That's the great thing about Obamacare, now those people pay for health insurance coverage and can't get care. Whereas before, they didn't pay for health insurance, but were able to get health care when they needed it. Isn't Obamacare great?
Let me see if I got this straight. You are arguing that as we as a society have moved away from a capitalistic economic system, we have started to behave more according to the ideals of capitalism?
No, my claim is that the politicians have seen in the proclamations of climate researchers an opportunity to funnel money to their cronies and since the only way to get money for climate research is to proclaim what the politicians want to hear, the only people left in climate research are those who buy into that theory. In addition, the world's universities have been staffed by those who believe in the inherent goodness of government for over a generation so that they are blind to how their research is being used.
As to seeding high schools with their agents, they have been doing that since the idea of government funded education was first developed. At this point, if you are not an active agent for such groups you will find it very difficult to get and hold a job in public education.
Ah yes, the famous Richard Nixon "Southern Strategy". You know, where he convinced all those racist southern Democrats to vote Republican by forcing desegregation on their schools after LBJ chose not to.
What was studied in both articles linked to is not what is usually meant by those who talk about the power of positive thinking. As others have pointed out the idea behind the power of positive thinking is imagining successfully completing the goal, not imagining having successfully completing the goal.
I am a fencer. One of the people I fence with often says before they fence someone, "I can't beat them. I am a terrible fencer." Unsurprisingly, after saying this they usually lose, even against people I have fenced and know they are better than. Occasionally, they will be convinced that they are not a bad fencer. They will enter a bout against someone convinced that they can win. When that happens, they usually win, even against fencers I know are better than they are. Positive thinking does not cause them to beat fencers who are a lot better than they are, but it, sometimes, allows them to take advantage when those fencers underestimates them.
Perhaps you should get YOUR facts straight. The central law, the Bank Secrecy Act and its various amendments, which is what created this legal situation, were ALL passed by a Congress where BOTH Houses were controlled by the Democratic Party. These were not "Republican policies". Since they were signed into law by Republican Presidents, I must conclude that they were bipartisan,
It is possible this conclusion is wrong, so I will not argue with anyone providing evidence that this was primarily a Democratic Party idea (I can think of several explanations as to why a Republican President would sign a bill into law that he mildly disagreed with, but cannot conclude that any of those are true in this case without doing more work than I am willing to at this time).
Conclusion: This is not a "Republican policy". It is a bipartisan policy and should be unconstitutional (and that the Framers of the Constitution would be horrified that anyone could think that it was not).
You do realize that the Treasury Bonds held by the Social Security Administration cannot be sold? That means that if the U.S. government does not have the money to redeem them, and cannot get someone else to lend them money to do so, the only way to get money to redeem them is to print it. Want to guess what the money will be worth if the U.S. government prints money to redeem the bonds held by the Social Security Administration?
The only qualifications the man whom Obama has nominated for the post has for the post is that he has unwaveringly supported Obama. In doing so, he has advocated for politicizing a position which has traditionally been as non-political as possible (there have been Surgeon-Generals in the past who took political stances on public health issues, but everyone agreed that they were public health issues, this guy appears to want to use "public health" to advance his political agenda).
As a result, the Democrats in the Senate are unwilling to support his nomination (the Republicans positions are irrelevant since they cannot stop the Democrats from confirming him no matter what they do).
The most effective counter to the epidemic of fear this article talks about is for the government to convince people that it is following an effective policy to address the dangers. Unfortunately, our politicians have gotten the idea that the best way to do that is to manage the "optics" of the situation. As a result, people are convinced that the government's responses to this danger are designed more to convince people that the government is doing the right thing that to actually DO the right thing.
Others have pointed out that your interpretation is wrong and explain why. However, even if your argument was correct, you reach the wrong conclusion because the Framers of the Constitution addressed the issue of technology that did not yet exist in the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In other words, if the Constitution did not explicitly grant the federal government the power, that power is denied to the federal government.
Interestingly, if you look at historic examples of income inequality you quickly discover that income inequality increases under governments which talk the most about how evil income inequality is and which adopt programs justified as designed to reduce it.
They did not "illegally divvy up" the territory. The local municipalities only granted one or the other of them the right to offer cable service in a particular area (well, actually, in most cases they granted the right to a company that one these later bought).
I love how all of the people disagreeing with you tell you that the problem is that there is no competition in cable, so therefore this city council is right to refuse to allow competition in its area. I have trouble following that logic.
The whole business is fishy as hell. 29 states and in not one single location do they compete. The only reason they get away with it is because...
they were banned from entering the market the other company was in when cable franchises were handed out in the first place (well, in most areas, they were banned from entering even the markets they are in, but they bought the companies that had been granted the franchise for that area).
The problem exists because our government created it. The cable monopolies did not start with the cable companies (although they worked to encourage it once it started).
