Slashdot Mirror

THE DOCTRINE OF FASCISM-BENITO MUSSOLINI (1932)

Accepting mussolini's propaganda as an accurate description of fascism is like taking The Democratic Republic of North Korea's word that they are a democracy.

Instead, lets take the word of more neutral sources:

Although fascist parties and movements differed significantly from one another, they had many characteristics in common, including extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism, a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create a Volksgemeinschaft (German: “people’s community”), in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation.
Encyclopedia Britannica

An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
Oxford English Dictionary

> Now of all the players in American politics today, which group does this best describe?

These players:
The people who absolutely lose their shit at the thought of black people kneeling that they walk out of a football game.
The television network that fired a reporter who would not toe the line on climate change reporting
Colorado Republican lawmakers want to punish striking teachers with jail time.
Harper’s Editor Insists He Was Fired Over Katie Roiphe Essay - The New York Times
Professor celebrating Barbara Bush’s death deserves to be fired | Fox News
Joyce Peterson on Twitter: "Happening in Nashville right now: lawmakers trying to penalize the @CityOfMemphis for removing confederate statues by slashing a quarter million dollars in funding. https://t.co/ZAg0ntZl30"
Law Enforcement Has Quietly Backed Anti-Protest Bills in at Least 8 States Since Trump’s Election
Memphis-Based Journalist Taken Into ICE Custody After Arrest While Covering Protest (Updated) - Rewire.News
Sinclair producer in Nebraska resigns to protest 'obvious bias'
‘Black-ish’ Political Episode on Kneeling Canceled Over ‘Creative Differences’ – Variety
Republican governor forced to stop blocking Facebook users who criticize him | Ars Technica
AprilDRyan on Twitter: "It is back again. Not called on today for a question. It has been how long? Oh, my last question was about @StormyDaniels! And, I was just told I am on a list. Whatever! I have been doing this for 21 years. I am not new to the rode
Trump attends event about campus political correctness crisis, accidental

LOL.
America is switching to EVs at a rather quick pace. Right now, we have been behind Europe, but that is changing quickly due to Model 3. Then add to that, the coming electric semi-tractors which will make a HUGE impact on America's emissions.

Finally, CHina is NOT only the most aggressive investor in renewable energy, but also the most aggressive investor in coal plants. In fact, they are building over 700 over the next couple of years.
This lead to China having a 5% CO2 emission rise for 2017. China's coal consumption is jumping to deal with the extra electricity demands by these buses and China trying to force GDP increases.

Sadly, this article points out the real facts and skips the BS from so many.
In short, for all of Europe’s posturing and moralizing about the Paris climate accord, Europe continues to do relatively little to address carbon dioxide emissions, other than to neither increase nor decrease its own emissions. That leaves it up to the United States and China to sufficiently reduce emissions to compensate for growing emissions in developing nations. And China, despite modest reductions from 2015 through 2017, has increased emissions this decade – and this century – more than any other nation in the world. Even the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) acknowledges that America’s emissions comprise only a small portion of global emissions. According to UCS, the United States accounted for only 15% of global emissions in 2015, and that percentage continues to fall. Declining U.S. emissions simply cannot keep pace with rising global emissions unless there are substantial reductions in the pace of global emissions growth. Chastising America for declining to join an agreement of nations, by nations, and for nations that continue to do little if anything to reduce emissions may satisfy anti-Trump anger, but is ineffectual and meaningless in the effort to reduce global emissions.

Renewables didn't quite break 50% utility scale capacity, and remember capacity doesn't equal production especially for wind and solar. And 80% are wind/solar, seems strange since CO2 from electricity generation is expected to rise [electrek.co] in the US in 2018. (Transport is also going up by the way) Maybe you need to show your work instead of just pulling numbers from your ass again [slashdot.org]. Many times cleaner than China's best? Care to show some evidence? Maybe try less obvious lies

What a moron and a liar combined.
You post GUESSES from EIA who has a LONG history of not getting a SINGLE PREDICTION CORRECT. If they were CORRECT, then right now, America's electricity would be near 100% coal as would CHina.
Now, as to emissions, since you obviously do not have a chemistry or any science background, and I am not going to take forever to explain to you why this is, let me show you where OTHER scientists tell you the situation.
Natural gas emits 50 to 60 percent less carbon dioxide (CO2) when combusted in a new, efficient natural gas power plant compared with emissions from a typical new coal plant A new nat gas plant will emit less than 50% of new coal plants. The simply fact is, that methane, CH4, is cleaner than coal, which is variations of (CH[12])x(CH[123])2, combined with missing H2 (i.e. CH2-Ch2-CH2 in oil will cross-link in coal and become CH2-CH1-(CH2) and the middle CH1 will then double bond with another chain from elsewhere ) This means that the amount of hydrogen in coal is but a fraction of the H in nat gas which is almost pure methane.
IOW, it is physically impossible for coal to even come close to the cleanness of methane.

