But really, what's the essential difference between this and Affirmative Action (hiring quotas by skin color)?
Or lowering entrance standards to schools or jobs because of ethnicity or gender? Didn't Holder's Justice Dept just order the Dayton Police to lower their entry standards because they didn't have enough minority applicants pass the test?
Interesting too, that the summary describes it as "...education goals that are higher for white and Asian kids than for blacks, Latinos and students with disabilities...". How is it "higher for white and Asian"? Isn't it higher for Asians, lower for everyone else? Is it 'easier' on whites for them to think their standards are in the "higher" category (or does the author expect so)?
Or is it easier to cast a racist agenda when you suggest that white are somehow being labeled as 'better' thereby?
"In 1975 MK Hubbert, a geoscientist working for Shell who had correctly predicted the decline in US oil production, suggested that global supplies could peak in 1995. In 1997 the petroleum geologist Colin Campbell estimated that it would happen before 2010. In 2003 the geophysicist Kenneth Deffeyes said he was "99% confident" that peak oil would occur in 2004. In 2004, the Texas tycoon T Boone Pickens predicted that "never again will we pump more than 82m barrels" per day of liquid fuels. (Average daily supply in May 2012 was 91m.) In 2005 the investment banker Matthew Simmons maintained that "Saudi Arabia ⦠cannot materially grow its oil production". (Since then its output has risen from 9m barrels a day to 10m, and it has another 1.5m in spare capacity.)" (and that's just since 1975).
Personally, if the US has these sorts of reserves, we're idiots to tap them today. Use it as leverage to keep the Saudis pumping THEIR oil at moderate prices, and exhaust the supplies outside the US before touching our own.
I think the idea of secession is an absurdity, and to suggest it immediately marks one whose political input is meaningless.
Nevertheless, the summary's implication secessionist talk as racist is equally weaksauce.
To suggest that only racists would react to an overweening Federal government that cheerfully violates any inconvenient statute without hesitation, one which has run roughshod over the clearly-stated limits to Federal power set forth in the US Constitution, and whose constituent elements have both ignored their actual duties (budget? Who bothers with a budget?) and colluded to deliberately circumvent the system of checks and balances set out by the founding fathers (War Powers Act? Who needs such a thing?) is suggesting really that white people are somehow the only one capable of recognizing the disastrous course our country has been on for at least 60 years, and that's fairly patronizing if not outright racist itself.
Sadly, most products of the US educational system don't even UNDERSTAND what you just said, much less understand that you're 100% right.
Our system of government was too complicated to be taught to our children (when there were more important things to teach in the 6 hours a day, 34 weeks a year that teachers are willing to work, things like like self-esteem and how to put on condoms), so we just shrugged and said "it's a democracy" and hoped they figured it out eventually.
Unfortunately, they grew up an insisted on enabling the democracy as explained to them in these simplistic terms, and now we have it.
I googled, and all I found was that California's central valley is a shitty barren wasteland that was compelled to be agricultural land (as, I understand, is possible with pretty much any desert of you add enough water) by politicians diverting water to enrich some of their buddies in the land-speculation business.
Was that what you were talking about? So you're saying to fear that the barren wasteland is going back to what it really is?
Look at a map of the world. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that as agricultural regions shift poleward even slightly, the amount of arable land favorable to crop-growing will greatly increase.
Moreover, I recall from the 1970s concerns that the breadbasket areas of the US were going to be 'exhausted' by the intensive farming (which hasn't happened, but let's go with it)...warming of the climate, shifting optimal growing regions northward in the US will essentially 'open' virgin lands barely farmed for more intensive processes like multiple crops per year. One would suspect that as some particular, marginal soil fades from viability to grow a specific species of coffee, others will be discovered.
To suggest it's going to be "extinct" is just FUD like claiming redheads will be extinct....something so obviously tragic that everyone will be "inspired to action" without really thinking about it.
...and I only know what he is because we've been friends since grade school.
