Political Randomness

[GreenGoo]

I'll just point out that differential equations, as a distinct subject, is typically a 2nd year course with the related increase in complexity over first year math. Diffy Q's are a little tougher than standard differentiation.

[Moliere]

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Scientific Studies

[Smoove_B]

AK man planned to hang 7 mayors over Common Core - seriously.

According to court documents, Bryan threatened to hang the mayors of Ashdown, Hope, De Queen, Lewisville, Nashville, Prescott and Murfreesboro from the “mighty oaks” on their courthouse lawns if they didn’t force local schools to replace the Common Core curriculum with the Bible.

...

Prosecutors stated that Bryan’s letter also demanded that the mayors no longer honor votes cast by anyone who is homosexual, Muslim, socialist, communist, atheist, or anyone who worships a God other than Jesus Christ.

I sure do hope he's able to vote in November.

[Defiant]

UK Labours got a problem

Over 50 members of the British Labour Party have been suspended over anti-Semitic and racist remarks over the last two months, the Telegraph reported on Monday, nearly 40 more than publicly admitted by the party.

Labour suspended up to 20 members in the last two weeks alone, according to the report, which cited an unnamed senior source within the party, who added that the suspensions made public were just the "tip of the iceberg."

[Unagi]

Could have just been my teacher (who was pretty bad).

+C

[Rip]

A while back, Edward Snowden blew the whistle on our National Security Agency. They're spying on all our digital devices, have been for years. Our privacy has vanished.

True enough, but the NSA is looking for terrorists and, unless I'm missing something, hasn't come after anyone who isn't one, at least not yet. Still, the agency is something to be concerned about, though somewhat less, I would imagine, than a repeat of San Bernardino, or Paris, or Brussels, etc., etc.

But if you're looking for something to really worry about, how about an equally large computer-based organization with the genuine power to invade our privacy, warp our minds and distort our culture that is actually in the process of doing it — Facebook?

In an educated society, that information should be of interest to all readers, not just conservatives. Nevertheless, this suppression is no revelation to those of us who write from the right side of the ledger. I have never seen my work or those of my colleagues in the "trending" section of Facebook, although our bylines appear frequently on RealClearPolitics (usually juxtaposed with a liberal on the same issue) and even on Yahoo's homepage. Facebook is exclusionary to the extent it even censors conservatives of the greatest popularity like Matt Drudge.

This is especially disturbing because Facebook feigns objectivity, yet it is no more objective than its owner Mark Zuckerberg, a progressive plutocrat whose views often make Bernie Sanders sound like Bob Dole. Drudge never feigned such objectivity. Anyone with the slightest interest knows he leans right with a libertarian tinge. Zuckerberg, who has more extensive online domination and aspires to still more, pretends to be merely an aggregator, when he is no such thing. He's a moral narcissist of extreme bias and a leading progenitor of a kind of burgeoning digital totalitarianism of self-regard, a new American Silicon Valley version of a Soviet nomenklatura. Whether the young editors of his "trending" section were working under his express orders (Facebook denies the charge) when they censored conservative writers is immaterial. They knew what they were supposed to do, where their bread, as the saying goes, was buttered.

But what does exist on Facebook on a personal level is considerably more destructive, for those same young especially. Particularly for young high school girls, but others as well, having one's private life, often radically misrepresented, recorded permanently online on someone's Facebook page represents an intrusion with more unfair and unfortunate lifetime ramifications than anything the NSA has done. We can only guess the truth about someone when their name comes up on a Google search. What a way for kids to start out in life. What a way for anyone. (I'm not including us online writers here — we made our digital beds and have to live with the brickbats.)

Fortunately, I'm informed many young people are on to the consequences of leaving a cyber trail of their lives or those of their friends for all to see until they're ninety. They're beginning to realize Zuckerberg hasn't done them any favors with his undergraduate invention and are starting to abjure Facebook and similar sites. Let's hope the trend continues and that they get their news elsewhere too. Facebook is double trouble.

https://pjmedia.com/diaryofamadvoter/20 ... epage=true

[GreenGoo]

You won't hear me defending social media.

