Link Roundup, 6/18/2016

From NOAA: Antarctic passes new threshold in carbon concentration.

From the Texas Tribune: New Federal rules may finally curb payday loan abuses in Texas.

From CityLab: How immigration is changing Western Europe.

From Digg: A reminder that nature is trying to kill you.

From Barry Ritholtz: What is really destroying the coal industry.

Chris Ladd is a Texan living in the Chicago area. He has been involved in grassroots Republican politics for most of his life. He was a Republican precinct committeeman in suburban Chicago until he resigned from the party and his position after the 2016 Republican Convention. He can be reached at gopliferchicago at gmail dot com.

Posted in Uncategorized
95 comments on “Link Roundup, 6/18/2016
  1. Turtles Run says:

    dolores

  2. Turtles Run says:

    This is RED

  3. Turtles Run says:

    This is Blue

  4. fiftyohm says:

    The decision by the United States Department of Justice to redact the 911 transcripts from the Orlando shooting, removing references to religion, Islam, and ISIS, must be seen by all fair-minded observers as utterly appalling.

    War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, and all that. Disgusting, really. I’ll make up my own damn mind, thank you very much, assholes.

    • 1mime says:

      I agree, Fifty. Full light of day on things like this. Either don’t release the tapes or release them in full.

      • fiftyohm says:

        I am really glad to hear you say that, mime. Thank you. We can talk of the likely motivations for this action later. Right now, I’m too angry.

      • flypusher says:

        That goes to my point below about trying to make this a single issue (gun control vs terrorism) rather than the complex intersection of multiple issues.

        I concur on the redaction. Bad, bad call. While I can understand not wanting a backlash against American Muslims, you’re just clamping down on a pot of boiling water here. Lift the lid.

    • johngalt says:

      I’m not sure I completely agree with you on this, 50. It was clear from what was released that he pledged allegiance to ISIS and that he spoke partly in Arabic with obviously Islamic references. This does not sound like an attempt to cover up the motivations. It is, however, an active investigation and the DOJ may be trying to protect information. Sure, this is speculation, but I’m willing to give the FBI the benefit of the doubt at this time.

      Of course, I wonder why 911 calls are released at all. Using the excruciating audio of people at their worst moments for the prurient amusement of the populace is unseemly.

      • fiftyohm says:

        JG – At this time, the point is moot. Considering the redactions thouh, one is left wondering just what in the hell Justice was attempting to “protect” here. Thoughts on this?

        And I’m not a fan of releasing 911 calls, either. At issue here was a written transcript, which is a camel of an entirely different color.

      • flypusher says:

        “…one is left wondering just what in the hell Justice was attempting to “protect” here. Thoughts on this?”

        I’m suspecting (full disclosure-haven’t read the transcripts yet), that this is overcompensating for the conclusions that Trump jumped to last week.

      • fiftyohm says:

        FP – While Trump is guilty of many, many things, let’s not blame him for this one. Fact is we’ve not had a dimmer USAG since Ashcroft. No wait, Reno. Aw, forget it.

      • johngalt says:

        I don’t know, 50. Names of contacts? Information (even if wildly made up) of other plots? Personal information or slurs about victims? Leaked emails from the Clintons’ server? Redacting significant proportions of released material does look sketchy. I’d rather the DOJ just testily say that they’re in the middle of an investigation and they would release the transcripts when they were done with them.

      • 1mime says:

        I agree, JG, but it would have been better to start off that way. I think most people (except the media who is insatiable) would have accepted a statement that “we are still investigating the incident and will provide more information as we can.” PEriod.

      • fiftyohm says:

        No argument with your examples, JG, but that’s not what was redacted. What was redacted, and subsequently published, seemed to be so simply to cover, to hide, the ideological reasons, the religious connections with the crime. This sort of BS has got to stop.

        Anyone that thinks that “most Muslims” don’t want Sharia, that a literal, indeed extremely plausible of Islam, is not identical to what ISIS represents, that their cocktail party Muslim friends are representative, in any way, of hundreds of millions of the adherents to that belief system, and that belief system is somehow separate from the actions of its adherents, is so deluded, so disconnected to the reality of present day experience as to have nothing of value to offer the conversation. In fact, such people are a major impediment to the solution to the problem. I don’t know what the solution to the problem is. What I do know is that it has to come from within the religion. And it’s damn sure not going to come from denying that it lies elsewhere.