He normally is very clear - he simply can't talk about what he does, where he was or will be, etc. No big, right?
The last year or so, I've heard him make more SEAL-related comments than I've heard him say in the previous 10. He is particularly bitter and annoyed at the 'prima-donna douchebags' that are writing books and showing up in movies.
He gets it, he does: there are great piles of money and fame and hero-worship to be gained. But he points out: nobody does his job because they want to get rich or famous.
Basically, he's disgusted at the SEALs who have taken the 'public visibility' course, and can't really understand why they aren't immediately let go and firewalled. He said he's recognized things that they've discussed, or shown in movies, that are operational methods that while the bad guys may suspect we can do it if they think about it, it's stupid to wave it in front of them. It's going to get operations blown and SEALs killed.
They're just moving their operations to the 3rd world like US firms did.
Have you been to Detroit lately?
There are parts that would give Mogadishu a run for its money. What they're going to find is that - like the actual 3rd world - they'll have to keep the local politico's happy, or the corrupt cops and admins will destroy them.
Funny, I'll mention that to WW2 next time, I'm pretty sure he thought that wrecking the world (except the US) and forcing people to pretty much rebuild everything was the reason we were prosperous.
I look forward to seeing more motorcycle drivers using this app.
Because until Google Maps comes out with a 'random gravel or sand on the roadway' update to their mapping, this will pretty much just generate extra donor organs and probably bargain-basement bike parts.
So it's better to vote for a carefully-crafted politician who's never held a real job in his entire life but who has locked every record of his pre-political existence behind a veil of secrecy (it took him 3 years to produce a something-close-to-a-birth-certificate), instead of a successful businessman who doesn't drink, smoke, or swear, with a happy family and a proven track record of administrative/executive success in both the private and public sectors?
Did Romney do some things as a young man that he regrets? Yep. Tell you what, if Romney could have gotten a single vote from every person who regretted juvenile acts, I suspect he'd have had 400 electoral votes. Hell, just votes from hypocrites condemning him in that same vein probably would have won him the presidency. Did Obama? Well we wouldn't know because it's all locked away as "secret", isn't it?
I'm proud of my country, and Mr. Obama is now my president. But it seems lately that we don't "have" elections, we "get through" elections.
On a pure geopolitical level, one would expect "other countries" citizens to hope that the guy will win who'll weaken the US as an international competitor.
So like Chavez, Castro, and Putin all rooting for Obama, this "world vote" should be a negative indicator of who Americans vote for, no?
On a further note, Americans rarely care who the leadership will be in any other country, why should we care what foreign citizens hope for our leadership?
Seriously - for 8 years of the Bush2 administration, we heard about nothing but the evils of 'cowboy' diplomacy and US unilateralism. Yet the last 4 years have been nothing if not the "US Apologia World Tour 2012" in which our president has repeatedly apologized for US conduct and stressed multilateralism - and I don't see that anything's really improved.
...are any of you paying attention to WHO SETS THE TAX POLICIES?
To condemn the firms for putting their headquarters in Ireland (due to the low tax rates) entirely ignores the fact that...this is EXACTLY WHY IRELAND SET THEIR TAXES SO LOW.
Christ, people. Do you shop for the best deal on your car, or do you spend more than you have to on the premise that "well, those car salespeople can probably use some extra money". According to many posters in this thread: you're (apparently) immoral.
If you read through the standards (from BRONZE, to SILVER, to GOLD), "Fortified" pretty much means only that they're following reasonably standard levels of construction. For example "GOLD" requires "a continuous load-line from the roof to the foundation" and "chimneys be adequately anchored". I think it was BRONZE that '"studs have to be less than 24" (61cm) on center"? Seriously?
I'm in MN, and very little of the 'fortification' is anything more than the standard methods used in construction in the parts of the country where we have seasons.
If we built our homes to the (apparently) sub-Bronze 'standards' they've been using, that wouldn't be considered a 'home', it would be a playhouse or a shed.