With that said, nat gas is even being looked at for being able to separate the CO2 DIRECTLY and use the PURE CO2 for plants, chemical processing (such as Concrete, Steel or sugar manufacturing), or simply burying it in the ground (personally, I oppose this one; far too easy for mass escape).
And again, only an idiot would use EIA for ESTIMATES which is what you did on the future transportation. America is moving in a big way todays hybrids and shortly EVs. At this time, China moving towards EVs will actually pollute the air WORSE, not make it better. Why? Because even the new coal plants do not have enough pollution controls so they are putting out large particles.

Unlike China where you constantly put up MORE new coal plants than you do AE.

You must be sick of people constantly pointing out to you that China is replacing inefficient coal with more efficient coal and using less coal to produce more electricity than before. Though still not enough times to get inside your bubble of ignorance yet.

Again, you continue your lies and to ignore facts.
When China halted plans for more than 100 new coal-fired power plants this year, even as President Trump vowed to “bring back coal” in America, the contrast seemed to confirm Beijing’s new role as a leader in the fight against climate change. ... But new data on the world’s biggest developers of coal-fired power plants paints a very different picture: China

Our systems were more efficient before the existing government intrusions.

Our healthcare costs are doubling as are our education costs etc as a result of feedback subsidies.

Where in the government offers money to help people buy something, the market responds by raising prices, the government responds by increasing subsidies, and the market responds by increasing prices again... over and over.

It happened with the US housing market, our education, and our healthcare.

large portions of the US population are economically illiterate. This is not unusual, economic illiteracy is actually very common throughout the world and last I checked europeans score worse than Americans on it.

The point is that people don't understand basic economic concepts and so don't understand why given courses of action are obviously stupid.

To prove that it is government mismanagement and incompetence... We have a medical baking soda shortage in the US.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

To be very clear here, this is a shortage of sodium bicarbinate mixed with distilled water. It is impossible for the US to have a shortage of this substance and yet we do.

Why? The FDA pharma regulations make it almost impossible for US suppliers to make drugs. It is very hard to be a pharma company in the US. Which is why we have so few pharma companies and why it is so common for new pharma companies to go bankrupt. The FDA kills them.

Drugs in the US are dramatically more expensive in the US than outside not because of evil corporations but because Americans cannot import foreign drugs and domestic suppliers are crushed with crippling regulations.

Again... the regulations are so crippling that we have shortages of baking soda.

here is a list of drug shortages in the US:
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov...

This is what our government has done. These drugs are not expensive because of companies. Absent government regulation we'd have more domestic producers and/or would import from out of the country. It is the government that prevents both effective domestic production and foreign import.

And that is just ONE example of how they fuck it up.

It goes on and on and on and on.

You do realize that the Republicans sent a recommendation for prosecution [house.gov] to the AG for Hillary Clinton,
James Comey, Andrew McCabe, and Loretta Lynch, right?

And the Justice Department under Jeff Sessions put it right in the circular file where it belongs. There will be no charges.

And also note that Rep. Dana Rohrabacher claims to have physical proof [breitbart.com] that the Russians did not hack the DNC.

You mean the Dana Rohrabacher who the Kremlin has considered an intelligence source for the past two decades and so important that they gave him a code name? THAT Dana Rohrabacher?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/1...

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/11...

https://www.vanityfair.com/new...

http://thehill.com/homenews/ca...

That was another big story from a few years back. They blocked investigation of the charges until the last documented parliament member with ties to the sex abuse had died, because MI5 had been using 'protection' for the ring of them to get favorable financing passed through parliament.

http://yournewswire.com/britis...
https://www.express.co.uk/news...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/maga...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://listverse.com/2015/09/0...
https://www.pri.org/stories/20...
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/1...

You can read and decide for yourself.

Seriously, we have been at war in the Middle East for decades for one reason: energy... Yup. A proposed pipeline to supply from Qatar to Europe...

Yes, there is no doubt, Europe's security (and dependence) is our security. We are basically the musclemen for what really is British foreign policy in the middle east. We keep the empire on its feet, and on firm ground. They are far more dependent on that oil than we are. It's only logical that we help them (and France) out in their time of need, and history backs that up.

Also, as an empire in competition with Russia and China, we don't want to let them get fat off our leftover garbage, so we have to 'poison the well' (salt the earth?) so to speak. Thus what all this 'instability' is for, to scare off the competing money. Here, you have to admit, the democrats (Hillary) did very well. Never lose track. Keep your eyes on the prize. Everything else, the political theater, all of it, is just a means of getting there.

It was reported last year and recently that national Buddhists use Facebook as a channel to post things that help to incite violence towards minority Muslims called the Rohingya in Burma. A monk called Wirathu was banned, by the government, from public preaching, and that included Facebook.

More information:
A War of Words Puts Facebook at the Center of Myanmar’s Rohingya Crisis
Rohingya crisis: How we got here
U.N. Fact Finders Say Facebook Played a 'Determining' Role in Violence Against the Rohingya
Myanmar: UN blames Facebook for spreading hatred of Rohingya
Is Facebook playing a part in the Rohingya genocide?
The Facebook official who oversees the news feed says his team loses sleep over the site's alleged role in violence in Myanmar

This 2017 article from the New York Times has some of those answers.

