It is well known homogeneous cultures, with as little income disparity as possible, report highest levels of contentedness.
The "most diversity makes things best" line of reasoning is never based in reality. Of course - the people screaming at the rest of the country for more diversity - Seattle and Portland - are some of the least diverse cities in the nation.
We could fix that by giving them their wish and deporting the criminals there. It might wise them up while simultaneously giving them their much desired diversity. I live in Southern California and anyone who thinks that more immigrants is a good thing hasn't seen the end game like I have.
There's NO evidence they commit more crimes than the average population, and even less by some estimates. Most come here to work; they can commit crimes in their home country better because they know the language, if crime were their goal.
The crime angle on that is a Fake Problem. Bad Trump.
Actually by definition anyone who is here illegally is a criminal. But ignoring that there is still a *huge* amount of imported crime. The usual lie is to group all immigrants together when looking at crime since the legal ones generally do commit fewer crimes. The legal ones pull down the average. The MS13 gang, ~70k strong in the US, is largely a product of illegal immigration. But keep preaching that they are all here to helpfully mow your lawn and have no downsides.
Immigration can be a net win (ie educated law abiding types) or a net loss (low skilled or illegal) depending on how you play the game. But lying about how many deaths illegals cause by drunk driving (shockingly high numbers) and crime in general won't help that discussion.
We learned about maps and their inherent distortions in fucking _middle_ school, again in high school. Referenced the globes sitting in every classroom.
The globes have been removed because the other shapes objected to the privileged position of circles and spheres. In their place will be a diversity of shapes with the exception of spheres which have also been blamed for keeping down Africa and South America. The only spheres that are now allowed are other shapes that have had the corners chipped away to now be spheres as they always felt that they were spheres on the inside.
Killing off the free press was always one of Trump's stated goals with his desire to open up libel laws in order to facilitate suing the press.
Freedom of the press was largely lost when two things happened - ownership became highly concentrated and the press lost a diversity of opinions and morphed into Fox News on the right and everything else on the left. Concentrated ownership contributed greatly to the polarization.
Also $60K puts you in the global 0.19% according to http://www.globalrichlist.com/
It's definitely rich on a world-wide scale, and no, you don't need to compare only the third world. Even in developed countries that must easily be in the top 20%.
But hey, it's easier to complain when you think you are poor.
I always think that anyone who resorts to saying that you're rich relative to Haiti and such is a tool of the 1%. Hey no worries that the middle class is dropping like a rock and the American dream of owning a house is slipping away, quit complaining because relative to Haiti you're actually quite rich.
Ask any credible economist about balancing the budget and they'll tell you it's not a huge priority.
They will pretty much flat out tell you to drop all tarrifs, engage in free trade, and issue tax credits to those affected by jobs shifts associated by free trade. That will raise productivity and that will in turn bring in revenue and the debt issue will correct itself. No amount of jiggling and shuffling spending around will amount to shit.
I think economists support free trade the same way a Marxist supports communism. It will solve all ills if only it were implemented just right. And if the people play along perfectly. And while implementations of it have caused lots of problems, if only it were done right then everything would be perfect. It just isn't so. The middle class declines ever more, inequality swells regardless of D or R being in charge, and now it's gotten bad enough that it's causing instability. Trump is a warning. If things decline even more then expect the person or two after him to make him look mild. I don't expect good things for my kids based on where we're currently headed. Not that I think Hillary would have been much different, though Bernie might have been.
It's also an affluent mono-culture. Not exactly a good model from which to draw conclusions about more social-economically diverse populations.
But it could be a damning indictment of how diversity doesn't deliver the better world that its advocates always promise. If you want low murder rates, higher levels of social trust, and cohesion diversity is not your friend.
Until I see any concern about how under represented men are in HR, speech therapy, and a host of other roles this is just special interest groups looking for special handouts and playing the victim card. I'll pay attention when they actually want equality. To date I've never seen any special interest group (ie gender / ethnic / etc) that was really looking for equality. They are all just looking for special rights and a chance to play the victim card.
If you stir up hatred, you incite to violence, and should face consequences.
Unless they are beating up Trump supporters or "punching a Nazi". Then the clearly unbiased media will simply excuse or laud you. Not unlike how Obama went to a very racist church for ages yet got a pass.
I will stick to my theory that the media is fanning the flames of racial tension to distract everyone from the loss of the middle class and the severe decline of the American Dream. After all, the quickest way to defeat "We are the 99%" is to fragment them into many smaller groups who will conveniently fight each other rather than fight the 1%.
It's times like these that I think Damn, why did the Dems have to run Hillary. This never would have happened if Bernie had been allowed to win the nomination.
The agency appears to have failed to accurately assess the risk of not disclosing vulnerabilities to responsible vendors and failed to follow even the limited Vulnerabilities Equities Process.
