So, you believe in #1: bottom/top surgery + hormones is just cosmetic surgery and chemical use, no different that boob jobs and steroids for weightlifters, or other body mods. If people want it, great, but it's superficial, optional and elective.
Given that I don't treat people with body mods for extended canine teeth like vampires, or people with body mods for bigger boobs like more attractive women (natural breast is best), or people who use steroids to bulk up any differently than the skinny guy who sits in a chair all day, nobody who does other elective body mods should expect me to treat them any differently because they've gotten a body mod.
So, it's great if they want to transform themselves into a blue ostrich, but that doesn't mean I'll let them live in a zoo. Regardless of what body mods they do, they are still the same person they were before the body mod, and it's not unreasonable to treat them the same before, as after.
1) bottom/top surgery + hormones is just cosmetic surgery and chemical use, no different that boob jobs and steroids for weightlifters, or other body mods. If people want it, great, but it's superficial, optional and elective.
2) bottom/top surgery + hormones is required to deal with severe mental problems, and without it, the sufferers of these mental problems will kill themselves.
If it's #1, then they don't deserve any special treatment or consideration - just because you put horns on your head, doesn't mean I have to treat you like a demon. You still have to use the bathroom for mortals.
If it's #2, then they have serious mental problems, and are not fit for military service. They should be treated with the greatest sympathy for their plight, and treatment options should include mental health options, not just surgical and hormonal ones.
I guess I'd need more detail on what the standard measurement of "self-esteem" is - a self-reported written questionnaire seems like a proxy for some theoretical "self-esteem", which while subjectively by individuals, provide little reason for us to believe they can be objectively be compared between individuals. That is to say, yes, Mrs. Jane Doe may fill out the form twice the same way, and report a "self-esteem" score of 10 out of 20, but even if Mr. John Q. Public got the exact same score, they may feel quite differently about themselves.
"Doing statistics properly" seems to be the key differentiator in those fields - they don't exactly draw the sort who are great at math, and good stats requires a surprising amount of real math.
Amen. A little bit of knowledge can be a very dangerous thing:). It's like watching someone program an n^2 algorithm for removing duplicates from a data table, and wondering why it takes 48 hours to process.
Agreed on the Higgs Boson - but we're talking about orders of magnitude more statistical support than any social science experiment has *ever* done.
I think the real concern I have is that at least with theoretical particle physics, we've got metrics that we can agree on - the speed of light, the length of a meter, the weight of a kilogram, etc, etc. With "soft sciences", not only do we have the challenge of doing statistics properly, but we have the challenge of subjective metrics.
Now that's a very interesting statement. Let's say we agree with that, and further assert that the rise in CO2 is completely natural (human emissions being buffered by natural sources, unable to actually affect observed variation). Wouldn't that lead you to believe AGW was incorrect?
As for the effects of CO2 buildup in the atmosphere, do you agree with the peer-reviewed science that it is a logarithmic relationship, and that as it increases, the impact continues to lessen? So that given say, a single doubling from 200 - 400ppm and observed 0.8C warming, we can expect from 400 - 800ppm to get another 0.8C?
If you want to stop repeating yourself, quote a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW, instead of merely insisting it exists:). Perhaps you can find one that actually makes a claim for a specific human attribution %, so that we don't conflate 1% AGW with 100% AGW:)
A theory that predicts human behavior is easily falsified by observing human behavior in controlled conditions.
The problem is that you're not really predicting human behavior in a deterministic sense, but a statistical one. And the "theory" resists falsification by ad hoc special pleadings (adding more variables), or, simply redefining the metrics (i.e., different tests for "self-esteem").
"Soft sciences" as you call them, seem more like scientism when strict scrutiny is applied to them.
If you're not arguing that there will be an impact, then you have some complaint about the projections
Are you asserting that a 1% impact is functionally the same as a 100% impact?
It seems like you're not moving the goalposts, but removing them entirely:)
As for C12/C13 ratios (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/28/spencer-pt2-more-co2-peculiarities-the-c13c12-isotope-ratio/)
"BOTTOM LINE: If the C13/C12 relationship during NATURAL inter-annual variability is the same as that found for the trends, how can people claim that the trend signal is MANMADE??"
