Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - NobleHunter

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 26
NB it does pay for itself under standard accounting rules. It's only under an idiotic GOP rule that it doesn't.

Hating on the Post Office isn't a conservative position, it's too radical. I'm not sure how to charitably classify it. The ideological reason is that it disproves the idea that government can't work and I guess that the government should do as little as possible even if it does it better than the private sector. The kleptocratic reason is that the USPS is incredibly valuable and people could make bank selling it off for parts.

I think "forget about race" may be jumping the shark. But it might be sufficient to at least ask whether the best way to address black poverty is by addressing racism, or by addressing...poverty. Based on my phrasing you can probably guess where my vote lies.

That would be true if poverty was addressed so thorough that it not longer existed. Since that doesn't seem to be in the cards right now, it becomes questionable. An initiative that increases white incomes by 5% while lowering black incomes by 5% would still be "successful" at reducing poverty. The initiative "addressed" poverty but didn't exactly help black people.

The other reason for resistance to class first approaches is that historical they end up being white first as well. So a lot of people are skeptical of claims that the way to be progressive is just to forget about race.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: August 10, 2020, 03:30:10 PM »
American exceptionalism at its finest. There were plenty of good solutions when initial containment efforts failed as demonstrated by almost every other western country.


I wonder what this guy's opinion on the Hong Kong protests were. Or are organized protests only good when foreigners do them?


PPB has seen a number of people purporting to be “media” or “press” who are not in recent weeks. This is concerning and takes away from legitimate media efforts.

That's not the same as " the person in question puts away the phone to start doing some property destruction and/or violence of their own before pulling their phone out again to resume 'reporting.'"

If there's no independent verification, then the more accurate phrasing is "Portland Police claims to have observed people doing that."

General Comments / Re: Voting mechanisms
« on: July 16, 2020, 02:08:44 AM »
The article has a very optimistic view about how hard it would be to fire someone for voting "the wrong way." Or the risk to people voting against the prevailing opinion in their area, especially since if there is a risk they may not be putting their political views out on social media.

It would be nice if making people have to support their votes in public meant a lot of open discussion but I'm pretty sure it'll mean intimidation and coercion.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: July 15, 2020, 12:12:48 PM »
You would need to organize billions of inoculations followed by billions of people self isolating for weeks on end in order to eradicate pools of infections... maybe something could also be done with grey water virus testing, because there would also need to be quick responses to any outbreaks, and testing billions of people regularly is not going to happen.

Not to mention that enforced vaccinations is a non-starter.  people won't wear masks, because... LIBURTY!!

I was thinking going region by region. Pick an area where you can vaccinate almost everyone in a month, do that and then quarantine it against people from non-vaccinated regions. Repeat. It is possible to contain the virus, as New Zealand proved. Once you've got an area vaccinated they can go about their daily lives.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: July 15, 2020, 11:41:20 AM »
I think they would have some people getting boosters during the trial. Especially with the data regarding the duration of the immune response.

Though if there's no reservoir of the virus outside humans, it might still be possible to eradicate it with a combination of vaccination and quarantine. Though I doubt we're up to the organizational challenge.

General Comments / Re: Hamilton
« on: July 08, 2020, 12:49:12 PM »
He's not bad, I just don't think he's on the same level as the rest of the cast.

It's not a split mind thing to both enjoy a piece and to criticize it. Nor does being aware of the political and cultural implications of a piece mean one is concocting issues to make a point. To say so suggests that the casting was not a deliberate political statement, which seems absurd. The narrative is asking you to believe certain things about real people, why not ask questions? There so much more going on than schnazzy choreography and catchy tunes.

General Comments / Re: Hamilton
« on: July 08, 2020, 12:22:39 PM »
It's a nifty bit of American myth making. I would like to see it with someone else playing Hamilton because I don't think Lin-Manuel has enough presence on the stage. It's ironic to have a leading man who fades next to his co-stars in a musical explicitly intended to raise Hamilton's profile.

