Re: “'Amazing' Response So Far in Effort to Help Local Coasties

Did you miss the part where our pres said: I own this shutdown?

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Ferris Wills on 01/18/2019 at 12:32 PM

Re: “HumBug: Earwigs

My back yard was overrun with earwigs and sow bugs until I raised 3 chicks. Now, not an insect in sight.

Posted by Rick Markgraf on 01/18/2019 at 12:31 PM

Re: “'Amazing' Response So Far in Effort to Help Local Coasties

The article says, "President Donald Trump and Congressional Democrats continue to be deadlocked."

Trump said during his campaign he was going to be the great uniter of all people and parties, that he could negotiate better than anyone else can, and that Mexico would pay for the wall.

I'm not seeing it. Rather than throw a tantrum by holding the taxpayers responsible and the country held hostage in stubborn shutdown recalcitrance, maybe he should start walking the walk and be willing to do what he said he would do. We have checks and balances, and sorry, he's not the King.

3 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Steve on 01/18/2019 at 12:29 PM

Re: “'Amazing' Response So Far in Effort to Help Local Coasties

ALL of these people donating should be calling evil Nancy's office and letting the vile creature know that America will not stand by while a quiet coup takes place. THAT is where their effort should lie, kind as donations may be.

2 likes, 6 dislikes
Posted by Mr Mystik on 01/18/2019 at 11:28 AM

Re: “UPDATE: 1 Dead in Major Crash on 101 Near Weott

Condolences.. my husband was the second car on scene and helped get trapped driver and his dogs out of truck, breaking in windshield..

Posted by justacathy on 01/18/2019 at 7:50 AM

Re: “Correlation ≠ Causation

I agree with a lot of this, you correctly note the serious limitations of research that depends upon 'correlations' but you do not go far enough. To clarify, I have to comment on your comparison of what you term;

"Solid Correlation-causation: Smoking and lung cancer." and "Shaky Correlation-causation: Breakfast and obesity."

To put it lightly, BOTH are 'shaky'! The problems associated with the 'shaky' are EXACTLY the same with the 'solid' - and those problems are many.

The only difference between your 'solid' and 'shaky' is that your 'solid' was effectively the first use of that methodology - it was novel, and several $billions have been spent over several years to disseminate propaganda to reinforce it and promote the 'everyone knows' slogan that many have internalised as (wrongly) definitive. The 'shaky' is a mere a copy of the 'solid'.

"Evidence for the increased-risk causation is solid, starting with statistical studies in the 1950s."

In the 1950s there were very few NON smokers - how many of that cohort were NON smokers? 1950s epidemiological 'evidence', and repetitions of the same, is the ONLY evidence suggesting harm. No other research using alternative methodologies have corroborated those early correlations and as smoking prevalence has declined, there are now far more NON smokers who die from lung cancer (over 80% are never and ex-smokers)). ie the correlation is now an inverse one - smoking has NEVER been proven to have caused any harm!

Correlations can never prove causation, they can only ever 'suggest' a 'possible' link. It does however provide the propagandist with any number of possibilities to manipulate the publics consciousness, as you point out with "If I was a doctor..." comment.

Posted by Kin Free on 01/18/2019 at 2:49 AM

© 2019 North Coast Journal

Website powered by Foundation