Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "ABC News" channel.

  1. 401
  2. 294
  3. 28
  4. 19
  5. 15
  6. 14
  7. 10
  8. 9
  9. 4
  10. 4
  11. 4
  12. Hi Crazy Hai, looked at the vid after 1 year. from the 4th to the 18th in 8 minutes ! .... I meant - that the fire brigades - and many of the residents had no chance. And I was still am shocked about HOW QUICKLY the fire spread even in the beginning. Such insulation fires had happened before (never with such catastrophic outcome). So the architectcs or planners SHOULD have known ! The command of the firebrigades likely realized it at a time when it was too late to savely evacuate. And given that the building had only ONE staircase (not wide!) it would have been also a nightmare to evacuate. (never mind it was complete negation of the usual policy that keeps people safe). Many people at that time asked themselves why the firefighter had to not evacuated. I think they had a very, very narrow window of time where that would have looked like a halfway safe solution. And they were confronted with a completely new situation so when they realized WHAT was going on they had the choice between 2 terrible scenarios. The fire could creep into the house from the outside - so not only would they have had hundreds of people rushing down the staircase while the firebrigades try to GO UP and with all the equipment. some people instinctively acted against the stay put policy (or did not even know it) and in this case it saved their life. But of course they profited from the fact that not everybody ran down at the same time. The staircase quickly filled with smoke and became a death trap too. this was social manslaughter.
    4
  13. 4
  14. 3
  15. 3
  16. 3
  17. 3
  18. in situations of threat or high stress the rational brain shuts down, it is fight, flight or freeze. And unless you are trained (military, police) you do not know WHAT would be YOUR reaction. There was a case in Germany where the victim (a lesbian) had friendly rejected the advances of a young man, he seemed okay with it. Later he preyed on her and raped her when she went to the toilet. (And during investigations it came out he had intentionally gone to the event to get in contact with some lesbians, seems like he thought it in his powers to "cure" them - initially he claimed he did not even know what kind of party he was going to and that he would have little chances to pick someone up there. One of his employees heard him talk otherwise before going there). That younw woman also said she did not expect the attack, she had felt safe at the location, she froze, she was not able to scream, to move, to ward him off - and they had to surgically remove a tampon later - she had her period and he rammed his penis so hard into her. Anyway: the German law is not clear about the need to fight - except !! for the tampon she had no visible injuries or "proof" of fighting him and she confirmed that she did not scream (there were people nearby who likely would have heard her, but she literally could not find the voice to shout). Given how brazen he was in that setting it is safe to assume that man is a sociapath and this was not the first transgression. So he got away in the first round in court, the prosecutor would have liked to take the case to the next level - she however could not stand it. So the rapist got away with it. I also watched a female member of parliament in the UK, who made a statement about rape in session by reporting on what had happened to her as teenager. A meeting at a youth group, young man offering to bring her home (she knew him, not very well, but he was no stranger). They took another route - which did not alert her, then he raped her. She did not shout for help, she also did not tell her parents !!, she just felt ashamed. many years later she told her husband and went into therapy. I think part of the problem is the myth that the "big bad stranger" lurks in the bushes and gets you. Such cases often end with murder and get a lot of attention. So women often wrongly assume if they know who a man is, or if he is within their circle of aquaintances that they are (or should be safe) in his company. What man would dare to attack a woman that knows him ? - that is of course true - except for the few brazen predators (and since they likely repeat their actions they do a lot of damage). So if women are sexually assaulted - like this British politician was in her teenage years - they have this unsubstantiated but strong feeling that THEY did something wrong so that a seemingly safe situation went so wrong. And the other thing is that physical fighting in girls is discouraged. Also more and more in boys but girls have always been trained to be nice and navigate social interactions with being compliant. And make a nice face even if something does not feel "quite" right - that does not help you when you need to listen to your gut feeling, or to kick, scream and run. Never mind that typical feminine garments and shoes do not help with the running. I also read a story about a young women with a black belt in karate who was raped by two men. (Her trainer/master/mentor was shocked and went on to create a form of self defense that would actually help a weaker person (especially women) if attacked in real life. Getting the black belt in a highly regulated sports competition environment is nothing like being assaulted in real life. Fighting in real life must be swift, ugly, no hesistance whatsoever to reallly take out the opponent - and that does not come naturally.
    3
  19. 3
  20. 3
  21. 3
  22. 3
  23. She is more mature and older than many other contestants in the Beauty Circus (Who expects political advice from a pretty 18 year old ???). - She comes clearly from a good background - and cannot translate her intellectual capacities to the top issue of healthcare or her empathy ! to people who are less fortunate than herself and people in her "bubble". And despite having a background in science she is not an independent thinker or precise with her definitions (since when was feminism about being against men ??) A cheap shot at feminism to gain points from men who hopefully admire her, or conservatives ?? That young lady might want to update her history knowledge about the suffragettes and how they clawed the voting rights from the male establishment - nationwide in 1920 - and they got their share of ridicule and accusations of being man haters. If a group is asked to give up power or share power they usually try to discredit the other side. - She profits from what former feminists have fought for - and falls for the disparaging narrative - like I said: a cheap shot. If you are pro equality AND like man (no contradiction at all) there are other ways to communicate that w/o disparaging feminism. Her line was a polished version of ME - a FEMINIST ?? Yikes - I am not one of them ugly, ridiculous (read unpopular with men, not admired by men) feminists. She is blissfully unaware of the sacrifices of women who called themselves feminists who she can thank for that she can even attend a college and then have a job in science. And no, if no one had ever fought for equality of females, women still would not have these rights. Right now, MY FOCUS would not be that much on feminism - more on fighting neoliberalism, global warming, the appearing right wing forces etc. Plus as always the Military Industrial Surveillance Complex. The assault on civil liberties. - That said if all these issues could be resolved in a satisfying manner it would disproportionally help minorities and women, - and women worldwide not only in the wealthy countries.