As a work of public history, it offers several excellent starting points (or names to look up on Wikipedia) for further research into the American Revolution. It seems to assume its audience is reasonably familiar with events, which I find a bit optimistic but then I barely recognized the significance of Yorktown. It elides a great deal. If Wikipedia is to be trusted, perhaps to the point of error. On the other hand, an obsession with historical accuracy makes for a poor musical.

What I find the most interesting bit is how it erases race from the story of the revolution. The casting makes the founding fathers feel as diverse as the modern US. This neatly divorces the origin of the US from white supremacist myths about the intent of the American experiment. Although, it does so at the cost of mostly erasing slavery from the narrative, aside from a few platitudes about eventual emancipation and potshots at Jefferson. It also minimizes the wealth of the many of the founding fathers, creating a narrative of rags to riches for Hamilton and implying the same is true for the rest. The narrative wants us to believe the leaders of the American Revolution are a diverse group of impoverished yet ambitious idealists. It's an excellent myth to have even if it's not entirely true.

It's a lot of fun and encourages a useful belief about the revolution. I'm not sure that it's the best time for this belief but I think it's a good counterpoint to other revisionist histories.

I think the non-fatal effects of COVID will be pretty evident by November. It's not just fatalities but the other permanent consequences of being sick. I have faith the electorate will see the magnitude of Trump's failures and reject him.

I think you'll find that a President who presided over widespread rioting and a plague and did precious little to stop either is going to fare poorly in an election.

You have a reason to disbelieve the school administrators and city officials quoted, or the journalists?

Regardless of whether there really was a betting pool about contracting the virus, I think you'd agree that there are large parties happening with no precautions? And that alone makes the Youth, along with many other demographics, terrible indeed.

Remember Rainbow Parties? It wouldn't be the first time officials and school administrators were more credulous than accurate.

Sure they they're having parties but I'm skeptical they're deliberately trying to get sick.

What about the doctors that supposedly confirmed the existence of the parties? Or an off-the-record source?

 It sounds like another made up story about the Youth being terrible.

I notice a distinct lack of quotes from anyone who's actually attended those parties or from anyone who has direct knowledge of those parties. All three articles are repeating the same claims from the same officials. If these were really happening, I'd expect more corroboration.

Do you have any evidence those parties are happening? Or is there just a lot of credulous and breathless reporting about it?

General Comments / Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
« on: July 02, 2020, 05:03:19 PM »
Poe's law in action.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: June 25, 2020, 02:19:45 PM »
Ontario is still limited to 10 people or less.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: June 25, 2020, 01:39:57 PM »
If you want a third party,  you're going to have to do more than vote for it. Elections are too narrowly focused to enable real change.

General Comments / Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
« on: June 25, 2020, 12:34:37 PM »
If that's how you took it, you mis-understood the argument.

You keep the statues around, but probably not where they were, and instead move them into a museum or comparable type of venue where they can be presented in a context comparable to those locations.

That is far more preferable to simply destroying the statues.

Then you'll be in a constant fight with racists over restoring them to places of honor. Not to mention there's too many of the damn things and few have any artistic merit. Nor do museums necessarily want them. Most institutions have too many artifacts to display so making these statues available to the public has opportunity costs.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: June 25, 2020, 12:25:47 PM »
Everywhere else is seemingly trying to eradicate it before/until a vaccine is available.

I'm not sure if that is a accurate statement.
The goal I believe in Canada is to manage the 'curve' as restrictions are lifted.

As DonaldD pointed out the opening up and lifting of restrictions is similar between the US and Canada yet the impact on the 'curve' very different. The question is why.

Ontario, at least, has been opening up more slowly than good chunks of the US. BC managed to shut down the spread fairly early, too. I don't think lifting restrictions has been similar. If nothing else, all our leadership has been on the mostly the same page about keeping things controlled.

