Creationists insist that their ability to understand all of "creation" is sharply limited. And they even celebrate those limits, elevating the limiter to omnipotent status.
Scientists insist that they can understand practically anything they try, and demonstrate that they're right over and over in ways that everyone accepts by using, and even depending on, them.
It is foolish for Creationists to argue the chemical and biological origins of life with scientists, who have a pretty accurate, though increasingly precise, understanding of how it happened.
"The" bible you're claiming is sourced from someone "decidedly" (by you and other circular referencers) is contradicted by other bibles, some of which even predate your bible, some of which are more popular than your bible. Those contradictions don't get in the way of faith, which is unimpeded and unassisted by proof or evidence either for or against articles of faith. But in the material world of phenomena, outside the human mind's virtual image of it, those contradictions discredit it. Which is why everyone relies on scientists, not Creationists, to explain the world.
If you've got Sunday off with nothing better to do, Creationism is pretty harmless. But the rest of the week, it's useless except as a personal diversion.
My wife is Irish, we visit for several weeks every year. I can see the widespread practice of bullying among Irish children - feeding aggression among adults, who also bully children, perpetuating the cycle.
If Irish people could break the cycle by stopping adults from bullying children (and each other), the "cyberbullying" would disappear, too.
Online expressions are just a reflection of the in-person character of the people. Rehab the characters, and the reflections will follow suit. Treat only the symptom of the disease, its online (and other media) expressions, and you push the disease into other modes of expression that will cause even more, unexpected damage.
The religion delusion is so strong that when challenged, it is most likely to merely flame, not rationally disagree. TrollMods' faith in flame needs no flames as proof.
ARM is a much bigger threat to PowerPC than to x86. Especially since Apple ditched PPC in favor of x86, most PPC is embedded, where ARM is the biggest alternative. ARM is much cheaper to design into embedded HW than is PPC, even though PPC is more powerful. But embedded HW often doesn't need the power of PPC, especially when embedded merely as the control processor for lots of DSP or FPGA horsepower that is the point of the part. ARM usually wins in those designs.
With Ubuntu running on ARM, PPC might have just taken the blow that reduces its competitive advantages into a lower category than either ARM or x86.
Nah, if you're one of those people I was talking about, and you all weren't running the world, you'd be living in a cardboard box in a trash dump. In fact, if those people were (or are) still running the world, they (and the rest of us) will be living in a cardboard box in a trash dump.
Just because you're deluded doesn't mean you don't occasionally guess right.
Just because your cult is all deluded in the same way doesn't mean you don't occasionally guess right.
Just because your cult is big enough or strong enough to be called a "religion" doesn't mean you're not all deluded.
In fact, most religious people are deluded. They can't all be right about all their mutually exclusive articles of faith, for which none of them have any proof (by definition).
Religion is delusion. They could use a shrink. The only reason they don't get real help for it is because they're surrounded by other people similarly deluded. Which is worse for the larger society (and themselves, really), not harmless. If only the APA had the guts to call it "accepted delusion", without pretending it's not delusion, we might all be closer to well.
No deal. Because you people have been forcing your way into every goddamn thing so long that it's all in ruins now. Especially your credibility, especially your blathering on and on about "rules", that you worship or despise for their own sake, rather than their effects. Which have been to ruin everything.
I'm sticking my government into "your" recycling bin and DMV record, and everything leading up to and out of your gun safe. Because you people pretend that you're the only ones harmed when you run those things as catastrophically as you've run everything else.
Now pipe down and let us clean up your mess, incidentally saving your ass in the process. Sure, only a majority of Americans have now decided to ignore you people, but once you aren't the people with the power anymore for a while, your zombie army to extinction will drop off to the few nuts who can't notice reality no matter how hard it bites you in the ass. Better get busy getting over it already.
But if it were indeed threatening an entire species with extinction, people like you would be insisting that an entire species should be extincted so we can run a plasma trash disposal for a dozen years. Without even caring what that disappearing link in the foodchain would do to other species, including ultimately humans.
You people have been running the world with your shortsighted "who cares" attitude for long enough that over a third of Earth's species have gone extinct during the Industrial Age - the biggest dieoff in hundreds of millions of years. Human extinction is now possible in several ways resulting from a too-fragile ecology we depend on, and all kinds of benefits to humans are now lost as we've thrown out that bulk of Earth's biological diversity we grew up with.
