The Conservative New Ager

Conservative Politics, New Age Spirituality

3 notes

Anonymous asked: Aw was it politics that drove you apart or is he just a dickhead in general?


A combination of things really. Part of it was politics, part was religion, party was just his maturity level. I don’t want to badmouth him, mostly because that would be hypocritical considering how I reacted to him badmouthing me. 

Which is where I as you BFF come in (to say the thing you can’t)…he is a fucking idiot who believes himself to be the smartest person in the world…he knows nothing but what Jon Stewart tells him and then lectures people the next day quoting the Daily Show word for word and acting like he is the only one who knows about whatever topic was on the last night…he thinks only in stereotypes, is utterly incapable of holding down a job (partly to being an idiot and partly to a complete lack of work ethic), and just in general, he’s an asshole…

69 notes

Here’s What Happened to Crime in Chicago After Illinois Finally Passed Concealed Carry Law



Does anyone remember me calling this months ago when IL started allowing concealed carry? 

I remember.

Pepperidge Farm remembers. 

You mean their crime rate dropped. I am so shocked… one ever would have guessed. 

29 notes

[T]he “social cost of carbon” is not an objective fact of the world, analogous to the charge on an electron or the boiling point of water. Many analysts and policymakers refer to the “science being settled” and so forth, giving the impression that the SCC is a number that is “out there” in Nature, waiting to be measured by guys in white lab coats.

On the contrary, by its very nature the SCC is an arbitrary number, which is completely malleable in the hands of an analyst who can make it very high, very low, or even negative, simply by adjusting parameters. Precisely because the SCC even at a conceptual level is so vulnerable to manipulation in this fashion, the analysts giving wildly different estimates are not “lying.” …

Generating estimates of the SCC involves using computer models with (arbitrary) simulated damages that go out centuries in the future, and then the analyst must arbitrarily select a discount rate to convert those future damages into present-dollar terms. Because of these ingredients in the estimation process, an analyst can generate just about any “estimate” of the SCC he wants, including a negative one—which would mean carbon dioxide emissions confer third-party benefits on humanity, and (using the Administration’s logic) ought to receive subsidies from the taxpayer.

Robert Murphy, “On the Dubious Social Cost of Carbon, Part I” (via laliberty)

This is very interesting. People should read this.

(via mrsrandallboggs)

Flag Counter