Men and women come from very different life experiences. Likewise for non whites from whites. Is it really such a stretch of the imagination that it would be good to have more variety in who directs in such a culturally dominate medium such as cinema?
Those are not the ratings of a movie that is "widely regarded" as bad.
"Does a story become good or bad because of the race or gender of the author?"
No but different backgrounds bring different results and what's more different when it comes to people than race and sex? Variety is a good thing whether you're talking about cinema as art or entertainment (or anywhere inbetween).
You're being willfully naive here. You're basically insisting that your one quote defines an absolute NASA priority of non science stuff despite the fact that history completely refutes that. There is no history of large scale Muslim outreach. There is no history of NASA spending large amounts of resources on anything in that quote you provided from the director. Without any of that you are absolutely wrong.
Also, a little history and "how government works" lesson for you. Our rockets all went obsolete under Obama because no plans were made for new ones under Bush. Under Obama plans were drawn up to get us back into the flying into space business but it takes time for such things. Major NASA accomplishments are rarely the result of the actions of the administration they happen under.
In 2021, when it is projected Americans will be flying on American government rockets again ( https://www.space.com/35394-pr... ), it will be because of what was started under Obama. Please feel free to read the entire article that I've linked to there. It lists actual, historically verifiable, priorities for NASA under Obama.
As for the "bigot argument", I never called you a bigot nor used any suggestion of racism as a means of undermining anything else you have said. I have, however, repeatedly asked you why you bolded the single part of the quote that had to do with Muslims which anyone with a passing knowledge of history knows was not a priority of NASA. So far you've failed to explain why that part is so particularly heinous.
No I am most certainly not getting population and land area confused, I do however think you're looking at all of what people think of as Southern California rather than what the proposed state of "Southern California" will be, Doing a literal count of districts on the map I provided (not looking at land area) I count 5 committed conservative, 4 moderate conservative, 2-3 conservative liberal (it's hard to tell on casual examination), and two moderate liberal.
Right, so it's a coincidence that just about allll the blue states are wealthier. You're being willfully naive. There's no way an almost universal economic divide forms along political lines by accident.
"Its not one election."
Well it was because because that was what you provided as your source for "proving" the new Southern California state (note, this is not the same as what people currently call Southern California as you seem to imply in your post) would be liberal. I was speaking in the context that you had established.
Finally, you've now chosen to ignore the map detailing how conservative the areas of Southern California that will be in the proposed state of Southern California are after I explained that you clearly misread it. Please get back to me on that.
"The current budget surplus is a result of the national economy improving, California is just one boat on the rising tide. Governor Brown being slightly more frugal than his other democratic predecessors is an anomaly and it also does not contradict the fact that the state legislature is essentially a supermajority and not frugal, they constantly want to expand social programs with the current temporary surplus and this is the norm for California and why there are occasional fiscal revolts putting a republican into the governorship. This in no way indicates any strong red presence. The legislature indicates the nature of the state, 2/3 blue in both houses. Merely enough light blue to put a republican governor in office during fiscal revolts.
And the budget surplus is a single data point, and quite temporary and fragile. Unlike the blue shading of most of southern california outside of LA."
As I have pointed out twice already and you keep ignoring, Blue states are almost universally our most prosperous states. That's one hell of a coincidence if it has nothing to do with the governing party.
Three times is my limit for repeating myself. If you type up another lengthy comment without acknowledging this gap in a meaningful way I'm done with the conversation.
"The single data point is voting for Hillary for President. That by itself is a sufficient contradiction to your hypothesis of southern california being a red region.
Basically you confuse moderate blue with red."
You don't understand the words I am typing. You can't use a single election to define the electoral slant of a state or region. Since you didn't understand my first explanation I'll try to use a very simple example to illustrate the point. Imagine calculating how red or blue 80's America was using only Reagan's first presidential election. Almost every state would be red. Does that truly reflect the political ideology of the country during the 80's? No.
A voter map that shows how each stated voted for president does nothing on its own but show how each state voted for president. It is useless for determining general voter ideology.
To be honest, this combined with your inability to read a map (see post below) makes me really wonder why I'm wasting my time.
What are you talking about? That map clearly shows the proposed "Southern California" being mostly made up as "committed conservative" and "moderate conservative".
"Irrelevent, the legislature/governor have little to nothing to do with that."
Irrelevant? Strength of government is a key statistical indicator for economic prosperity. There are few more significant ones in fact.
As for one party control, I never said that multiparty politics weren't the most healthy, I only pointed out that single party politics seems to have almost universally worked out well for the last six decades for blue states and (again, almost universally) hasn't worked out well during the same period for red in terms of economic conditions.