I used to think that the fact that mid-20th-Century US highest tax bracket rates were in the 80%+ region was a VERY persuasive argument that Republicans had significantly overshot in their efforts to relieve taxation on job-creators, and reached a point where it was more about enriching the rich than any sober policy of trickle-down economics.
However I had the opportunity in September to be seated next to an older gentleman who was a personal accountant in the 1950s. As he explained to me, the tax rates were high but NOBODY paid those rates, nobody. There were so many massive loopholes, and much-easier "wink'n'nudge" accounting going on (than today, in his opinion, although he's been retired for 20 years), he said it was uncommon if a top-bracket individual was paying over 20%, ever.
It was his suspicion that in fact the top tax brackets probably paid the same today in fact, as they ever had, plus/minus 5%.
I didn't perceive him as a demogogue of either side, and he was pretty comprehensive in his discussion. I was convinced that the "taxes were higher in the old days and we were great" is also, in reality, as much bullshit as what usually comes from politicians' mouths otherwise.
Are you suggesting such weather events are out of the norm?
Pre1900: In the 19th century, two hurricanes struck the coastline, each in 1804 and in 1821; both caused minor damage. The most significant storm of the century was the Gale of 1878, which produced hurricane force winds across western New Jersey. The hurricane caused severe damage and 8 deaths. 1278â"1438 â" Though New Jersey hurricane history is unknown prior to initial European contact in 1524, sedimentary layers indicate a powerful hurricane hit the state's coastline during this time period.[2] October 9, 1804 â" The Storm of October 1804 strikes near Atlantic City as a strong Category 2 or weak Category 3 hurricane, sinking or beaching many ships in the Midâ"Atlantic. The hurricane later produces a snow storm in New England.[3] August 23, 1806 â" A ship off Barnegat Island sinks during the Great Coastal Hurricane of 1806, killing 21 people.[4] September 22, 1815 â" The Great September Gale of 1815 causes heavy damage along the New Jersey coastline while remaining offshore, though exact totals are unknown.[5] August 9, 1817 â" A tropical storm moves through the western portion of the state.[6] September 3, 1821 â" The 1821 Norfolk and Long Island Hurricane hits near Cape May as a Category 4 hurricane. Accompanied by a five foot storm surge, damage is great in the small town, though is only moderate along the coastline due to the sparse population. No known deaths are associated with the hurricane in the state.[7] August 30, 1839 â" A hurricane that remains offshore of the state forced the floating light in Sandy Hook to break loose and set adrift.[8] October 3, 1841 â" A hurricane that remains offshore caused a mixture of rain and snow in New Brunswick.[9] October 13, 1846 â" The Great Havana Hurricane of 1846 passes near or over the state, destroying many houses, downing many trees, and drowning several livestock.[10] July 18, 1850 â" A tropical storm passes to the west of the state, causing heavy rain and crop damage in Burlington.[11] August 25, 1850 â" A hurricane passes just south of Cape May, causing over 3 inches (8 cm) of rain in New Brunswick.[12] September 8, 1850 â" A hurricane parallels the coastline offshore, causing high winds and 2.6 inches (6.6 cm) of rain in Newark.[13] September 28, 1861 â" A strong tropical storm passes over the state, though its effects are unknown.[14] September 19, 1863 â" A moderate tropical storm crosses the state, though its effects are unknown.[14] October 30, 1866 â" A moderate tropical storm brushes the northeastern portion of the state before entering New York, though its effects are unknown.[14] October 26, 1872 â" Approaching from Delaware, a tropical storm moves across New Jersey with winds of 45 mph (75 km/h). Its effects are unknown.[14] August, 1873 â" Though it never makes landfall on the United States, the Great Nova Scotia Cyclone approaches the state, prompting the U.S. Army Signal Corps to issue a hurricane warning from Cape May to New Haven, Connecticut.[15] September 29, 1874 â" A tropical storm moves through the state, though its effects are unknown.[14] October 23, 1878 â" The Gale of 1878 passes to the west of New Jersey, producing winds of up to 84 mph (136 km/h). Strong winds uproof around 150 houses in Camden, while telegraph lines and trees are downed across the state. In addition, many railroad lines are either washed out or blown over. The hurricane causes high tides and strong flooding, destroying several houses along the coastline. In all, the hurricane causes 8 deaths and severe damage.[16] September 12, 1882 â" A tropical storm that passes to the south of the state causes strong winds and damage along the coastline.[17] September 24, 1882 â" A weak tropical storm parallels the coastline and causes no known damage.[14] June 23, 1886 â" A tropical depression crosses the state, causing no known da
2005 (Hurricane Katrina): "It's global warming, stupid" 2006 Not a single hurricane makes landfall on the US mainland: "Well duh, that's just weather, global warming wouldn't have an impact on weather. 2012: (Hurricane Sandy): "It's global warming, stupid"
Really, can you guys just stop? Seriously, have NONE of you ever read Peter and the Wolf?
