Could he have missed the point any more badly?

Gee, this is dumb!

No Twinkies Please, We’re Dying

By Mark Morford, San Francisco Chronicle | 22 November 12

Surely you must see. Surely you must understand. Don’t you know rockets are falling all over Gaza and Israel? Do you not read that more than 100 people have died already in brutal and insidious fighting that’s been going on since God was knee-high to a bogus misconception?

Jesus Christ, quit whining about Twinkies already. Stop anonymous commenting about your little pet peeve social issue tech glitch culture itch fashion bitch. You do not have it so bad. You have never, comparatively speaking and with the proper sort of lens in place, had it so bad.

Don’t you understand the planet is ever at peril? Surely you’re aware that we’ve had 332 straight months that were warmer than average, and even the notoriously heartless World Bank is a nervous wreck about it?

Surely you know diseases and wars are ravaging Africa, that factory pollution in China is causing cancer rates to skyrocket, that it is just slightly pathetic that American teenage girls hate on each other so violently on Facebook, when a 14-year-old girl in Pakistan just got shot in the face for suggesting that teenage girls are actually human in the first place?

You can read the rest of his rant here. But the author goes on about all of the problems the world faces, and even comes a bit close when he includes, “Our economy is struggling. People are going without jobs for a long periods of time.” But he never seemed to understand that people writing about the shut-down and liquidation of Hostess aren’t complaining about the demise of the Twinkie, but noting that 18,500 people are losing their jobs, right before Thanksgiving, due to the utter stupidity of some of their workers.

Now, Hostess was already on a downward spiral anyway. They had been in bankruptcy previously, and this was their second go at it. Some are complaining that the problem was bad management at Hostess, and perhaps that’s part of it, but the real problem is that the primary product of Hostess was various forms of snack cakes, a “food” losing popularity in the American culture. Eventually, Hostess would have had to have shifted their product line to something which had the prospect of rising, not falling, sales to consumers, or go out of business anyway. Still, that might have been a lengthier process, and perhaps when Hostess went out of business in the future, it would have shed product lines slowly, so that there wouldn’t be 18,500 people losing their jobs at once. Perhaps Hostess could have sold off some of their product lines which had an actual future to other investors, and some of the 18,500 kept their jobs with a company that had a future.

Your Editor is not a baker and your Editor is not an engineer. He does not know if the facilities to make Twinkies and HoHos could reasonably be reconfigured to produce granola bars or other products which actually have growing markets and a future ahead of them, or whether it would have been a total loss, you’d have to tear down the building and start from scratch. It is obvious, however, that the snack cake “food” line is not one with much of a future. But the actions of the bakers’ union made sure that the immediate future for 18,500 workers, the majority of whom were not represented by that union, is a somber Thanksgiving and a poorer Christmas. That has been the real point, not whether people can buy Twinkies in the future.

38 Comments

  1. Don’t you understand the planet is ever at peril? Surely you’re aware that we’ve had 332 straight months that were warmer than average, and even the notoriously heartless World Bank is a nervous wreck about it?

    I find Glowball Warming Psychos amusing. A few times I have posted a picture of a retreating glacier in Alaska. Heavens forfend, a glacier was melting. The end of the world is near. Panic please and demean anyone who lights a match. But under this melting glacier were TREE STUMPS. Of course the Glowball Warmers scoff at that. But they never want to consider that if tree stumps were there, so were trees. Trees grow at temperatures that are optimum for their species which when Common Sense (The one item most lacking on earth) is applied, it was warmer for them to “GROW”. Then it got colder, a glacier grew, and mowed the trees down. (I think Sherlock Holmes would have figured that out).

    Now go back about 15 years ago in the Alps, a few hikers found a body. Thinking the dead “hiker” was recent, the ski Patrol was alerted. As it turned out, the dead “hiker” was dead for hundreds or a thousand or two years old. But where did the dead “hiker” come from. It didn’t matter, but eventually what was covered by snow and ice was well preserved enough forensic scientist figured out his age, injuries and food he ate. But wait, if the “hiker” died on that trail and was covered with snow and ice for over a thousand years, it was then when he died, getting colder. And over a millenia or so later it got warmer.

