It doesn't define you as rich. What it does is provide a workable cutoff point for the government. Two items to consider:
1) As the government you want to make sure you don't offend too many people. You need popular support when you go to confiscate money from people. So, you set the bar where the number of people who are not affected is sufficiently large to garner support, or at the very least apathy, from a significant portion of the population.
2) As the government you want to make sure that when you institute a new tax you cast as wide a net as possible. You know that governments immediately spend projected taxation increases before a dime is even collected, and that additional spending over and above what is projected to be collected will be green lighted based on the passage of a new tax law. So, setting the bar at $250k is an acceptable loss for the government (they would prefer this tax apply to everyone, but they can't due to item 1 above) but there are still sufficient members of the $250k+ group to generate almost $150 million. When considering the number of people who earn over $250k the gradient runs downhill pretty steep as you climb above $250k, with fewer and fewer high income individuals. And since the point is to cast as wide a net as possible, this threshold works well for capturing more individuals in the taxation scheme.
I understand. What I am pointing to is that the statistics themselves are not relevant to the behaviors, opinions, and actions they engender. The meaning of the statistics is what creates behaviors, opinions, and actions. Harnessing that meaning by connecting these statistics to someone's sense of justice, compassion, love, and even outrage is more important (to me) than discussing their veracity.
I want to see changes in those statistics as a result of fewer negative interactions, not by realigning the margins of error. One results in a real difference in the lives of my American brothers and sisters. The other is just moving numbers around on a spreadsheet.
This conversation right here is a big part of the issue Zero_Kelvin. In an effort to defend a certain group of people you assist in perpetuating their current status, which I find to be dangerously destitute of effective action and attention.
By invalidating these statistics you and others with like minded viewpoints minimize the problem, dismiss the problem, and ultimately undermine the impetus necessary to address the underlying issues that result in a disproportionate number of black men who are incarcerated, have their lives ruined, and in the worst cases, lose their lives.
I would prefer these statistics to be even worse. Not as an indictment of black people or black culture in America, and not as a damning accusation leveled against law enforcement, but as clear and undeniable evidence of a massive problem that needs our immediate national attention. And I do mean immediate. It took decades for this to manifest in its current form. I expect it will take at least that long to redress. Every moment we spend discussing and fighting about it means more lives upended and ended unnecessarily.
I get that your heart is in the right place. I wish I could agree with your position, but I feel it is completely counterproductive to a much needed nation discourse on this issue and stands firmly in the way of creating solutions that will result in a better outcome for all Americans, most specifically for our young black men.
Unfortunately the discussion concerning race and police violence is severely constrained. The spectacular and emotionally triggering nature of these shootings results in a focus on the police, their policies, practices, their perceived biases, and their relationship with the affected communities. The accompanying media portrayal of police and the victims, combined with the narrative-based activist backlash puts all of the attention on the single interaction that led to the incidents and on the police themselves.
I feel that a more productive conversation would deal with the preceding systemic and cultural factors that ultimately lead to the interaction which resulted in the (possible) necessity of violence in that interaction. Sadly, due to the sensitivity of race issues in this country these discussions are difficult for many concerned individuals to initiate or participate in. Accusations and perceptions of racism not only stifle the conversation but also create a hostile environment where inaction is the only safe course of action. I am sure you can remember many incidents where the individual stating a relevant fact is the deciding factor in whether or not their contribution to the conversation is taken as authentic and helpful or racially motivated and pejorative.
This is not a new development. It seems to be more prevalent than in the past, though this may be due to the increased volume of media consumption and interconnected nature of our society via Facebook, etc. For those of you who have read about the life of Malcolm X, or have watched the Spike Lee film "Malcolm X," you may recall the interaction of Malcolm X and a college age white woman where she expressed a sincere desire to help with his cause. Malcolm rebuffed her and said there is nothing she could do to help.* This identity based approach continues today and limits who has a valid voice and who can contribute is counterproductive to the ultimate goal of transforming the cultural and systemic issues that inevitably lead to these fatal incidents.
The combination of these factors means that not only are there conversations and subjects that are off-limits to certain members of our society, but there are also conversations and concepts that cannot be brought up by anyone, even members of the affected community, without legitimate fear of ostracism, loss of employment, and even the real threat of physical harm. Chilling effect doesn't even begin to describe the reality of this situation. Thought control is much closer.
