Slashdot Mirror

By keeping a coal plant open two days, you are a murderer!

And you wonder why there's an anti-environmental, anti-science backlash? How about we stop with the hyperbole and present the facts as is, without embellishment or absurd scare tactics? How many ridiculous now-provably-false doomsday scenarios were proclaimed over the past 40 years? Did you not think this would undermine public opinion at some point? Well, congratulations. People no longer trust scientists!

And somehow you got modded up to +5, even thought you did nothing to counter the argument other than emotional claims about "hyperbole". Did you even bother to do some back-of-the-envelope calculations?

But poster's got a point. Being right doesn't mean anyone will listen. The only fact that matters is that Trump won the election, and people who care about the environment lost. So, its not about the science. It's about persuading people. By now it should be clear that calling a person a murderer because of a coal plant somewhere does not persuade anyone to vote "no" for Trump or his climate-denying cronies. It may be infuriating, but all you do is generate yuk-yuks on Fox and Friends.

The real "inconvenient truth" is that most people zone-out and read their Twitter feeds while you perform your back-of-the-envelope calculations. If you want results, as opposed to snarky ridicule from Trump sycophants seeking to ride his gravy train, you need to take a breath and adopt a new approach, something that works. It may be a pain-in-the-ass at first, but politics and persuasion is just another application of science: experiment, observe the data, throw out what doesn't work, try again. Scare tactics, doomsday scenarios, and "you are a murderer!" may be good to preach to the choir, and may vent your frustrations a bit, but in the end, it fails to get 51% of the electoral college, or even defeat politicians who assault reporters in public. Climate facts, political facts, they're all facts. Accept them and work with them or we're fucked.

That said, there's an opportunity here. With Trump pulling the Federal Government out of the business of climate, there's a gap that may be filled by folks who really care, like the states. There's an opportunity to show that that Trump and climate-deniers are idiots, wasting an opportunity. But it's not going to be done by scare tactics. It's gonna be done by persuasion, like showing how west Texans are cashing in on wind power, or how great it would be to live in an electric-friendly city where rush-hour doesn't pump the air full of smog. Gosh, if only we had a different president, federal grants might be available so that more cities could get in on that.

Which is why Nicaragua didn't sign it.. The other non-signer, Syria, is in a civil war.

The US is alone in insisting "climate change isn't real because fuck you, liberals, scientists, and future generations, that's why."

There has been a significant decrease in the proportion of young people holding a driver licence over the last decade. Part of the reason was put down to cost of owning and operating a vehicle.

Time cover: http://time.com/4778937/fake-t....

Will it criminalize using a drone to report on crimes against humanity?

http://time.com/4140050/donald-trump-muslims-japanese-internment/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/11/17/japanese-internment-is-precedent-for-national-muslim-registry-prominent-trump-backer-says/

(Jesus christ, are you even trying?)

The problem with taxes, is that every time we try to raise them, conservatives go ape shit crazy, as if you're tossing Grandma off a cliff, killing kittens and eating babies. Republicans only know one thing, "Cut taxes!!"

See Kansas, which tried dramatic tax cuts in 2012 to "drive economic growth". The money specifically went to businesses. Turns out it didn't work and they were surprised that the budget deficit ballooned to $350 million.

The difference being that this is proven history rather than presumptions about the future. And... yeah... taxing oil-burning cars to get rid of them sounds like one of those pet social/environmental/technological experiment programs. Sounds good.

Tax what you want to rid, and it goes away. Why are we paying taxes on income again?

Hey, I get that. But we ALSO need to have the government's income tied to our general prosperity. Things go out of wack if we can only afford a government when people... misbehave or whatever. And... man... if the bureaucrats were only paid from sin-taxes, and it actually worked, could you imagine the dystopian hellscape where they kept on raising taxes on the "next evil thing" just to keep the lights on? Like if ICE-cars were taxed 40%, everyone would go get an alternative, revenue drops since no-one buys ICE-cars, so they have to go tax.... red-meat and ice-cream or something. Repeat that cycle a few times and it sounds a lot like... well... the sort of fascist society-driving jack-boot thugs that republican view the IRS as.

...or the high dollar.

A high dollar wouldn't cost a $10B drop in tourism.

http://time.com/money/4687114/trump-slump-foreign-tourism-us-immigration-travel/

That glow radiating from his skin ever since he placed his hands upon the orb still seems kind of creepy. Ever since the Invocation opened up the Portals to the Deep, things just haven't felt the same.

