounds pessimistic. But a better integration outcome is not impossible. It will necessitate action on both sides of a growing cultural divide.

So the authors' suggestion is that white French Christians need diversity training at work, diversity indoctrination in school, and that France needs to train more Imams? That way French people won't discriminate against Muslim immigrants, and because they can now get jobs in France, the Muslim immigrants' kids won't radicalize and blow stuff up?

Do training programs work? If they do work, how long does it take? How is their effectiveness measured? Can the training programs be ended once the goal is reached? What is the goal, by the way? Is it to make France more peaceful no matter what, or is it to make France more Muslim while still being peaceful?

@PP, that sounds like an accurate summary.

France must train more imams?

Basically, France must integrate with the Muslims more than the other way around.

This whole thing sounds horrible.

The reading I get is the suggestion that France should try to subvert Islam into a more integrable/palatable form through these gov't-sponsored imams. Reminds me of the monarchs of Europe appointing the Catholic bishops, but there's no Pope of Islam to get upset about it.

@Timothy - They've been trying for some time, as Christopher Caldwell wrote in his book on "Reflections on the Revolutions in Europe". But it won't work because Islam is not centralized. There is no Pope you can appeal to to domesticate it for modern consumption. It's more like US Protestantism, what Hitchens called "the cafeteria buffet of religions". If the state sanctioned imams are not scratching the itch, your population will turn to outside imams and preachers and sub-variants of Islam like Wahhabism. How are you going to control them or stop them. Meanwhile, you've already conceded half the battle by legitimizing their hereditary presence in your country and accommodating their preferences. It's not the ideology you have to work around, it's the people.

The signalling is strong here. They left out the part where there is a rational basis for rejecting people who have higher rates of behavior the host country considers illegal or anti-social. The phobia fad has long since lost its usefulness. A phobia is an irrational fear. The French are not prejudiced, but postjudiced against their replacers.

People seem to forget that we live in, forgive the term, hyper-present societies. You look at past societies and see the melding of peoples and eventual assimilation, especially through outbreeding, and think "this could work". But we obsess over quarterly economic results. Nobody wants to live through the transition to an uncertain future if they can help it, especially not if it takes a sizable chunk of their lifetimes, or even more. Our historical view is necessarily compressed, we don't even understand the timescales involved. If someone were to guarantee me that things would work out perfectly and that I and my descendants would just have to live through (another) 50-75 years of terrorist attacks, radicalism, kulturkampf, petty crime, organized crime, rape, sexual mores mismatch etc to reach the promised land (and let's remember that radicalism also comes from abroad, as the effervescence of anarchists & others and their plots in the US before the Palmer raids proved), then my answer would be to stuff it. Hopefully, I can also have the soothsayer deported.

Why is the article unavailable? Did they remove it?

Yes, it appears the WaPo has removed the article entirely.

#2 - No, The recalcitrant French dastards refuse to accommodate them, I. e., adopt sharia law, convert, and outlaw Western Civilization. How's that for just more of the regular bile?

To say pleistocene megafauna "became extinct" is a polite way to say oops, we ate them all. See also hyperbolic discounting.

They have been very tasty animals -- it's a shame to have lost them. Imagine if there was no bacon, no slow-smoked beef ribs, no prosciutto. We may have lost something or several things that were that good or even better.

My theory is that prehistoric Americans were foodies, and they hunted down the very best stuff. All we have today is what they left behind.

Home ovens would have to be much bigger than for these turkeys here

Cold weather, and the Boreal invasion of savanahs, killed 'em. Puny humans always claim far more credit then they merit.

Yeah, neo-lithics capable of causing the extinctions of really big animals would have serious problems fending off some scurvy-ridden, underfed Spanish soldiers equipped with unreliable, inaccurate firearms.

Massive extinctions seem to follow the introductions of humans to places they weren't previously. This is a fairly consistent pattern:

What patterns? data or science?

Even if the scientists *say* that repeated fossil evidence shows humans eating tasty critters it is no doubt a *conspiracy* driven by those scientists own profit motive.

Check "Extinction LIES List" for detail. Or ask the beef lobby for an unbiased position.

#2 link doesn't work for me either. It also doesn't work when I find it with Google, or even (most bizarrely) when I search for the link and click on it from the WaPo search page - yes, the WaPo search page can find the article, but won't show it.

Maybe it was a bit too risque for WaPo's editors, who normally let Monkey Cage bloggers post at will...

