Ever hear of confirmation bias? If a solar eclipse happens and I beat a bunch of drums, do I deserve the credit for scaring the sky dragon away from the Sun?
You may have heard of confirmation bias, but you are apparently unable to recognize your own. President Obama did not "beat a bunch of drums"; he dropped $768 billion in stimulus funding and through the Fed, trillions of bonds into the economy. Your claim that the recession "would end anyway" without any action is specious and incomplete at best, flat wrong at worst. Even IF you accept the notion that the economy would eventually recover without any sort of government intervention, you must make the case that the economy would recover at the same time it would have WITH intervention, which you have not.
It is only in the reality distortion fields of present-day Conservatives that the President has done nothing to be credited for.
So if a company in New York finds that they can run their factory more efficiently and thus sell their low-margin products more competitively, by firing their NY staff and moving operations to Kentucky, would that also be wrong? Be specific.
The GP you're replying to mentions "free trade". Moving factory operations to Kentucky is not an example of "free trade". Moving factory operations to Mexico is an example of free trade. Since within the United States, "free trade" is defined by the Commerce Clause, I'm going to change the target of your example from "Kentucky" to "Mexico" so that your interesting question actually makes sense.
When one company ships jobs to a cheaper foreign labor market it, it's smart management. When they all do it, it's the end of our economy. It doesn't matter how inexpensively our smart New York company can get their exploited laborers overseas to make their widgets if none of the New Yorkers have jobs and the income required to buy those incredibly cheap widgets.
Now I'm not naive; I know that offshoring is a movement that is here to stay, and by and large will continue to send jobs offshore up until the time third world wages (plus logistical expenses) equal our wages, at which point there will no longer an economic incentive to offshore. My question to you is: Is that the kind of country you want to live in? Must we sacrifice our first world standard of living on the alter of free markets?
If you're fine with living on third world wages in a first world country, then we need do nothing. If you aren't, then some public policy changes are required; some constraints on our vaunted free markets are required.
I think the problem stems (no pun intended) from binary thinking. We want to put neat labels on everything - either it is a human, or it isn't.
While I agree with your assessment, binary thinking and the arbitrary definitions of boundaries required to make it work in an analog world is not something that is going to go away. It's too useful to those who need the world to be simple enough to wrap their tender brains around.
Q: Who gets Constitutional protections?
A: Humans! Not human? No protections.
Q: What is "human"?
A: What *I* say is human! (as answered by 7.125 billion people)
See? Nice and neat. Right up until the day the aliens land or we learn to have conversations with dolphins...
Google has no interest in becoming an ISP. The only reason GF exists is to serve as a threat to ISPs so they don't hit Google with increased peerage/backhaul/QoS/other fees. It is Google's own Sword of Damocles.
Why are you laughing? Look at all the moderates on the court for the last 30 years. Almost all of them were nominated by Republican presidents.
You keep using that word, "moderate". It does not mean what you think it means.
You sound like an idiot.
You know that anger you're feeling that causes you to throw insults around? ("Fuck you very much.", "You sound like an idiot.") That's your cognitive dissonance talking.
Bork, Thomas, alito. Republicans have a long history or nominating moderates to the SC
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH HAHA HAHA HA HA. Oh that was a good one!
And confirming liberal nominations. No more.
Take it up with the Founding Fathers then, or the electorate. Elections have consequences. In our country, sometimes you gotta sit down and let the other guy drive. Deal with it.
Fuck you very much.
Why, with such a reasoned argument and an impressive high-minded knowledge of civics, my panties are practically falling off all by themselves...
I did. The people who keep pushing that quote know that people like YOU will not. Go ahead. Read ALL of what Joe said. And then please have the integrity to change your position.
People act like this shit has never happened before. Both parties have freely engaged in it on multiple occasions.
Ahh, the old "false equivalency" followed by the "two wrongs make a right" trick!
No, both parties have not freely engaged in it on multiple occasions. The last time this situation happened, it was in the last year of Reagan's Presidency, and the Democrats in control of the Senate confirmed Justice Kennedy.
