Cacti

I think you’re onto something; repetition is powerful. After all, is there one rational person who doesn’t associate dead hookers with Craig James when they hear CJK5H? That’s the power of a memorable and short acronym. BKUTS (Brett Kavanaugh unfit to serve) is good, as is something like BKRAL (Brett Kavanaugh rapes and lies). Feel free to use either one.

What “kind of enlightenment moment in American civics” will help us avoid an economic crash, a major war and natural disasters?

If you believe search results are biased, read this article. If you don't believe search results are biased, read this article. Whatever your belief is you can use this piece to support your position. Google News serves conservatives and liberals similar results, but favors mainstream media

What’s not to believe? I initially thought that the claim of Zina flashing the ‘white power’ gesture was overreaching, but new information has caused me to reconsider. According to Oxford’s Dictionary of First Names, Zina is a Russian name…short form of Zinaida. From that—and unless she specifically denies it under oath—I think it’s perfectly logical to assume that she (like all Trumpkins) is at least a Russian apologist, ergo a white supremacist.

So you’re saying that McCain vetted each eulogy? That before his death he was aware and approved of the political undertones of the eulogies? Yeah, maybe so. But I’d rather think that he wasn’t petty enough to personally approve of the political ‘digs’ and I’d rather think that he wouldn’t approve of his wife and Presidents Obama and Bush volunteering to serve as surrogates to deliver one last parting shot at a man they all despised. Your whole point falls apart if I’m not a Trump supporter. And since I only have 50 posts on Surly it shouldn’t be hard for you to do a little research and back up your claim that I support Trump. Want to give it a shot, or will you admit that your main point can’t be supported and that your entire post should have been limited to “Well, let me try”?

I need danger snax to decipher these comments.

I think you just made my point: It’s entirely possible (even preferable) to honor someone without making snide remarks about another person—even if the remarks are true. But then again I’m one of the olds on this forum, so maybe a politicized eulogy is the new norm. I am humbled by this recognition and flattered that my post is chosen from hundreds of comments from scores of scholarly Surly posters. However, if an obviously-not-in-contention post—such as “FUCK TRUMP”—can get a “like”, then is seems to me that being recognized as the leader for the prestigious title of “Most Decorumest Post” should be worth at least one measly pos rep.

From an earlier post quoting Alison Frankel: Trump has made a mockery of various political norms and protocols, as well as having a tendency to disrespect commonly practiced traditions. So I guess turnabout is fair play and civility can be disregarded by all, under any circumstances. It's a shame but I've become so jaded that it doesn't surprise me that it now seems acceptable to use a death as an opportunity to diminish someone (anyone) and to use a eulogy as a vehicle to deliver political shots.

I don’t have any original thoughts on the nature of reality. What views I do have were formed by combining thoughts (as I understand them) of John Archibald Wheeler and George Berkeley. With that preface, here we go: I don’t believe there is reality without conscious observation/perception. Quoting Wheeler, “Nothing is more astonishing about quantum mechanics than its allowing one to consider seriously the view that the universe would be nothing without observership as surely as a motor would be dead without electricity”. In addition—and to paraphrase Wheeler—observer’s consciousness is required to bring the universe into existence…the “world of existences” did not exist “prior” to human subjectivity. So Wheeler’s view (as I understand it) is that the universe, or reality, only comes into existence through human consciousness. Berkeley (again, as I understand him) had a similar view concerning the dependence of reality on observation/perception, except that he believed that there was an observer that preceded man and human consciousness. So, to repeat myself, I don’t believe there is reality without conscious observation/perception. Unfortunately I’m not able to discuss this or any other metaphysical position in depth. For that, you’ll have to somehow summon certain long-gone, Quackenbush’s posters.