As for me being ignorant, your link made be laugh. You're using a single vote on a single position to show the political ideology of a region. Since you're new to statistics I'll take the time to explain to you that making broad generalizations based on a single data point rarely makes for accurate conclusions. Basically, all your link does is do what its title says it does, show how regions of California voted in the 2016 presidential election. Without taking too much of my own time up looking, this seems like a much better map to look at: http://www.ppic.org/content/im... from the Public Policy Institute of California, which draws data from multiple sources. Maybe next time you call some one ignorant make sure you aren't making an ass out of yourself.
To bring in a bit of anecdotal info as well, I can personally tell you from growing up and still living in California, once you get out of LA, Southern California gets fairly conservative (admittedly, its own unique flavor of conservatism). It's how we ended up with Reagan for governor among other things.
You don't seem to know what the word "charged" means. In this case it means "entrust (someone) with a task as a duty or responsibility." My father charged me with taking out the garbage every night, does this means this was more important than my homework? No, charging someone with something has nothing to do with any level of importance.
Furthermore, you completely ignore the fact that THERE IS NO HISTORY OF NASA SPENDING SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES ON MUSLIM OUTREACH, let alone resources on the scale of it being a top priority. Without that you literally have no case that Obama made that a top priority.
Nice picking and choosing what to respond to by the way. Ignore the most crucial point that there is zero history of NASA spending major resources on Muslim outreach and pick away at any side tangents you can.
Please, tell me where that's being said. All the quote you've provided does is suggest that Obama wanted those things accomplished by NASA. It does nothing to establish their relative importance in NASA's overall mission.
Furthermore, (and really, much more importantly) please look back and tell me how that reflects the reality of NASA's 8 years under Obama. How much money did NASA have earmarked for Muslim outreach? How much of a burden was this on their bureaucracy? Surely, if this was "one of NASA's top three goals" news oulets must have a ton of articles about the programs NASA established to pursue it. Where are they all?
Finally, you've failed to establish why reaching out to Muslims is especially bad compared to general international outreach which was mentioned just before the Muslim part you seemed to think was so outrageous it needed to be detailed in bold. Your Jehovah witness tangent only sounds rediculous because you inserted a group with very little global impact for a group that has a very significant one.
Earlier in your post you talk about NASA's work on climate issues; why isnt that listed in bold instead? NASA spent significant resources on this and spent virtually nothing on Muslim outreach. Is the Muslim part so outrageous because it's Muslim?
Given that 2 and 3 on your list are basically the same goal (the Muslim world is the most estranged society from the West at this time), NASA has almost always accomplished these things in pursuing its scientific goals.
I like how the Muslim part got highlighted though. Did that get you all fussy and triggered?
Is it because the investigation is still ongoing and when one is running an investigation like this one doesn't make an announcement every time they've found something?
Your second article is not an admission of the DNC rigging the election, It's an admission by the New York Board of Elections of illegally purging their voter rolls of voters. There's no mention of who was even purged or any exploration of a motivation in the article.
The link to your first article isn't working for me.
Do you honestly think there's enough land for a large part of the world population to switch over to subsistence farming? How about to stay healthy thus ensuring them and their children can compete elsewhere in the economy? How about land rights and the fact that the poor wont have them because how do you buy land if you're broke?
"Socialism has failure built in. There is NO possible way for it to work, given human nature. The assumptions of socialism are flawed. Universal Income is just as flawed as all other attempts at socialism."
Should we just take your word for it in spite of the fact that every successful economy in the world has socialist institutions?
UBI isn't communism. Poor people who dont want to work will still be poor.
California is running a budget surplus and has the most successful economy in the country. Meanwhile the vast majority of red states face the same issues of ideological super majority you atribute to California and can't generate enough wealth to support their backwards economies without suckling at the feds teat. If you're so concerned over the effectiveness of state governments maybe you should try generally voting for Democrats. It seems to have worked out well for the majorities in Blue states
Furthermore, you don't seem to know how California divides politically. "Southern California" would most certainly be red.
Sorry but Europe seems to have no problem severely limiting the flow of illegal guns into their countries. Same with Asian countries like China or Japan.
The cops in a town of a thousand (likely an extremely small number of cops) is as anecdotal as your prior example. I'm sure if i cared enough I could find plenty of individual cases in the UK of police abusing their system.
Slashdot Mirror
Men and women come from very different life experiences. Likewise for non whites from whites. Is it really such a stretch of the imagination that it would be good to have more variety in who directs in such a culturally dominate medium such as cinema?
You're citing soap operas and garbage like that youtube clip as "female fan service"?
I feel like the case you're making here is the opposite of what was intended.
"Avatar is whilst successful on release is widely regarded to be a bad movie..."
It's fine you don't like Avatar but don't make things up.
Metacritic: 83 (user score 7.5) http://www.metacritic.com/movi...
Rotten Tomatoes: 83% (audience score 82%) https://www.rottentomatoes.com...