Summary: According to SEC filings, Imbruvica cost Pharmacyclics $388 million to develop, which included the development cost of three other drugs that were not successful. Not mentioned in the article is that Pharmacyclics actually paid $2 million in cash and $1 million in stock for the compound from its actual inventor, Celera Genomics, and their expense was mostly related to developing the compound into an salable drug. After the Phase II clinical trials, J&J paid Pharmacyclics $975 million to jointly continue development of the drug. The drug was approved for CLL in 2014, and just over a year after that, Abbvie bought Pharmacyclics for $21 billion (a 5400% return on investment for Pharmacyclics's shareholders), and the drug is now being sold under the "Janssen and Pharmacyclics" name. In 2016, J&P projected Imbruvica sales of $1 billion for that year, increasing to $5 billion by 2020.

In my opinion, the developers of the drug have already been very well paid for their efforts, certainly well enough "to promote the progress of science and useful arts". I haven't been able to find any other information that would lead me to believe that this isn't a simple money grab, and/or that Abbvie simply paid too much for the drug and is extracting the cost of their mistake from patients. If there are other concrete facts that would argue for other legitimate development costs that need to be recouped, I genuinely would be interested to see them.

It always blows my mind when I see users who constantly post pro-Trump free market posts on slashdot calling for the death and hanging of someone or some organization who is doing just that!

Except last year the con artist said he'd lower drug prices. Then he picked a guy who is a former pharmaceutical executive who raised drug prices.

Even in February's State of the Union address he said he'd lower drug prices.

What has he done so far? Reduce regulations on oil and gas drillers, put a guy in charge of the EPA who is vowed and determined to let polluters off the hook, and started a trade war with China which is already costing Midwest farmers.

No, the high price is the norm for cancer drugs.

F.D.A. Approves First Gene-Altering Leukemia Treatment, Costing $475,000

Discussing the high price during a telephone news conference, a Novartis official noted that bone-marrow transplants, which can cure some cases of leukemia, cost even more, from $540,000 to $800,000.

$148,000 per year for a drug that fights 5 types of white blood cell cancers and is to be used when all other therapies fail: worth it.

You forgot to mention that the reason those voters were purged is because they hadn't voted in multiple elections leading up to the 2016 primaries and hadn't replied to attempts to verify that they were still legally entitled to vote in the district in which they were registered. You forgot to mention that many of these voters were registered in multiple districts because they had moved, and the registration information on record was out-of-date, or because they had died. You forgot to mention that those voters were actually returned to the voter rolls prior to the primary and could actually vote. You forgot to mention that the areas that were purged, including the Bronx, supported Clinton over Sanders, meaning that this "illegal purge" actually disproportionately helped Sanders, not Clinton.

Err...what in the world is racist about asking ID to prove who you are?

It's simple, when it comes time to decide what ID is sufficient to prove who you are, the Republicans always seem to also look at which form of ID black voters are least likely to have because they rarely get most of the black vote. Then then repeat the process for other groups they can identify that don't vote for them. The goal is always to find the id combination that allows the most white voters to cast their vote without trouble, while allowing the fewest non-white voters to do the same. Then they boast about it how it helps them win elections.

What you're saying here doesn't match with your quote above. I went looking for the article you quoted from, and that is indeed talking about simulated rape (with sex robots). Not merely relieving sexual urges by having sex with prostitutes.

I'm not sure that I agree with the quote, we do encourage people with violent urges to work them out in a safe setting. Nothing as graphic as blood-spurting dummies, but punching things like a pillow or a heavy bag is not considered unhealthy when you're working out some aggression (or this...).

The right wing extremists have a bit of catching up to do then, it seems. I haven't observed any right-wing extremists shutting down political rallies, smashing storefronts, or shouting down public speakers on campus lately.

Truth

Right wingers generally stick to murdering people.

They murder more cops too

Just because she can't put out a dumpster fire doesn't mean everything she touches is a dumpster fire.

In more than one instance at Yahoo, she brought a water-based fire extinguisher to bear on an electrical grease fire.

What Happened When Marissa Mayer Tried to Be Steve Jobs — 17 December 2014

During a breakfast with Anna Wintour, the editor in chief of Vogue, Mayer asked if there might be any partnership opportunities between the magazine and Shine, Yahoo's site for women. According to Mayer's own telling of the story to top Yahoo executives, Wintour looked appalled. Shine, with its 500 million monthly page views, appealed to a mass audience, not a narrow and affluent one.

Nevertheless, Mayer quickly became infatuated with the idea that Yahoo could attract more sophisticated consumers. She began pushing for deputies to commission high-quality shows, the way Netflix was doing with "House of Cards" and "Orange Is the New Black." One Yahoo executive was forced to explain that only a company that sold subscriptions to consumers could expect to make money off such expensive productions.

Keep reading from that point in the article. Her legacy of dubious guidance doesn't end there.

There is nothing to apologize for. If newspapers assert the right — both legal and ethical — to publish state secrets they obtain as a result of somebody's felony, and the courts agree, how can Facebook (or anyone else) be denied the right to or even reprimanded for publishing personal information given to it willingly?

Brilliant plan.

Having a plan, however painful it is, is better than having no plan or letting the status quo continue. What the US investment industry is doing to Puerto Rico seems similar to how the World Bank and IMF impoverish third-world countries (reference). The fact that the US doesn't allow Puerto Rico to declare Chapter 9 bankruptcy exacerbates their situation (reference).