I'm genuinely sorry if I implied that in words or tone.
Stating that there are some things that the US has done that are "morally repugnant" was meant to acknowledge that in the strongest terms possible.
What I object to are the people - common in the internet wilderness - who demonize this country and its leaders, usually to validate their own political beliefs. (FWIW, neither Bush nor Cheney were "Hitlerian", nor is Obama a 'secret muslim bent on destroying our country' nor 'a cryptocommunist'. Democrats aren't modern-day Jacobites looking to decapitate everyone making more than $40k/year, nor are Republicans all top-hat-wearing Monopoly guys hoping to exploit "just one more sweatshop", nor are they all frothing born-again evangelists trying to extirpate anything against their creed-of-the-day.)
In my mind, it's like regarding as equivalent someone who agonizes over and then turns himself in for shoplifting, and a sociopathic serial murderer. Yes, both did "something wrong", but orders of magnitude different in both scope and context.
The "Trail of Tears" (4000 dead) was shameful, but honestly *nothing* in comparison to (for example) the Chinese 'Great Leap Forward' (18-32 million deaths), the Holocaust (5-16 million) or even Russian anti-Jewish pogroms (70-250k). To even suggest it in the same breath of equivalence is frankly mendacious.
The US internment of Japanese during WW2 was a blot on our national character both in execution and in principle, but (almost) laughable when compared to industrialized and continual internment programs like the Soviet Gulags or even more recent Balkan efforts at ethnic cleansing through genocide and institutional rape.
And the US implementation of slavery is perhaps the most indelible and persistent moral accusation against the US, one that the Founding Fathers 'punted' on and which thereby resulted in the bloodiest US war ever. To criticize the US on it, one has to begin with an almost amnesiac disregard for the historical context of the previous centuries, and simultaneously disregard the sacrifice of nearly 400,000 Americans who gave everything to end slavery (as much as the war may have technically been about state's rights, the overwhelming motivation of the Union soldiery was to 'end slavery').
There is definitely a place to criticize the US's conduct and policies; I daresay our system REQUIRES that we do so. I think some of the things we've done are reprehensible.
But let's try just a teensy bit to keep it in perspective, and not blow everything out of proportion just to get "our guy" in office, yes?
Slashdot Mirror
But really, what's the essential difference between this and Affirmative Action (hiring quotas by skin color)?
Or lowering entrance standards to schools or jobs because of ethnicity or gender?
Didn't Holder's Justice Dept just order the Dayton Police to lower their entry standards because they didn't have enough minority applicants pass the test?
Interesting too, that the summary describes it as "...education goals that are higher for white and Asian kids than for blacks, Latinos and students with disabilities...". How is it "higher for white and Asian"? Isn't it higher for Asians, lower for everyone else? Is it 'easier' on whites for them to think their standards are in the "higher" category (or does the author expect so)?
