the race gap is definitely a cultural thing, what else could it be?
I used to think the same way - mostly as a act of faith or dogma. But as I get older, learn more about history, the world, and science, I find myself doubting my earlier faith.
On an individual leverl, discrimination remains both stupid and wrong. Men are taller than women in general, but if you need something off the top shelf you don't ask Danny Devito instead of Geena Davis just because Danny Devito is a man.
However for social policy we may have to come to terms with differences. Perhaps the liberals when they insist on affirmative action aren't being racist, they're just being realistic about how unfair advantage is the only way to let some groups succeed. It may be that conservatives are wrong to think that if we treat everyone equally the achievements of racial groups will even out over time. And if equality between groups is necessary for social stability - maybe we have to discriminate.
It's scary to think that racial differences may be significant because of the social questions it raises. But we may have to stop burying our heads and look at the statistics with an open mind.
I think using an entire branch of government, and one of the most feared branches at that (the IRS), is a bit more serious than a burglary (even if the burglary is blue-collar while the abuse of power is white-collar).
Don't be so hard on the media. It took them a year to break the IRS scandal news, and then they forgot about it once the President had some up with a barely plausible denial. It only took them 5 months to catch on to the bridge thing, and you can be they'll be talking about it until Christie has a serious conservative opponent.
So based on those two data points we have a press that is getting faster at recognizing scandals and is focusing on them longer. That's good, right?
If I had made that list it would focus on two events
* The closing of national parks, blocking of scenic overlooks, etc. that were often unnecessary and in fact more expensive than not doing them during the government shutdown. The President was attempting to blame Republicans for pain he was inflicting. .
* The IRS targeting of conservative groups that effectively prevented them from having a strong effect during the 2012 election.
It is really telling that your entire list refers to a certain Democratic president, and mixes in things that (in your opinion) are bad policy.
You're right. Maybe we should do something about that guy.
But we won't. When Nixon did similar stuff, the Republican senators went to him and told him it was time to go. He resigned in disgrace. The Republican senators and representatives were punished mercilessly for it and lost many seats in Congress. The Democrats have learned the lesson well - in this age of widespread ignorance their political fortunes depend more on the popularity of their president or presidential candidate than it does on their individual actions. The demonstrated in with Clinton that they will defend their guy no matter what (even when he lies under oath - that used to be a big deal). They certainly won't go after Obama.
So you use a bunch of left-wing websites to "debunk" the news?
I don't have time to go into everything, and in fact most of the list doesn't interest me that much.
But the IRS scandal wasn't hatched a couple days before the national press finally noticed. The IRS behavior was being noticed and complained about for many many months before it became widespread knowledge. You probably heard about the IRS being used as a political weapon in spring of 2013.
Yes it's true that these are all conservative websites, but who else was going to cover news at that time that was negative to President Obama and wasn't already high profile?
If the police are pulling you over without probable cause, then it isn't public space. The officers in this case are forcing cars to pull over and share their interior air. This is no different than entering a hours to look around without giving the owner a choice.
If you were pulled over without probably cause so that the officer smell your breath then yes, it should be only be inadmissible in court it should be recognized as an unreasonable search. Pulling me over and making me open my windows so my breath can be searched is no different than knocking on my door and demanding entry so the police can look around. Both make sense when there is probable cause that a crime is being committed. Both are unreasonable searches otherwise.
Now that you mention it, you did make an illegal lane change and you were going 5 mph over the speed limit,so yes, you are being detained while I write a ticket (with a note to the judge that you were uncooperative).
There's little ghg impact to eliminating corn ethanol. It's so energy intensive to produce and there are big impacts from indirect land use change. The climate change champion in me says yawn. Cellulosic is much more exciting.
The free-market conservative in me is glad that corporate welfare ended and hopes it won't be replaced with something else.
So your religion doesn't have a problem with contraception and blood transfusions. Neither does mine. That doesn't mean we have the right to deny freedom of religion to those we disagree with.
I'm not removing a woman's right to contraception. I'm not a big fan of the government paying for contraception, but for me that's not an issue of my religion forbidding it. But for those people whose religion considers contraception immoral, they shouldn't be forced to pay for it.
This is a lot like conscientious objector status during the draft. If your religion has a long history of opposing something and you have a well-established participation in that religion (i.e. you didn't just make up the religion or join the religion to get out of following the law) the government should have to meet a very high standard to force you to comply. At the very least it should make reasonable accommodations.
People who opposed contraception lived their lives peacefully without disturbing their neighbors for years and years, and then one day the government got in their face and told them to go purchase contraception for someone or else!
There are some Christians who believe birth control is immoral. Under the administration's enforcement of Obamacare, those Christians will be force to pay for birth control.
What secret society is this? The one that says other people should be forced to pay to protect you from the natural consequences of your your recreational activities even if they find doing so immoral? Should hunters be allowed to force PETA to pay for ammo?
Yes, there certainly were federal contracts, but southern Maryland and Washington DC had the same opportunities. Northern Virginia lead the growth and it was the only one of the three to have Republican government.