    So using Sherlock Holmes would say “Elementary Watson, the earth cycles in warmth and cold.” What is so hard to understand. The earth is anything but static, and neither is the sun.

  2. I find Glowball Warming Psychos amusing. A few times I have posted a picture of a retreating glacier in Alaska. Heavens forfend, a glacier was melting. The end of the world is near. Panic please and demean anyone who lights a match. But under this melting glacier were TREE STUMPS. Of course the Glowball Warmers scoff at that. But they never want to consider that if tree stumps were there, so were trees. Trees grow at temperatures that are optimum for their species which when Common Sense (The one item most lacking on earth) is applied, it was warmer for them to “GROW”. Then it got colder, a glacier grew, and mowed the trees down. (I think Sherlock Holmes would have figured that out).

    Wonderful – science dismissed by an anecdote as interpreted by a senile old idiot so stupid that he believes in Birtherism.

    But let’s see what the science actually says, shall we?

    http://www.canada.com/theprovince/features/gogreen/story.html?id=b29f2a10-5447-4f6b-aa2b-af099ae68387

    —-

    A U.S. scientist studying the “dramatic change” in ice conditions in B.C.’s Coast Mountains has discovered freshly exposed and perfectly preserved tree stumps some 7,000 years old — an “astonishing” sign of how fast and far the glaciers of Western Canada are retreating in the age of climate change.
    [...]
    The stumps are relics of an ancient forest that was growing when humans were still relatively new arrivals in the Americas. At the time, Garibaldi’s advancing Overlord Glacier overran the trees and encased their dead remains in an icy tomb that eventually reached hundreds of metres in depth.

    The glacier would have advanced and retreated many times over the ensuing 7,000 years. But never, notes Koch, had historical warming cycles ever shrunk Overlord enough to release these trunks from their primeval deep-freeze — until now.

    “The appearance of this wood indicates that glaciers are becoming much smaller,” said Koch, adding that the stumps’ exposure is a strong indicator that “the climate we observe these days is rather unique — especially considering the pace of change in the past 150 to 200 years is astonishing.”

    The age of the stumps was measured using radiocarbon dating of samples from the newly exposed wood.

    —-

    So what the stumps ACTUALLY show is that this glacier has retreated to a level it has never reached in the last 7000 years – which, incidentally, is longer than mankind has been out of the Stone Age – this retreat mirros a global trend to retreating glaciers, and this is just the start with temperatures certain to increase for the next couple of centuries even if we took drastic action now (and, of course, certain to increase catastrophically if we do not).

    So that would be Science 1, Senile Old Wingnut Idiots 0

    You people simply cannot deal with reality.

  3. No, Hitch, there’s nothing redeeming about a morally blind and insanely ignorant hypocrite polluting the site with toxic hatred and venom while presuming to lecture others on the dangers of contaminating the atmosphere. It’d be laughable if it wasn’t so sick.

  4. Hey, Perry, how many days have you been suspended from this site for threatening the livelihood of those with whom you disagree? Have you been suspended 30 days for threatening the livelihood of those with whom you disagree? Why, yes you have!!!

    You still want to talk about “personal attacks”?

    Have you ever accused anyone here of being a terrorist merely for posting truthful photographs you didn’t like? Why, yes you have!!!

    You still want to talk about “personal attacks”?

    Have you ever accused anyone here of engaging in felonious activities? Why, yes you have!!!

    You still want to talk about “personal attacks”?

    Have you ever declared that a person who believes what the Bible and the Torah says is the Word of God … have you ever declared a person who believes that is an abomination? Why, yes you have!!!

    You still want to talk about “personal attacks”?

    And since you have been found completely devoid of integrity or self-control, you are also completely without value as a commenter here.

  5. John Hitchcock says:
    November 23, 2012 at 17:07

    Is there any redeeming value in letting a totally dishonest and morally bankrupt New Zealand Socialist spread horse manure on this site? Any redeeming value at all?

    I read that 2nd grade playground taunt earlier and chuckled. Why I read it? I guess I have a masochism gene somewhere. Let’s face it, living upside down has shown possible disadvantages in some people. Maybe there’s an effect of the volcanoes erupting. I dunno.