There is not, and has never been, any evidence, large or small, connecting Donald Trump to Russia,

Shut the fuck up.

http://time.com/4433880/donald...
http://www.politico.com/magazi...
http://www.latimes.com/politic...

Orbitz started doing this in 2012

here is time story on that
http://content.time.com/time/m...

in future when climate change is again about a new ice age, we will have more easily readable links speculating antarctica turning green.

However, as the chief of the Executive Branch, the President (this, the previous, or the next one) has the ultimate authority over his subordinates. The CIA, FBI and NSA all report to the President, and as such POTUS has the authority to declassify any information he (or she) wishes to, and share it with whomever he feels is needed.

Ha!, I think the Time Magazine read my comment: http://time.com/4780593/presid...

Article: http://time.com/3377972/why-ap...

TLDR:
10x more expensive, perhaps $100 per screen, thicker, heavier, harder to manufacture, harder to customize, uses 100x more energy to produce. Still shatters just as easy - only more scratch-proof.

So it's bad that NATO leaves a one country buffer zone between Europe and Russia, but not bad that Russia installs military bases right on Europe's doorstep such as Kaliningrad, Moldova, and now parts of Ukraine that it's outright annexed?

For a start, Russia is a European nation and always has been. So it's not surprising that it has bases in Europe. On the other hand, the USA is NOT a European nation, yet Europe is teeming with American bases, soldiers and weapon systems - including thermonuclear weapons. Russia did "annexe" Crimea, which had been part of Russia since before the USA existed, after the illegal regime in Kiev began determined efforts to exterminate Russian-speaking citizens.

Kaliningrad - Koenigsberg as was - "became part of the Soviet Union pending the final determination of territorial questions at the peace settlement (as part of the Russian SFSR) as agreed upon by the Allies at the Potsdam Conference". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Kaliningrad is now part of Russia, just as Hawaii and Alaska are part of the USA. Does the USA have military bases in Alaska and Hawaii? According to Time magazine, the USA has about 800 military, naval and air force bases in 70 countries outside the USA. http://time.com/4511744/americ... See also https://www.thenation.com/arti...

That map is a fine example of telling half the story - Kazakhstan has a NATO base that was used only for onwards staging and transport to Afghanistan purely for anti-Taliban operations for example, yet Russia has a full blown permanent offensive military presence there.

Kazakhstan used to be part of the USSR, and before that part of the Russian Empire. It has a large Russian-speaking population and is a close ally of Russia. However, it also presents a tempting avenue of attack against Russia's "soft underbelly". Given the presence of Islamist terrorists and NATO in Afghanistan, it's hardly surprising the Russians are on guard and keeping a wary eye open.

More to the point, what on earth is the USA doing in Afghanistan where it has no business to be, and no legal right? Indeed, the USA has no business to be interfering anywhere in Asia, Europe or Africa.

The ACA made every poor, cheap and lazy person contribute something to the unlimited healthcare they got for free before

The ACA had flaws but it set a minimum standard of care, made everyone buy into it, to defray the cost.

So why didn't insurance get cheaper? The argument was always that people who didn't have insurance were treated for free at the ER, which passed the cost onto everyone else. You'd think that wouldn't be the case now that everyone is covered, so why are premiums and deductibles now much higher?
http://time.com/money/4503325/...

I don't like the Republican health care plan either, but please don't act like the ACA solved the real problem; making health care cheaper.

For the moment, the only thing that is real is that Le Pen is a cheater and she have got Russia a giant debt to Russia. There are no doubt about that. And there is no need for a leak, she is an awful person.

The choice for the french is :

- Le Pen, a proved dishonest and awful person ;
- Macron, an honest person until proven dishonest.

PS: No everything is not equal. The source always matter when a leak is unbalanced. Until now nobody found anything big in the document - maybe the reason, it is released so late in the process, not time to analyze but enough to ingrain some doubt. The bank account really seems like a fake news.

Automation isn't the enemy it's a very helpful tool.

Unfortunately, Watson (the AI that betrays humanity, like the original one that betrayed NCR's John H. Patterson) needs to meet its burning end.

Trump is on track to outspend Obama on using Air Force One for vacationing.