    2
  24. 2
  25. 2
  26. 2
  27. 2
  28. 2
  29. 2
  30. 2
  31. 2
  32. 2
  33. 2
  34. 2
  35. 2
  36. 2
  37. Police are not taught or EXPECTED to RETREAT. - having THAT ingrained in her could have saved both of them. I think she likely was on drugs (cocaine the drug of choice for cops * or stereoides) - If she had been drunk, drugged, tired, just a stupid moment, ... and she had retreated, she would have the time and calm ! to take notice. When in safe distance she could have calmed down. This could have been a stupid mistake, both would be laughing about the next day. Did he leave the door unlocked ? Which would be a sign that the neighbourhood is not dangerous or they have a concierge in the lobby.. I once read a comment that cops seize drugs during raids and hold some back (after all planting drugs needs some supply, and we know there have been cases). And that they keep cocaine (or they have cheap sources) - that they like to use cocaine - it gives energy, endurance, they can cope better with long shifts - but it also makes people brazen, reckless, aggressive. All that you do NOT want a cop to be. Since it is not outright forbidden there is the tempation to cash in on the position as member of the police, doing a security job. The nightclub owner that also employed Derek Chauvin, said the members of police were always skittish when more black people were in the club, always wanted to escalate more, immediately called for backup, ... .... So if the civilian bouncers were more level headed and professional and got the job done with much less hassle - why did she even hire police (for 16 years) ? Because she needs the police to come fast sometimes - and if she employs some of them, she creates more goodwill. In other words: a protection racket. Or she knew criminals met in her nightclub and there were illegal transactions going on - (along with a lot of civilian patrons, and she could not really sort them out). So the police could have given her trouble by doing more raids - but chose not to, because she also was their employer. Which brings me back to the issue of conflict of interest if the police has ANY side hustle. Police unions made sure drug tests have to be announced 2 - 3 days before. Not all drugs are cleared out of the system (weed would show up) but cocaine cannot be found. That - in combination with easy and low cost (or free) access, and the performance enhancement - makes it an ideal drug for regular use. So the announcement gives them enough time to pass the test, they just have to abstain for 2 - 3 days. (Another commenter mentioned stereoides being routinely used, I think they also make people aggressive). Derek Chauvin (and some other cops) worked in a nightclub additionally to their jobs with the police. In other countries members of the police and civil servants are not allowed to have a side hustle. (Chauvin is a psychopath and enjoyed abusing his power, so being well rested would not have solved anything. But if a cop is easily stressed out (and people are different in that resepct) being sleep-deprived can worsen their reaction. Only ONE job for police (or civil servants) in other countries a) They are expected to show up well rested, sober and with free time to wind down (in many European countries that includes the mandatory 5 weeks vacation and some paid holidays on top. so people CAN recover from a stressful job b) and it is an obvious conflict of interest There is less incentive for cops to look for a boost of energy, they do their 40 hours, some overtime maybe - done. The income must be sufficient, they may make less than cops in the U.S. The community must afford to pay the cops a good wage, and of course they need fewer of them. In other wealthy nations it is not quite as acceptable to have a permanent underclass - especially in urban areas. Poverty breeds crime, but in communities where people know each other it is much better. So in other countries they do not need that much police to deal with crimes, and the haves will not gladly tolerate and enable an out of control police to suppress and contain the poor: Their lives and property is safe from the low-income people (who can make do with a safety net), police is expected to be civil, level headed, to not escalate, and to show restraint. Plus: in other countries firearms are tools, not a fetish - some people have them (but no semi-automatic, they are not allowed). Concealed carry ONLY if you have a good reason. Working in security, maybe some sports. For civilians it is rifles for hunting or sports. Plus maybe revolvers if a person is a collector. Likewise the criminals do not carry firearms. Burglars and thieves - but you do not expect them to shoot you, if you surprise them in your home. In almost all cases they will flee if detected. If a family member or a neighbour loses it, there may be physical violence - but usually there are no guns around, to make the escalation worse (more victims, more likely to end with dead people, more dangerous for the police when they intervene. Police in such cases also would rather use batons, tasers, and not their guns). Police are not shot on duty and they very rarely use firearms too. cops do not expect to be shot during a normal traffic stop and the driver and the police usually interact in a rational manner. So also much less stress for police. . Drug use or a cocaine habit could account for a lot of insance decisions cops made that ended deadly for a non-violent offender or an innocent victim of their folly. Why approach slowly and assess - when you can rush in guns blazing. Shoot first, assess later - and if it was a mistake, they will be cleared - sad day for the victim. If people have stress or are fearful it messes with the rational part of the brain. With memory and with thinking. Giving yourself time to think at a safe place (retreating, seeking shelter) is the remedy. And good training will provide ROUTINES you can AUTOMATICALLY fall back on (so it does not matter that your critical thinking skills are impaired while the adrenaline rushes through your system). Routines provide the feeling of safety, of being in control and provide a good course of action w/o the need of thinking things through. Emergency doctors, surgeons, firefighters, athletes, soldiers, people working in dangerous or critical jobs .... also must have their routines in place. When they have to act FAST and / or are stressed out (or have a bad day). They must have trained those routines, and beyond that must "routinely" use them. You have your intense training, but in everyday life you do it differently ? "But if there ever is a tricky situation I can put the special training to good use" (like cops who do not routinely retreat and deescalate). No - it does not work like that, whatever is the often repeated course of action will pop up, when people are stressed out or have to rush into action or have a stupid moment. ** (Assessing the situation, situative awareness when something does not seem to be right should be part of the routine for a cop. Spilling over to civilian life) Then a tired, drunk ?, mentally ill cop could fall back on those routines, when fear hits her or him, when adrenaline rushes through her system. On the job or at home. ** You always lay down the rifle in a way that points away from you, even if you are absolutely sure there is no ammunition in it. (Sarah Palin did a photo op posing as hunter, neither she nor the photographer were aware of that rule.) You remove ammunition when you can, or at least have the firearm locked, so it does not really matter (as long as you are aware and you and everybody around you is well functioning). You do so 1000 times - until one day you (or someone else) are distracted, drunk, stressed .... the ingrained habit of never pointing the rifle at a person (loaded rifle or not) will provide the extra layer of security. If you forget, and if it goes off, chances are nothing bad will happen. Humans make mistakes (even if they are generally competent), and good habits and erring on the side of caution provide some room for that).
    2
  38. 2
  39. 2
  40. 2
  41. 2
  42. 2
  43. The U.S. already does that "printing" of money (it is electronically created, almost all money we use is digital, not in coins and notes). The U.S. brings WAY more dollar in extistence than are backed up and justified by the output of the U.S. economy. any other currency would drop in value. And additionally the debt - of course an economy that operates with importing to so much and having so litte manufacturing at home will result in having a lot of debt. The U.S. once deserved the status as world reserve currency. Now it is commodities that are habitually traded in USD that will back up the value - as if a strong U.S. economy would produce and export them - like the Saudi oil (an agreement that come after Nixon pulled out of the gold standard). The petrodollar is a political agreement with the Saudis, it is also defended by the U.S. military. (Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein threatened to pull out of the petrodollar). China and Russia prepare to fade out of it - and they cannot simply be regime changed or militarily defeated. I assume the powers that be are very eager to have Russia unders sanctions, never mind the opinion of the puppet in the White House (that includes presidents before Trump). Sanctions are economic warfare. That would be the one reasonable impulse that Trump had - to seek for better relationship with Russia. (If only because he likely laundered money for Russian oligarchs. Likely the Kremlin knows about that. The U.S. banks did not lend money to Trump after his 5 bankrupcies or near bankrupcies. They lost a lot of money on that.) Since the 1970s the growth in money has vastly surpassed the growth in GDP. On a global scale - world gross product - by the factor 13 (times 13 !!). For the USD times 18. That has to do with the deregulation and international speculation in the financial "market". Before most of the money that was created was created by commercial banks - when they gave out loans. Banking was safe and boring in the old days - the loans that were given our to sustain the productive economy. Production of goods and services. These days it is speculation and bubble upon bubble. 700 trillion open bets on a given day versus an U.S. GDP of 18 - 19 trillion. See the zerohedge article regarding the open volume of derivatives in 2011, it came down to a still insane level of 300 or 400 trillion USD. The banks that are given the legal privilege of money creation joined the ranks of the speculators. That become possible because of the deregulation started under Reagon, Clinton did a lot to put the finishing nails in the coffin.
