ComradeKayAdams

What unavailable raw data are you talking about?! Stratosphere temps? Just use the most recent decades of data that NOAA and NASA-GISS have made publicly available. To reiterate: we’re looking for an explanation of HOW THE STRATOSPHERE IS COOLING WHILE THE TROPOSPHERE IS WARMING. And yes, I do believe that government-directed money allocation can influence planetary climate to some extent. That’s pretty much one of the main realized corollaries that come from acknowledging greenhouse effect physics! Probably more accurately: I believe that private industries, through technological innovations based on government-funded research, will play a bigger role than various carbon pricing strategies (carbon tax, cap-and-trade schemes, etc.) meant to modify human energy consumption behavior. (100)/(1 billion) = (10^2)/(10^9) = 10^(-7) = 0.0000001 = 0.00001%...so you were missing a zero…but point taken lol! Your question is a really good one: do we have sufficient data from a large enough time span to make such definitive climate science claims? I would say we do. For one thing, if you look at scatterplots of temperature data versus time and analyze the regression lines (the relative positions and the slopes) which describe the climate behavior, you’ll quickly see that a rule-of-thumb minimum of about three decades is perfectly reasonable for defining a given region’s climate. Moreover, we’re looking for the following criteria to give us scientific confidence: 1. A logically reasoned hypothesis that is experimentally falsifiable. 2. Reliable methods of data collection with sufficient precision. 3. Statistically large enough sample sizes of data. 4. A consistent data signal trend that is well above thermal noise. 5. A process of elimination for all other explanatory factors. The latter-most criterion is what distinguishes surface temperatures and (to some extent) ocean temperatures from stratosphere temperatures. With surfaces and oceans, we have plenty of pre-Industrial Revolution earth science evidence, with confluence, that so far rule out all known natural explanations for climate change. For stratosphere temperature data, we’re mostly relying on the strength of the first criterion I listed. But fortunately, the stratosphere is a lot less complicated than the troposphere in the sense that there are way fewer feedback control system inputs to understand. And even before the days in which air balloons and airplanes and satellites were routinely traversing the stratosphere (even before we knew of the stratosphere’s existence, really), tabletop experiments were performed of the energy absorption/emission behavior of molecules like carbon dioxide, nitrogen, oxygen, ozone, and whatever else might finds its way into this atmosphere layer. So basically, geophysicists already had well-articulated predictions of how an atmospheric layer sitting above another layer of increasing carbon dioxide density might cool and contract. Modern temperature data from satellites simply confirmed this strong hypothesis. But if the anthropogenic climate change skeptics have an alternate explanation, then by all means… Regarding temperature recordings: official ones are always taken in the shade. The purpose of the recording is strictly to measure the air’s temperature, which is just a single aggregate number that quantifies the average energy of the air molecules. So to accurately measure this, the air sample needs to be isolated from any additional energy coming directly from the Sun (in the form of electromagnetic radiation). Actually, all that I told you about the ozone was that its well-studied behavior can’t explain the observed cooling and contraction of the stratosphere. But since you brought it up lol…yes, it’s in much better shape since that 1987 Montreal Protocol which banned the international use of certain industrial chemicals. Yay government intervention!! A rare victory for Mother Earth over laissez-faire cultists! Addressing the rest of your post content: 1. Climate change fatalism is a completely unacceptable philosophy because of the potential triggering of climate change tipping points (ice sheets, permafrost, ocean currents, coral reef health, rainforests, boreal forests, etc.). 2. It would have been helpful if our country had planned much earlier for an electric car economy and a modernized electrical grid. In this regard, I mostly blame the festering culture of climate change denialism and government-hating libertarian fanaticism. 3. What constitutes a global population limit is subjective. What’s the expected quality of living? Land, freshwater, and food are finite resources. Tech advances in agriculture have pushed back the more alarming overpopulation predictions, but there is a limit. A certain percentage of Earth’s land must also be reserved for forests (preferably old-growth ones), if you’re at all concerned about climate change. Also: go vegan to reduce land usage and reduce greenhouse gas footprints! 4. I don’t know who exactly has been claiming that we’ll run out of oil or when they made these claims, but it is still technically a nonrenewable energy resource. Technological improvements in extraction and refining, as well as places that have become open for resource extraction, are pretty significant variables that have allowed for an enormous range of predictions. 5. U.S. Clean Air Act amendments dramatically reduced acid rain! It’s one of the best examples, in fact, of the potential of cap-and-trade schemes.

No, I did not state that much of the data is DERIVED from computers. All of the data collecting and data PROCESSING is done with computers because it can be. Interpolation and numerical integration techniques have been around since the days of Newton and Liebniz. Or are those now considered part of the grand climate science conspiracy?? Direct temperature readings of the stratosphere and oceans have been extremely thorough and precise for at least the past few decades. Exactly how many more years of data collecting here are necessary before consensus inferences can be accepted?? I suppose we could discuss rising ocean temperatures here, if you insist, but it won’t be overwhelmingly convincing to the “skeptics” crowd because the factors contributing to its rise are far more nuanced than they are for the stratosphere. So let’s get back to the stratosphere, in relation to the troposphere. Direct temperature readings for the stratosphere have been collected since the first satellites were launched, but we can focus on the public data compiled from the past three decades. What is a “skeptical” person’s explanation for the consistent drop in stratosphere temperature (along with its physical shrinking), well above thermal noise variation, in parallel with the consistent rise in troposphere temperature? A simple physics-based or earth science-based explanation is all that I’m requesting. L Ron and Tibsy and 4th-y and I, however, do demand a peer-reviewed scientific research paper citation if you’re going to suggest ozone variations because that explanation has already been thoroughly analyzed. My commentary on Al Gore’s movie and on Climategate haven’t changed since we last had those discussions ~2 years ago here.