Or is it easier to cast a racist agenda when you suggest that white are somehow being labeled as 'better' thereby?
We've heard it before, and we'll hear it again.
"In 1975 MK Hubbert, a geoscientist working for Shell who had correctly predicted the decline in US oil production, suggested that global supplies could peak in 1995. In 1997 the petroleum geologist Colin Campbell estimated that it would happen before 2010. In 2003 the geophysicist Kenneth Deffeyes said he was "99% confident" that peak oil would occur in 2004. In 2004, the Texas tycoon T Boone Pickens predicted that "never again will we pump more than 82m barrels" per day of liquid fuels. (Average daily supply in May 2012 was 91m.) In 2005 the investment banker Matthew Simmons maintained that "Saudi Arabia ⦠cannot materially grow its oil production". (Since then its output has risen from 9m barrels a day to 10m, and it has another 1.5m in spare capacity.)" (and that's just since 1975).
Personally, if the US has these sorts of reserves, we're idiots to tap them today. Use it as leverage to keep the Saudis pumping THEIR oil at moderate prices, and exhaust the supplies outside the US before touching our own.
I think the idea of secession is an absurdity, and to suggest it immediately marks one whose political input is meaningless.
Nevertheless, the summary's implication secessionist talk as racist is equally weaksauce.
To suggest that only racists would react to an overweening Federal government that cheerfully violates any inconvenient statute without hesitation, one which has run roughshod over the clearly-stated limits to Federal power set forth in the US Constitution, and whose constituent elements have both ignored their actual duties (budget? Who bothers with a budget?) and colluded to deliberately circumvent the system of checks and balances set out by the founding fathers (War Powers Act? Who needs such a thing?) is suggesting really that white people are somehow the only one capable of recognizing the disastrous course our country has been on for at least 60 years, and that's fairly patronizing if not outright racist itself.
Sadly, most products of the US educational system don't even UNDERSTAND what you just said, much less understand that you're 100% right.
Our system of government was too complicated to be taught to our children (when there were more important things to teach in the 6 hours a day, 34 weeks a year that teachers are willing to work, things like like self-esteem and how to put on condoms), so we just shrugged and said "it's a democracy" and hoped they figured it out eventually.
Unfortunately, they grew up an insisted on enabling the democracy as explained to them in these simplistic terms, and now we have it.
Congrats, USA, you dumb sons of bitches.
I googled, and all I found was that California's central valley is a shitty barren wasteland that was compelled to be agricultural land (as, I understand, is possible with pretty much any desert of you add enough water) by politicians diverting water to enrich some of their buddies in the land-speculation business.
Was that what you were talking about?
So you're saying to fear that the barren wasteland is going back to what it really is?
Not really relevant.
Look at a map of the world.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that as agricultural regions shift poleward even slightly, the amount of arable land favorable to crop-growing will greatly increase.
Moreover, I recall from the 1970s concerns that the breadbasket areas of the US were going to be 'exhausted' by the intensive farming (which hasn't happened, but let's go with it)...warming of the climate, shifting optimal growing regions northward in the US will essentially 'open' virgin lands barely farmed for more intensive processes like multiple crops per year. One would suspect that as some particular, marginal soil fades from viability to grow a specific species of coffee, others will be discovered.
To suggest it's going to be "extinct" is just FUD like claiming redheads will be extinct....something so obviously tragic that everyone will be "inspired to action" without really thinking about it.
Is it ironic or subtle that her book is titled "All In"? /rimshot
I'll be here all week, try the veal.
...and I only know what he is because we've been friends since grade school.
He normally is very clear - he simply can't talk about what he does, where he was or will be, etc. No big, right?
The last year or so, I've heard him make more SEAL-related comments than I've heard him say in the previous 10. He is particularly bitter and annoyed at the 'prima-donna douchebags' that are writing books and showing up in movies.
He gets it, he does: there are great piles of money and fame and hero-worship to be gained. But he points out: nobody does his job because they want to get rich or famous.
