no matter how much you may wish it, you cannot compare two different metrics, apples vs oranges, and then say they are both apples. you're full of crap.
no, bullshit is thinking after 40 years of highly motivated political enemies finding nothing, that there is still something to find. if there was any of anything, they would have used it before now.
face it: they're just not as bad as you wish they were.
just today I had a guy ranting in my feed that any day now she'll be arrested over the Clinton foundation's corruption...even though there's basically 0 evidence of that (and its consistently one of the most highly rated charities in the world....to which the reply is "that just shows they bought off the watchdogs").
and this while: -there is actual evidence of actual corruption and illegal payments by the trump foundation to himself -of his campaign circumventing finance laws that block simply pocketing the contributions by holding his rallies almost exclusively at properties he owns -and trump himself is already, not even president yet just president-elect, blatantly engaging in behavior we'd call corrupt in anyone else, especially a Clinton or Obama.
but these idiots don't even see that, they just say, contrary to all fact "any day now....the evidence is mounting, and we'll get to lock her up".
although, devil's advocate: you also have to vet the people doing the counting if you go that route. and I recall instances before where there were complaints that the counting committee weren't as honest as you'd want, either (for various reasons), and that machines were supposed to fix that.
almost worth considering bringing in outside observers, like say the UN, as some countries do....but then you gotta trust them....
the only places I heard of reporting "switched" votes were the touch screen units like Georgia uses, which frankly is less of a malicious thing, than simply touchscreens generally suck anyway, and/or they weren't calibrated properly beforehand.
see, I believe post election audits of paper results should be the default, not a special circumstance. ties nicely with the idea that all voting should be done on paper ballot, even if those are then scanned electronically. the guy in the article is right: the paper record is invaluable to ensuring the integrity of the process.
especially as we know that much of the equipment used IS insecure, and outdated, and easily hacked by anyone motivated to do so.
and we also know that there are many people motivated to do so, whether it be the trolls from 4chan, or state actors like Russia who've actually done it in the past, if not to us.
trump has never been anything but an opportunist. he has quite literally held every position on every issue.
many politicians flip flop, exercise some form of pragmatic decision making in public. but they still have their various lines they wont cross, their own core beliefs.
trump seems as if he very likely has no actual core beliefs of his own, other than an overwhelming desire to polish his own brand and image. even at the debates, after being embarrassed by his lack of knowledge of professional polish, all he could care about was the "yuge ratings" he created. criticizing his lack of policies, or lack of knowledge, means nothing to him. but say his small hands, and you get a yearly postcard with a tracing of his hands to show they aren't so small.
conservatives in Utah opposed the homeless plan. and it wasn't statewide. it was Salt Lake City, a city that is far more liberal than the rest of the state.
as for schools: bureaucracy isn't too blame, though it makes a convenient scapegoat.
and no we do not in fact spend more per student than any other country. our average spending says that we do.
but average isn't the same as reality, and doesn't reflect how we actually fund our schools in this nation.
those averages are distorted by the way we fund education, which is primarily through local property and sales taxes, with very little redistribution of that money. live in a poor district? your schools will be poor. live in a rich one? guess what.
PBS/NPR actually did a deep dive into this problem a few months ago.
for example: Edmond OK is seen as "the rich suburb" of OKC. reality is though, that it's a working class suburb same as the rest. the rich folks actually live outside the Edmond public school district, and so pay their taxes into separate districts. the EPS district spends as a result on 6k per student per year. the state average is 9k. the nationwide average is 11k. meanwhile, the districts the rich folks actually do live in, just outside the EPS district, are smaller, low population, and have high revenue from the property taxes, which causes them to send 15-20k per student per year, for a population of students lass than 1/10th the size of the EPS district. Nichols Hills downtown, a separate rich person city within Oklahoma City, sees similar results.
This is also seen in Chicago, were poverty stricken districts go as low as 4k per student, but a special district containing a single school, that's within a technology park (so bunch of high tech, high profit firms), gets over 22k per student as a result.
the fix to this is redistribution of the primary funding source, property taxes. North Carolina is actually a poster child for this and the dramatic improvement it can have on schools. most states have a certain amount of the state budget that goes to schools, yes, but that's different from actually collecting all the property taxes into one pot, and then divvying it out equitably, which is what NC and some other states have begun doing to much success.
once again: He won the Electoral College (theoretically...they have yet to actually vote).