So you’re referring to the GLOBAL mean surface temperature, which I think is currently ~59 degrees F. It’s calculated by taking the average of enough LOCAL mean surface temperatures across the planet. These local data points are about equally spaced from each other and form a spherically symmetrical pattern. The number can be calculated manually, but most computers trivially find it with numerical integration techniques. Each data point representing each local mean surface temperature is similarly found by calculating local temperature averages across equally spaced time increments, over the course of a full year. The annual delta of Earth’s mean surface temperature is what tells us the net heat trapping from the greenhouse effect. You can never rely on local mean surface temperatures to give you the full story because global warming is never uniform. Western New York could be experiencing an unusually cold year under global warming conditions, while Florida and Brazil and the Middle East and Russia and Antarctica could all be experiencing unusually warm years. If you’ve ever seen global annual heat maps, you’ll see a mix of hot and cold spots but overall much more heat. But that’s just the surface temperature. There are also temperature measurements for the ocean and for the different layers of the atmosphere. My new challenge to all the anthropogenic climate change skeptics here: explain why our troposphere is heating up while our stratosphere is cooling?? Throughout most of Earth’s history, we know that climate has been dependent on interactions with the Sun: either from solar weather variations or from the periodic peculiarities of Earth’s motion about the Sun. The exceptions have been geothermal activity like volcanoes and related atmospheric composition changes. So if the current observed global warming is related to planetary interactions with the Sun, then the atmospheric heating should be uniform. But it’s not. Why is that?? FYI: for those who want to suggest cloud coverage, keep in mind that cloud effects vary greatly by type, height in the sky, and time of the day (reflective during the day and insulating at night). Climate data indicates that these effects can quickly cancel each other out, so evidence for any longstanding cloud-related positive feedback loop that initiated global warming is highly unlikely.

I hope you had a happy Easter, Muppy, and I’m glad you were able to spend it with your new granddaughter! The black velvet maxi turned out to be a little too risque for the speaker event LOLOL! In an auditorium with about 60-70 other chicas, my outfit was easily showing the most skin. I was so self-conscious about it that I ended up wearing my outdoor jacket for the entirety of the indoor event. But the auditorium was refrigerator-level cold, so it was no big deal. Live and learn! On the bright side, I missed that Sabres game because of this speaker event…ugh…Lindy Ruff for coach?? Okay okay, time to return this thread to the proper subject at hand. I can sense the PPP denizens getting restless…see ya around, Muppy, both here and at BillsFans.com! Yes, indeed! It is quite odd, in the year 2024, to be having a debate on the scientific merit of anthropogenic climate change. And yet here we are… So my brief review of “Climate: The Movie,” in outline form: 1. A barrage of scientific truths that were presented in non-sequitur form: climate is always changing, Earth’s atmosphere has had much higher levels of carbon dioxide during its history, Earth has had much warmer epochs throughout its history, Earth has experienced much greater climate temperature variations in its past, plants have a Brawndo-like craving for carbon dioxide, blah blah blah. 2. Examples of garbled scientific logic and cherry-picked data: the part on the temperature vs. carbon dioxide relationship was completely incoherent and included chicken/egg causality sleights of hand. The part on extreme weather events was consistently (and deliberately) unclear on the details of factors like geographical locations of inquiry, timeframes, number of events, and severity of events. 3. Examples of scientific lies by omission: the infamous urban heat island effect was presented, but the film neglected to mention that this well-known effect has already been quantified and universally accounted for in the climate data. The cosmic ray theory was cute, too: as solar magnetic field activity increases, more cosmic rays are deflected as they approach Earth, cloud formation (due to the ionizing effect from the cosmic rays in the atmosphere) decreases, less incoming solar energy is then reflected due to the decrease in cloud coverage, and so the planet surface warms. What the film conveniently didn’t mention is that none of the aforementioned (besides the warming planet) have been measured to have occurred at any appreciable extent over the past several decades! Moreover, this theory is undermined by observations of both comparatively greater nighttime warming as well as stratosphere cooling (FYI: this stratosphere cooling is essentially the smoking gun of anthropogenic warming causality…as opposed to a natural solar warming causal explanation…but of course that still won’t stop the right-wing skeptics…). 4. Social commentary on climate change: oh em gee…so much movie time was spent covering all possible groups of people who may stand to benefit from the climate change emergency. Ironically enough, there was no mention of the people who are funding the people funding this right-wing propaganda film. 5. Polemical libertarianism: fearmongering of Marxists, communists, socialists, big government, any critics of laissez-faire capitalism, etc…the movie clearly has a predetermined economics conclusion and works backward to make the scientific narrative fit. This Ayn Rand-inspired economics conclusion is that curmudgeonly misanthropes who hate the social contract and hate paying taxes don’t want to be held accountable for their negative externalities.

Oh, well yeah it’s definitely very close to his argument! Piketty’s critiques stem from the Marxist family of economic philosophies, which all call for wealth redistribution to correct inherent flaws in unfettered capitalism: namely, the return of labor-based wealth stolen from workers. This is something in which I very much believe: laissez-faire capitalism inevitably leads to gross wealth inequalities, oligarchies, and massive social instability. It somewhat boils down to passive income vs. active income (time is money, as they say, and is quite limited), as well as all the major themes you’ll find in Naomi Klein’s “The Shock Doctrine” and Noam Chomsky’s “Manufacturing Consent.” I’m not well-versed in international economics history, nor have I carefully read Piketty’s two books, “Capital in the 21st Century” and “Capital and Ideology.” What I can confidently say, however, is that we have excellent American economics data at least since the World Wars. The Neoliberal Era (~1980-now) and Piketty’s golden outlier era, ~1945-1970, do at least seem to support his thesis that inequality skyrockets when capital investment growth outpaces technology-driven macroeconomic growth. Right before the Progressive Era, we also know that the Gilded Age had absurd levels of wealth concentration, poor labor relations, terrible worker conditions, and rampant business/political corruption. In my layman’s opinion, for what it’s worth to you, I do find the solutions component of Piketty’s argument to be seriously lacking. Estate and inheritance taxes don’t do much to lift socioeconomic mobility. Combined with Piketty’s extremely progressive income tax proposals, all of this diminishes the capital resource pools we know can be critical for rapid macroeconomic growth. I’d rather focus on what’s happening at the bottom rungs of the socioeconomic ladder: improving labor negotiating power, addressing education and housing costs, eliminating medical debt, various consumer protections, etc. See clarification #1 in my follow-up post. We are technically not disagreeing with each other on the definition. Contemporary first world socialists, however, do emphasize mandatory worker cooperative models way more so than government ownership models. The exceptions are select economic services, such as health care or (often) energy, to which every citizen is supposed to have equal access and collective ownership. In other words, most contemporary socialists don’t advocate for the government owning and micromanaging the widget company; they’d rather the collective workers at the company be in that position. Also, be mindful of the distinction between ownership and control/management (see: dirigisme market economies as an example). In conversations like these, also be mindful of the distinction between private property (company buildings, production machines, tracts of land, raw materials, etc.) and personal property (such as the various economic goods you own in your house). Lastly, I would qualify the capitalism-to-communism transition component of socialism’s definition as a historical anachronism. While it CAN be true, most contemporary socialists are not aspiring communists.