      • fiftyohm says:

        Sorry for the late-night ambiguity:. …” extremely plausible *version* of Islam”, and “from suggesting it lies elsewhere”.

    • Rob Ambrose says:

      Agreed.

  5. tuttabellamia says:

    In réponse to OV (aka Obj) and Texan on a previous thread, that some of these mass killers just want media attention . . . they say the Orlando shooter took the time to Google himself (Pulse, Orlando, shooting) during the standoff.

    • 1mime says:

      “He took time to google himself”…..while people he massacred were either dying, dead, or writhing in pain….. I’d say Mateem more than qualifies as a psychopath, which extends well beyond ego-gratification.

    • flypusher says:

      This incident is a true political Rorschach test. It’s about ISIS! No, it’s about homophobia! No, it’s about mental illness!! No, you’re all wrong, it’s about lax gun laws!!!

      Are there that many people so thinking-impaired that they can’t grok that this is a complicated mess of all those things and more??

      • 1mime says:

        When one lives in a reality of their own making ( Thank you FOX NEWS), what can you expect?

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Fly, I don’t think anyone here was implying that he did it only for the media attention.

      • flypusher says:

        That wasn’t my point. I’ve heard all the various things I’ve mentioned claimed by various people as THE REASON. It was very much linked to political agendas. I personally get annoyed when people try to dumb down complex situations, and that’s before politics gets into the mix. The way that guy you’d prefer to ignore (and I sympathize there!) used it was wrong. But anyone who wants to say it’s simply homophobia, and ignore other details is also wrong.

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        Fly, agreed. Which is why gun control is a legitimate reaction to things like this.

        “The reason” as a si gle, cut and dried motivation that can be placed neatly into a box.

        It’s likely there were elements from terror, elemnets from homophobia, elements from sexual frustration (assuming tjisbguy was, in fact, gay).

        But regardless ofbwhat “The Reason” is, there’s a bottleneck opportunity down at easy access to assault weapons. If we can clamp down on that, in some ways, it doesn’t matter what the actual reason upstream was.

  6. 1mime says:

    I give the Republican Party birthing rights for Donald Trump, but I hold the media responsible for making his ascent so easy. All the free coverage, reporting his every word, tweet, “press conferences” (that’s a joke) – the media is an equal accomplice to the GOPe for what we are witnessing. Just as leaders within the GOP are abdicating personal principles and responsibility (Paul Ryan – I’m talking about you.), so have media perpetuated and promoted a man whose ideas, rhetoric and actions they individually find repulsive, but cover in prime time because it “sells”.

    The GOP has been cultivating this for a long time. Here’s an interview with another one of the people on my short list of most repugnant people in the conservative movement. This is no accident. These people are cultivating the media and benefiting.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/off-message-transcript-joe-arpaio-224519

    • tuttabellamia says:

      I’ve grown tired of the topic of Trump. He may dominate the airwaves, but I will no longer allow his name, his likeness, or his words to take up any more of my brain space.

      I will just have to focus on an alternate reality.

      • 1mime says:

        If your alternate reality has to deal with a President Trump, he won’t be so easy to ignore……..

        (I understand your point and tune him out every chance I can, Tutta, fully recognizing that reality could still result in him being elected – as illogical and insane as that prospect would be.)

      • tuttabellamia says:

        I think the best way to handle it is to step back, take a breather, and accept Mr. Trump for what he is — just another person running for president, nothing more, nothing less. He’s not a martian, nor the anti-christ, nor the devil incarnate. He’s just a flesh and blood run-of-the-mill human being. Nothing particularly special or scary.

  7. Rob Ambrose says:

    Great article about the type of President Hillary would be.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/06/the_hillary_clinton_doctrine_what_orlando_reveals_about_her_approach_to.html

    This passage jumped out to me about her initial briefings as SoS:

    “During one of her first briefings on China as secretary of state, Clinton asked, to the surprise of everyone in the room, highly detailed questions about several dam projects that Beijing had begun—referring to them by name—and wanted to know how neighboring India was reacting to them. “She understood that water resources were a national-security issue in the region,” the briefer recalls.”