The majority of people, however, voted for Clinton instead. Now by a margin of over 2 million. Which means the overall US populations (continues) to lean left.
really? trump? the man for whom >75% of his statements are verifiably false, the largest % of any politician alive today, even when they are not unintelligible streams of random conscious thought?
the only thing you prove when you say that, is that you don't actually know what classical liberalism is.
conservatives use the term to refer to ALL forms of liberalism prior to the 19th century (ie, prior to the 1800s, ie, the founder's, who were as varied in their political beliefs as we are today). that is an incorrect usage of the term.
Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties and political freedom with representative democracy under the rule of law and emphasizes economic freedoms found in economic liberalism which is also called free market capitalism.
That used to be simple "American values", but now its "liberalism". Note that even while utilizing free market capitalism, it also still allows for the intervention in the market where needed, as it recognizes the rough edges of such a system, and seeks to blunt them, even going back as far as the Factory Acts.
Out of this grew neo-classical-liberalism, which is what conservatives (including you) are really referring to, which is a fetishized version of classical liberalism that puts its emphasis on the absolutely minimal government (or none at all) and absolute individual freedom. that has become what we now call "right libertarianism", which disavows any societal compulsion or responsibility, and is only about half a step away from anarchy.
you're simply stating the idea that the phrase "Reality has a liberal bias" is backwards in its cause and effect.
which is true.
the reality is simply that liberals acknowledge reality: -single payer systems are cheaper and more effective -gun control works -global exists and is caused by humans
but that itself is what lends credence to the rather tongue in cheek phrase, as conservatives like to pretend that: -single payer doesn't work, even though most of the rest of the developed world enjoys its benefits every day -gun control doesn't work, even though most of the rest of the developed world enjoys its benefits every day -global warming doesn't exist, regardless of the numbers of measurements taken, how far back the data goes, or that it's a conspiracy somehow involving more than 97% of the world's scientists, some few hundred thousand people
different kinds of courage and service to the nation, both similarly valuable.
Ellen absolutely deserves what she got, coming out publicly at a time when even TV and "liberal Hollywood" still played LGBT folks for laughs and mockery (and still do at time), risking her career in the process. But her doing so is a big factor in the swift public acceptance of LGBT folks over the past 2 decades, one of the fastest changes in cultural norms we've ever seen, as both she was seen as imminently likable by folks (instead of as "the other"), and for the inspiration she gave many other individuals who maybe wouldn't have had the courage to do so in their own lives, which also helped show people that this wasn't some phantom group of people that "regular folks" didn't know, but that in fact LGBT folks were themselves "regular folks", that most of us know one or two, and indeed there were already part of families and lives.
So yes, Ellen absolutely deserves it.
the full citation:
Ellen DeGeneres is an award-winning comedian who has hosted her popular daytime talk show, The Ellen DeGeneres Show, since 2003 with her trademarked humor, humility, and optimism. In 2003 Ellen lent her voice to a forgetful but unforgettable little fish named Dory in Finding Nemo. She reprised her role again in 2016 with the hugely successful Finding Dory. Ellen also hosted the Academy Awards twice, in 2007 and 2014. In 1997, after coming out herself, DeGeneres made TV history when her character on Ellen revealed she was a lesbian. In her work and in her life, she has been a passionate advocate for equality and fairness.
You can read the others here, including Tom Hanks, Robert De Niro, Bill and Melinda Gates, and others.
you're talking about false advertising, ie, after the fact regulation. when it comes to medicine and food, we've opted for the much saner, and safer, policy of before the fact regulation.
this time, yes, its aloe vera. hopefully no one is dying over its lack in these products. but your logic is dangerous as others (including yourself if memory serves) have used it in the past as reasons why we shouldn't have the FDA regulating things before they kill people.
