Phew! At last there is someone who can tell what true things "actually are" true, rather than just "feeling" true!

Too bad we didn't have you around the time of Galileo Galilei when everybody was going with this "feeling" that the earth was flat. You could have just told them the "actual" truth, and avoided so much hassle.

Btw, I get some spam on stock predictions. Later on, I find out some were true, some were false. Do you think you could lend your expertise to determine which of those were "actually true", rather than just "feeling true", a little ahead of time?

>> And yet you think that impeachment is an actual

>> possibility? From this Congress? I know it feels

>> really good and purifying and energizing to be

>> the most radical one in the room, but I'm more

>> interested in outcomes that are within the realm

>> of what's real.

Uh, huh. And that's the exact reason why the democrats are being so complicit and everything else you mention...

Sorry, you are trying to do the "little bit pregnant" excuse. You are principled, or you are not. You can't do both.

When reading your article, I thought you pointed out a serious problem. When reading your response to a valid question, I realized you were in this just to write books and get famous or make points or whatever. You are not any more principled than the people you set out to criticize. In fact, you are less, for you added plain hypocrisy to the same behavior as the behavior you criticized.

"If Thomas Malthus really was wrong, as Jacoby confidently asserts, we'll find out soon enough."

Er, Malthus wasn't predicting for the 21st century. The Malthusian catastrophe, like the Population Bomb, the Club of Rome etc have already passed their predictions, and are well known to BE wrong.

It's strange, but a bit of reading on this topic indicates that economics seems to go counter to common sense some times. So while it is so patently "obvious" to everybody that the same resources being divided by smaller number of people should lead to more goodies for everybody -- there isn't really any valid argument that disputes the assertion in the referenced article that there more humans now than ever, and the quality of life is better than ever. The same could be said for any particular period in the past at least since stone ages -- there were more humans on earth than ever before, and the quality of life was better than ever before.

In 1800's, there were more humans on earth than ever before. The qualify of life was better than ever before. Ditto 1700's, ditto 1600's.

I think the standard argument is "this time it is different". But besides "common sense", there is no support for this argument.

See the sig link for comments.

From http://bhanwara.blogspot.com/2008/06/whats-global-warming-got-to-do-with.html

"In essense, many opinion-heads see science and fact as their personal domain. They cannot understand the science and math behind it, but since it is their personal domain, they feel free to twist it into whatever they do understand. And what do they understand? If you guessed "liberal vs conservative" you are right!"

Click at the sig for full article.

The underlying reason why there is no outrage: The police reported that they siezed weapons, slingshots, and buckets of urine, among other things.

This makes it look like the police, in fact, did a good job at preventing some really nasty folks from creating some major ugliness.

So the real question is: Are the police correct? If they are, contrived arguments and phony sympathy are not going to get a significant rise. Everybody who has read the news articles, is going to be too revolted to care whether every i was dotted and every t was crossed with full political correctness.

Of course, if the police are wrong, that's the makings of some serious issues.

But you can't totally duck the central issues and then profess to wonder why there is so little outcry. Focusing on non-central issues may make less-informed people think you have a real issue. But it won't spread far that way.

If there are no females in the workplace, the males have no need to show their "plumage", and if there are no males in the neighborhood get together, women don't have to show whatever goes for their "plumage".

If a woman walks by, the male abdomens shrink a little. Now multiply that by the constant presence of women 40 hours a week. It should be no wonder that in an integrated workplace, men and women work extra hard all the time to show their "attractive" sides.