Those are not the ratings of a movie that is "widely regarded" as bad.
"Does a story become good or bad because of the race or gender of the author?"
No but different backgrounds bring different results and what's more different when it comes to people than race and sex? Variety is a good thing whether you're talking about cinema as art or entertainment (or anywhere inbetween).
Just wait until some one brings back the "support our troops" bumper stickers because some how you cant support the troops if you're against the war.
And house districts are based on population. What's your point?
You're being willfully naive here. You're basically insisting that your one quote defines an absolute NASA priority of non science stuff despite the fact that history completely refutes that. There is no history of large scale Muslim outreach. There is no history of NASA spending large amounts of resources on anything in that quote you provided from the director. Without any of that you are absolutely wrong.
Also, a little history and "how government works" lesson for you. Our rockets all went obsolete under Obama because no plans were made for new ones under Bush. Under Obama plans were drawn up to get us back into the flying into space business but it takes time for such things. Major NASA accomplishments are rarely the result of the actions of the administration they happen under.
In 2021, when it is projected Americans will be flying on American government rockets again ( https://www.space.com/35394-pr... ), it will be because of what was started under Obama. Please feel free to read the entire article that I've linked to there. It lists actual, historically verifiable, priorities for NASA under Obama.
As for the "bigot argument", I never called you a bigot nor used any suggestion of racism as a means of undermining anything else you have said. I have, however, repeatedly asked you why you bolded the single part of the quote that had to do with Muslims which anyone with a passing knowledge of history knows was not a priority of NASA. So far you've failed to explain why that part is so particularly heinous.
No I am most certainly not getting population and land area confused, I do however think you're looking at all of what people think of as Southern California rather than what the proposed state of "Southern California" will be, Doing a literal count of districts on the map I provided (not looking at land area) I count 5 committed conservative, 4 moderate conservative, 2-3 conservative liberal (it's hard to tell on casual examination), and two moderate liberal.
Right, so it's a coincidence that just about allll the blue states are wealthier. You're being willfully naive. There's no way an almost universal economic divide forms along political lines by accident.
"Its not one election."
Well it was because because that was what you provided as your source for "proving" the new Southern California state (note, this is not the same as what people currently call Southern California as you seem to imply in your post) would be liberal. I was speaking in the context that you had established.
Finally, you've now chosen to ignore the map detailing how conservative the areas of Southern California that will be in the proposed state of Southern California are after I explained that you clearly misread it. Please get back to me on that.
"The current budget surplus is a result of the national economy improving, California is just one boat on the rising tide. Governor Brown being slightly more frugal than his other democratic predecessors is an anomaly and it also does not contradict the fact that the state legislature is essentially a supermajority and not frugal, they constantly want to expand social programs with the current temporary surplus and this is the norm for California and why there are occasional fiscal revolts putting a republican into the governorship. This in no way indicates any strong red presence. The legislature indicates the nature of the state, 2/3 blue in both houses. Merely enough light blue to put a republican governor in office during fiscal revolts.
And the budget surplus is a single data point, and quite temporary and fragile. Unlike the blue shading of most of southern california outside of LA."
As I have pointed out twice already and you keep ignoring, Blue states are almost universally our most prosperous states. That's one hell of a coincidence if it has nothing to do with the governing party.
Three times is my limit for repeating myself. If you type up another lengthy comment without acknowledging this gap in a meaningful way I'm done with the conversation.
"The single data point is voting for Hillary for President. That by itself is a sufficient contradiction to your hypothesis of southern california being a red region.
Basically you confuse moderate blue with red."
You don't understand the words I am typing. You can't use a single election to define the electoral slant of a state or region. Since you didn't understand my first explanation I'll try to use a very simple example to illustrate the point. Imagine calculating how red or blue 80's America was using only Reagan's first presidential election. Almost every state would be red. Does that truly reflect the political ideology of the country during the 80's? No.
A voter map that shows how each stated voted for president does nothing on its own but show how each state voted for president. It is useless for determining general voter ideology.
To be honest, this combined with your inability to read a map (see post below) makes me really wonder why I'm wasting my time.
What are you talking about? That map clearly shows the proposed "Southern California" being mostly made up as "committed conservative" and "moderate conservative".
"Irrelevent, the legislature/governor have little to nothing to do with that."
Irrelevant? Strength of government is a key statistical indicator for economic prosperity. There are few more significant ones in fact.
As for one party control, I never said that multiparty politics weren't the most healthy, I only pointed out that single party politics seems to have almost universally worked out well for the last six decades for blue states and (again, almost universally) hasn't worked out well during the same period for red in terms of economic conditions.
