I find a cite with lists of items where Moore has created a false impression in the movie, and because of that, according to you,I assume people who disagree with Moore are never wrong. I don't care for Michael Moore, but that doesn't make me an ally of the other people who dislike him. The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more. No less. I don't even agree that all the items on the list are persuasive, but enough are that I can only conclude that Moore's movies mislead people. My only reason for posting originally was to counter "it has always stood up to scrutiny, and Moore even guarantees the veracity of all he states" by pointing out that excluding relevant facts can be just as deceptive as falsifying them. Even if you don't think Moore has lied by omission, it is possible for people to do so.
The real problem is that word "Steal". In no way have they stolen something. Stealing implies taking something that someone else owns. You do NOT own your customer's money, and them withdrawing the voluntary support they previously provided is their action, not the fault of the competitor. So you are blaming the wrong actor, and mislabeling the action.
From your earlier post, "I just want to be left the hell alone". That is only compatible with "Yes. As my friends and neighbors, they should get preferential treatment. In addition to that, they favor me with their business in return. That's called having a local economy" if it's voluntary. They have no right to force you to shop with them, nor do you have a right to force them to give your their business. If you start supporting government rights to interfere with other people, you have ceded your right to not have them interfere with you.
Unfortunately, life expectancy figures are very dependent on infant mortality rates. We measure infant mortality differently than a number of countries, and in a way which increases our reported rate.
In many cases, Moore decieves while sticking to actual facts. Leaving out crucial facts is very deceptive, and is a great way to encourage confirmation bias.
I want a warranty with my hospital stays, to cover any related expenses for the next 90 days or so. The linked article indicates that it's been a succesful program.
1/3 in poverty? more like 1/8. It's a debateble whether the official measure of poverty overstates or understates the problem. I lean towards overstatement, due to everyone being materially better off. The official poverty rates were formed with an assumption about food being about 30% of expenses, which explicitly has changed. The standards are increased by the Urban consumer price index, but they have not actually gone back and recalculated things from the beginning, and the original assumptions aren't as good as you might hope.
Incidentally, the earth is NOT a closed system. Economics is NOT a zero sum game. Two people engaging in trade can both be better off because of it.
Indeed it does. Many health care professionals have been exposed to a great deal of FUD about HIPAA, to the point that they won't pass information to anyone, even when they are in fact allowed to do so. My personal experience has been that hospitals are so afraid of violations that they implement draconian restrictions, to the point that you can't have a nursing home looking up someones health history at the hospital without jumping through a number of hoops. People who are too afraid of letting any of their information be shared by third parties have made life difficult for everyone else.
That's not to say privacy laws aren't a good idea, but it seems pretty clear that many of them really are confusing, and I think it is possible to make things too strict.
Actually, it's fairly accurate that they hate the free nature of our society. They have eplicitly derided our culture in general, the concept of democracy, and the idea of freedom of conscience (especially freedom of speech). However, most of them probably wouldn't be doing anything about it if we weren't already interfering in their countries. They might down the road if they actually took control of the middle east, but we wouldn't be a priority like we are now.
Note: The kind of people who murdered Theo van Gogh and make death threats against Ayaan Hirsi Ali definitely are a problem, but they aren't exactly Al Quaeda either.
That being said, switching to nuclear wouldn't actually fix everything, because there would still be reasons for us to act in the middle east. They like to pretend that Israel is 100% responsible for any problems between them and palestine, but that's simply not true. Is it right to condemn Israel for searching ambulances and thus delaying medical care to palestinians, when the palestinians have been caught smuggling weapons and people in via ambulances? Blocking a one sided condemnation is the right thing to do, but would still serve as a cause for them.
Effectively, they may dislike us because of our way of life, but we're a target because we interfere, regardless of whether that interference is right or not.
The electoral college is actually a pretty reasonable compromise between 'per person' and 'per state' representation. I like it as a concept, since it also allows the president to be much more independent of congress. What I would like to see is a massive expansion of the house, so that it at least is more or less proportional to the size of the state. The artificial cutoff on the number of members throws the intended balance pretty badly out of whack, which also throws the presidential elections out of whack.
That link claims some things that aren't in fact clear in the pictures. For instance "The man in the doorway's shirt in[sic] not striped...", but the picture they provide is far too blurry for that claim. When I looked for noticeable differences before reading the caption provided, i thought the blurry version was either striped or shadowed by wrinkles, but I couldn't tell. They then go on to say that color photos, which they don't provide or say where to get, prove that they are the same shirt.