That would be the idealistic "screw you, I've got mine" response that's pretty typical of American conservatives. The myth of the self sufficient poor and the self made millionaire don't hurt either.
But if you actually have worked your ass off and supported yourself and your family without taking handouts from the government or anyone else, how can someone tell you it is a myth?
Then too, the US has always had a disturbing cultural meme where people actually believe in upward mobility, and that some day they'll be rich and they don't want to screw it up for themselves. Reality is of course quite a bit different than that, as upward mobility in the US is actually among the lowest on the planet.
It used to be that America did have high rates of upward mobility compared to the rest of the world. Of course at that time we also had more economic freedom than most of the rest of the world. Now the myth is that America is still economically free. But the truth is that we are very heavily regulated, we much a huge amount of government spending, and we are no longer the free country we once were.
Reality check though: places with very large intrusive governments also tend to be very screwed up. It's almost as if (here's a thought nobody in the US seems capable of) the trick is to have the right amount of laws, regulation, and social safety nets and then people can be happy and prosperous. Oh, and don't let any one group stay in power for too long. It tends to make the inevitable corruption even worse, and it also tends to radicalize the opposition so that when they eventually do get into power, they screw things up even worse than they already are.
Take a look at the "Change in median household income, 2007-2012, by county." map in TFA, Then consider northern Virginia as an example. Conservatives ran the place and it became very successful, leading to population growth. Much of that population growth came from failing states that had been conservative and became liberal (I'm looking at YOU California). These liberal voters entered Fairfax County which in the last few years has become controlled by Democrats. Now it is nearby Loudon County that is growing and becoming rich.
Conservative policies lead to growth, which attracts liberals, which leads to liberal policies which leads to stagnation and decline.
Which is too bad, because I think those issues are really important and I don't think you can get any traction on them by traditional liberal Democrats because their stands on on a lot of issues make them otherwise unpopular. A Republican willing to take them on while maintaining more traditional Republican stances might gain more support.
You what the media would call a Republican willing to do that? A "racist". He would never get traction.
Slashdot Mirror
the race gap is definitely a cultural thing, what else could it be?
I used to think the same way - mostly as a act of faith or dogma. But as I get older, learn more about history, the world, and science, I find myself doubting my earlier faith.
On an individual leverl, discrimination remains both stupid and wrong. Men are taller than women in general, but if you need something off the top shelf you don't ask Danny Devito instead of Geena Davis just because Danny Devito is a man.
However for social policy we may have to come to terms with differences. Perhaps the liberals when they insist on affirmative action aren't being racist, they're just being realistic about how unfair advantage is the only way to let some groups succeed. It may be that conservatives are wrong to think that if we treat everyone equally the achievements of racial groups will even out over time. And if equality between groups is necessary for social stability - maybe we have to discriminate.
It's scary to think that racial differences may be significant because of the social questions it raises. But we may have to stop burying our heads and look at the statistics with an open mind.
I know what your president told you. But http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/14/irs-tea-party-progressive-groups/2158831/
I think using an entire branch of government, and one of the most feared branches at that (the IRS), is a bit more serious than a burglary (even if the burglary is blue-collar while the abuse of power is white-collar).
Don't be so hard on the media. It took them a year to break the IRS scandal news, and then they forgot about it once the President had some up with a barely plausible denial. It only took them 5 months to catch on to the bridge thing, and you can be they'll be talking about it until Christie has a serious conservative opponent.
So based on those two data points we have a press that is getting faster at recognizing scandals and is focusing on them longer. That's good, right?
If I had made that list it would focus on two events
* The closing of national parks, blocking of scenic overlooks, etc. that were often unnecessary and in fact more expensive than not doing them during the government shutdown. The President was attempting to blame Republicans for pain he was inflicting.
. * The IRS targeting of conservative groups that effectively prevented them from having a strong effect during the 2012 election.
It is really telling that your entire list refers to a certain Democratic president, and mixes in things that (in your opinion) are bad policy.
You're right. Maybe we should do something about that guy.
But we won't. When Nixon did similar stuff, the Republican senators went to him and told him it was time to go. He resigned in disgrace. The Republican senators and representatives were punished mercilessly for it and lost many seats in Congress. The Democrats have learned the lesson well - in this age of widespread ignorance their political fortunes depend more on the popularity of their president or presidential candidate than it does on their individual actions. The demonstrated in with Clinton that they will defend their guy no matter what (even when he lies under oath - that used to be a big deal). They certainly won't go after Obama.
Myths: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/350595/five-irs-scandal-myths-andrew-stiles
So you use a bunch of left-wing websites to "debunk" the news?
I don't have time to go into everything, and in fact most of the list doesn't interest me that much.
But the IRS scandal wasn't hatched a couple days before the national press finally noticed. The IRS behavior was being noticed and complained about for many many months before it became widespread knowledge. You probably heard about the IRS being used as a political weapon in spring of 2013.
From July of 2012, "Even worse, the IRS has responded to dozens of tax-exemption applications by tea-party groups with astonishingly intrusive document demands, seeking not only donor lists but also lists of volunteers." http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/310384/obama-s-sunshine-policy-david-french
Mr. French is referring to a DailyCaller article from February 2012, http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/22/congressional-investigations-sought-over-irs-assault-on-tea-party-groups/
Yes it's true that these are all conservative websites, but who else was going to cover news at that time that was negative to President Obama and wasn't already high profile?