So, if we cannot have an open, honest, and frank discussion of the underlying issues which lead to the problem how can we create solutions that have the desired results of maintaining effective policing while reducing the tragic problem of disproportionate application of lethal force in certain communities? If you can begin to answer that question you can begin to resolve this problem. My fear is that we have, as a country, painted ourselves into a corner. The seemingly deep rooted issues that lead to the highly visible problem of police shootings are actually well exposed. We have just been so conditioned to avoid their merest mention that we can't help tripping over them again and again.
*Not mentioned in the movie, but significant to the discussion, Malcolm X later spoke of his immense regret for saying this.
With regard to the draft, it's not technically signing your life away. The state preemptively asserts its prerogative to expend certain members of it's corpus for the survival of the whole through a mechanism called the draft. By being born male in the USA your life was already under this obligation to the state in this limited circumstance, excercisable by the state in times of extreme duress and only on or after your 18th birthday.
To compare the survival of the state with the optional consumption of a provably harmful recreational substance is a bit of a stretch. In addition, considering that Oregon is only one state of 50 and that the draft is a federal function the comparison becomes even more tenuous.
Let's play in your realm and try to establish a fair and functional reciprocal agreement. How about this: Oregonians that are drafted get to smoke, even if they are under 21 years old?
If you have nothing controversial to say, nothing that challenges the status quo, or that pushes the boundaries of what is socially acceptable that just means you are a milquetoast do-nothing that doesn't stand for anything. Your identity is irrelevant to everyone, including yourself. No one cares about robots like you because you are completely uninteresting.
Thus, your post hits every beat of the old adage "If you have nothing to hide..." You sincerely think like that because it is one of your ingrained defense mechanisms. You are the socially adaptable human, equally at home in a pristine jungle society, Nazi Germany, and every variant in between. You have neither originality or principles, as both could be injurious to your position and comfort. You never fear the establishment because you become the establishment wherever you go. You are the "Little Eichmann" Ward Churchill referred to. You do not question, and you certainly never, ever stand up to power. To do so would threaten the pretty little nest they let you have.
Not all of us are built the same way. Some of us see things that are unjust, or ill considered, or outright wrong in the world around us. We also see the positive aspects of the humans around us and wish to turn those positive attributes toward these overlooked injustices of men. This can make one unpopular, to say the least.
Such speech can be seen as an attack on the body politic, an indictment of a popular power structure, or as a diminution of a loftily held institution, any one of which could lead the less tolerant among us to violence or retribution. Anonymity is exceptionally useful to people who have a desire to change the status quo. And for those who fight back against powers and structures that have no qualms about hurting them, anonymity is key.
That CNN would do something so petty and destructive as this is shocking to me. It undermines the foundations of the fourth estate more than every false story they have written for the last 10 years combined. That someone like you would support this kind of behavior is not. You don't have a moral compass, you have a threat meter. If you get scared you turn over and show your belly, just like a well whipped dog. That's how you keep a low profile and never say anything controversial online. You can't, its been beaten out of you by your own addiction to social norms. My fear is that there are becoming more and more people like you: scared, cowed, introverted, and meek who will immediately knuckle under to the increasingly normalcy of abuse by powers "above" them. Your sniveling acquiescence to these injurious predations is so complete you even find ways to defend them before others, holding yourself up as some kind of positive example of how people should be.
What is worse, you will, without any provocation or self doubt, turn on the people around you who dare to speak up. After all, they're just childish assholes in your mind, right? And who better to discipline them than you?
The idea that "we" have to do something about "them" is how we end up with concentration camps and trails of tears.
From where I sit, the idea that "we" have to do something about "them" is how we end up with the Russian Revolution. You might want to reconsider what side of the line you are on, before it is too late.
We are, ostensibly, the first organism with the ability to change it's own DNA consciously and with purpose. I like to think of the coming genetic revolution as the evolution of evolution. All of the technical pieces are in place now. All that is missing is the impetus or necessity to use them on ourselves. A full blown climate crisis could be just the thing to kick start a new kind of directed and accelerated evolution. Fortunately, the Earth does this frequently, and with particular fervor!
When we experience the next one, I hope that the squeamishness toward human genetic experiments doesn't prevent us from surviving and ultimately thriving. It could certainly cement our survival as a new type of adaptable species: self evolving, cognition based, and physically mutable.