No he's not. This is another example of liberal media playing with numbers to serve their agenda. See:

With President Donald Trump making his seventh presidential trip this weekend to his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, government watchdogs and Democrats are once again seeing dollar signs: namely, $3 million. That's a widely used estimate of what each journey costs taxpayers. The figure comes from a government report on a trip President Barack Obama made to Palm Beach, Florida, but the report's author tells The Associated Press that it's a mistake to apply those findings to Trump's travel.

http://time.com/4736490/presid...

http://time.com/4279538/low-fa... "In a new study published in the journal Circulation, Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian and his colleagues analyzed the blood of 3,333 adults enrolled in the Nurses’ Health Study of Health Professionals Follow-up Study taken over about 15 years. They found that people who had higher levels of three different byproducts of full-fat dairy had, on average, a 46% lower risk of getting diabetes during the study period than those with lower levels. “I think these findings together with those from other studies do call for a change in the policy of recommending only low-fat dairy products,” says Mozaffarian. “There is no prospective human evidence that people who eat low-fat dairy do better than people who eat whole-fat dairy.”" http://holisticsquid.com/skip-... "the skimming process not only strips the milk of essential saturated fats, fat-soluble vitamins A, D, and K2 and healthy cholesterol; but also most reduced fat milks have powdered non-fat milk added which contributes toxic nitrates and oxidized cholesterol."

Lowering sodium intake seems like a good idea given all the studies that show correlation between cardiac health issues and high levels of sodium. Honest question here...

The correlation is not at all clear

I don't know why this guy hates Trump so much. Just because Trump spews bad ideas does not mean he will not be a great King.

Bad ideas? King? Obama was close to a king, though he was clearly a despot.

Ideas - Like actually paying for stuff instead of just charging up the credit card until you're bust like Obama tried so hard to do. Like trying to secure the boarders, which no nation can survive without (check out Mexico, even they have a wall to their south for this very reason). Like trying to fix Obamacare that is really bankrupt right now with millions "insured", though the deductible is so high they effectively don't have any insurance. Those that did have insurance don't anymore. Like calling out the hate mongers on the left for being the hate mongers they are? Those ideas?

I know, you'll probably come back with something like he's lying. Check back. You'll find he was mostly right on everything he said. Wiretap - yup, even the NY Times called it wiretapping - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0... . Has to be true, it's the NY Times after all. Yet they seem to have forgotten their own article.

Even a vicious attack just hours into his presidency about Martin Luther King - http://time.com/4645541/donald... . The crazy leftist reporter just couldn't wait, in fact he was chomping it to bit to say he was a racist and got it wrong of course. Were it a right reporter we'd have protests and demands to fire him of course. Besides it's Trump's office after all, even if he did remove it so what? He doesn't have a say in what is in his office?

Then we have this fake Russian connection story even though Obama's best efforts using the full power of the government couldn't find any connection. They found where Russia tried and failed, however. There are LOTS of connections between Hillary and Russia, even Podesta who in fact is an un-registered foreign agent - http://dailycaller.com/2017/03... . Hillary's uranium deal - https://www.nytimes.com/2015/0... . Yes, uranium. Where's the outrage?

And so on.

So you're whining about two positions, his daughter and son-in-law, that could be questionable out of five million? It's really hard to take you people seriously.

Congress passed an anti-nepotism law after JFK appointed his brother to attorney general to prevent future administrations from appointing family members to positions in the government. Just like most reform laws from the last 50 years, Trump is ignoring that one too.

http://time.com/4574971/donald-trump-transition-jared-kushner-legal-anti-nepotism-law/

It's really hard to take you people seriously.

If Hillary was POTUS and she appointed Chelsea as a special adviser, the Republicans would be screaming for impeachment.

Wrong
It was created to get agreement from the Slave states.
Since the point of a rePUBLIC is for the PUBLIC to control who is in power...
Meanwhile, the 14th Amendment prohibits this kind of elevated "rights" for tiny states.
Did you get all your "history" from a rightwing spew site?
Here, learn something from an actual Historian, as reprinted in Time magazine.
Wow, talk about STUPID!

This is a few years old, but yes:

http://business.time.com/2012/06/26/orbitz-shows-higher-prices-to-mac-users/

Just went to Orbitz, and plugged in a 1 day weekend stay in Cape May New Jersey on the 29th and 30th of April of this year.

Did this on a Mac and Safari, and On a Windows machine, and FireFox. The results were exactly the same on each machine. I've also used a Chromebook in the past, with no odd results. Maybe if I use my Raspberry Pi, I can get really cheap rooms. 8^)

One interesting thing is that I got a hotwire popup on the Windows side - I wonder if Orbitz and hotwire have merged, or if Hotwire is pulling some hanky panky. I've got FireFox pretty well battened down, so it was a little surprising.

