All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!

[the4thpip]

Snarkism fails when it relies on snipping off part of the quote to alter context completely. I said nkthing COMPARED TO [petrol Pollution], NOT that methane is "nothing". If you want to glibbly gibber about checking facts, the price of that dance ticket is snarking using the actual quote. Unless you want to sound like Rush Limbaugh discoursing "objectively" about Gay Marriage.

As the highlighted part of my post showed, that is STILL not true. Which is why it did not make a difference whether I edited it out for readability or not: You were equally wrong with and without that bit.

[Double 0]

Skipping over that "both sides are doing it" garbage:

The Eric Garner death

If you haven’t heard about Eric Garner yet, let me fill you in. He was a 43-year-old father of six who lived in Staten Island, and he died in the street on Thursday after as many as four New York police officers choked him and slammed his head on the ground. The NYPD told the Associated Press that they stopped Garner because he was selling untaxed cigarettes, something he’d been arrested for before. However, witnesses who spoke with local news website Staten Island Live have basically said that’s bullshit. Ramsey Orta, who was on the scene and shot a now infamous video that is making the rounds, can be heard in the clip saying that all Garner had done to get bothered by the police was break up a fight.

In the video, Garner denies any wrongdoing and asks why he’s being hassled. “Every time you see me you want to mess with me," he says in an exasperated tone that most men of color across this country can relate to. Garner, who was 400 pounds and has been described by people who knew him as a “gentle giant,” suffered from chronic asthma and police claim his death was the result of a heart attack suffered during the arrest.

Police say that Garner made a “fighting stance” and resisted arrest. Which, based on the video clip, is complete nonsense, considering we can see him pleading to the officers, "I can't breathe, I can't breathe!" before going completely silent as several officers pile on him.

The video of Garner’s death is disgusting, but I can’t say I was shocked or even outraged the first time I watched it. At this point, as someone who’s read and written about some of these stories time and time again—and who's had firsthand experiences with the way cops treat black males—this kind of reprehensible **** is not surprising at all. After so many cases like Amadou Diallo and Sean Bell, you start to feel desensitized by the seemingly insurmountable injustice that plagues communities of color.

Garner's death happened in my neighborhood. Of those screenshots, I can see exactly where it happened. I might have even seen the the emergency vehicles and not noticed.

To some, this is a philosophical discussion or some ****. "Not all cops", "He must have done something wrong", etc. etc. I'm a black guy living in NYC, and like many other black guys who heard this story, these words came to mind.

That could have been me.

Black life isn't respected. Hell, most minority lives aren't respected within the American context, but maybe it's because I am one, but it's just plain blatant when it comes to black people. You can wear a suit and tie, have a college degree, look exactly how society "wants you to", but when the people in power, especially the police, see you as a problem, none of that matters. And as this case and others have shown, it doesn't even matter if you're doing something wrong or not.

I'm gonna be honest, I'm sick of debating about this when it keeps happening. There's no race-splaining out of the dark reality many of us face.

[TroubleWithTrebles]

As the highlighted part of my post showed, that is STILL not true. Which is why it did not make a difference whether I edited it out for readability or not: You were equally wrong with and without that bit.

If that were the case you'd have had no desire to make the Limbaugh style edit. So no.

[Charles RB]

Ed Miliband makes a bid for Times and Telegraph readers and announces an end of 'tax and spend'

Mr Miliband said Labour would offer a "binding commitment to balance the books".

"We will get the national debt falling as soon as possible in the next Parliament and we will deliver a surplus on the current budget," he said.

Mr Miliband said the solution to Britain's economic problems "cannot be our traditional answer of spending to fix the problem".

so if you were hoping for Keynesian stimulus policies, you're buggered. Except hang on:

He also said Labour would:

build "at least 200,000 homes a year by the end of the next Parliament"
...
abolish what Labour has described as the "bedroom tax"
...
ensure "care and co-operation, not profit and privatisation" of the NHS. "The first thing we will do is repeal their Health and Social Care Bill," he said.
Mr Miliband said rail privatisation had too often "put the profits into the private sector and put the risk on to the government".

"We know East Coast [mainline, which has been publicly run since 2009] has worked in public hands, so on the basis of value for money let's extend that idea and let the public sector challenge to take on new lines," he said.

And Labour would still borrow to invest.

Now I agree with the above but come on: that's spending money to bolster things, the thing you're trying to claim you don't do now. Or is this just meaningless spin?

One big thing in here that would actually cut down the welfare budget and get support, Miliband comes out promising a 'living wage' (as well as scrapping zero-hours contracts):

Mr Miliband said Britain could not keep spending billions "subsidising" those on low pay, and said the "living wage is an idea whose time has come".

The living wage - calculated as the basic cost of living in the UK - is more than the current minimum wage.