General Comments / Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
« on: June 25, 2020, 12:07:29 PM »
Slavery in the U.S., however, was the continuation of a historic and standard practice across much of the world, going back to Ancient Rome and Greece and beyond that. There were times and places that didn't have it, and many that did, and the U.S.'s fault lies mostly in that they were the last great nation I'm aware of to dispense with the practice. That is not good, and it's worth asking how it was maintained longer there than in, say, the English colonies (~30 years longer). Maybe there were special economics in play, I really don't know. Either way, the idea that the correct result of this is to see to it that the proper shame is inculcated in the South for this practice (which they inherited and grew up with) seems to me contrary to the spirit of reconciliation and healing. Granted, the danger in not doing that is in having the defeated side feel like slavery ended because they were bloodied, rather than because it was wrong. But even then you give it a few generations and that tends to take care of itself; anything more is punitive IMO.

And let's face it, the Nazis tried to take over the world and commit genocide, and many Germans at the time voted for them. No one in America ever voted to introduce slavery, it was already a way of life; and slavers didn't ever try to take over the world and commit genocide. So even if we agreed that 'recognition of the shame of it' was necessary, the comparison the Nazis isn't viable at this point in terms of what the shame is about. I see what you're saying about Confederate pride even to this day, but I'm not at all convinced that this is a celebration of slavery - at least not the way some would claim it is. It's no coincidence, actually, that Gone With the Wind is getting cancelled now, because it's a strong argument for there really being something to lament about the fall of the South in the Civil War, even though it was a historical inevitability. There are many things about the Confederacy that no doubt retain a nostalgic or romantic appeal, such as fighting against encroaching industrialism, the last breath of the great American aristocracy, etc etc, that people might cling to. The Alamo has been a popular tourist attraction over the years, and its "brave men, lost cause" thing has a huge romance attached to it; that mythos seems understandable on its own without needing to argue that Alamo fans are exclusively celebrating killing Mexicans. And yeah, probably some of them are just racists, too.

Due to the collapse of the Roman Empire and the end of the wholesale slavery in Europe, there is little continuity between the trans-Atlantic slave trade and other slave-holding traditions in the Old World. So it's not really accurate to say it was a continuation of a global practice.

Slavery in the American South is notable for its on-going echoes in the society of a superpower and for the horrific war fought in an attempt to preserve it. While the slave-holding ideology was inherited from the Dutch, Portuguese, or British it was actively developed and maintained by Southern intellectuals. White Supremacy isn't something that the South (and the US generally) just have lying around but is actively fostered and encouraged to the benefit of specific interests..

General Comments / Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
« on: June 23, 2020, 08:49:58 AM »
Statues are not history.

Neither are books or buildings. Burn it all.

Now we're at risk of being pedantic about the definition of history but generally speaking, books are history.

General Comments / Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
« on: June 22, 2020, 08:16:43 PM »

Yeah, why burn books and tear down history? Why not praise the Democrat party that started the KKK and fought against Civil Rights? After all, if history must be erased, then why nor substitute disinformation that makes you look better?

Tearing down anything is not protest. It is simply vandalism. Most Trump supporters don't wear MAGA hats because they are afraid of Democrat bullies and physical attack. Only one party does this.

Statues are not history.

General Comments / Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
« on: June 22, 2020, 03:43:09 PM »
Anyone who was fighting for the Nazis or the Confederacy was fighting for evil. What that says about the person in question depends on their motivations and personality. How we should regard those people depends on what we know about why they fought.

General Comments / Re: Bolton
« on: June 18, 2020, 04:13:36 PM »
While we can't know for sure, it seems likely that a war with Iran would be qualitatively different than other US conflicts in recent years (excepting insurgencies). Iraq twice, assorted interventions, Afghanistan were all terribly one-sided conflicts. Starting a war with Iran might not go so well.

There's also the feeling that the war would have been accidental. There's a difference between using military force to achieve specific ends and resorting to military force because your foreign policy is a garbage fire.

General Comments / Re: Bolton
« on: June 18, 2020, 12:20:20 PM »
I don't want to sound hyperbolic, so yes I'm sure there are maneuvers around the world going on. I'm more talking about regular and major 'rising tensions' that were becoming a normal part of our experience since 9/11, and which I haven't seen much of lately to that extent. Obviously it's never zero, it can't be. The tensions have been more internal in the U.S. during this admin, not external.