Thanks! I’m glad you liked! A few clarifications: 1. In my definition of “socialism,” bottom-up management structures like worker cooperatives can also be substituted with top-down ones managed by the government. The operative phrase in the definition is “owning the means of production.” Who has ownership of the enterprise? Who is collecting the profit or who is benefiting from the enterprise’s services? Under socialism, it should be the collective workers or the inclusive citizenry. 2. Marx’s labor theory of value obviously doesn’t hold up to any quantitative rigor in modern economics, but the “spirit” of the theory endures. Over the past four decades of neoliberalism, we know that labor productivity has increased (based on GDP, hours worked, and other metrics from the BLS and the BEA) while inflation-adjusted wages have remained relatively stagnant (especially for the working class) compared to that of the wealthiest 1%. 3. When I say capitalists “steal” labor-based wealth from workers, I’m not necessarily making a moral judgment. Unless we return to the days of strictly barter economies, some degree of labor exploitation is needed to run any profitable enterprise…no matter the type of economic system. But what’s the distinction between a “theoretical” definition and an “actual” definition?? I’m using definitions that will help you communicate in places, such as Europe, where actual socialists are elected with regularity. If you choose a “practical” definition for use in the United States and among right-wing communities, then you’ll need to make non-arbitrary distinctions between government-driven or government-mandated solutions that are to be called socialist and those that are not. Upon doing so, you may find that many or most Republicans end up classified in some way as socialists, too. And if everyone’s a socialist, then no one is a socialist! Also, good luck getting everyone to agree on a common definition outside the academic one…and without agreed-upon definitions of words, society inevitably descends into a kind of human sacrifice/dogs-and-cats-living-together form of mass hysteria…eeek!! FYI, there are models of socialism in which effectively no government authority exists. Libertarian socialism and social anarchism are two such examples.

I think much of this is incorrect. A socialist is simply someone who advocates for an economic system in which the workers own the means of production through mandated worker cooperatives, with the implication here being it to be true for a large majority of industries, if not the entirety of them. A democratic socialist is a specific type of socialist who wants to achieve this type of economic system peacefully, often gradually, and from the bottom up…i.e. via democracy. Under this definition, we don’t see a single socialist in the U.S. government at the national level. Bernie and The Squad are social democrats who occasionally use democratic socialist rhetoric for strategic reasons. Liz Warren is a liberal, not a progressive…let alone a socialist. Hmmm…perhaps I should go over a few more definitions?? A liberal is someone who believes in the necessity of wealth redistribution under the auspices of the social contract, but that this redistribution should come via taxation and free market-based solutions. A social democrat differs from a liberal in that more aggressive and direct intrusions into free market capitalism (and its guiding political system) are argued to be necessary so to achieve this wealth redistribution. A social democrat will therefore advocate for full nationalization and/or forced market interventions into industries related to the welfare state (health care, housing, education, etc.). The two main features distinguishing a social democrat from a liberal are probably advocacy for universal health care and not accepting corporate/big-money campaign donations. In terms of the political spectrum line: you can think of social democracy as the extreme right-wing limit of socialism, but it is not traditionally considered socialism unless industries beyond the social safety net are to be nationalized (such as energy industries). Social democracy, democratic socialism, all other types of socialism, and communism (so basically everything to the left of liberalism) are all technically subsumed into progressivism even though progressivism is considered synonymous with social democracy in the United States vernacular. Social democracy politics are considered far-left in the United States but center-right in many European countries. All of the aforementioned differ from American right-wingers (classical liberals, libertarians, laissez-faire capitalists, anarcho-capitalists, etc.) in their belief that, at least in some very general sense, Marx’s labor theory of value has merit. That is to say: capitalists inherently steal labor-based wealth from their workers in order to turn a profit, as the theory goes, and so at least some degree of wealth redistribution is needed to return at least some of that wealth. Glaring example: any successful CEO with his or her low-wage employees subsisting below the poverty threshold. Colloquially speaking, I guess you could say many of these dividing lines are arbitrary. All nations in the West have embraced mixed economies of some varying form. Moreover, nearly all right-wingers believe in nationalizing service industries like a national defense, police protection, fire protection, a postal service, and civil infrastructure usage. As others have already mentioned, by the way: Social Security is not an example of socialism. There really isn’t even a wealth redistribution element to it…it’s more like a specific kind of government-mandated wealth management.

Eeek…private sector wage drops and those super high poverty rates will make it really tough to generate service consumption. The main risk with Milei’s economic shock therapy strategy comes from those deflationary death spirals that lingering debt troubles permeating the economic landscape will exacerbate. No doubt that this is the most interesting macroeconomic experiment in the world today. Milei has accomplished the easy part of chopping down the government budget, even though some of those government services shouldn’t have been deemed wasteful. He seems way more fixated on political dogma than practical problem-solving. Many of Argentina’s biggest problems with its government were reported to be basic cases of internal corruption. Hopefully Argentina leans into their agriculture industry and their renewable energy industry potential, coupled with the elimination of some unnecessary price controls and regulatory red tape.

