Being called a “great person” imo should take a history of fighting for equality and dignity for everyone, and for most of his long career Biden has been doing the opposite of that.
a 30 second google search and the plentiful articles and videos it’ll show you of biden being racist, homophobic and classicist during his entire career and defending those racist, homophobic and classicist decisions during his campaign in 2020 proves that you’re either patsy or a shill.
Sure, I haven’t done my research, and the politics of the last few years is basically all I’ve got to go by. And that’s mainly through Norwegian media, which maybe doesn’t dive too deep into the history of the people.
It seems so obvious. She’s what Democrats have been asking for in recent years. Would I prefer she have a bit more experience in Congress before making that move? Yes, but it can’t possibly be worse than what we got in 2016.
You can realize that he’s a spoiler and still love the fact that he’s siphoning money away from GOP candidates because they’re too stupid yo realize he doesn’t stand a chance. The Kennedy name doesn’t carry the weight it used to, and he’s a far cry from Jack and Bobby.
Honestly a comforting read as someone who isn’t a huge Biden fan. Things are improving! As a person in their early 20’s it’s felt like the world fell apart right as I was entering the work force, nothing has been affordable and crime has been a major worry. Seeing that crime is down and we’re likely going to avoid a worse recession is like having a weight off my shoulders.
I’m also not a huge Biden fan. He’s been in the pocket of the movie and recording industry for most of his political career, and as Vice President helped write treaties that further empower them around the world. I was expecting more of a capitalist liberal and less of a progressive. I wonder if Harris isn’t the mitigating factor here, but in the end he’s still done far better as President than I expected.
Man I hope us Europeans are just going through a phase right now. Here in Germany the population didn't take green politics well and global disruptions were blamed on the current government so the far right got an uptick in popularity. Other EU-countries also have the far right on the footstep of ruling and some already fell.
I’ll admit I don’t know much about European politics, but from a foreign view it’s scary. I’ve always seen the far right in American politics it’s more or less the status quo, but seeing the far right rise in modern Europe is shocking to me. Most of this is informed by what I’ve seen in the news about what’s been going on in Italy though.
I’d say that Italy is still an outlier and for example in Germany we’re still far far away from a situation like that. There are some early warning signs though and we better collectively get all our shit together.
I'm confused after reading this? So during this strike, a court ordered the union to pay some money, instead the union moved its money into overseas accounts, and a politicians worked with MI5 to track these accounts down and freeze them?
Like I fully support the union, but I thought it was going to be something serious such as MI5 infiltrating the union and becoming agent provocateurs, this just seems rather tame and less shocking than I expected.
Yes the headline is click bait. Even though this comm has no rule against editorialising headlines I tend to not do that. If anyone suggests a better title I’ll change it.
Although your summary seems correct, it probably omits how vital funds were to the strike, how legal (seems like not very much) was taking help from MI5, and the point that’s also omitted from the article which is if the court decision to fine the union was legit in the very beginning.
I’m not familiar with anything related to that strike, but that very much looks like breaking checks and balances and going the totalitarian “we know better” way, even if not to the very depth of it
That’s not a neighborhood that banned cars. That’s a neighborhood that was literally constructed to not accept cars inside it, which is a much bigger victory IMO. If the red tape the US has can be cut through like this more often in more places, we could reverse car-centrism in very big ways.
Somehow I expected this to be outside of the Phoenix area; like, on its own. It looks more like an excuse for a high-density living concept, and going “no cars” means not having to set aside any space for parking; you just pack more people into the same area to make more money (~$27,000/yr for a 950SF, 2 BR apartment, if you’re curious; you can’t buy here). It’s literally an apartment complex that takes up a single “block” in Tempe. I guess it will depend on how happy you are with the shops they can attract to a community with only 1500-2000 people and no parking for outside customers.
That’s a very good observation I overlooked: if no useful business opens up nearby then it’s gonna potentially suck living there. From what I’ve heard, though. There is public transit located nearby, which hopefully widens that area of utility more for those trying out the space.
Here, though there’s more than just public transit - there’s a huge shopping mall/complex just half a mile north of this area. That’s a very reasonable walking distance for nearly everyone, especially given how flat this area is. Of course, you still have to navigate 3-4 multi-lane highway crossings, but at least it’s close.
Out of curiosity, I googled how many people it takes to support a single grocery store, and the top 5-6 links appeared to suggest between 3500 and 5000 people are needed. That sounds pretty close to my town, though we have a couple of monster stores so we may be closer to 8000:1. Restaurants and bars are going to be similarly constrained, though, so the diversity of options in such a small apartment complex will probably stay on the lean side (again, given little or no on-site parking and a generally car-centric city surrounding the area).
I tried looking into why would they call the “shaken baby syndrome” “junk science”, since it’s a very real thing accepted by all the reliable sources I could google. I had to read into their linked sources to understand what part exactly is “junk”.
So just to clarify, it’s not that the “shaken baby syndrome” isn’t real. It is. The “junk” is the part in which scientists identified three symptoms (“bleeding between the tissue layers covering the brain, swelling on the brain, and bleeding at the back of the eyes”) that happen from shaken baby syndrome, and some forensic practitioners read that as a bi-directionally exclusive relationship: if the three symptoms occur, it must be shaken baby syndrome. There isn’t enough evidence to support that other issues couldn’t cause the same symptoms, and using that triad as proof of abuse is controversial.
But shaken baby syndrome is very real, and it causes those three symptoms. The wording of this article (including the subheading) repeatedly seems to imply otherwise, which spreads dangerous misinformation that reads as “shaken baby syndrome is a myth” and that “physically abusing children doesn’t cause shaken baby syndrome”. That is “junk journalism”.