That said, until Facebook has the power to arrest me, put me jail and leave me there for the rest of my life, facebook's level of threat will be significantly lower than any government agency looking where they shouldn't be.

Facebook denies the allegations, for whatever that's worth.

[Rip]

In Kerry's borderless world the only borders will be digital!

[LawBeefaroni]

Anyone who goes to Facebook looking for a meritocracy of ideas deserves what they get.

[gbasden]

Anyone who goes to Facebook looking for a meritocracy of ideas deserves what they get.

I've never actually gone to Facebook looking for news (although calling Breitbart news is more than a bit of a stretch). I'm a lot more likely to see links to news articles on Twitter. Facebook is for seeing what friends are up to.

[Rip]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNNDMCWHSQg

Donald Trump Is Right On US Debt says Peter Schiff.

[hepcat]

My friend with the doctorate in economics and I were discussing Trump's financial policies after I mentioned that Trump would just print money to repay our debts. His response:

He is right about being able to print money to repay the debt. We borrow in US dollars, so it is possible to simply print however much is needed to repay our creditors. Of course, that would cause inflation to soar to levels never before seen in the US. Also, the US dollar would plummet in value making imported items (such as oil) unbelievably expensive. To get rid of the inflation, the Fed would have to contract the money supply. This would raise interest rates, cause interest-sensitive consumption, investment in inventories and in physical capital, and new housing starts to decline sharply - causing a recession and, possibly, given the magnitude, a depression. And this doesn't even get into the future, higher borrowing costs due to inflating away our debt. Renegotiating the terms of the debt would be seen as a default as well. In both cases, our bond ratings would decline.

He's a stooge and I really doubt he understands the implications of what he suggests. For example, letting the states set the minimum wage? He doesn't seem to understand that employers are already obligated to pay the higher of the federal minimum wage or the state/local minimum wage. It appears he thinks that the federal rate somehow inhibits states from increasing their own rates.

What is sad is that so many people see him as credible. If he doesn't win in November, I will not be surprised to see others running for office in the future emulating him and, eventually, find themselves elected.

Schiff should've stayed in school.

[Isgrimnur]

Google bans payday lender advertising:

Google announced Wednesday that it will ban all payday loan ads from its site, bowing to concerns by advocates who say the lending practice exploits the poor and vulnerable by offering them immediate cash that must be paid back under sky-high interest rates.

The decision is the first time Google has announced a global ban on ads for a broad category of financial products. To this point, the search giant has prohibited ads for largely illicit activities such as selling guns, explosives and drugs, and limited those that are sexually explicit or graphic in nature, for example. Critics of payday lenders say they hope the move by Google and other tech companies might undercut the business which finds huge numbers of willing customers on the internet.

The move also shows the willingness of big tech companies to weigh in on critical policy issues -- and exert their power as the gateways for the internet. Facebook also does not display ads for payday loans. But others, such as Yahoo, still do.

Consumers will still be able to find payday lenders from a Google search. But the ads that appear on the top and right-hand side of a search results page will not show marketing from the payday lending industry beginning on July 13.
...
Washington regulators, as well as a handful of states, have been trying to limit the activities of payday lenders by capping how much they can charge consumers in an interest rate. But the decisions by tech giants Facebook and Google – the two biggest websites on the planet – might have as much impact as any single regulation in restricting access to payday lenders.

Industry officials, speaking generally of advertising restrictions placed on payday lenders, called the policies “discriminatory,” adding that some consumers may need access to the short-term loans if they can’t get credit them through a traditional bank.

[GreenGoo]

What's worse, is that despite many seeing this as hilariously entertaining, it's NOT entertainment.

When a presumptive candidate, 1 of 2 potential white house occupants suggests policies in public that undermine the US in so many ways, the WORLD pays attention. Just saying "the US should renegotiate it's obligations" makes for great bar room chatter. When you're about to enter a general election which might put you into a position to implement those policies, holy fucking shit.

Trump is messing with the US's credibility and he's not even president yet. Just saying stupid shit is no longer a fun sound bite to amuse the masses. It causes repercussions around the world as contingency planning kicks into overdrive as people try to minimize the damage of a US default (which would be catastrophic globally).

This guy is so unqualified for the job, he doesn't even understand what the job is. And you guys put him in a position to do this.