When a garbage disposal plant does threaten a species with extinction, even one that you don't know anything about, regulating it is sensible. Because nature laughs last, and extinct species can include humans, down Earth's ultimate garbage disposal.
Blacks voted for the Democrat, just as they always do, even though the Democrat has never been Black before. That more voted this year, rather than staying home discouraged that Blacks aren't even represented proportionately in the Democratic Party, is not "95% of Blacks voted along racial lines".
Obama didn't promiose free houses and gas. That in fact was McCain, who promised to buy people's mortgages (most of whom of course are White) and not hold them to the contract. McCain was the one insisting on a "gas tax holiday", to further screw the government into debt while spending all that money on war in Iraq that has only raised oil and gas prices.
McCain wasn't despised among Republicans, he was the early winner of the Republican primary. There weren't enough non-Republicans voting in those primaries to make a difference.
You are a sick racist liar and a fool. Every single thing you posted is a racist lie, or just a straight-up lie.
I hope that the Republican Party continues to pander to your every whim. Then we will not have to see another Republican get any power. You sick lying fool.
Those are symptoms of people who aren't high-functioning addicts.
Any addiction is defined by one simple criterion: can the person exercise self control over the behavior?
The question can become existential: what if they don't want to quit? If they're high-functioning, they might never have call to exercise self control. In which case what's the difference whether they're addicts or not? The only question then is whether something might change requiring their quitting, and they might not be able to, which could be a problem.
Besides, everyone is "addicted" to food. Few complain about the addiction, except people who can't afford to eat, who have some other compulsion/obsession that conflicts with eating, or who have a compounded problem of eating too much. But we all live with our basic addiction to food, which isn't really a problem, and is even celebrated. Why should any other addiction matter, if there are no bad symptoms?
White people voted for McCain over Obama because McCain represented protecting White privilege, which appeals especially to White people.
Obama had overwhelming support. Despite McCain standing for White privilege (and so much else wrong with America), even Kerry's 2004 results beat McCain's 2008 results.
You Republicans can never get anything right. Obama ran against McCain, and beat the crap out of him. Except for Reagan, Obama's victory over McCain was the largest inaugural election margin in history (though Nixon's was slightly larger by percentages). Even Reagan over Carter was only a half-million larger than Obama's over McCain. As McCain said, if Obama wanted to run against Bush, he should have in 2004. But we're all already busy forgetting McCain, so why shouldn't you Republicans, too.
Obama won by a landslide. It brings me great pleasure to tell you, and any other Republican yapping lies about the margin, to get over it.
Of course Nazis called themselves "socialists", because Europe was moving towards socialism. Nazis were liars, who would say whatever would get them power. Nazism is a textbook example of rightwing ideology and actions, as everyone knows. Which is why Republicans are so often compared to Nazis: they are close cousins, politically, right down to techniques of dehumanizing scapegoats, invading countries on fake reasons, endless propaganda, failure to operate an economy, rule by corporations. And of course lying about their political enemies to frame them with their own worst faults, like you just did about Democrats.
You Republicans really never learn anything. You're demented. What an awesome relief to see you and your party thrown into the trashcan of history along with Hitler and his. And no, don't flatter your tiny Republican mind by saying that I just equated you with Hitler. You're not even significant enough to equal the lamest Republican just fired from the House of Representatives.
When the other candidate is such a piece of crap, accurate reporting will show the "favored" candidate is better.
Of course, the Washington Post is so invested in corporate Republican politics that it is undermining Obama with this story, now that Obama is going to be in charge. The WP could have run this analysis any time during the campaign season, and changed its ways, if they were indeed showing bias. But instead, they're just lying now, because their favoritism of McCain didn't quite work.
"Reality has a well known liberal bias." - Stephen Colbert
Are you forgetting the rest of the PC other than the screen, that still costs under $500? The biggest part of a PC's price is its LCD screen, which a phone doesn't have to pay for (little LCDs are much cheaper per square cm, or per pixel). Smartphones don't need to have 5MP cameras; 2MP (1600x1200) is plenty, which cost $25 or less. The rest of those parts you mention don't even cost $100 total. BTW, an unlocked (therefore unsubsidized) N95 costs under $400, and it's hardly the cheapest smartphone possible.