Measles cases hit record high in Europe Combine fraudulent science with an uncritical press 20 years ago, throw in a dash of stupid---and this is what you get. This is an example of how fake/misleading information can have dire consequences and how hard it is to counter once it is taken as truth by a small, but not insignificant portion of the population. And that's despite the fact that any reasonable person, after doing minimum research, can see that this claim against immunizations has been thoroughly discredited. (no CR intended)

A couple of hundred years? It doesn’t appear that your utopia of a theist-free world will materialize within the next one thousand years, if ever. The unaffiliated—defined as atheists, agnostics and other people who do not affiliate with any religion—compromised 16.4% of the world 2010 population, but is projected to decline to 13.2 % by 2050. And by 2050 the unaffiliated are projected to grow their number by 99,190,000, while Christians and Muslims are projected to grow their number by 749,740,000 and 1,161,780,000, respectively. So for every 1 non-religious person added by 2050, there will be 19 theists added. Link

The assistant may not have been “punished” at all, not if she got a pay raise along with the transfer. If she did, that information should be easy to obtain.

I think the word “fascist” is too strong but let’s go with your definition: an establishment is fascist if they have a list of unwelcome people. By that definition the owner of the Red Hen, Stephanie Wilkinson, is also fascist, because she, too, has a list of people who aren’t welcome at her establishment, e.g., anyone who works for POTUS. Before we worry about “far-right fascism” behavior in Israel, maybe we should instead address fascism (by your definition) in the U.S., even if it’s the far-left variety.

I know I’m going to regret asking but maybe I’ll learn something about probability. If a 98% chance of winning was “bullshit” but a 75% chance was "accurate" (not bullshit), then at what % between the two did the transition occur?

If the narrative is false then DNC chair, Tom Perez, is primarily responsible for creating the “bogeyman.” It was he who said AOC was “the future of our party.” That’s not quite the same as saying "AOC is the new face of the Democratic Party" but it’s close enough to be conflated.

Things Are So Bad In Iran That Afghan Migrants Are Going Home

My ideal government would involve, at least to some degree, sortition. This method of selecting political leaders would probably be more applicable on a local or state level, but here is one example where is could work on a national scale: From the article Let’s Toss for It by Sigmund Knag. He supports that suggestion with several logical reasons but I’ll only list one (my favorite): “the justices, no longer the creatures of the federal government, would have less inclination to expand the power of the central government.” Anyway, at first glance choosing politicians or judges by ‘lot-drawing’ may seem far-fetched and unworkable---and it may be on a national scale. But there’s no reason that a modified version of sortition wouldn’t work at the local or state level; after all, it seems to work well enough to use in our court system. That is, the way we select prospective jurors.

First and foremost she's a danger to the Democratic Party. As I mentioned earlier, the Republicans would love to be able to portray her and her socialist agenda as the face and agenda of the Democratic Party. It matters little that she isn't the presidential candidate; association alone can be a powerful tool---just ask Democrats about the Willie Horton effect.

Maybe you're right. According to this article she criticized Crowley, saying: But evidently her parents decided that "our schools" weren't good enough for her. From the same article: Also, How is it possible to ignore her not-so-subtle reference to Crowley’s skin color? Race is certainly a factor in some races but most politicians would be castigated for referencing an opponents skin color.

Vilify a socialist who supports a Muslim gubernatorial candidate? The Republicans would like nothing better than to portray her as the face of the Democratic Party, with Maxine thrown in as a bonus.

Ever notice the sand dunes on both sides of I-20 near Monahans? It was gold you were looking at. WORTHLESS JUST TWO YEARS AGO, WEST TEXAS SAND NOW BRINGS IN BILLIONS

The Democrats may not have a platform but they do have a resolution, thanks to DNC member Christine Pelosi. Democratic National Committee (DNC) will no longer accept campaign contributions sponsored by fossil fuel companies. So it was the fossil fuel corporations who corrupted our political system? Shame on them for forcing our politicians to take their money. And who thought of using the phrase “dark oily money”? If they were trying to sound like Trump on Twitter---they succeeded.

The vast majority of Surly posters on the politics forum won’t be around long enough to banish Trump. They’ll either have a heart attack, stroke or nervous breakdown before then, or, at the very least won’t be physically able to cast a ballot because their prolific posting has caused a severe case of carpel tunnel syndrome.

That's a different conclusion but what "other" definition of natural vs. supernatural is used to arrive at that conclusion?

Out of curiosity, what different conclusions could be reached using other definitions?