    2
  44. Money creation in a modern economy - pdf by the Bank of England - Highly recommended, they explain QE for the Banks = direct money creation which was done to the tune of trillions - in U.K., U.S. and Euro zone - to pretty up the balance sheets of the banks some time after they had been bailed out. I think the concept has been used in Japan, the "explanation" for the scheme is a trickle down approach. The banks with the numbers in their balance sheets digitally beautified (it is a legal and accounting exercise to neutralize "bad" debt) would start to give out confidently loans that would boost the real economy. - Or so they said. Not sure if anyone of the higher ups really believed that narrative or if it was the intellectual fig leaf to justify to shower the banksters with money. QE for the People would have been possible as well and would have directly (not indirectly and maybe) boosted the economy. The effect of QE was small and only after trillions were digitally created, much less money pumped into the real economy (ideally government spending on education, infrastructur, public transportation, healthcare, switch to renewable energy, ... - common good spending) But the unwashed masses are not supposed to know such possibilities exist for the benefit of the regular citizens. It would undermine the neolibeal order, no chance to push through austerity in the future, and many banks would still be in bad shape. Risks for shareholders, investors - rich and influental people. The ECB (responsible for the Euro zone) was eagerly waiting for some inflation to show up because of QE for the Banks. Europe had deflationary tendences then. Modest and desired inflation (2 % ideally that is the inflation target of the ECB) would be an indicator of a recovering REAL economy. - Of course the banks were glad to take the help - but they were not eager to use their improved status to boost the economy for the common good. The banksters were really rewarded for the criminal risks they took. The BoE sees the world of course from the point of view of Big Finance - so they stop shy of mentioning QE for the People or Debt and Interest Free Money of course, but apart from that it is well explained information for the layperson. It introduces you to the idea that commercial banks create money all the time. They just do not explain ALL possible forms of money creation Other sources: Dr. Richard Werner Debt and Interest free money Dr. Stepanie Kelton Deficit Owl, MMT Prof. Steve Keen Warren Mosler (MMT) positivemoney(dot)org
    2
  45. "We "know" that CoVid lives on hard surfaces." * Acutally a virus does not "live" at all. it is not alive technically speaking, since it needs other cells to replicate and multiply. The buttons of an elevator or SCHOOLS (doors, knobs, rails of the staircase, desks, ...) or surfaces in retail are much more problematic. The envelope can be shoved into the container without touching the box directly. So no problem- the virus does not spring at you from the surface ! (People can also push light switches, doors and elevator buttons with the ellbow - but how many do that ? It is easier / will happen more commonly that mails is thrown inl without direct contact). And what about the voting machines and the polling station (incl. door know - and the air INDOORS. Which is always more risky thatn OUTDOORS where the virus particles are instantly diluted, by a breeze or wind. There is always fresh air, not recycled air that is moved in a ventilation system indoors. Simply by entering a pollings station people can get infected. But not outdoors, even if 5 minutes ago a person shed virus. That is immediately diluted, carried away. Virus load matters, even if a person should contract some virus - it matters how much your immune system has to deal with. (severity of symptoms, or only a immune response and no symptoms at all). * It is true that he virus stays longer viable (that is the word, not "alive") on hard surfaces. As compared to absorbant surfaces like carton or fabric. That said the infection risk via surfaces is not that high, most spread happesn in the following manner: droplets / aerosols / direct contact between family members.
    2
  46. 2
  47. 2
  48. 2
  49. + Blank Stare Whataboutism on stereoides. they've dunnit 15,000 years ago, too ! natives (!) were the FIRST settlers - coming here in the ice age. - On which right wing site did you hear that nonsense meant to justify and deflect from European stealing the land over the course of the last few hundred years. Treaties were made - and broken in the later 19th century. " But they have done it, too they came illegally 15,000 years ago" - News falsh: there was no one in the country ! To use the word "gentrified" is rich. - Your use of language is very revealing - you are trying too hard ! Each tribe had their territory, where they hunted. Later agriculture or a mix. They mostly did not go to war with each other. More likely joined forces with neighbouring tribes for the summer hunt on wandering herds (where that was the economic model). They did not follow the bison herds then into the prairies - they could not. That meant it was extremely important that they got the animals when they were in reach and cooperating with other tribes increased the chances for a good outcome. The herds were so huge that there was enough for everyone - but it was a desaster if they missed out on them. Followin the bisons to the plains came later when the horses that had been released by the Mexicans spread over the continent, and the natives learned to tame them and to use them. That provided relief from the pressure of the European settlers for some time (for instance for the Lakota moved on adapted the horse and changed their culture). They did not go much to war - except for drastic climate change and not out of greed but for survival. There were trade connections going on between Canada and Central America. That passage must have been relatively safe. the goods found were "luxury goods". And they travelled on foot w/o domesticated animals (the lama was not suited and the horses had become extinct, and bisons are not fit to be tamed for transport purposes). All of that indicates that they found peaceful arrangements at the Northern part of the continent. The wars between tribes really started when the Europoean started driving them away and some tribes moved on to areas were the colonist had not yet settled and tried to displace other tribes in their fight for survival. It got worse when French and British handed them firearms to have their help when the Europeans fought each other (that was in the North). Divide and conquer. During that time the habit of taking scalps developed, it was promoted by the Europeans.The scalps were proof for the kills so for instance the French paid them in form of firearms, alcohol or whatever when they came up with the scalps of British soldiers, settlers or tribes that helped them. The way the victims had worn their hair made sure mostly the "right" kind of people were killed. I do not mean they were all so kind spirited. Their economic model did not allow them the luxury of unnecessary war. So as long as they were not attacked and not exceptional circumstances they usually kept peace with their neighbours. In the areas where winter gets cold or at least cool and wet, the season for war would be summer. Well that was also the time to go after the wandering herds to stock up food for the poor season. The season of wildfires, too (in the drier areas). So if a gang of men in their prime - walking - would have gone to raid the neighbour camps (quite a walk, hunter and gatherers need large ! territories !) - who guaranteed them that their tribe was not being attacked, their stocks plundered, or their families had to face the dangers of wildfire w/o the most capable to fight it around ? They did not decimate the large animals (you conflate that with the Europeans that slaughtered the bisons for nothing). They were hunting on foot and the country before there were any humans had panthers, wolves and other predators. So any kind of prey that could withstand those predators for sure could deal with humans as well. Especially with humans who had no horses.
    2
  50. 2
  51. 2
  52.  binaryruffian  I also wonder what the fmr wife would have to gain from making up such severe lies. Divorced couples playing games and treating the children as pawns is not new, but INVENTING abuse (directed against mother and more importantly against the children ! and the teenagers) is another level. It is hard to plant the narrative with teeangers that they have been treated badly by their father, when that is not true. Let alone when that father has an ongoing halfway decent relationship with the kids - and if not he has no business being the sole caretaker. Teenagers can be incensed if one of the parents cheats and the marriage ends because of that - mostly for selfish reasons, it upends their world. (some teenagers take it upon them to scold the parent, and to be angry at him or her for causing the problem. Even more often the cheater gets a pass (more o less) and the howwrecker is mobbed. Teenagers can get quite creative with that. And a spiteful ex partner can fuel that. Hell hath no fury like some teenage girls (some, not all). Teenagers at that age can be very mature, and if they are - then a hostile mother cannot make them tell lies about the father. Especially when that contradicts 12, 13 years of experiences they made with that parent. Maturity: meeting local news for an interview and staying under the radar for so long would indicate they are not completely childish, they for sure had access to a telephone on the farm if they wanted to. They did not call the father, or their school friends, or relatives) The mother was able to get a divorce w/o makeing stuff up. She was the major caretaker of the children (probably even a stay at home mum), she would have kept custody. - Men do not always insist on contact because they want that contact or want the custody or the task tied to CARING for the children. (note how his sister had to move in so he could have full custody). If he has full custody he saves on child support, I guess the sister (or the next woman) makes the household for free. Child support also finances to a degree the other apartment that the mother would need to live with 5 children (or that she can stay in the house, at least if they do not eventually need to sell it to split the money). Moreover now he can sue HER for child support - which in effect means he can reduce what she gets from the divorce for the house and common properety. Since the alimony also has a "housing" component, he will do better if the children are with him, at the moment he has the house anyway. Never mind if he has any interest in them, or if he tries to find fast the next woman that has to play the step mum. (I watched that play out - and no that man had no interest to interact with the children. He insisted on visitation, but mainly the new wife had to take care of the children. But sued for custody, did not get it in that case - and his new wife had no intention of getting the many children into the house. He did not ask her if SHE was fine with that. Bulldozed the mother of his children and continued to do that with the new wife. The telephone message to the children is also revealing. No: I miss you please ! call back. It was an order. if - IF - a father knows that he has not abused wife and children, if he fears that the wife tries to brainwash the children and teenagers ! against him, it would be an excellent idea to leave NICE messages for the children. Also: the teenagers never tried to contact the father (after they went missing). They were willing to go on record confirming the claims against him. It is not unheard of that parents try to undermine the relationship with the other parent - BUT it is not that easy to achieve with TEENAGERS. And in a way the father that is not to involved with the child rearing has it easier to be the interesting and nice parents. Because the main caretaker is responsible for daily rules, and discipline. If teenage girls are bitching around and clash with a parent, or if a curfew needs to be enforced, there is a good chance that the mother is the bad cop, while the father is more detached and remains the good cop. So there is no reason why the girls would be easily instigated against the father if he had been a half way decent father and not too much of a bully as husband. Those girls were not in a cult, they were exposed to the normal world, so the influence of mother, of father was not absolute. Have you ever tried brainwashing a teenager (as parent !). PEERS can have a lot of influence, but good luck with that if you are a parent (or even teacher). The father seemed to do some things with the children when they were smaller, one would assume there was some bond (that he was not a completely detached father and the fringe of the family, at least not when you see the old footage).