    Can you imagine Trump taking the initiative to properly prepare for such an important job? He’s running for Prez and he’s never heard of the nuclear triad, ffs. He has a 5th grade grasp of foreign affairs, and frankly thinks he already knows everything he needs too.

    Compare that to HRC. Whatever you think about her personality or politics, it is undeniable that she is incredibly competent, as evidenced by this exchange.

    How a supposedly “principled” Pual Ryan can support an intellectual midget who doesn’t even know what he doesn’t know for the freaking POTUS over someone as eminently qualified as HRC is beyond me. He must really, really, REALLY think cutting taxes on billionaires is important. Much more important then electing a mentally deficient narcissist to the top office in the world.

    • flypusher says:

      There are people who will support Trump for the sake of hoping to overturn Toe vs Wade. Never mind that getting that will never stop abortions. Never mind that more Justices like Alito will likely result in rulings that screw over the little guys and gals.

    • 1mime says:

      It’s simple, Rob. It has been “party over country” for a long time with the Republican Party. This not only justifies their actions, it creates the bubble within which they live.

  8. flypusher says:

    Another day, another article about a GOP coup:

    http://www.theweek.com/articles/630726/what-take-gop-dump-trump

    So here we see a possible line that shall not be crossed. Support things like torture or profiling and wasting $ on the Berlin Wall 2.0, and the GOPe response is meh. Say horrible racists things or imply that the President is in league with terrorists, and you get a stern finger wagged in your direction. But if you hint that you might not follow through on tax cuts for people who don’t need tax cuts, THEN it’s torches and pitchforks time????????

    Ryan, you sold your soul for less than nothing.

  9. Rob Ambrose says:

    As Joe Biden might say: this is a big f’ing deal.

    Imagine replacing the two most conservative justices? Oh baby.

    Goodbye CU, goodbye TRAP laws, hello assault weapons ban.

    http://www.rawstory.com/2016/06/justice-clarence-thomas-may-step-down-from-court-after-election-washington-examiner/

    • 1mime says:

      Regardless who wins the presidency, I still want Thomas to step down. He has been a very poor addition to the court. Godspeed.

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        I don’t want to sound “elitist” but he just doesn’t seem very….smart.

        And it’s not his politics. Scalias politics were even more repugnant to me, yet I will freely admit the man had a razor sharp intellect. Thomas just seems like the dumb kid in class, who knows hes dumb, and hes too afraid to open his mouth for fear everyone else will realize it too.

      • WX Wall says:

        Rob Ambrose,

        I beg to differ. Scalia was intellectually dishonest and lazy. The only people who thought he was “brilliant” were conservatives happy with the contortions he went through to pass judgements they liked. His whole theory of “originalism”, upon which his so-called brilliance rested, was an inconsistent set of policies (inconsistent in creation and in application) no more brilliant than every racist who ran around expounding about states’ rights in the civil rights era.

        To anyone who actually believes in the iron law of originalism, I ask: what part of the constitution allows the Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress? The answer, as anyone who passed high school civics will tell you, is nothing. No clause in the constitution, and no amendment thereafter. It was radical judicial activism in the form of the Marbury vs. Madison decision in which the Supreme Court granted itself that power. So much for the brilliance of originalism, a theory that should be grounds for failing any 1st year law student that holds it. (Also, which part of originalism allowed Scalia to overturn Florida’s state’s right to determine its own voting process in Bush v. Gore? And which constitutional right did Bush possess that such a law violated? But then, my mind must just be too weak to understand such brilliant deductions).

      • 1mime says:

        All fair observations, to which I add in its simplest form: Scalia abused the position of being a justice on the SC. He was openly partisan and privately partisan. As for how “brilliant” he was, that really isn’t as important as how fair he was. In that regard, even with my lack of legal training, he was a failure. I daresay that even in its truncated form, the SC appears to be deliberating in a more appropriate manner. About the only noteworthy thing I can say about Scalia is that he was successful in using his position to advance his personal agenda. It is also the attribute that cheapened his service on the court.

