14 April 2014
Bundy. I’m starting to wonder if there’s something about this name. Ted, the family in Married with Children, and now Cliven Bundy, the guy who obeys the laws of Nevada and doesn’t recognize the federal government. All Bundys. Coincidence? Simply bad luck for the many wonderful people who also carry this surname? I don’t know.
In any event, this article from ThinkProgress provides some possible solutions for Cliven and his followers:
“Three Ways That Nevada Rancher and His Right-Wing Militia Supporters Could Wind Up Behind Bars”
These are all reasonable possibilities. I’m ashamed to say I keep fantasizing about drone strikes. That’s probably because I suspect the underlying issue here has less to do with political freedom and more to do with wanting a free lunch–or in this case free grazing land.
13 April 2014
I fail to see how failure to pay grazing fees, which are ridiculously cheap, constitutes government interference. I especially don’t understand how failure to pay grazing fees is a First Amendment issues.
I also wonder what took the government so long to act.
“Koch Groups Back Rancher Making Violent Threats Against Federal Government”
And then THIS happens?
“Feds Halt High-Profile Seizure of Nevada Rancher’s Cattle Due to Safety Fears”
“Feds Release Cows Gathered in Nevada Roundup”
National government cowed by lawbreaker? The USA gets weirder by the day.
9 April 2014
A 21% improvement sounds good, doesn’t it?
“Fox News Climate Change Coverage Is Now 28% Accurate, up from 7%”
Of course, sometimes it just means there’s a lot of room for vast improvement.
2 April 2014
“Students Walk out on Dick Cheney During Speech”
One question: Why only a couple dozen?
31 March 2014
“Is the U.S. Stock Market Rigged?”
I’m not at all surprised, but I am surprised that someone caught on and did something about it.
25 March 2014
Plants love climate change. I ran into this on a denier website yesterday and had the strength not to comment there. Instead, when I saw this old bromide rise once again, I wondered if this indicated reality was intruding. Of late I’ve been seeing more and more skeptics writing of the positive effects of climate change. Indeed there are some–although perhaps not for us.
At least this bit about plants needing carbon dioxide is true, unlike many points I’ve seen put forth by skeptics. Primary school science classes explain how plants require carbon dioxide to grow. However, before anyone starts planning on planting grapefruit trees in Idaho, I’ll mention that studies started coming out well over a decade ago indicating plants often suffered negative effects from increased carbon dioxide. I remember reading about good early growth but stunted growth during the fruiting phase for vegetables, problems with grass on grazing land, stuff like that. But then those came from studies done by pesky old (and young) scientists.
I haven’t seen any of these studies cited on the denier sites so far. Perhaps I haven’t read widely enough. Then again, folks who do primary research and controlled studies are a real buzz kill for climate change skeptics. Mostly, skeptics spend time attacking computer models. A worthy task, I grant. However, here’s a new study. No computer models were involved.
“In Ranchers Vs. Weeds, Climate Change Gives Weeds An Edge”
Oh well. Toadflax is quite pretty.