Now, if you honestly thought that was part of the falsification criteria for AGW, you'd admit AGW as falsified now:)
And yes, I've read the IPCC report, from cover to cover, and nowhere in there does it specify a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW. Please, feel free to show me I'm wrong by quoting directly from it.
This isn't at all moving the goalposts - I stated, up front, that both necessary *and* sufficient falsification criteria were required.
The fact that you can't actually quote a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW, from the IPCC or any other expert you'd like to cite, is very telling. As per eating my own dog food, the necessary and sufficient falsification criteria of my hypothesis, "there exists no necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW" would be falsified by anyone providing an actual, quoted necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW. Believe it or not, I actually have one possible one - I'd love to see if you could guess it before I tell you at the end:)
As for any existence of any CO2 warming in a laboratory setting as being conclusive to establishing AGW, I'll agree, in the most trivial sense of having non-zero impact, it's true - but it's also true that butterflies that emit CO2 can also be blamed, so by that "at least greater than zero impact" criteria, Butterfly Global Warming is true as well.
Let's give you a few pointers on things that are necessary, and why they aren't sufficient:
1) CO2 must be a greenhouse gas - but the mere existence of greenhouse gases doesn't exclude natural global warming 2) CO2 levels must be rising - but the mere increase in CO2 levels doesn't exclude natural increases in the atmospheric CO2 level 3) humans must exist - but the mere existence of humans doesn't exclude natural climate change 4) temperatures must be rising - but the mere increase in temperature doesn't exclude natural increases in temperature, and our ignorance of natural drivers does not mean we can attribute it to our favored cause
So some very specific things you need to exclude:
1) any natural setting of CO2 levels (i.e., dynamic buffering of inputs/outputs that adapt to increased sources with sinks, and increased sinks with sources) 2) any natural impacts to temperature (cloud albedo, or ocean impacts on temperature like El Nino/La Nina)
And to be clear here - simply saying "we looked for natural impacts, but can't think of any that would fit our models" is an argument from ignorance - definitely not sufficient.
SPOILER ALERT:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Okay, so my proposal for a necessary and sufficient falsifiable AGW hypothesis:
1) assume the 5 day on/2 day off work week schedule has no natural counterpart and is solely anthropogenic; 2) measuring the difference in global activity based on the work week (particularly transportation, but it could include other CO2 sources), develop a prediction for the swing we'd expect to see in global CO2 levels; 3) measuring global CO2 levels, either confirm there is a measurable swing on the work-week, and set the limits of anthropogenic contribution based on that swing, or if no swing is found, set the limits based on the maximum measurement error that could have hidden the work-week signal.
I've done some back of the napkin calcs myself, and it comes out limited to anywhere from 1-4% human attribution. I'd love to see further work done in that direction using OCO2 data.
You've got a *necessary* component, but you don't have *sufficient* components.
Yes, CO2 has an absorption spectrum, and humans exist, and both of these are *necessary* for AGW to be true - but you haven't made an argument that excludes natural global warming.
You've got astrology (yes, stars exist, yes gravity exists, yes people are "born" under different signs), but you don't have astronomy yet (i.e., you lack sufficiency in your argument to exclude other explanations, including the null hypothesis).
1) a list of observations that would falsify your hypothesis; 2) an argument that shows if those observations are not found, the only remaining explanation is yours (i.e., the null is excluded).
While #2 might be argued over, I wouldn't call it "subjective", although certainly I can understand why it might not be complete if we simply can't imagine an explanation.
In regards to "dissonance theory", what observations would show it was wrong? Like many other pseudo-sciences, it seems like any observation can be explained within the framework of "dissonance theory", with a few ad hoc special pleadings here and there (admitting some other factors, say, without actually quantifying them).
Perhaps you could have a standard scale of "self-esteem" and a standard scale of "cognitive dissonance", and suggest a hypothesis that one is more important to confirmation bias than the other - but the caveat of "for these particular standard scales" make it malleable to an extreme. I'm sure I could tweak a scale of "self-esteem" to repeatably get whatever association I wanted.
And yes, when you have a hypothesis that is difficult to state necessary and sufficient falsifiable criteria for, yes, you're entering the realm of scientism, rather than science.