I appreciate that you've apparently been paying attention when we explain the increased sea ice in Antarctica is due to ice melt from the Antarctic ice sheet.
but it's not related to Arctic melting. its a local event, further diluted as the water cycles northward to the equator.
the arctic has basically nothing to do with the Antarctic. and the arctic ice is not fresh water; its frozen sea water.
he's not wrong. he's atleast been paying attention when we explain the increased sea ice in Antarctica. he just now thinks its also related to Arctic melting.
because it's never melted in winter before. especially after it had already begun re-freezing.
the cycle is predictable, with ups and downs as it melts in summer, and freezes in winter. there's record ups and downs, but it follows the same pattern.
this time it didn't, for the first time ever. it begain to re-freeze, and then stopped, and began melting.
youre cruising in your car doing 80 on the freeway.
now, there's a big difference between losing power and coasting to a stop on the side of the road, and the wheels locking up throwing the car into an uncontrollable skid that flips the car and rolls it over a few times.
this unexpected break in the cycle after it had already began re-freezing represents the latter, not the former.
again: satellite records only go back to 1979. bt that doesn't mean this is the first time since 1979 and that this ever occurred before then.
in fact, that's the point: everything we know about the arctic says that this has never happened before. simply put: during arctic winter, which is now, the ice does NOT melt..
its bad enough that it does not replenish fully each year, but thus far the winters had still been cold enough, below freezing, that ice not only didn't melt, but reformed somewhat.
i'll say it again: -its dark. theres no sunlight -when the temps should be well below freezing, its actually warm enough for the ice to be melting.
the arctic cycle is well studied and well known. and it's now for the first time showing a major break in that cycle.
in fact, the most shocking part, is that ice DID start to reform, shown in the charts. it started to follow the normal winter phase of the cycle, and then stopped.
its not like the summer melting started and then didn't stop (which would also be alarming, but if then started to freeze, it would simply be a change in the duration of the summer melting season, but the cycle as a whole still continued with each phase in tact, albeit of different lengths than before).
this is wholly different. it started to refreeze as normal in winter. and then it stopped and began melting again. that means the entire cycle is breaking down.
and if that happens, the ocean currents that are driven by it also will break down, which then wreaks havoc on the weather patterns as we know it. that means monsoons in the arizona desert, and no snowpack in the sierras. it means a thawing of Siberia, but a freezing of Europe. it means the gulf of Mexico becomes the worlds largest stagnant brackish sea. it means the oceans themselves become stagnant, no more mixing of ocean layers, increases and decreases in oxygenation, throwing sea life into chaos.
I am saying it is warming, but someday it will cool again, and that we'll be fine in the middle...
a) you don't know that it will b) you don't know the timescale c) you don't know that we will
Because the Earth arrived at where it was in 1979 after: * Being hotter than it is currently
* Having more CO2 in the atmosphere than we have currently.
Again, not during human history. Life as we know it is evolved for current conditions. We've proceeded at over 330,000 times the rate of past heating/cooling events, leaving evolution no time to adapt.
The whole reason we were supposed to be scared of global warming was runaway warming. But even with this recent heat spike we are not seeing runaway warming. Over 100 years we may see 2C or so of warming, but that is not runaway warming
Actually we are. that's rather the point. Your argument here is still trying to present it as "normal warming" but it's not. it's anything but. its not just the magnitude of warming, but the speed of it. the magnitude was exceeded only in the distant, hundreds of millions of years ago, which is alarming enough.
but the speed of the warming is unprecedented. the earth has never seen its like.
and in fact is beneficial to humanity overall because the Earth will be a more arable place
a) you reveal your ignorance of agriculture. suffice to say, land isn't arable simply because of air temperatures. b) there is much evidence to the contrary. many common crop plants, in the face of higher temperatures or higher CO2 amounts, lose their agricultural usefulness. among the problems: -become toxic -don't grow -become more easily infested by pests
The only thing climate related you should truly fear is a new ice age, and warming gets us farther out from that scenario.
Slashdot Mirror
my thinking was more along the lines of:
-40% of americans are stupid
-but then the election of Trump already told us that
no matter how much you may wish it, you cannot compare two different metrics, apples vs oranges, and then say they are both apples.
you're full of crap.
(^^^case in point of the delusion at work.)
no, bullshit is thinking after 40 years of highly motivated political enemies finding nothing, that there is still something to find.
if there was any of anything, they would have used it before now.
face it: they're just not as bad as you wish they were.