Now the one thing I didn't check, and that I know that these sites do. They change prices pretty often. When I go to Florida every winter, I do a hotel check often for the places we stay at. The prices change a lot, and they change daily. The sites I checked today, Amazon, and Orbitz, were searched within a minute of each other.

So I'm a little concerned about the accuracy of the report.

This is a few years old, but yes:

http://business.time.com/2012/06/26/orbitz-shows-higher-prices-to-mac-users/

Democrat run cities seem to be the worst, you can check the stats on that one.

Let's see...San Francisco, median household income: $78,378. Los Angeles, $55,909. Chicago? $63,153. Detroit? $26,095. New York City (Home of the President, Donald Trump), $50,711. Looks like your examples are mostly doing well. The only one that's significantly below average is what, Detroit?

So you've got one. Except Detroit is in Michigan. A state run by Republicans for years. Why haven't they fixed any of that city's problems? Why haven't they done what they did for Flint...oh wait, that wasn't a good thing.

Besides, you want to know what's done about the Homeless? Bus tickets. Out of sight, out of mind.

Of course, this has been a problem for decades problem for decades, but you're too busy blaming Democrats, as usual for yourself, but then...why can you offer no solutions, no miracles in your partisan bastions of prosperity?

Oh wait, you think because you can rail about a few high-profile cities, you think nobody has driven through rural Mississippi and seen the abject poverty there.

And you know what? A lot of those homeless are veterans. Maybe you're just not patriotic enough?

So, what is the failure about the Obama economy? Do you object to the massive deficit reduction? The decrease in unemployment? The millions of people who could finally afford health care? The growth of the economy as a whole?

Maybe the stagnant wages?
http://www.tradingeconomics.co...

Or maybe that more people have heath care, but fewer people can afford it, and it's way more expensive?
http://time.com/money/4503325/...

There's many ways to gauge the success of the economy, and you can't pin it all on just a few metrics. It's also easy to show growth when you start at the bottom (granted is also hard to keep from from digging yourself deeper).

The worst they showed is that Hillary was paid by banks to speak. We knew that already. We also know that corruption did not win HRC the nomination.

The big news organizations didn't publish on it? Yeah, I forgot only the little guys like Time or CNN ran with stories from it.

(/sarcasm) The big news organizations if anything failed to report clearly enough on the DNC e-mails. Too many bernie-bros who were convinced it proved the Clintons used their Benghazi military to crush Sanders, rather than "There was nothing much interesting in them."

As for not publishing the e-mails themselves, that's kind of the SOP. Wikileaks publishes everything down to social security numbers and GPS coordinates of informants in war zones, responsible news organizations attempt to hide private details like phone numbers. No shit they didn't publish the leaks directly, that would have been irresponsible.

Or it might be that in the EU workers also spent time not working ...

Let's compare the working times [1]:
United States 1,790 hours work / year
Germany 1,371 hours work / year

And Productivity [2]:
United States $ 68.3 GDP / hour
Germany $ 65.5 GDP / hour

Not that much of a difference ... and the time off is totally worth it :) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [2] http://time.com/4621185/worker...

If this were the case the House Intelligence Committee Republicans wouldn't be dragging their feet on the Russia investigation.

Because there's no there there. There as much evidence to support the conspiracy theory that the moon landings were faked as the one of Russia having Jack or shit to do with election tampering. Which, even if they did, would only be a case of chickens coming home to roost. The United States has overthrown dozens of democracies since WWII and interferes with other countries elections (Ukraine, Venezuela for a mere two examples) constantly. Don't make me go look up that cover of Time in the 90's that boasts of the U.S. picking Boris Yelstin to lead Russia. Actually, fuck it, I had to Google it to spell Yeltsin correctly so here you go.

He actually WAS working on closing it down, by transferring detainees out of Guantanamo.

To a Supermax in Illinois, where they would still have no right to an attorney or trial. Seriously, this Obamabot talking point was debunked 18 ways till Sunday waaaay back in 2009. The problem with Gitmo was not that it was in Cuba, the problem with Gitmo is that it was an unconstitutional suspension of basic civil rights. One that Obama wanted to move, not end.

Large American car companies have been a cluster fuck since the 70s.

And yet people continue to buy their vehicles by the millions. I work in the industry and have for a lot of years. Fact is that the big US car companies are pretty well managed - they are at worst comparable to most of their competition. The problems they've had have mostly been legacy problems from back in the 80s and earlier when they didn't have as much competition. Primarily high labor and pension costs that they simply could not shed and that their competition was not subject to. US cars today are largely of good quality (with some exceptions) and all the US auto makers have managed to get their costs more competitive. FCA is still something of a mess but Ford and GM are pretty well managed and very profitable at the moment.