    2
  53. 2
  54. 2
  55. 2
  56. 2
  57. 2
  58. 2
  59. 2
  60. Obama won Florida and Ohio twice, both states could have gone to Romney the result was not that decisive. BUT: With Ohio and Florida (29 and 18 electors) Romeny would still have had only 253 electoral votes and he needed 270. Trump won them twice - with decisive margins btw, shows you how the D voters are fed up by the betrayal of Democrats (especially ! of Obama). Trump improved in Florida from 1.2 to over 3 % (2016 and 2020) and won Ohio twicce with whopping 8 %. Yes, Democrats have pissed off their former base that much. They do not forget how Obama had bailed out finance and big biz and screwed the base, and how he had pushed for TPP. The cool president could somehow gloss over it, but HRC and Biden did not get a pass anymore (and it is well deserved they stand for the same neoliberal policies). 2012: Florida win of Obama with only 0.88 % margin Ohio in 2012: 50.7 % for Obama, but Romney had only 47.7 %, Libertarian Gary Johnson was one of the Indies that got some votes. Both states were kind of hard to predict, they could have turned out in favor of Romney. But then he still would have needed to flip 1 or 2 other states. w/o the 47 % comment and Hurricane Sandy Romney might have had a fighting chance. btw: his policies would not have been much different than those of Obama. Obama described his policies and Reagan Republican style, he started many wars, and Romneycare and ACA are based on the same rightwing 1990s plan. Obama ran like a populist in 2008, but he was and is a neoliberal sellout. He was pro gay marriage, gun regulation and safe and legal abortions and Ronmey not so much - that is an issue that does not cost the big donors. Big finance and big biz do not care if Obama or Romney serve them.
    2
  61. 2
  62. 2
  63. It may have made a difference on which side you were. Maybe the company that had installed the facade had - at least - built in some sort of barrier at the corners of the building. - I saw that with a French high rise. 18 storeys, at the beginning of the video footage it is a fire on the balcony on the ground floor. 38 minutes later a stripe over the full height of 18 storeys on that side of the building was ablaze, but only in the area of the balconies. Within a well defined stripe. So there must have been some constructive barrier in the facade that prevented the fire from spreading - or at least slowed it down. It was a major fire, 1 person died, but the French firefighters still had a much better chance to get people out in time and to regain control. Which is difficult enough with that height. One family in Grenfell Tower waited 4 hours and had called emergency several times. They were always told to wait for the firefighters. When their flat (somewhere betwee 10th and 13th floor) started burning (the fire came between the walls) the father decided to take his family down, despite the fumes and the smoke in the staircase and hallway. - 2 teenage girls, his wife 7 months pregnant with a boy. They were lucky they met a firefighter when one of the daughters collapsed. Wife and daughters were treated in hospital, and put into an induced coma, they were poisoned, but seem to be O.K. now. But they lost the 7 month old baby boy. Have you seen the footage of the One and ONLY staircase ? It is a NARROW staircase, it looks hardly wider than in a normal family home. So imagine to evacuate 600 people, all going down, some maybe trying to get some possessions out in bags. While the firefighters try to go up in full gear and with equipment at the same time.
    1
  64. 1
  65. 5 of 5 Trade deals enabling sweatshop production: those "trade" deals (also WTO rules of the 1990s) do not allow any nation LATER to reintroduce tariffs. (Well the U.S. can take some liberties as usual - as we saw lately). When trade deals are officially abandoned, the rules of the "trade" deal still apply for the next 20 - 30 years. And very important: Multinationals CAN SUE governments for damages and for profits which they could not make (at least that is the case with TTIP, TPP). Important: not only compensation for investments made in good faith - no, compensations for the profits they COULD have made They do not even have to DO BIZ anymore to claim the profit ! Not sure about NAFTA, but it was a provision of TPP and TTIP: The cases not handled by a normal court (the system of everyone else !!!) but in a PRIVATE "COURT" system (arbitration), the cases handeled huge law firms (usually U.S. based) who are in the habit to decide pro corporations in 2 out of 3 cases.The law firms alternate the roles - so naturally there will conflicts of interests arise and of course policital pressure). Governments, NGOs, unions, consumer protection agencies cannot sue multinationals in that private system - it is a one way provision. The costs are excessively high (so realistically smaller comanpies cannot use that system) and even if winning the government must pay for their legal costs. It is an interesting business model for law firms too. It is all set up to rob future governments (elected representation of the citizens) of any power to change the rules of the economic game later when the citizens have found out how they are being screwed. Once introduced it is a one way street, creates certain realities, and sets in stone a new paradigm. It is very, very hard to reverse that - only when major nations or powers - like the U.S. and the EU would agree at the same time - and when they really work in the best interst of their citizens, and are not driven by petty competitions or in the interest of their domestic special interests - that however is highly unlikely. Trump has started renogiations of NAFTA, sure. I do not know how NAFTA is written, and of course there is the political power of the U.S. One thing is: what the governments do with a "new" NAFTA - it remains to be seen if Big Biz can sue them later. Trump tries to get advantages (for the U.S. special interests) on the back of Canada and Mexico. As opposed to: A good deal - that would be good for the CITIZENS in all 3 countries. NAFTA has been a disaster for small farmers in Mexico, U.S. big ag could flood Mexico for instance. So the small advantage of more industrial jobs (although not very well paid) is counteracted by small farmers streaming into the cities in search for jobs and income (often organized crime is seen as benevolent institution, THEY give them income and "work" - that is a very dangerous development). Of course it works for the Mexican "elites". But not for Mexico at large, not even for the U.S. (undocumented immigration is increased by that). For that money one could subsidize U.S. farming otherwise and have them produce oil seeds (no palm oil plantations instead of rainforest in Asia) or hemp (energy, insulation material, clothes). TTP and TTIP were dictated by Big Biz. They learned since NAFTA, and the Chinese Deal around 2000: they know it is unpopular. So they of course tried to leverage these "trade" deals even more to "create facts" and to introduce rules that make their legal advantage over everybody else (incl. the goernments) even stronger. The new deals are designed to protect copyrights, make patent prolongations possible for pharma etc. - they have not much to do with "trade" or "tariffs". If the U.S. and the EU for instance agreed (ever) they could of course change the rules. Even then however it remaines to be seen if the multinationals try to sue the governments LATER. Political power might play a role - Boeing hopes for military contracts - that might keep THEM from suing for instance. Even if they COULD. Governments CAN go against the deals, sure. They can ALSO be made to pay "damages" with taxpayer money.
    1
  66. 1
  67. 3 of 5 Since technology has become so advanced the western companies COULD have paid good wages right away and COULD have applied the high safety standards in China that had taken decades to develop in the West. China would have profited from the learning curve of the West. High productivity = good wages = not as much a competition for the products made in the West by starting a race to the bottom. It would have jumpstarted the HUGE Chinese DOMESTIC MARKET. Like it did in war-striken Europe or Japan after WW2. Unlike other governments the Chinese could not be bullied by the Western governments (working for their mulinationals). It could have been "at our terms or no biz at all" in China. Smaller countries are getting regime changed or the U.S. starts a war - well not with China. There were somewhat struggling multinationals that were good enough - so if Mercedes, Toyota and Chrysler could not be bothered to produce in China for Chinese demand !! if they would be forced to treat the workers and the environment well - Volvo, Opel, or Citroen might have been more interested. - And their technology or product might not have been the very best or most competitive or attractive (Volvo had a reputation of a good and reliable car, not as chic as Merceds and a little on the expensive side). But GOOD ENOUGH. And with all the necessary technology and engineering and management skill to jumpstart production in China. Still a short cut of decades of development. With the privilege of such a huge market, and potential protection of the powerful Chinese government (no car imports allowed) they could improve, could develop smaller cars. Volvo is / was also an established player for busses and trucks. So the Chinese government had all the trumps - sure they needed western technology to keep their masses from getting restless, but they could also have protected their population much better. But then the ruling class would not have made money hand over fist (they would only have done very well).