Maybe he's a genius and is using scare tactics so he can negotiate with America's debt owners from a position of putting a gun to the US's and by proxy, every debt holder's head. Someone should tell him the US is not Greece. Good luck with that.

[El Guapo]

What's worse, is that despite many seeing this as hilariously entertaining, it's NOT entertainment.

When a presumptive candidate, 1 of 2 potential white house occupants suggests policies in public that undermine the US in so many ways, the WORLD pays attention. Just saying "the US should renegotiate it's obligations" makes for great bar room chatter. When you're about to enter a general election which might put you into a position to implement those policies, holy fucking shit.

Trump is messing with the US's credibility and he's not even president yet. Just saying stupid shit is no longer a fun sound bite to amuse the masses. It causes repercussions around the world as contingency planning kicks into overdrive as people try to minimize the damage of a US default (which would be catastrophic globally).

This guy is so unqualified for the job, he doesn't even understand what the job is. And you guys put him in a position to do this.

Maybe he's a genius and is using scare tactics so he can negotiate with America's debt owners from a position of putting a gun to the US's and by proxy, every debt holder's head. Someone should tell him the US is not Greece. Good luck with that.

Trump's not alone in the GOP on this, unfortunately. There is no risk in the short or medium terms of the U.S. being unable to pay its debt. However, because the Republican majority in Congress (especially the House) keeps flirting with refusing to raise the debt ceiling (which, if not done, would prevent the government from making debt payments) as a way to get unrelated policy concessions, it has created a new (political) risk that the U.S. will default. That in turn raises the actual risk of holding U.S. debt, and led one of the major rating agencies to partially downgrade U.S. debt offerings.

That's an area where Cruz (and his type) are just as bad as Trump, while being more respectable.

[noxiousdog]

There is a medium in there somewhere. You absolutely can print some money to pay debts, and, in fact, it's expects to the tune of 1-3% per year. You'll often hear that US Treasuries have a negative real rate of return in fact.

And that's why Greece and Spain are in such financial trouble. Since their debts are now based on the Euro, they have no flexibility to reach that happy medium.

[GreenGoo]

There is a medium in there somewhere. You absolutely can print some money to pay debts, and, in fact, it's expects to the tune of 1-3% per year. You'll often hear that US Treasuries have a negative real rate of return in fact.

And that's why Greece and Spain are in such financial trouble. Since their debts are now based on the Euro, they have no flexibility to reach that happy medium.

While I agree with your point, I think "happy medium" gives the impression that you're somewhere in the middle of printing gobs of money and printing no money, when the reality is printing a small amount each year, comparatively. I realize that this might just be me and my impression of the expression "happy medium", it just rubs me the wrong way.

The US is ALREADY printing money, and always has done (at least in modern times). The bailout of 2008/2009 has been hotly contentious, and that was mostly from the Republican side (to keep up appearances, as far as I can tell), but here we have people embracing Trump and he's suggesting worse? Trump is not talking about expanding this a little. He's talking paying off the debt with free money. And that's where financial Armageddon happens.

[AWS260]

Trump's not alone in the GOP on this, unfortunately. There is no risk in the short or medium terms of the U.S. being unable to pay its debt. However, because the Republican majority in Congress (especially the House) keeps flirting with refusing to raise the debt ceiling (which, if not done, would prevent the government from making debt payments) as a way to get unrelated policy concessions, it has created a new (political) risk that the U.S. will default. That in turn raises the actual risk of holding U.S. debt, and led one of the major rating agencies to partially downgrade U.S. debt offerings.

That's an area where Cruz (and his type) are just as bad as Trump, while being more respectable.

We've missed debt payments before. It was expensive.

In 1979, for example, what the government described as “bookkeeping problems” temporarily delayed $120 million in interest payments. In the aftermath of the delay, investors pushed up interest rates on Treasuries by about 0.6 percentage point, according to a 1989 study by Terry L. Zivney of the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, and Richard D. Marcus of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. That cost taxpayers roughly $12 billion.

[El Guapo]

There is a medium in there somewhere. You absolutely can print some money to pay debts, and, in fact, it's expects to the tune of 1-3% per year. You'll often hear that US Treasuries have a negative real rate of return in fact.