GM could have dominated this market starting with the EV1 years ago.

GM could have possible dominated the EV market but not with the EV1 and probably not its hypothetical successor either. They would have had to have a much longer investment horizon on EVs than was probably reasonable to expect. The EV1 was a nice enough little car if it happened to fit your needs but it was wildly impractical for most people (it was a two seater with very limited range) and hugely expensive to build. There was no way GM could have sold them profitably without huge government subsidies and it was never going to be a car with mass appeal. The battery pack in it only gave a range of 100 miles and the batteries on the last models were NiMh batteries with a capacity of 26.4kWh (a Tesla Model S has capacity 3-4X that amount). The EV1 routinely earns spots on worst car lists because it was a vehicle that relied on technology that just wasn't ready yet. EVs are only becoming practical now because of progress in battery technology.

But this isn't a new thing. Assad has a long history of using sarin and other chemical weapons such a chlorine gas against the rebels. If you put it into perspective its clearly Assad behind it, and the UN certainly believes it is, and has a moutning body of evidence to back it up from their on-site inspectors.

https://www.un.org/press/en/20...

http://time.com/4728155/nerve-...

DONALD TRUMP'S LATEST APPROVAL RATING PLUNGES AS WHITE MALE SUPPORTERS FLEE THE PRESIDENT

Come again?

Where is this up 10%?

Where?

I'd ask for a citation for your claim, but I'll be honest, you seem to be spreading out some codswallop.

Good climate for primates and mammals, and generally life on the planet. Milder, wetter conditions everywhere. [wikipedia.org] More arable land, fewer deserts. We should be so lucky. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen, if not for any other reason, than that it will take a couple of thousand years for the polar ice caps to melt.

... and a good climate for arthopods and disease.

Yes, before the earth plunged into the current cycle of glaciation periods, which makes large parts of the northern hemisphere uninhabitable for more than half of every 100000 years. (Not so) great times!

... yet somehow, as inhospitable as it's apparently been, there's been life in the northern hemisphere for several thousand years.

Keep apologizing for and cheering on climate change. Moron.

But we already know another blatant mistake of the governments, which has lead to the explosion of the obesity epidemics and millions of premature deaths — the War on Fat. And on cholesterol — though manufacturers are still marketing "low cholesterol" foods, the government's current stance is Cholesterol is not a nutrient of concern for overconsumption...

I'm with you so far.

Though Americans — and other nations following America's lead — grew obese, no one was punished for that mistake.

Umm, maybe. Who do you think should be punished? The scientists? They were saying at the beginning of the War on Fat that the science was inconclusive. It was the politicians who said, "We don't have time to wait for facts. We need to act."

Without any accountability for the FDA personnel even when the fault is obvious, what is there to restraint the EPA? What "checks and balances" are there to prevent them from banning anything another "charismatic and confident" doctor suggests to ban without much proof?

I see how you can get there. But as I said, the problem wasn't with the scientists. It was the politicians pushing the agenda, and the sugar industry funding it.

The "Trust Us" science is junk science — and Congress is absolutely right to fight it, even if they are too chicken to abolish the EPA altogether.

And that's where you go off the rails. In the case of fat, there was heavy industry lobbying in favor of a position that scientists said was unsupported by current research. We now know that it wasn't just unsupported; it was wrong.

In the case of environmental regulations, the industry money is all lining up to say we don't need to reduce fossil fuel use. And the vast majority of scientists are saying that the science is settled, and it goes against what industry is pushing.

But my biggest gripe with your solution is the suggestion that if the EPA isn't perfect, the solution is not to fix it but to abolish it. That's a common solution for certain advocacy groups (and political parties) who know that it's a lot easier to destroy programs that benefit society than it is to build them.

All research affected by HIPAA would be banned by this bill.

No. If it is not personally identifiable, you can publish it. EPA could still use a paper, that says, for example, "Of the 5000 people exposed to such-and-such-sulfate, 537 developed such-and-such-iasis." As long as it does not identify the patients.

Indeed, if doing research in the first place and making it available to the EPA was not in violation of HIPAA (or, rather, HITECH) privacy rules, the EPA can publish it further.

To pretend, this is about "privacy" is a gimmick — a spin, employed by people afraid of the sunlight shining on the darker corner of the government.