Let's call it "pre-science", since measurements existed well before the scientific method came to be:)
If you've got any specific necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of "communication studies", or any other "soft science", that you could quote here, I could understand your point better. As it is, I think you *believe* that there are these necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statements, but upon examination, it would be clear they lacked sufficiency at the very least.
I think you might be misunderstanding the point I'm trying to make - measurements, while required for science, are not *sufficient*. Just because you can measure favorite color doesn't mean that an observed association with astrological sign with a certain p-value shows any sort of causality.
And that's the real danger of scientism - people start believing that just because we have metrics, data tables, and lab coats, that we've done the proper due-diligence of coming up with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.
Falsifiability is a tricky beast - remember, there are two requirements:
1) a list of observations that would falsify the hypothesis; 2) an argument that the lack of those observations would exclude all other explanations, including the null.
Since God can do anything, and transcend any physical limitations or observable laws, by definition, there are no observations that would falsify the divine creation hypothesis - God could leave fake evidence, or remove the real evidence, by dint of his supreme omnipotence.
Without starting with the bedrock of the scientific method, the necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, you're simply not doing science at all.
A repeatable experiment on its own isn't science. I can have scorpios pick their favorite color for twenty different years, get some statistical relationship, and assert that because I've repeated this experiment and have a certain p-value, I've determined that the astrological sign influences favorite color.
What I haven't done is provide a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.
This goes into the bayesian view of science, and the popperian view of science - since statistical relationships can be p-hacked, and by the very nature of the statistics, even incredibly low false-positive/false-negative *eventually* happen when you do enough tests, I'm not particularly convinced by the bayesian view.
The inability to come up with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement is what separates astrology, social "science" and "climate science" from astronomy, biology and meteorology.
Whenever we want to start the science game we need:
1) a list of observations, if observed, would prove our hypothesis false; 2) an argument that the lack of those observations excludes all other explanations other than our own (including the null).
Ignoring this cornerstone of the scientific method leads to scientism, rather than science.
So let's say a false negative rate of 3% - no mention of false positives.
So for every 100 people who *do* have a abnormal heart rhythym, 3 won't know it.
So if you sell it to 100,000 people, 3,000 people won't get the proper answer.
At a certain point, it feels like those false negatives are going to affect a lot of people, who might look at Apple as liable for giving them incorrect information...and we haven't even looked at consequences from false positives.
* Command key instead of Control key means I can do my typical cut/copy/paste shortcuts, and still have "ctrl-c" for break in a Terminal window. * Command key with thumb more ergonomic than ctrl key with pinky. * Terminal. * Real file system without 256 character path limits - I know ntfs has recently patched this one. * Symlinks. I mean real symlinks. * Touchpad gestures * Unix based vs. unix added on (MS moving in the right direction now with bash)
Yeah, the notable lack of attribution there (or the skipping of middle attribution, since Sam Axe notes Finley as a baseball player), was odd...jarring even more so because it was a Florida library:)
If the RNC internal documents show that they're giving away debate questions, or colluding against primary contestants to get their favored candidate in, or running corrupt charities to take foreign money in return for government failures, then I'm all for having them exposed, whether it is a Russian bear, a Nork kimchee, or even just a disgruntled insider.
Now, if the DNC internal docs had just shown say, motorcade schedules, and children's school addresses, or other sensitive information that didn't show corruption, Obama would have more of a leg to stand on. Instead, it looks like he's punishing the messenger to avoid the message.
Is someone going to prosecute and sanction the DNC for stealing the election from Bernie? Or the Clinton Foundation for running a massive pay to play scheme?
Next time Voice of America points out corruption in some foreign election, should we expect to be sanctioned by that foreign nation?
And this is even if you believe that we have 100% proof that Putin leaked Podesta's and the DNC's emails.
Honestly, if Putin *did* do the crime, we should be thanking him for doing a job that the US mainstream media should've been doing.
Slashdot Mirror
So, you believe in #1: bottom/top surgery + hormones is just cosmetic surgery and chemical use, no different that boob jobs and steroids for weightlifters, or other body mods. If people want it, great, but it's superficial, optional and elective.