    1
  68. 1
  69. 1
  70. 1
  71. 1
  72. 1
  73. 1
  74. 1
  75. Members of the Kennedy DYNASTY have done hardly anything for the U.S. in the last 20 - 40 years. They had a platform in and outside politics. Which they did not use as members of the American aristorcracy. - Right now neoliberal big donor darling Congress man Kennedy III tries to unseat Senator Ed Markey (who is a solid incumbent). Markey is pro Green New Deal, and pro worker's rights, and pro weed legalization. HE is not colluding with big healthcare, big pharma and the fossil fuel industry like Kennedy, who only recently could bring himself to be "pro" Marijuana legalization (= lip service). Note to self: police unions are an important constituency for Corporate Democrats: they are donors and have reach when they organize for or against a candidate. It is not like the Corporate Dems could get the enthusiastic support of grassroots, the best they can do is to get the help of corrupt police unions. The last Corporate Democrat to get help of the grassroots was Obama - and this neoliberal sellout cynically used that, but the young voters have wisened up, mayor pete's gig did not work. The young in MA doe not support Kennedy, they support older Markey. It is the ideas and not the age of the politician. They got that right. That is why Sanders had the young crowd and mayor pete with the Obama 2.0 gig had the affluent boomers. Boomers and pete fans: that is the segment of the population who profited from OTHER economic policies (that they know tell the younger generation are pie in the sky), they do not need policies, they can afford to only go after superficial rhetoric (pete was smart enough to keep it very vague. Like I said: does not work on people that are informed and do not watch fawning corporate media, and who NEED better policies. These voters are not in danger of faling for the mainstream propaganda on behalf of the rich and the politicians who serve the rich. They live the contradiciton between messaging and reality. They KNOW they are being lied to.)  So when it comes to the likes of Kennedy III - the unwashed masses will have to continue to put up with being prosecuted for petty drug crimes and weed possession. The police needs those jobs, pensions .... and of course qualified immunity. corporate Democrats collude with the Real estate devlopers. the large cities are almost always blue. So if you collude with the epople who help to create the working homeless and a permanent underclass (people can't keep up with exploding rent and on top exploding healthcare and education costs, that are also on the Democrats on the federal level. ... Well then the sellouts of course need an oppressive police that shows the unwashed masses their place and polices on behalf of the maybe 30 % that do well in the cities.
    1
  76. Needless to say Pelosi endorsed Kennedy (if only HRC would endorse him - that is the Kiss Of Death for campaigns) - she says "for his help in the 2018 midterms". She does not elaborate about the specifics of his "contribution". Surely she does not mean winning his congress seat again, that would be a no brainer ... Do you remember him making an impact for other candidates ? Supporting them with speeches, fundraising for grassroots ! Addressing the nation ? Stirring the pot with ground breaking proposals. Like Yang did with UBI, Gabbard by standing up against the war machine (Stopp funding terrorism, Regime change wars). Or AOC with the Green New Deal. Or Sanders with Medicare for All. Me neither. Pelosi has to be vague: she can't admit that he has good contacts with the big donors = money for the party machine, the contractors ... establishment ! candidates (if they are obedient towards big donor interests. ONLY then they get plenty of funding, and the likes of Kennedy III help to come up with the money when they fundraise for the party. That is why Joe Crowley was the number 4 in the party until AOC ended his career. No one outside New York knew him - but you bet he shored up the money from big finance and the real estate developers that price the voters of N.Y. 14th out of the market.  And good-for-nothing mainstream neoliberal media of course does not challenge Pelosi on that talking point. What became of leaving D incumbents alone that are very likely to win their seat in the general ..... ? = Ed Markey  That was always only a pretext to protect sell out big donor candidates from being challenged by grassroots candidates. The party has been rewarding the shills for the services for the big donors (and their good fundraising from the rich) with safely blue seats. Safely blue: poor people and minorites. That could backfire, chances open now for grassroots challengers, that do not take big donor money.
    1
  77. 1
  78. 1
  79. 1
  80. 1
  81. 1
  82. 1
  83.  @jerryg1692  30 % of pregnancies (likely more) end spontanously in the first trimester. that number tops the 60 millions by far. BTW: So many are up and in arms about the ONLY 11 million undocumented migrants * that are living in the U.S. Many of them are WORKING and pulling their weight. * right wing sources sometimes give a number a high as 20 millions. Well either way 3,5 - 6 % of the population and all the howling about undocumented migrants. How exactely would you take care of these 60 millions children / adults. What jobs would they get, where would they live, how would you fund healthcare or education for them. Many of the 60 million aborted would be accepted and cared for by parents (under more difficulties). But many would be traumatized by unfit partents and / or a dysfunctional foster system. And many of them would be SEVERELY DISABLED. Good luck with finding foster or adoption parents for them. Imagine if the parents forced by the government to carry those pregnancies to term - would hand them over to the government to take care of them in a HUMANE manner - what do you think would happen ? The U.S. does not even set up homes for disabled veterans in a way that they are treated well. A video went viral a few years ago. Either the home was for-profit and they extracted too much profits out of it to the "investors" to leave enough for staff, or they are underfunded and have to squeeze the staff. If you have enough people to do the work and treat them with decency (that includes a decent wage) - you will find people doing the work with kindness and expertise. Actually many would find it fulfilling. But that needs funding, or even higher taxes. Which is much harder to come by than the nosy meddling of the protectors of the embry and the fetus. The U.S. under Reagan kicked the mentally ill out of federal care and over to the "care" of the states. The money to take care of them in a good way is impossibly to find. Many of them land on the streets or in the prison system (which is expensive too, but hey at least no one wasted money on social workers, nice homes, having apartments for living on their own with some supervision and help, places where they can do easy work, get personal assistance, etc, etc. Or simply the medical care and they can return to a fully productive indpendent life. (depression, psychosis, borderline) Especially since the Reagan coup against the mentally ill, the reactionaries have preached about the right of the fetus and embyos and ignored the needs of those already born. Those who ARE PERSONS.
    1
  84. 1
  85. 1
  86.  @zacharymarentette5269  Well Trump was blocked by the SAME supreme Court decision, wasn't he ? And after the public outcry he DID ALTER the vile policy with an Executive Order (after having said a few days earlier he could do nothing because Obama ...Supreme Court ..... - and of course when that had been handled differently under Bush, Obama, AND the first year of his admin) Under Bush2 and Obama there were occasional family separations. (the Supreme court decided that if you put the adult into jail - which was the exception NOT THE RULE - minors that have arrived with them, cannot be kept longer than 28 days in jail with them). at least they kept TRACK of the children. However: under Trump's NEW policy EVERY adult was JAILED (new policy in early summer 2018). Under Bush and Obama they were only jailed when suspected to be offenders, not just for being caught crossing the border or for applying for asylum. When the migrants / asylum seekers are brought into camps they can stay together, they cannot leqave, the parents can take CARE of the children (less costs), and if they are going to be deported later at least they can stay together. Since the Trump admin closed down almost all places where people could come in legally and apply correctly for asylum they MUST cross the borders because it is dangerous for them to stay there. The cartels and scum are preying on them if they arrive at a point of entry and have to wait a few days or weeks to be processed. Those ports of entry just accepted a few and told most to try again tomorrow, and the next day, and the next after that, .... Knowing full well that vile criminals kidnap them to extort money from family in the U.S. or in the home country. if they cannot pay they are killed. (That was under the Mexican government before the election not sure if THEIR police and military can be bothered to do anything about it now.) Speaking of sanctitiy of life. Never mind the red tape for jailing everyone (and the COSTS) - that brought of course the problem _what to do with the children_. So they had MANY more children to handle. The SANE parts of the admin had told them of the consequences and held against that for one year. But Trump and his croonies decided a) they wanted to signal to the base how tough they were - midterms 2018 coming and b) that "being forced" to take children away from parents wasn't a bug it was a feature. and the admin / agency was so incompetent that they did not even keep track and "lost" children. There are still children that could not be re-united. They were too little. If the caregiver is alive they are afraid to come forward. Jeff Session on TV: this policy will make potential migrants / asylum seekers reconsider if they want to come paraphrased in other words, they will be so terribly treated and they can expect the Trump admin to kidnap their children - so some may be so scared they do not even try. What Sessions choses to ignore is that those people already expose their cildren to hardship and danger. Either they are ignorant and lured by traffickers OR taking that risk is still better than staying where they are. The U.S. has played a major role in creating the conditions for that - for over 100 years. See Smedley Butlers: War is a racket. He makes a list in how many countries he was acting as a gangster for capitalism, the majority was in Latin America. you can search for the quote.
