Unfortunately that's misinformation. The south never let go of the Confederate flag, which is why it is a point of southern pride, rebellion and states rights. It was used in the civil rights movements but more so for its implication for states rights to maintain segregation. There were instances of it being tied to more heinous acts during this time, but after the civil rights movement it still stood for southern pride. The recent strong ties to racism are a compulsory reaction to the actions of one deranged lunatic and the wide spread media blitz to get viewership.
The civil war wasn't about slavery in the sense that it was for black's rights and freedoms. It was about the economics of slavery and states rights. Saying the war was over slavery is a misguided attempt to make the civil war look like good vs evil. At the time, both the North and South were racist. The civil war was a fight over the distribution of power and wealth in the country. When you shine it in that light, neither side looks good.
Being from the south, you have it all wrong. The Confederate flag is a point of southern pride. It does not mean racism. Blacks and whites alike have and use the confederate flag. Stone mountain GA has a monument to the Confederacy depicting Stone Wall Jackson, and flies every version of the Confederate Flag. This is in a primary black community and they few have no issue with it.
Moreover, the civil war was regarding states rights and protectionist tariffs placed on the South's cotton industry. The North's manufacturing industry couldn't compete with the South's cotton industry, so they placed heavy tariffs on the goods. This was do to free labor, but the misnomer that the civil war was fought to end slavery is revisionist history at its finest.
The North also owned slaves up to and well into the civil war. Additionally, the Emancipation Proclamation didn't end slavery. It freed the slaves in the South. At the time the south had succeeded and wasn't part of the U.S. anymore, so the legislation itself was meaningless. It was an attempt to secure more solders to fight for the North.
Finally, I'd like to note I do not agree with slavery or the treatment of blacks in this part of history. However, changing this part of history so overtly is idiotic at best and down right dangerous at its worst. This land of political correctness has gone too far, changing history to suit its needs and censoring a symbol that is part of this nations history. The confederate flag has been around for over 100 years. Fifteen years ago this wouldn't even have been a discussion. All of a sudden the Confederate flag has become a huge focal point of the propagation of racism. We are blaming a flag for the actions of a mentally disturbed individual. Does no one see how wrong that is?
Here is the honest truth, the current state of race relations in the US has degenerated to the lowest levels in 30 years. This is due to a few factors: the current state of news media, continued legislation that distinguishes blacks from whites, and the crazy movement into extreme political correctness. You want to fix racism; ignore the continued news media blasting of racism in America, its only making everything worse; remove legislation targeting minorities, how can one expect to be treated the same as everyone else when they are singled out legally; get over this extreme political correctness, its getting to the point you can't speak without offending someone.
Lolz, number two is funny. You are the moderate more devoted to order than justice: "Martin Luther King Jr.'s cause is one that I believe is great enough to allow stuff like that, even though I don't agree with the way he did his protests"
Really? This was modded up too? So lets ignore the fact this looks like obvious flame bate, Ethics is a huge area of philosophy and law and justice is only a small portion of it. You can easily spend a lifetime discussing morals and right and wrong without discussing law and justice.
Because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong and enforcing all passed legislation is impossible in most countries. Most police officers use their discretion to enforce practical laws (when is the last time you were ticketed for jaywalking?). The legislation in question is a protectionist movement for jobs that will die anyways. Its like protesting immigrant workers taking cruise liner jobs as the cruise ship is sinking into the ocean.
That's what happens when you take a front end language and move it throughout the stack. Now we have all these front end developers jumping through the stack doing all sorts of stupid crap thinking they are real developers.
Ok, I took a lot of crap for this, so I will state the obvious. By arbitrary I mean they altered the temperature of the buoys to better match the data collected by the boats even though they say in the article "More generally, buoy data have been proven to be more accurate and reliable than ship data, with better known instrument characteristics and automated sampling (16)." Why alter the more accurate data?
Following the link to the data correction for ERSST v4 we find also find "the effect is to make SST 0.1–0.2C cooler north of 30S but 0.1–0.2C warmer south of 30S in ERSST.v4 than in ERSST.v3b before 1940."