And that's why Greece and Spain are in such financial trouble. Since their debts are now based on the Euro, they have no flexibility to reach that happy medium.

While I agree with your point, I think "happy medium" gives the impression that you're somewhere in the middle of printing gobs of money and printing no money, when the reality is printing a small amount each year, comparatively. I realize that this might just be me and my impression of the expression "happy medium", it just rubs me the wrong way.

The US is ALREADY printing money, and always has done (at least in modern times). The bailout of 2008/2009 has been hotly contentious, and that was mostly from the Republican side (to keep up appearances, as far as I can tell), but here we have people embracing Trump and he's suggesting worse? Trump is not talking about expanding this a little. He's talking paying off the debt with free money. And that's where financial Armageddon happens.

FWIW the bailouts are contentious on the left as well, but for somewhat different reasons. They weren't super contentious at the time, but of course now looking back (removed from the great recession) people want the benefits without the drawbacks (they want an economy that hasn't collapsed into depression, but without the bailouts of the financial sector that were almost certainly required to at least some degree).

[Rip]

The issue you are all missing is that any real growth will result in higher interest rates which will make the debt unserviceable and take back whatever gains the economy can make and then some. The only real hope of not defaulting is to keep the economy in the tank so that rates stay bottomed out.

We have placed ourselves in a position where we can't afford to be successful.

If we could ever get a nice 5% plus growth again for several years in a row it would ruin us.

[noxiousdog]

The issue you are all missing is that any real growth will result in higher interest rates which will make the debt unserviceable and take back whatever gains the economy can make and then some. The only real hope of not defaulting is to keep the economy in the tank so that rates stay bottomed out.

We have placed ourselves in a position where we can't afford to be successful.

If we could ever get a nice 5% plus growth again for several years in a row it would ruin us.

You don't know what you're talking about. Every single premise you made there is wrong.

[Pyperkub]

A while back, Edward Snowden blew the whistle on our National Security Agency. They're spying on all our digital devices, have been for years. Our privacy has vanished.

True enough, but the NSA is looking for terrorists and, unless I'm missing something, hasn't come after anyone who isn't one, at least not yet. Still, the agency is something to be concerned about, though somewhat less, I would imagine, than a repeat of San Bernardino, or Paris, or Brussels, etc., etc.

But if you're looking for something to really worry about, how about an equally large computer-based organization with the genuine power to invade our privacy, warp our minds and distort our culture that is actually in the process of doing it — Facebook?

In an educated society, that information should be of interest to all readers, not just conservatives. Nevertheless, this suppression is no revelation to those of us who write from the right side of the ledger. I have never seen my work or those of my colleagues in the "trending" section of Facebook, although our bylines appear frequently on RealClearPolitics (usually juxtaposed with a liberal on the same issue) and even on Yahoo's homepage. Facebook is exclusionary to the extent it even censors conservatives of the greatest popularity like Matt Drudge.

This is especially disturbing because Facebook feigns objectivity, yet it is no more objective than its owner Mark Zuckerberg, a progressive plutocrat whose views often make Bernie Sanders sound like Bob Dole. Drudge never feigned such objectivity. Anyone with the slightest interest knows he leans right with a libertarian tinge. Zuckerberg, who has more extensive online domination and aspires to still more, pretends to be merely an aggregator, when he is no such thing. He's a moral narcissist of extreme bias and a leading progenitor of a kind of burgeoning digital totalitarianism of self-regard, a new American Silicon Valley version of a Soviet nomenklatura. Whether the young editors of his "trending" section were working under his express orders (Facebook denies the charge) when they censored conservative writers is immaterial. They knew what they were supposed to do, where their bread, as the saying goes, was buttered.

But what does exist on Facebook on a personal level is considerably more destructive, for those same young especially. Particularly for young high school girls, but others as well, having one's private life, often radically misrepresented, recorded permanently online on someone's Facebook page represents an intrusion with more unfair and unfortunate lifetime ramifications than anything the NSA has done. We can only guess the truth about someone when their name comes up on a Google search. What a way for kids to start out in life. What a way for anyone. (I'm not including us online writers here — we made our digital beds and have to live with the brickbats.)