Its not even at the Monkey Cage blog site despite the url saying it is:

I assume they (correctly) identified that Islam is unlikely to be integrable do to the Koran's legislative structure and treatment of non-believers. WaPo editors then pulled it.

It's still visible here:

No, only the headline with a bad link is available there.

#3 Did I miss it, or is that poem actually about absolute advantage, rather than comparative advantage?

You are correct. This piece is about specialization and trade, not comparative advantage.

The best explanation of comparative advantage I ever read is by (if i recall correctly), when he asked, "If a lawyer types faster than his secretary, should he get rid of her and spend half his time practicing law and half his time typing?"

WaPo pulling #2 is a perfect example of why we can't integrate Muslims.

Seems to me that we need to be trying to figure out how to integrate the left into western norms of open discourse, a marketplace of ideas, and an open society.

I'd write an article asking if that's possible, but it would probably get pulled.

I have no idea what happened to the article, but I am amazed that paranoid humor prevails in response.

I mean think about it: "we would welcome them, but we can't because some "they" has pulled the article and stops us!"

Good thing we are a sophisticated and nonsuperstitious people!

Pulling a critical article passes for sophistication these days.

We do welcome many Muslim immigrants to the US annually, and there is nothing paranoid about attacking the WaPo decision.

It may prove to be pulled, for any cause, including publication rights, but at this point we only have a missing article.

I emailed John Sides, one of the guys who writes for Monkey Cage, and he said that the article was "accidentally published prematurely" but that they will publish it later.

He would *say* that wouldn't he!

Trust no one who is not in a back-page comments thread.

From Woodward and Bernstein to "mustnt inconvenience dear leader," sad

If Pleistocene megafauna hadn't become extinct, lack of domesticated of squash would have been the least of our problems.

Squash the squash?

#7 There is definitely a lengthy pause in warming, despite 1/3 of all carbon emissions having occurred since 1997. It's very inconvenient for all the climate scientists whose continued funding depend on an alarming warming.

Right. I always go to the "Climate FAIL Files" for impartial science.

Your impartial scientists have corrupted the peer review process, gone to the ends of the Earth to collect ice cores which no one analyzes, refused to allow scientists outside their circle to analyze their raw data, never properly documented and cannot recall how they processed their raw data, have been in the business of launching defamation suits at reporters who insult them (paid for by whom?), forged documents in an attempt to smear the Heartland Institute, and contrived to massage data for public relations ("hide the decline"). The codpiece media has been in the business of attempting to smear dissenting scientists.

Not a single accusation you have made about climate scientists is descriptive or illustrative of the industry, and all of them relies on having a shoddy, amateur understanding of scientific process and an exclusive diet of right-wing pseudo-science blogs. But that's not necessarily your fault, I'll go ahead and pin the blame on the continuing influence of anti-scientific Christian ideology in the United States, combined with bad public education standards.

I'll call a whaaambulance for you.

Excellent one-liner, Art-Deco. This clearly makes you the winner of this argument.

"refused to allow scientists outside their circle to analyze their raw data"

In the context of global temperature data, this is false. A team of outsiders lead by Berkeley physicist and part-time climate skeptic Richard Muller and funded in part by the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation conducted a very thorough reconstruction of a global surface temperature data series using raw temperature data that was available to them and posted all of their data and computer code online. They found that their own temperature reconstruction showed a warming trend and was not substantially different from other temperature series that had already been done.

using raw temperature data that was available to them

Not the last five words. Please see Steve McIntyre on the University of East Anglia and Lonnie Thompson re data sharing.

Data is impartial.

Yet when data contradict the model, it's the data that get redefined or adjusted.

Curious process here.

The originally linked article is an alarming display of sophistry. "What does a 'pause' mean, REALLY? And if you take the pause and then submerge it in another 100 years of data, statistically the pause disappears in a way... so really there has been warming the whole time without pause." Do they really think people are so stupid that they don't understand that there was a long time period where temps did not increase? They even try to explain that the academic publications about the pause are somehow a result of climate denialists

When you reject all argument from NOAA, maybe the problem is you, and not NOAA.

The problem is that it's just an argument, and not data. The warmers are relying on scattered readings requiring constant adjustments, while the skeptics are relying on a single, un-adjusted, dataset with significantly wider coverage.

I'm not too keen on the arguments that the temperature data is being manipulated on purpose, and arguments by skeptics about the "pause" are a little overdone. But these recent arguments denying the very existence of very clear "pause" are really just shameful, and probably counterproductive to their cause.