As for me being ignorant, your link made be laugh. You're using a single vote on a single position to show the political ideology of a region. Since you're new to statistics I'll take the time to explain to you that making broad generalizations based on a single data point rarely makes for accurate conclusions. Basically, all your link does is do what its title says it does, show how regions of California voted in the 2016 presidential election. Without taking too much of my own time up looking, this seems like a much better map to look at: http://www.ppic.org/content/im... from the Public Policy Institute of California, which draws data from multiple sources. Maybe next time you call some one ignorant make sure you aren't making an ass out of yourself.
To bring in a bit of anecdotal info as well, I can personally tell you from growing up and still living in California, once you get out of LA, Southern California gets fairly conservative (admittedly, its own unique flavor of conservatism). It's how we ended up with Reagan for governor among other things.
I agree that certainly suggests something big. I was only pointing out a likely reason why we haven't heard any direct evidence yet.
You don't seem to know what the word "charged" means. In this case it means "entrust (someone) with a task as a duty or responsibility." My father charged me with taking out the garbage every night, does this means this was more important than my homework? No, charging someone with something has nothing to do with any level of importance.
Furthermore, you completely ignore the fact that THERE IS NO HISTORY OF NASA SPENDING SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES ON MUSLIM OUTREACH, let alone resources on the scale of it being a top priority. Without that you literally have no case that Obama made that a top priority.
Nice picking and choosing what to respond to by the way. Ignore the most crucial point that there is zero history of NASA spending major resources on Muslim outreach and pick away at any side tangents you can.
Top three goals?
Please, tell me where that's being said. All the quote you've provided does is suggest that Obama wanted those things accomplished by NASA. It does nothing to establish their relative importance in NASA's overall mission.
Furthermore, (and really, much more importantly) please look back and tell me how that reflects the reality of NASA's 8 years under Obama. How much money did NASA have earmarked for Muslim outreach? How much of a burden was this on their bureaucracy? Surely, if this was "one of NASA's top three goals" news oulets must have a ton of articles about the programs NASA established to pursue it. Where are they all?
Finally, you've failed to establish why reaching out to Muslims is especially bad compared to general international outreach which was mentioned just before the Muslim part you seemed to think was so outrageous it needed to be detailed in bold. Your Jehovah witness tangent only sounds rediculous because you inserted a group with very little global impact for a group that has a very significant one.
Earlier in your post you talk about NASA's work on climate issues; why isnt that listed in bold instead? NASA spent significant resources on this and spent virtually nothing on Muslim outreach. Is the Muslim part so outrageous because it's Muslim?
Given that 2 and 3 on your list are basically the same goal (the Muslim world is the most estranged society from the West at this time), NASA has almost always accomplished these things in pursuing its scientific goals.
I like how the Muslim part got highlighted though. Did that get you all fussy and triggered?
Mod up please
Is it because the investigation is still ongoing and when one is running an investigation like this one doesn't make an announcement every time they've found something?
I bet it's that.
Your second article is not an admission of the DNC rigging the election, It's an admission by the New York Board of Elections of illegally purging their voter rolls of voters. There's no mention of who was even purged or any exploration of a motivation in the article.
The link to your first article isn't working for me.
Do you honestly think there's enough land for a large part of the world population to switch over to subsistence farming? How about to stay healthy thus ensuring them and their children can compete elsewhere in the economy? How about land rights and the fact that the poor wont have them because how do you buy land if you're broke?
"Socialism has failure built in. There is NO possible way for it to work, given human nature. The assumptions of socialism are flawed. Universal Income is just as flawed as all other attempts at socialism."
Should we just take your word for it in spite of the fact that every successful economy in the world has socialist institutions?
UBI isn't communism. Poor people who dont want to work will still be poor.
California is running a budget surplus and has the most successful economy in the country. Meanwhile the vast majority of red states face the same issues of ideological super majority you atribute to California and can't generate enough wealth to support their backwards economies without suckling at the feds teat. If you're so concerned over the effectiveness of state governments maybe you should try generally voting for Democrats. It seems to have worked out well for the majorities in Blue states
Furthermore, you don't seem to know how California divides politically. "Southern California" would most certainly be red.
From tfa
"The reasoning behind the proposal is that California has gotten too big to be governed effectively"
Nonsense, the reason for this is to break up the largest Blue state to conservative's advantage.
I'll talk statistics.
Blacks in our country have a poverty rate 3 times higher than whites.
http://federalsafetynet.com/us...
Meanwhile poverty is a leading indicator for criminal activity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Oh how the world changes when you don't just look at a single data point and make broad conclusions based off of it.
Sorry but Europe seems to have no problem severely limiting the flow of illegal guns into their countries. Same with Asian countries like China or Japan.
The cops in a town of a thousand (likely an extremely small number of cops) is as anecdotal as your prior example. I'm sure if i cared enough I could find plenty of individual cases in the UK of police abusing their system.