Other than that, yes, google can be biased. But they're a private corporation. They have the same right to be biased as other private corporations like FOX or Breitbart. The First Amendment gives them that right.
I can't believe more people aren't shouting this from the rooftops.
A few people are at least tweeting about it:
Dear @realDonaldTrump: You should read the First Amendment. @Google has the right to, for example, prioritize cute cat videos over weird Alex Jones rants.
If government tried to dictate the free speech algorithms of private companies, courts would strike it down in a nanosecond.
Doesn't Google have a right to be biased? I don't believe they intentionally are as it's in their interest to make searches relevant to their users, but why shouldn't they be allowed to?
This sounds very much like Trump wants to implement his own Great Firewall. He's attempting to coerce Google and others to implement different algorithms to favor him.
He's coming very close to treading on the First Amendment if he's not already stepping on it.
Trump wanted the FCC to fine Fox News and ban Rich Lowry from TV. Forget that the FCC can't fine Fox for what someone says on their network, this is a very dangerous attitude for a President to have.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 24, 2015
Rich Lowry is an editor at The National Review which isn't exactly liberal. He simply criticized Trump's debate performance. He may have been harsh, but it's his right to speak his mind.
CNN can't beat ancient aliens on the history channel
This is the 2nd time I've heard this claim in the last 12 hours. (I was watching Fox last night and they couldn't stop talking about CNN.)
At first I just wrote it off as hyperbole, but I decided to factcheck it right now.
Google search returned mostly clickbait or rightwing sites. This often happens with stories like this because often they're the ones trying to make a big deal out of it.
Finally one of those sites linked to Ad Week which seems to me like a more reputable source.
I'm not sure how passing more bills than previous legislatures in and of itself is either good or bad.
Some have argued that we'd be better off if they stopped passing so many laws and with one party in control of both Houses as well as the Executive Branch it could be interpreted as them just ramming through everything they can think of while the opposition can do little to stop them.
We see the GOP pushing hard to ram Kavanaugh onto the Supreme Court just as we see the Dems trying hard to hold off confirmation hearings until after the elections. Of course the GOP did that to Merrick Garland for nearly a year so they have no moral standing to blame the Dems for trying it now.
Maybe it's always been this way, but it seems like our major parties have become much less about compromise and coming together than gaining power and dividing our country.
I'm late to the party for this thread, but I don't think I ever heard of uMatrix, so I just installed it and spent some time trying to "fix" a website that recently added so many ads and click-bait "sponsored content" that it was consistently causing Chrome to crash and was just overall unusable.
It took me a while to get used to it and figure out just the right combination of what to block and what not to to preserve the things I wanted. A few things are still getting through, but it's much quicker, doesn't crash and is much more readable.
I'm sure that site drove a few people off with all that extra cruft. Even before that browsing there without uBlock Origin was a horrible experience.
On one of their pages uBlock and uMatrix are each blocking nearly 250 things and the longer that page stays open, the higher the counts are getting.
The federal government (U.S.) owns enough land to give each citizen several acres. The free market doesnt exist because the governments power continues to trump it. The answer isnt giving the government more power, because that too will be used for the cronies.
The federal government (U.S.) owns enough land to give each citizen several acres.
Well that's just great.
I mean I grew up believing the government owed me 40 acres and a mule and now we're down to "several acres" and no mention of any mule.
Has the whole world gone mad?
I'll settle for a 1/4 acre plot and a Kia. Is that too much to ask?
Where's my mule? Where's my 40 acres? To live this away, might as well meet my maker.
You mean like banning straws under threat of prison sentence? They did it. Jail time for a plastic straw.
Yeah, I didn't believe this so I looked it up.
I couldn't actually find anything on the penalties SF is planning to impose, but it does sound like you've confused Santa Barbara with San Francisco along with a little fake news from Fox, the Daily Mail and Donald Trump Jr.
Latchford pointed out that, since Santa Barbara’s plastic bag ordinance went into effect in 2014, “we haven’t had a single fine.”
Pushing for compliance rather than maximum penalties is similar to how they've handled public smoking bans and bans on throwing away certain recyclable material (e.g. plain cardboard) where I live (not California).