      • WX Wall says:

        Sorry, forgot to add. If you want a real conservative intellectually brilliant justice, check out Richard Posner. He’s awesome (and I say that as a liberal). Plus he writes really well, even for the lay public. And he’s skewered Scalia numerous times in his articles. I believe the proper term is bench-slapped 🙂

      • 1mime says:

        Sadly, Posner is 77. Just like Lawrence Tribe, he is too old to be tapped for SCOTUS despite being imminently qualified.

    • Ryan Ashfyre says:

      Not just Scalia and Thomas. Kennedy (who, in all fairness, is the most moderate and fair-minded of the Republican appointments) is going to be 80 next year. No way he stays on through a potential two terms of Hillary Clinton. That’s a 7-2 split with a liberal majority, enough to hold onto the judiciary for decades.

      But yeah, Justice Thomas? How many years did this empty seat let go by without asking a single damned question? Goodbye and good riddance to a lazy excuse of a Justice.

      • 1mime says:

        And, Ginsburg….plus Thomas and Kennedy. There could be the opportunity not just for one appointment, but 4 appointments. This is what the Republican leadership fear more than a Donald Trump as President. Honestly, even more than a HRC as President. They like the SC just as it’s been….stacked in their favor so that difficult issues can be secured by a partisan court. As for myself, I have stated many times, I don’t care about ideology as long as a justice is fair in his/her application of the law.

  10. flypusher says:

    Jeb!’s revenge?

    http://theweek.com/5things/631149/trump-complains-gop-isnt-helping-jeb-fomenting-revolt

    Oh I hope so. But Trump does another 180 within a few hours (“there is no conspiracy”-“Jeb’s undermining me!”), and it doesn’t matter to so many people. That’s the guy you want as CIC?

  11. John McCain blames Obama for Orlando and gets his head handed to him. But he still may win the primary. If he dies, and if the Dems have any sense at all, two big ifs, the below will be played on TV about every 5 minutes:-))!

    “Build the dang fence!!”

    • flypusher says:

      Did all these wall backers miss all the news reports about the tunnels? There are people in Mexico who are very good at building tunnels- some very high tech! Instead of wasting billions of dollars to build and staff this Berlin Wall 2.0 (not to mention the big sell out of the real American exceptionalism), I’ve got 2 cheaper remedies: 1) End the war on drugs. 2) Put some real teeth into the penalties for hiring under the table.

      • Fly,

        Are you actually saying solve the problem, not just talk about it!:-)?

        Shame on you:-)!

        Ish

      • 1mime says:

        You are entirely too rational, Fly. And, too unselfish. These business people who are benefiting from cheap undocumented labor are complicit. And, I’ll bet every last one of them is a Republican who touts his belief in capitalism and the Constitution. They need reminding that capitalism and the Constitution also imply following the law. And, those who know that this is going on and where it is being ignored, are also complicit. No slap on the wrist – bring the full weight of justice to bear.

      • Stephen says:

        If the boss did real time in jail for hiring illegals the jobs would go and with them illegal immigration
        Would work and be much cheaper than a useless wall

      • 1mime says:

        And, therein lies the hypocrisy, Stephen. We shouldn’t design and enforce only the laws for “some” people. There’s enough of that in our justice system. For all the hyperbole in the Republican Party on the issue of illegal immigration, to ignore this known fact is deceitful. It cheapens the legitimacy of their argument, and those who write the laws and enforce them know it full well.

    • johngalt says:

      60% of those here illegally walked, drove or flew across the border and simply never left. So we can spend tens of billions of dollars to stop the people unable or unwilling to (a) get a passport, (b) find a tunnel, or (c) hire a boat to go around the wall.

      That, my friends, is fiscal conservatism at its best.

      • 1mime says:

        Hey, JG, but those who “make it” into the states? They are a sure hire by conservatives who use their cheap labor all the while publicly denouncing illegal immigration. Lack of principles abound.

      • johngalt says:

        You’re right, mime. I get tired of hearing people bleat about needing to “enforce our immigration laws.” They clearly were not intended to be enforced. They make no sense and there are some fairly easy fixes that go curiously uncorrected year after year.