Muppy! Speaking of black dresses…quick fashion question for ya: honest thoughts on a black velvet maxi with torso cut-outs and a thigh slit?? I’m thinking about wearing one tomorrow night to a formal dinner and work-related speaker event with a bunch of fellow engineer types. It’s my go-to L.B.D. variant and among my most favorite selections in my entire wardrobe arsenal. The fashion goals here are confidence, functionality, class, and elegance. It’s actually not too dissimilar from what EmRata is wearing in the Vogue pic below, which is like straight out of the Garment District. Key differences: one torso cut in the middle, a torso cut on each side, mostly backless, halter choker, side thigh slit, none of the silver ornaments in the front, also no Jimmy Choo heels lol….my dress is probably one-tenth the price of hers. The material is very heavy: a synthetic polymer-based (so no silk-based) velvet fabric that fits very tightly around the waist before collapsing straight down at the hips. I have no idea how cold the restaurant and speaker hall will be, but I also have the option of a couple cropped black cardigans…off-the-shoulder or regular long-sleeved. Gracias! -Commie Kay P.S. To those who don’t like me hijacking the global warming thread: just ask me specific questions on “Climate: The Movie.” I’ve already seen it. It’s total trash, and I’ll explain why. Hey, you know what’s not trash?? BLACK VELVET MAXI DRESSES.

Yikes! A few quotes that stood out to me: 1. Kushner casually remarks how Bibi “maybe” won’t allow Palestinians to return to Gaza. He comes across as disturbingly comfortable with the concept of ethnic cleansing. Sociopaths gonna sociopath, I suppose… 2. Kushner thinks a two-state solution is “a super bad idea” that “would essentially be rewarding an act of terror.” Contrast that with Biden’s statements in which he has at least referred to a two-state solution as the long-term goal. This is presumably the key Gaza crisis policy difference between Biden and Trump. Believe it or not, Trump and the GOP are willingly positioning themselves to the political RIGHT of an ongoing genocide…since there is apparently perfect accordance between Bibi and Trump. Joe Biden is still “Genocide Joe” to me because it’s happening on his presidential watch and because he’s had over 5 months to alter the situation via aggressive diplomacy, suspension of military aid, and/or economic sanctions. Nevertheless…rhetoric at least suggests some faint hope of future course reversal under continued Democrat control. 3. According to Kushner, “if you think about even the construct, Gaza was not really a historical precedent. It was the result of a war. You had tribes in different places and then Gaza became a thing. Egypt used to run it and then over time different governments came in.” Ugh. Can Zionists like this idiot comprehend the irony of such a political statement?? The mindset of settler colonialism is apparently one of pathological brain rot and normalized sociopathy. Ethnic cleansing, collective punishment, and genocide appear to be the inevitable end stage of 75 years of this mindset. Multiple other countries can claim rights to Gaza based on the past several thousand years of history preceding the Nakba: Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, even Greece and Italy lol… What would be the strength of Israel’s claim other than “Western imperialistic might makes right” morality, a few passages in the Torah, and possibly also payback for Samson’s (that hot Biblical guy with great hair) misadventure during his sojourn there?!

Sup, Mup?! THANK YOU SO MUCH for hijacking this ridiculous thread and turning it into a substantive conversation on women’s fashion. Everything that needed to be said here on anthropogenic global warming has probably already been said. I am, sadly, quite familiar with the Martin Durkin/Tom Nelson film, “Climate: The Movie.” If anyone has genuine scientific questions specifically related to this terrible movie, I’ll be happy to discuss them. Otherwise… << Narrator: The collective readership sighs, bracing themselves for another obnoxiously long post… >> Your black dress is fine, Muppy. Don’t let Leh-nerd fashion bully you. For one thing, most black dresses are essentially considered timeless. You can also accessorize it with knee-high boots or a crop top jacket, or you can alter the hemline or the tassels. But don’t be afraid of clothing considered “vintage.” Commie Kay Fashion Fun Fact: I have several uber-vintage dresses that have worked themselves into my semi-regular rotation. I’ve collected Edith Head Hollywood facsimiles that began as Halloween costumes, but now I leisurely wear them out to parks or to Brooklyn hipster house parties and they’re a major hit! If you’re looking in general for a demure style that’s contemporary and classy, I can tell you that maxi dresses are very popular here in NYC (and presumably also in Paris…and Milan, London, etc.). If you want to go bold and contemporary, form-fitting bodycon is the way to go. And you can never go wrong with monochromatic or floral patterns, IMO. PM me for details if you’d like. I’m also curious about the differences between SoCal style trends and Northeast style trends. Even between Manhattan and Brooklyn (and definitely Buffalo!), they can vary considerably. Let us now address The Fundamental Fashion Tao of Commie Kay: 1. Choose a style that’s uniquely YOU: fashion is supposed to be personal, self-descriptive, and artistic. Don’t get too caught up in the latest fads or the uber-competitive milieu that is Paris, the location of Leh-nerd’s film. Also, ignore any Leh-nerd-like misogynistic mocking or bro bromides. Go haute couture if you’d like, but not if it makes you feel internally unsettled (I personally find more fulfillment in the challenge of seeking out clothes that are both inexpensive and fashionable). 2. Accentuate your best attributes and divert from your flaws: Know your body shape, skin tone, and facial features. Having a close friend who is comfortable keeping it real with you is invaluable. If you have Brie Larson abs, dress like Brie Larson. But if you’re mortal…Commie Kay Fashion Cheat Code: skater dresses, patterned hosiery, and heels make a great combo regardless of body type. If you’re in Paris, though, I’d upgrade this to a hemline at least halfway up the thigh, ultra-sheer pantyhose, and 4+ inch heels…IF IT IS IMPERATIVE (despite my previous paragraph’s theme) that your cosmopolitan peers know you are a SARTORIAL SLAYER and that you are NOT. EFFING. AROUND. WITH. FASHION. 3. Stay mindful of what’s appropriate for the occasion: Leh-nerd is making you a hostess in his movie, but he also forward slashed “brothel” with “vegan restaurant.” The difference clearly matters. Further clarification from him is needed. In the meantime, as a hostess of some sort, I would say maybe go with a super cute blazer dress?? P.S. I, too, have a current fashion obsession: this Oscar de la Renta red floral bandage dress that Emily Blunt is modeling below! I think I shall wear this in Leh-nerd’s jejune right-wing propaganda movie. I suppose John Krasinski (bonus points: fellow Polish-American!) could fill in for Tiberius? Poor Tibsy’s crooked smile and lazy eye just won’t work on the silver screen. Gary Oldman (or Gary Busey?! Eek!) can play Irv. George Wendt will play B-Man. Bob Odenkirk will play The Frankish Reich. Sloth from The Goonies will play Leh-nerd, obviously.