Mr Miliband said: "For the first time, we will make an offer to every employer in the country - you will get a tax cut on condition that you move to pay the living wage."

So that policy alone is a big deal and a big difference between Labour & the other parties.

[the4thpip]

If that were the case you'd have had no desire to make the Limbaugh style edit. So no.

I often edit really long posts down to the point I am addressing. You were wrong, I proved you were wrong and now you are building an insulting strawman argument to try to get me to insult you back and get banned.

It won't work. Your entire point was wrong. Mass livestock is a HUGE environmental problem at least as big if not bigger than transportation. Can you or can you not prove your claim that it is "nothing"? If not, admit that you were wrong, I was right, and move on.

[TroubleWithTrebles]

I often edit really long posts down to the point I am addressing. You were wrong, I proved you were wrong and now you are building an insulting strawman argument to try to get me to insult you back and get banned.

It won't work. Your entire point was wrong. Mass livestock is a HUGE environmental problem at least as big if not bigger than transportation. Can you or can you not prove your claim that it is "nothing"? If not, admit that you were wrong, I was right, and move on.

Dude, chopping someone's quote and making excuses ain't a strawman, it's your post. And if you want to throw a tantrum, that's your business, but claiming that anyone would want you banned for being passionate is patently ridiculous, and rather demeaning to the mods whom I doubt would ban you for getting persnickity. Which hardly contravenes the terms of use. Besides, frankly, you cannot insult me. Relatives, lovers, colleagues and peers can, but not you. Also, I believe you are better individual than a mere tantrum thrower and that you will keep a cool head, however your potential tantrums are "on you".

That aside, you haven't proven anything; you posted a link which supports your contention. And I am free to do the same, from the European Commission itself, which says outright that the #1 cause of climate change is the CO2 build beginning with the Industrial Revolution, and that methane is BELOW that.

http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/b...s/index_en.htm


In some interviews, guest speakers feted at Kyoto posit that the proven acceleration of global warming magically coincides with the uptake of petrol based vehicles in China and India, and the fact that too many new people in the West now drive. I can buy this; people whom would not have been driving in the days before credit-trap credit cards, when you could only drive what you could afford. Instead of today with the "Max gets a credit card on 2 Broke Girls" scenario we have today, with anybody and everybody being able to get on the road and get stuck in gridlock, not to mention fumes caused by the useless act of cruising and burnouts, plus the carbon imprint from all that is required for the ad campaigns for the cars, plus the increased emissions from the extra coal needed to fuel the manufacture of the higher number of cars put on the market for people who previously would have to wait for an automobile and have to drive less if they didn't have the cash for gas. As opposed to now, where a credit card removes the previous necessity of self-budgeting of driving time, because easy approval credit cards which people would not have qualified for 15 years ago, meaning that these days, no one has an impediment to buying gas and burning gas and polluting willy nilly, even if they don't need to drive at that moment. Which is compounded by the increased number of cars per household; 30 years ago most homes had one car and some homes had 2. Today, the reality of 3 and 4 car households is simply ridiculous.

Will dealing with the methane from cows help? Of course. Is it anywhere near as effective as would be the cutting off of the gangrene of Current Car Consumer Culture dependent on high carbon emission primary-to-tertiary businesses and production? No.

If we equate cancer risk to global warming, let's discuss risks: drinking 6 beers every day, sunbathing unprotected every summer, and smoking a pack a day for over a decade are all, separately, cancer risks.

Cutting cigs from your life is ALWAYS the winner of the cancer avoidence contest, no matter what.

Cutting car culture and vanity industry by half, which kills nobody, is on par.

If we all go vegetarian today, but leave the driver and vanity crap culture as-is, it's like someone who stops drinking a bottle of wine every day but still smokes 30 Salem 16mg's per day.

They're still gonna die. And due to lymph complications, probably in a worse way than if they kept the vino and ditched the cigs.

The emissions are the same. Stopping the pollutants from Pimp My Ride culture, including the carbon created by the creation of the paints and the airbrushes and the electricity required to use them both to alter a car, plus the other alterations, plus the creation of the car, plus what the car will then create afterwards, will help lessen global warming than getting 1000 people to just-say-no to quarterpounder value meals. Obviously BOTH would be optimal.

[the4thpip]

Funny thing is, even your link lists methane from life stock as a significant cause. So your "nothing" was still misleading propaganda.


And again: Nothing I edited out of your original post would have made it less wrong. I only did so for the sake of readability. So please take back your baseless insults against me.

[the4thpip]

That aside, you haven't proven anything; you posted a link which supports your contention. And I am free to do the same, from the European Commission itself, which says outright that the #1 cause of climate change is the CO2 build beginning with the Industrial Revolution, and that methane is BELOW that.