It's insanity is what it is.
just today I had a guy ranting in my feed that any day now she'll be arrested over the Clinton foundation's corruption...even though there's basically 0 evidence of that (and its consistently one of the most highly rated charities in the world....to which the reply is "that just shows they bought off the watchdogs").
and this while:
-there is actual evidence of actual corruption and illegal payments by the trump foundation to himself
-of his campaign circumventing finance laws that block simply pocketing the contributions by holding his rallies almost exclusively at properties he owns
-and trump himself is already, not even president yet just president-elect, blatantly engaging in behavior we'd call corrupt in anyone else, especially a Clinton or Obama.
but these idiots don't even see that, they just say, contrary to all fact "any day now....the evidence is mounting, and we'll get to lock her up".
it is insanity.
^this.
although, devil's advocate: you also have to vet the people doing the counting if you go that route. and I recall instances before where there were complaints that the counting committee weren't as honest as you'd want, either (for various reasons), and that machines were supposed to fix that.
almost worth considering bringing in outside observers, like say the UN, as some countries do. ...but then you gotta trust them....
we gotta trust something at some point.
the only places I heard of reporting "switched" votes were the touch screen units like Georgia uses, which frankly is less of a malicious thing, than simply touchscreens generally suck anyway, and/or they weren't calibrated properly beforehand.
again: 2 million more people voted for Clinton than Trump.
see, I believe post election audits of paper results should be the default, not a special circumstance.
ties nicely with the idea that all voting should be done on paper ballot, even if those are then scanned electronically.
the guy in the article is right: the paper record is invaluable to ensuring the integrity of the process.
especially as we know that much of the equipment used IS insecure, and outdated, and easily hacked by anyone motivated to do so.
and we also know that there are many people motivated to do so, whether it be the trolls from 4chan, or state actors like Russia who've actually done it in the past, if not to us.
we're not talking about the special theaters, or the area of the video store behind the curtain.
trump has never been anything but an opportunist.
he has quite literally held every position on every issue.
many politicians flip flop, exercise some form of pragmatic decision making in public.
but they still have their various lines they wont cross, their own core beliefs.
trump seems as if he very likely has no actual core beliefs of his own, other than an overwhelming desire to polish his own brand and image.
even at the debates, after being embarrassed by his lack of knowledge of professional polish, all he could care about was the "yuge ratings" he created.
criticizing his lack of policies, or lack of knowledge, means nothing to him.
but say his small hands, and you get a yearly postcard with a tracing of his hands to show they aren't so small.
you mean other than food stamps, welfare, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the numerous tax credits.
https://www.theguardian.com/mo...
Be gone, ignorant one.
conservatives in Utah opposed the homeless plan.
and it wasn't statewide.
it was Salt Lake City, a city that is far more liberal than the rest of the state.
as for schools: bureaucracy isn't too blame, though it makes a convenient scapegoat.
and no we do not in fact spend more per student than any other country.
our average spending says that we do.
but average isn't the same as reality, and doesn't reflect how we actually fund our schools in this nation.
those averages are distorted by the way we fund education, which is primarily through local property and sales taxes, with very little redistribution of that money.
live in a poor district? your schools will be poor.
live in a rich one? guess what.
PBS/NPR actually did a deep dive into this problem a few months ago.
for example: Edmond OK is seen as "the rich suburb" of OKC. reality is though, that it's a working class suburb same as the rest. the rich folks actually live outside the Edmond public school district, and so pay their taxes into separate districts. the EPS district spends as a result on 6k per student per year. the state average is 9k. the nationwide average is 11k. meanwhile, the districts the rich folks actually do live in, just outside the EPS district, are smaller, low population, and have high revenue from the property taxes, which causes them to send 15-20k per student per year, for a population of students lass than 1/10th the size of the EPS district. Nichols Hills downtown, a separate rich person city within Oklahoma City, sees similar results.
This is also seen in Chicago, were poverty stricken districts go as low as 4k per student, but a special district containing a single school, that's within a technology park (so bunch of high tech, high profit firms), gets over 22k per student as a result.
the fix to this is redistribution of the primary funding source, property taxes. North Carolina is actually a poster child for this and the dramatic improvement it can have on schools. most states have a certain amount of the state budget that goes to schools, yes, but that's different from actually collecting all the property taxes into one pot, and then divvying it out equitably, which is what NC and some other states have begun doing to much success.
once again: He won the Electoral College (theoretically...they have yet to actually vote).