To me this reads we cooled off most of the worlds historical data and warmed a little bit of it for anything prior to 1940. This is transforming huge amounts of data from what was collected to what they think should've been collected and altering the many estimated historical data points to better suit their needs. Again, this is a statistical shell game and not science.
Did you read the article? They arbitrarily increased all buoy temperature data. If you alter a huge part of your data set to a warmer temperature, of course it shows a larger global increase in baseline temperature.
I say arbitrarily, because there is no provided scientific reason for altering the data.
Furthermore, the error for their data increases over time. This is suggesting data collected in 50's is more accurate than that collected in 2000's. The only reason this would show up statistically is poorly collected data.
Lastly, they adjusted the buoy temperatures by 0.12 degrees which is within the margin of error of temperature change.
They are biasing the data. This isn't science, it's statistical manipulation.
I'm not saying I don't believe people impact global weather, but its hard to determine how when we bias our science with a political agenda.
I don't think his point was that this is happening, so much as just the logical progression from the current state of affairs. If the government can prosecute you for not retaining all of your own data for use in an investigation against you, then the next logical step is those without their own data are inherently guilty and can be charged with obstruction.
I don't want to do any of those things. I merely stated, if you want to solve one problem, don't introduce legislation for a different one (IE minimum wage to fix lack of phones for the unemployed). And you are right, people do the math and then collect food stamps instead of working.
I'm for the slash and burn technique. All government welfare programs could use a major budget cut and overhaul of procedure. Its called tough love. At some point you need to kick the kid out of the house so they can grow up. Otherwise, you are no better than the overprotective mother letting her 30 year old son live in the basement because the world is too hard on him.
None of these welfare programs breed independence, entrepreneurship, or innovation. Quite the contrary. We have bred ourselves a nation of dependents.
You again are trying to fix other problems through minimum wage. If you want to give housing to those who can't afford it, create no income housing. If they can't afford food, food stamps. Don't have a cell phone, give them one. Can't pay bus fare, give them bus passes.
What you are failing to realize, if you give someone a comfortable standard of living for doing nothing, they will do nothing. How does that help anyone?
You cant make the argument of a livable wage and then cut the hours used to calculate "livable" by more than half of full time. With that kind of math, why not just make everyone get $100,000 a year. Or better yet, lets make everyone millionaires. That will solve all the worlds problems.
The people voted for a president who campaigned for health insurance and passed a bill forcing people to buy health insurance. That's not even remotely the same as health care and the people are stupid for thinking it is.
Furthermore, if you want people to take sick leave, vote for mandatory sick leave, not higher pay. But you know what happens when you do that? People just abuse it. They take the days off where they are not sick and come in when they are anyways. You can't legislate people into being responsible. Additionally, you can live off of minimum wage. It just means having a budget, roommates and not going out and running up a crazy bar tab, or eating out all the time. Its not the "American Dream," but its doable. Again, you cant legislate people into acting responsible, and forcing more money into their pockets doesn't change that.
Very simply, a society is a group of people working together. If you dig into the philosophical implications of society, you can expand upon this greatly, but ultimately its to make a better place to live for everyone in the society. The "rules" for which to define someones input into society are up for debate. I'm not saying I have the correct answer to that question, but I will say anyone who doesn't think they have to contribute to the society in which they live shouldn't be part of a society. And yes, people causing economic harm should be culpable no matter how rich they may be.
I am talking in high level philosophy, isolated from the other problems we currently face in the US. We have many things we need to fix including all the corruption you mentioned. My prior arguments are against the welfare state we have created because it is a big problem. As you seem to agree, work ethic is a fundamental part of a healthy society. The idea of capitalism was meant to reward those hard workers. However, here in the US, we have become a fascist oligarchy.
Im not saying it isn't happening. I am saying there is very little philosophical bases for creating a society that works in such a way. Here in the US, it is certainly helping our decline back into the third world.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately that's misinformation. The south never let go of the Confederate flag, which is why it is a point of southern pride, rebellion and states rights. It was used in the civil rights movements but more so for its implication for states rights to maintain segregation. There were instances of it being tied to more heinous acts during this time, but after the civil rights movement it still stood for southern pride. The recent strong ties to racism are a compulsory reaction to the actions of one deranged lunatic and the wide spread media blitz to get viewership.