Given that I don't treat people with body mods for extended canine teeth like vampires, or people with body mods for bigger boobs like more attractive women (natural breast is best), or people who use steroids to bulk up any differently than the skinny guy who sits in a chair all day, nobody who does other elective body mods should expect me to treat them any differently because they've gotten a body mod.
So, it's great if they want to transform themselves into a blue ostrich, but that doesn't mean I'll let them live in a zoo. Regardless of what body mods they do, they are still the same person they were before the body mod, and it's not unreasonable to treat them the same before, as after.
You've got two options:
1) bottom/top surgery + hormones is just cosmetic surgery and chemical use, no different that boob jobs and steroids for weightlifters, or other body mods. If people want it, great, but it's superficial, optional and elective.
2) bottom/top surgery + hormones is required to deal with severe mental problems, and without it, the sufferers of these mental problems will kill themselves.
If it's #1, then they don't deserve any special treatment or consideration - just because you put horns on your head, doesn't mean I have to treat you like a demon. You still have to use the bathroom for mortals.
If it's #2, then they have serious mental problems, and are not fit for military service. They should be treated with the greatest sympathy for their plight, and treatment options should include mental health options, not just surgical and hormonal ones.
I guess I'd need more detail on what the standard measurement of "self-esteem" is - a self-reported written questionnaire seems like a proxy for some theoretical "self-esteem", which while subjectively by individuals, provide little reason for us to believe they can be objectively be compared between individuals. That is to say, yes, Mrs. Jane Doe may fill out the form twice the same way, and report a "self-esteem" score of 10 out of 20, but even if Mr. John Q. Public got the exact same score, they may feel quite differently about themselves.
Amen. A little bit of knowledge can be a very dangerous thing :). It's like watching someone program an n^2 algorithm for removing duplicates from a data table, and wondering why it takes 48 hours to process.
Agreed on the Higgs Boson - but we're talking about orders of magnitude more statistical support than any social science experiment has *ever* done.
I think the real concern I have is that at least with theoretical particle physics, we've got metrics that we can agree on - the speed of light, the length of a meter, the weight of a kilogram, etc, etc. With "soft sciences", not only do we have the challenge of doing statistics properly, but we have the challenge of subjective metrics.
tl;dr - https://xkcd.com/435/
Now that's a very interesting statement. Let's say we agree with that, and further assert that the rise in CO2 is completely natural (human emissions being buffered by natural sources, unable to actually affect observed variation). Wouldn't that lead you to believe AGW was incorrect?
As for the effects of CO2 buildup in the atmosphere, do you agree with the peer-reviewed science that it is a logarithmic relationship, and that as it increases, the impact continues to lessen? So that given say, a single doubling from 200 - 400ppm and observed 0.8C warming, we can expect from 400 - 800ppm to get another 0.8C?
If you want to stop repeating yourself, quote a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW, instead of merely insisting it exists :). Perhaps you can find one that actually makes a claim for a specific human attribution %, so that we don't conflate 1% AGW with 100% AGW :)
The problem is that you're not really predicting human behavior in a deterministic sense, but a statistical one. And the "theory" resists falsification by ad hoc special pleadings (adding more variables), or, simply redefining the metrics (i.e., different tests for "self-esteem").
"Soft sciences" as you call them, seem more like scientism when strict scrutiny is applied to them.
Are you asserting that a 1% impact is functionally the same as a 100% impact?
It seems like you're not moving the goalposts, but removing them entirely :)
As for C12/C13 ratios (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/28/spencer-pt2-more-co2-peculiarities-the-c13c12-isotope-ratio/)
"BOTTOM LINE: If the C13/C12 relationship during NATURAL inter-annual variability is the same as that found for the trends, how can people claim that the trend signal is MANMADE??"
Now, if you honestly thought that was part of the falsification criteria for AGW, you'd admit AGW as falsified now :)
And yes, I've read the IPCC report, from cover to cover, and nowhere in there does it specify a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW. Please, feel free to show me I'm wrong by quoting directly from it.
This isn't at all moving the goalposts - I stated, up front, that both necessary *and* sufficient falsification criteria were required.