And even if Democrats DID pull this shit (they didn't) two wrongs do not make a right.
That's true, that's what's happened in California.
Lolwut? That is NOT what has happened in California. Our districts are drawn by a balanced panel of both Democrats, Republicans and independents. It has resulted in many more competitive districts which are "purple", not "red", or "blue". From the Wiki article:
The new districts took effect for the June 05, 2012 primary.[9] Republican sponsors put a referendum on the Senate map on the November 6, 2012 ballot as Proposition 40, but have since reversed their position and are no longer opposing the new districts.[10][11]
While the long-term results will bear out over time, independent studies by the Public Policy Institute of California, the National Journal, and Ballotpedia have shown that California now has some of the most competitive districts in the nation, creating opportunities for new elected officials.[12][13][14] For example, the uncertainty caused by the new districts combined with California’s “top two” primary system has resulted in half a dozen resignations of incumbent Congressional representatives on both sides of the aisle, a major shake-up of California’s Capitol Hill delegation.[15][16] In addition, it has forced a number of intra-party races, most notably a showdown between two of the state’s most powerful House Democrats, Representatives Howard Berman and Brad Sherman.[15][17][18] In the previous 10 years, incumbents were so safe that only one Congressional seat changed party control in 255 elections,[15] due to bi-partisan gerrymandering after the redistricting following the 2000 Census.[19][20][21] It is predicted that some of the newly elected politicians will be particularly well-suited for national politics since they will be forced to find positions that please moderate and independent voters to remain in office.
There is no constitutional duty to for the Senate to act either way regarding the President's nominee. In fact, speaking constitutionally, Congress could, tomorrow, set the number of justices at 8.
Jonathan Adler, in The Volokh Conspiracy [washingtonpost.com] discusses this very issue.
Your cited opinion piece makes the unsupported assertion that "the claim that the Senate has a constitutional “obligation” is quite weak." in the face of 350 law professors by using hand-waving ("legal scholars to have seriously considered this question have reached the opposite conclusion.") as if those 350 law professors were not legal scholars. This bit was cute: "serious liberal scholars who have studied the history of judicial confirmation fights are conspicuously absent from the list of signatories". What the fuck is a "serious liberal scholar"? We don't know; Mr. Adler never explains his subjective slight of hand.
Fortunately, Article 2, Section 2 is quite clear. The Senate SHALL advise and consent. Not "may", or "possibly", but "shall". Not "The Majority Party of the Senate", but "the Senate". When taken as a whole, this section unmistakably compels an up-or-down vote of the body. Not partisan games to prevent such a vote, dressed up as "political reality". Not semantic games like "the people should have a voice".
When Justice Kennedy was appointed in the last year of Reagan's Presidency, he was confirmed. By the Democratically controlled Senate. Even though they knew what it meant for the ideological structure of the court. They did their job. Now when Republicans are faced with the exact same situation, we get backstabbing and rhetoric.
I should hope that these games are the final nail in the coffin of the GOP; that the electorate will finally say "enough!" of these naked partisan tactics. That Conservatives would finally put their conscience over party politics. More and more I am discovering that "conscience" is a thing of antiquity to the average modern Conservative.
I did not leave the Republican Party; the Republican Party left me.
The nation wasn't designed to have senators directly elected by the people. The senators were supposed to represent the states. Thanks the the idiotic 17th amendment we now have basically two houses of Representatives with different constitutional duties.
You're correct in your characterization of the Founder's original intentions for the Senate. However, you fail to include the reasons why the 17th Amendment were passed, which were important. Dismissing the 17th Amendment as "idiotic" without discussing why it was conceived, passed and ratified is a disservice.
Shouldn't the American people get to decide and have a voice on important matters?
We did. When we re-elected President Obama in 2012. That's how the Constitution works. Article 2, Section 2 is quite clear. How it does NOT work is allowing partisans to re-write the Constitution with soundbites like "the people should get a voice!".
It's an interesting theory to be sure. It may be DoJ's way of rewarding Apple for bending over quietly.