If Google didn't want their platform being locked out of being open by its HW implemeters, Google could stop them. It could make at least one HW vendor deliver one that's not locked in firmware. The HW makers don't care whether they get their price from the phone owner or subsidized by the telco.
I didn't say the price has anything to do with Google. I said the $1000 estimate is way too high, and I gave some facts and logic why. You don't even understand that I'm not talking about Google there.
And your point about installing another OS on a G1 phone, even if it's true, has nothing to do with getting a phone with a revisable Android OS.
This conversation is increasingly stupid, and it's neither Google's nor my fault. Goodbye.
Yes, that's why I just specified a 2 year contract on unlocked HW. The contract ensures the phone and network profit, without requiring the HW to be locked down forever. "Forever" is a great term for the telco, but there's no real reason to grant it, or that they should always absolutely require it. Eurasian telcos get along swell without lockin.
I'm not blaming the OS - what's the point of blaming a few megabytes of 1s and 0s? I'm blaming Google.
A smartphone shouldn't cost $1000 unsubsidized, when much more powerful (though bigger, but full of expensive parts like a big LCD) PCs cost $300. An unsubsidized smartphone should cost under $600.
And bringing your own smartphone to an "unlocked network subscription" should cost $450 less for a 2 year contract, which is usually about $75:mo. So it should cost about $60:mo. Whatever the specific numbers, if the phone isn't subsidized, the network subscription price should drop the subsidy price, and the whole deal should break even. Even if the unsubsidized phone does cost $1000, that $500-900 subsidy should be recovered in the smaller fees.
And even if that didn't work out, there's no reason the phone HW can't ship with the radio locked to a specific network in HW, with an oscillator chip or even a separate closed radio SW app with an API to the rest of the phone.
Google has the clout to force networks to unbundle the phones, to force phone makers to truly open the OS. That is in fact the entire point of Android. It's not supposed to just satisfy hobbyists who want to read a phone's sourcecode, it's supposed to gain the bazaar development benefits of a whole world of patchers improving it without cost to Google. There is neither simple economic nor tech reason to keep these phones's OS locked.
Android was supposed to be an open mobile phone OS. But now it seems that it's "open" for reading, not writing or executing. That is, you can look at the source code, but you can't write any changes to your phone. The firmware locks out any OS software that doesn't match the checksum or something. That lockout gives Google control of the Android OS, which means the phones are not open, and Google can even lock out apps it doesn't like, or keep features like remote shutdown (by Google, not by you), even if you want to delete that "feature".
How about Google just opens the Android platform, by allowing the phones to run even altered Android OS versions? Then I'll start believing Google when it claims to "open" some other platform even more likely to stay closed, because it runs on their own hardware, not mine.
The Chief Information Officer directs not just all information technology, but also all information systems and procedures at the organization. The CIO has control of much more than the machines and their operation. The CIO has control of the org's media relationships, the corporate communications, the "brand ID", and a lot of other details. That power in the White House is much more a part of the Press Secretary and Communications Director offices. It's much more a human-powered bureaucracy than is CTO and the IT department.
That CIO power is not at all what we're talking about. In an org like the White House, most of their business is communications and information. What we are talking about changing in the White House is someone who is on top of technology, whether internal to the White House or the goverment, or external in the nation or the world. That's a much more specific job, that does need a new post, a CTO.
I think that the Google execs who are already hanging around Obama in public will be the ones to select and present potential CTOs for Obama and his exec team to choose from. I like the nation talking about possibilities in public, but I know that the job will be more influenced by the insiders than by website discussions. Some things never change, and maybe they shouldn't.
There is no way that the Obama transition team got a.gov domain name unless it was authorized by law and by an executive approval. Not by a "favor" from some partisan friend in the bureaucracy. In fact, I linked to a law empowering the president-elect team with resources at the GSA. A law that has until this week served only Bush, in 2001.
BTW, I'd like to see a citation for your claim that 89% of non-political civil servants are Democrats.
Slashdot Mirror
Creationists insist that their ability to understand all of "creation" is sharply limited. And they even celebrate those limits, elevating the limiter to omnipotent status.
Scientists insist that they can understand practically anything they try, and demonstrate that they're right over and over in ways that everyone accepts by using, and even depending on, them.
It is foolish for Creationists to argue the chemical and biological origins of life with scientists, who have a pretty accurate, though increasingly precise, understanding of how it happened.