  6. And that gentlemen, is why I refuse to comment on any thread I see Pho. He’s vile, hatefull, fake, a full of shit dope and all the while grasps followers. The best one can do is not comment and ignore the vile little bastard. Either that or we walk into his hive of persoal attack. I’ve done that defore and I don’t want to be there ever again. I refuse to be in a pig pen with a pig. He’s not even American yet he believse to know more about us?

  7. Instead of responding to the facts presented, John and ropelight retreat to their usual personal attacks.

    As I have said, WW – they can’t handle reality. It’s as simple as that. Indeed, the two wingnuts you mention were the two most adamant that Romney would get at least 300 EVs.

    Once again, I have to ask – why do you bother with these clowns? If you let them go, they’ll settle into their own dingbat crapulence and end up screaming inanities at each other.

  8. Once again, I have to ask – why do you bother with these clowns?

    I second that, Perry. Why don’t you just go away — and stay there? It’d benefit us all.

  9. The fact that Hitchcock and now Hoagie should go into their hateful personal attacks, like ropelight, proves your point all over again, PiaToR. On a factual basis, they simply cannot compete, thus they retreat to the personal attacks. This is exactly the basis for the fracture of their party, in which they feel compelled to single out the 47% of Americans and tag them with being unproductive and lazy. Thus, they got creamed in an election they should have won.

    Regarding my so-called suspensions by a partisan blog, Hitchcock, I consider it an honor to have stood up for my principles of decency and truth. The onus is on them for their breach.

    I note that the original topic, on the demise of Hostess, containing a reasonable hypothesis for the downfall of that enterprise, was hijacked instantly to global warming by Yorkshire, and then deteriorated by a series of personal attacks by wingnuts, with the exception of a wise observation on global warming by PiaToR. Some erudition has emerged from the ashes of the politically bereft from the right.

    Now let the personal attacks continue.

  10. WW wrote:

    Regarding my so-called suspensions by a partisan blog, Hitchcock, I consider it an honor to have stood up for my principles of decency and truth. The onus is on them for their breach.

    You consider it an honor to have threatened one person’s employment and another person’s liberty — accusing him of violating income tax law — because you disagree with them politically? I used to think that there was some difference between American liberalism and Stalinism, but you seem to blur those distinctions.

  11. As for Yorkshire “hijack(ing)” the thread, he was quoting part of the article I had cited in the original. It wasn’t the direction in which I expected the discussion to go, but quoting from the original cannot be considered hijacking.

  12. You consider it an honor to have threatened one person’s employment and another person’s liberty — accusing him of violating income tax law — because you disagree with them politically? I used to think that there was some difference between American liberalism and Stalinism, but you seem to blur those distinctions.

    What better example do we need of the type of “man” Perry is. Unbelievable. (Well, not really …)

  13. As for global warming, that subject will be raised more directly in a “From Around the Blogroll” post on which I have been working. It will begin with an article from the esteemed William Teach concerning a suggestion for increased costs put on consumers for living in the 21st century, but it won’t appear until much later today.

  14. Even if global warming is as real as the moonbats say it is, via their sympathetic sources anything we do now STILL will have no effect for up to a millenium. So sorry — paying vastly higher taxes and drastically changing my lifestyle ain’t gonna happen.

  15. Link for previous comment:

    The climate change that takes place due to increases in carbon dioxide is “irreversible” and will have major consequences for agriculture, ecosystems, and coastal environments, finds a new scientific study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences today.

    The pioneering study was conducted by an international team led by senior scientist Dr. Susan Solomon of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder. It shows how changes in surface temperature, rainfall, and sea level are irreversible for more than 1,000 years after carbon dioxide emissions are completely stopped.

  16. It is not a question of reversing climate change, rather, it is a question of slowing down the progression of same by slowing down the growth of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Moreover, the supply of fossil fuels is not infinite, not to mention the damages inflicted by recovery processes such as fracking and shale oil extraction. Finally, there is the even larger question about the total population which our globe can support, which is probably decreasing as entropy increases with time.

  17. It is not a question of reversing climate change, rather, it is a question of slowing down the progression of same by slowing down the growth of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

    Except that climate change has always been with us. And since you rightly point out that fossil fuels are finite, it is therefore logical to assume that a new a replacement energy for them will be developed within the next century or so. Thus, the slowing down of CO2 is inevitable.