Fortunately, I'm informed many young people are on to the consequences of leaving a cyber trail of their lives or those of their friends for all to see until they're ninety. They're beginning to realize Zuckerberg hasn't done them any favors with his undergraduate invention and are starting to abjure Facebook and similar sites. Let's hope the trend continues and that they get their news elsewhere too. Facebook is double trouble.

https://pjmedia.com/diaryofamadvoter/20 ... epage=true

Until fox news, rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity have to present liberal news with equal weight this is a non issue. Facebook is a private company and under current law can do whatever the hell they want to.

[Moliere]

Student Asks Obama About Cynicism
Worth the 10 min.

[hepcat]

I was listening to the WTF podcast with Obama as the guest. Say what you will about the man, there's no denying his intelligence and dedication to what he thinks is right.

[Holman]

I'm really looking forward to reading Obama's memoirs.

[Rip]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... es-on.html

The congressman laments that politics has become a matter of picking a team by the jerseys they wear rather than looking at the players underneath.
'Things are so partisan today most folks vote the straight party line, even though they don't know s*** about who they're voting for. They just don't want the other guys to win,' he explains.
And he seemingly takes a shot at the Bill and Hillary Clinton Foundation, noting how family philanthropies can be the beneficiaries of what amounts to bribes in exchange for legislative favors.
'Some contributions are subtle,' he explains. 'Donations to a member's nonprofit foundation. Funding a member's charitable pet project. Offsetting the costs of a member's portrait to adorn the committee room he or she has so faithfully served.'
'It's all a bunch of bulls*** to get around gift bans and limits on campaign contributions. Where there's a will, there's a way.'

[Fitzy]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... es-on.html

The congressman laments that politics has become a matter of picking a team by the jerseys they wear rather than looking at the players underneath.
'Things are so partisan today most folks vote the straight party line, even though they don't know s*** about who they're voting for. They just don't want the other guys to win,' he explains.
And he seemingly takes a shot at the Bill and Hillary Clinton Foundation, noting how family philanthropies can be the beneficiaries of what amounts to bribes in exchange for legislative favors.
'Some contributions are subtle,' he explains. 'Donations to a member's nonprofit foundation. Funding a member's charitable pet project. Offsetting the costs of a member's portrait to adorn the committee room he or she has so faithfully served.'
'It's all a bunch of bulls*** to get around gift bans and limits on campaign contributions. Where there's a will, there's a way.'

Oh My God. Hearsay from an anonymous source in a self printed book! THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING!!!

[Holman]

No doubt Donald Trump will bring the ethics and transparency needed to end the scourge of influence in politics.

[tjg_marantz]

Only an idiot would believe that... Right?

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[Rip]

Only an idiot would believe they need to tell me what device and application they were posting from... Right?

[tjg_marantz]

Aww, don't worry snowflake. It'll all work out.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[Zarathud]

I'll worry when he posts 100 Trump signs in his lawn under each post.

[Isgrimnur]

Texas

In a new, four-minute video released by his campaign the day before he’s set to appear in court in Dallas, embattled Attorney General Ken Paxton defends himself against “crimes I didn’t commit” and says he’s been wrongly accused by people mad that he’s a “conservative Christian.”

He also ties the charges to raw feelings from his election, saying a key witness against him is one of his political adversaries, and suggesting some are still upset a “moderate” didn’t win the race.

Since last summer, Paxton has been facing criminal proceedings. He is accused of soliciting investors for a technology firm without disclosing that the company was compensating him. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed its own civil charges against Paxton in April.

[Isgrimnur]

I'm guessing this is more political than not.

Iran detains 10 US sailors after vessels stopped in the Gulf

Commander fired

The Navy has fired the commander of the 10 American sailors who wandered into Iranian territorial waters in the Persian Gulf and were captured and held by Iran for about 15 hours.

A Navy official says the Navy lost confidence in Commander Eric Rasch, who was the executive officer of the squadron that included the 10 sailors at the time of the Iran incident. He was responsible for the training and readiness of the 400-plus sailors in the unit.