    1
  87. 1
  88. 1
  89. 1
  90. 1
  91. 1
  92. 1
  93. 1
  94. 1
  95. Not a PEEP about GLOBAL WARMING. Prof.. Mann had something to say about Harvey last year - interview with Democracy Now. Yes, hurricanes were always around. But now they are bound to get STRONGER and STAY longer, hurricanes on average last 28 hours when they hit land in the South of the U.S. They get weaker as they move on over land. Reason for that, they lose connection to the ocean that fuels them. Well Harvey stayed stationary for 60 hours pouring down on the Houston area. Last year and this September the ocean water was unusually warm, it feeds the systems more than usual. so they are not cut off anymore, they rotate on the spot, there is so much more vapor = more temperature, more energy, more vapor, more energy for the wealther system. the Jet streams (currents in the atmosphere) move the weathersystems (all of them high or low pressure) from the West to the East (in the Northern hemisphere, not sure about the other side of the globe the direction might be in the other direction. But there are much more people living in the Northern hemisphere). the Jet streams are sustained/caused by distinctive temperature difference between the poles and the rest of the globe. Since the Arctic is warming (the waters, that is a HUGE reservoir of heat !!) that difference is less pronounced. Therefore the Jet steams get weaker and their effect to move on ANY weather gets weaker. That is the reason for the extensive dry weather in Europe. That effect - weaker Jet streams and how it changes weather patterns - was predicted by models and fits well with the models. The costs of global warming and the climate change it cause begin to manifest. 1 cent in prevention saves 1 dollar in damage control. Wouldn't that be a very conservative point of view ?? The 1980s would have been an excellent time to start with that. That would be almost 40 years to change our infrastructure and the way we deal with energy needs.
    1
  96. 1
  97. 1
  98. 1
  99. 1
  100. 1
  101. 1
  102. 1
  103. 1
  104. 1
  105. 1
  106. 1
  107. 1
  108. 1
  109. 1
  110. I currently live in Austria, 8,5 million people, largest city is Vienna with 1 million people. Winter tourism, cases from neighbour Italy in February (it started in the touristic regions, and those often international tourists spread it also to Germany, Switzerland, Netherlands, even Iceland - but Iceland tested the retuning persons at the airport and busted the then negligent Austrian government that was still in denial about the need to cut off the end of the winter season, which is important in parts of the country). Politicians nervously eying Italy in the second half of February. (they did not want to lock down the economy, or even restrict tourism). We now know that retail prepred just in case, they stocked up food. They should have jacked up mask and PPE production (or import) and testing like Taiwan and South Korea did in January and February, those nations had an A+ response. End of February /early March it got scary in Italy, and cases popped up (were noted) in other countries. Then things moved fast, around mid of March 60 % of the population of the EU were in lockdown, phase 1. Gradual reopening between April and late June, while they built the capacity to test (one of the most important tools to control spread) and got experience how to deal with flare ups (How much action is necessary. quarantines ? How much contact testing ?). Last phase: opening for tourism from most European and many other countries. Mid June / early July. but not from the U.S.: the tourists and the business travelers are missed - but they cannot risk upending the delicate balance with importing cases from the U.S. It is tricky enough as is. They maintain the fragile balance (all over Europe), but the governments in Europe watch it like hawks. And they need to. In Austria: Flare ups here and there and sometimes you wonder, why the heck they could even happen. Despite all the precautions. Low case numbers and reproduction rate slightly under or above 1. But every phase of reopening saw a small "surge" of cases, so vigilance and determined action was necessary whenever they risked a little more.
    1
  111. It is like a wildfire during a heat wave, you gotta find the embers or the little fires. and put them out. There is no such thing as Raging Wildfire Lite. The growth rate is so high (thanks to the sneaky way of spread) - you either put in the effort to nip it in the bud, or you have to live with the big fire and its consequences. Like in China where the military locked down Wuhan. Like in Italy where doctors got the letters how to apply the rules of triage: Who would not even get treatment (in intense care) and would not have a fighting chance. Italy was within 2 - 3 days of applying the rules of Triage in the most hit RICH Northern part of the country. The rules like they apply in a field hospital when overwhelmed with cases from combat. You bet that scared the neighbour countries into action. I currently live in Austria, 8,5 million people, largest city Vienna with 1 million people. Winter tourism, cases from neighbour Italy in February (it started in the touristic regions, and those often international tourists spread it to Germany, Switzerland, Netherlands, even Iceland - but Iceland tested at the airport and busted the then negligent Austrian government that was still in denial about cutting off the end of the winter season). Politicians nervously eying Italy in the second half of February. (they did not want to lock down the economy, or even restrict tourism). We now know that retail prepred just in case, they stocked up food. They should have jacked up mask production and testing like Taiwan and South Korea did in January and February, they had an A+ response. End of February /early March it got scary in Italy, and cases popped up (were noted) in other countries. Then things moved fast, around mid of March 60 % of the population of the EU were in lockdown, phase 1. Gradual reopening between April and late June, while they built the capacity to test (one of the most important tools to control spread) and got experience how to deal with flare ups (How much or little is necessary). Last phase: opening for tourism from most European and many other countries. Mid June / early July. but not from the U.S.: the tourists and the business travelers are missed - but they cannot risk upending the delicate balance with importing cases from the U.S. it is already tricky. They maintain the fragile balance (all over Europe), but the governments in Europe watch it like hawks. And they need to. In Austria: Flare ups here and there and sometimes you wonder, why the heck they could even happen. Despite all the precautions. Low case numbers and reproduction rate slightly under or above 1. But every phase of reopening saw a small "surge" of cases, so vigilance and determined action was necessary whenever they risked a little more.
    1
  112. They loosened the mask mandate - and reintroduced it because of numbers going up. Numbers were still in the area where they could control it. But as we know that can change quickly. Trump was right on the campaign trail, in February / or early March. There were only 50 known ! cases in the U.S. Even if you multiply with 100 (for all that were not identified) - that is nothing compared to 330 million people in the U.S. Well if the mode of transmission is sneaky (people can spread it before they know they are spreaders, many have no or not many symptoms) and if it is fairly contagious - you can grow from an ember to a wildfire. FAST. There were not many known cases in Feburary either - and then it went out of hand. Well almost, with warning example of neighbour Italy no one took any chances. The masks are likely not worn correctly by many members of the public even if they are willing. (good fit of the mask and worn without gaps and a fairly tight fit. No gaps. but if the mandate can shave off only 10 % of the cases - it is a small LOW COST sacrifice to make. It is not like we have that many tools in the toolbox. And mask wearing and no nightclubs and parties are measures that do little damage to the economy as a whole. The reopening of the colleges migt have worked in China or Taiwan, where there is more sense of community and the rules are also enforced (which is not necessary to the degree as in the U.S. because social pressure nudges people into being "responsible"). But if they do clubbings while the suging case numbers are discussed in the news .... The young people assume they will survive. Well, most will, some with permanent damage. And they do not care about the staff, vulnerable family members of staff, students and staff with preexisting conditions, people they interact with (think shopping) .....