Comcast and Time Warner did not "voluntarily" choose not to compete. They were each given monopolies in certain areas and then bought up the other companies which had been given monopolies in other areas. Back when cable TV was new, local governments were given the power to limit who could provide cable service int their area. As a result, most local governments (if not all), issued only one permit to provide cable service. The justification for this was that cable TV was a "natural monopoly". Local jurisdictions which faced push back on the "natural monopoly" argument, argued that by granting monopoly status to a cable provider they could require them to give service to the entire municipality (or portion of the municipality in larger cities, some of which initially divided the city up between providers...long since all bought out by the same company in most cases).
While Comcast and Time-Warner could possibly have overcome this restriction to compete with each other, why would they? What would they gain from spending the amount of money it would take to overcome the regulatory obstacles to competing with each other? The likelihood of smaller profit margins and the significant possibility smaller total profits.
Yes, the hospital retracted its claim. However, the questions is, did they retract their claim because the EHR system was supplied by a powerfully connected company, a company which has the majority market share for EHR systems, despite not following the laws requirements for inter-connectivity to competitors systems (at least according to several sources I have come across. I have not taken the time to confirm the information).
While you are correct that the person running the test may interpret the results based on their opinion of you, most of the time, the test is used to determine how nervous you are when answering a question. The assumption being that if you are lying you will be more nervous than if you are telling the truth. So that even if the person running the test is genuinely attempting to get an accurate reading, it does not actually mean anything. This means that anyone with sufficient self-discipline (and in the case of a polygraph test, "sufficient" is a fairly low bar) can pass an honestly administered lie detector test while lying through their teeth.
No, you misunderstand. The FBI is only hiring people who can lie on a polygraph test and not get caught...and those few who are not interested enough in music, games, or movies to bother to download them, legally or otherwise,
I did not say "it pre-dates fracking". I said that the article said that it pre-dates fracking....to be exact, the article quotes the researchers behind this discovery of saying that it pre-dates fracking. So perhaps you should accuse them of talking about things which they know nothing about rather than myself, who merely relayed (and made clear that I was doing so) what they said.
And the worst part about it is that Shell employees probably buy more Legos than everyone who even knew that Greenpeace was running a campaign against Lego over this.
Of course, the "hot spot" mentioned in the article is NOT the result of fracking, since according to the article it pre-dates fracking. The article tells us that the methane in this "hot spot" is the result of old, leaky fossil fuel infrastructure (I am going to guess that this is primarily old pipelines and storage tanks, that have developed leaks over time, or were not particularly well-sealed when first built at a time when it was not worth the extra effort and cost to prevent such leakage).
Slashdot Mirror
That's the great thing about Obamacare, now those people pay for health insurance coverage and can't get care. Whereas before, they didn't pay for health insurance, but were able to get health care when they needed it. Isn't Obamacare great?
Let me see if I got this straight. You are arguing that as we as a society have moved away from a capitalistic economic system, we have started to behave more according to the ideals of capitalism?
No, my claim is that the politicians have seen in the proclamations of climate researchers an opportunity to funnel money to their cronies and since the only way to get money for climate research is to proclaim what the politicians want to hear, the only people left in climate research are those who buy into that theory. In addition, the world's universities have been staffed by those who believe in the inherent goodness of government for over a generation so that they are blind to how their research is being used.
As to seeding high schools with their agents, they have been doing that since the idea of government funded education was first developed. At this point, if you are not an active agent for such groups you will find it very difficult to get and hold a job in public education.
For the same reason the Democrats are big on trying to do the same. It is a great way to funnel taxpayer dollars to their cronies.
Ah yes, the famous Richard Nixon "Southern Strategy". You know, where he convinced all those racist southern Democrats to vote Republican by forcing desegregation on their schools after LBJ chose not to.
What was studied in both articles linked to is not what is usually meant by those who talk about the power of positive thinking. As others have pointed out the idea behind the power of positive thinking is imagining successfully completing the goal, not imagining having successfully completing the goal.
I am a fencer. One of the people I fence with often says before they fence someone, "I can't beat them. I am a terrible fencer." Unsurprisingly, after saying this they usually lose, even against people I have fenced and know they are better than. Occasionally, they will be convinced that they are not a bad fencer. They will enter a bout against someone convinced that they can win. When that happens, they usually win, even against fencers I know are better than they are. Positive thinking does not cause them to beat fencers who are a lot better than they are, but it, sometimes, allows them to take advantage when those fencers underestimates them.
Umm, the federal government has already seized someone's bitcoins, they could do the same to yours if they so chose.
Perhaps you should get YOUR facts straight. The central law, the Bank Secrecy Act and its various amendments, which is what created this legal situation, were ALL passed by a Congress where BOTH Houses were controlled by the Democratic Party. These were not "Republican policies". Since they were signed into law by Republican Presidents, I must conclude that they were bipartisan,
It is possible this conclusion is wrong, so I will not argue with anyone providing evidence that this was primarily a Democratic Party idea (I can think of several explanations as to why a Republican President would sign a bill into law that he mildly disagreed with, but cannot conclude that any of those are true in this case without doing more work than I am willing to at this time).
Conclusion: This is not a "Republican policy". It is a bipartisan policy and should be unconstitutional (and that the Framers of the Constitution would be horrified that anyone could think that it was not).