Basically, he's disgusted at the SEALs who have taken the 'public visibility' course, and can't really understand why they aren't immediately let go and firewalled. He said he's recognized things that they've discussed, or shown in movies, that are operational methods that while the bad guys may suspect we can do it if they think about it, it's stupid to wave it in front of them. It's going to get operations blown and SEALs killed.
They're just moving their operations to the 3rd world like US firms did.
Have you been to Detroit lately?
There are parts that would give Mogadishu a run for its money. What they're going to find is that - like the actual 3rd world - they'll have to keep the local politico's happy, or the corrupt cops and admins will destroy them.
FWIW it would have been pretty incompetent if they DIDN'T have such a site prepared. (shrug)
The "boom" of the 1950s was due to unions?
Funny, I'll mention that to WW2 next time, I'm pretty sure he thought that wrecking the world (except the US) and forcing people to pretty much rebuild everything was the reason we were prosperous.
I look forward to seeing more motorcycle drivers using this app.
Because until Google Maps comes out with a 'random gravel or sand on the roadway' update to their mapping, this will pretty much just generate extra donor organs and probably bargain-basement bike parts.
Which, on the whole, is useful.
Whose military would you do it with? We've been pretty much covering your defense costs since 1946.
Well, at least we've set bitter, blind partisanship aside.
Thanks for your objective, entirely non-biased comment.
So it's better to vote for a carefully-crafted politician who's never held a real job in his entire life but who has locked every record of his pre-political existence behind a veil of secrecy (it took him 3 years to produce a something-close-to-a-birth-certificate), instead of a successful businessman who doesn't drink, smoke, or swear, with a happy family and a proven track record of administrative/executive success in both the private and public sectors?
Did Romney do some things as a young man that he regrets? Yep. Tell you what, if Romney could have gotten a single vote from every person who regretted juvenile acts, I suspect he'd have had 400 electoral votes. Hell, just votes from hypocrites condemning him in that same vein probably would have won him the presidency.
Did Obama? Well we wouldn't know because it's all locked away as "secret", isn't it?
I'm proud of my country, and Mr. Obama is now my president. But it seems lately that we don't "have" elections, we "get through" elections.
I mean honestly, why would we?
On a pure geopolitical level, one would expect "other countries" citizens to hope that the guy will win who'll weaken the US as an international competitor.
So like Chavez, Castro, and Putin all rooting for Obama, this "world vote" should be a negative indicator of who Americans vote for, no?
On a further note, Americans rarely care who the leadership will be in any other country, why should we care what foreign citizens hope for our leadership?
Seriously - for 8 years of the Bush2 administration, we heard about nothing but the evils of 'cowboy' diplomacy and US unilateralism. Yet the last 4 years have been nothing if not the "US Apologia World Tour 2012" in which our president has repeatedly apologized for US conduct and stressed multilateralism - and I don't see that anything's really improved.
...are any of you paying attention to WHO SETS THE TAX POLICIES?
To condemn the firms for putting their headquarters in Ireland (due to the low tax rates) entirely ignores the fact that...this is EXACTLY WHY IRELAND SET THEIR TAXES SO LOW.
Christ, people. Do you shop for the best deal on your car, or do you spend more than you have to on the premise that "well, those car salespeople can probably use some extra money". According to many posters in this thread: you're (apparently) immoral.
A perfect example of what you're saying would be the Soviet Union.
Absolutely rigid control of the flow of capital in/out of its borders, and look at the glorious and luxurious existence enjoyed by its populace.
http://disastersafety.org/wp-content/uploads/FEH_HURR_designations_IBHS.pdf
If you read through the standards (from BRONZE, to SILVER, to GOLD), "Fortified" pretty much means only that they're following reasonably standard levels of construction. For example "GOLD" requires "a continuous load-line from the roof to the foundation" and "chimneys be adequately anchored". I think it was BRONZE that '"studs have to be less than 24" (61cm) on center"? Seriously?