The civil war wasn't about slavery in the sense that it was for black's rights and freedoms. It was about the economics of slavery and states rights. Saying the war was over slavery is a misguided attempt to make the civil war look like good vs evil. At the time, both the North and South were racist. The civil war was a fight over the distribution of power and wealth in the country. When you shine it in that light, neither side looks good.
Yeah, so did a lot of people in the Union.
Being from the south, you have it all wrong. The Confederate flag is a point of southern pride. It does not mean racism. Blacks and whites alike have and use the confederate flag. Stone mountain GA has a monument to the Confederacy depicting Stone Wall Jackson, and flies every version of the Confederate Flag. This is in a primary black community and they few have no issue with it.
Moreover, the civil war was regarding states rights and protectionist tariffs placed on the South's cotton industry. The North's manufacturing industry couldn't compete with the South's cotton industry, so they placed heavy tariffs on the goods. This was do to free labor, but the misnomer that the civil war was fought to end slavery is revisionist history at its finest.
The North also owned slaves up to and well into the civil war. Additionally, the Emancipation Proclamation didn't end slavery. It freed the slaves in the South. At the time the south had succeeded and wasn't part of the U.S. anymore, so the legislation itself was meaningless. It was an attempt to secure more solders to fight for the North.
Finally, I'd like to note I do not agree with slavery or the treatment of blacks in this part of history. However, changing this part of history so overtly is idiotic at best and down right dangerous at its worst. This land of political correctness has gone too far, changing history to suit its needs and censoring a symbol that is part of this nations history. The confederate flag has been around for over 100 years. Fifteen years ago this wouldn't even have been a discussion. All of a sudden the Confederate flag has become a huge focal point of the propagation of racism. We are blaming a flag for the actions of a mentally disturbed individual. Does no one see how wrong that is?
Here is the honest truth, the current state of race relations in the US has degenerated to the lowest levels in 30 years. This is due to a few factors: the current state of news media, continued legislation that distinguishes blacks from whites, and the crazy movement into extreme political correctness. You want to fix racism; ignore the continued news media blasting of racism in America, its only making everything worse; remove legislation targeting minorities, how can one expect to be treated the same as everyone else when they are singled out legally; get over this extreme political correctness, its getting to the point you can't speak without offending someone.
Lolz, number two is funny. You are the moderate more devoted to order than justice: "Martin Luther King Jr.'s cause is one that I believe is great enough to allow stuff like that, even though I don't agree with the way he did his protests"
Really? This was modded up too? So lets ignore the fact this looks like obvious flame bate, Ethics is a huge area of philosophy and law and justice is only a small portion of it. You can easily spend a lifetime discussing morals and right and wrong without discussing law and justice.
Because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong and enforcing all passed legislation is impossible in most countries. Most police officers use their discretion to enforce practical laws (when is the last time you were ticketed for jaywalking?). The legislation in question is a protectionist movement for jobs that will die anyways. Its like protesting immigrant workers taking cruise liner jobs as the cruise ship is sinking into the ocean.
Hmm sounds like Obamacare.
Third normalization much?
That's what happens when you take a front end language and move it throughout the stack. Now we have all these front end developers jumping through the stack doing all sorts of stupid crap thinking they are real developers.
Have you tried turning it off and on again?
But on a more serious note. Fat people. Disgusting.
I had a friend arrested for resisting arrest. It was the only charge. Just because they can do it doesn't make it right.
Ok, I took a lot of crap for this, so I will state the obvious. By arbitrary I mean they altered the temperature of the buoys to better match the data collected by the boats even though they say in the article "More generally, buoy data have been proven to be more accurate and reliable than ship data, with better known instrument characteristics and automated sampling (16)." Why alter the more accurate data?
Following the link to the data correction for ERSST v4 we find also find "the effect is to make SST 0.1–0.2C cooler north of 30S but 0.1–0.2C warmer south of 30S in ERSST.v4 than in ERSST.v3b before 1940."