I really am not familiar with the public defecation situation in SF and I doubt you are either so I won't speak to that, but your other claim:
You mean like decriminalising the act of purposefully infecting other people with an incurable deadly disease? They did that, too
No, they did not. Knowingly exposing another to HIV is still a crime.
The co-author of the bill explains:
Last week, Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 239, a bill I co-authored to modernize California’s HIV criminal statutes by treating HIV *exactly* the same as other serious and deadly diseases such as Ebola, SARS, hepatitis C, and tuberculosis: as a misdemeanor. Under current California law, only HIV is treated as a felony, and you don’t have to infect anyone—or even create a risk of infection—to be guilty and go to state prison.
SB 239 doesn’t eliminate criminal penalties for reckless behavior by people living with HIV. Rather, it simply aligns our criminal treatment of HIV with how we treat every other serious infectious disease in existence: as a misdemeanor.
And finally - and I admit I'm going out on a limb here because I've never lived in California, but I don't think SF is considered "Southern California". According to Wikipedia, it's "Northern California".
So who's crazier? The San Franciscans in Southern California or Texans? Or the states who never made it a felony in the first place?
See what Trump said when he was told a country is not a golf course.
At one point, Mr. Trump even compared his renovation of Trump Turnberry to how he is hoping to overhaul the United States. When a reporter pointed out — correctly — that a country is hardly a golf course, Mr. Trump replied: “No it’s not, but you’ll be amazed how similar it is. It’s a place that has to be fixed.”
Obama and the Dems were wrong about Russia in 2012 and since then we've seen Russia shoot down MH-17, attack Ukraine, take over Crimea, threaten Europe and attempt to assassinate people in Britain just for starters.
Why is Russia suddenly considered trustworthy now?
And Obama didn't do enough to combat Russia back in 2016.
Why does that justify ignoring it now?
And why is Trump trying to scare people into thinking nuclear war is the only alternative to playing into Putin's hands?
lots of Slashdotters have seized upon Betteridge as the latest fad kneejerk response
Sorry to wander even further off topic, but I thought the latest was people accusing others of "suffering from the Dunning–Kruger effect" when they really just want to call someone else "stupid" but they want to sound like they're really smart when they do so.
I think a bigger issue than this pedantry is whether or not it will cause confusion among consumers.
Would a reasonable consumer see "coconut milk" or "soy milk" and conclude that it came from an animal? As long as the label is not designed in such a way as to obscure the "coconut" or to show pictures of cows and it is clearly labeled "coconut" or "soy" in the same size and style font as "milk" I don't see a problem.
I learned my lesson years ago one morning when with eyes still bleary I bought something that said "100%" and "JUICE" on it in big letters. I opened it and took a big swig and nearly spit it out. In much smaller letters next to juice it said "drink". In much smaller letters next to 100% it said something like "Vitamin C" or "Recommended Daily Allowance". Somewhere on the back of the can in a much smaller font with poorly contrasting colors it said "10% Juice".
The label was 100% accurate, but 100% designed to mislead consumers.
he is so computer illiterate that he has trouble with digital gas pumps (he's bought a few car washes that he didn't want trying to get it to print a receipt).
I've nearly done this because either the screen is hard to read with the sun shining on it or the buttons are so worn it's difficult to see which the "Yes" and "No" buttons are.
The quote was about energy which since he also mentioned nuclear and coal so did he just mean fossil fuels?. If other forms of energy are considered the percentage is less than 20%.
Germany is totally controlled by Russia They will be getting between 60 and 70 percent of their energy from Russia and a new pipeline, and you tell me if that is appropriate because I think it's not,
Even with the new pipeline this will not raise their energy percentage that high. It may if only natural gas and oil are considered, but that would paint a very incomplete picture.
Germany is a captive of Russia because they supply (energy). They got rid of their coal plants. They got rid of their nuclear. They’re getting so much of the oil and gas from Russia. I think it’s something that NATO has to look at.
Of course they haven't gotten rid of coal or nuclear (yet anyway) and they're expanding renewable energy.
I verified I had one that was recalled but it only had about half the sockets in use due to oversized plugs. It was slightly warm, but not alarmingly so.