Right, but why the sudden urgency to act upon it now?? That’s the point. Organizations like AIPAC exert influence on politicians via campaign donations (a.k.a. bribes). Such is life in American politics, at least until Citizens United v. FEC (2010) is ever overturned. Everyone is waking up to the rank immorality that is American imperialism and Israeli settler colonialism. The proverbial cat is out of the proverbial bag. “Meow,” cries the kitty. Oooh…kitty has claws, too. Kitty go, “Hiss!” Whether or not banning TikTok can prevent (or could have ever prevented) this moral awakening is immaterial at this point, though I’d argue that the truth will always eventually work its way out through other media platforms. The speed at which the truth spreads is the only true variable. Corporate media entities like MSNBC and New York Times are effectively (non-vegan dietary…Bristol stool scale: type 1) turds in the communication toilet for neoliberal Boomer poopers. TikTok, I suppose, is just one of many possible plungers in this really gross and weird analogy. Now SHOULD the government ban TikTok for general reasons of national defense? That’s a different argument, but also a tired one. Of course not. This was essentially debated ad nauseum during the height of the War on Terror, which itself is part of the U.S. security state’s wider ongoing war on personal freedoms since approximately 1945. Banning is also impractical because similar data is collected elsewhere online and can be acquired by any variety of ways that banning one specific foreign app won’t stop. Now WILL the government ban TikTok? Very doubtful that it passes in the Senate or survives the public outcry. Banning it would be economically detrimental and electorally detrimental (especially for Biden, who badly needs Gen Z to come out and vote). BTW, does anyone here disagree with Commie Kay’s framing of Israeli genocide? Then come debate her in Tibsy’s thread, “Israel and the Slaughter in Gaza.” Start with Kay’s 13-point outline on page 183. Refute her argument, point by point.

Yup, basically. Corporate oligarchs and their political minions blame TikTok for Gen Z rejecting Zionist narratives, thereby destabilizing American politics. But the realities of the ongoing Gazan genocide are alone to be blamed for that (see: my 13-point post in the “Israel and the Slaughter in Gaza” thread, page 183). Banning TikTok will only lead to further destabilization of American politics. I’m guessing that it’s probably still defined by partisan politics, but this time outside the left vs. right paradigm and by roughly more of a populist vs. establishment one. I see that all of my people (the progressives, a.k.a. the left-wing populists) correctly voted “no” on the ban: AOC, Jamaal Bowman, Cori Bush, Greg Casar, Maxwell Frost, Pramila Jayapal, Ro Khanna, Summer Lee, Jerry Nadler, Ilhan Omar, Mark Pocan, Ayanna Pressley, Delia Ramirez, etc…Rashida Tlaib didn’t vote for some reason. Trump and MAGA (a.k.a. the right-wing populists), comparably speaking, are almost but not quite as coherent on this issue. We do know that Trump also hates everything China, loves Bibi 100%, and pretty much helped trigger the procession of events leading up to October 7 when he moved the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Furthermore, I do question the “populism” element in right-wing populism because what these politicians purvey is a rebranded Reagan-era platform of laissez-faire economic policies, behind a veil of Christian nationalism, that solely benefit corporate oligarchs and imperialists.

What up, MUP?! I’m classic all the way! Three reasons why: 1. Our logo needs to have swords in it. We are the Buffalo SABRES, after all! 2. The birth of a white bison is a sacred sign to Native Americans, and upstate New York is the sacred land of the Haudenosaunee. 3. Blue and gold are the unofficial colors of New York state (though I’d be open to a change from royal blue to something like Columbia blue…to help distinguish us a bit from the Blues and Predators). The red and black goatheads are a fun alternate uni, however. I’m not a hater. I even like the Buffaslug because of the childhood nostalgia lol… BTW, I love the fact that you’re a complete Buffalo sports loyalist despite being a SoCal gal…and such an infectious optimist, too! When this franchise finally makes the playoffs, there will be an airport team greeting that will rival anything the Bills experienced. All the main pieces are in place right now. We just need to get Cozens and the Skinner-Thompson-Tuch line going like last year. Something like a 12-4-0 season finish is needed…tough, but not impossible.

Note for whomever is reading this discussion: France has never had elective abortion legally available beyond 4 months, nor has there ever been a time in France’s history in which abortion was not regulated in some way. I do need to clarify my use of the phrase, “acute mental distress.” I was referring to serious mental health situations in which the pregnant mother poses a physical health risk to herself…i.e., suicidal ideations. In France, a pregnant female beyond 4 months only needs to convince 1-2 certified therapists or psychologists that this is roughly the situation in which she finds herself. So if she is truly committed to a late-term abortion, then it’s not hard to legally get one. I don’t condone manipulating or lying to a health professional; I’m simply stating the reality of what a French woman can do. Conservatives in the United States would never approve of this type of exception, thus highlighting one of many reasons why current French abortion policy is considered significantly more progressive than Trump’s proposal. My Gawd, Leh-nerd…this emotional diatribe…your time of the month or something?? << Kay hands Leh-nerd a tall glass of cranberry juice to help alleviate his menstrual cramps. >> Are you calm now? Ok, let’s logically address your questions: You should reconsider your stance on the mental health exception (see: clarification above where I distinguish “acute mental distress” from mild cases of depression and anxiety). Since a pregnant female who commits suicide kills the fetus, too, wouldn’t it be better to at least rescue one instead of losing both? In some cases, these situations can’t be resolved in time with medication and talk therapy (…over new parenthood worries, partner separation, career turbulence, etc.). We don’t want to drive these vulnerable women and girls toward seeking out measures of self-harm or very risky back-alley abortions. This is certainly not the most exercised abortion exception, but it’s more common than we’d like among teenagers and women of lower socioeconomic standing. Moreover, only the medical community should be qualified to adjudicate these cases…not the legal one nor the general public. You say we already raise enough tax revenue to support new mothers as needed, but the fact of the matter is that the money doesn’t get to them. The American social safety net is paltry compared to the rest of the Western world, and the United States is the only modern industrialized country in the world without a universal health care system. So we not only force financially and emotionally unprepared mothers to give birth, but we also don’t guarantee these women the proper early motherhood resources (health care, day care, maternity leave, etc.) compared to more rational countries like, say, FRANCE. I would prefer to raise tax revenue for public maternity care with Wall Street speculation taxes, progressive federal income tax structures, military budget reductions, and a few prudent tricks here and there from Modern Monetary Theory. I admittedly haven’t been following Biden’s student loan “boondoggle” too closely, and I also don’t think this is the appropriate place to address such a nuanced topic. But before advocating for major alterations to postsecondary education policy, note that the extreme levels of student loan debt among my generation (in large part due to college educations costs far outpacing inflation-adjusted wage growth since the 1970’s) are highly suboptimal for macroeconomic growth. There. Feel any better, Mr. Grumpy?? << Kay rubs Leh-nerd’s belly, hands him one of her (unused) menstrual pads. >>