This is not a fault of people not caring whether or not research is reproducible, but simply of errors

One is still at fault even if his was an honest mistake...

Whether Global Warming is, indeed, a (grave) threat to humanity remains to be seen. But we already know another blatant mistake of the governments, which has lead to the explosion of the obesity epidemics and millions of premature deaths — the War on Fat. And on cholesterol — though manufacturers are still marketing "low cholesterol" foods, the government's current stance is Cholesterol is not a nutrient of concern for overconsumption...

Though Americans — and other nations following America's lead — grew obese, no one was punished for that mistake. Without any accountability for the FDA personnel even when the fault is obvious, what is there to restraint the EPA? What "checks and balances" are there to prevent them from banning anything another "charismatic and confident" doctor suggests to ban without much proof?

The "Trust Us" science is junk science — and Congress is absolutely right to fight it, even if they are too chicken to abolish the EPA altogether.

Lest you be deterred by DNC shills who will loudly lie in response to such claims, here is an article in Time written as an apologia for the pro-choice crowd to explain away any purported racism on the part of Margaret Sanger. They give her every benefit of the doubt and spin every quote in her favor. Still, they have to admit:

That’s not to say that Sanger didn’t also make some deeply disturbing statements in support of eugenics, the now-discredited movement to improve the overall health and fitness of humankind through selective breeding. She did, and very publicly. In a 1921 article, she wrote that, “the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.”

And her is a quote from that 1921 article written by Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger:

Birth Control propaganda is thus the entering wedge for the Eugenic educator. In answering the needs of these thousands upon thousands of submerged mothers, it is possible to use this interest as the foundation for education in prophylaxis, sexual hygiene, and infant welfare. The potential mother is to be shown that maternity need not be slavery but the most effective avenue toward self-development and self-realization. Upon this basis only may we improve the quality of the race.

There's no particular reason to pick just that quote. The whole thing is a pro-eugenics screed filled with racism and class-based breeding preferences.

In the limited space of the present paper, I have time only to touch upon some of the fundamental convictions that form the basis of our Birth Control propaganda, and which, as I think you must agree, indicate that the campaign for Birth Control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical in ideal, with the final aims of Eugenics.

Time goes on to try to rehabilitate Sanger, trotting out Gloria Steinem to try to excuse her writings on eugenics as merely "the language of the day". But this is no temporal anachronism. She clearly views the mission of Planned Parenthood as reducing fertility among the "inferior races and classes". Again, here she is in her own words:

As an advocate of Birth Control, I wish to take advantage of the present opportunity to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the "unfit" and the "fit", admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation to the mentally and physically fit though less fertile parents of the educated and well-to-do classes. On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.

One can make any claims one would wish about Planned Parenthood and the value of abortion to women. But claiming that Margaret Sanger's motivations did not include the overtly racist philosophy of eugenics is unsupportable.

http://time.com/4594988/pizzag...

Nah, Breitbart is a thoroughly discredited source. [..] Find and actually credible source, or you're full of it :)

I gave you a Snopes source that addressed the topic head on, and did nothing to dispute the story. Did you even click it? Why didn't you respond to it?

The Snopes source also includes references, including to a Time article that says, "She enlisted veteran organizers Tamika Mallory, Carmen Perez and Linda Sarsour as national co-chairs with the aim of wrangling one of the largest Inauguration demonstrations in -history--and making it one that brought together activists of all stripes.".

The Tweets are a matter of factual record. So are the other sourced facts. Why does it matter if Breitbart reported on them vs anybody else? What sourced facts do you dispute? None.

Are you that afraid of the truth?

Sigh. Where do the prisoners go? Not USA, because of Congress. To another Gitmo? Hardly an answer. Go free? That gets way complicated.

Congress blocked the obvious path to closing Gitmo. Remember, Congress can override a veto with enough votes, so the President can't just thwart the lawmakers. He only enforces the laws within the legal framework, and your objections are addressed here.

http://time.com/4178779/obama-...

Did you know that your children are more likely to die violently in a rural area than in the city? And people in rural areas are also more likely to die from heart disease and cancer, among other diseases and injuries.

A suburb is a cross between an urban and a rural area, so it isn't clear at all that a suburb is a "much healthier environment" than a city.

What people mean by a "healthier environment" is the fact they can have a large house, big car, pet and other things that are difficult to own in high density areas. Basically they want some idealised 1950's white picket fence fantasy whilst forgetting that they're working 80 hours a week and commuting for another 20 to have enough money just to make the payments on their fantasy whilst trying to avoid the inevitable divorce of their loveless marriage which would make their already unbalanced crotchspawns even more fucked up.