I was tempted to keep using it but couldn't justify even a slight risk of fire.
Interesting that Gorsuch is complaining about the politicization of the Supreme Court. He couldn't have foreseen it at the time, but that's exactly why he's a part of it today.
And he points out* that Dems failed to win a majority of the popular vote in 9 out of 10 of the last presidential elections. (The article was written in 2005 - he could not have foreseen 2016 - Okay, not a majority either, but Trump did even worse). 1984 and 1988 were outliers. Discounting those two elections the GOP has hardly done better.
Starting with 1992, only ONE election has resulted in the winner having a majority of the popular vote. In 2004, Bush got 50.7%.
He then uses* election results for gay marriage as an example of Democrats litigating instead of legislating. I guess we'll just have to disagree on that because I believe they should have the right to marry and the Supreme Court eventually agreed. I wonder how Gorsuch would have voted in that case.
* - at this point I hadn't yet read von Drehle's article. Gorsuch is just raising points von Drehle did
And I haven't seen recent polling, but I'm under the impression that we're even more accepting of gay marriage today than we were 13 years ago. Would those measures pass today?
I believe sometimes courts are the right avenue.
But why link to Gorsuch's opinion on this? Why not go straight to the original opinion piece by the "self-identified liberal"?
For many Democrats, the worst thing about the election result is the prospect of President Bush's appointing a new generation of conservative justices to the Supreme Court.
That's interesting because I've seen many self-identified conservatives who say that despite all Trump's problems, at least he'll nominate judges who will serve for decades and that more than makes up for Trump's other faults. Many of these same people stand ready to bring litigation against any kind of gun control measure that may be passed into law. For others the issue is abortion or gay marriage or bathrooms. Often it is the main or only issue they care about.
Now that I've read both articles, I must admit von Drehle raises some good points.
Nothing riles up social conservatives like a stirring denunciation of the so-called "activist" courts.
Civil rights lawyers of 50 years ago filed lawsuits as part of a well-planned strategy. Equal or even greater energy was put into political organizing and public persuasion. The individuals and groups bringing gay-marriage lawsuits did so, in many cases, without the backing of leading gay rights organizations. Little was done to cultivate support even among liberals. Essentially nothing was done to persuade moderates.
This is interesting because 50 years ago I was not in favor of gay marriage. Even 30 years ago I wasn't but somehow I've completely reversed positions. Part of what convinced me was absurd rhetoric from self-identified conservatives who said it would lead to people marrying children and animals as well as hateful rhetoric and acts towards gay people.
I didn't need liberals to convince me that Lawrence v. Texas overturning anti-sodomy laws was the right decision and I saw lawsuits fighting for gay marriage as a means of the courts being used as they were designed - as a check and balance against the other branches of government.
All this talk of "activist judges" and "legislating from the bench" struck me as bitterness that the Constitution was for the most part being upheld. Of course I sometimes disagree with the courts, but not to the point of wanting to stack them with partisan judges.
There is even talk of overturning Roe v. Wade although I think that's just wishful thinking or perhaps outright trolling. They're often hard to distinguish
I'll add that it's very easy to change your party affiliation if you pay attention to the deadline to do so before a primary.
Paying attention is key. Unaffiliated voters in Colorado just got 2 primary ballots for the first time. A new law allows them to vote in ONE party's primary. It's their choice, but they can't vote in both and yet a certain percentage of them are doing exactly that and invalidating both ballots in the process.
If you live in a solidly red or solidly blue state and don't particularly like either presidential candidate I think it makes sense to vote 3rd party even if you're still making fun of Johnson's Aleppo moment. (Do you seriously think Trump knew (or knows) what Aleppo is?)
Not voting at all is a worse option although perhaps voting for every race except President would send a kind of a message.
Voting 3rd party really sends an unclear message. Was it because they really thought Jill Stein would be a great president or did they just despise/distrust/dislike/disagree with (whatever) both Clinton and Trump?
But casting a ballot in all but the Presidential is unlikely to get much attention. Politicians will notice all the votes 3rd parties are taking away from them. I doubt they'll notice if you only abstain from the presidential race.