And I am glad you finally came around to that.

But you didn't choose to do that originally. You chose to hit below the belt and compare me, a gay man, to Rush Limbaugh and his stance on gay marriage. How else but as demeaning trolling is that to be read?

[TroubleWithTrebles]

Again I did not say methane was"nothing" and i stated it was secondary, as stated in the linked article. A significant cause is not the biggest cause, and methane ain't the biggest cause.

And your overeaction does not make rebuttal into anything else. Emotionalism changes nothing. I did not insult you. Calm down, please.

[TroubleWithTrebles]

And I am glad you finally came around to that.

But you didn't choose to do that originally. You chose to hit below the belt and compare me, a gay man, to Rush Limbaugh and his stance on gay marriage. How else but as demeaning trolling is that to be read?

As someone who has had road rash below the navel from someone else's 5o'clock shadow, I am telling you that you are barking up the wrong tree with that misuse of the term trolling. Which people trot out as a last resort when they lose ground.

[CSTowle]

Tw/T, there are a couple of problems with your car culture info. First, people aren't polluting more because they can buy cars by making payments (very few people who couldn't afford one outright would ever buy one because they suddenly were able to get a credit card, the limits for most folks wouldn't allow it).

If anything being able to make payments or even lease a car means they're more likely to have a modern and energy efficient vehicle than they would if they were scrounging for the money to buy their transportation and having to settle for a car that's 10-20 years old and less efficient than it was in its prime (and than more modern vehicles).

As to "pimp my ride" culture and vanity, it's fine if your personal morality disagrees with it and you personally judge them as morally inferior (though it seems a bit silly to me) but I can't see what on Earth it has to do with pollution. Unless you truly believe that the main reason most or even many people buy vehicles is to stroke their own vanity and not as necessary personal transportation.

If so, then that's so staggeringly ignorant that it's not really worth having the discussion. China and India (and everyone else) starting to use personal vehicles in greater numbers is of course going to add to pollution. But unless you can think of a way to convince them not to (and I'm guessing moralizing about "pimp-my-ride" culture isn't going to cut it) your best bet is to make those vehicles more efficient.

[worstblogever]

It's our latest reminder of what a crock the statement "Nuh uh. Both parties are just as bad," actually is...

(And please, for those who those who really felt the "Both Parties are Just as Bad" statement is defensible, remember, I'm challenging you to write your own essays each day, to keep pace with me, if it's actually "just as bad". Keep in mind, though, you have to pick someone from politics who has either ran for, or held office within the past 5 years, and have multiple verifiable news sources to any quotes/beliefs they might have to build a solid, established track record of stupid that clearly isn't a fluke. Current crazy/stupid scoreboard, however, remains 3-0, since this was established on 7-18-14)

It's your Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day!


Ron Paul-


This one might be a bit controversial, because once upon a time in 1988, Ron Paul dogged out Ronald Reagan for running up the deficit, wrote a "Dear Frank" letter to the head of the Republican Party, turned in his GOP registration card, and ran for president as a Libertarian. His party affiliation has swapped several times over the decades, but perhaps it's most noteworthy that he's considered "the intellectual godfather of the Tea Party", and was accepting money from the Koch Brothers as far back as 1984, as the chairman of "Citizens of a Sound Economy".

Many Republicans are fanatical social conservatives. Ron Paul, however, is the foremost unhinged fiscal conservative you’ll ever find. I know, and admire Libertarians, for having a unique view. But there‘s “Smaller government“, and then there‘s taking the thing to the Microverse. Ron Paul takes it to a mind-boggling extreme. In Paul’s warped mind, it’s all the social conservatives blowing elections and a chance at real change with their agenda, and not adhering to his end-all, be-all convictions to “smaller government”. For those who thought Ross Perot was a Texan political radical who was a few tacos short of a combination plate back in the 1990s, Ron Paul is here to assure you, it wasn’t an isolated incident. You almost wonder if they both were possessed by the same psychotic gnome whose endgame is creating factions of the Republican party that will implode on each other.

Now, there of course were the Ron Paul Newsletters years ago where he apparently said some unpleasant things about Jews, gays, and African Americans. And that ain’t cool, or so I’ve been told by Fonzie. The idea of having a president who was convinced that the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was actually carried out by Israeli Mossad because, y'know, they're Jews... well, WTF, Ron.

But let's not dwell too long on his rambling, incoherent newsletter screeds that he tries to pass off as having been written by someone else (considering his son got caught plagiarizing, maybe that's not implausible). Let's look at his actual political philosophies. When you go to Ron Paul’s absolute zero fiscal policies that would cut off all foreign aid and yes of course, damn it, aid to Israel (which some think is telling given the anti-Semitic rants), that’s a bit unsettling. His foreign policy suggestion is that the United States effectively become 350 million hermits to the rest of the world. F*** everyone else, I got mine. This isolationist philosophy is agreed upon by Democrats, and a majority of Republicans to be unfeasible, if not disastrous in its implications. Some Paul defenders try to rebrand his isolationist views by calling him "non-interventionalist"... which sounds pretty much like the same thing.