Hi Justice, Roughly what percentage of Palestinians would you guess feel the same way currently as you do, regarding a two-state solution with the 1967/Green Line borders? Also, what’s the current sentiment for prospects of a one-state solution? From a complete outsider’s perspective, the one-state solution just seems like the more practical one at this point. I’d also be bothered with having Israeli land situated between a non-contiguous Palestinian country of Gaza plus the West Bank (don’t even get me started with Alaska and Canada…ugh…). Thank you for the kind words, Coffeesforclosers! A few thread pages back, I presented a 13-point argument outlining why Israel is guilty of collective punishment, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. The responses were the usual ad hominems, whataboutisms, and strawmen. Most right-wingers didn’t even bother to respond because they know the argument, 5 full months beyond October 7, is unfortunately unassailable. As for the trolling warnings…believe me, it won’t take much more for this troll-ee to become the troll-er. I’ve been in a foul sports mood all week because I dearly miss Tre White, Poyer, and Morse…and the Sabres are being the Sabres again…(sigh). So the next wrinkly reactionary (wizened Westside, decrepit Doc, tired Tommy Callahan, etc.) to give me a single negative emoticon response is likely in serious trouble. If I may recall a quote from world-renowned Jewish pacifist, Walter Sobchak: “This is what happens when you f*#k a stranger in the a$$.” Oh you know I will, Tibsy! Kay be ROLLING down this forum with a shotgun. These right-wing Boomers ain’t seen a white-skinned leftist chica Since Greg Gutfeld last hosted one. <<< funky Tom Morello guitar sounds >>>

What?! My most recent post to you was 128 words…I just checked with an online copy/paste word counter. Too much?? What a joke. I’ve already outlined for you the stark contrasts between France’s current abortion policy and Trump’s vague abortion proposal. Do with this info what you will. FYI: the bill is historic because it made France the first country to ever have abortion a constitutionally protected right. Throughout French history, abortion has always been regulated to some extent but has become incrementally less so since the 1970’s. It has remained decriminalized in France since the 1970’s. I’m not sure you know what “decriminalization” means. “Womansplaining,” you say? C’est la vie. You entered a female reproductive rights thread with a question, be it genuine or sardonic, that intimated a close similarity between the pro-choice gold standard that is France’s abortion policy and that of Trump’s. My focus here at TBD PPP is to stop the spread of ridiculous right-wing propaganda. As I’ve repeatedly stated, the only commonality between the two is an approximately 15-week temporal limit. Trump won’t even clarify whether abortion rights are to be federally protected up through the first 4 months. He wants to ban many of the blue state laws after 4 months, for sure, but what about some of those red state laws before 4 months? A doctor’s note is needed in France because abortion after 4 months is considered a major medical procedure. That seems like a reasonable minimal request to me and one that ultimately values a woman’s health and safety. In France, I think it might even be two prior consultation notes from health professionals: doctors, therapists, surgeons, etc… In any event, I suppose you are free to interpret this standard as an “illusion of choice,” but let’s not pretend like it’s anything as onerous as mandating the involvement of law enforcement, lawyers, and judges. Also, why do you think acute mental distress is not a valid reason to terminate a pregnancy? What exactly do you know about major depressive disorder and other mental illnesses, and how pregnancy can exacerbate these conditions in women? And once the afflicted mothers are forced to give birth, do you care what happens to the mothers and babies via maternity leave, postnatal health care services, and general financial preparedness for motherhood? Are you willing to have your taxes raised a bit to help these mothers? LOL, thank you for calling me a “moronic parrot.” Spamming falsehoods won’t will them into truths, you know.

I would call those war crimes from Hamas, yes. Your “whataboutism” debate tactics annoy me. You don’t see me arguing that the Arab world should level Haifa and Tel Aviv because of the Gaza genocide. Let’s imagine this scenario: a small group of armed killers are loose in your neighborhood. They are hiding in backyards and bushes and basements…possibly digging tunnels between properties, too. The SWAT team arrives, barricades the neighborhood perimeter, hurriedly tells everyone to leave the premises, proceeds to firebomb all the houses, and ends up killing dozens of residents in the process…including your loved ones! How would you feel?? Would you accept this outcome as the necessary cost of stopping crime? Or would you not-so-politely request that the police force consider more calculated and more precise measures and protocols?