Anyway, here is a non-conservative site debunking your debunking http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/14/irs-tea-party-progressive-groups/2158831/
If the police are pulling you over without probable cause, then it isn't public space. The officers in this case are forcing cars to pull over and share their interior air. This is no different than entering a hours to look around without giving the owner a choice.
If you were pulled over without probably cause so that the officer smell your breath then yes, it should be only be inadmissible in court it should be recognized as an unreasonable search. Pulling me over and making me open my windows so my breath can be searched is no different than knocking on my door and demanding entry so the police can look around. Both make sense when there is probable cause that a crime is being committed. Both are unreasonable searches otherwise.
Am I being detained?
Now that you mention it, you did make an illegal lane change and you were going 5 mph over the speed limit,so yes, you are being detained while I write a ticket (with a note to the judge that you were uncooperative).
Am I free to go?
No, I do not consent to any search.
Perhaps they have learned their lesson and will provide more lobbying money this time.
There's little ghg impact to eliminating corn ethanol. It's so energy intensive to produce and there are big impacts from indirect land use change. The climate change champion in me says yawn. Cellulosic is much more exciting.
The free-market conservative in me is glad that corporate welfare ended and hopes it won't be replaced with something else.
NSA Says It Foiled Plot To Destroy US Economy Through Malware
What a coincidence. So did I!
So your religion doesn't have a problem with contraception and blood transfusions. Neither does mine. That doesn't mean we have the right to deny freedom of religion to those we disagree with.
I'm not removing a woman's right to contraception. I'm not a big fan of the government paying for contraception, but for me that's not an issue of my religion forbidding it. But for those people whose religion considers contraception immoral, they shouldn't be forced to pay for it.
This is a lot like conscientious objector status during the draft. If your religion has a long history of opposing something and you have a well-established participation in that religion (i.e. you didn't just make up the religion or join the religion to get out of following the law) the government should have to meet a very high standard to force you to comply. At the very least it should make reasonable accommodations.
People who opposed contraception lived their lives peacefully without disturbing their neighbors for years and years, and then one day the government got in their face and told them to go purchase contraception for someone or else!
There are some Christians who believe birth control is immoral. Under the administration's enforcement of Obamacare, those Christians will be force to pay for birth control.
What secret society is this? The one that says other people should be forced to pay to protect you from the natural consequences of your your recreational activities even if they find doing so immoral? Should hunters be allowed to force PETA to pay for ammo?
Obama administration is forcing people to purchase contraception.
Yes, there certainly were federal contracts, but southern Maryland and Washington DC had the same opportunities. Northern Virginia lead the growth and it was the only one of the three to have Republican government.
Look at the map in TFA that shows income growth since 2009. It tells a very different story.
That would be the idealistic "screw you, I've got mine" response that's pretty typical of American conservatives. The myth of the self sufficient poor and the self made millionaire don't hurt either.
But if you actually have worked your ass off and supported yourself and your family without taking handouts from the government or anyone else, how can someone tell you it is a myth?
Then too, the US has always had a disturbing cultural meme where people actually believe in upward mobility, and that some day they'll be rich and they don't want to screw it up for themselves. Reality is of course quite a bit different than that, as upward mobility in the US is actually among the lowest on the planet.
It used to be that America did have high rates of upward mobility compared to the rest of the world. Of course at that time we also had more economic freedom than most of the rest of the world. Now the myth is that America is still economically free. But the truth is that we are very heavily regulated, we much a huge amount of government spending, and we are no longer the free country we once were.
Reality check though: places with very large intrusive governments also tend to be very screwed up. It's almost as if (here's a thought nobody in the US seems capable of) the trick is to have the right amount of laws, regulation, and social safety nets and then people can be happy and prosperous. Oh, and don't let any one group stay in power for too long. It tends to make the inevitable corruption even worse, and it also tends to radicalize the opposition so that when they eventually do get into power, they screw things up even worse than they already are.
There is a lot truth in what you say here.
Take a look at the "Change in median household income, 2007-2012, by county." map in TFA, Then consider northern Virginia as an example. Conservatives ran the place and it became very successful, leading to population growth. Much of that population growth came from failing states that had been conservative and became liberal (I'm looking at YOU California). These liberal voters entered Fairfax County which in the last few years has become controlled by Democrats. Now it is nearby Loudon County that is growing and becoming rich.
Conservative policies lead to growth, which attracts liberals, which leads to liberal policies which leads to stagnation and decline.
TFA has an enlightening chart called "Change in median household income, 2007-2012, by county." It might explain voting patterns a little better.
Which is too bad, because I think those issues are really important and I don't think you can get any traction on them by traditional liberal Democrats because their stands on on a lot of issues make them otherwise unpopular. A Republican willing to take them on while maintaining more traditional Republican stances might gain more support.
You what the media would call a Republican willing to do that? A "racist". He would never get traction.
I would be interested in seeing the median IQ too.