    • 1mime says:

      Ooh, McCain is such a “toughie”…….Too bad it is so sporadic in application…….Put on a black cap, glare into the camera, say the tough words, compress the lips…..voila, a John McCain of yore “want-a-be”…..I am not impressed.

  12. unarmedandunafraid says:

    If I may add this short article to the roundup. Part of it might pertain to minimum income. But guaranteed minimum income or not, it shows that we need income redistribution, with the young getting all the help we can afford.

    I know some here, including lifer, that disapproves of the government being the employer of last resort. But there would be benefits. The cranky conservatives would feel better if there was some small effort from the recipients of a wage. The recipient would feel some sense of pride in that wages were not a gift. And we might have neater, cleaner neighborhoods. Can you imagine roadsides that looked like Disney approach roads. Graffiti removed as soon as it goes up. Affordable childcare. All kinds of worthwhile projects that would improve the quality of life for everyone.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/19/opinion/sunday/why-i-was-wrong-about-welfare-reform.html?_r=0

    • flypusher says:

      Yelling at people to get a job when there aren’t any jobs that match their skill sets is just beyond tone deaf. It’s not just a matter of “learning computers”. It’s also not as simple as just move- the rents are way up in places were the ecomony is humming. We have a major economic transition going on, and a lot of people are getting left behind.

      Amen to free birth control to anyone who wants it.

      • 1mime says:

        “Duh” to free birth control. And, while we’re at it? A solid, competent jobs re-training revolution that will put people to work doing things that have been waiting to be done. Another “duh”.

      • Bobo Amerigo says:

        Free birth control!

      • Pseudoperson Randomian says:

        One of the thought exercises I had just a couple of days ago is trying to be a prolifer.

        I realized that what I would really campaign for if I was anti abortion is mandatory birth control for all women, with exceptions granted if the woman asks for it and confirms that she understands the consequences of pregnancy. There are still several questions about mother’s health, and major deformities, rape etc. but that’s where I’d start, preventing the vast majority of abortions without forcing women to give birth.

        Then I had a thought experiment if being anti sex-for-fun…leading to predictable results.

      • 1mime says:

        Make birth control free and readily accessible and cut the crap commentary and that’ll get the job done. Women know what’s best for them, but conservatives have done their best to make sure they don’t get to exercise even preventative caution. More and more I am coming to the opinion that those (men) who actively advocate against women’s rights really, really don’t want to compete with women in the workplace. Their need to be lord and master is so integral to their sense of self that they simply can’t handle it. I pity their wives but suspect their daughters are distancing themselves from this narrow, narcissistic guidance. Let us hope so.

      • Bobo Amerigo says:

        Articles explains how smart phone apps help some women get birth control. Very interesting.

        Articles also says 40% of births in this country are unplanned. That’s stunning.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/20/health/birth-control-options-websites.html

      • 1mime says:

        On NPR today, there was a discussion about abortion training for OBGYN residents in Texas. It turns out that there are many ways to subvert the right to abortion. There are 15 OBGYN residency programs in TX. Only 3 teach abortion methods. Think about this. Even if you have great reluctance to the elective procedure, medically, there are situations in which an emergency occurs and this procedure must be available or the mother and/or child will die. When the heads of these centers were asked to comment on why they don’t offer any training – despite the fact that their school certification requires it – they had no comment. The 3 that do offer it are in the southernmost areas of TX where abortions are still performed. One doctor when asked about what they tell women who want abortions is to go to Alberquerque or Denver…..or the Brownsville area. Many end up going into Mexico, buying abortion medication with no instruction, and find themselves in a perilous situation.

        Free birth control? How about the constitutional right for a woman to have an abortion? Only, the medical schools don’t “teach it” and the doctors therefore don’t know best medical practice skills training. Insidious.

  13. formdib says:

    View story at Medium.com

    Would recommend this article be read all the way through, as I feel it has important information at several points.

    One of the aspects that’s been fascinating about this election cycle is watching my ‘progressive’ friends take on Republican talking points for Hillary character assassination.