"...I think the real question is not just whether revenue increased or decreased, but what it did in relation to the rest of the economy."
Why? Why does revenue as a percentage of GDP matter more than revenue per capita in constant dollars? This is a basic disagreement on values, somewhere.
As for actual data, taking the values from your second link, apply them to the gdp by year in chained dollars found at Bureau of Economic Analysis and you can get a good evidence that yes, government revenue was higher in 1985 than in 1981 (although not in intervening years). I also took the numbers from here to do the per capita calculations, and got a similar result. To be fair, the GP was wrong, revenue did drop for a few years. If you're wondering, I suggested per capita in order to account for population growth as a factor in econmic growth.
Of course, this whole discussion is predicated on the idea that the goal is to maximize government revenue, which goes back to a difference in basic values again.
Not as suspicious as I first thought. First, the update: The second period where smartech took over does NOT correspond to the May 2 primary date. It seems plausible that smartech is a backup site if the main host has problems. Which would also explain why it could have been used as a host during the initial election.
The fact that the RNC gets all of it's addresses from one host isn't suprising, nor is the idea that they reccomend the service to other individuals. I believe from what other posters have indicated that they do host non political sites as well.
For the main point, as far as I can tell, smartech had nothing to do with calculating results, only with a web service to provide them to users. If the main site can't handle the traffic they would expect on election day, it would make sense to host those results on a more robust server.
Your examples are of the form "Restricting X creates more freedom for Y" where X!=Y, whereas the claim by O'Reilly that the OP was talking about claimed, in the poster's view, "Restricting X creates a freeer X", which really doesn't make any sense.
IIRC, higher temperatures increase resistance a little, and lower resistance means less energy converted to heat in the first place, so the base power draw would also be reduced by reducing the operating temperature. I'm a little out of my depth here though, and I have no idea how significant the reduction would actually be.
According to this report, there are a couple of executive orders involved. It's hard to blame Carter in particular, since later presidents could have changed policy, and Ford was opposed to reprocessing as well. I found another decent source on PBS.
My casual response to a casual comment is certainly getting longer than I expected.
I hadn't caught that assignment of income data. Agreed, that makes that section nearly worthless. The comparison between recruitment years might be somewhat useful, since they are at least using the same method for both periods, but it is useless for looking at actual average income of recruits before hand.
As far as the education goes, they military explicitly excludes the lower class, which generally doesn't have a GED or diploma (depending on how you break down the class distinctions. A decent overview on wikipedia.) It explicitly recruits those who want assistance to go to college. Their statistics aren't particularly useful given those 2 facts. The military should be just a bit above average if you exclude the worst. It's impossible to say how many upper middle to upper class individuals joined up with the numbers they did provide.
I strongly suspect they are using soldiers the same way in that article that many non military personnel would, to refer to all members of the armed forces. This is presumably the same way the Parent of my initial post seemed to use it, since IIRC a number of the us deaths include Marines.
I've just never seen actual evidence that members of the armed forces are really primarily lower class. It's stated quite a lot without backup evidence. Given that it is also claimed, by the same individuals in many cases, that blacks made up a disproportionate number of combat deaths in vietnam despite the numbers saying otherwise, I have low trust in those claims. The opinion piece I found at least provide some information to back it up. Since it is an opinion I don't rate it high, but it's better than completely baseless claims. Their numbers don't indicate that the uppper class contributes a disproportionately high number of recruits, merely that the lowest classes are excluded. That's still useful, if a bit weak
The main article from the foundation is worth looking at. It specifically breaks down education levels by branch and avoids the word soldiers, among other things. Yeah, they have a bias, that doesn't make their facts wrong. It almost certainly does affect which definition of class they choose to use.
That's not really accurate regarding american soldiers. Class seems to be one of those ill defined terms that we all know and love, but the information provided in the article would rule out lower class. Perhaps lower middle would still qualify. Do you have any actual cites for soldiers not including upper class individuals? As near as I can tell it's just common myth masquerading as common knowledge.
What I find most odd is this: Corn is often toxic to rats to begin with. Consider a study showing increased uterus size and liver damage caused by fungal contaminants, which correspond nicely to some of the information in your linked article. Given that corn is not recommended as food for rats here due to common fungal contaminants, it seems plausible that fungal contamination was a factor. The article does not say how the affects compare between the 3 different groups (11%, 30%, and non-gmo) which leaves open the possibility that all were affected. Given that the liver damage article I linked above explicitly found that pigs were unaffected by the same corn which killed rats, it's also plausible that the corn is not a danger to humans or livestock.