Oh Tommy, there is a certain JE NE SAIS QUOI with your posts… Think about the different components of an abortion law: 1. Temporal limits. 2. List of exceptions. 3. Processes by which exceptions are granted. 4. Any constitutional protections. 5. Federal protections up to the temporal limit (or limits, in cases of state-by-state legislation). 6. Trustworthiness of politicians promoting said law. Now think about what makes France’s current abortion situation different from Trump’s proposal, given the context of these 6 components. Also, make sure you understand what the difference between component #4 and component #5 implies. While your point about the media’s narrative framing is technically true, I also find their framing to be apt. Component #1 is basically the only commonality here between France and Trump. WOAH. Leh-nerd Skin-erd. Now there’s a name I haven’t seen posting in a long time…a long time… In France, I believe it’s 4 full months, technically, from one’s last period. So imagine this scenario: Mademoiselle Adamski casually walking down a street in Paris, listening to “Par Les Paupieres” by Alizee, with a (plant-based) croissant in hand. She’s looking particularly ELECTRIC that day with her blonde highlights and a Chartreuse-colored long-sleeve pencil dress from Les Sublimes, ruched from the waist to the upper thighs. She serendipitously bumps into some guy along the sidewalk who looks like Timothee Chalamet. He cannot resist the scrumptious sight…and I ain’t talkin’ ‘bout that croissant, Leh-nerd!! Long story short because this is a family board (think: 50 Shades of KAY…very hawt…), eight months pass by and everyone’s favorite verbose vegan has a visible baguette in the oven. But the Timothee look-alike is suddenly no longer in the picture because, well, it’s a long story… So Kay visits a therapist and cites the overwhelming mental distress. Or how the Timothee look-alike was actually some rapist who more closely resembled Gerard Depardieu. A quickly signed note or two later and…well…do you now see the contrast between France’s “pro-life” policy and what the pro-life debates are like here in America? Read my previous posts if you’re still confused. Or call on our friend, Muppy, to help explain things. Adieu, - La Kay

Um…ok….well, collective punishment is an official war crime. The total number of Hamas combatants was estimated at about 30,000 last year. The rest of the 2+ million affected Gazans had nothing to do with October 7 and were simply living their lives before Israel initiated the genocide. An overwhelming majority of Gazans never even voted for Hamas back in 2006. And even if they do support Hamas, that’s kind of like saying every American who supported the Bush Jr. administration during the second Iraq War and the Afghanistan War deserved death at the hands of radical Islamic terrorists. Yes, endless war is profitable for the American military-industrial complex. AIPAC campaign donations help, too. Interminable warfare also helps keep Netanyahu and his far-right sociopathic friends in power. I do believe Israel has some sort of end goal, however: full Palestinian land seizure and the hope that the international community takes in the displaced Palestinian population. The bottom line is that Status Quo Joe has plenty of leverage to immediately end this genocide that he chooses not to exercise. Reagan successfully pressured Israel during the 1982 Lebanon War. H.W. Bush played hardball with West Bank settlers in 1991. Biden should be taking a similarly active and aggressive role in negotiations that include demands for a permanent ceasefire, hostage releases, financial remediation, immediate humanitarian relief, and outlines for a two-state (or preferably one-state) solution. Otherwise, all our military aid to Israel should be promptly withheld. One would think that the specter of losing to Trump in November would be ample motivation to BLEEPING do something here!! We’re seeing multiple dead canaries in this Gazan crisis coal mine: the “Uncommitted” primary votes in Michigan (and elsewhere tonight on Super Tuesday??), nationwide poll shifts reflecting a great moral awakening for the plight of Palestinians, and consecutive months with sagging poll numbers behind Trump. This is why I’m beginning to theorize that the DNC and the center-left corporate oligarchs will push to elevate someone like Gretchen Whitmer at the August convention. She is salable as a tabula rasa for the Gaza crisis, checks the female/age/swing state/governorship boxes, is strong on the flagship issue of abortion, and still has progressive oratorical pivoting potential. Regarding my foreign policy cynicism: I rarely mention the good aspects of American foreign policy because too much back-patting distracts from elucidating all the grave problems with American imperialism. That’s just how Commie Kay rolls. I think economic restraints will ultimately prevail in ways that institutions of international law cannot. Israel is rapidly devolving to “pariah state” status. BDS movements are picking up global momentum. Israel’s economy has already shrunk by 20%. Local businesses are suffering from both Israeli conscription and the loss of Gazan migrant workers. The Netanyahu regime is provoking an expensive multi-front war with Hezbollah, Egypt, and other Arab nations. Even the United States may eventually resort to pulling back the purse strings, at the behest of progressive Democrats and all other Americans with a functioning moral compass.

Here ya go, Tibs! The United Nations’ definition of genocide: “Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: 1. Killing members of the group. 2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group. 3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. 4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group. 5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.” The definition of ethnic cleansing: “The systematic and forced removal of an ethnic, religious, or racial group from a given area, with the intent of making that area ethnically homogeneous.” The definition of collective punishment: “A punishment imposed on a group for acts allegedly perpetrated by a member of that group.” Other than clause #5 in the genocide criteria, I could argue that Israel is guilty of all of the above. The ICJ has already called the genocide accusation “plausible.” Here is my own list of reasons why I would advance the charge from “plausible” to “probable” (please feel free to edit or add): 1. A completely unacceptable civilian casualty ratio, by historical war standards, of 9.9:1 (this is a 90.8% civilian casualty percentage…34,570 civilian deaths to 3,496 combatant deaths…source: Euro-Med HRM, Feb 23). 2. Woefully inadequate actions taken to prevent famine in Gaza. 3. Two million displaced Gazans, with no apparent plans provided or promises given for returning to their homes. 4. Numerous instances of documented and suspected war crimes, such as the most recent IDF convoy slaughter in northern Gaza. 5. Incendiary and dehumanizing rhetoric from far-right government leaders that indicate genocidal intent. 6. Official Israeli government rejection of any future talks for two-state or one-state solutions. 7. Hostage rescue not appearing to be a high priority, as many Israeli citizen protestors have argued and as the appearance of indiscriminate bombing in Jabalia, Gaza City, and Khan Younis suggests. 8. No articulation of what a “victory” over Hamas would look like, along with a distinct lack of awareness in how their October 7 retribution will multiply manyfold a new generation of Hamas-like terrorists. 9. Evidence of cultural erasure with hundreds of mosques, schools, cemeteries, and heritage sites destroyed. 10. Innumerable attempts to obfuscate and conceal war crimes via bureaucratic lying (UNRWA worker allegations, etc.), preventions of media access inside Gaza, and false propaganda campaigns (Anat Schwartz, etc.)…not to mention attacks on 173 press headquarters and the deaths of 130+ journalists. 11. Guilt by historical context: Zionism’s ideological roots in settler colonialism and the ensuing ethnostate practices of apartheid, violent acts of ethnic cleansing such as the 1948 Nakba, repeatedly broken promises during negotiations with Palestinians, and land seizures like after the 1967 Six-Day War or like the illegal West Bank settlements which are intended to break up Palestinian land contiguity. 12. Guilt by association: Israel existing as a critical Middle Eastern proxy state for an imperialistic sugar daddy, the American Empire…and we Americans are responsible for a litany of our own international ethics violations (disastrous regime-change wars, organized coups, drone strikes, and general labor/resource exploitation throughout the Middle East and the Americas…dating back to the Monroe Doctrine, really). 13. An imminent Rafah invasion that will likely only strengthen the charges against Israel. Note that some of the aforementioned reasons are obviously not crimes, but they are meant to establish INTENT, which is apparently a very critical component of ICJ genocide charges.