To be sure, if the FBI wanted this handled quietly, they could certainly have served Apple with a National Security Letter and Apple would be unable to speak of the matter at all.
do you believe there are 150,000 people (10 percent of the US active duty armed forces) in the US that could reasonably be expected to meaningfully contribute to energy research?
*Posting AC as I have modded this thread.
If the money were there, the personnel would be also.
Sir, your commentary is enlightening and a revelation in terms of the depth of your argument and your stunning logic is flawlessly displayed. It is a masterful commentary on the intellect you possess.
Says the commentor who apparently doesn't know the meaning of "facism" (did you even READ your cite? It doesn't say what you think it does) "totalitarianism", "one-party state", "dictatorship", "militarism", et al ad nauseum.
As for "direct action", that's exactly why we HAVE a Chief Executive. It's what executives are empowered to do: take action. Next, what's wrong with a mixed economy? Can you point out for me a pure economy anywhere on the planet? While you're at it, you might want to provide context for "third position", given that it could mean ballet, violin, or a third political party to name just a few. What the fuck are you talking about by "new man"? Did he join AA or something?
The FBI, under a democratic president, has been investigating Clinton since last August, but they only revealed the investigation last month. And they're still investigating...
I hope you aren't holding your breath waiting for that indictment...
There is no "on the other side of" or "on the same side of", any more than you could apply the term to any other male and female.
If you're stating that the gender binary is bullshit, I agree. That said, that gender binary is a cultural norm that will continue to exist because it serves the vast majority of the population, and so whether or not you agree with it is irrelevant. The language constructs that reference that bullshit gender binary have meaning and function. You might as well be complaining that the Fahrenheit scale is "nonsense" because it applies arbitrary measures to various physical events. In the end, all language is arbitrary. Just because "cisgender" and "transgender" are also arbitrary does not mean they have no utility. If your distaste for the words is so strong, what do you propose as alternatives?
There is ZERO proof that transsexuals did, and yet there's lots of proof that transvestites, including many who are gay, wanted to legitimacy of transsexualism - hence the word transgender, and also cisgender.
So all of the transsexuals who transitioned constitute ZERO proof in your mind? How is it in your mind the trans community derives no benefit from these terms? It's only those big bad gay people?
Marsha P. Johnson was a drag queen, and Jack Daniel Whitehall (aka Jacqui Hormona) was also a gay man. Labeling them "transgender" has nothing to do with their being transsexual because they weren't,
I know dozens of transsexuals who are also drag queens. That does not make them any less transsexual. What you do for a living does not make who you are are a person. Since you didn't know Ms. Johnson, perhaps it isn't up to you to talk about whether or not she was transsexual or some other flavor of gender variance, and in any event, it's irrelevant. She was murdered. Floated down the river. Police refused to investigate. Gee, I've never heard that story before. Tell me again how much safer trans people are than cisgender people.
and it is exactly this sort of bullsh*t that we are fed up with - being tied into gay violence.
Once again, you attempt to speak for the community. You mean this is exactly the sort of bullshit YOU are fed up with. Jesus Barbara, you're a walking Anecdotal Fallacy. The arrogance you're displaying in that somehow YOUR life experience has ANYTHING do with others, much less the sweeping conclusions you're drawing from your data set of ONE is breathtaking and heart breaking.
Nope what? As far as I can tell you've just restated my words and agreed with me. Nope what?
Transsexuals and transvestites do not "experience a common oppression." A transvestite can always revert to his male role once he's satisfied his erotic needs.
So then the transvestite is happy to divulge this information? Or feels the need to keep it hidden? Are you claiming that they would suffer no repercussions from disclosure? No? Then they are oppressed. Just because YOU don't feel sorry for them doesn't mean they aren't oppressed.
As far as I can tell, we don't know who killed either of them, so it appears your statement is more of an assumption,
Oh, so as far as YOU can tell? Those were just two examples. There are PLENTY of examples.
BTW, the worldwide murder rate for transsexuals is far below the average, a fact that nobody wants to point out because it doesn't fit the victim story arc.