The problem is that there is no direct measure of planetary heat capture. Surface temperature is a convenient component, but a minority one. Of course, the human experience of the atmosphere is 0-6 feet from surface temperature. There are: Thousands of feet of atmosphere above us. Some (tens?) of feet air and sun heated soil below us. Some (hundreds?) of feet of heated oceans below our eye.

Whoever you trust to do a global calculation will have a tough job.

The preposterous thing is though, that ideologues just call the best scientists to do that "warmers" and run their own math until they get the answers they want.

Even more preposterously, the ideologues declare their answer driven math the true one.

It is "unskewed polls" on a planetary scale. Just as that corrupt effort the answer will come in and the "unskewing" will itself be found as the source of error.

How will you respond when you learn you have been a lifelong spoiler?

Lol. He whole point of Satelite based measurements is that it doesn't require lots of "math" that you find so complicated. In fact, if anyone is running the mah again and again and changing their answers every time their political opponents come up with an effective argument, it is the "best scientists". It is amazing how comfortable the "best scientists" were with the idea of the pause until their political opponents started talking about it.

BTW, argument from authority is a fallacy. If you can't back up your arguments with even a vague understanding of what is going on, then you are the one with political biases. Trying to smear your opponents as "ideologues" is just projection.

I know of no satellite measurement which will yield heat capacity adjusted for ocean mixing. It is a very surface measure.

The reason that satellites are favored is because the same instrument takes all measurements, and because sampling is evenly spaced over the globe, unlike surface measurements.

Michael, satellite measurement is not as simple as you make it out to be. For instance, orbital decay can bias satellite measurements over time and this requires an adjustment to the data.


From your 8 yr old article- the DOD launched 4 instead of 6 satellites due to "a costly and problem-plagued satellite initiative ".

+4 is not cutting back, it's growing more slowly. Not just semantics, just math.

I know first hand the work it requires to do satelite measurements, but compared to the adjustments necessary for surface stations, not to mention the huge gaps, they are orders of magnitude simpler.

But, as I said above, my main concerns are not the adjustments to the surface station data, but when they conveniently change how they adjust the data in response to purely political arguments.

Look, either temperatures did increase in the 17 years after the last max temp year or they didn't. That is what people mean when they say that. It's stupid to say that you've redefined the term pause, and once you do that there is no pause.

I can't find a period when mean temperatures did not increase.

Or do you argue that for 350 days of the year we are moving toward an ice age and then ten hours later we are moving toward a past of no ice and high seas?

The pause may disappear next year but was not predicted by the computer models. Every IPCC report has are over predicted the warming. If we take the entire RSS data set from 1978, the rate is equivalent to 1.3C per century. We are asked to take extreme measures to prevent this ? At the same time CO2 is extremely beneficial to plant life ( that's why greenhouses pump CO2 at 1000ppm vs the 400 ppm we have today )

You don't answer the questions asked in the article. It would be pretty easy for me to comb through the records of my 401(k) and point to multi-year intervals where my rate of return was 0 or negative. But so what? As with temperature, the more important trend is the one over much longer time intervals and that trend is growth. It is really just a failure of elementary statistical reasoning to take a partially random process, slice the data up into small intervals and then claim that the trends in those sub-intervals say anything about long-term trends or what we can expect in the future. You don't mathematically define what a "pause" is in the context of a noisy sample of data and, even if you did, you would be running a test of very weak statistical power.

Almost 19 years is not a short time for something that is supposed to be driven by CO2. Again 1/3 of the historical CO2 emissions occurred during that time !! with no warming to show for it. What exactly is the explanation for this ? It's not in the models.
It's disingenuous to say on the one hand , "so what, pauses can be lengthy" and on the other that we need to do something urgently about warming. 1.3C trend per century since 1978 ( 37 years) , hardly a problem.

What is disingenuous is to make a set of vague assertions ("almost" 19 years! -- either you are analyzing 19 years of data or you aren't) with no supporting documentation in a debate about data and then act as if you have proven something. For instance, I just pulled the annual mean surface (land and ocean) temperature anomaly series from NASA GISS, looked at the data between 1978 and 2014 and the linear trend is 0.016 degrees Celcius per year or 1.6 degrees per century. So please provide the citation to the exact model you are claiming to refute along with its confidence intervals and show your work. If you are claiming there is a "pause" in the data, provide the exact interval over which you are claiming there is a pause, why you chose that interval and what statistical definition of "pause" you are using.

