tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post1557855350085112723..comments2024-03-19T07:48:54.021-06:00Comments on Gus Van Horn: Quick Roundup 200Gus Van Hornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-50460132013198391862007-06-12T16:00:00.000-06:002007-06-12T16:00:00.000-06:00Comments crossed.... I'm in a slight hurry at the ...Comments crossed.... I'm in a slight hurry at the moment, but do appreciate (and look forward to) the related link you left w/ your second comment.Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-36145872310009295692007-06-12T15:57:00.000-06:002007-06-12T15:57:00.000-06:00I hadn't heard that UV might be helpful.I'm dying ...I hadn't heard that UV might be helpful.<BR/><BR/>I'm dying to know what's up, but I'm sure that by the time we have an answer, the media will no longer be interested. (How can you stir up fear of the unknown when a cause has been uncovered?)Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-48927312516844059512007-06-12T15:53:00.000-06:002007-06-12T15:53:00.000-06:00One more point:"The die-offs so far appear to affe...One more point:<BR/><BR/>"The die-offs so far appear to affect some beekeepers more than others, sometimes in the same area. That's one reason scientists are so puzzled, but it strongly suggests the losses may have something to do with how individual beekeepers are managing their bees."<BR/><BR/>Actually, it would also suggest strongly that it could also be dependent on the genetics of the queen... not just how beekeepers keep their bees (which is pretty standard across professional beekeepers). I have heard reports of people losing 25% to 100% of their colonies. These are people that have kept bees for years. They know what they are doing. For many of them, this is their livelihood. It seems much more likely to me that as beekeepers make splits from their colonies year after year, some keepers would experience widespread losses if their initial queens the descendants of those queens happen to not be resistant, while other keepers will be luckier.<BR/><BR/>I expect that if CCD continues, there are native bees that might pick up the slack in pollination. But I believe there are at least a few crops which require Apis mellifera exclusively. This seems to be another good article on the issue:<BR/><BR/>http://apis.ifas.ufl.edu/papers/altpol.htm#3Monicahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10223664599729768316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-87154475090545633282007-06-12T15:33:00.000-06:002007-06-12T15:33:00.000-06:00Most of the known diseases of honeybees have speci...Most of the known diseases of honeybees have specific signs and symptoms. Absconding the hive is not one of them. However, the author is right. It's probably not cell phones. <BR/><BR/>I read awhile back that treating hive with UV seems to improve the likelihood that the bees won't leave the hive. This would indicate that the disease is caused by a microbe. Since the bees leave, it will be difficult to figure out just what this pathogen is. <BR/><BR/>This is not surprising... bees already suffer from numerous diseases (viral, bacterial, fungal) that are becoming increasingly difficult to control with the standard antibiotics. There is a parallel to the resistance that we are seeing in human and animal diseases. To my knowledge, a new class of antibiotic (apart from the known five) has not been discovered in over 40 years. It's a big problem.Monicahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10223664599729768316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-39516329398597810012007-06-06T19:53:00.000-06:002007-06-06T19:53:00.000-06:00You're welcome. And I appreciate your question. Yo...You're welcome. And I appreciate your question. You caused me to think of a good, short way to describe this issue to others.<BR/><BR/>Now, if I can only come up with a good way to discuss how not voting at all, should that turn out to be appropriate, is not "throwing your vote away....Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-44972307166837096762007-06-06T19:22:00.000-06:002007-06-06T19:22:00.000-06:00Great response Gus. You have given me alot to thin...Great response Gus. You have given me alot to think about. Thanks.madmaxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14375140131881725965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-19813813820080626512007-06-06T05:42:00.000-06:002007-06-06T05:42:00.000-06:00Thank you for fleshing out Fred Thompson some more...Thank you for fleshing out Fred Thompson some more. Too bad he hasn't helped matters for us by participating in any public debates so far. (I've even heard this called "smart" on his part.)<BR/><BR/>However, I have to disagree with your overall strategy ("We have to chose the one that offers the most pro-liberty options with the fewest anti-liberty options.")<BR/><BR/>This sounds plausible and, indeed, it is close to the way I used to think about the issue when I first started blogging, but the strategy suffers from one major flaw: It is too short-range.<BR/><BR/>I would say we should <B>elect the candidate who will do the least long-term damage to the cause of freedom</B>, rather than limiting ourselves to the candidate whose stands on a few concrete issue look better. What if Thompson's top priority were campaign finance reform or some other restriction on freedom of speech, and he ran against a Democrat who had horrible economic policies, but who credibly vowed to make protection of freedom of speech HIS top priority, starting with repeal of McCain-Feingold?<BR/><BR/>We might suffer short term with the Democrat, but he'd at least leave us with the means to remedy the situation long-term (e.g., by criticizing him and debating better policies when the consequences of his became evident). With "quasi-Thompson", we might have slightly lower taxes, but be on a collision course with using them to fund prayer and other Christian indoctrination in the public schools.<BR/><BR/>Having said that, I am confident that no matter how bad a candidate the Republicans field, the Democrats will do their best to find one even worse. If they could, they'd select an Hugo Chavez type whom we'd HAVE to vote against in order to avoid outright dictatorship. However, their own ineptitude (and the need not to support dictatorship too nakedly just yet) will cause them to have to be more careful than that. <BR/><BR/>And if you think about why the Dems probably won't just run someone like Chavez for a moment, you will see why just ticking off isolated "pro-liberty" stands is a bad strategy. Such points can offer a good distraction from a fundamental threat to freedom posed by a candidate or his party.<BR/><BR/>Disguise of danger was the whole point behind the Trojan Horse and it is the whole point behind any candidate either party in today's context will put up. In this sense the Republicans are more dangerous than the Dems, because they are a less obvious threat overall to freedom.<BR/><BR/>We have to consider not just the short-term consequences of a candidate's views, but whether he might help his party pull off something really nasty by concealing or sugar-coating something awful.<BR/><BR/>Having said all that, it is way too early to say whom to vote for.Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-34066085400652071472007-06-06T00:07:00.000-06:002007-06-06T00:07:00.000-06:00Regarding Fred Thompson, I heard an interview he h...Regarding Fred Thompson, I heard an interview he had with Sean Hannity. When asked if he would take pre-emptive strikes against Iran to prevent it going nuclear he answered in one word: yes.<BR/><BR/>Also, He stated as his top priorities if he were elected President as 1) strong action in the war against terror (he didn't mention the word Islam but he did say it was a "civilizational" war which shows some awareness, also when describing Iran he said that Iran was dominated by "religious fanatics" which shows that he at least knows what a religious fanatic is). 2) Keeping taxes low and reforming the tax code (he didn't say how). 3) Reforming Social Security and Medicaid (he didn't say how).<BR/><BR/>I take from this that his top priorities are the war, low taxes and some cutting of the welfare state. Now I know he will be anti-abortion and as your post mentioned probably more of the anti-immigration type, but he does have things to recommend him. No candidate is going to be perfect. We have to chose the one that offers the most pro-liberty options with the fewest anti-liberty options. Thompson seems pretty good. We'll have to see.madmaxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14375140131881725965noreply@blogger.com