Nope. You, citizen, are responsible for getting your own ass, carcass still attached, home safely, should you be so inclined. This is why you are allowed under the Constitution to carry a weapon. This is also why you should be circumspect with your actions when under the direct scrutiny of law enforcement.
People who do not realize this and do not act accordingly leads to sad and frequently tragic ends. from my perspective it is just predictable. Disorientation to authority, combined with misapprehensions concerning the place of law enforcement, conflated with a healthy dose of human nature, and finished off with an exacerbating dose of violence or threat and, well...you get what you ordered.
Just so you understand this I will restate it. It is not now, nor has it ever been, the responsibility of the government or law enforcement to provide you with a chaperone, a shepherd, or a nanny. It is their responsibility, at a certain point, to provide you with a lawyer, but if you have reached this point you have probably made some very poor choices already.
But never, ever make the mistake again of thinking that another person is responsible for your safety. It is the stupidest fucking thing I have ever heard a suspected human being utter in my entire life. No one cares about your life as much as you do. Some do not care at all. Not only do they care more about themselves, but they also possesses an ingrained mechanism that forces them to err on the side of their own survival. It operates at a level of consciousness that is pre-lingual. They don't even get to think in words before it kicks in. And you are relying on that tenuous crap shoot of every damn thing lining up for you to make it home safely?
Funny, I don't see Trump answering questions in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Maybe we will get that far, but I somehow doubt it. Let's see what kind of balance the apple cart has when the special prosecutor gets his shot.
That being said, we sure are putting on a good pantomime of investigating something, though I really have no idea what.
Feels more like politicians are pen testing the American public's psyche, amassing reaction data, and further decoding the electorate. Either that or we are merely watching two egomaniacs have a post-breakup tiff with their idiot friends taking sides and potshots. Regardless of what is going on, it's not what you think it is, guaranteed.
You seem to be saying lying is bad, though it is difficult to tell. I think lying is bad. However, I was not referring to lying. I was referring to withholding information. A different subject completely. Context is important. It appears you saw the word "truth" and couldn't wait to talk about lying and drop a link. That's fine, but it is, at best, tangential to the issue I raised.
Odd that you seem to be saying that lying is bad, that truth is preferable, but that I should not be concerned about truth with regard to Comey because of something someone else did. That is confusing and disingenuous if you indeed are a supporter of the truth. I feel you are suffering from a larger problem than the inability to derive meaning from context. I think you are becoming so emotionally engaged with the subject of politics that your reason and logic have become impaired.
Truth is truth. I find it preferable to the alternative. I also find that Comey had the ability to disclose certain truthful information to the public and did not. That this information was beneficial to the president is inconsequential to me. However, it is telling that Comey would not do it. It speaks to his intentions and motives, and more specifically, that his interests did not coincide with the best interests of the people of the United States.
You apparently missed the whole kerfuffle during the election where Comey did his damnedest to submarine Hillary Clinton's shot at the presidency. Go check the records. He made announcements concerning Hillary Clinton that amounted to scare tactics. And he did it just before election day! Some people still insist his injection of himself into the political arena at that time is the reason why we do not have a second President Clinton.
So he runs his mouth about unsubstantiated facts concerning Hillary Clinton in the run up to the election, but can't see his way to make a statement about a fact he is 100% certain of, namely that the current president is not under investigation?
You figure that one out and get back to me. Looks pretty unhinged and incoherent to me.
Because what you think is obstruction of justice is not the definition of obstruction of justice. You are using words that you don't understand in a context you are completely unfamiliar with. No worries, I had to go look it up and read some case law to get a good handle on it myself. I recommend you do the same. An informed attack is better than an uninformed one any day.
Also, "lift this cloud" was Trump asking Comey to tell the American people the truth, namely that Trump was not the subject of an investigation. No matter what your affiliation, lens, or blinders, you should be able, at the very least, to understand that asking the director of the FBI to disclose truthful and non-classified information to the public is not illegal in any way.
That this truthful information would help the president, and that Comey deliberately did not do it, are in my opinion why he was fired. It showed without a doubt that Comey's interests were at odds with those of the president and his administration. It also showed that Comey is/was willing to hide important information from the American people to the detriment of our public discourse and in furtherance of his own goals, whatever those may be.