I'm in MN, and very little of the 'fortification' is anything more than the standard methods used in construction in the parts of the country where we have seasons.
If we built our homes to the (apparently) sub-Bronze 'standards' they've been using, that wouldn't be considered a 'home', it would be a playhouse or a shed.
I used to think that the fact that mid-20th-Century US highest tax bracket rates were in the 80%+ region was a VERY persuasive argument that Republicans had significantly overshot in their efforts to relieve taxation on job-creators, and reached a point where it was more about enriching the rich than any sober policy of trickle-down economics.
However I had the opportunity in September to be seated next to an older gentleman who was a personal accountant in the 1950s. As he explained to me, the tax rates were high but NOBODY paid those rates, nobody. There were so many massive loopholes, and much-easier "wink'n'nudge" accounting going on (than today, in his opinion, although he's been retired for 20 years), he said it was uncommon if a top-bracket individual was paying over 20%, ever.
It was his suspicion that in fact the top tax brackets probably paid the same today in fact, as they ever had, plus/minus 5%.
I didn't perceive him as a demogogue of either side, and he was pretty comprehensive in his discussion. I was convinced that the "taxes were higher in the old days and we were great" is also, in reality, as much bullshit as what usually comes from politicians' mouths otherwise.
Are you suggesting such weather events are out of the norm?
Pre1900:
In the 19th century, two hurricanes struck the coastline, each in 1804 and in 1821; both caused minor damage. The most significant storm of the century was the Gale of 1878, which produced hurricane force winds across western New Jersey. The hurricane caused severe damage and 8 deaths.
1278â"1438 â" Though New Jersey hurricane history is unknown prior to initial European contact in 1524, sedimentary layers indicate a powerful hurricane hit the state's coastline during this time period.[2]
October 9, 1804 â" The Storm of October 1804 strikes near Atlantic City as a strong Category 2 or weak Category 3 hurricane, sinking or beaching many ships in the Midâ"Atlantic. The hurricane later produces a snow storm in New England.[3]
August 23, 1806 â" A ship off Barnegat Island sinks during the Great Coastal Hurricane of 1806, killing 21 people.[4]
September 22, 1815 â" The Great September Gale of 1815 causes heavy damage along the New Jersey coastline while remaining offshore, though exact totals are unknown.[5]
August 9, 1817 â" A tropical storm moves through the western portion of the state.[6]
September 3, 1821 â" The 1821 Norfolk and Long Island Hurricane hits near Cape May as a Category 4 hurricane. Accompanied by a five foot storm surge, damage is great in the small town, though is only moderate along the coastline due to the sparse population. No known deaths are associated with the hurricane in the state.[7]
August 30, 1839 â" A hurricane that remains offshore of the state forced the floating light in Sandy Hook to break loose and set adrift.[8]
October 3, 1841 â" A hurricane that remains offshore caused a mixture of rain and snow in New Brunswick.[9]
October 13, 1846 â" The Great Havana Hurricane of 1846 passes near or over the state, destroying many houses, downing many trees, and drowning several livestock.[10]
July 18, 1850 â" A tropical storm passes to the west of the state, causing heavy rain and crop damage in Burlington.[11]
August 25, 1850 â" A hurricane passes just south of Cape May, causing over 3 inches (8 cm) of rain in New Brunswick.[12]
September 8, 1850 â" A hurricane parallels the coastline offshore, causing high winds and 2.6 inches (6.6 cm) of rain in Newark.[13]
September 28, 1861 â" A strong tropical storm passes over the state, though its effects are unknown.[14]
September 19, 1863 â" A moderate tropical storm crosses the state, though its effects are unknown.[14]
October 30, 1866 â" A moderate tropical storm brushes the northeastern portion of the state before entering New York, though its effects are unknown.[14]
October 26, 1872 â" Approaching from Delaware, a tropical storm moves across New Jersey with winds of 45 mph (75 km/h). Its effects are unknown.[14]
August, 1873 â" Though it never makes landfall on the United States, the Great Nova Scotia Cyclone approaches the state, prompting the U.S. Army Signal Corps to issue a hurricane warning from Cape May to New Haven, Connecticut.[15]
September 29, 1874 â" A tropical storm moves through the state, though its effects are unknown.[14]
October 23, 1878 â" The Gale of 1878 passes to the west of New Jersey, producing winds of up to 84 mph (136 km/h). Strong winds uproof around 150 houses in Camden, while telegraph lines and trees are downed across the state. In addition, many railroad lines are either washed out or blown over. The hurricane causes high tides and strong flooding, destroying several houses along the coastline. In all, the hurricane causes 8 deaths and severe damage.[16]
September 12, 1882 â" A tropical storm that passes to the south of the state causes strong winds and damage along the coastline.[17]
September 24, 1882 â" A weak tropical storm parallels the coastline and causes no known damage.[14]
June 23, 1886 â" A tropical depression crosses the state, causing no known da
You obviously ENTIRELY MISSED the *point* of the story. /facepalm.