The fact that you can't actually quote a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW, from the IPCC or any other expert you'd like to cite, is very telling. As per eating my own dog food, the necessary and sufficient falsification criteria of my hypothesis, "there exists no necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW" would be falsified by anyone providing an actual, quoted necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW. Believe it or not, I actually have one possible one - I'd love to see if you could guess it before I tell you at the end :)
As for any existence of any CO2 warming in a laboratory setting as being conclusive to establishing AGW, I'll agree, in the most trivial sense of having non-zero impact, it's true - but it's also true that butterflies that emit CO2 can also be blamed, so by that "at least greater than zero impact" criteria, Butterfly Global Warming is true as well.
Let's give you a few pointers on things that are necessary, and why they aren't sufficient:
1) CO2 must be a greenhouse gas - but the mere existence of greenhouse gases doesn't exclude natural global warming
2) CO2 levels must be rising - but the mere increase in CO2 levels doesn't exclude natural increases in the atmospheric CO2 level
3) humans must exist - but the mere existence of humans doesn't exclude natural climate change
4) temperatures must be rising - but the mere increase in temperature doesn't exclude natural increases in temperature, and our ignorance of natural drivers does not mean we can attribute it to our favored cause
So some very specific things you need to exclude:
1) any natural setting of CO2 levels (i.e., dynamic buffering of inputs/outputs that adapt to increased sources with sinks, and increased sinks with sources)
2) any natural impacts to temperature (cloud albedo, or ocean impacts on temperature like El Nino/La Nina)
And to be clear here - simply saying "we looked for natural impacts, but can't think of any that would fit our models" is an argument from ignorance - definitely not sufficient.
SPOILER ALERT:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Okay, so my proposal for a necessary and sufficient falsifiable AGW hypothesis:
1) assume the 5 day on/2 day off work week schedule has no natural counterpart and is solely anthropogenic;
2) measuring the difference in global activity based on the work week (particularly transportation, but it could include other CO2 sources), develop a prediction for the swing we'd expect to see in global CO2 levels;
3) measuring global CO2 levels, either confirm there is a measurable swing on the work-week, and set the limits of anthropogenic contribution based on that swing, or if no swing is found, set the limits based on the maximum measurement error that could have hidden the work-week signal.
I've done some back of the napkin calcs myself, and it comes out limited to anywhere from 1-4% human attribution. I'd love to see further work done in that direction using OCO2 data.
You've got a *necessary* component, but you don't have *sufficient* components.
Yes, CO2 has an absorption spectrum, and humans exist, and both of these are *necessary* for AGW to be true - but you haven't made an argument that excludes natural global warming.
You've got astrology (yes, stars exist, yes gravity exists, yes people are "born" under different signs), but you don't have astronomy yet (i.e., you lack sufficiency in your argument to exclude other explanations, including the null hypothesis).
Quote any necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW.
If there are so many high quality sources, it should be trivial for you to actually find the quote and paste it here.
"sufficiency" is the 2nd bullet:
1) a list of observations that would falsify your hypothesis;
2) an argument that shows if those observations are not found, the only remaining explanation is yours (i.e., the null is excluded).
While #2 might be argued over, I wouldn't call it "subjective", although certainly I can understand why it might not be complete if we simply can't imagine an explanation.
In regards to "dissonance theory", what observations would show it was wrong? Like many other pseudo-sciences, it seems like any observation can be explained within the framework of "dissonance theory", with a few ad hoc special pleadings here and there (admitting some other factors, say, without actually quantifying them).
Perhaps you could have a standard scale of "self-esteem" and a standard scale of "cognitive dissonance", and suggest a hypothesis that one is more important to confirmation bias than the other - but the caveat of "for these particular standard scales" make it malleable to an extreme. I'm sure I could tweak a scale of "self-esteem" to repeatably get whatever association I wanted.
And yes, when you have a hypothesis that is difficult to state necessary and sufficient falsifiable criteria for, yes, you're entering the realm of scientism, rather than science.
Let's call it "pre-science", since measurements existed well before the scientific method came to be :)
If you've got any specific necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of "communication studies", or any other "soft science", that you could quote here, I could understand your point better. As it is, I think you *believe* that there are these necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statements, but upon examination, it would be clear they lacked sufficiency at the very least.
Maybe you have an example that comes to mind?
I think you might be misunderstanding the point I'm trying to make - measurements, while required for science, are not *sufficient*. Just because you can measure favorite color doesn't mean that an observed association with astrological sign with a certain p-value shows any sort of causality.