Seems pretty cut and dried: The head of the FBI confirms there is no investigation of Trump. Meanwhile the press and other talking heads are throwing around unfounded accusations to the contrary, mucking things up with conspiracy theories, making every minor information release no matter how innocuous into a portent of devastating revelations coming soon, just after this commercial break. Trump asks for Comey to clear the air about this. Comey somehow gets tight lipped for the first time in his life and declines to tell the truth. In doing so feeds the media trolls and makes the president's job more difficult. Comey gets fired? A foregone conclusion based on the facts from Comey's own testimony. Who wouldn't have fired him?
If Comey had just told the truth to the American people earlier he would still have his job, and we would be on to the next created catastrophe instead of still dealing so laboriously with this one. It is almost as if he was trying to create an inflamed situation like this by covering up the truth, exposing his employer to unnecessary mudslinging, and leaving the American people in the dark.
If you ask me, it appears that Comey has a problem with consistency that looks quite suspiciously like a political agenda. That his agenda appears completely unhinged and incoherent is even more troubling. He's either too big for his britches or a loose cannon in a position of power, or possibly both. Better that he is gone from our political system.
...but atheists knowing the Bible better than the believers that hide behind it is a common thing, at least.
I meet them frequently, however many of them have a weighty axe to grind combined with a heavy chip on their shoulder. It keeps them off balance and focused on issues that I do not care to drudgingly recount and review with every interaction. I don't blame or judge them for their hyperfocus or their angst. However, what I offer and crave they are incapable of reciprocating.
I consider the dispassionate atheist, one possessed of cool reflection and able to undertake an unbiased examination of the facts, to be among the greatest treasures I can stumble across in this world. I have met a few and have successfully held on to one of them as a close friend and confidant for years. I have no doubt that I am better for it.
The version is not relevant, as what I was looking for is manuscript evidence, the oldest and most accurate, with the least distortions.
Next was reading from the original languages for as complete an understanding as possible: sentence diagramming, defining jargon, categorical exploration of subjects/jargon, adopting the viewpoint of the writers and readers at the time the documents were written and read.
Last was putting away all of the preconceived notions given by believers and non-believers alike, and realizing the language in the book is merely window dressing. The events, interactions, and characteristics described in the book are merely pointers to ideas that are conveyed through all modes of written communication, ranging from blatant exposition, to counter examples and sarcasm, and ultimately to hidden meanings obscured by the reader's incredulity or inability to place themselves in the position of another human.
I learned quite a bit about what the text of Bible really says. From that I have learned that English translations are mostly worthless, most pastors are full of shit, most Christians are not trying to find God only support for their legalistic thinking, and every single atheist I have ever met is fighting a straw man and not the Bible.
This really reinforced the paraphrased quote: "Christianity is a wonderful religion. It is too bad no one actually practices it." More than that, it introduced me to the idea that all ancient religious documents were written to convey not the stories they contain, but the concepts behind the stories, allegorical lessons that are intimated and hinted at, which are so much more than the words themselves. If you remove your own prejudice there are many lessons to learn from the ancients on the subject of the divine.
Interesting what you got out of it. God Emperor was my favorite of the series during my first three readings of the set. All of these were during my teenage years.
Great point. Since the information she entered into the application is the only product that Facebook produces and sells, all of that information must belong to Facebook. If it did not, the could not turn it into cash like they do.
Case in point: if Facebook decided while she was alive to cut off her account not only would she not have access to her details on Facebook's servers, but Facebook could also continue to monetize the information she put onto their system indefinitely. That certainly appears as if the account and its contents don't belong to even her. It belongs to Facebook. She was just the person authorized by Facebook to access their servers through her portal and deposit information into Facebook's repository. She doesn't have any rights to the information that she gave Facebook, why should the parents have any at all?
Really what the courts need to do is make sure to protect Facebook's data. If people start to assert that they own the information they give to Facebook this could become a really confusing world. Without the intermediary to soak up all of the money, people would be selling themselves directly to corporations and advertising firms.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't define you as rich. What it does is provide a workable cutoff point for the government. Two items to consider:
1) As the government you want to make sure you don't offend too many people. You need popular support when you go to confiscate money from people. So, you set the bar where the number of people who are not affected is sufficiently large to garner support, or at the very least apathy, from a significant portion of the population.