What if you lived in a red state with a Republican President seeking re-election (perhaps Dubya in '04)? You think the challenger would be a worse president, but you know he has no chance where you cast your ballot and you're unhappy with much of the current president's policies.
Your vote matters little in this scenario. Do you
1: skip voting, 2: Vote for the incumbent anyway (thus signalling approval of the job he's doing) 3: Vote 3rd party in an attempt to signal dislike of both GOP and Dem candidates (the candidate you want is going to win your state anyway). 4: Vote for the GOP/Dem candidate that has no chance in your state to send the signal that voters are so disgusted with the incumbent they're starting to switch parties.
I will indeed remember this just as surely as I remember all the times Congress ceded more power to the Executive just because they were controlled by the same party.
I said it when Clinton was in office and also when Bush and Obama were in office. You may want the President to have more power, but you're going to regret it when the other party is in the White House.
Slashdot Mirror
Other than that, yes, google can be biased. But they're a private corporation. They have the same right to be biased as other private corporations like FOX or Breitbart. The First Amendment gives them that right.
I can't believe more people aren't shouting this from the rooftops.
A few people are at least tweeting about it:
Dear @realDonaldTrump: You should read the First Amendment. @Google has the right to, for example, prioritize cute cat videos over weird Alex Jones rants.
If government tried to dictate the free speech algorithms of private companies, courts would strike it down in a nanosecond.
- Rep. Ted Lieu, D-California. August 28, 2018
https://twitter.com/tedlieu/st...
He has a point there.
Doesn't Google have a right to be biased? I don't believe they intentionally are as it's in their interest to make searches relevant to their users, but why shouldn't they be allowed to?
This sounds very much like Trump wants to implement his own Great Firewall. He's attempting to coerce Google and others to implement different algorithms to favor him.
He's coming very close to treading on the First Amendment if he's not already stepping on it.
Trump wanted the FCC to fine Fox News and ban Rich Lowry from TV. Forget that the FCC can't fine Fox for what someone says on their network, this is a very dangerous attitude for a President to have.
Incompetent @RichLowry lost it tonight on @FoxNews. He should not be allowed on TV and the FCC should fine him!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 24, 2015
Rich Lowry is an editor at The National Review which isn't exactly liberal. He simply criticized Trump's debate performance. He may have been harsh, but it's his right to speak his mind.
CNN can't beat ancient aliens on the history channel
This is the 2nd time I've heard this claim in the last 12 hours. (I was watching Fox last night and they couldn't stop talking about CNN.)
At first I just wrote it off as hyperbole, but I decided to factcheck it right now.
Google search returned mostly clickbait or rightwing sites. This often happens with stories like this because often they're the ones trying to make a big deal out of it.
Finally one of those sites linked to Ad Week which seems to me like a more reputable source.
https://www.adweek.com/tvnewse...
Fox is still #1 although with lower viewership than last year but it was The History Channel, not Ancient Aliens specifically, that beat CNN out.
But isn't that all History Channel shows anymore?
I don't know. Let me check. No, it's a lot of Pawn Stars and American Pickers during the week and then Ancient Aliens on Fridays.
These are ratings for the entire week.
So while this may still be embarrassing for CNN it isn't clear that Ancient Aliens beat CNN in primetime.
I'm not sure how passing more bills than previous legislatures in and of itself is either good or bad.
Some have argued that we'd be better off if they stopped passing so many laws and with one party in control of both Houses as well as the Executive Branch it could be interpreted as them just ramming through everything they can think of while the opposition can do little to stop them.
We see the GOP pushing hard to ram Kavanaugh onto the Supreme Court just as we see the Dems trying hard to hold off confirmation hearings until after the elections. Of course the GOP did that to Merrick Garland for nearly a year so they have no moral standing to blame the Dems for trying it now.
Maybe it's always been this way, but it seems like our major parties have become much less about compromise and coming together than gaining power and dividing our country.
I'm late to the party for this thread, but I don't think I ever heard of uMatrix, so I just installed it and spent some time trying to "fix" a website that recently added so many ads and click-bait "sponsored content" that it was consistently causing Chrome to crash and was just overall unusable.
It took me a while to get used to it and figure out just the right combination of what to block and what not to to preserve the things I wanted. A few things are still getting through, but it's much quicker, doesn't crash and is much more readable.