The majority of people, however, voted for Clinton instead. Now by a margin of over 2 million.
Which means the overall US populations (continues) to lean left.
really?
trump?
the man for whom >75% of his statements are verifiably false, the largest % of any politician alive today, even when they are not unintelligible streams of random conscious thought?
please.
go on.
the only thing you prove when you say that, is that you don't actually know what classical liberalism is.
conservatives use the term to refer to ALL forms of liberalism prior to the 19th century (ie, prior to the 1800s, ie, the founder's, who were as varied in their political beliefs as we are today). that is an incorrect usage of the term.
Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties and political freedom with representative democracy under the rule of law and emphasizes economic freedoms found in economic liberalism which is also called free market capitalism.
That used to be simple "American values", but now its "liberalism". Note that even while utilizing free market capitalism, it also still allows for the intervention in the market where needed, as it recognizes the rough edges of such a system, and seeks to blunt them, even going back as far as the Factory Acts.
Out of this grew neo-classical-liberalism, which is what conservatives (including you) are really referring to, which is a fetishized version of classical liberalism that puts its emphasis on the absolutely minimal government (or none at all) and absolute individual freedom. that has become what we now call "right libertarianism", which disavows any societal compulsion or responsibility, and is only about half a step away from anarchy.
Also:
STATIST!
DRINK!
you're simply stating the idea that the phrase "Reality has a liberal bias" is backwards in its cause and effect.
which is true.
the reality is simply that liberals acknowledge reality:
-single payer systems are cheaper and more effective
-gun control works
-global exists and is caused by humans
but that itself is what lends credence to the rather tongue in cheek phrase, as conservatives like to pretend that:
-single payer doesn't work, even though most of the rest of the developed world enjoys its benefits every day
-gun control doesn't work, even though most of the rest of the developed world enjoys its benefits every day
-global warming doesn't exist, regardless of the numbers of measurements taken, how far back the data goes, or that it's a conspiracy somehow involving more than 97% of the world's scientists, some few hundred thousand people
thus, the cheeky phrase.
In this case the conservative side is more fact based and less appealing to emotion and placebo "solutions".
that is itself a biased and not factually accurate statement.
different kinds of courage and service to the nation, both similarly valuable.
Ellen absolutely deserves what she got, coming out publicly at a time when even TV and "liberal Hollywood" still played LGBT folks for laughs and mockery (and still do at time), risking her career in the process. But her doing so is a big factor in the swift public acceptance of LGBT folks over the past 2 decades, one of the fastest changes in cultural norms we've ever seen, as both she was seen as imminently likable by folks (instead of as "the other"), and for the inspiration she gave many other individuals who maybe wouldn't have had the courage to do so in their own lives, which also helped show people that this wasn't some phantom group of people that "regular folks" didn't know, but that in fact LGBT folks were themselves "regular folks", that most of us know one or two, and indeed there were already part of families and lives.
So yes, Ellen absolutely deserves it.
the full citation:
Ellen DeGeneres is an award-winning comedian who has hosted her popular daytime talk show, The Ellen DeGeneres Show, since 2003 with her trademarked humor, humility, and optimism. In 2003 Ellen lent her voice to a forgetful but unforgettable little fish named Dory in Finding Nemo. She reprised her role again in 2016 with the hugely successful Finding Dory. Ellen also hosted the Academy Awards twice, in 2007 and 2014. In 1997, after coming out herself, DeGeneres made TV history when her character on Ellen revealed she was a lesbian. In her work and in her life, she has been a passionate advocate for equality and fairness.
You can read the others here, including Tom Hanks, Robert De Niro, Bill and Melinda Gates, and others.
you're talking about false advertising, ie, after the fact regulation.
when it comes to medicine and food, we've opted for the much saner, and safer, policy of before the fact regulation.
this time, yes, its aloe vera. hopefully no one is dying over its lack in these products.
but your logic is dangerous as others (including yourself if memory serves) have used it in the past as reasons why we shouldn't have the FDA regulating things before they kill people.
different poles.