2) As the government you want to make sure that when you institute a new tax you cast as wide a net as possible. You know that governments immediately spend projected taxation increases before a dime is even collected, and that additional spending over and above what is projected to be collected will be green lighted based on the passage of a new tax law. So, setting the bar at $250k is an acceptable loss for the government (they would prefer this tax apply to everyone, but they can't due to item 1 above) but there are still sufficient members of the $250k+ group to generate almost $150 million. When considering the number of people who earn over $250k the gradient runs downhill pretty steep as you climb above $250k, with fewer and fewer high income individuals. And since the point is to cast as wide a net as possible, this threshold works well for capturing more individuals in the taxation scheme.
I understand. What I am pointing to is that the statistics themselves are not relevant to the behaviors, opinions, and actions they engender. The meaning of the statistics is what creates behaviors, opinions, and actions. Harnessing that meaning by connecting these statistics to someone's sense of justice, compassion, love, and even outrage is more important (to me) than discussing their veracity.
I want to see changes in those statistics as a result of fewer negative interactions, not by realigning the margins of error. One results in a real difference in the lives of my American brothers and sisters. The other is just moving numbers around on a spreadsheet.
Entropy only applies to closed systems, correct?
I sometimes wonder if our "universe" is actually a closed system.
This conversation right here is a big part of the issue Zero_Kelvin. In an effort to defend a certain group of people you assist in perpetuating their current status, which I find to be dangerously destitute of effective action and attention.
By invalidating these statistics you and others with like minded viewpoints minimize the problem, dismiss the problem, and ultimately undermine the impetus necessary to address the underlying issues that result in a disproportionate number of black men who are incarcerated, have their lives ruined, and in the worst cases, lose their lives.
I would prefer these statistics to be even worse. Not as an indictment of black people or black culture in America, and not as a damning accusation leveled against law enforcement, but as clear and undeniable evidence of a massive problem that needs our immediate national attention. And I do mean immediate. It took decades for this to manifest in its current form. I expect it will take at least that long to redress. Every moment we spend discussing and fighting about it means more lives upended and ended unnecessarily.
I get that your heart is in the right place. I wish I could agree with your position, but I feel it is completely counterproductive to a much needed nation discourse on this issue and stands firmly in the way of creating solutions that will result in a better outcome for all Americans, most specifically for our young black men.
Unfortunately the discussion concerning race and police violence is severely constrained. The spectacular and emotionally triggering nature of these shootings results in a focus on the police, their policies, practices, their perceived biases, and their relationship with the affected communities. The accompanying media portrayal of police and the victims, combined with the narrative-based activist backlash puts all of the attention on the single interaction that led to the incidents and on the police themselves.
I feel that a more productive conversation would deal with the preceding systemic and cultural factors that ultimately lead to the interaction which resulted in the (possible) necessity of violence in that interaction. Sadly, due to the sensitivity of race issues in this country these discussions are difficult for many concerned individuals to initiate or participate in. Accusations and perceptions of racism not only stifle the conversation but also create a hostile environment where inaction is the only safe course of action. I am sure you can remember many incidents where the individual stating a relevant fact is the deciding factor in whether or not their contribution to the conversation is taken as authentic and helpful or racially motivated and pejorative.
This is not a new development. It seems to be more prevalent than in the past, though this may be due to the increased volume of media consumption and interconnected nature of our society via Facebook, etc. For those of you who have read about the life of Malcolm X, or have watched the Spike Lee film "Malcolm X," you may recall the interaction of Malcolm X and a college age white woman where she expressed a sincere desire to help with his cause. Malcolm rebuffed her and said there is nothing she could do to help.* This identity based approach continues today and limits who has a valid voice and who can contribute is counterproductive to the ultimate goal of transforming the cultural and systemic issues that inevitably lead to these fatal incidents.
The combination of these factors means that not only are there conversations and subjects that are off-limits to certain members of our society, but there are also conversations and concepts that cannot be brought up by anyone, even members of the affected community, without legitimate fear of ostracism, loss of employment, and even the real threat of physical harm. Chilling effect doesn't even begin to describe the reality of this situation. Thought control is much closer.
So, if we cannot have an open, honest, and frank discussion of the underlying issues which lead to the problem how can we create solutions that have the desired results of maintaining effective policing while reducing the tragic problem of disproportionate application of lethal force in certain communities? If you can begin to answer that question you can begin to resolve this problem. My fear is that we have, as a country, painted ourselves into a corner. The seemingly deep rooted issues that lead to the highly visible problem of police shootings are actually well exposed. We have just been so conditioned to avoid their merest mention that we can't help tripping over them again and again.