    However, to power hungry pseudo-Stalinists like yourself, this doesn’t matter. You just want to control and dominate others’ lives — most especially those w/whom you disagree. And if they don’t acquiesce, you want to destroy them. You’ve proven this several times now.

  18. You consider it an honor to have threatened one person’s employment and another person’s liberty — accusing him of violating income tax law — because you disagree with them politically? I used to think that there was some difference between American liberalism and Stalinism, but you seem to blur those distinctions.

    Alright, let’s get this all out. That’s just it, Mr Editor. If there had been no concern about one’s own behavior, then there would have been no threats perceived, correct? But there were threats perceived! And note well, that these two outrageously behaving individuals are school teachers. It does not take much of an extrapolation to assume that the same behavior could be occurring in their classrooms against students they don’t like. In effect, I stood up to defend their students against this kind of behavior exhibited on this blog.

    And on the income tax law issue, again, if there were no violation, there would be no cause for concern. The fact that there was an immediate panic reaction would make one think that a malignant tumor had been revealed. This is the way these tumors are detected. Thus, the “threat” is a perception by the guilty? The best defense then is to mount a strong offense, which solves nothing, as in this case.

    Too bad that the text of these alleged threats have not been produced so that we could have further debated these issues.

    Regarding your Stalinism remark, perhaps you could explain exactly what you mean by it. Would the same remark apply to you, when you allow your blog to be used by the likes of Hitchcock, ropelight, Eric, koolo, and Hoagie for their vendetta of personal smears and attacks, all because their politics do not match the recipient? Where does one fairly draw the line? And then you allow an author, Hitchcock, to violate your claim to honor free speech on your blog, by his disallowing of certain commenters. What about that, Mr Editor? Is this “Stalinism” too?

    What are you folks afraid of, that you cannot debate the issues without resorting to lies and personal attacks? This has become a meme in your fractured Republican Party, as most recently evidenced by the recent McCain and Graham on Rice attacks, quite typical of your entire campaign this cycle. Is this all you people have left in your arsenal, or are you willing to change and to stand up to your principles by participating in honorable debates of the facts and issues? And btw, you folks should have won this election.

  19. However, to power hungry pseudo-Stalinists like yourself, this doesn’t matter. You just want to control and dominate others’ lives — most especially those w/whom you disagree. And if they don’t acquiesce, you want to destroy them. You’ve proven this several times now.

    Concerning pseudo-Stalinists, koolo, you might what to examine the behavior of your Republican Party since Barack Obama became President. I am assuming you are capable of doing so, if you can take your partisan hat off for a few minutes!

  20. And koolo, you might want to examine your own Party, which decided that huge sums of money from wealthy plutarchs, and voter suppression efforts in the red states, would defeat the reelection of the President.

    And you might consider thinking about the increasing inequality in income and wealth in our country, in which a large number of hard working employees hardly earn enough to afford the basic necessities of life.

  21. Wagonwheel says:
    November 24, 2012 at 12:10

    And koolo, you might want to examine your own Party, which decided that huge sums of money from wealthy plutarchs, and voter suppression efforts in the red states, would defeat the reelection of the President.

    I just been laughing my ass off everyday since the statistictally almost impossible happened in Filthydelphia voted over 19,000 to ZERO for the resident of 1600 PA Ave., NW, Washington, Disease 20001 in 59 voting districts. No voter fraud there. No, nothing to see, just keep moving on. And how about the MAGICAL Voting Machines where you could select any name for president, and BO’s name would register. I just can’t imagine that an electronic voting machine could be rigged like that. Just not, never in a millesecond.

  22. Alright, let’s get this all out. That’s just it, Mr Editor. If there had been no concern about one’s own behavior, then there would have been no threats perceived, correct? But there were threats perceived! And note well, that these two outrageously behaving individuals are school teachers. It does not take much of an extrapolation to assume that the same behavior could be occurring in their classrooms against students they don’t like. In effect, I stood up to defend their students against this kind of behavior exhibited on this blog.

    What a ridiculously self serving statement! It’s not your job to “Stand up and defend their students”, that’s the job of parents and school administrators in their school districts, neither of which you are. In short, you are a tattletale, and no one likes a tattletale.