The official says Rasch failed to provide effective leadership, leading to a lack of oversight, complacency and failure to maintain standards in the unit. Rasch has been relieved of his command duties and reassigned.

[Smoove_B]

While he didn't explicitly mention him by name, the reference was crystal clear:

"In politics and in life, ignorance is not a virtue," he told the more than 12,000 graduates in New Brunswick, New Jersey. "It's not cool to not know what you're talking about. That's not keeping it real or telling it like it is. That's not challenging political correctness. That's just not knowing what you're talking about. And yet we've become confused about this."

...

"Isolating or disparaging Muslims, suggesting that they should be treated differently when it comes to entering this country, that is not just a betrayal of our values. That's not just a betrayal of who we are -- it would alienate the very communities at home and abroad who are our most important partners in the fight against extremism," the President said.

It was a good speech; I'd recommend it. Although it was entirely worth it to hear him bring up the Taylor Ham vs pork roll debate...and reference a fat sandwich.

[Rip]

While he didn't explicitly mention him by name, the reference was crystal clear:

"In politics and in life, ignorance is not a virtue," he told the more than 12,000 graduates in New Brunswick, New Jersey. "It's not cool to not know what you're talking about. That's not keeping it real or telling it like it is. That's not challenging political correctness. That's just not knowing what you're talking about. And yet we've become confused about this."

...

"Isolating or disparaging Muslims, suggesting that they should be treated differently when it comes to entering this country, that is not just a betrayal of our values. That's not just a betrayal of who we are -- it would alienate the very communities at home and abroad who are our most important partners in the fight against extremism," the President said.

It was a good speech; I'd recommend it. Although it was entirely worth it to hear him bring up the Taylor Ham vs pork roll debate...and reference a fat sandwich.

I thought he was referring to his wife's ignorance of the fact he was drilling interns?

[hepcat]

You're confusing your presidents again. The speech was given by Obama, not Clinton.

[Pyperkub]

One of the things that annoys me so much about the US political sphere nowadays is how liberals and conservatives seem to talk past each other on their pet issues. This is strikingly obvious when I go to my favorite "all the opinion porn" you can shake a stick at site - memeorandum.

Today's example is the CIA's process of "mistakenly"? deleting their only copy and the backups of the CIA Torture Report(which a judge has mandated be kept):



What gets me is how there is only 1 blog I would consider conservative talking about it. This is the kind of thing that should appeal to all of the people who have their hair on fire about indicting Hillary about her email server, but because of partisanship and partisan tribalism/hackery gets swept under the rug.

[hepcat]

Overheard in the office a few minutes ago from one of my hardcore right wing, Trump supporting coworkers who continually tries to convince me that they're not racist...

<discussing gun violence on the south side>

"It's hard not to be racist."

"We should round them all up and just shoot 'em."

"We don't have this problem outside black neighborhoods. What does that tell you?"

...this is why I avoid all discussions of anything beyond the weather with this person. The sad thing is that the coworker who got dragged into the discussion has an adopted daughter who is African American. And he STILL didn't stop the other one from saying all of the above. He even agreed a few times.

p.s. If you have to preface any discussion about violence of any form with the words "I'm not racist...but", I've got news for you: you're racist.

[LordMortis]

I don't give Obama and his administration props very often. I don't generally think he deserves them, but props to Obama and his administration!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/oba ... 9cb0442db9

The Labor Department announced Tuesday that it completed one of the most ambitious economic reforms of the Obama era, finalizing a new rule that will extend overtime protections to millions of additional workers.

The administration will accomplish that by raising what’s known as the overtime salary threshold. Nearly all workers earning salaries beneath that threshold are entitled to time-and-a-half pay whenever they work more than 40 hours in a week.

The current threshold is just $23,660. The White House will be doubling that number, to $47,476, guaranteeing overtime rights for salaried workers earning less than that. The Labor Department will now update the threshold every three years to make sure it keeps pace with inflation.

Lord knows it wasn't that long ago, just a few years, really, that I could have benefited from this.

Free labor from people who don't make living wage should be puppies in the US. Honestly, I think it could have been higher, like $65k before there's wiggle room to determine if you should be able to negotiate your free labor in exchange for a certain standard of living.