    I kept the sexism debate — both sides, the people calling out sexism and the progressives arguing that they aren’t sexist — at arms length for a while. That’s one area where as a white middle class male I didn’t want to have to question where skepticism of Hillary crosses that line,

    until I was having a conversation not about the election at all, and a friend of mine pointed out that where women attempt classically male dominance behaviors such as speaking loudly, being aggressive, power seeking, and engaging in competitive behavior, they tend to be largely criticized by men and women. Male and female ‘leadership’ constitutes two different kinds of expected behavior. Men are supposed to be ‘go getters’ and stand up and do the necessary work; women are supposed to be ‘supporters’ and help set the stage for the necessary work to get done.

    But of course these assumptions are not applied equally. If a man plays support and helps set the stage for necessary work to get done, it’s considered ‘teamwork’ at least.

    Progressives complaining about this post in the comment section point out that they’re all good about ladies, check their fondness for Elizabeth Warren! But Elizabeth Warren has not played the national stage to the degree Hillary Clinton has, for one, and for two, I personally watched as Warren’s endorsement of Hillary made several progressive friends of mine write off all the work Warren ever did in banking reform as now she, too, is considered “A corporate whore.”

    Emphasis on, you know, the disreputable term for a lady of the night. But sexism doesn’t exist in the progressive party, does it?

    In other news:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-supporters-2016-6

    Can be skimmed. Left wing Tea Party alert?

    • Griffin says:

      Harcore Sanderistas annoy me to no end but Jonathan Chait has a pretty convincing argument that most of them are not actually “far-left” or even very liberal. Ideologically many of them are moderates who just want a good “clean” politician who can restore confidence in government and go way overboard in seeing Clinton as a threat to this image.

      http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/06/how-can-hillary-clinton-win-the-bernie-vote.html

      If true they will probably go away in eight years, rather than evolve into an organized ideological faction like the Tea Party has.

    • 1mime says:

      Men who are secure within themselves are not threatened by smart, capable women. They just aren’t. Take a close look at those friends who are making the ugly comments about Clinton and Warren. You might find that it is their insecurity rather than any credible criticism about these two ladies.

      As for Bernie’s continuing revolution. I hope he does stay involved in a grassroots effort to identify, encourage and assist young people to get involved in the political process. They will find out many things along the way. First and foremost, it’s a lot easier to join a movement than achieve something on one’s own, and much more difficult to mount a campaign for elected office. I always encourage people who exhibit interest in running for office to start small – their kids PTA, leadership in an active community organization, school board before moving on to bigger positions. These are great training grounds and it enable one to see if they “like” being in leadership and feel they can be effective. Otherwise, their time, talents and resources are better spent supporting someone else who can.

      • formdib says:

        “Take a close look at those friends who are making the ugly comments about Clinton and Warren. You might find that it is their insecurity rather than any credible criticism about these two ladies. ”

        Oh that goes beyond just sexism and just this case.

        I actually kinda think ideology itself is a construction of our anxieties. The most ‘reactionary’ people I find from either side tend to have other issues relating to and interacting with people.

        I take that line of thinking just short of prescriptive, though. I’ve seen too many “Liberals have brain damage” “Conservatives suffer mental health issues” blogs to give a general credence to the notion that particular ideologies are particular mental issues. I think it’s more that anxieties and mental health issues give volume to politics that drives them toward ideologies.

        In the case of the sexism against Hillary Clinton, sure, there’s my specific cases, but what the author points out is the macroview of the situation: any time she competes directly for power, her favorability ratings drop. Whether individual actors are aware of it or not, however they may think of Hillary (from full on hatred through Hillary skepticism), that macro-trend points to an overall social behavior they’re participating in in their own manner.

        Of course on the flip side this is not a data analysis blog post. It’s just an opinion editorial where the author points out his own interpretation of a trend chart he found. Would love for this issue to be investigated further.

        Also, concurrent with Griffin’s point, I AM hoping that some major section of those 7000 or so newly engaged political hopefuls are bringing fresh new ideas to the board and creating a new generation of active participation in politics.

    • Rob Ambrose says:

      “One of the aspects that’s been fascinating about this election cycle is watching my ‘progressive’ friends take on Republican talking points for Hillary character assassination.”

      I’m just not seeing this in any significant numbers whatsoever. And the things you do hear are exactly the same things the Hillary crowd said about Obama in 2008. Before of course they voted for him.