I would be somewhat interested in seeing the original study, as well as information on why specifically it was discounted by the NIH.
If they attempt to take away his liberty to not be shot, they have voluntarily relinquished their own even if they fail. He would certainly be free to shoot them. Any other approach is a violation of equality. All rights exist solely on a quid pro quo basis, with the optimistic assumption that everyone is playing by the same rules until proven otherwise.
No, the picture was cropped. Following the time-honored rule "sky is boring" the top was brought down. Look in the correction image, it has much more room at the top. Wow, a blatant lie. In both pictures there is exactly the same amount of space between the skyline and the top of the picture on the left side. I did miss one thing though, the edited picture appears to have more sky on the right hand side. I shouldn't bother with you any more, but I wanted to point the following out for anyone else who's examining your page.
Look at ANY buildings at the bottom of the altered picture. You can find the same buildings up and to the right in the original (the building in 9e and 9f in your grid is a handy one to track). Some of them show up twice in the edited one, although not many. However, the building with the pointed roof in the top left section of the pictures has not been moved in either image. The relative position between that building and ALL of the buildings in the lower third has changed. This is why I thought it looked as if some section of the picture had been copied and pasted back in lower and to the left of it's original. Given what I just noticed about the skyline, I think the copy and paste job was a little more arbitrary than I originally believed.
Not convincing. You glossed over the upper left section of smoke, among other things. There was nothing there before hand, it was added, and the same pattern on the left side is obviously repeated. There are obvious buildings added in the editing photo that aren't there in the original. You point to a building at 2c and 2d in your file which is cloned to 3a and 3b. However, the one at 3a and 3b can be seen in the original, but was moved down to the lower section. More importantly, it's not at quite the same relative postion within your gridlines. Shifting down a bit, and over half as much is very plausible, and since it's not actually regular, your argument is completely unconvincing.
The whole lower half of the original appears to have been copied, sharpened, copied back in lower and to the left, and the smoke added in a vain attempt to cover it up, then cropped to hide the lower right corner which didn't have anything in it. The contrast was increased as well, which definitely makes for a more jarring image.
Slashdot Mirror
I find a cite with lists of items where Moore has created a false impression in the movie, and because of that, according to you,I assume people who disagree with Moore are never wrong. I don't care for Michael Moore, but that doesn't make me an ally of the other people who dislike him. The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more. No less. I don't even agree that all the items on the list are persuasive, but enough are that I can only conclude that Moore's movies mislead people. My only reason for posting originally was to counter "it has always stood up to scrutiny, and Moore even guarantees the veracity of all he states" by pointing out that excluding relevant facts can be just as deceptive as falsifying them. Even if you don't think Moore has lied by omission, it is possible for people to do so.
The real problem is that word "Steal". In no way have they stolen something. Stealing implies taking something that someone else owns. You do NOT own your customer's money, and them withdrawing the voluntary support they previously provided is their action, not the fault of the competitor. So you are blaming the wrong actor, and mislabeling the action.
From your earlier post, "I just want to be left the hell alone". That is only compatible with "Yes. As my friends and neighbors, they should get preferential treatment. In addition to that, they favor me with their business in return. That's called having a local economy" if it's voluntary. They have no right to force you to shop with them, nor do you have a right to force them to give your their business. If you start supporting government rights to interfere with other people, you have ceded your right to not have them interfere with you.
Unfortunately, life expectancy figures are very dependent on infant mortality rates. We measure infant mortality differently than a number of countries, and in a way which increases our reported rate.
In many cases, Moore decieves while sticking to actual facts. Leaving out crucial facts is very deceptive, and is a great way to encourage confirmation bias.
I want a warranty with my hospital stays, to cover any related expenses for the next 90 days or so. The linked article indicates that it's been a succesful program.
1/3 in poverty? more like 1/8. It's a debateble whether the official measure of poverty overstates or understates the problem. I lean towards overstatement, due to everyone being materially better off. The official poverty rates were formed with an assumption about food being about 30% of expenses, which explicitly has changed. The standards are increased by the Urban consumer price index, but they have not actually gone back and recalculated things from the beginning, and the original assumptions aren't as good as you might hope.