"The" bible you're claiming is sourced from someone "decidedly" (by you and other circular referencers) is contradicted by other bibles, some of which even predate your bible, some of which are more popular than your bible. Those contradictions don't get in the way of faith, which is unimpeded and unassisted by proof or evidence either for or against articles of faith. But in the material world of phenomena, outside the human mind's virtual image of it, those contradictions discredit it. Which is why everyone relies on scientists, not Creationists, to explain the world.
If you've got Sunday off with nothing better to do, Creationism is pretty harmless. But the rest of the week, it's useless except as a personal diversion.
Every day someone wins the lottery. They must be prophets.
My wife is Irish, we visit for several weeks every year. I can see the widespread practice of bullying among Irish children - feeding aggression among adults, who also bully children, perpetuating the cycle.
If Irish people could break the cycle by stopping adults from bullying children (and each other), the "cyberbullying" would disappear, too.
Online expressions are just a reflection of the in-person character of the people. Rehab the characters, and the reflections will follow suit. Treat only the symptom of the disease, its online (and other media) expressions, and you push the disease into other modes of expression that will cause even more, unexpected damage.
Moderation -1
100% Flamebait
The religion delusion is so strong that when challenged, it is most likely to merely flame, not rationally disagree. TrollMods' faith in flame needs no flames as proof.
ARM is a much bigger threat to PowerPC than to x86. Especially since Apple ditched PPC in favor of x86, most PPC is embedded, where ARM is the biggest alternative. ARM is much cheaper to design into embedded HW than is PPC, even though PPC is more powerful. But embedded HW often doesn't need the power of PPC, especially when embedded merely as the control processor for lots of DSP or FPGA horsepower that is the point of the part. ARM usually wins in those designs.
With Ubuntu running on ARM, PPC might have just taken the blow that reduces its competitive advantages into a lower category than either ARM or x86.
Nah, if you're one of those people I was talking about, and you all weren't running the world, you'd be living in a cardboard box in a trash dump. In fact, if those people were (or are) still running the world, they (and the rest of us) will be living in a cardboard box in a trash dump.
Just because you're deluded doesn't mean you don't occasionally guess right.
Just because your cult is all deluded in the same way doesn't mean you don't occasionally guess right.
Just because your cult is big enough or strong enough to be called a "religion" doesn't mean you're not all deluded.
In fact, most religious people are deluded. They can't all be right about all their mutually exclusive articles of faith, for which none of them have any proof (by definition).
Religion is delusion. They could use a shrink. The only reason they don't get real help for it is because they're surrounded by other people similarly deluded. Which is worse for the larger society (and themselves, really), not harmless. If only the APA had the guts to call it "accepted delusion", without pretending it's not delusion, we might all be closer to well.
No deal. Because you people have been forcing your way into every goddamn thing so long that it's all in ruins now. Especially your credibility, especially your blathering on and on about "rules", that you worship or despise for their own sake, rather than their effects. Which have been to ruin everything.
I'm sticking my government into "your" recycling bin and DMV record, and everything leading up to and out of your gun safe. Because you people pretend that you're the only ones harmed when you run those things as catastrophically as you've run everything else.
Now pipe down and let us clean up your mess, incidentally saving your ass in the process. Sure, only a majority of Americans have now decided to ignore you people, but once you aren't the people with the power anymore for a while, your zombie army to extinction will drop off to the few nuts who can't notice reality no matter how hard it bites you in the ass. Better get busy getting over it already.
No, this won't be.
But if it were indeed threatening an entire species with extinction, people like you would be insisting that an entire species should be extincted so we can run a plasma trash disposal for a dozen years. Without even caring what that disappearing link in the foodchain would do to other species, including ultimately humans.
You people have been running the world with your shortsighted "who cares" attitude for long enough that over a third of Earth's species have gone extinct during the Industrial Age - the biggest dieoff in hundreds of millions of years. Human extinction is now possible in several ways resulting from a too-fragile ecology we depend on, and all kinds of benefits to humans are now lost as we've thrown out that bulk of Earth's biological diversity we grew up with.
When a garbage disposal plant does threaten a species with extinction, even one that you don't know anything about, regulating it is sensible. Because nature laughs last, and extinct species can include humans, down Earth's ultimate garbage disposal.