This is the same group of idiots that are largely responsible for polio still being around (citation below). Failing to accurately assess risk and shortsighted thinking are nothing new to these folks.
This isn't a problem to be solved and it won't respond to rational arguments. This is a problem to be used to leverage special rights and concessions for a certain group. They don't want the problem solved, they want the privileges that come with social engineering giving you a boost.
In most places the relevant laws don't require all the old stuff to be immediately updated. It's usually a requirement for new stuff, and for old stuff that is being renewed in some way such as repeat broadcasts on TV or building renovations.
That way the cost is fairly minimal.
But there is a cost. And that cost results in real things being taken away from the majority of people. If I can't have it nobody can is a poor attitude. Now if we were to actually try and solve problems, rather than merely bitch about them, we could use the army of people on disability to fix this. We pay them after all, we might as well have them do something. Money for nothing is a *very* bad idea. If people on disability had to volunteer a certain number of hours they would feel better about themselves, have more fulfilling lives, and stuff like adding captions would have tons of people to do.
Does anyone really have a problem with requiring public hire drivers speak the local language? I mean, it is a place called "England" and presumably it's called "English" because it is the indigenous language of the people of England.
I know that where I live, the Peoples Republic of California, any rules about English only are viewed by many as tools of oppression against "undocumented immigrants" and the brown man in general. Of course this is also a state where the citizens can't figure out which bathroom to use and are spending billions on a bullet train to nowhere while actually used infrastructure rots so I have low expectations on common sense.
If someone brought it up today as an actual issue, that person does not understand the real world.
"Does not understand the real world" sounds like a good description of a "transgender-issues activist and Democratic candidate for Congress... a prominent "social justice warrior" in the "Gamergate" controversy."
The tiny little ISS in low orbit cost in excess of 100 billion, and you're telling me you can build a 44 thousand mile tall geosynchronously orbiting building for 10 billion? 1 trillion would be cheap.
Just to be clear, for what's been piddled away since 9/11 we could have had *two* of these at the $1 trillion price tag. It's definitely possible.
Slashdot Mirror
It is well known homogeneous cultures, with as little income disparity as possible, report highest levels of contentedness.
The "most diversity makes things best" line of reasoning is never based in reality. Of course - the people screaming at the rest of the country for more diversity - Seattle and Portland - are some of the least diverse cities in the nation.
We could fix that by giving them their wish and deporting the criminals there. It might wise them up while simultaneously giving them their much desired diversity. I live in Southern California and anyone who thinks that more immigrants is a good thing hasn't seen the end game like I have.
There's NO evidence they commit more crimes than the average population, and even less by some estimates. Most come here to work; they can commit crimes in their home country better because they know the language, if crime were their goal.
The crime angle on that is a Fake Problem. Bad Trump.
Actually by definition anyone who is here illegally is a criminal. But ignoring that there is still a *huge* amount of imported crime. The usual lie is to group all immigrants together when looking at crime since the legal ones generally do commit fewer crimes. The legal ones pull down the average. The MS13 gang, ~70k strong in the US, is largely a product of illegal immigration. But keep preaching that they are all here to helpfully mow your lawn and have no downsides.
Immigration can be a net win (ie educated law abiding types) or a net loss (low skilled or illegal) depending on how you play the game. But lying about how many deaths illegals cause by drunk driving (shockingly high numbers) and crime in general won't help that discussion.
We learned about maps and their inherent distortions in fucking _middle_ school, again in high school. Referenced the globes sitting in every classroom.
The globes have been removed because the other shapes objected to the privileged position of circles and spheres. In their place will be a diversity of shapes with the exception of spheres which have also been blamed for keeping down Africa and South America. The only spheres that are now allowed are other shapes that have had the corners chipped away to now be spheres as they always felt that they were spheres on the inside.
Killing off the free press was always one of Trump's stated goals with his desire to open up libel laws in order to facilitate suing the press.
Freedom of the press was largely lost when two things happened - ownership became highly concentrated and the press lost a diversity of opinions and morphed into Fox News on the right and everything else on the left. Concentrated ownership contributed greatly to the polarization.
Uh, isn't the bank the one who is responsible for credit card fraud?
Banks and bankers are not held responsible for ... anything. Ever. Hell they can crash the world economy and not get punished.
Also $60K puts you in the global 0.19% according to http://www.globalrichlist.com/ It's definitely rich on a world-wide scale, and no, you don't need to compare only the third world. Even in developed countries that must easily be in the top 20%. But hey, it's easier to complain when you think you are poor.
I always think that anyone who resorts to saying that you're rich relative to Haiti and such is a tool of the 1%. Hey no worries that the middle class is dropping like a rock and the American dream of owning a house is slipping away, quit complaining because relative to Haiti you're actually quite rich.
... He's in the 7th grade gifted program and didn't know many grammar rules of any kind.
But I bet he got an honorary participation award in English ;-)
Ask any credible economist about balancing the budget and they'll tell you it's not a huge priority.