Wow, even little kids get it.
2005 (Hurricane Katrina): "It's global warming, stupid"
2006 Not a single hurricane makes landfall on the US mainland: "Well duh, that's just weather, global warming wouldn't have an impact on weather.
2012: (Hurricane Sandy): "It's global warming, stupid"
Really, can you guys just stop? Seriously, have NONE of you ever read Peter and the Wolf?
I'm genuinely sorry if I implied that in words or tone.
Stating that there are some things that the US has done that are "morally repugnant" was meant to acknowledge that in the strongest terms possible.
What I object to are the people - common in the internet wilderness - who demonize this country and its leaders, usually to validate their own political beliefs. (FWIW, neither Bush nor Cheney were "Hitlerian", nor is Obama a 'secret muslim bent on destroying our country' nor 'a cryptocommunist'. Democrats aren't modern-day Jacobites looking to decapitate everyone making more than $40k/year, nor are Republicans all top-hat-wearing Monopoly guys hoping to exploit "just one more sweatshop", nor are they all frothing born-again evangelists trying to extirpate anything against their creed-of-the-day.)
In my mind, it's like regarding as equivalent someone who agonizes over and then turns himself in for shoplifting, and a sociopathic serial murderer. Yes, both did "something wrong", but orders of magnitude different in both scope and context.
The "Trail of Tears" (4000 dead) was shameful, but honestly *nothing* in comparison to (for example) the Chinese 'Great Leap Forward' (18-32 million deaths), the Holocaust (5-16 million) or even Russian anti-Jewish pogroms (70-250k). To even suggest it in the same breath of equivalence is frankly mendacious.
The US internment of Japanese during WW2 was a blot on our national character both in execution and in principle, but (almost) laughable when compared to industrialized and continual internment programs like the Soviet Gulags or even more recent Balkan efforts at ethnic cleansing through genocide and institutional rape.
And the US implementation of slavery is perhaps the most indelible and persistent moral accusation against the US, one that the Founding Fathers 'punted' on and which thereby resulted in the bloodiest US war ever. To criticize the US on it, one has to begin with an almost amnesiac disregard for the historical context of the previous centuries, and simultaneously disregard the sacrifice of nearly 400,000 Americans who gave everything to end slavery (as much as the war may have technically been about state's rights, the overwhelming motivation of the Union soldiery was to 'end slavery').
There is definitely a place to criticize the US's conduct and policies; I daresay our system REQUIRES that we do so. I think some of the things we've done are reprehensible.
But let's try just a teensy bit to keep it in perspective, and not blow everything out of proportion just to get "our guy" in office, yes?
he said it better anyway:
"Anyone who isnâ(TM)t a liberal by age 20 has no heart. Anyone who isnâ(TM)t a conservative by age 40 has no brain."