You're a liar and/or a fool, and a sick, demented racist.
Federal expenditures go much more to states with the lowest minority populations in the country, because they're Republicans.
Blacks voted for the Democrat, just as they always do, even though the Democrat has never been Black before. That more voted this year, rather than staying home discouraged that Blacks aren't even represented proportionately in the Democratic Party, is not "95% of Blacks voted along racial lines".
Obama didn't promiose free houses and gas. That in fact was McCain, who promised to buy people's mortgages (most of whom of course are White) and not hold them to the contract. McCain was the one insisting on a "gas tax holiday", to further screw the government into debt while spending all that money on war in Iraq that has only raised oil and gas prices.
McCain wasn't despised among Republicans, he was the early winner of the Republican primary. There weren't enough non-Republicans voting in those primaries to make a difference.
You are a sick racist liar and a fool. Every single thing you posted is a racist lie, or just a straight-up lie.
I hope that the Republican Party continues to pander to your every whim. Then we will not have to see another Republican get any power. You sick lying fool.
Tons of geek toys at Gizmodo.com. I'll have one of each.
Those are symptoms of people who aren't high-functioning addicts.
Any addiction is defined by one simple criterion: can the person exercise self control over the behavior?
The question can become existential: what if they don't want to quit? If they're high-functioning, they might never have call to exercise self control. In which case what's the difference whether they're addicts or not? The only question then is whether something might change requiring their quitting, and they might not be able to, which could be a problem.
Besides, everyone is "addicted" to food. Few complain about the addiction, except people who can't afford to eat, who have some other compulsion/obsession that conflicts with eating, or who have a compounded problem of eating too much. But we all live with our basic addiction to food, which isn't really a problem, and is even celebrated. Why should any other addiction matter, if there are no bad symptoms?
White people voted for McCain over Obama because McCain represented protecting White privilege, which appeals especially to White people.
Obama had overwhelming support. Despite McCain standing for White privilege (and so much else wrong with America), even Kerry's 2004 results beat McCain's 2008 results.
You Republicans can never get anything right. Obama ran against McCain, and beat the crap out of him. Except for Reagan, Obama's victory over McCain was the largest inaugural election margin in history (though Nixon's was slightly larger by percentages). Even Reagan over Carter was only a half-million larger than Obama's over McCain. As McCain said, if Obama wanted to run against Bush, he should have in 2004. But we're all already busy forgetting McCain, so why shouldn't you Republicans, too.
Obama won by a landslide. It brings me great pleasure to tell you, and any other Republican yapping lies about the margin, to get over it.
Of course Nazis called themselves "socialists", because Europe was moving towards socialism. Nazis were liars, who would say whatever would get them power. Nazism is a textbook example of rightwing ideology and actions, as everyone knows. Which is why Republicans are so often compared to Nazis: they are close cousins, politically, right down to techniques of dehumanizing scapegoats, invading countries on fake reasons, endless propaganda, failure to operate an economy, rule by corporations. And of course lying about their political enemies to frame them with their own worst faults, like you just did about Democrats.
You Republicans really never learn anything. You're demented. What an awesome relief to see you and your party thrown into the trashcan of history along with Hitler and his. And no, don't flatter your tiny Republican mind by saying that I just equated you with Hitler. You're not even significant enough to equal the lamest Republican just fired from the House of Representatives.
When the other candidate is such a piece of crap, accurate reporting will show the "favored" candidate is better.
Of course, the Washington Post is so invested in corporate Republican politics that it is undermining Obama with this story, now that Obama is going to be in charge. The WP could have run this analysis any time during the campaign season, and changed its ways, if they were indeed showing bias. But instead, they're just lying now, because their favoritism of McCain didn't quite work.
"Reality has a well known liberal bias." - Stephen Colbert
Getting ripped off is no basis for calculating actual costs.
Are you forgetting the rest of the PC other than the screen, that still costs under $500? The biggest part of a PC's price is its LCD screen, which a phone doesn't have to pay for (little LCDs are much cheaper per square cm, or per pixel). Smartphones don't need to have 5MP cameras; 2MP (1600x1200) is plenty, which cost $25 or less. The rest of those parts you mention don't even cost $100 total. BTW, an unlocked (therefore unsubsidized) N95 costs under $400, and it's hardly the cheapest smartphone possible.