Incidentally, the earth is NOT a closed system. Economics is NOT a zero sum game. Two people engaging in trade can both be better off because of it.
Given the combination of France and protectionism in one post, I am compelled to link one of the great ant-protectionist essays.
Indeed it does. Many health care professionals have been exposed to a great deal of FUD about HIPAA, to the point that they won't pass information to anyone, even when they are in fact allowed to do so. My personal experience has been that hospitals are so afraid of violations that they implement draconian restrictions, to the point that you can't have a nursing home looking up someones health history at the hospital without jumping through a number of hoops. People who are too afraid of letting any of their information be shared by third parties have made life difficult for everyone else.
That's not to say privacy laws aren't a good idea, but it seems pretty clear that many of them really are confusing, and I think it is possible to make things too strict.
Actually, it's fairly accurate that they hate the free nature of our society. They have eplicitly derided our culture in general, the concept of democracy, and the idea of freedom of conscience (especially freedom of speech). However, most of them probably wouldn't be doing anything about it if we weren't already interfering in their countries. They might down the road if they actually took control of the middle east, but we wouldn't be a priority like we are now. Note: The kind of people who murdered Theo van Gogh and make death threats against Ayaan Hirsi Ali definitely are a problem, but they aren't exactly Al Quaeda either.
That being said, switching to nuclear wouldn't actually fix everything, because there would still be reasons for us to act in the middle east. They like to pretend that Israel is 100% responsible for any problems between them and palestine, but that's simply not true. Is it right to condemn Israel for searching ambulances and thus delaying medical care to palestinians, when the palestinians have been caught smuggling weapons and people in via ambulances? Blocking a one sided condemnation is the right thing to do, but would still serve as a cause for them.
Effectively, they may dislike us because of our way of life, but we're a target because we interfere, regardless of whether that interference is right or not.
The electoral college is actually a pretty reasonable compromise between 'per person' and 'per state' representation. I like it as a concept, since it also allows the president to be much more independent of congress. What I would like to see is a massive expansion of the house, so that it at least is more or less proportional to the size of the state. The artificial cutoff on the number of members throws the intended balance pretty badly out of whack, which also throws the presidential elections out of whack.
That link claims some things that aren't in fact clear in the pictures. For instance "The man in the doorway's shirt in[sic] not striped...", but the picture they provide is far too blurry for that claim. When I looked for noticeable differences before reading the caption provided, i thought the blurry version was either striped or shadowed by wrinkles, but I couldn't tell. They then go on to say that color photos, which they don't provide or say where to get, prove that they are the same shirt.
"...I think the real question is not just whether revenue increased or decreased, but what it did in relation to the rest of the economy."
Why? Why does revenue as a percentage of GDP matter more than revenue per capita in constant dollars? This is a basic disagreement on values, somewhere.
As for actual data, taking the values from your second link, apply them to the gdp by year in chained dollars found at Bureau of Economic Analysis and you can get a good evidence that yes, government revenue was higher in 1985 than in 1981 (although not in intervening years). I also took the numbers from here to do the per capita calculations, and got a similar result. To be fair, the GP was wrong, revenue did drop for a few years. If you're wondering, I suggested per capita in order to account for population growth as a factor in econmic growth.
Of course, this whole discussion is predicated on the idea that the goal is to maximize government revenue, which goes back to a difference in basic values again.
Not as suspicious as I first thought. First, the update: The second period where smartech took over does NOT correspond to the May 2 primary date. It seems plausible that smartech is a backup site if the main host has problems. Which would also explain why it could have been used as a host during the initial election.
The fact that the RNC gets all of it's addresses from one host isn't suprising, nor is the idea that they reccomend the service to other individuals. I believe from what other posters have indicated that they do host non political sites as well.
For the main point, as far as I can tell, smartech had nothing to do with calculating results, only with a web service to provide them to users. If the main site can't handle the traffic they would expect on election day, it would make sense to host those results on a more robust server.
No, they weren't. Straw purchases and selling to minors are both illegal.
Your examples are of the form "Restricting X creates more freedom for Y" where X!=Y, whereas the claim by O'Reilly that the OP was talking about claimed, in the poster's view, "Restricting X creates a freeer X", which really doesn't make any sense.
IIRC, higher temperatures increase resistance a little, and lower resistance means less energy converted to heat in the first place, so the base power draw would also be reduced by reducing the operating temperature. I'm a little out of my depth here though, and I have no idea how significant the reduction would actually be.