I'm sure that site drove a few people off with all that extra cruft. Even before that browsing there without uBlock Origin was a horrible experience.
On one of their pages uBlock and uMatrix are each blocking nearly 250 things and the longer that page stays open, the higher the counts are getting.
So, many thanks.
The federal government (U.S.) owns enough land to give each citizen several acres. The free market doesnt exist because the governments power continues to trump it. The answer isnt giving the government more power, because that too will be used for the cronies.
The federal government (U.S.) owns enough land to give each citizen several acres.
Well that's just great.
I mean I grew up believing the government owed me 40 acres and a mule and now we're down to "several acres" and no mention of any mule.
Has the whole world gone mad?
I'll settle for a 1/4 acre plot and a Kia. Is that too much to ask?
Where's my mule?
Where's my 40 acres?
To live this away, might as well meet my maker.
Where's my mule?
You mean like banning straws under threat of prison sentence? They did it. Jail time for a plastic straw.
Yeah, I didn't believe this so I looked it up.
I couldn't actually find anything on the penalties SF is planning to impose, but it does sound like you've confused Santa Barbara with San Francisco along with a little fake news from Fox, the Daily Mail and Donald Trump Jr.
Santa Barbara wants to lock up straw users? That'd be outrageous, if it were actually true
Santa Barbara is considering a straw ban — and no, you won’t be jailed for violating it
Latchford pointed out that, since Santa Barbara’s plastic bag ordinance went into effect in 2014, “we haven’t had a single fine.”
Pushing for compliance rather than maximum penalties is similar to how they've handled public smoking bans and bans on throwing away certain recyclable material (e.g. plain cardboard) where I live (not California).
I really am not familiar with the public defecation situation in SF and I doubt you are either so I won't speak to that, but your other claim:
You mean like decriminalising the act of purposefully infecting other people with an incurable deadly disease? They did that, too
No, they did not. Knowingly exposing another to HIV is still a crime.
The co-author of the bill explains:
Last week, Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 239, a bill I co-authored to modernize California’s HIV criminal statutes by treating HIV *exactly* the same as other serious and deadly diseases such as Ebola, SARS, hepatitis C, and tuberculosis: as a misdemeanor. Under current California law, only HIV is treated as a felony, and you don’t have to infect anyone—or even create a risk of infection—to be guilty and go to state prison.
SB 239 doesn’t eliminate criminal penalties for reckless behavior by people living with HIV. Rather, it simply aligns our criminal treatment of HIV with how we treat every other serious infectious disease in existence: as a misdemeanor.
We Modernized California’s HIV Criminal Laws & the Right Wing Attacked
And this should blow your mind:
In 1994, Texas became the first state to repeal its HIV criminal laws, according to the Center for HIV Law and Policy.
Nor do all other states treat exposing another to it as a felony.
HIV Crime Laws: Historical Relics or Public Safety Measures?
And finally - and I admit I'm going out on a limb here because I've never lived in California, but I don't think SF is considered "Southern California". According to Wikipedia, it's "Northern California".
So who's crazier? The San Franciscans in Southern California or Texans? Or the states who never made it a felony in the first place?
However, governments do not work like that,
See what Trump said when he was told a country is not a golf course.
At one point, Mr. Trump even compared his renovation of Trump Turnberry to how he is hoping to overhaul the United States. When a reporter pointed out — correctly — that a country is hardly a golf course, Mr. Trump replied: “No it’s not, but you’ll be amazed how similar it is. It’s a place that has to be fixed.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0...
God help us if he fixes the US like he "fixed" Turnberry, which has been losing money ever since he bought it.
Obama and the Dems were wrong about Russia in 2012 and since then we've seen Russia shoot down MH-17, attack Ukraine, take over Crimea, threaten Europe and attempt to assassinate people in Britain just for starters.
Why is Russia suddenly considered trustworthy now?
And Obama didn't do enough to combat Russia back in 2016.
Why does that justify ignoring it now?