Middle aged men like fancy cars because it's much easier to realise the rest of your life has gone to shit when you're doing 0 to 60 in 5 seconds.

Could also have something to do with real estate getting more expensive in high density urban environments.

I'll see your Nobel laureate, and raise you 36 Nobel laureates who all say Giaver is completely wrong about the climate, since it's not his field.

In fact he said so himself - he skimmed a few blogs then decided he knew better than climatologists who have studied it for decades:

"I am not really terribly interested in global warming. Like most physicists I don't think much about it. But in 2008 I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I spent a day or so - half a day maybe on Google, and I was horrified by what I learned."

Did you know that your children are more likely to die violently in a rural area than in the city? And people in rural areas are also more likely to die from heart disease and cancer, among other diseases and injuries.

A suburb is a cross between an urban and a rural area, so it isn't clear at all that a suburb is a "much healthier environment" than a city.

So, you *do* want things.

I want the nation to continue to exist. Without military and police it will not exist, therefore, military and police are necessary. Moreover, there can not, unfortunately, be a competition among different groups of armed people, so they must be under a single command — this is why I'm willing to hold my nose and accept the government doing both.

Space exploration is not required for a nation to exist. Nor are social programs. If, heaven forfend, all of the six thousand homeless of San Francisco die tomorrow, the city will not be any worse off. Moreover, provision of these folks with food and shelter can be accomplished by competing charities. Therefore, it must not be done by the government. A clear cut rule, easy to apply and understand.

So if a commie socialist program reduces more crime per dollar spent than spending it on police, you'd be in favour of that? I suspect not.

Your suspicion is correct — because socialist programs do not reduce "more crime per dollar". Not at all. The total cost of crime in the US is about $200 bln/year. The annual cost of the "War on Poverty" meanwhile costs four times that — only a tiny fraction of that stemming from the above-mentioned military.

So, if we eliminate the "War on Poverty" altogether — thus saving about $750 billion/year — and the crime so much as doubles we'd still be saving about $350 bln a year. But, of course, it will not double — because it didn't half, under Lyndon Jonson, who saddled us with this burden — so the actual savings will be much greater.

No, help for the poor can not be justified by efficiency of crime-fighting — indeed, it never was the justification. The government's benevolent and omniscient saints — including the current President — have always appealed to the taxpayers' compassion and charity. Sentiments, that are not compatible with monies being confiscated at gun-point, which is how the taxes are collected.

but now it has no government so free market pixes

Thanks to its Socialist past, it has no law and order either — which are required for a free market to do its magic.

But, so long as we are giving each other relocation advice, maybe, it is you, who should consider moving? North Korea — the worker's paradise — provides its happy citizens with free everything and has a wonderful space-exploration program too. And the glorious Rays of Chuch'e shine on everyone!

That the key happens to be a word — rather than something tangible like a metal key or a thumb-print — is irrelevant and does not magically add a Constitutional protection.

I am not a lawyer, but I am more of one than you are. That the key happens to be a word absolutely does "magically" add a Constitutional protection. Possibly.

538 says you're wrong

Summary: 2/3 of the hikes are directly due to states cutting their funding to their state university system, forcing them to make up the difference through tuition. Public higher education used to be free in a lot of states. IOW, states for decades have been jointly deciding to divest from public higher education, and use the money elsewhere (in my state, that's on tax cuts to wealthy residents). If their kids are the only ones who can afford college now, I'm guessing you won't hear them complaining much.

I am saying that it's rational, when denied of living, to try to kill and steal to get it.

Oh, this is awesome! So, refusing to buy something — such as labor — from you justifies theft and even murder, in your opinion? This is the only interpretation of the quoted sentence, that makes sense in the context of the employment-discrimination...

I know that libertarians think that somalia is an utopia

No, we don't. This is a stupid meme invented by Illiberal morons, who project their own flaws on others and fail to recognize assholes of their own kind. Somalia was a Collectivist "paradise" — and that is, what lead to its current state. The path, I might add, Venezuela — a darling of Socialists world-wide — is now walking down on as well.

prefer to actually have a society where everyone can survive, even without working

If you wish to support those, who can not support themselves, you are welcome to share your own earnings with them. But there is no moral/ethical justification to compel the rest of us — at the government's gun-point, which is how taxes are collected — to help anyone.