And that's the real danger of scientism - people start believing that just because we have metrics, data tables, and lab coats, that we've done the proper due-diligence of coming up with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.
Falsifiability is a tricky beast - remember, there are two requirements:
1) a list of observations that would falsify the hypothesis;
2) an argument that the lack of those observations would exclude all other explanations, including the null.
Since God can do anything, and transcend any physical limitations or observable laws, by definition, there are no observations that would falsify the divine creation hypothesis - God could leave fake evidence, or remove the real evidence, by dint of his supreme omnipotence.
Without starting with the bedrock of the scientific method, the necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, you're simply not doing science at all.
A repeatable experiment on its own isn't science. I can have scorpios pick their favorite color for twenty different years, get some statistical relationship, and assert that because I've repeated this experiment and have a certain p-value, I've determined that the astrological sign influences favorite color.
What I haven't done is provide a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.
This goes into the bayesian view of science, and the popperian view of science - since statistical relationships can be p-hacked, and by the very nature of the statistics, even incredibly low false-positive/false-negative *eventually* happen when you do enough tests, I'm not particularly convinced by the bayesian view.
Cause: God and 6 days of work, one day of rest
Effect: The universe
Science, you say?
The inability to come up with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement is what separates astrology, social "science" and "climate science" from astronomy, biology and meteorology.
Whenever we want to start the science game we need:
1) a list of observations, if observed, would prove our hypothesis false;
2) an argument that the lack of those observations excludes all other explanations other than our own (including the null).
Ignoring this cornerstone of the scientific method leads to scientism, rather than science.
...replace Windows with Linux, and stop using smbv1 and smbv2.
Anyone remember nimda?
Hell, at the very least, open source any abandoned OSes so that others can take on maintenance if they feel compelled to live in the 1990s again.
So let's say a false negative rate of 3% - no mention of false positives.
So for every 100 people who *do* have a abnormal heart rhythym, 3 won't know it.
So if you sell it to 100,000 people, 3,000 people won't get the proper answer.
At a certain point, it feels like those false negatives are going to affect a lot of people, who might look at Apple as liable for giving them incorrect information...and we haven't even looked at consequences from false positives.
https://pmd.github.io/
Use an automated code review to baseline. Compilers care nothing about genitalia.
YMMV:
* Command key instead of Control key means I can do my typical cut/copy/paste shortcuts, and still have "ctrl-c" for break in a Terminal window.
* Command key with thumb more ergonomic than ctrl key with pinky.
* Terminal.
* Real file system without 256 character path limits - I know ntfs has recently patched this one.
* Symlinks. I mean real symlinks.
* Touchpad gestures
* Unix based vs. unix added on (MS moving in the right direction now with bash)
Yeah, the notable lack of attribution there (or the skipping of middle attribution, since Sam Axe notes Finley as a baseball player), was odd...jarring even more so because it was a Florida library :)
Literally giving debate questions away to the detriment of Bernie.
Literally taking gifts from foreigners for access to the Secretary of State.
Literally saying that she lied to the public, but told the truth to the bankers.
Perhaps none of that rises to the label of "corruption" for you, but by most accounts, those actions are at least immoral if not illegal.
If the RNC internal documents show that they're giving away debate questions, or colluding against primary contestants to get their favored candidate in, or running corrupt charities to take foreign money in return for government failures, then I'm all for having them exposed, whether it is a Russian bear, a Nork kimchee, or even just a disgruntled insider.
Now, if the DNC internal docs had just shown say, motorcade schedules, and children's school addresses, or other sensitive information that didn't show corruption, Obama would have more of a leg to stand on. Instead, it looks like he's punishing the messenger to avoid the message.
...and they now must be punished.
Is someone going to prosecute and sanction the DNC for stealing the election from Bernie? Or the Clinton Foundation for running a massive pay to play scheme?
Next time Voice of America points out corruption in some foreign election, should we expect to be sanctioned by that foreign nation?
And this is even if you believe that we have 100% proof that Putin leaked Podesta's and the DNC's emails.
Honestly, if Putin *did* do the crime, we should be thanking him for doing a job that the US mainstream media should've been doing.