Yes, future interest rates will be costly, but at least there's a starting point for future development instead of a looming failure.

Does anyone have a better plan for the whole territory other than bankruptcy? Speak up.

In the meantime, I see a business opportunity for anyone that can economically figure out how to supply power to the people or businesses who can afford to pay for it while the utility struggles for solvency.

First off, you are right that I did NOT speak about Americas increase in Coal exports TO CHINA. It is something that I am opposed to. In addition, it is CHINA'S consumption, not ours.

So If China exports coal, it's China's fault. But if America exports coal, it's also China's fault. Typical WindBourne logic.
China isn't even in the top 5 export destinations for American coal in 2017. It was actually less than 3.5% of your coal exports. So more bullshit from you.

Secondly. pretty funny that you picked an article from EIA about China, which was based on 2015 numbers. The prediction was that coal usage would fall in China.

The article was from September 2017 and the prediction was accurate. If you can find a more recent one show us.

But, it does not. It continues to grow.

Your own link shows China increased only 0.4% in coal use and

However, as a portion of total energy consumption, coal usage fell 1.6 percentage points to 60.4 percent last year, while clean energy, including natural gas and renewables, rose 1.3 percentage points to 20.8 percent from 2016, the communique showed. That indicates the country remains on track to fulfil its promise to decarbonise its economy and reduce air pollution, as it vowed to cut the coal portion to below 58 percent of total energy consumption by 2020.

So it rose 0.4% in one year and is expected to stay flat or drop according to both articles. The opposite of your unsubstantiated claim. And why did you lie earlier and say that China's coal use increased over 5% in 2017?

It slowed down a bit relative to their GDP, but once their GDP growth rate picked up, so did the coal.

Again more lies from you, your own link says

Carbon intensity, the level of carbon emissions per unit of economic growth, dropped by 5.1 percent in 2017 compared to a year ago.

Carbon intensity got 5% better ! In one year !!
Why do you lie and say it was worse?

But the real use of that coal increase, are the EVs that are flowing in. Because China will not quit build new coal plants and instead focus solely on building wind/solar/hydro until they have their nuclear power plants going, then it will be more coal they will use.

You are just making this up, all projectionsshow coal stabilising and/or dropping. You haven't shown any credible evidence that this isn't the case. You still fail to admit that China is replacing less efficient coal plants with newer more efficient ones as has been shown to you repeatedly.

China is building 700 new coal plants in China and around the globe, of the 1600 new ones going up. They are pushing it even in places like Kenya China is builing it with Chinese workers, steel, etc, and 'loaning' money, BUT, in return, Kenya must not only pay for the power plant, but must also buy the coal from China.

Again America exports coal to China = China's fault. China exports coal to Kenya = China's fault. Are you starting to realise how stupid you look?

You really think that this will cut down the CO2 in the future? Nope. This is how you make things WORSE.

Did you even read your link?

Experts say one annual increase

First off, you are right that I did NOT speak about Americas increase in Coal exports TO CHINA. It is something that I am opposed to. In addition, it is CHINA'S consumption, not ours.

So If China exports coal, it's China's fault. But if America exports coal, it's also China's fault. Typical WindBourne logic.
China isn't even in the top 5 export destinations for American coal in 2017. It was actually less than 3.5% of your coal exports. So more bullshit from you.

Secondly. pretty funny that you picked an article from EIA about China, which was based on 2015 numbers. The prediction was that coal usage would fall in China.

The article was from September 2017 and the prediction was accurate. If you can find a more recent one show us.

But, it does not. It continues to grow.

Your own link shows China increased only 0.4% in coal use and

However, as a portion of total energy consumption, coal usage fell 1.6 percentage points to 60.4 percent last year, while clean energy, including natural gas and renewables, rose 1.3 percentage points to 20.8 percent from 2016, the communique showed. That indicates the country remains on track to fulfil its promise to decarbonise its economy and reduce air pollution, as it vowed to cut the coal portion to below 58 percent of total energy consumption by 2020.

So it rose 0.4% in one year and is expected to stay flat or drop according to both articles. The opposite of your unsubstantiated claim. And why did you lie earlier and say that China's coal use increased over 5% in 2017?

It slowed down a bit relative to their GDP, but once their GDP growth rate picked up, so did the coal.

Again more lies from you, your own link says

Carbon intensity, the level of carbon emissions per unit of economic growth, dropped by 5.1 percent in 2017 compared to a year ago.

Carbon intensity got 5% better ! In one year !!
Why do you lie and say it was worse?

But the real use of that coal increase, are the EVs that are flowing in. Because China will not quit build new coal plants and instead focus solely on building wind/solar/hydro until they have their nuclear power plants going, then it will be more coal they will use.

You are just making this up, all projectionsshow coal stabilising and/or dropping. You haven't shown any credible evidence that this isn't the case. You still fail to admit that China is replacing less efficient coal plants with newer more efficient ones as has been shown to you repeatedly.

China is building 700 new coal plants in China and around the globe, of the 1600 new ones going up. They are pushing it even in places like Kenya China is builing it with Chinese workers, steel, etc, and 'loaning' money, BUT, in return, Kenya must not only pay for the power plant, but must also buy the coal from China.