    1
  113. 1
  114. 1
  115. 1
  116. 1
  117. 1
  118. 1
  119. 1
  120. 1
  121. 1
  122. 1
  123. 1
  124. 1
  125. 1
  126. 1
  127. 1
  128. 1
  129.  geeksquad smarty  we disagree what is a HUMAN = being someone with personhood with the protection of the law. Tell me how a fetus 3 or 4 months into the pregnancy has personhood. Or why something that starts to ressemble a heart ! at 6 weeks would change anything and be a threshold for a law (as compared to the time when egg and sperm merge, or when the zygote attaches itself on the placenta). A fetus 3 - 4 months into pregnancy is so immature that they do not feel pain - and cannot live outside the womb. - you are of course free to have the spiritually or religiously informed sentiment / opinion that personhood can be already attributed. Then don't have an abortion and do not perform them. That however is not the basis for the law, for your entitlement to tell other people how to make their personal decisions about a great personal responsibility and something that could upturn their life. When happy expecting parents tell friends and family: We are pregant, everyone goes along with talking about the baby. Taking some medical liberties. The underlying picture is always of a cuddly washed rosy maturely born infant. Not what the fetus looks like or what the stage of development is with 12 weeks.  Usually women only announce to a wider circle after the most precarious stage of pregnancy - the first trimester - is over. If they want a child and she could hold on to the pregnancy for 3 months - chances are much better that soon - in at least 4 more months time * _ she has a viable baby. So that is not very long and no one splits hairs. You share the joy and may be in awe of the miracle of life and the bonds of family and how the family will go on even when they are gone (grandparents have often that feeling). * when a baby is born premature, from 7 months on chances get much better, before it is intense care, many dying and the risk that the treatment will have harmful side effects. One can be in awe of the wonder of life and how genetics work (a lot of the potential human is determined the moment sperm cell and egg merge) - and still recognize that it is NOT YET a person but a (celebrated) potential - and that families must be free to decide whether or not they want to bring another child into the world. Whether or not that is the right time with the right partner. Whether or not they want to make the sacrifices if the child is not healthy (and impose that burden also onto the already born children. It is well known how much strain that can put on a couple or the other siblings, when the energey and resources are drained to care for a chronically ill or disabled child. That is often fate - but if the unborn fetus does not yet have personhood it is a DECISION.
    1
  130. 1:40 Why not wait to contact the school before sending out a tweet that got viral (the mother and politician being criticial of the school micromanaging the appearance of African American teenagers) ? Maybe because the school DID have time to THINK IT THROUGH through before they published their WRITTEN rules (in print more likely). Usually things that are WRITTEN DOWN have a tendency to trigger more thought - written down has just more weight than being said off your cuff. Wasn't there ONE person with some common sense, that said: "Let's wait a minute, maybe we are overstepping boundaries in our zeal and pursuit of a reasonable and appropriate !! dress code. Because this feels like an attack on African American culture and typical appearance of African Americans. And while we are at it - let's check the correct terms for hairstyles that are obviously foreign to us before we make fools of ourselves. " Cornrolls ? really ? This almost has a vibe as if bigotted, prejudiced, anti-freedom, uptight, conservative white - and last but not least - FOOLISH people were attacking African American culture under a pretext. Making them fall in line with white conservative ideas about "appearance". [Which of course it was.] Cornrows were not allowed. Well, you could call that "hair well put together". Much more than wearing it open. And WHY would two coloured hair be forbidden ? It doesn't even have a sexual connotation. Can't they handle more than one color on a head ?? The Saudis and Iranians do have a point it seems when they force their womansfolk to wear their heads and hair covered. (I am not a fan of young teenagers getting hair colorations or permanents, for health reasons, and I do not think it is good for the hair structure as well. That said: I do not think these were the "concerns" of the school for the ban, and it still applies to young adults/older teenagers 17 and 18 years old.
    1
  131. 1
  132. 1
  133. 1
  134. 1
  135. 1
  136. 1
  137. 1
  138. 1
  139. 1
  140. 4 of 5 Capitalism is good at 2 things: produce a multitude of things (many very frviolous and some very useful) and make a few people rich. The "elites" in China (and Russia) were of course "more equal" than their fellow citizens, but they had relativ little privileges compared with the ruling or the upper class in the West. And it was not allowed to parade your modest wealth (better food, clothes, cars, vacations) around. - They figured out if they just threw the ideology out of the window they were in an excellent position to profit very much from the new rules in the economy. And even more when they opted for the SWEATSHOP / pollute the environment model . And of course not allowing unions. Manchester capitalism. The ruling class in China would have won anyway (the business owners were doing well in the West or in Japan in the era of the Economic Mircale after WW2 despite the good wages they had to pay then). With the Sweathshop model however, it was much more lucrative. Western corporations saw the chance for a RACE to the BOTTOM and to pit the DOMESTIC workforce against people in poor countris or dictarships w/o labour protections (like China). And it also offered a chance take away (some) consumer protections for the citizens at home (that cost them some profit). Such walls are not used in Europe btw - they STILL have much stricter consumer protection. And consumer protection agencies that are not as neutered as in the U.S. And a media that reports on such things. Far from "free" and "neutral" - but still better in the U.S. (and occasionally useful and truthful). The Western politicians working for Big Biz fell over themselves to make the rules and "free" "trade" deals that supported and promoted the sweatshop economy (glozbalization). The model REQUIRES China to EXPORT a lot (even though it is such a huge market, and many Chinese citzens would like to buy more). Well if people do not get good wages, then they do not have disposable income. It was important that the sweatshop produced stuff could be dumped at the shops of the wealthy countries without any restriction (tariffs, quotas) and those deals took care of that.
    1
  141. 1
  142. 1
  143. 1
  144. 1
  145. 1
  146. 1
  147. 1
  148. 1
  149. 1
  150. 1
  151. 1
  152. 1
  153. 1
  154. 1
  155. 1
  156. 1
  157. 1
  158. 1
  159. It is wrong to shame other people for their cheap clothes. so let's lure ! other kids into shaming the shamer (for clothes that likely stand out much more than what the first bullied girl wore). Kids usually are thoughtless (not inherently mean) when they bully, they react to a kid being "different" and the very vintage clothes that the stepmother tricked the little fashionista into choosing, of course triggered that much more than "normal" second hand clothes. I guess she was ridiculed by kids that left the first kid alone. Those kids being triggered into misbehaving like she had misbehaved was needed for the "creative punishment". Isn't bullyying supposed to be wrong. Period ? It was one way to teach her empathy resp. make her rethink what she did, but I think she was not hard to correct to begin with.. By letting her chose not some vintage closthes but making her pick what she thought were the most ugliest clothes the step mom tricked her. So what if a child comes to that school that HAS to wear that kind of clothes (evangelical family, one of the dresses looked cute btw). Because a few kids that had no strong opinion on vintage clothes so far, had been triggered into making that into something negative - so the fashionista / bully would get her creative punishment. The lesson was that it was also shameful for HER to wear old fashioned / vintage clothes. In that way the creative parents enticed ! other immature kids to show bullying behavior. (If everyone had been super accepting - after all she even rocked that style, it would not have been a punishment at all. The lesson to be learned depended on other kids being lured into shaming her. If the girl had showed up and told her peers that she was on a "I can rock the vintage look" challenge she might have started a trend. The punishment would not have worked either.