And why is Trump trying to scare people into thinking nuclear war is the only alternative to playing into Putin's hands?
lots of Slashdotters have seized upon Betteridge as the latest fad kneejerk response
Sorry to wander even further off topic, but I thought the latest was people accusing others of "suffering from the Dunning–Kruger effect" when they really just want to call someone else "stupid" but they want to sound like they're really smart when they do so.
Maybe they're doing it ironically.
Someone mod this guy up.
I think a bigger issue than this pedantry is whether or not it will cause confusion among consumers.
Would a reasonable consumer see "coconut milk" or "soy milk" and conclude that it came from an animal? As long as the label is not designed in such a way as to obscure the "coconut" or to show pictures of cows and it is clearly labeled "coconut" or "soy" in the same size and style font as "milk" I don't see a problem.
I learned my lesson years ago one morning when with eyes still bleary I bought something that said "100%" and "JUICE" on it in big letters. I opened it and took a big swig and nearly spit it out. In much smaller letters next to juice it said "drink". In much smaller letters next to 100% it said something like "Vitamin C" or "Recommended Daily Allowance". Somewhere on the back of the can in a much smaller font with poorly contrasting colors it said "10% Juice".
The label was 100% accurate, but 100% designed to mislead consumers.
he is so computer illiterate that he has trouble with digital gas pumps (he's bought a few car washes that he didn't want trying to get it to print a receipt).
I've nearly done this because either the screen is hard to read with the sun shining on it or the buttons are so worn it's difficult to see which the "Yes" and "No" buttons are.
And go outside and enjoy the view and just this once don't try to get a selfie.
I've never seen an ICBM in flight or detonating up close before.
Good thing I still have my eclipse glasses.
The quote was about energy which since he also mentioned nuclear and coal so did he just mean fossil fuels?. If other forms of energy are considered the percentage is less than 20%.
Germany is totally controlled by Russia They will be getting between 60 and 70 percent of their energy from Russia and a new pipeline, and you tell me if that is appropriate because I think it's not,
Even with the new pipeline this will not raise their energy percentage that high. It may if only natural gas and oil are considered, but that would paint a very incomplete picture.
Germany is a captive of Russia because they supply (energy). They got rid of their coal plants. They got rid of their nuclear. They’re getting so much of the oil and gas from Russia. I think it’s something that NATO has to look at.
Of course they haven't gotten rid of coal or nuclear (yet anyway) and they're expanding renewable energy.
Is the Royal Spanish Academy powerless to stop this?
FB is more like a newspaper which exercises editorial content and refuses to publish my letter to the editor.
ISPs are more like letter carriers who would refuse to deliver the paper.
A few years ago I read about some class action lawsuit (that I was too late to join) regarding a power strip I'd been using for years.
Do you have one of these?
https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2...
(NOTE: Originally sold by APC).
I verified I had one that was recalled but it only had about half the sockets in use due to oversized plugs. It was slightly warm, but not alarmingly so.
I was tempted to keep using it but couldn't justify even a slight risk of fire.
perhaps this will help;
Juggalos for life>
Or maybe it won't.
I can't explain them.
Juggalos, how do they work?
I'm as confused as Charlie.
Interesting that Gorsuch is complaining about the politicization of the Supreme Court. He couldn't have foreseen it at the time, but that's exactly why he's a part of it today.
And he points out* that Dems failed to win a majority of the popular vote in 9 out of 10 of the last presidential elections. (The article was written in 2005 - he could not have foreseen 2016 - Okay, not a majority either, but Trump did even worse). 1984 and 1988 were outliers. Discounting those two elections the GOP has hardly done better.
Starting with 1992, only ONE election has resulted in the winner having a majority of the popular vote. In 2004, Bush got 50.7%.
He then uses* election results for gay marriage as an example of Democrats litigating instead of legislating. I guess we'll just have to disagree on that because I believe they should have the right to marry and the Supreme Court eventually agreed. I wonder how Gorsuch would have voted in that case.
* - at this point I hadn't yet read von Drehle's article. Gorsuch is just raising points von Drehle did
And I haven't seen recent polling, but I'm under the impression that we're even more accepting of gay marriage today than we were 13 years ago. Would those measures pass today?
I believe sometimes courts are the right avenue.