*Not mentioned in the movie, but significant to the discussion, Malcolm X later spoke of his immense regret for saying this.
With regard to the draft, it's not technically signing your life away. The state preemptively asserts its prerogative to expend certain members of it's corpus for the survival of the whole through a mechanism called the draft. By being born male in the USA your life was already under this obligation to the state in this limited circumstance, excercisable by the state in times of extreme duress and only on or after your 18th birthday.
To compare the survival of the state with the optional consumption of a provably harmful recreational substance is a bit of a stretch. In addition, considering that Oregon is only one state of 50 and that the draft is a federal function the comparison becomes even more tenuous.
Let's play in your realm and try to establish a fair and functional reciprocal agreement. How about this: Oregonians that are drafted get to smoke, even if they are under 21 years old?
If you have nothing controversial to say, nothing that challenges the status quo, or that pushes the boundaries of what is socially acceptable that just means you are a milquetoast do-nothing that doesn't stand for anything. Your identity is irrelevant to everyone, including yourself. No one cares about robots like you because you are completely uninteresting.
Thus, your post hits every beat of the old adage "If you have nothing to hide..." You sincerely think like that because it is one of your ingrained defense mechanisms. You are the socially adaptable human, equally at home in a pristine jungle society, Nazi Germany, and every variant in between. You have neither originality or principles, as both could be injurious to your position and comfort. You never fear the establishment because you become the establishment wherever you go. You are the "Little Eichmann" Ward Churchill referred to. You do not question, and you certainly never, ever stand up to power. To do so would threaten the pretty little nest they let you have.
Not all of us are built the same way. Some of us see things that are unjust, or ill considered, or outright wrong in the world around us. We also see the positive aspects of the humans around us and wish to turn those positive attributes toward these overlooked injustices of men. This can make one unpopular, to say the least.
Such speech can be seen as an attack on the body politic, an indictment of a popular power structure, or as a diminution of a loftily held institution, any one of which could lead the less tolerant among us to violence or retribution. Anonymity is exceptionally useful to people who have a desire to change the status quo. And for those who fight back against powers and structures that have no qualms about hurting them, anonymity is key.
That CNN would do something so petty and destructive as this is shocking to me. It undermines the foundations of the fourth estate more than every false story they have written for the last 10 years combined. That someone like you would support this kind of behavior is not. You don't have a moral compass, you have a threat meter. If you get scared you turn over and show your belly, just like a well whipped dog. That's how you keep a low profile and never say anything controversial online. You can't, its been beaten out of you by your own addiction to social norms. My fear is that there are becoming more and more people like you: scared, cowed, introverted, and meek who will immediately knuckle under to the increasingly normalcy of abuse by powers "above" them. Your sniveling acquiescence to these injurious predations is so complete you even find ways to defend them before others, holding yourself up as some kind of positive example of how people should be.
What is worse, you will, without any provocation or self doubt, turn on the people around you who dare to speak up. After all, they're just childish assholes in your mind, right? And who better to discipline them than you?
I want you to put a bookmark on your posts in this thread from today. Come back and take a look at it in a few years.
You're talking white collar jobs where you work.
The article refers to workers on the factory floor. Looks more like a blue collar environment from here. Wonder if that has anything to do with it?
Minimum wage is to socialism as McDonald's is to food.
Namely a cheap fucking imitation that stupid people take for the real thing.
The idea that "we" have to do something about "them" is how we end up with concentration camps and trails of tears.
From where I sit, the idea that "we" have to do something about "them" is how we end up with the Russian Revolution. You might want to reconsider what side of the line you are on, before it is too late.
We are, ostensibly, the first organism with the ability to change it's own DNA consciously and with purpose. I like to think of the coming genetic revolution as the evolution of evolution. All of the technical pieces are in place now. All that is missing is the impetus or necessity to use them on ourselves. A full blown climate crisis could be just the thing to kick start a new kind of directed and accelerated evolution. Fortunately, the Earth does this frequently, and with particular fervor!
When we experience the next one, I hope that the squeamishness toward human genetic experiments doesn't prevent us from surviving and ultimately thriving. It could certainly cement our survival as a new type of adaptable species: self evolving, cognition based, and physically mutable.