According to this report, there are a couple of executive orders involved. It's hard to blame Carter in particular, since later presidents could have changed policy, and Ford was opposed to reprocessing as well. I found another decent source on PBS.
My casual response to a casual comment is certainly getting longer than I expected.
I hadn't caught that assignment of income data. Agreed, that makes that section nearly worthless. The comparison between recruitment years might be somewhat useful, since they are at least using the same method for both periods, but it is useless for looking at actual average income of recruits before hand.
As far as the education goes, they military explicitly excludes the lower class, which generally doesn't have a GED or diploma (depending on how you break down the class distinctions. A decent overview on wikipedia.) It explicitly recruits those who want assistance to go to college. Their statistics aren't particularly useful given those 2 facts. The military should be just a bit above average if you exclude the worst. It's impossible to say how many upper middle to upper class individuals joined up with the numbers they did provide.
I strongly suspect they are using soldiers the same way in that article that many non military personnel would, to refer to all members of the armed forces. This is presumably the same way the Parent of my initial post seemed to use it, since IIRC a number of the us deaths include Marines.
I've just never seen actual evidence that members of the armed forces are really primarily lower class. It's stated quite a lot without backup evidence. Given that it is also claimed, by the same individuals in many cases, that blacks made up a disproportionate number of combat deaths in vietnam despite the numbers saying otherwise, I have low trust in those claims. The opinion piece I found at least provide some information to back it up. Since it is an opinion I don't rate it high, but it's better than completely baseless claims. Their numbers don't indicate that the uppper class contributes a disproportionately high number of recruits, merely that the lowest classes are excluded. That's still useful, if a bit weak
The main article from the foundation is worth looking at. It specifically breaks down education levels by branch and avoids the word soldiers, among other things. Yeah, they have a bias, that doesn't make their facts wrong. It almost certainly does affect which definition of class they choose to use.
That's not really accurate regarding american soldiers. Class seems to be one of those ill defined terms that we all know and love, but the information provided in the article would rule out lower class. Perhaps lower middle would still qualify. Do you have any actual cites for soldiers not including upper class individuals? As near as I can tell it's just common myth masquerading as common knowledge.
What I find most odd is this: Corn is often toxic to rats to begin with. Consider a study showing increased uterus size and liver damage caused by fungal contaminants, which correspond nicely to some of the information in your linked article. Given that corn is not recommended as food for rats here due to common fungal contaminants, it seems plausible that fungal contamination was a factor. The article does not say how the affects compare between the 3 different groups (11%, 30%, and non-gmo) which leaves open the possibility that all were affected. Given that the liver damage article I linked above explicitly found that pigs were unaffected by the same corn which killed rats, it's also plausible that the corn is not a danger to humans or livestock.
I would be somewhat interested in seeing the original study, as well as information on why specifically it was discounted by the NIH.
If they attempt to take away his liberty to not be shot, they have voluntarily relinquished their own even if they fail. He would certainly be free to shoot them. Any other approach is a violation of equality. All rights exist solely on a quid pro quo basis, with the optimistic assumption that everyone is playing by the same rules until proven otherwise.
Yes, this is an oversimplification.
Look at ANY buildings at the bottom of the altered picture. You can find the same buildings up and to the right in the original (the building in 9e and 9f in your grid is a handy one to track). Some of them show up twice in the edited one, although not many. However, the building with the pointed roof in the top left section of the pictures has not been moved in either image. The relative position between that building and ALL of the buildings in the lower third has changed. This is why I thought it looked as if some section of the picture had been copied and pasted back in lower and to the left of it's original. Given what I just noticed about the skyline, I think the copy and paste job was a little more arbitrary than I originally believed.
Not convincing. You glossed over the upper left section of smoke, among other things. There was nothing there before hand, it was added, and the same pattern on the left side is obviously repeated. There are obvious buildings added in the editing photo that aren't there in the original. You point to a building at 2c and 2d in your file which is cloned to 3a and 3b. However, the one at 3a and 3b can be seen in the original, but was moved down to the lower section. More importantly, it's not at quite the same relative postion within your gridlines. Shifting down a bit, and over half as much is very plausible, and since it's not actually regular, your argument is completely unconvincing.
The whole lower half of the original appears to have been copied, sharpened, copied back in lower and to the left, and the smoke added in a vain attempt to cover it up, then cropped to hide the lower right corner which didn't have anything in it. The contrast was increased as well, which definitely makes for a more jarring image.