How does almost getting into a shooting war with Iran figure into that?

General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: June 17, 2020, 01:41:19 PM »
Sure, the Republicans are totally going to be on board with giving more seats to the urban centers that reliably go Democrat. The current set up greatly favors rural areas which tend to vote GOP.

So of course the Republicans will fight it.

General Comments / Re: SCOTUS protects LGBTQ workers
« on: June 16, 2020, 04:30:03 PM »
The point is that there's other text making it clear that "religion" applies to Jews, Catholics, and Muslims. But I'm reasonably sure that it was a common usage that to mean only protestant faiths. I think it came out of the conflict in England over non-conformists versus Anglicans.

General Comments / Re: SCOTUS protects LGBTQ workers
« on: June 16, 2020, 03:08:56 PM »
It's entirely possible, absent certain clarifying remarks, that "religion" in the 18th century when spoken by English Protestants meant only protestant faiths.

General Comments / Re: SCOTUS protects LGBTQ workers
« on: June 16, 2020, 11:18:13 AM »
I see. So textualism means interpreting old law based on new understanding of words, as opposed to the intent of the legislators? But I imagine that this could run afoul of wild changes in language over time, no? For instance, let's say there is a law criminalizing "physical assault." And let's say that modern culture comes to the decision, popularly speaking, that speaking to someone is physical, and that saying things that hurt someone is assault. So in pop culture saying something someone doesn't like could come to be called 'physical assault' in a common parlance. Does that mean a textualist SC judge might actually rule that the laws as they stand actually dictate that it is criminal to speak to someone in a way they don't like? I suppose in this case that particular ruling would run up against the 1st, but putting aside the constitutional issue, could such a reversal in intent happen because of a change in common parlance?

Who's intent? In this case, it seems "sex" might have been added to the list as a poison pill. Other legislators had other reasons for supporting the addition. How would you resolve it if there were evidence that some legislators meant the broader forms of sex discrimination while others intended the narrowest form?

In any case, the argument is that discrimination against orientation and non-cis genders without also discriminating against sex. I don't see it as unreasonable that the written text trumps intent.

General Comments / Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
« on: June 15, 2020, 12:40:09 PM »
I can't tell if it's just because we're on the outside but I get the impression that cops tend to see shootings as unfortunately inevitable or at least there's nothing they can do to prevent shootings. Do you know how many plane crashes we'd have if the aviation industry had the same attitude?

General Comments / Re: The CHAZ
« on: June 12, 2020, 11:17:58 AM »
Do you have any evidence to contradict her other than reports from a ridiculously self-interested partisan?

To what reports are you referring? Though I'm not surprised you don't understand your position well enough to mock a rather obvious objection. Do try harder next time.

General Comments / Re: The CHAZ
« on: June 12, 2020, 10:25:35 AM »
Do you have any evidence to support your assertion about CHAZ other than a statement by a ridiculously self-interested partisan?

General Comments / Re: The CHAZ
« on: June 12, 2020, 08:39:22 AM »
Seattle police chief speaking out about the order to abandon her precinct.  “Rapes, robberies and all sorts of violent acts have been occurring in the area and we're not able to get to [them]."

Rape, robbery, violence, in the zone? Literally every media outlet covers this as a peaceful, happy event.

The only conclusion is the police chief is lying.

We all know the police chief has no reason to lie nor have police ever lied about criminal activity to make themselves look better.

General Comments / Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
« on: June 11, 2020, 10:57:16 AM »
As if there's a proper etiquette for protesting.

From everything I've heard the etiquette is to do nothing that possibly draws attention or inconveniences anyone in anyway. 

General Comments / Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
« on: June 07, 2020, 11:15:06 AM »
BBC headline: “27 police officers injured during largely peaceful anti-racism protests in London”

The good news is apart from the injuries themselves, those 27 police officers were largely uninjured.