Again America exports coal to China = China's fault. China exports coal to Kenya = China's fault. Are you starting to realise how stupid you look?

You really think that this will cut down the CO2 in the future? Nope. This is how you make things WORSE.

Did you even read your link?

Experts say one annual increase

First off, you are right that I did NOT speak about Americas increase in Coal exports TO CHINA. It is something that I am opposed to. In addition, it is CHINA'S consumption, not ours.

So If China exports coal, it's China's fault. But if America exports coal, it's also China's fault. Typical WindBourne logic.
China isn't even in the top 5 export destinations for American coal in 2017. It was actually less than 3.5% of your coal exports. So more bullshit from you.

Secondly. pretty funny that you picked an article from EIA about China, which was based on 2015 numbers. The prediction was that coal usage would fall in China.

The article was from September 2017 and the prediction was accurate. If you can find a more recent one show us.

But, it does not. It continues to grow.

Your own link shows China increased only 0.4% in coal use and

However, as a portion of total energy consumption, coal usage fell 1.6 percentage points to 60.4 percent last year, while clean energy, including natural gas and renewables, rose 1.3 percentage points to 20.8 percent from 2016, the communique showed. That indicates the country remains on track to fulfil its promise to decarbonise its economy and reduce air pollution, as it vowed to cut the coal portion to below 58 percent of total energy consumption by 2020.

So it rose 0.4% in one year and is expected to stay flat or drop according to both articles. The opposite of your unsubstantiated claim. And why did you lie earlier and say that China's coal use increased over 5% in 2017?

It slowed down a bit relative to their GDP, but once their GDP growth rate picked up, so did the coal.

Again more lies from you, your own link says

Carbon intensity, the level of carbon emissions per unit of economic growth, dropped by 5.1 percent in 2017 compared to a year ago.

Carbon intensity got 5% better ! In one year !!
Why do you lie and say it was worse?

But the real use of that coal increase, are the EVs that are flowing in. Because China will not quit build new coal plants and instead focus solely on building wind/solar/hydro until they have their nuclear power plants going, then it will be more coal they will use.

You are just making this up, all projectionsshow coal stabilising and/or dropping. You haven't shown any credible evidence that this isn't the case. You still fail to admit that China is replacing less efficient coal plants with newer more efficient ones as has been shown to you repeatedly.

China is building 700 new coal plants in China and around the globe, of the 1600 new ones going up. They are pushing it even in places like Kenya China is builing it with Chinese workers, steel, etc, and 'loaning' money, BUT, in return, Kenya must not only pay for the power plant, but must also buy the coal from China.

Again America exports coal to China = China's fault. China exports coal to Kenya = China's fault. Are you starting to realise how stupid you look?

You really think that this will cut down the CO2 in the future? Nope. This is how you make things WORSE.

Did you even read your link?

Experts say one annual increase

First off, you are right that I did NOT speak about Americas increase in Coal exports TO CHINA. It is something that I am opposed to. In addition, it is CHINA'S consumption, not ours.
Secondly. pretty funny that you picked an article from EIA about China, which was based on 2015 numbers. The prediction was that coal usage would fall in China. But, it does not. It continues to grow. It slowed down a bit relative to their GDP, but once their GDP growth rate picked up, so did the coal. But the real use of that coal increase, are the EVs that are flowing in. Because China will not quit build new coal plants and instead focus solely on building wind/solar/hydro until they have their nuclear power plants going, then it will be more coal they will use.
China is building 700 new coal plants in China and around the globe, of the 1600 new ones going up. They are pushing it even in places like Kenya China is builing it with Chinese workers, steel, etc, and 'loaning' money, BUT, in return, Kenya must not only pay for the power plant, but must also buy the coal from China.

You really think that this will cut down the CO2 in the future?
Nope. This is how you make things WORSE.

Finally, you speak of GDP growth.
Here is America
Here is China
Here is EU
Out of all 3, America is doing the best. Should we be allowed to grow our CO2 just because our GDP is going up faster? Nope. The world can not afford this. We need ALL NATIONS to lower their emissions, and that includes China, India, etc. We need to get down to Sweden's level. THAT is how you stop AGW.
And CHina IS a developed nation.

First off, you are right that I did NOT speak about Americas increase in Coal exports TO CHINA. It is something that I am opposed to. In addition, it is CHINA'S consumption, not ours.
Secondly. pretty funny that you picked an article from EIA about China, which was based on 2015 numbers. The prediction was that coal usage would fall in China. But, it does not. It continues to grow. It slowed down a bit relative to their GDP, but once their GDP growth rate picked up, so did the coal. But the real use of that coal increase, are the EVs that are flowing in. Because China will not quit build new coal plants and instead focus solely on building wind/solar/hydro until they have their nuclear power plants going, then it will be more coal they will use.
China is building 700 new coal plants in China and around the globe, of the 1600 new ones going up. They are pushing it even in places like Kenya China is builing it with Chinese workers, steel, etc, and 'loaning' money, BUT, in return, Kenya must not only pay for the power plant, but must also buy the coal from China.

You really think that this will cut down the CO2 in the future?
Nope. This is how you make things WORSE.