    Quit hiding behind your phony “Concern” for the children! This is a classic left wing tactic. The truth is, you are a bully. For some reason, you can’t defeat Koolo and others in normal debate and argument, so you seek to shut them up using outside means. You have no idea how Koolo behaves in the classroom, and as I said, that is for others to judge not you.

    Another point is, you don’t own this blog. You are a guest here, and if you don’t like the rules, leave! You’ve been suspended twice now, you’d think that would have sent you a message, and that you would finally take responsibility for your behavior. But instead you just keep making excuses. And self righteous excuses at that, as if you were some noble person “Defending the children” instead of what you really are, a cowardly little rat fink who can’t win arguments on their merits so, thus worked up into a snit of vengeful rage, you seek to rat out others to their employers for the express purpose of getting them fired. At best, you are a little weasel who obviously takes himself and his participation on this blog way too seriously, so seriously that you would actually threaten to ruin another man’s livelihood just because you don’t like what certain people here have to say.

    This is why I say left wing ideology is evil. You are a classic example of the left wing ethos of “If you don’t do what I say, I’ll bash your face in”. You left wingers spout lofty principles to hide your true agenda, which is all about power and controlling other people’s lives. In contrast, we conservatives believe in freedom, which includes the freedom for people to be left alone. No one here has threatened your livelihood or your sources of income just because we disagree with you. How would you like it if we tried to get your Social Security or Medicare cut off just because we don’t like what you say on a blog? Because that’s essentially what you tried to do with Koolo. If you don’t like him, ignore him. And if that’s not good enough, leave this blog and go find another filled only with people who agree with you. You have a right to come in here and argue your left wing ideas. You don’t have a right to threaten others, or to violate the blog owner’s rules. You were warned before about threatening people’s jobs, and even suspended for it. But you did it again, were warned again, but kept right on doing it until you were suspened again. But apparently you learned nothing and instead arrogantly keep making the same excuses and self-justifications, as if none of it were your own fault. Why don’t you grow up and learn to take responsibility for yourself? But, hey, what am I saying? That’s a concept that is completely alien to left wingers.

  23. Regarding your Stalinism remark, perhaps you could explain exactly what you mean by it. Would the same remark apply to you, when you allow your blog to be used by the likes of Hitchcock, ropelight, Eric, koolo, and Hoagie for their vendetta of personal smears and attacks

    You really are blind and deaf to irony, aren’t you? You, who come in here and call people terrorists, traitors, racists, unpatriotic and more dare to whine about other people using “Smears and attacks”? Have you ever read the Biblical verse about removing the log from your own eye before pointing out the speck in another’s?

  24. It is not a question of reversing climate change, rather, it is a question of slowing down the progression of same by slowing down the growth of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

    And how are you going to do that without impacting people’s quality of life? I’ll start to take global warming more seriously when the biggest hucksters of it, like Al Gore and Barack Obama, prove they are willing to live without heat and air conditioning, without transportation or electronic devices, in short, go back to living as the Indians did. If global warming is truly the disaster Gore and his ilk claim it is, then it will take drastic measures to make it stop. But I don’t see any of the hucksters giving up any of their comforts and conveniences for the sake of their pet theory.

  25. And on the income tax law issue, again, if there were no violation, there would be no cause for concern. The fact that there was an immediate panic reaction would make one think that a malignant tumor had been revealed.

    That is a very Orwellian, Marxist, totalitarian, lie-filled thing to say. And it is also continuing on in accusing someone of a Federal felony, something which the Editor explicitly said was out of bounds and never permitted to happen here.

    The fact of the matter is Perry is either totally incapable of or totally unwilling to accept responsibility for his own actions, thus the standard procedure of suspending a poorly behaving individual to teach him to behave properly will never work with Perry and is reason why he should be banished from this site and any other site where reasonable people converse and debate.

    Perry should be banished for his continued flagrant breaking of rules, threats and intimidation of others. And that’s not even touching Perry’s complete lack of integrity.

  26. I’m waiting to buy some high quality wine made from the grapes growing in the lush vineyards of Greenland. Until that happens, glowball warming (remember, they’ve been hiding the decline for over 15 years now) is a figment of Socialists’ imagination and a tool to control the brainless twits. Not to mention the absolute fact that atmospheric CO2 is a trailing indicator by as much as 800 years, meaning it gets warmer, then CO2 shows up in the atmosphere, not the other way round.

