May 23, 2019

Howie Carr Is Deplorable

What tiny bit of respect I had for Howie Carr, the two-faced, spiteful, hypocrite, disappeared the day I read one of his ignorant diatribes about how all hunters were lazy drunks. So, I guess one turn deserves another.

Carr was responding to comments made by insane Hillary when she called supporters of insane Trump, deplorable. His responses show his ignorance and lack of understanding of most of what he says. Attempting to be clever, he steals his approach from comedian Jeff Foxworthy’s “You might be a redneck if..” routine. Carr says you might be “deplorable if…”

Carr’s ignorance is representative of the right/left false paradigm that this entire country is insanely mired in. For instance, Carr says you might be deplorable if you stand for the National Anthem – of course intimating that if you don’t stand, exercising your right to free speech, you’re a supporter of insane Hillary. If you are “deplorable,” you support insane Trump. This, like so many other fake “conservatives” who don’t know which end is bored, shows the intolerant side they spend so much time dumping on the left about. They are all too stupid to even suspect anything about a person’s rights and how to exercise them.

The radio host also claims that if you say Merry Christmas, you are deplorable. Does that mean, in this man’s tiny little brain, that if you don’t say Merry Christmas, you automatically become an insane-Hillary supporter? What of the non Christians? Are fake rightists supposed to shit on anyone who ain’t a Christian that doesn’t celebrates Christmas? And what of those of us who understand that the Christmas holiday celebrated around the world is a pagan event rooted in the evil of Satan. I must be an insane-Hillary supporter then.

We also are told that if you are willing to show an ID before you vote, you are deplorable. Why should we have to show an ID? Why should we have to have a driver’s license, a birth certificate, an ID card, a Social Security card, a Medicare card, etc.? The only reason for having them is in order for centralized government to track us, tax us, and own us, like livestock – chattle. Maybe there are many non Hillary supporters and non Trump supporters who value real rights and freedom more than participating in the idiotic left/right model, but people like Howie Carr are full participants. To him those that aren’t are worth a spit in the middle of the sidewalk.

His idiocy continues. It’s nauseating. He’s nauseating. It’s not so much of what he says but what he implies. It is unfortunate, but expected from an insane person like Hillary, the murderer, Clinton to say rotten nasty things about other people. She hates herself, and justly she should, and thus she hates everyone else. Obama is the master at vial, divisive filth that pours from his mouth. And I understand the bigger point of what Carr is attempting to do. The problem is, he, like millions and millions of others, are clueless. They do not understand their own servitude to the masters of deception, the cheaters, the thieves, the murderers. These rulers of dark places created the fake left/right standard. You accepted it and cemented it firmly into our culture. Now it’s all you know. You are bound and chained by it. There is nothing else that exists to you that isn’t left or right. And you can’t see it. You don’t want to see it. You love your servitude and the hate these evil rulers have caused, you to be a part of.

Come out of her!

While most readers will find entertainment in the tit for tat that Howie Carr embellishes, few understand what is really going on.



Is It Time to Bury the Ecosystem Concept?

ecosystem*Editor’s Note* – Below, I took the liberty of copying the “conclusions” of an academic piece by Robert V. O’Neill. But, please either before or after reading the conclusion, or both, go to the link provided and read the entire article. It is not that long and better explains the “conclusions.”

It is my opinion, after reading this piece and comparing the conclusions with what is written in the article, that within the conclusions there exists, to some degree, the limitations of which the author writes of the problems that exist in attempting to work within a theory of “ecosystem” balance or stability. The author describes the theory of an ecosystem as a paradigm, or, “a convenient approach to organizing thought.” (a difficult concept to escape I’m afraid.)

O’Neill also recognizes, rightly so in my lay opinion, that the human is not separate from the “ecosystem” but a part of it, and yet, perhaps in an inescapable way, due in part by “a convenient approach to organizing thought”, points a finger at the human as perhaps a future cause of ecological collapse. I am often left with the question, “If man is part of the ecosystem then how can the presence of man naturally effect, through positive and negative feedback mechanisms, if he is, by law and regulation, removed and/or limited from that ecosystem?”

But we should not lose sight of what is being offered in this piece. Different than some pieces of academic, this writer doesn’t attempt to throw out the baby with the bathwater but to better define “ecosystem”, by first understanding what it means and how it got here, while dispelling myths propagated by “a convenient approach to organizing thought.”

Please find this link to the whole article. (Note: This link was provided in the “Open Thread” by a reader.)


Is it time to bury the ecosystem concept? Probably not. But there is certainly need for improvement before
ecology loses any more credibility. This paper suggests some of the key problems. Spatial pattern, extent, and heterogeneity are critical to stability. You cannot get a predictive theory if you assume them away. Temporal variability and scale are critical to stability. You cannot get a predictive theory if you assume them away either. It is the interplay of natural selection and internal feedback mechanisms that determines dynamics. Again, you cannot get a predictive theory if you assume either away. Basically, all the processes and constraints needed to explain stability are not encompassed within the boundaries of the local ecological system.

An improved paradigm would have many implications for ecological applications, such as conservation.
Increasing the size of an isolated preserve only increases the length of time until the cumulative probability of a disruption approaches 1.0. Maintaining dispersal pathways might better conserve sustainability by keeping the potential dispersal range near its original, undisturbed scale.

There are also important implications for monitoring. Current theory leads us to focus on average rates and standing crops at a location. Yet scale and variability in space and time may be more important in determining sustainability. Mean values at two locations may indicate that no significant change has occurred, but if dispersal pathways between the sites have been disrupted, one has reduced by orders of magnitude the scale of a catastrophic disturbance.

Perhaps the most important implication involves our view of human society. Homo sapiens is not an external
disturbance, it is a keystone species within the system. In the long term, it may not be the magnitude of extracted goods and services that will determine sustainability. It may well be our disruption of ecological recovery and stability mechanisms that determines system collapse.

Certainly, we don’t want to dismiss the current theory prematurely. But we must understand that the machine analogy is critically limited. In so far as the local system maximizes environmental potential, it necessarily sacrifices stability when that potential changed. The challenge to the ecological system is optimization to a moving target. Optimize too rapidly and the system is trapped in a local attractor and, like an overspecialized species, cannot adapt when conditions change. So, it would not be wise to send the old dobbin to the glue factory before we determine how well the new one takes the bit. But it certainly seems to be time to start shopping for a new colt.