I appreciate that you've apparently been paying attention when we explain the increased sea ice in Antarctica is due to ice melt from the Antarctic ice sheet.
but it's not related to Arctic melting.
its a local event, further diluted as the water cycles northward to the equator.
the arctic has basically nothing to do with the Antarctic.
and the arctic ice is not fresh water; its frozen sea water.
he's not wrong.
he's atleast been paying attention when we explain the increased sea ice in Antarctica.
he just now thinks its also related to Arctic melting.
but hey, progress with silent's education!
because it's never melted in winter before.
especially after it had already begun re-freezing.
the cycle is predictable, with ups and downs as it melts in summer, and freezes in winter.
there's record ups and downs, but it follows the same pattern.
this time it didn't, for the first time ever.
it begain to re-freeze, and then stopped, and began melting.
thik of the cycle breakdown this way:
youre cruising in your car doing 80 on the freeway.
now, there's a big difference between losing power and coasting to a stop on the side of the road,
and the wheels locking up throwing the car into an uncontrollable skid that flips the car and rolls it over a few times.
this unexpected break in the cycle after it had already began re-freezing represents the latter, not the former.
again: satellite records only go back to 1979.
bt that doesn't mean this is the first time since 1979 and that this ever occurred before then.
in fact, that's the point: everything we know about the arctic says that this has never happened before .
simply put: during arctic winter, which is now, the ice does NOT melt. .
its bad enough that it does not replenish fully each year, but thus far the winters had still been cold enough, below freezing, that ice not only didn't melt, but reformed somewhat.
i'll say it again:
-its dark. theres no sunlight
-when the temps should be well below freezing, its actually warm enough for the ice to be melting.
the arctic cycle is well studied and well known.
and it's now for the first time showing a major break in that cycle.
in fact, the most shocking part, is that ice DID start to reform, shown in the charts.
it started to follow the normal winter phase of the cycle, and then stopped.
its not like the summer melting started and then didn't stop (which would also be alarming, but if then started to freeze, it would simply be a change in the duration of the summer melting season, but the cycle as a whole still continued with each phase in tact, albeit of different lengths than before).
this is wholly different.
it started to refreeze as normal in winter.
and then it stopped and began melting again.
that means the entire cycle is breaking down.
and if that happens, the ocean currents that are driven by it also will break down, which then wreaks havoc on the weather patterns as we know it.
that means monsoons in the arizona desert, and no snowpack in the sierras.
it means a thawing of Siberia, but a freezing of Europe.
it means the gulf of Mexico becomes the worlds largest stagnant brackish sea.
it means the oceans themselves become stagnant, no more mixing of ocean layers, increases and decreases in oxygenation, throwing sea life into chaos.
I am not the one denying anything.
Other than reality
I am saying it is warming, but someday it will cool again, and that we'll be fine in the middle...
a) you don't know that it will
b) you don't know the timescale
c) you don't know that we will
Because the Earth arrived at where it was in 1979 after:
* Being hotter than it is currently
* Having more CO2 in the atmosphere than we have currently.
Again, not during human history.
Life as we know it is evolved for current conditions.
We've proceeded at over 330,000 times the rate of past heating/cooling events, leaving evolution no time to adapt.
The whole reason we were supposed to be scared of global warming was runaway warming. But even with this recent heat spike we are not seeing runaway warming. Over 100 years we may see 2C or so of warming, but that is not runaway warming
Actually we are. that's rather the point.
Your argument here is still trying to present it as "normal warming" but it's not. it's anything but.
its not just the magnitude of warming, but the speed of it. the magnitude was exceeded only in the distant, hundreds of millions of years ago, which is alarming enough.
but the speed of the warming is unprecedented.
the earth has never seen its like.
and in fact is beneficial to humanity overall because the Earth will be a more arable place
a) you reveal your ignorance of agriculture. suffice to say, land isn't arable simply because of air temperatures.
b) there is much evidence to the contrary. many common crop plants, in the face of higher temperatures or higher CO2 amounts, lose their agricultural usefulness. among the problems:
-become toxic
-don't grow
-become more easily infested by pests
The only thing climate related you should truly fear is a new ice age, and warming gets us farther out from that scenario.
Slap yourself until the stupid falls out.