Are you fucking KIDDING ME? Jebus Wept that's gotta be the most tone deaf thing I've ever heard. And you have the chutzpah to tell ME to "do the math"? I read their names every November. I know two that have been murdered. I know four that have been beaten. Of all of the hundreds of trans people I have interacted with, I know of ONE who has NOT been discriminated against in some way. I work with victims almost every goddamned day. I don't know what rock you live under, but I wish you'd come the fuck out and open your eyes. You're proving Hawking's dictum about ignorance.
We were socially acceptable back in the time of Christine Jorgensen, who appeared on magazine covers, gave talks, etc.
You think that because she gave talks she was accepted! How adorable! I'm sure the audience is only feeding the poor, hungry actors when they throw vegetables at them...
As far as wanting a divorce from the LGBT, who appointed you arbiter as to what we want.
Don't pull your projection bullshit on me again. You're the one who is attempting to speak for trans people, not me.
Also, damages to a car from an accident are a civil matter (an accident is not a criminal event) - the police don't have jurisdiction,
Who is this "Jacqui" person you speak of?
When you know your co-workers and bosses actively hate people like you, you LEAVE.
Why wouldn't I start with "blaming the victim"? That's exactly what you're doing. You're stating that it's on the VICTIM to somehow say "please sir, don't kill me while I leave a place I have every right to be because YOU are violating MY civil rights". That's EXACTLY victim blaming.
The statistic the first poster posits must necessarily include EVERY member of the statistic the second poster posits, and therefore CANNOT be smaller.
It is unclear to which statistic you are referring to as the "first" set that must be largest? In any event, I'm not referring to their sets. I'm referring to the research that I cited, which you presumably did not look at before blithely dismissing.
A woman is 2.7 times more likely to be assaulted with her own firearm than to successfully protect herself with it. A woman is 21 times more likely to be assaulted by someone she knows than a stranger.
Slashdot Mirror
You may have heard of confirmation bias, but you are apparently unable to recognize your own. President Obama did not "beat a bunch of drums"; he dropped $768 billion in stimulus funding and through the Fed, trillions of bonds into the economy. Your claim that the recession "would end anyway" without any action is specious and incomplete at best, flat wrong at worst. Even IF you accept the notion that the economy would eventually recover without any sort of government intervention, you must make the case that the economy would recover at the same time it would have WITH intervention, which you have not.
It is only in the reality distortion fields of present-day Conservatives that the President has done nothing to be credited for.
My mother is a funny troll you insensitive clod! Wait...
The GP you're replying to mentions "free trade". Moving factory operations to Kentucky is not an example of "free trade". Moving factory operations to Mexico is an example of free trade. Since within the United States, "free trade" is defined by the Commerce Clause, I'm going to change the target of your example from "Kentucky" to "Mexico" so that your interesting question actually makes sense.
When one company ships jobs to a cheaper foreign labor market it, it's smart management. When they all do it, it's the end of our economy. It doesn't matter how inexpensively our smart New York company can get their exploited laborers overseas to make their widgets if none of the New Yorkers have jobs and the income required to buy those incredibly cheap widgets.
Now I'm not naive; I know that offshoring is a movement that is here to stay, and by and large will continue to send jobs offshore up until the time third world wages (plus logistical expenses) equal our wages, at which point there will no longer an economic incentive to offshore. My question to you is: Is that the kind of country you want to live in? Must we sacrifice our first world standard of living on the alter of free markets?
If you're fine with living on third world wages in a first world country, then we need do nothing. If you aren't, then some public policy changes are required; some constraints on our vaunted free markets are required.
While I agree with your assessment, binary thinking and the arbitrary definitions of boundaries required to make it work in an analog world is not something that is going to go away. It's too useful to those who need the world to be simple enough to wrap their tender brains around.
Q: Who gets Constitutional protections?
A: Humans! Not human? No protections.
Q: What is "human"?
A: What *I* say is human! (as answered by 7.125 billion people)
See? Nice and neat. Right up until the day the aliens land or we learn to have conversations with dolphins...
I can finally get my sharks with friggin' Lidar beams!