You do realize that the Treasury Bonds held by the Social Security Administration cannot be sold? That means that if the U.S. government does not have the money to redeem them, and cannot get someone else to lend them money to do so, the only way to get money to redeem them is to print it. Want to guess what the money will be worth if the U.S. government prints money to redeem the bonds held by the Social Security Administration?
The only qualifications the man whom Obama has nominated for the post has for the post is that he has unwaveringly supported Obama. In doing so, he has advocated for politicizing a position which has traditionally been as non-political as possible (there have been Surgeon-Generals in the past who took political stances on public health issues, but everyone agreed that they were public health issues, this guy appears to want to use "public health" to advance his political agenda). As a result, the Democrats in the Senate are unwilling to support his nomination (the Republicans positions are irrelevant since they cannot stop the Democrats from confirming him no matter what they do).
The most effective counter to the epidemic of fear this article talks about is for the government to convince people that it is following an effective policy to address the dangers. Unfortunately, our politicians have gotten the idea that the best way to do that is to manage the "optics" of the situation. As a result, people are convinced that the government's responses to this danger are designed more to convince people that the government is doing the right thing that to actually DO the right thing.
Others have pointed out that your interpretation is wrong and explain why. However, even if your argument was correct, you reach the wrong conclusion because the Framers of the Constitution addressed the issue of technology that did not yet exist in the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In other words, if the Constitution did not explicitly grant the federal government the power, that power is denied to the federal government.
Interestingly, if you look at historic examples of income inequality you quickly discover that income inequality increases under governments which talk the most about how evil income inequality is and which adopt programs justified as designed to reduce it.
They did not "illegally divvy up" the territory. The local municipalities only granted one or the other of them the right to offer cable service in a particular area (well, actually, in most cases they granted the right to a company that one these later bought).
I love how all of the people disagreeing with you tell you that the problem is that there is no competition in cable, so therefore this city council is right to refuse to allow competition in its area. I have trouble following that logic.
The whole business is fishy as hell. 29 states and in not one single location do they compete. The only reason they get away with it is because ...
they were banned from entering the market the other company was in when cable franchises were handed out in the first place (well, in most areas, they were banned from entering even the markets they are in, but they bought the companies that had been granted the franchise for that area).
The problem exists because our government created it. The cable monopolies did not start with the cable companies (although they worked to encourage it once it started).
Comcast and Time Warner did not "voluntarily" choose not to compete. They were each given monopolies in certain areas and then bought up the other companies which had been given monopolies in other areas. Back when cable TV was new, local governments were given the power to limit who could provide cable service int their area. As a result, most local governments (if not all), issued only one permit to provide cable service. The justification for this was that cable TV was a "natural monopoly". Local jurisdictions which faced push back on the "natural monopoly" argument, argued that by granting monopoly status to a cable provider they could require them to give service to the entire municipality (or portion of the municipality in larger cities, some of which initially divided the city up between providers...long since all bought out by the same company in most cases).
While Comcast and Time-Warner could possibly have overcome this restriction to compete with each other, why would they? What would they gain from spending the amount of money it would take to overcome the regulatory obstacles to competing with each other? The likelihood of smaller profit margins and the significant possibility smaller total profits.
I know a nurse who supported a family of 10 on her salary from working three 12 hour shifts a week.
Yes, the hospital retracted its claim. However, the questions is, did they retract their claim because the EHR system was supplied by a powerfully connected company, a company which has the majority market share for EHR systems, despite not following the laws requirements for inter-connectivity to competitors systems (at least according to several sources I have come across. I have not taken the time to confirm the information).
While you are correct that the person running the test may interpret the results based on their opinion of you, most of the time, the test is used to determine how nervous you are when answering a question. The assumption being that if you are lying you will be more nervous than if you are telling the truth. So that even if the person running the test is genuinely attempting to get an accurate reading, it does not actually mean anything. This means that anyone with sufficient self-discipline (and in the case of a polygraph test, "sufficient" is a fairly low bar) can pass an honestly administered lie detector test while lying through their teeth.
No, you misunderstand. The FBI is only hiring people who can lie on a polygraph test and not get caught...and those few who are not interested enough in music, games, or movies to bother to download them, legally or otherwise,
I did not say "it pre-dates fracking". I said that the article said that it pre-dates fracking....to be exact, the article quotes the researchers behind this discovery of saying that it pre-dates fracking. So perhaps you should accuse them of talking about things which they know nothing about rather than myself, who merely relayed (and made clear that I was doing so) what they said.
And the worst part about it is that Shell employees probably buy more Legos than everyone who even knew that Greenpeace was running a campaign against Lego over this.
Or to put it another way, "the size of Delaware" is about the size of Brunei or Kosovo (Brunei is somewhat smaller and Kosovo somewhat larger).
Of course, the "hot spot" mentioned in the article is NOT the result of fracking, since according to the article it pre-dates fracking. The article tells us that the methane in this "hot spot" is the result of old, leaky fossil fuel infrastructure (I am going to guess that this is primarily old pipelines and storage tanks, that have developed leaks over time, or were not particularly well-sealed when first built at a time when it was not worth the extra effort and cost to prevent such leakage).