Finally, you speak of GDP growth.
Here is America
Here is China
Here is EU
Out of all 3, America is doing the best. Should we be allowed to grow our CO2 just because our GDP is going up faster? Nope. The world can not afford this. We need ALL NATIONS to lower their emissions, and that includes China, India, etc. We need to get down to Sweden's level. THAT is how you stop AGW.
And CHina IS a developed nation.

First off, you are right that I did NOT speak about Americas increase in Coal exports TO CHINA. It is something that I am opposed to. In addition, it is CHINA'S consumption, not ours.
Secondly. pretty funny that you picked an article from EIA about China, which was based on 2015 numbers. The prediction was that coal usage would fall in China. But, it does not. It continues to grow. It slowed down a bit relative to their GDP, but once their GDP growth rate picked up, so did the coal. But the real use of that coal increase, are the EVs that are flowing in. Because China will not quit build new coal plants and instead focus solely on building wind/solar/hydro until they have their nuclear power plants going, then it will be more coal they will use.
China is building 700 new coal plants in China and around the globe, of the 1600 new ones going up. They are pushing it even in places like Kenya China is builing it with Chinese workers, steel, etc, and 'loaning' money, BUT, in return, Kenya must not only pay for the power plant, but must also buy the coal from China.

You really think that this will cut down the CO2 in the future?
Nope. This is how you make things WORSE.

Finally, you speak of GDP growth.
Here is America
Here is China
Here is EU
Out of all 3, America is doing the best. Should we be allowed to grow our CO2 just because our GDP is going up faster? Nope. The world can not afford this. We need ALL NATIONS to lower their emissions, and that includes China, India, etc. We need to get down to Sweden's level. THAT is how you stop AGW.
And CHina IS a developed nation.

The "Irish slave" claim is really a myth. There were many Irish indentured servants but indentured servitude is not the same as slavery. Being an indentured servant often was not a good life, but there were very critical differences between being an indentured servant and a slave.

For example:

• Indentured servants were considered a full "person". Slaves were not.
• Indentured servants entered into a contract which required, typically in exchange for passage to the Colonies/US, them to provide services for a fixed period of time (often seven years). Being a slave was "for life".
• Indentured servants didn't pass their status on to their offspring. Slaves did.
• Many, perhaps most, indentured servants willingly entered in to the deal (albeit, maybe not completely aware of what they were getting into). Slaves did not.
• Indentured servants (and their offspring) were not the "property" of the person they were serving. Slaves were.

More information is here, here, here, and here.

People are responsible for doing their own taxes in the United States because Intuit (the makers of TurboTax) want it that way. Well, and their allies in the anti-tax camp that believe if taxes are painful and visible other people will agree with them that taxes are bad.

For the vast majority of people, working out their taxes is trivial and involves information the IRS already has. For everyone else, starting with the information the IRS already has would simplify the process. And their taxes are likely complicated enough that they need an accountant anyway.

I major factor that stymies expansion is the high cost of construction in NYC due to the labor unions. This has been mentioned elsewhere, it takes twice as much money than it does to build similar tunnels of similar complexity and difficulty in cities such as Paris.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-construction-costs.html

There's no way the rampant corruption and cronyism around construction in New York City does not have a massive role to play in all this.

This article, from the New York Times, supports your point:
The Most Expensive Mile of Subway Track on Earth

All retirement plans should be prepaid/invested. That's the responsible thing to do.

Read an article about pensions in Oregon, they give retirees the option of choosing the method that pays them the most among several - here's my favorite:

Pretend the state employee put 6% of their salary in an imaginary retirement account, further pretend that the retirement account paid market-average returns every year, and then, after you figure out how much they would have, if their imaginary 6% investment had grown with the market over the years, then pretend that the state matched that 6% contribution and was similarly invested all those years, paying market rates AND THEN calculate the retirement fund the worker has to draw from.

Of course the employee never contributes 6%, the employer (the state) never contributes the 6% on behalf of the employee, the employer never contributes their matching 6%, and it is all fiction until the employee retires, then the states runs the numbers and tries to squeeze the pension money out of their budgets going forward.

The insanity of this program isn't that pension costs are 12% of salary annually, it is that those costs are never considered until the worker retires, no money is ever put aside for the employee. To properly fund this pension, Oregon would have to start putting away 12% of every workers salary, and invest that money in some financial instrument that tracks the overall market performance year after year - can Oregon afford to properly fund these pensions? No. It's insane.

On top of current retiree obligations, every pension-eligible worker would suddenly cost the state 12% every year...

Well, let's be honest: you SJW communists would really be happier in another country besides America. It's constant stress living with us deplorables on a daily basis. This depletes your telomeres and shortens your life. Really. In fact, that's one of the arguments you use against free speech: that when your telemeres are shortened by hearing our ideas, that counts as violence, and thus when you hear us speak we are committing violence on you. Yup.

If words can cause stress, and if prolonged stress can cause physical harm, then it seems that speech - at least certain types of speech - can be a form of violence.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/14/opinion/sunday/when-is-speech-violence.html

So, where will you be going? It must be a relief to finally come to this conclusion. Canada? France? There are the countries that have implemented your left-wing systems, so you'll obviously want to check those out: Bolivia, Venezuela, Cuba. Bon Voyage! Good luck in your stress-free home where our words can't harm you.