But why link to Gorsuch's opinion on this? Why not go straight to the original opinion piece by the "self-identified liberal"?
Take the Issues to the People, Not to the Courts
For many Democrats, the worst thing about the election result is the prospect of President Bush's appointing a new generation of conservative justices to the Supreme Court.
That's interesting because I've seen many self-identified conservatives who say that despite all Trump's problems, at least he'll nominate judges who will serve for decades and that more than makes up for Trump's other faults. Many of these same people stand ready to bring litigation against any kind of gun control measure that may be passed into law. For others the issue is abortion or gay marriage or bathrooms. Often it is the main or only issue they care about.
Now that I've read both articles, I must admit von Drehle raises some good points.
Nothing riles up social conservatives like a stirring denunciation of the so-called "activist" courts.
Civil rights lawyers of 50 years ago filed lawsuits as part of a well-planned strategy. Equal or even greater energy was put into political organizing and public persuasion. The individuals and groups bringing gay-marriage lawsuits did so, in many cases, without the backing of leading gay rights organizations. Little was done to cultivate support even among liberals. Essentially nothing was done to persuade moderates.
This is interesting because 50 years ago I was not in favor of gay marriage. Even 30 years ago I wasn't but somehow I've completely reversed positions. Part of what convinced me was absurd rhetoric from self-identified conservatives who said it would lead to people marrying children and animals as well as hateful rhetoric and acts towards gay people.
I didn't need liberals to convince me that Lawrence v. Texas overturning anti-sodomy laws was the right decision and I saw lawsuits fighting for gay marriage as a means of the courts being used as they were designed - as a check and balance against the other branches of government.
All this talk of "activist judges" and "legislating from the bench" struck me as bitterness that the Constitution was for the most part being upheld. Of course I sometimes disagree with the courts, but not to the point of wanting to stack them with partisan judges.
There is even talk of overturning Roe v. Wade although I think that's just wishful thinking or perhaps outright trolling. They're often hard to distinguish
And since he
I'll add that it's very easy to change your party affiliation if you pay attention to the deadline to do so before a primary.
Paying attention is key. Unaffiliated voters in Colorado just got 2 primary ballots for the first time. A new law allows them to vote in ONE party's primary. It's their choice, but they can't vote in both and yet a certain percentage of them are doing exactly that and invalidating both ballots in the process.
Hundreds of Colorado’s unaffiliated voters are turning in primary ballots for both parties, nullifying their votes
If you live in a solidly red or solidly blue state and don't particularly like either presidential candidate I think it makes sense to vote 3rd party even if you're still making fun of Johnson's Aleppo moment. (Do you seriously think Trump knew (or knows) what Aleppo is?)
Not voting at all is a worse option although perhaps voting for every race except President would send a kind of a message.
Voting 3rd party really sends an unclear message. Was it because they really thought Jill Stein would be a great president or did they just despise/distrust/dislike/disagree with (whatever) both Clinton and Trump?
But casting a ballot in all but the Presidential is unlikely to get much attention. Politicians will notice all the votes 3rd parties are taking away from them. I doubt they'll notice if you only abstain from the presidential race.
What if you lived in a red state with a Republican President seeking re-election (perhaps Dubya in '04)? You think the challenger would be a worse president, but you know he has no chance where you cast your ballot and you're unhappy with much of the current president's policies.
Your vote matters little in this scenario. Do you
1: skip voting,
2: Vote for the incumbent anyway (thus signalling approval of the job he's doing)
3: Vote 3rd party in an attempt to signal dislike of both GOP and Dem candidates (the candidate you want is going to win your state anyway).
4: Vote for the GOP/Dem candidate that has no chance in your state to send the signal that voters are so disgusted with the incumbent they're starting to switch parties.
I will indeed remember this just as surely as I remember all the times Congress ceded more power to the Executive just because they were controlled by the same party.
I said it when Clinton was in office and also when Bush and Obama were in office. You may want the President to have more power, but you're going to regret it when the other party is in the White House.
Documentation is important.....Code that's difficult to read, difficult to understand
"Real programmers don't comment their code. If it was hard to write, it should be hard to understand." - some coder who doesn't work here anymore.
Is it really worth an hour of your time to fight to get it though?