It helps to have enough knowledge to make your own assessment of WUWT. Here is a good indication: given the temperature of the surface of the sun and the temperature of the interstellar night sky, explain the annual global average temperature of the earth's surface. If you can't begin to calculate that, you don't know enough to recognise the multitude of blunders and lies that constitute WUWT.


Not enough data to compute. You failed your own test.

Show us how.

No you.

You're the one that said given : (a) the temperature of the surace of the sun, (b) the temperature of the night sky compute the temperature of the earth.

Go ahead with only those constants. I'll wait. Putz. You are going to need a bunch more.

Always the same with religious wackos.

It is very definitely true that capitalism creates economic decline while communism definitely creates broad-based increases in welfare for everyone. It's just that capitalists cook the books in a vast conspiracy to obscure the vast poverty and suffering created by the many recessions and depressions, but refuse to accept the years when communist user and China made vast leaps in general welfare but selectively use long time frames to argue communism is a failure and capitalism is great!

Lamar needs to organize a committee to investigate the conspiracy that creates the lies about communism which has merely suffered problems totally outside the political economy, while capitalists have just been lucky that nature has not worked against them.


It is very definitely true that Communism causes Global Warming.

Lamar needs to organize a committee to investigate that conspiracy.

It’s just that capitalists cook the books in a vast conspiracy ... Lamar needs to organize a committee to investigate the conspiracy that creates the lies about communism

Ok, now I know this is a spoof.

Clearly the "pause" was a bother to the warmists. So they reworked their estimate of global temperatures and did away with it. Well done! Yet the fact remains that temperatures have trended far below what warming science claimed. The science is wrong. But good luck getting the warmists to make that admission.

Please provide
- predictions made 40, 30, 20, 10 years ago.
- records of temperature.

Here is a handful:

As soon as I saw the paper was co-authored by Lewandowsky I stopped reading. He has been known to manufacture data before.

The corruption of global warming science is exceeded only by the incompetence.

There is no quality control in science generally (in academia generally -- see e.g. Boston Fed study in economics and the idiotic reliance on Card-Krueger by hard core economics left-wingers) and no quality of any kind in climate science. No one checks the work, the logic is bizarre, the circularity is childish, and the viciousness is indicative of the lack of merit.

Read the Climategate emails. Examine the long sordid history of the hockey stick, or Rahmstorf's 'worse than we thought' or Briffa's magic 6 sigma tree. Alarmist scientists don't do science.

It simply isn't possible for an intelligent, morally decent person to accept the global warming nonsense. Those who believe do so for reasons of religion.

Good god, Tyler. Your website is being overrun by denialist cranks, spurred on by comment hackers from p.r. firms paid for by the petro lobbies.

For everyone who reads German or can operate google translate

According to this article, the Russians are bombing Turkey' s allies in an attempt to help Assad regain ground in Syria..... something Erdogan certainly has no interest in....

make of it, what you will....

we are watching the positioning for the next round of: who get's the spoils of the ottoman empire, 2.0 or 3.0..... no more, no less....

#2. The Algerian war ended in 1962. To ask that question is to answer it.

#5. Federal officials are pushing people to evaluate their options and consider switching plans to try to keep costs in check, in a message regularly summarized as “shop and save.”

Yes, because putting more pressure on insurers is going to keep them in the market. The problem is that the ACA supporters refuse to recognize that the problem is not, and has never been, big evil insurance companies and their evil profits. It has always been the prices that are charged by providers, but you don't get cost control on that end by giving everyone insurance.

You don't seriously think you get cost control by rationing, do you?

If you and everyone does not have insurance so you must pay cash, and you get hep C, do you think the $100,000 price for a cure, or the $10,000 annual cost to Medicaid to treat you so you do not die when you get so sick from no treatment, will drop to the $100 you can raise in cash?

Or are you extolling the fantastic African health care system which is the cheapest in the world, and you shop around buying all the supplies the nurse needs to perform surgery: gauze, antibiotics, pain killers, ketamine, needle, threat, knife, etc?

After all, Africa has the very health care system you argue is the solution for the US.


You get cost control for the very expensive things by letting the insurance company have some leverage as to what they will pay for. The insurer has to be able to shop around and say no to things. The ACA simultaneously ties the insurance companies hands and makes the consumer not give a shit how much anything costs.

"It has always been the prices that are charged by providers, but you don’t get cost control on that end by giving everyone insurance."