"That puts them at risk, yes, but that's their damn job: to protect the public."

The USSC disagrees: https://www.nytimes.com/2005/0...

Good points.

However, bad reputation with people who are technically-knowledgeable eventually flows to those who aren't.

One example: Now Facebook is being criticized in top-level news stories. I Downloaded the Information That Facebook Has on Me. Yikes. (New York Times, April 11, 2018)

Facebook was always the way it is now. But now the average person is learning about the huge negatives.

If you are a billionaire owner of Google (now with a foolish name, Alphabet, Inc.) the abuse surrounding Android makes your life less enjoyable.

Yeah, I thought you were far far left. Just about anyone not in your tiny world looks like a crazy wingnut to you.

"Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper? Of course it is." Source: New York Times.

and he's insisting on an audit because he still thinks he's right and he thinks somehow getting another voice in will help him.

Remember how trump's fanbase lost their shit when the IRS audited a bunch of political groups masquerading as charities? Everything they imagined about Obama targeting them is what trump is actually doing here and his fanbase is cheering him on.

BTW, the criteria for auditing those fake charities was completely non-partisan. The IRS did audit more conservative groups than they did liberal groups. But that wasn't because of anti-conservative bias, it was because there were way more conservatives trying to pass themselves off as charities.

Yaknow, I get the idea you're so far to the left that anyone to the right of Mao Zedong looks like a fascist to you. Let's do a quick sanity check with a verifiable answer: is the New York Times a liberal newspaper? If you answer wrongly, we can safely discard your opinions.

BLM was cheered and we were told we needed to listen carefully to everything they said, and if they had to burn things down to get us to listen, then it was only justified. Come on, were you in a coma during their time in the spotlight? Saint Obama himself spread inflammation of racial tensions as he supported BLM, with racial relations sinking to lows we haven't seen in decades as whole cities from Baltimore to Ferguson burned.

I bet this describes you to a T: Liberalism explained: "You think America's good? We've found something that's going to make you not believe that any longer."

It's worth noting that Trump is has declined to accept a salary while being president.

That's only because he would have had to pay taxes on it.

NATO benefits the US in a large way. Having a global military is what allows US corporations to profit, by doing things like propping up friendly dictators in areas where we need the natural resources, or need to maintain trade routes, or where they can oppose our adversaries. We're not children. Do you think the US has military bases all over the world, in the name of truth and justice for all? Of course not. It's for profit.

The Middle East is the most obvious example. We get out of Iraq. We stop supporting Israel. Friendly oil nations are overrun with fundamentalists. America is held hostage by oil prices. Our economy tanks. It happened in the 70s it can happen again.

There's also the thinking that maintaining some amount of stability with small conflicts is better than world war. The US was hands off of europe prior to WW1. Then WW2. We know what happened there. Ever since then we've maintained a presence in europe.

Whether we should continue down the road of a globally dominant military is a question, but just make sure you are deciding based on facts and the advice of people like economists and military generals. Trump is a failed business person,
http://www.businessinsider.com...

and a draft dodger.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0...

Do you trust him to direct your military and economy?

So far it hasn't been too bad!? Here's a piece by Madeline Albright, not an alarmist: "Fascism poses a more serious threat now than at any time since the end of World War II." Anne Frank's stepsister, in a January essay to mark International Holocaust Remembrance Day, accused Trump of "acting like another Hitler." Ex-Mexican President Fox: Donald Trump reminds me of Hitler. Yale history professor: Here's why it's useful to compare Trump's actions to Hitler's. Even comedian Louis CK says 'Insane bigot' Donald Trump 'is Hitler'.

These are all sane, levelheaded people and you're saying it's not too bad? Who's in a better position to know, you or them?

If Hillary had committed any crimes, dontchathink that the Republican lead Congress would have found her guilty of something and actually done something about it?

Is someone a criminal really because a bunch of crazies keep making shit up about them?

[M]aking shit up?!?!?!

What color is the sky on your planet?

<HILLARY>There is no email server</HILLARY>

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal - The New York Times

Northrop Grumman continues to get contracts because they are an established name and are able to make promises to the Gov at a lower price than their competitors. Then they are able to recoup costs on rent and maintenance. Just look at the beginnings of the B-2. A plane with a $70 billion price tag that the government DOESN'T OWN. They rent from Northrop, and pay them for upkeep and replacement parts.

You got a tax cut, check your check stubs.

Most people got less than $1000/year in temporary tax reduction, paid for by debt. That doesn't do shit to the economy. Long term, every expert says that this tax change will significantly harm the economy.

That's it? That's all you got? Rich people got lower taxes, so all of a sudden, the economy is awesome? If you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you.

George Soros is a convicted currency manipulator.

What could possibly go wrong?

But hey, he's a leftist, so it's OK.

Of course, then there's this:

Kroft: “My understanding is that you went went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.”

Soros: “Yes, that’s right. Yes.”

Admitting to helping actual, real-world Nazis in taking property from Jews?!?!?