We don't really need the extra volume. Check this guy out:
https://www.newscientist.com/a...
Comparing volume appears to be an inaccurate way of comparing intelligence.
Nope. You, citizen, are responsible for getting your own ass, carcass still attached, home safely, should you be so inclined. This is why you are allowed under the Constitution to carry a weapon. This is also why you should be circumspect with your actions when under the direct scrutiny of law enforcement.
People who do not realize this and do not act accordingly leads to sad and frequently tragic ends. from my perspective it is just predictable. Disorientation to authority, combined with misapprehensions concerning the place of law enforcement, conflated with a healthy dose of human nature, and finished off with an exacerbating dose of violence or threat and, well...you get what you ordered.
Just so you understand this I will restate it. It is not now, nor has it ever been, the responsibility of the government or law enforcement to provide you with a chaperone, a shepherd, or a nanny. It is their responsibility, at a certain point, to provide you with a lawyer, but if you have reached this point you have probably made some very poor choices already.
But never, ever make the mistake again of thinking that another person is responsible for your safety. It is the stupidest fucking thing I have ever heard a suspected human being utter in my entire life. No one cares about your life as much as you do. Some do not care at all. Not only do they care more about themselves, but they also possesses an ingrained mechanism that forces them to err on the side of their own survival. It operates at a level of consciousness that is pre-lingual. They don't even get to think in words before it kicks in. And you are relying on that tenuous crap shoot of every damn thing lining up for you to make it home safely?
I'm surprised you have made it this far.
Meditation is nothing? Who knew?
Thanks, I think? LOL! I've been here for too long at this point to leave now. So not to worry, I won't be bailing out anytime soon.
I am, however, getting slight indications that I should work on my tone. Too cynical?
Funny, I don't see Trump answering questions in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Maybe we will get that far, but I somehow doubt it. Let's see what kind of balance the apple cart has when the special prosecutor gets his shot.
That being said, we sure are putting on a good pantomime of investigating something, though I really have no idea what.
Feels more like politicians are pen testing the American public's psyche, amassing reaction data, and further decoding the electorate. Either that or we are merely watching two egomaniacs have a post-breakup tiff with their idiot friends taking sides and potshots. Regardless of what is going on, it's not what you think it is, guaranteed.
You seem to be saying lying is bad, though it is difficult to tell. I think lying is bad. However, I was not referring to lying. I was referring to withholding information. A different subject completely. Context is important. It appears you saw the word "truth" and couldn't wait to talk about lying and drop a link. That's fine, but it is, at best, tangential to the issue I raised.
Odd that you seem to be saying that lying is bad, that truth is preferable, but that I should not be concerned about truth with regard to Comey because of something someone else did. That is confusing and disingenuous if you indeed are a supporter of the truth. I feel you are suffering from a larger problem than the inability to derive meaning from context. I think you are becoming so emotionally engaged with the subject of politics that your reason and logic have become impaired.
Truth is truth. I find it preferable to the alternative. I also find that Comey had the ability to disclose certain truthful information to the public and did not. That this information was beneficial to the president is inconsequential to me. However, it is telling that Comey would not do it. It speaks to his intentions and motives, and more specifically, that his interests did not coincide with the best interests of the people of the United States.
You apparently missed the whole kerfuffle during the election where Comey did his damnedest to submarine Hillary Clinton's shot at the presidency. Go check the records. He made announcements concerning Hillary Clinton that amounted to scare tactics. And he did it just before election day! Some people still insist his injection of himself into the political arena at that time is the reason why we do not have a second President Clinton.
So he runs his mouth about unsubstantiated facts concerning Hillary Clinton in the run up to the election, but can't see his way to make a statement about a fact he is 100% certain of, namely that the current president is not under investigation?
You figure that one out and get back to me. Looks pretty unhinged and incoherent to me.
Because what you think is obstruction of justice is not the definition of obstruction of justice. You are using words that you don't understand in a context you are completely unfamiliar with. No worries, I had to go look it up and read some case law to get a good handle on it myself. I recommend you do the same. An informed attack is better than an uninformed one any day.
Also, "lift this cloud" was Trump asking Comey to tell the American people the truth, namely that Trump was not the subject of an investigation. No matter what your affiliation, lens, or blinders, you should be able, at the very least, to understand that asking the director of the FBI to disclose truthful and non-classified information to the public is not illegal in any way.