Eek! The political tribalism in this thread is truly astounding. But at least the stans for Javier Milei and the stans for Thomas Friedman are united in an acknowledgment that the American middle class is in bad shape and that resuscitating it is good for the overall economy. The questions people should be asking themselves about the middle class: 1. What does the macroeconomic data say about the beginning of its demise in America? 2. What factors, policies, and specific legislation are believed to have contributed to its demise? 3. What factors, policies, and specific legislation can be expected to lead to its recovery? 4. What does GDP growth have to say about its health as well as the health of the other economic classes? 5. How are various inflation metrics correlated with its health and also with the health of the other economic classes? My advice: seek out books or economics research paper reviews for answers to these questions…not social media posts or message board forums for perpetually underachieving pro football teams (<< Kay Adams cry emoji >>).

Oh, I very much doubt we disagree on the “dark” nature of man…though I’ll spare you a boring theoretical rant on Hobbes versus Rousseau! Any disagreement seems to be coming down to a fundamental difference in prioritization. With my public policy support of abortion up to birth, I’m choosing to prioritize the well-being of one group (pregnant women qualifying for a reasonable exception) at the unfortunate expense of not fully protecting another (fetuses that may be terminated for what we may perceive to be disreputable reasons). You can prioritize the latter instead of the former, but remember that the abortion statistics tell us that the latter group happens to be WAY smaller in number than the former. Moreover, I’ve always been personally uncomfortable telling any woman that she MUST endure the challenging experiences of pregnancy and childbirth, no matter the circumstances, when I, myself, have yet to even experience it. Nevertheless…I’m open to compromise. I could accept Trump’s 16-week limit if his list of exceptions was expanded beyond his proffered 3 and if exception-granting powers were shifted from lawyers and judges to doctors and therapists. Bear in mind that this is my own opinion and is not necessarily representative of typical progressives. I’m a centrist on many issues (crime, immigration, guns, political correctness), open to centrist solutions on others (macroeconomics, foreign policy), and am really only an intransigent pinko commie on a couple (health care, environmentalism). Final thought…since I feel like I inadequately explained myself with “dualities” and what not…let’s try a “proof by contradiction,” of sorts. Let’s apply the sentience standard commonly used in the animal rights community. So legally protected life now begins at the point in which pain can be experienced. For human fetuses, this would be some point between 12 and 24 weeks (i.e., the second trimester). Scientists (and philosophers) still debate the specific point at which this becomes a reality, but let’s say it is clearly delineated for the sake of argument. If this is the case, then what legal right do we have to allow ANY abortion exception (including rape) other than the life of the mother? We allow life termination for self-defense, but not for inconvenience! A similar logical fallacy arises in animal rights discussions. If one accepts the sentience standard, then one MUST outlaw free range farming and recreational hunting in addition to the usual: factory farm living conditions, animal entertainment exploitation, and any method of execution deemed torturous. Did this clarify?? So my argument condensed in one sentence: the concept of “legal dualities” is an unavoidable feature accompanying any action of defining and protecting life in a civil society.

Yes, I’m quite familiar with the EU’s abortion policy. It’s far from optimal for many women, especially the ones geographically stuck in Eastern Europe. You’re not defending the existence of every red state abortion law, are you? You don’t see anything unconstitutional with any of them? Is that the debate path you want to take? The COVID lockdown was (ostensibly) about PUBLIC health. Your refusal to get vaccinated affects everyone else’s health in indoor places. The right to PRIVACY is very much still an inalienable right. How do our abortion decisions affect your personal life? Re-read my court-packing threat. That’s the constitutional crisis we’re facing if 5 or 6 unelected individuals keep pushing their retrograde superstitious nonsense on an entire country of ~340 million. Overturning a federal abortion law that had passed through Congress would be catastrophic for the country’s stability and not just for the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Roberts knows this. If your entire argument reduces to Supreme Court fatalism, then you don’t have much of an argument.

No, your Tenth Amendment argument deflection is the strawman. Trump is peddling a 16-week, 3-exception proposal at the federal level. Biden is promising to sign any federal codification of Roe v. Wade/PP v. Casey if re-elected. Judy Chu’s Women’s Health Protection Act (H.R. 12, 2023) passed through the House and was only a handful of votes shy in the Senate. So addressing abortion at the federal level is very much part of the public discourse. The Ninth Amendment argument is what’s pertinent. Many of the red state abortion laws and law proposals we’ve seen since Dobbs v. Jackson (2022) are blatant violations of a woman’s inalienable rights (privacy, life, liberty, pursuits of happiness, etc.). Unless someone here would like to try and defend the merits of 6-week abortion limits, banned contraception, criminalization of abortion, interstate travel restrictions for abortion, etc…?? The right-wing forum silence is deafening… A word to the conservative wise: get abortion figured out at the federal level ASAP, since you guys keep underperforming in elections and are going to lose every public policy you hold dear within a generation’s time. Consider compromise and understand that progressives will have to pack the court if this Christian nationalist version of the Lochner Era persists.