Yep, REAL Nazis that murdered millions and conducted genocide, not the, errr, trumped-up "progressive" "he's a NAZI!!! because he doesn't agree with my politics!" bullshit.

Pity you posted as AC as you may or may not see this. I came across an excellent article on in-house vs out-sourced cleaning and what it meant to some people. In the case of the former Eastman Kodak, a woman of color rose to become an executive in the company, compared to people, as you say, lucky to make $15 an hour and frequently working two jobs to make ends meet. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

Interesting you site the opinion of the shyster Stephen Jay Gould

Time will tell, but so far, we are still on a trajectory which is much improved over the last administration's. Remember that.

Not an improved trajectory, just further along the same trajectory (at least until recently). To bring this article up to date:

http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/1...

The bull market is 109 months old. Trump owns 17 of them.

Including these months:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0...

Nobody was upset with the Obama campaign for doing this same thing.

Because the Obama campaign did not do the same thing.

No, Obama did much worse - hack into FB and get their entire social graph:

Data You Can Believe In
The Obama Campaign’s Digital Masterminds Cash In

And the NY Times wrote and entire article celebrating it.

...Obama campaign for doing this same thing.

Both campaigns accessed users' friends information without consent. But there were several differences between what Obama's campaign did and what Cambridge Analytica did. A couple:

But in Obama’s case, direct users knew they were handing over their data to a political campaign. In the Cambridge Analytica case, users only knew were taking a personality quiz for academic purposes.

The Obama campaign used the data to have their supporters contact their most persuadable friends. Cambridge Analytica targeted users and their friends directly with digital ads.

That doesn't remotely excuse what O's campaign did, but it's not entirely the same.

Fucking PolitiFART is a bunch of weasels:

But in Obama’s case, direct users knew they were handing over their data to a political campaign.

Note the use of that "direct user" weasel word.

Because Obama's campaign actually gained access to Facebook's entire social graph:

Data You Can Believe In
The Obama Campaign’s Digital Masterminds Cash In

The campaign’s exhaustive use of Facebook triggered the site’s internal safeguards. “It was more like we blew through an alarm that their engineers hadn’t planned for or knew about,” said St. Clair, who had been working at a small firm in Chicago and joined the campaign at the suggestion of a friend. “They’d sigh and say, ‘You can do this as long as you stop doing it on Nov. 7.’ ”

Yeah, I wonder if Facebook giving Obama that data was reported as a political contribution-in-kind...

Not only that, Obama strip-mined private details from cable TV boxes:

But Gershkoff had come upon a cache of data that all the strategists would come to appreciate. She had contracted with a relatively new firm called Rentrak that was competing with Nielsen and was buying up real-time, raw viewing data directly from cable and satellite companies that had nearly 20 million set-top boxes in eight million homes. When Gershkoff told Grisolano, he was thrilled. Rentrak’s huge new trove of data, he surmised, could help him find out with relative certainty what shows were being delivered to the homes of the roughly 15 million persuadable voters Wagner’s department had identified.

PolitiFART glossed over that entirely.

Note that article was written in 2013, and it was CELEBRATING how the Obama campaign abused privacy - along with campaign finance laws.

But that was all "for the cause", so it was OK four years ago...

Most of the mass-shooters in the last ten years have been either under mental health treatment and medications or were until just prior to their crimes.

Citation needed. While many mass shooters have a history of mental illness, the majority don't. Look at the facts: https://www.nytimes.com/intera...

Laws already on the books that should have stopped at least some of the mass shootings were not enforced.

So what happens if you pass more laws and bans and they too are not enforced? Pass more laws?

Let's start by funding improvements to the background check system, and requiring it for private sales. You can see that many of the mass shooters purchased guns legally and passed background checks, even when they shouldn't have. This offers a meaningful mechanism for reducing gun violence and saving lives, and doesn't even require anything more than making sure that existing systems work better.

The cartels will have a new cash commodity to sell Americans. Even better, these weapons won't have any restrictions. Think of street criminals with fully-automatic weapons, RPGs, grenades, landmines, 'Stinger'-type anti-aircraft rockets, and more.

That's already happening, for the small subset of people that have any interest in it - an acquaintance of mine got an unlicensed full-auto AK without much trouble at all. The big question is WHY people would want these things in the first place. What the hell are you going to do with a landmine? Somehow cartels haven't created a massive black market for military-grade weaponry in Europe, or Japan... why would it suddenly spring up out of nowhere? Where would this massive demand come from? Remember, you don't have the addictive properties of alcohol or drugs to drive sales, and guns aren't consumable to guarantee repeat customers.

Stop with the knee-jerk emotional bullshit. Use that lump of gristle 3 feet above your ass for something more than a hat rack.

Why don't you take your own advice, instead of painting fantasy scenarios where gun control inexplicably turns the U.S. into a Mad Max world overnight?

Arm yourself — police have no obligation to defend you and even if they choose to do it, you may not be their top priority.

Self-defense is an inalienable human right — which also happens to be recorded in America's 2nd Constitutional Amendment.

Arm yourself — police have no obligation to defend you and even if they choose to do it, you may not be their top priority.

Self-defense is an inalienable human right — which also happens to be recorded in America's 2nd Constitutional Amendment.