And going back to the gnomish posssession joke… this one might be out of Rumplestiltskin’s playbook… Ron Paul wants to change our economic standard from a basket of commodities, back strictly to the Gold Standard, a move that most economists easily can realize would cripple the American economy. But Ron’s sold on the idea of us all being fascinated by gold, like some James Bond villain.

Or worse.

Now, again, credit where it’s due to someone, Ron Paul can attract a following. I understand why college kids would conglomerate to a “smaller government” politician who passionately believes in getting out of their business. They go, “Yeah, right. Next thing you’ll tell me you’ll decriminalize pot.”

And Ron Paul is like, “Well… yeah. That’s a law we don’t need on the books. And it will allow the markets to be free! Free to sell you cannabis!”

So they’re in. Gun control enthusiasts seem to also be big fans. As do the folks who hate the hell out of the dreaded Obamacare or other social programs. On the surface, smaller government does sound like it’s cooler than a poker game between Miles Davis, David Bowie, Joe Strummer, and John Lennon, right?

But again, Ron Paul isn’t “smaller government” in the way that electronics companies just make more efficient technology by making it more convenient and manageable. F*** no. Ron Paul is more akin to a fascination with size to Dr. Loveless from the old Wild Wild West TV Show. Or Reducto, for you Harvey Birdman fans.


Oh f***. They even kind of look alike, other than the hair. Yeah, Reducto.

Anyway, his passion is to the extent that he made this argument on his last appearance on The Daily Show:

"The regulations are much tougher in a free market, because you cannot commit fraud, you cannot steal, you cannot hurt people, and the failure has come that government wouldn't enforce this. In the Industrial Revolution there was a collusion and you could pollute and they got away with it. But in a true free market in a libertarian society you can't do that. You have to be responsible. So the regulations would be tougher."

Does… that even make sense? In effect, Ron Paul claims that there should be no regulations on business, because they’ll realize if they do anything harmful, it just will end up not being profitable to them in the long run to hurt the environment, or private citizens. While he may not quite have been old enough (not quite) to remember the Industrial Revolution… did he not see the crap that went down? Hell, even the way big business treated the environment prior to Nixon establishing the E.P.A.?

There’s not even a responsible approach to eliminating these programs in most of his suggestions. It’s laws, policies, agencies, all of it, “BAM. DONE. OVER.” If you were a retiree living off of Social Security, or Medicaid? Well, sorry pal, you’re as good as dead. Nice knowing ya.

Hey, the Civil Rights Act? Sorry, minorities. That was an overreach. You’re gonna have to go back to the back of the bus. Perhaps it should come as little surprise that Ron Paul was one of the last people in Congress to have voted against the MLK holiday. He also has somehow been quoted on record, countless times, going out of his way to speak ill of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. That's... a lot of quotes. Wow.

I know, I know. This might sound like I’m being hyperbolic, and exaggerating. Well, to that, I ask that you just read this link to some of his other newsletter highlights (which today, he claims were ghostwritten, to try and distance himself from).

So, we have him claiming the L.A. Riots only stopped because black people had to in order to go pick up their welfare checks, 9/11 Trutherism conspiracy, eliminating the FBI, CIA, and IRS, because we got by without them prior to the 20th century, the Taliban’s attacks on 9/11 being our fault, casually talking about Social Security being one day declared unconstitutional because we also reversed slavery, and the legalization of not just marijuana, which has medical uses… but heroin and cocaine, because if it wasn't illegal, no one would want to do it! (???) Oh, and he’s also one of the progenitors of the belief that FEMA camps are being set up to lock away Americans as concentration camps.

I guess what I’m saying is I admire Ron Paul’s consistency. At being f***ing crazy.

[CSTowle]

Bless your heart for having the patience to take the time to do this. Looking forward to the first installment of "Crazy Democrats", coming any day now I'm sure.

[Mikekerr3]

Bless your heart for having the patience to take the time to do this. Looking forward to the first installment of "Crazy Democrats", coming any day now I'm sure.

How about making one yourself, instead of snarking about someones else not doing do so? Can you even con me up with a name or a sitting Democrat that might qualify?

[lancerman]

I really hope Warren runs. I can't see myself being enthusiastic enough to vote for anyone else. This field is just looking like it's more of the same. And godforbid we get the very possible Clinton vs Bush general election. I think in that case you'll see a 3rd party get closer than ever to the White House.