Google has no interest in becoming an ISP. The only reason GF exists is to serve as a threat to ISPs so they don't hit Google with increased peerage/backhaul/QoS/other fees. It is Google's own Sword of Damocles.
If you aren't coming to /. for the bad headlines and commentary which would make a third grade teacher proud, you're at the wrong website.
You know that lie you just told, claiming to not see assertions in the GP that you just responded to? That's also your cognitive dissonance talking.
You keep using that word, "moderate". It does not mean what you think it means.
You know that anger you're feeling that causes you to throw insults around? ("Fuck you very much.", "You sound like an idiot.") That's your cognitive dissonance talking.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH HAHA HAHA HA HA. Oh that was a good one!
Take it up with the Founding Fathers then, or the electorate. Elections have consequences. In our country, sometimes you gotta sit down and let the other guy drive. Deal with it.
Why, with such a reasoned argument and an impressive high-minded knowledge of civics, my panties are practically falling off all by themselves...
I did. The people who keep pushing that quote know that people like YOU will not. Go ahead. Read ALL of what Joe said. And then please have the integrity to change your position.
Ahh, the old "false equivalency" followed by the "two wrongs make a right" trick!
No, both parties have not freely engaged in it on multiple occasions. The last time this situation happened, it was in the last year of Reagan's Presidency, and the Democrats in control of the Senate confirmed Justice Kennedy.
And even if Democrats DID pull this shit (they didn't) two wrongs do not make a right.
Lolwut? That is NOT what has happened in California. Our districts are drawn by a balanced panel of both Democrats, Republicans and independents. It has resulted in many more competitive districts which are "purple", not "red", or "blue". From the Wiki article:
Your cited opinion piece makes the unsupported assertion that "the claim that the Senate has a constitutional “obligation” is quite weak." in the face of 350 law professors by using hand-waving ("legal scholars to have seriously considered this question have reached the opposite conclusion.") as if those 350 law professors were not legal scholars. This bit was cute: "serious liberal scholars who have studied the history of judicial confirmation fights are conspicuously absent from the list of signatories". What the fuck is a "serious liberal scholar"? We don't know; Mr. Adler never explains his subjective slight of hand.
Fortunately, Article 2, Section 2 is quite clear. The Senate SHALL advise and consent. Not "may", or "possibly", but "shall". Not "The Majority Party of the Senate", but "the Senate". When taken as a whole, this section unmistakably compels an up-or-down vote of the body. Not partisan games to prevent such a vote, dressed up as "political reality". Not semantic games like "the people should have a voice".
When Justice Kennedy was appointed in the last year of Reagan's Presidency, he was confirmed. By the Democratically controlled Senate. Even though they knew what it meant for the ideological structure of the court. They did their job. Now when Republicans are faced with the exact same situation, we get backstabbing and rhetoric.
I should hope that these games are the final nail in the coffin of the GOP; that the electorate will finally say "enough!" of these naked partisan tactics. That Conservatives would finally put their conscience over party politics. More and more I am discovering that "conscience" is a thing of antiquity to the average modern Conservative.
I did not leave the Republican Party; the Republican Party left me.
You're correct in your characterization of the Founder's original intentions for the Senate. However, you fail to include the reasons why the 17th Amendment were passed, which were important. Dismissing the 17th Amendment as "idiotic" without discussing why it was conceived, passed and ratified is a disservice.
We did. When we re-elected President Obama in 2012. That's how the Constitution works. Article 2, Section 2 is quite clear. How it does NOT work is allowing partisans to re-write the Constitution with soundbites like "the people should get a voice!".
It's an interesting theory to be sure. It may be DoJ's way of rewarding Apple for bending over quietly.
To be sure, if the FBI wanted this handled quietly, they could certainly have served Apple with a National Security Letter and Apple would be unable to speak of the matter at all.
*Posting AC as I have modded this thread.
If the money were there, the personnel would be also.
Because they are backed up with references, evidence and citations?
It is said that insult is the least classy form of concession. That's OK; I'm happy with any kind of concession.
Thanks for your blanket dismissals and continual assertions without any support or citation.
Thanks for ignoring all of the points I made.