  27. WW complained:

    Regarding your Stalinism remark, perhaps you could explain exactly what you mean by it. Would the same remark apply to you, when you allow your blog to be used by the likes of Hitchcock, ropelight, Eric, koolo, and Hoagie for their vendetta of personal smears and attacks, all because their politics do not match the recipient? Where does one fairly draw the line?

    I’d say that the line is fairly drawn between personal insults, in which almost everyone here has engaged, and actual threats to someone’s livelihood or liberty, threats to use either the coercive power of someone’s employer or the police power of the state to get at one of your political opponents. If someone refers to you as a dad-blasted, chicken-scratchin’, flea-bitten, pickle-picken son of a bob-tailed hyena, he has called you a name, which pretty much falls under the second part of “sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me” criterion. Trying to attack someone’s employment or freedom, on the other hand, is the point at which you have picked up the sticks and stones.

    Of course, your formulation, “If there had been no concern about one’s own behavior, then there would have been no threats perceived, correct?” is reminiscent of one from your young adulthood, “Are you now, or have you ever been, a Communist?” The opinion in question takes the form of being punishable by law or by economic pressure.

    Koolo used to mock you by suggesting that you might have been beating your wife, knowing that a denial of such legitimizes the question. Such was not the best tactic, in my opinion, but were he to use your logic, he could drive town to your home town, make a local call to the police, and say, “Wagonwheel has been beating his wife! He’s doing it right now!” and the police would have to rush right over to your house, maybe break in the doors, and take you into custody, until a sobbing Mrs Wagonwheel frantically assured the officers that you had done no such thing. You’d have been innocent, of course, but there would be a police record of the call and the response, your wife would be tremendously upset, your neighbors would be talking, yet, to use your logic, if you haven’t been beating your wife, “then there would have been no threats perceived, correct?”

  28. Absolutely, and sadly, hilarious, that Perry never, ever learns one damn thing. He’s like a bad Chatty Kathy doll who just mindlessly yammers the same things over and over and over again. Here we go again with the “Where is the text of the threats,” and “the threat is only perceived” bullsh**.

    I remember the Democrat Party line early in the Bush first term about it “being for the children.” The concern was beyond laughable then, just as Perry’s faux concern is now. Eric is spot on in his last comment regarding the wife beating. But the proverbial snowball will have a chance in Hell before our resident Stalinist will admit it — just as he is loathe to admit ANY wrongdoing about ANYthing.

  29. What Wagonwheel might not realize is that I have described something that has already happened to some conservative bloggers, including Aaron Worthing and Patterico, called “SWATting.” At least in Patterico’s case, the cops were called, saying that he had shot his wife and kids, or something like that, and the SWAT team responded; they had to respond to a call like that. His wife and kids were terrified, the neighbors were doubtlessly alarmed, and it cost the county several thousands of dollars, and it all happened because some people didn’t like their ideas.

    There are some major animosities amongst some of the regulars here, but they should be kept here.

  30. Mr Editor, Pandora naively opened a box which resulted in unintended consequences. The moral of that ancient story is worthy of consideration especially give the character, or lack thereof, of your twice banned commenter.

  31. Too bad that the text of these alleged threats have not been produced so that we could have further debated these issues.

    Too bad for Perry that the Editor saw this lie-filled claim coming (since Perry used it numerous times before) and preserved for eternity Perry’s threats on this blog for all the world to see. The Editor has already emailed the threat and the link to the threat to another blog author where Perry started spewing while exiled from this blog site. Too bad for Perry that Perry cannot escape his own notoriety, no matter how many times he lies about it.

  32. What Wagonwheel might not realize is that I have described something that has already happened to some conservative bloggers, including Aaron Worthing and Patterico, called “SWATting.”

    I mentioned precisely this in the thread in which Perry was banned; he acted like he had no idea what I was talking about.

  33. Actually, the Editor emailed Perry’s threat and the link to Perry’s threat and Perry’s suspension for Perry’s threat to the owners of at least 5 blog sites and to at least 2 other blog authors that I know of. And how do I know? I was on that list of email addressees.

Comments are closed.