Health insurance means a higher quantity of health care demanded by patients but at lower prices. The latter point really isn't in dispute. If you have insurance, next time you go to the hospital, look at the bill and compare what the hospital bills to what the insurance company winds up paying. Or talk to any doctor or anyone in medical billing and they will have plenty of stories of being nickel-and-dimed by big insurance companies.

Or talk to any doctor or anyone in medical billing and they will have plenty of stories of being nickel-and-dimed by big insurance companies.

LOL. You mean the same providers that are charging sky-high retail prices to the uninsured? Poor them. Getting all "nickle-and-dimed" by the big-ol-meanie insurance companies.

Maybe we should pass a law forcing insurers to pay whatever providers ask and see what happens.

2. Well, the French have been fabulously bad at integrating anyone (see, e.g., the Jews), and even Americans, who (i) have a long history of very successfully integrating immigrants and (ii) don't even have that many Muslim immigrants, have struggled to integrate the Muslim immigrants we do have. So my prediction would be a firm "no."

French Jews seem well integrated into classic France. Eric Zemmour and Alain Finkielkraut are the best spokespeople for France and they are Jewish.

"Complicating matters further, Turkey and Syria have a longstanding border dispute in exactly the area where the Russian plane, a Sukhoi Su-24, was shot down, and Russia has sometimes voiced support for Syria’s claim. It is a narrow strip of territory, the Hatay Province of Turkey, that runs south along the Mediterranean Sea, deep into Syria."

There are more than a few of these border/ land disputes around the globe. We might want to get working on resolving them before they help turn disputes into armed conflicts.

5. Yet more free lunch economics:

"The answer? For those who haven't been reading this blog very long (collections here and here), it is straightforward: Lifelong, deregulated, guaranteed-renewable, individual insurance, bought when you're healthy, carried along from state to state and job to job, with employers contributing premiums rather than setting up group plans. Deregulation of supply, so that for most procedures you can just pay cash and not be rooked by made up prices."

If insurers can not price insurance for one year in one State, how the hell does Cocrane imagine all insurers will be able to design and price insurance policies that last for up to a century no matter where in the world you live?

This clearly the belief that "free" in free markets means free lunches.

Why does an economist think supply determines price instead of labor cost determining the minimum price? Clearly a belief in free lunches.


Free lunches are only possibly under Communism.
They are and always have been widely available in Communist countries.

#2 No. It would have happened already


What a hideous piece!

Sorry Tyler, but i don't See any "good analytics" if half of the people cited are Turkish state officials and no Russian at all (at least not as "insight giver"), while painting the picture of Erdogan being a force for good.

Come on, really?

The guy funding Isis, turkish ethnic as well as religious extremism, suppressing minorities and opposition back home and with a political vision of using that newly found turko-ethnic-centric concsiousness to gain influence throughout the middle East and the whole of central asia. Oh did I say "gain influence"? I've meant to say " to cause Instability".

No one can really buy the story that these two powers skirmish about some tiny valley. It's about causing trouble in russia's own backyard.

If anything is really troubling, than that the NYT is taking part in painting this more than biased picture. A perfect example of why we, the West, can't get out of bed with those good Islamist friends from the Arabian peninsula and Anatolia. Because as long as it hurts Russia, it benefits the US somehow, somebody thinks. So, you damn Europeans better get in line and stop whinin' about the occasional Turkey/Saudi funded civilian slaughter. It's for the greater good, ey?

Also a more objective post would at least mentioned that Turkey's airforce is violating Greek's airspace around a couple of hundred times. Each year! And about over 2,000 in 2014 alone. So much for subtlety...

#2: The better question: Can Islam integrate France?


The former Vice Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force said that Turkey shooting down a Russian plane was a "very bad mistake and showed poor judgment."

Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney said on "Real Story" that a radar tracking map shows the plane crossing the very tip of Turkey, which he estimated lasted for 20-40 seconds, and on a trajectory back toward Syria. McInerney said that while he was a NORAD commander in Alaska they would never have done anything like this.

Fox seems to have pulled the video.

Look like in Syria Turkish planes might have to be at least 180 km away from the Russian ...


The revelation from zerohedge on the letter sent by Turkey to the UN security council is even more interesting.

The highlighted passage reads: “Disregarding these warnings, both planes, at an altitude of 19,000 feet, violated Turkish national airspace to a depth of 1.36 miles and 1.15 miles in length for 17 seconds from 9:24:05 local time."

Look at Turkey's statement to UN: 1.15 miles / 17 seconds x 60 x 60 = 243 miles/hour = 391 km/hour

"according to those numbers, the Su-24 would have had to be flying at stall speed."