Whether they are destitute through no fault of their own or otherwise, the rest of us do not owe them anything. You can appeal to us to help those, you deem worthy of helping, but you must not be able to force us.

rather than face a much higher level of crime.

Ah! So it is not the benevolence, that drives you to help others out, but simply fear of criminals? Nice, for a second there I thought, I'm talking to Mother Theresa (reincarnated). Well, here are some numbers for you... The total cost of crime in the US is about $200 bln/year. The annual cost of the "War on Poverty" is four times that. So, if we eliminate those expenditures entirely — and the crime-levels as much triple, we'd still be saving a few hundred billion dollars a year.

That said, this has nothing to do with discrimination — real or imagined — so let's not get sidetracked.

Is it really wrong to call you a nazi at this point?

National Socialist? You really are in denial about your own self. Those Collectivists also — like you — worshiped the State and expected it to provide them with everything: Education, Healthcare, Pensions... Unlike Socialists — of all stripes — Libertarians advocate for the Individual, however cantankerous, above the Collective, however Glorious.

So far, we've established, that you are a Socialist and that you approve of killing, when people don't want to hire you or otherwise supply you with "living". If you want to see a Nazi, look into a mirror...

Trump said Sweden was crime ridden due to immigrants. next day Sweden then had a riot, Radio24syv investigates it, finds Russian TV station NTV paid youths to burn a car. Trump supporters cited the riot as proof Trump was right and Swedish media was wrong.

This is misinformation at its worst.
The riots in Rinkeby were sparked by a police arrest.

Are people really modding up this feces, this worst kind of fake news?

Free market economics views reduced productivity as an inefficiency, and tries to get rid of it (actually it simply offers greater rewards for higher-productivity activity, which has the side-effect of strangling low-productivity activity).

The point of the article and this concept in general is that 'employing a person' and 'being a low-productivity activity' are becoming the same thing.

We have two potential futures: one Star Trek-like utopia where goods are too cheap to sell. And another much like Feudal Japan or Europe where the starving poor shamble past giant glorious castles protecting horded valuables from the frequent rioting outside their walls.

Markets only pick prices for things, not values for things. If you can do things that raise the price far beyond the value - like monopoly pricing or protection rackets or bribery - then that's perfectly permitted under a free market. But we need to correctly value things - like public education or infrastructure and not just cost them.

During the feudal periods of societies there was no shortage of fancy things offered to the nobles while the peasants starved. Value and price becomes completely disconnected. Once you are one of the rich you no need to care about if people can buy your stuff. Price is no longer a consideration for things you want. As long as your "values markers" are intact other rich and the poor masses will continue to feed your appetites while your neighbors starve. (This relative-wealth-makes-me-better concept might be a defect built into the human society.)

Additionally, simple Economics 101 theories like free markets run smack into the face of 'F-you money' and 'needful things.' Rich people literally cannot spend their wealth. That is kind of the definition. So the rich buy 'needful things' that they want, not necessarily things that have positive economic effects.

because only a government can deprive people of freedom to make their own economic decisions.

Laws don't come from nowhere. The non-working ultra wealthy, the old money, are sources of economic inefficiency that self-reinforce. These "haves" buy things like bad laws to protect themselves. California's housing situation is an example: laws to prevent the 'free' market operating were just another item in the 'free' market to buy, another cost of business.

'F-you money' is the same destroyer of free markets but at the other end of the spectrum. This is not the same as the very low 'survival' level pay governments are playing with to prevent homelessness and destitution. This is equivalent to early retirement. The idea is to get out of the rat race.

But a modern Protestant and God-fearing economy can't have too many people walking around not doing anything productive. People with free time might have the time to think or vote or do something actually effective. In particular, thinking people are dangerous when the path to easy riches depends on scamming people with false dreams.

That's why historically in developed nations, the rich have gotten richer, and the poor have also gotten richer

That's only true for a very exceptional and brief period after World War II, one which ended with the government 'un' reforms of the 1970s in developed countries. Usually the only way the poor got richer was when a cataclysm - war, famine or disease - eliminated much of the wo

What matters to Twitter is the bottom line.

Twitter has never made a profit. They have lost $2 billion in 10 years.

Twitter is a weird mix of money-losing leftist propaganda machine and pyramid scheme. It's not a business that makes rational decisions.

The fact that 4chan is dying suggests that they may be right.

Well, you're probably the expert on 4chan, but it isn't bleeding money at anywhere near the same rate as Twitter.