Thanks for sharing your OPINIONS
And you DON'T EVEN FUCKING LIVE HERE. Thanks for sharing your ignorant opinions.
Says the commentor who apparently doesn't know the meaning of "facism" (did you even READ your cite? It doesn't say what you think it does) "totalitarianism", "one-party state", "dictatorship", "militarism", et al ad nauseum.
As for "direct action", that's exactly why we HAVE a Chief Executive. It's what executives are empowered to do: take action. Next, what's wrong with a mixed economy? Can you point out for me a pure economy anywhere on the planet? While you're at it, you might want to provide context for "third position", given that it could mean ballet, violin, or a third political party to name just a few. What the fuck are you talking about by "new man"? Did he join AA or something?
You're all hat, no cowboy.
I hope you aren't holding your breath waiting for that indictment...
If you're stating that the gender binary is bullshit, I agree. That said, that gender binary is a cultural norm that will continue to exist because it serves the vast majority of the population, and so whether or not you agree with it is irrelevant. The language constructs that reference that bullshit gender binary have meaning and function. You might as well be complaining that the Fahrenheit scale is "nonsense" because it applies arbitrary measures to various physical events. In the end, all language is arbitrary. Just because "cisgender" and "transgender" are also arbitrary does not mean they have no utility. If your distaste for the words is so strong, what do you propose as alternatives?
So all of the transsexuals who transitioned constitute ZERO proof in your mind? How is it in your mind the trans community derives no benefit from these terms? It's only those big bad gay people?
I know dozens of transsexuals who are also drag queens. That does not make them any less transsexual. What you do for a living does not make who you are are a person. Since you didn't know Ms. Johnson, perhaps it isn't up to you to talk about whether or not she was transsexual or some other flavor of gender variance, and in any event, it's irrelevant. She was murdered. Floated down the river. Police refused to investigate. Gee, I've never heard that story before. Tell me again how much safer trans people are than cisgender people.
Once again, you attempt to speak for the community. You mean this is exactly the sort of bullshit YOU are fed up with. Jesus Barbara, you're a walking Anecdotal Fallacy. The arrogance you're displaying in that somehow YOUR life experience has ANYTHING do with others, much less the sweeping conclusions you're drawing from your data set of ONE is breathtaking and heart breaking.
Nope what? As far as I can tell you've just restated my words and agreed with me. Nope what?
So then the transvestite is happy to divulge this information? Or feels the need to keep it hidden? Are you claiming that they would suffer no repercussions from disclosure? No? Then they are oppressed. Just because YOU don't feel sorry for them doesn't mean they aren't oppressed.
Oh, so as far as YOU can tell? Those were just two examples. There are PLENTY of examples.
Are you fucking KIDDING ME? Jebus Wept that's gotta be the most tone deaf thing I've ever heard. And you have the chutzpah to tell ME to "do the math"? I read their names every November. I know two that have been murdered. I know four that have been beaten. Of all of the hundreds of trans people I have interacted with, I know of ONE who has NOT been discriminated against in some way. I work with victims almost every goddamned day. I don't know what rock you live under, but I wish you'd come the fuck out and open your eyes. You're proving Hawking's dictum about ignorance.
You think that because she gave talks she was accepted! How adorable! I'm sure the audience is only feeding the poor, hungry actors when they throw vegetables at them...
Don't pull your projection bullshit on me again. You're the one who is attempting to speak for trans people, not me.
Who is this "Jacqui" person you speak of?
Why wouldn't I start with "blaming the victim"? That's exactly what you're doing. You're stating that it's on the VICTIM to somehow say "please sir, don't kill me while I leave a place I have every right to be because YOU are violating MY civil rights". That's EXACTLY victim blaming.
It is unclear to which statistic you are referring to as the "first" set that must be largest? In any event, I'm not referring to their sets. I'm referring to the research that I cited, which you presumably did not look at before blithely dismissing.
A woman is 2.7 times more likely to be assaulted with her own firearm than to successfully protect herself with it. A woman is 21 times more likely to be assaulted by someone she knows than a stranger.