That this truthful information would help the president, and that Comey deliberately did not do it, are in my opinion why he was fired. It showed without a doubt that Comey's interests were at odds with those of the president and his administration. It also showed that Comey is/was willing to hide important information from the American people to the detriment of our public discourse and in furtherance of his own goals, whatever those may be.
Seems pretty cut and dried: The head of the FBI confirms there is no investigation of Trump. Meanwhile the press and other talking heads are throwing around unfounded accusations to the contrary, mucking things up with conspiracy theories, making every minor information release no matter how innocuous into a portent of devastating revelations coming soon, just after this commercial break. Trump asks for Comey to clear the air about this. Comey somehow gets tight lipped for the first time in his life and declines to tell the truth. In doing so feeds the media trolls and makes the president's job more difficult. Comey gets fired? A foregone conclusion based on the facts from Comey's own testimony. Who wouldn't have fired him?
If Comey had just told the truth to the American people earlier he would still have his job, and we would be on to the next created catastrophe instead of still dealing so laboriously with this one. It is almost as if he was trying to create an inflamed situation like this by covering up the truth, exposing his employer to unnecessary mudslinging, and leaving the American people in the dark.
If you ask me, it appears that Comey has a problem with consistency that looks quite suspiciously like a political agenda. That his agenda appears completely unhinged and incoherent is even more troubling. He's either too big for his britches or a loose cannon in a position of power, or possibly both. Better that he is gone from our political system.
...but atheists knowing the Bible better than the believers that hide behind it is a common thing, at least.
I meet them frequently, however many of them have a weighty axe to grind combined with a heavy chip on their shoulder. It keeps them off balance and focused on issues that I do not care to drudgingly recount and review with every interaction. I don't blame or judge them for their hyperfocus or their angst. However, what I offer and crave they are incapable of reciprocating.
I consider the dispassionate atheist, one possessed of cool reflection and able to undertake an unbiased examination of the facts, to be among the greatest treasures I can stumble across in this world. I have met a few and have successfully held on to one of them as a close friend and confidant for years. I have no doubt that I am better for it.
Same for me as well, with exceptions.
The version is not relevant, as what I was looking for is manuscript evidence, the oldest and most accurate, with the least distortions.
Next was reading from the original languages for as complete an understanding as possible: sentence diagramming, defining jargon, categorical exploration of subjects/jargon, adopting the viewpoint of the writers and readers at the time the documents were written and read.
Last was putting away all of the preconceived notions given by believers and non-believers alike, and realizing the language in the book is merely window dressing. The events, interactions, and characteristics described in the book are merely pointers to ideas that are conveyed through all modes of written communication, ranging from blatant exposition, to counter examples and sarcasm, and ultimately to hidden meanings obscured by the reader's incredulity or inability to place themselves in the position of another human.
I learned quite a bit about what the text of Bible really says. From that I have learned that English translations are mostly worthless, most pastors are full of shit, most Christians are not trying to find God only support for their legalistic thinking, and every single atheist I have ever met is fighting a straw man and not the Bible.
This really reinforced the paraphrased quote: "Christianity is a wonderful religion. It is too bad no one actually practices it." More than that, it introduced me to the idea that all ancient religious documents were written to convey not the stories they contain, but the concepts behind the stories, allegorical lessons that are intimated and hinted at, which are so much more than the words themselves. If you remove your own prejudice there are many lessons to learn from the ancients on the subject of the divine.
Interesting what you got out of it. God Emperor was my favorite of the series during my first three readings of the set. All of these were during my teenage years.
Great point. Since the information she entered into the application is the only product that Facebook produces and sells, all of that information must belong to Facebook. If it did not, the could not turn it into cash like they do.
Case in point: if Facebook decided while she was alive to cut off her account not only would she not have access to her details on Facebook's servers, but Facebook could also continue to monetize the information she put onto their system indefinitely. That certainly appears as if the account and its contents don't belong to even her. It belongs to Facebook. She was just the person authorized by Facebook to access their servers through her portal and deposit information into Facebook's repository. She doesn't have any rights to the information that she gave Facebook, why should the parents have any at all?
Really what the courts need to do is make sure to protect Facebook's data. If people start to assert that they own the information they give to Facebook this could become a really confusing world. Without the intermediary to soak up all of the money, people would be selling themselves directly to corporations and advertising firms.