      This isn’t the scandal I think some are making it out to be.

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        I should add as a caveat, my friends that are Progressive and political tend to be fairly well informed.

        Are there some “Bernie Bros” who didn’t give a shit about politics until a year ago when their friends started glomming on to Sanders message, but who couldn’t really care less about policy? Sure. And are these uninformed individuals potentially going to unfairly malign Clinton? Sure. But these people aren’t in any sense part of the Progressive movement.

        If their friends had been gaga over Rand Paul, for examples, they’d be “Pauly Bros”.

      • 1mime says:

        This faction within the Bernie movement/revolution are actually training for convention disruption. Where is Sen. Sanders principled leadership here?

        http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/284026-sanders-supporters-practice-convention-protests

  14. flypusher says:

    So about the “war on coal”, while I understand that this is going to hurt the coal miners, that’s an industry that does need to die. It’s just too poisonous. So what will we do with the ex-miners? Is this where we start some form of basic income, with jobs that need to be phased out?

    • 1mime says:

      Actually, Hillary Clinton has a plan to help these coal miners retrain and even relocate. It’s on her website. Surprisingly, she did well in WVA, and she personally met with miners which took some courage.

      • Stephen says:

        That is one of the reasons I will vote for . She is not just talking BS but actually will do stuff. The economy is always changing and during my career I had to re-invent myself several times. This is why the core competency of math, science, reading and writing have to be taught. If you can do those things you can adapt and thrive.

  15. Rob Ambrose says:
  16. flypusher says:

    Chelsea Clinton is the proud mother of a baby boy. The family values crowd over at freeperville have some well wishes:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3441492/posts

    (Every fracking thing is a conspiracy, isn’t it?)

    • Rob Ambrose says:

      This is clearly a false flag baby.

      The fact that they were able to secure an infant crisis actor just proves the depths of depravity of Crooked Shillary.

      • flypusher says:

        Isn’t Ivanka Trump expecting? When she has her child I’ll say congrats just like I say congrats to Chelsea and her family. It’s a special kind of petty to snark all over the birth of a child.

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        Yeah it’s pretty absurd. I read the comments and literally not one person said “guys, you’re freaking out over a baby”.

        Toxic.

    • Rob Ambrose says:

      “(Every fracking thing is a conspiracy, isn’t it?”

      Yes. Except for fracking, of course.

    • 1mime says:

      I am not condoning poor choices by HRC, but if any one of us had lived our lives under the scrutiny (and it was mostly unkind) that she has, we might have a few privacy hang ups too.

  17. Stephen says:

    I have lived in Florida most of my life. Heard about the Manchineel tree but never seen one. They are a native of the Everglades and plenty south of Orlando. Why would such a deadly tree even evolve a fruit. Anything eating it would die not dispersing it’s seeds. Another paradox and the universe is full of them.

    • Rob Ambrose says:

      Without knowing anything whatsoever about this tree, it’s possible the fruit came first, before the poison made itself redundant, and is now just a prominent vestigal feature.

    • duncancairncross says:

      A deadly fruit would make perfect sense
      An animal wouldn’t eat the fruit and die immediately
      The enemy (animal) would eat the fruit wander off and die leaving a nice fertile patch of clear ground for the seed

    • flypusher says:

      What is with that guy’s eyebrows?

      As for the toxicity, maybe all the decaying bodies of its victims enriches the soil it grows in. It’s also possible that some critter is immune to the poison and can spread the seeds. Very interesting- I’ll have to look into it.

      As a biologist, I am not shocked that there are things out there trying to kill us. I am amused at the shocked reactions of people who think humans have some sort if special exemption from the food chain and/or natural selection.

      • flypusher says:

        And there it is, the garrobo (striped iguana) is immune. It can eat the fruit andi live in the tree.

  18. 1mime says:

    Do you think it wise to post this infofact about the Manchineel Tree right before Father’s Day (-:
    All the tales I’ve read about the “forbidden fruit” were Biblical….obviously, that “bad” apple has evolved….and we have another to add to the list.

    Which, btw, I wish all the dads and grand dads who participate here. Hope your day is very special…..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Goodreads

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 472 other followers

%d bloggers like this: