Lunch Links

Wednesday, March 19th, 2008
  • Hair of the dog.
  • More fun with time travel heroism.
  • I’m fairly convinced now that global warming is very real, and that the possibilities resulting from it are potentially catastrophic. That said, I’m not convinced it’s entirely man-made, nor am I convinced that there’s much we can do to prevent it, short of returning to a pre-industrial society. Which obviously isn’t an option. That said, I’d love to be wrong.
  • The ever-classy Lisa Schiffren implies that gay men like to have sex with dogs. You see, it’s funny because gay men like to have lots of sex. Even with animals! Live near a gay man? Better keep your dog in the house! Funny, funny stuff. Those gay men. They’ll have sex with anything. Whew! That’s funny. (Via Ed Brayton)
  • Oops.
    Digg it |  reddit | |  Fark
  • 27 Responses to “Lunch Links”

    1. #1 |  Bronwyn | 

      in re McCain – never mind the fact that Al Qaeda in Iraq has nothing to do with Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda. AQ in Iraq took the name for street cred and instant popularity and AQ “proper” essentially told them to go pound sand and wants nothing to do with them.

      So there’s that.

      in re gays and dogs – reminds me of my grandmother. Every time the dog came back from the groomer, she’d comment on what a good job was done and note that the groomer was gay. She pointed out that he did such a good job because “you know, those people are so good with animals”.

      This is also the woman who tape-recorded all her soaps so she could FF through the “black stories”.

      She’s pretty awesome, my grandmother. We all hate her, but she does provide fodder for conversation.

    2. #2 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 

      Re; Gay and dogs

      I would have one heck of a lot more sympathy with Gays when they get dumped on this way if the Politically Gay didn’t spend quite so much time playing Shock the Squares.

      I know it’s a fun game – I used to be an active member of Science Fiction Fandom, which plays it a lot. On the other hand, SF Fandom (whatever they may say) isn’t really all that interested in social acceptance. Gays are, or at least Gays are interested in some concessions (like Gay Marriage, which in the abstract I support) which would come a lot faster WITH social acceptance than without it.

      With supposedly reputable Gay Intellectuals writing about “transgressive sex” being a “revolutionary act”, it really isn’t surprising that people’s imagination are getting downright lurid.

    3. #3 |  Not That David | 

      If global warming is going to have catastrophic consequences, wouldn’t it be better to return to a pre-industrial society before the mass die-off instead of afterward? Just pragmatically speaking, mind.

    4. #4 |  JJH2 | 

      re: Gays in the park — alas, the wonders we could do with privatized (communally owned through shares or possibly individually owned) park services. In a city with numerous privately-owned parks, there would be no problem with any particular park opening itself up for open sex acts (gay or hetero) and another park opening itself up as a leash-free, poop-where-thou-wilt zone for animals. It’s only when our conception of “public property” demands that everyone be given equal access to every piece of property, regardless of whether or not they live near it, use it, contribute to its maintenance, or have caused it damnage — that a problem even arises.

      As for bestiality — aside from the fact that it’s a disingenuous smear to accuse any particular discrete minority of the act (unless they’re zoophiles), I think it’s clear that _certain sex acts_ between (wo)man and animal are not at all immoral and certainly only unjustly prohibited. See Singer’s “Heavy Petting” article:

    5. #5 |  Alex | 


      The basketball tournament is about to start. After that comes baseball with the Braves opening the season at Washington’s new stadium. I hope that helps keep you mind off the fascists who for no reason, no reason at all, find bestiality more than a little creepy.

    6. #6 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 

      “If global warming is going to have catastrophic consequences…”


      We KNOW that returning to pre-industrial civilization will result in mass deaths. We also know that the public case for Global Warming contains a good deal of fraud, bushwa, and general inaccuracy (this is different from most public issues how exactly?), and that some of its proponents have advocated shutting down debate rather than deal with these issues.

      We do NOT know that Global Warming is a direct consequence of human industry. We do NOT know that Global Warming would, on balance, be catastrophic. We do NOT know that de-industrialization is the only possible solution.

      Given the certain consequences of wholesale de-industrialization, it behooves us to be SURE that the other possible futures are at least as bleak.

      Personally, I don’t believe they are. Further, I believe that people who call for de-industrialization either a) Have very little grasp of just how bad the past was or b) secretly believe that they themselves will belong to an elite to which the privations will not apply.

    7. #7 |  Jim Collins | 

      Why do they always pick on the Grandfather? It’s the Grandmother they should be after. Hell, Grandma could have had a quickie with the milkman or mailman.

    8. #8 |  JJH2 | 


      A few things.

      First. I didn’t call anyone a fascist.

      Second. I never claimed that those who desire to coercively outlaw all forms of bestiality have “no reasons at all.” I made a claim about the injustice of such a blanket prohibition, which means that I’ve evaluated the justifications for such a prohibition and found them wanting. An example to illustrate. I understand why some people are in favor of coercively taking my money and redistributing them to enormous corporate agricultural farms. I understand the reasons that people are in favor of agricultural subsidies — or more accurately, corporate welfare. I’m just OPPOSED to such coercion despite those reasons, because those reasons are wanting and illegitimate.

      Third. Finding something “creepy” is not a legitimate justification for coercively prohibiting it. There are lots of things that two adults can, and should, be allowed to do to each other that I find creepy — but I don’t accept my personal feelings of “ick” towards something as being a sufficient justification for forcibly preventing them from doing it.

      Finally. I’m not really a sports fan.

    9. #9 |  Andy | 

      Did you actually click through and read the article Schiffren linked too? The law in Amsterdam was changed to let gays have sex AND to no longer allow dogs off their leashes. I don’t see where she implied anything…

    10. #10 |  Radley Balko | 

      Yes, I read the article.

      Her implication is that the authorities in Amsterdam decided to let gays have sex in the park at the same time they said owners have to leash their dogs because they were worried that the gays would try to have sex with the off-leash dogs.

    11. #11 |  Tokin42 | 

      Did anyone else take the time to read the article in the telegraph linked to by schiffren? 11 short paragraphs and the only opposition mentioned was a quote from a dog owner. Anyone with a sense of humor would have noted it regardless of if they were talking about gay, hetero-, bi-, hillbilly-, ugly-, and especially fat- sex. I’m really beginning to wonder if some of you aren’t reallllly taking life a tad too seriously. Lighten up.

    12. #12 |  Hannah | 

      On a lighter note, the couple with the sweaters made from their dogs fur/wool. I think that’s pretty neat. Its like taking a pet angora rabbit and making a sweater from it and this way they can always have a part of their loved one with them.

    13. #13 |  Psion | 

      I am sure now with the results coming back from the Argo devices that a lot of people are scratching their collective heads over the issue. I find it curious that the NPR article suggests “…that could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren’t quite understanding what their robots are telling them.” No mention at all of a third possibility: that global warming really isn’t happening, or that it’s not as bad as the more extreme alarmists would have us believe.

      Instead I predict the outcome of this will be even more complicated theories about how ocean temperatures lag and a new set of models that restate the theory in such a way that it’s perfectly reasonable to have a hypothesis that doesn’t fit the data.

    14. #14 |  Alex | 


      1) I know.

      2) Yea, yea, i get it.

      3) Come on, cow f***ing?

      4) I suspected that.

      I find your comments crazy, but charming in an idealistic young anarchist way. I will continue responding snarkily to your comments if you continue to oblige me by giving long, well-though-out rebuttals. I find that hilarious. It’s a personality flaw.

    15. #15 |  Mikestermike | 

      Yes. We have global warming. Ever since the last ice-age. Remember, all those hills and such around your town were caused by freakishly large glaciers. Where are the glaciers?

      It is fun to note that we only have reliable & accurate data since WWII. Before then, we had surface measurements for a hundred years prior (via mercury thermometers) Before that, who knows?

      The data is incomplete. Science estimates what temperatures were and such from indirect measurement and from calculated guesses. Unfortunately, thats all they are: guesses. And science has repeadetly been wrong before.

      Has there been large swings of temperature in the past? Yes. Are we most likely on an uptick? Probably. Like the economy, you only will know what is going on years after the fact. In geological terms, it may be centuries.

      Climatologists and their ilk will argue against these points, but all-in-all it only is logical. A 4 billion year old planet’s temperatures will fluctuate. We are looking at one miniscule fraction of a miniscule fraction of a percent. You just can’t trend a sample set that small, folks. You can’t.

    16. #16 |  Against Stupidity | 

      Actually we don’t know if we are currently experiencing Global warming. All we do know is that the climate changes from time to time. Sometimes it gets warmer, sometimes it gets cooler. Personally, all things considered, I prefer warmer. This NPR article has some nice misrepresentations, mistakes, misstatements, which might be ignorance or hoping the reader is ignorant.

      Josh Willis Ph.D. –

      water is apparently coming from a recent increase in the melting rate of glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica.

      Is it really apparent Josh? Apparently Dr. Willis doesn’t know that temperatures in Antarctica only get above freezing in a few areas near the edge of the Antarctic circle, so ice doesn’t generally melt there… ever. Glaciers in the Antarctic flow into the ocean, they don’t melt, and their speed rarely changes.

    17. #17 |  Mike Schneider | 

      Anthropegenic (man-caused) Global Warming Theory is 100% bullshit which requires doctored temperature charts to remove the warmer “Medieval Warm Period” from the record.