I'm not a big fan of #7. It uses the word "is" numerous times but doesn't ever bother to articulate a clearly accepted definition of the word "is."

Lifelong, deregulated, guaranteed-renewable, individual insurance, bought when you’re healthy, carried along from state to state and job to job, with employers contributing premiums rather than setting up group plans. Deregulation of supply, so that for most procedures you can just pay cash and not be rooked by made up prices.”

A lovely scheme, but I have just a few questions for Dr. Cochrane.

1. Will it be mandatory to buy coverage?
2. Will it be mandatory to sell coverage to any applicant - assuming if you like that the applicant must be younger than X?
3. How will premiums be calculated? It's fine to say "guaranteed renewable," but it's pretty meaningless if the insurer can decide to charge you $50,000/month for coverage when you get cancer.
4. What happens to a "lifelong" policy-holder when the insurer goes broke?
5. If the optimal structure of premiums over time is for them to be actuarially "too high" for younger insureds and too low for older ones what will prevent some insurers from selling unreasonably cheap policies to the young and disappearing, or raising premiums exorbitantly when its customers get older.

Finally, let me say I find it bizarre that Cochrane thinks the previous system was OK "for many self-employed people and small business owners outside the big company - big government nexus."
It was OK for some, as long as they stayed healthy.

Exactly how would such a policy be 'deregulated' if it was also lifelong, guaranteed renewable? On what level does it make sense to buy 'individual insurance' if you are buying a policy for life? Clearly this sounds like a very roundabout way of describing a single payer type system where everyone is paying tax and is entitled to some type of universal system (Medicaid if it is cheap, Medicare if it is better).

Of course that's what it is. Once you start dealing with the practical issues it's going to turn out to have so much government involvement that it will be a very kludgy government run system.

But let's leave the libertarians to their fantasies.

Dr. Seuss would never rhyme "different" and "efficient", nor would he scan "Gox's Socks we can't do without" against "Buyers yell and buyers shout." Parodying Suess is *hard*.

But I see this appears to be a class essay, so I mean the author no disrespect. Way more creative than anything I ever turned in.

Chris Mooney writes of a new study by Stephen Lewandowsky attacking the "pause". I cannot imagine a less credible or more biassed author than Lewandowsky, whose career as a psychologist is not a normal credential for climate scientists. The journal (Ars Technica) put forward its best face possible when retracting Lewandowsky's paper (Recursive Fury). For a glimpse behind the scenes, check out

What's strange is that two of the three authors are schooled in subjects which haven't a thing to do with the issue at hand, including the lead author. The fellow Risbey is supposedly some sort of atmospheric scientist. Why would he need the aid of the other two and why is he not listed as lead author?

One answer, it's not really a scientific paper.

#7 How would we react if an economist published a paper like this: "“At every year (vantage point) during the past 30 years, the immediately preceding GDP trend was always significant when 36 months (or more) were included in the calculation,” the researchers find. However shorter periods often show a “recession,” they add."


"The notion of a “recession” has long been a major argument for capitalism doubters. But 2014 and 2015 appear poised to see back-to-back GDP records — even as more and more economic criticism aimed at the “recession” idea has emerged."


“Basically our argument is that there is no such thing as a recession in GDP trends, and in fact, arguably there never has been,” says Lewandowsky. “What there has been is a fluctuation in growth, and they always occur,” he adds.

If the theory can't account for changes in the trend observed in data, then the theory has some major holes and is potentially flat out wrong. Where there's a massive amount of research in economics on why output changes and recessions happen, most of the climate change research I'm hearing about regarding the pause/fluctuation of the last 20 years seems to be focused on rationalizing why it's not important that the data don't match the model. Admittedly, I don't follow climate research nearly as much as I follow economic research, and primarily just hear what the popular press picks up. But that begs the question: Why the difference in stories the press focuses on? I hear a lot of stories about how economics got it wrong because of the Great Recession, but the stories I hear about climate change are that the predictions are still correct despite the fact that models aren't matching observations.

Add in that all 'corrections' go one way.

#7: I thought I recognized that name. The moderator commends to us the work of a man who is, by all appearances, a caricature of a vulgar polemicist:

Am waiting for the moderator to recommend the wit and wisdom of Charles C. Johnson.

"Can France integrate its Muslims?"

Can the Washington Post integrate Politically Incorrect Opinions?

Comments for this post are closed