    1
  160. The girl is a little young to self-identify as "fashionista" WHO supported that whim, also with buying her a LOT of clothes ?? She did not sew and design her clothes and did not earn the money to buy them. I assume she even needs to be driven to the mall to pick them and cannot have her own Amazon account. She clearly was thoughtless about the privilege of her wardrobe budget and her good looks. THAT would have been an issue that needed addressing, too (plus the lack of empathy) - and it does not reflect well on her parents that obviously spoiled her with spending a lot on her clothes. Her joy to dress up (she is a little young to call herself a "fashionista"), lead to her having false pride in things that are not achievements (she may have good taste and a knack for combining her outfits, but for the most part she did nothing for being fashionable and looking good, she is just lucky. Enjoying shopping is not an achievement, for most pope it is a hobby). Plus she gave her ego a boost by shaming others that RECEIVE not as much as she does. Another possible reaction (If only her sense of fashion would have been offended) would have been to make friends and go shopping in thrift stores to see if she can find cute outfits for a girl with a much smaller allowance for clothes). The girl likely was looking O.K. anyway (these days people buy and quickly discard so many garments, that even thrifts store bought looks nice and new). But you are not going to find the expensive brands. No status wins with second hand, only "normal" So the parents have not done their job either.
    1
  161. 1
  162. Just about 55 years ago the Democrats of the SOUTH were incensed that the other Democrats spoiled the segregation and voter suppression in the former slavery states. The Republican party devloped the Southern Strategy and welcomed those racist Dixiecrats with open arms. - until then both parties had their equal share of racists - but then the Republican party started to specialize in racism and attracted more of them. They were always the party of the haves and biz. Hard to get enough votes that way. So they started specializing in issues to rile up the base around fringe issues: abortion, guns (that was carefully crafted), evangelicals - and of course racism - in later years as dog whistle. All issues that do not cost the big donors (that become even more important when in 1978 the Supreme Court decided that money = free speech). The Dems also serve the big Donors and they also use abortion, gun violence etc. to get out the vote. That said: those fools in Alabama, Ohio etc. just overdid it. THAT will get out the vote in 2020 and it will activate non-voters (YOUNG people). Republicans back in the day (the 1970s) were often for making abortion possible in the early stage (the first 3 months) and with restrictions later - even if they were against it in their personal life. the reason ?- they TOO knew about the horrible stories when women died (or almost died) of backalley abortions. Even Republican politicians had come across such stories and were influenced by it. It is different when you watch the girlfriend of a friend bleed to death. Also see dailykos Her Name was Susan, read also the comments ! I remember one comment: I worked in a bloodbank before Row versus Wade: when there was another case of an abortion gone wrong, they would often empty out the bloodbank. You could only hope there would not be a major car accident.
    1
  163. 1
  164. 1
  165. 1
  166. 1
  167. 1
  168. 1
  169. 1
  170. 1
  171. 1
  172. 1
  173. 1
  174.  @imbubbajones  I just googled the child support case. The courts were needed, and the settlement was in March 2020. From a Fox article: Biden met Roberts in 2016 at a strip club where she worked in Washington, D.C.Their baby was reportedly born in August 2018, and DNA testing has confirmed Biden is the father. [Brother Beau died in 2015 I think, so the grieving process, the widow and her brother in law getting closer if we assume that started only after the death of Beau must have been in 2016 or early 2017. The separation of Hunter from his wife and the 3 children ... he could fit that all into the time between 2015 and 2017. AND he also started the affair in 2016 and must have met her in late 2017, as well - then he fathered a baby born in August 2018. And fathered another baby with his current wife, I guess that is the widow of his late brother. Does he realize there is this thing called condomes ?? He does not seem very considerate of the reputation of his father. Joe Biden considered running for president in 2019/2020 in the years before (never mind that he publicly declared to be indecisive), but even if not, he was still the VP when Beau started the relationship with the stripper. Beau died in 2015, and VP Biden left office in January 2017 - so very likely Beau also had started the romatic / sexual relationship with his sister in law before his father left office] More from the article. Biden, 50, and the woman, Lunden Roberts, notified Independence County, Arkansas, Judge Holly Meyer of the development on Wednesday, with Roberts’ attorney writing that they had reached the agreement “late last night.” The last-minute agreement was reached just hours before Biden was supposed to be at an office in Little Rock, Arkansas, to answer questions under oath pertaining to his finances. Biden’s attorney had previously said his client would not be available for a deposition until April, but the judge mandated his appearance. Even up until the 11th hour – on Tuesday afternoon – his attorney was attempting to postpone the deposition date. Most recently, he cited coronavirus concerns, wife Melissa Cohen Biden’s late-term pregnancy and media attention for reasons why he could not travel to Arkansas. He had previously agreed that Roberts should have primary custody of the toddler, and later conceded that he would pay child support once a month, and on the first of each month, different court papers released at the time show. But the designated child support amount was expected to change as the court was awaiting Biden’s financial information, which would potentially have included records related to his involvement in Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings.
    1
  175. Addiction is horrible - but considering the escapades of his son Beau one would expect the father to be a little more compassionate towards those who have also an addiction but no father to bail them out. Largely not with the money of the father but with throwing his political influence around. Back in the day then young Senator Joe Biden egged on Reagan to go harder with the War On Drugs. Weed is STILL a schedule one drug. The only other one is heroin. Under Nixon it was defined as very dangerous, no medical value, highly addictive. That also meant it was for decades almost impossible to do research. They even banned hemp (the fibre). Nixon and his croonies did that to have a tool to go after the war protesting hippies and the black community. Needless to say no Republican president was willing to end that nonsense. Whatever you think of weed, there is no way it is more dangerous than cocaine, meth etc. (all substances that are graded below heroin and marijuana). But also president Bill Clinton and Barak Obama that had experiences with weed (so they knew it was not that dangerous) could not be bothered to sign the Executive Order. Or to appoint a reasonable head for the FDA. Congress and Senate are NOT needed. Nor did Biden (a big fish in the Democratic party) ever show compassion for drug users, addicts, or the overly harsh penal code regarding selling and using weed (justified by that insane classification). That is still in the books. Not holding my breath that president Biden is going to change it. The Crime Bill was supposed to help Bill Clinton getting reelected: he had sold out the unions by signing NAFTA. Bush had signed it with the head of states of Canada and Mexico, but Congress did not pass it. It needed Democrats and Bill Clinton to sideline the unions and the voters. Clinton did not deliver for the unions, the ECONOMIC interests of working class people, they did not persevere with the promised healthcare reform. Republican grifters and the special interests behind big healthcare gave them a lot of grief - so they just dropped the project. They got something passed (maybe regarding Medicare and at least coverage for children). It was obviously an issue that seemed to be politically convenient, but not dear to their heart, and when it was not that easy to be "successful" and win political points with it - they just dropped it. The need to have healthcare organized in a fair and cost-efficient manner for the whole nation did not vanish because the Clintons (both) did not find it worth their effort anymore and completely dropped the issue after the very watered down bill was passed (they also never picked it up after leaving the White House). The Nixon admin changed that healthcare could be for profit (the insurers I am not sure about hospitals). Before the 1970s that was not legal. Having many insurers adds plenty of red tape and no value - but the most toxic incentives were banned by the mandate to handle it by non-profits. It only took 20 years of for profit healthcare (insurance) and they gave the American voters enough trouble that Bill Clinton would make it a central issue of his 1992 campaign. Unions and black voters were instrumental to get Bill Clinton elected in 1992, but it was questionable they would come out for him again in 1996. So he (and Hillary) did some law and order grandstanding and Senator Joe Biden was instrumental to getting the Crime Bill passed. With even harsher death sentences and for more types of crimes (also for drug dealers). Biden proudly announced his new nickname the "Grim Reaper". The Crime Bill also brought a lot of people (w/o influental daddy or money for good lawyers) for a long time into prison for non violent (drug) crimes. I do not know if Biden ever makes the mental jump from how his son was protected from the consequences of his addiction (he never had to burglar, daddy got him no show jobs) and the masses of normal folks with (minor) drug crimes, he helped to lock up. Even w/o compassion, if you count law enforcement and court costs ... Locking up one person can cost up to 80,000 USD per year. A lot of after school programs, vocational training and drug rehab could be financed with that money. A lot of threats for middle class citizens and their property could also be avoided.
    1
  176. 1
  177. 1
  178. 1
  179. 1