      — It’s a twisted, unholy union of corrupt academic grant-mongers and Marxist international shakers seeking to economically hamstring the West by bamboozling them into swallowing the carbon-reductions of Kyoto, and pass sixty-five billion new laws regulating every aspect of your indoor and outdoor behavior.

      Meanwhile, back in reality, 2007 was the coldest year in the last 50, and in just that one year wiped all the temperature gains of the 1990s. (Why? Well, the sun was roarin’ with spots and cooking the planet with extra UV-radiation in the ’90s, but is now at the bottom of its 22-year cycle with virtually no spots, and overdue for the shift back upward.)

      For an refresher course in pure Stalinist bile and denial, ask a pro-warming professor or politician about all those other scientists’ (ranging from The Weather Channel founder to Dr. William Gray the hurricane specialist, and dozens of other climatologists) objections.

    18. #18 |  Mike Schneider | 

      Here’s how reading Powerline would have prevented the Agitator from being led around by a ring in his nose by those lying POS SOBs over at The New York Times (who are still polishing that Duranty Pulitzer):

      Who’s Ignorant? (March 18, 2008)

      One of today’s minor news stories is a kerfuffle over a supposed “gaffe” by John McCain. McCain, talking about Iraq in Amman, Jordan, said:

      “Well, it’s common knowledge and has been reported in the
      media that Al Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving
      training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran. That’s well
      known. And it’s unfortunate.”

      He corrected himself almost immediately, saying “I’m sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not Al Qaeda.” And it sounds as though he did, in fact, simply misspeak. What is more significant is how the Democrats and the mainstream media reacted to this non-event. They condemned McCain for ostensibly failing to understand that Iran couldn’t possibly train al Qaeda terrorists, since al Qaeda is a Sunni organization and Iran is a Shia country. This is what passes for sophistication in the lamest precincts of the media.

      — That was *yesterday*.

    19. #19 |  JJH2 | 

      Whew! Mike Schneider never has a moment’s respite from his never-ending battle against Ze Liberal Media Bias (dun DUN)!

      The only problem? Powerline’s supposed debunking of the situation is an obfuscatory half-truth. Here’s the link to the CBS news video of McCain’s speech. Notice how, instead of “correct[ing] himself almost immediately” after making the mistake, McCain continues blithely along until, after the time-wipe and at the end of the press conference, Lieberman corrects him. You have to give him credit, though, he corrected himself almost immediately… after being corrected by someone else, some time later.

      What really makes the story a misleading half-truth is that is leaves out that McCain “made similar comments earlier on a radio program, though he did not correct those.” Which, of course, establishes a pattern of misidentification. Of course, I did get that last tidbit from that Liberal Media stronghold — the Wall Street Journal.

    20. #20 |  Mike Schneider | 

      That’s right: down-tick the facts posted to a blog which deflate your fantasies, and pretend you made it go away.

    21. #21 |  JJH2 | 


      I’m sure that some day, when challenged directly on the substance of your posts, you will respond in kind, directly addressing the substance of the response. Alas – that day is not today. I am left with but the cold comfort of the knowledge that you just ain’t foolin’ anybody.

    22. #22 |  Mike Schneider | 

      Now why am I not all surprised to discover that JJH2 will swallow and regurgitate every lie the left has to offer?

      (I knew anthropogenic global-warming theory was complete bullshit back in the early ’80s, even before Carl Sagan & idiots assorted were lying there asses off about “nuclear winter” in the pages of Scientific American. Why? Because one of the many things about me which you do not know is that I have a meteorology background not tied to federal grants.)

    23. #23 |  Mike Schneider | 

      And JJH2?

      Search-engines are at your disposal. I am not obligated to exhaustively provide your remedial education. Name-dropping key-words is more than sufficient.

    24. #24 |  Max Deployment | 

      Why is it that people will swallow all these GW doom-and-gloom predictions a hundred years out, yet we still can’t get an accurate prediction of the local weather two days from now?

    25. #25 |  Mike Schneider | 

      What he ^^^ said.

    26. #26 |  Scooby | 


      You have a meteorology background (not backed by federal grants, natch), but do not understand the difference between weather modeling and climate modeling? Does that meteorology background include studies at Bob Jones U.?

    27. #27 |  JJH2 | 


      Seriously, WTF are you talking about? I used documentary evidence (a video), and an article from The Wall Street Journal to debunk Powerline’s disingenuous narrative of the events. Claiming that I’m swallowing lies, absent the provision of evidence, is not an argument. Neither are bizarre claims about my unwillingness or inability to use search engines (how else would I have located the video? The Wall Street Journal article?) or irrelevant (at least in response to me) digressions about your position on global warming (of which I have expressed no position myself).

      Please try harder.