They will pretty much flat out tell you to drop all tarrifs, engage in free trade, and issue tax credits to those affected by jobs shifts associated by free trade. That will raise productivity and that will in turn bring in revenue and the debt issue will correct itself. No amount of jiggling and shuffling spending around will amount to shit.
I think economists support free trade the same way a Marxist supports communism. It will solve all ills if only it were implemented just right. And if the people play along perfectly. And while implementations of it have caused lots of problems, if only it were done right then everything would be perfect. It just isn't so. The middle class declines ever more, inequality swells regardless of D or R being in charge, and now it's gotten bad enough that it's causing instability. Trump is a warning. If things decline even more then expect the person or two after him to make him look mild. I don't expect good things for my kids based on where we're currently headed. Not that I think Hillary would have been much different, though Bernie might have been.
It's also an affluent mono-culture. Not exactly a good model from which to draw conclusions about more social-economically diverse populations.
But it could be a damning indictment of how diversity doesn't deliver the better world that its advocates always promise. If you want low murder rates, higher levels of social trust, and cohesion diversity is not your friend.
Until I see any concern about how under represented men are in HR, speech therapy, and a host of other roles this is just special interest groups looking for special handouts and playing the victim card. I'll pay attention when they actually want equality. To date I've never seen any special interest group (ie gender / ethnic / etc) that was really looking for equality. They are all just looking for special rights and a chance to play the victim card.
Don't women get a say? Must they be 50/51% of every field?...
This discussion is definitely 5150 every time
If you stir up hatred, you incite to violence, and should face consequences.
Unless they are beating up Trump supporters or "punching a Nazi". Then the clearly unbiased media will simply excuse or laud you. Not unlike how Obama went to a very racist church for ages yet got a pass.
I will stick to my theory that the media is fanning the flames of racial tension to distract everyone from the loss of the middle class and the severe decline of the American Dream. After all, the quickest way to defeat "We are the 99%" is to fragment them into many smaller groups who will conveniently fight each other rather than fight the 1%.
Citations: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06...
Please share your statistics.
It's times like these that I think Damn, why did the Dems have to run Hillary. This never would have happened if Bernie had been allowed to win the nomination.
The agency appears to have failed to accurately assess the risk of not disclosing vulnerabilities to responsible vendors and failed to follow even the limited Vulnerabilities Equities Process.
This is the same group of idiots that are largely responsible for polio still being around (citation below). Failing to accurately assess risk and shortsighted thinking are nothing new to these folks.
Citation:
https://www.scientificamerican...
To Berkeley apparently not.
... and the conclusion was that 'No reasonable prosecutor would take the case.'
You're assuming that the only reason no reasonable prosecutor would take the case is her innocence.
This isn't a problem to be solved and it won't respond to rational arguments. This is a problem to be used to leverage special rights and concessions for a certain group. They don't want the problem solved, they want the privileges that come with social engineering giving you a boost.
To the government - No. And the statistics for how many men get full or half custody prove this.
In most places the relevant laws don't require all the old stuff to be immediately updated. It's usually a requirement for new stuff, and for old stuff that is being renewed in some way such as repeat broadcasts on TV or building renovations.
That way the cost is fairly minimal.
But there is a cost. And that cost results in real things being taken away from the majority of people. If I can't have it nobody can is a poor attitude. Now if we were to actually try and solve problems, rather than merely bitch about them, we could use the army of people on disability to fix this. We pay them after all, we might as well have them do something. Money for nothing is a *very* bad idea. If people on disability had to volunteer a certain number of hours they would feel better about themselves, have more fulfilling lives, and stuff like adding captions would have tons of people to do.
I'd love to chalk this up to unintended consequences but the prohibitive cost of all this disability run amok has been pointed out numerous times.
Popular opinion should matter more than actual facts.
It worked for diversity
Does anyone really have a problem with requiring public hire drivers speak the local language? I mean, it is a place called "England" and presumably it's called "English" because it is the indigenous language of the people of England.
I know that where I live, the Peoples Republic of California, any rules about English only are viewed by many as tools of oppression against "undocumented immigrants" and the brown man in general. Of course this is also a state where the citizens can't figure out which bathroom to use and are spending billions on a bullet train to nowhere while actually used infrastructure rots so I have low expectations on common sense.
If someone brought it up today as an actual issue, that person does not understand the real world.
"Does not understand the real world" sounds like a good description of a "transgender-issues activist and Democratic candidate for Congress ... a prominent "social justice warrior" in the "Gamergate" controversy."
The tiny little ISS in low orbit cost in excess of 100 billion, and you're telling me you can build a 44 thousand mile tall geosynchronously orbiting building for 10 billion? 1 trillion would be cheap.
Just to be clear, for what's been piddled away since 9/11 we could have had *two* of these at the $1 trillion price tag. It's definitely possible.