That was the protest were a horse said ACAB and took out its rider with a traffic light?

 There's a link to the full transcript in here:


It doesn't seem to be quite as bad as some people are making it out to be employment numbers but it's a pretty stupid thing to say.

General Comments / Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« on: June 05, 2020, 03:10:26 PM »
I'm still wondering why we can't field a thousand unarmed UAV, or even consumer drones, and actually total up how many people are crossing in unwalled areas. That would be the basis for a model that tells us if the delay provided by a wall would allow for N% more apprehensions.

Because it's not about being cost effective, it's about posturing.

General Comments / Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
« on: June 04, 2020, 04:05:35 PM »
No, I've said Soros has admitted funding AntiFa, Black Lives Matter, and Occupy Wall Street. Those are facts. I did provide a link to an interview with Soros where he admitted giving $18 billion to change the USA political system. But no worry, if you are even slightly proficient, you can find your own sources that prove that - Heaven knows nothing I say will satisfy you.

Just on local TV coverage, we've seen an AntiFa guy bragging that his tattoo was paid for by George Soros. How many things must you see before you get the idea? Look up "Open Society Foundation" to help your searches. Go to YouTube to hear Soros explain in his own words. Don't take my word for anything. Look past the complicit search engines and dive down to get at the truth. You can do it.

You know it's a meme to say Soros paid for things, right?

General Comments / Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
« on: June 04, 2020, 03:36:30 PM »
More smarmy insult - with no attempt to exonerate Soros, who according to you has never funded AntiFa and Black Lives Matter and Occupy Wall Street. What is really funny is that you missed the part about me being against disinformation - not about being pro-GOP or pro-Trump. If I mention the honest and truthful side that contradicts disinformation, do not pretend that is sycophancy. If you cannot dispute stated facts that refute your opinion, you always look to insult. Why continue Laughter by Intimidation when you know it is a discredited debate fallacy? You're not stupid - just obstinate.

You've provided no facts, just assertions.

General Comments / Re: Who will be next to speak out about Trump?
« on: June 04, 2020, 12:49:38 PM »
I'm saying without the police those orchestrating the violence won't have their tools.

General Comments / Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
« on: June 04, 2020, 12:39:55 PM »
Of course, Trump never says anything that needs interpretation by his followers. Good thing projection is a sin of Democrats, eh?

General Comments / Re: Who will be next to speak out about Trump?
« on: June 04, 2020, 11:39:57 AM »
Mattis makes some good points but what happens when the police abandon their posts and the governors don't do anything either and just let chaos and anarchy rule while the cities burn? I wouldn't want to see our military attacking civilians but when the alternative is what we've seen with police stations themselves getting burned out and nothing being done about it then somebody has got to do something. If the local cops won't stop it, the mayors won't stop it, and the governors won't stop it then there is only one person left.

If the cops abandoned their posts, the rioting would quickly subside. The cops are causing much of the violence, not restraining it.

General Comments / Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
« on: June 03, 2020, 01:50:05 PM »
I would be very surprised if those bricks were the work of anyone on the left. It seems more likely to me that--if there isn't some innocent explanation--they're the work of someone attempting to discredit the protests by spurring them to violence. There's a reason cops are doing everything they can to provoke violence.

General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: June 02, 2020, 04:28:37 PM »
So that's a no, you can't come up with Trump getting a "Civil Rights Award."

General Comments / Re: George Floyd
« on: June 02, 2020, 01:42:42 PM »
I am not a coroner, but I think heart failure is implicated in most deaths (that aren't brain related?). It's not necessarily the injury, it's that a result of the injury is your heart stopping. The difference between a heart attack and asphyxiation would be the physical signs of trauma to the neck, throat, and lungs, along with evidence of a stopped heart. A heart attack would just be evidence in the heart (and surrounding blood vessels?).

General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: June 02, 2020, 01:33:43 PM »
I suppose it's that evil leftist IT that keeps you from finding a link to this Civil Rights Award.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 26