To me this reads we cooled off most of the worlds historical data and warmed a little bit of it for anything prior to 1940. This is transforming huge amounts of data from what was collected to what they think should've been collected and altering the many estimated historical data points to better suit their needs. Again, this is a statistical shell game and not science.
Did you read the article? They arbitrarily increased all buoy temperature data. If you alter a huge part of your data set to a warmer temperature, of course it shows a larger global increase in baseline temperature.
I say arbitrarily, because there is no provided scientific reason for altering the data.
Furthermore, the error for their data increases over time. This is suggesting data collected in 50's is more accurate than that collected in 2000's. The only reason this would show up statistically is poorly collected data.
Lastly, they adjusted the buoy temperatures by 0.12 degrees which is within the margin of error of temperature change.
They are biasing the data. This isn't science, it's statistical manipulation.
I'm not saying I don't believe people impact global weather, but its hard to determine how when we bias our science with a political agenda.
I don't think his point was that this is happening, so much as just the logical progression from the current state of affairs. If the government can prosecute you for not retaining all of your own data for use in an investigation against you, then the next logical step is those without their own data are inherently guilty and can be charged with obstruction.
I don't want to do any of those things. I merely stated, if you want to solve one problem, don't introduce legislation for a different one (IE minimum wage to fix lack of phones for the unemployed). And you are right, people do the math and then collect food stamps instead of working.
I'm for the slash and burn technique. All government welfare programs could use a major budget cut and overhaul of procedure. Its called tough love. At some point you need to kick the kid out of the house so they can grow up. Otherwise, you are no better than the overprotective mother letting her 30 year old son live in the basement because the world is too hard on him.
None of these welfare programs breed independence, entrepreneurship, or innovation. Quite the contrary. We have bred ourselves a nation of dependents.
You again are trying to fix other problems through minimum wage. If you want to give housing to those who can't afford it, create no income housing. If they can't afford food, food stamps. Don't have a cell phone, give them one. Can't pay bus fare, give them bus passes.
What you are failing to realize, if you give someone a comfortable standard of living for doing nothing, they will do nothing. How does that help anyone?
You cant make the argument of a livable wage and then cut the hours used to calculate "livable" by more than half of full time. With that kind of math, why not just make everyone get $100,000 a year. Or better yet, lets make everyone millionaires. That will solve all the worlds problems.
Lolz, you are using a 16 hour work week as your base argument for a minimum living wage. I'll just stop there.
The people voted for a president who campaigned for health insurance and passed a bill forcing people to buy health insurance. That's not even remotely the same as health care and the people are stupid for thinking it is.
Furthermore, if you want people to take sick leave, vote for mandatory sick leave, not higher pay. But you know what happens when you do that? People just abuse it. They take the days off where they are not sick and come in when they are anyways. You can't legislate people into being responsible. Additionally, you can live off of minimum wage. It just means having a budget, roommates and not going out and running up a crazy bar tab, or eating out all the time. Its not the "American Dream," but its doable. Again, you cant legislate people into acting responsible, and forcing more money into their pockets doesn't change that.
Ok, explain why does the government owe you healthcare?
Hmm that's odd. I had a similar situation happen to me and I made it through without government intervention. Its called a budget.
Very simply, a society is a group of people working together. If you dig into the philosophical implications of society, you can expand upon this greatly, but ultimately its to make a better place to live for everyone in the society. The "rules" for which to define someones input into society are up for debate. I'm not saying I have the correct answer to that question, but I will say anyone who doesn't think they have to contribute to the society in which they live shouldn't be part of a society. And yes, people causing economic harm should be culpable no matter how rich they may be.
I am talking in high level philosophy, isolated from the other problems we currently face in the US. We have many things we need to fix including all the corruption you mentioned. My prior arguments are against the welfare state we have created because it is a big problem. As you seem to agree, work ethic is a fundamental part of a healthy society. The idea of capitalism was meant to reward those hard workers. However, here in the US, we have become a fascist oligarchy.
Im not saying it isn't happening. I am saying there is very little philosophical bases for creating a society that works in such a way. Here in the US, it is certainly helping our decline back into the third world.