If Google didn't want their platform being locked out of being open by its HW implemeters, Google could stop them. It could make at least one HW vendor deliver one that's not locked in firmware. The HW makers don't care whether they get their price from the phone owner or subsidized by the telco.
I didn't say the price has anything to do with Google. I said the $1000 estimate is way too high, and I gave some facts and logic why. You don't even understand that I'm not talking about Google there.
And your point about installing another OS on a G1 phone, even if it's true, has nothing to do with getting a phone with a revisable Android OS.
This conversation is increasingly stupid, and it's neither Google's nor my fault. Goodbye.
Yes, that's why I just specified a 2 year contract on unlocked HW. The contract ensures the phone and network profit, without requiring the HW to be locked down forever. "Forever" is a great term for the telco, but there's no real reason to grant it, or that they should always absolutely require it. Eurasian telcos get along swell without lockin.
Google is responsible for the platform, which includes the lockdowns.
A smartphone shouldn't cost $1000 unsubsidized.
You can't install a changed Android - which is the entire point of this thread.
Wow, I didn't know that you don't know anything at all, especially not how to disagree using facts, or even how to grasp the basic facts at issue.
I'm not blaming the OS - what's the point of blaming a few megabytes of 1s and 0s? I'm blaming Google.
A smartphone shouldn't cost $1000 unsubsidized, when much more powerful (though bigger, but full of expensive parts like a big LCD) PCs cost $300. An unsubsidized smartphone should cost under $600.
And bringing your own smartphone to an "unlocked network subscription" should cost $450 less for a 2 year contract, which is usually about $75:mo. So it should cost about $60:mo. Whatever the specific numbers, if the phone isn't subsidized, the network subscription price should drop the subsidy price, and the whole deal should break even. Even if the unsubsidized phone does cost $1000, that $500-900 subsidy should be recovered in the smaller fees.
And even if that didn't work out, there's no reason the phone HW can't ship with the radio locked to a specific network in HW, with an oscillator chip or even a separate closed radio SW app with an API to the rest of the phone.
Google has the clout to force networks to unbundle the phones, to force phone makers to truly open the OS. That is in fact the entire point of Android. It's not supposed to just satisfy hobbyists who want to read a phone's sourcecode, it's supposed to gain the bazaar development benefits of a whole world of patchers improving it without cost to Google. There is neither simple economic nor tech reason to keep these phones's OS locked.
Android was supposed to be an open mobile phone OS. But now it seems that it's "open" for reading, not writing or executing. That is, you can look at the source code, but you can't write any changes to your phone. The firmware locks out any OS software that doesn't match the checksum or something. That lockout gives Google control of the Android OS, which means the phones are not open, and Google can even lock out apps it doesn't like, or keep features like remote shutdown (by Google, not by you), even if you want to delete that "feature".
How about Google just opens the Android platform, by allowing the phones to run even altered Android OS versions? Then I'll start believing Google when it claims to "open" some other platform even more likely to stay closed, because it runs on their own hardware, not mine.
Yahoo should auction off its outstanding shares on eBay. I've got $5 right here.
The Chief Information Officer directs not just all information technology, but also all information systems and procedures at the organization. The CIO has control of much more than the machines and their operation. The CIO has control of the org's media relationships, the corporate communications, the "brand ID", and a lot of other details. That power in the White House is much more a part of the Press Secretary and Communications Director offices. It's much more a human-powered bureaucracy than is CTO and the IT department.
That CIO power is not at all what we're talking about. In an org like the White House, most of their business is communications and information. What we are talking about changing in the White House is someone who is on top of technology, whether internal to the White House or the goverment, or external in the nation or the world. That's a much more specific job, that does need a new post, a CTO.
I think that the Google execs who are already hanging around Obama in public will be the ones to select and present potential CTOs for Obama and his exec team to choose from. I like the nation talking about possibilities in public, but I know that the job will be more influenced by the insiders than by website discussions. Some things never change, and maybe they shouldn't.
There is no way that the Obama transition team got a .gov domain name unless it was authorized by law and by an executive approval. Not by a "favor" from some partisan friend in the bureaucracy. In fact, I linked to a law empowering the president-elect team with resources at the GSA. A law that has until this week served only Bush, in 2001.
BTW, I'd like to see a citation for your claim that 89% of non-political civil servants are Democrats.