It is junk science in that assuming any physical damage that matches the three symptoms to a baby was intentional and that the way that it is regularly used in courts has the same assumption of intent. The whole shaken baby syndrome is tied up with the assumption of intent in the context of courts enough to make it junk science in the same way that failing a stress detector means someone is lying.
Yes, shaking a baby causes those injuries. So can seizures. Which makes this not junk journalism, as they even quoted a recent ruling that literally called it junk science.
Last month, an appeals court in New Jersey ruled that the theory was “junk science” and “scientifically unreliable”.
You are just repeating the same thing I said: that other things can cause the same injuries, and assuming that the triad of symptoms mean abuse is the part that is junk science. Not the existence of shaken baby syndrome, which is real.
But that’s not what the article says, over and over again. I really thought this was unnecessary, but anyway, here we go. Here are the quotes that I find problematic because of their wording:
Robert Roberson was sentenced in 2003 for killing toddler on basis of shaken baby syndrome, now ruled as ‘scientifically unreliable’
The “shaken baby syndrome” itself is not “scientifically unreliable”. Using it as proof of abuse is. But the shaken baby syndrome is real and scientifically proven to happen. This wording seems to imply the former, not the later.
[…] having been sent to death row on the basis of “shaken baby syndrome”, a child abuse theory that has been widely debunked as junk science, […]
The “shaken baby syndrome” has not been “debunked as junk science”. It’s only been debunked as proof of abuse. But, again, child abuse does indeed cause “shaken baby syndrome”, that’s not a debunked theory. Once again, the wording seems to imply the former, not the later.
Leading scientists have questioned the reliability of shaken baby syndrome, both as a medical diagnosis and as a forensic tool in criminal prosecutions […]
It’s been questioned as a forensic tool, not as a medical diagnosis. As much as I look for proof that says otherwise, I can’t find anything. It’s a real, unrefuted medical diagnosis. I’ve read the links they quote, and again, they focus on using it as forensic evidence of abuse. Nothing about it not being a real medical diagnosis. This wording doesn’t just imply, it’s straight up saying that it’s not a real or valid medical diagnosis. which is not true.
Last month, an appeals court in New Jersey ruled that the theory was “junk science” and “scientifically unreliable”.
Yeah, the quote mentioned by snooggums, again, implies that the whole “shaken baby syndrome” is junk science. But I actually read that document before my other post, and you don’t have to read too much to find out that the meaning is exactly the one I mentioned. From page 3, literally the first sentence of the text:
In these appeals, we consider the scientific reliability of expert testimony that shaking alone can cause the injuries associated with shaken baby syndrome [emphasis mine]
So once again, this article is giving the idea that the whole diagnosis is a debunked myth, but that’s not what the court document says. It just says that the symptoms are an unreliable proof of abuse, since other causes can create the same symptoms.
I don’t know if someone (maybe the author, maybe the editor) didn’t really understand what has been debunked exactly, or whether they are bad at writing, but the way it’s worded spreads dangerous misinformation about health issues in children. Over and over again, it dismisses the entire “shaken baby syndrome” as junk science, instead of specifying that “its use as evidence of abuse” is what has been debunked.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but 5 years seems way too high for voting when you’re not allowed to. There’s real criminals out there with less jail time. If anything, a fine or some community service would’ve done it.
You’re not wrong. The penalties are wildly out of touch with reality because the issue is wildly out of touch with reality, for two reasons.
Post-Trump, Republicans need to make voting penalties harsh because it creates the impression that it’s a real issue that needs to be tackled, instead of what it actually is, a statistical aberration. Then when they cry fraud about any election they lose, they can point to these cases to act like it’s a real thing.
The pre-Trump reason, it creates a chilling effect on voting among the most at risk and the least educated. Now anyone who reads this article and even theoretically might be voting illegally because of a prior conviction, will simply not vote as it’s safer. Those voters are more likely to be poor, black, or from cities, which are all groups more likely to vote Democrat.
It’s classic voter disenfranchisement, goes hand in hand with tough voter ID laws, gerrymandering and rolls purges. The goal is simply to have less people voting and for their vote to mean less, because less voter turnout means less Democrat votes.
Remember this when people try to make you apathetic about your vote. If it really didn’t mean anything, they wouldn’t try so hard to stop you.
Obama won – and Wurzelbacher’s brush with fame soured with revelations that he was both not a fully licensed plumber and owed more than $1,000 in taxes.
My condolences to the Wurzelbacher family, but I feel compelled to ask:
Why is it that all these selfish right-wingers are integrity challenged? This pattern is remarkable, and Joe the Plumber Who Was Not a Licensed Plumber is but one mere example.
Even under the prior Republican administration, this “plumber” did not fulfill his tax obligations.
I rewatched the Video after all these years and have to say: In some aspects it aged like milk. For example 6:11 “The word here is ‘tend’. Liberals are still capitalist and conservatives still stand for democracy”. Are they? The Conservatives love for democracy is eroding hard. Fascism is really tightly bonded to the “conservatives” of today. Being a nazi, wanting a dictator or at least an authoritarian leader like Putin seems pretty popular in the conservative mindset.
I can't say for certain that all right-wingers are integrity challenged, but it sure seems that way. It's almost like you wouldn't be right-wing if you weren't already lacking in integrity. Then again, maybe it's the other way. Maybe people have to sacrifice their integrity in order to support right-wing positions.
Took a while for The Guardian to pick up on this. Wasn't this a national level news story two weeks ago? I'm happy for the continued attention on the issue though.
Irrespective of your politcs, he is a truly admirable man, who has lived a life of real service. IMHO, the world could use lots more men of his character.
I have a feeling people from El Salvador, Nicaragua, East Timor and the Middle East might not want to admire him much, what with the support of dictators and funding of genocide
every other american seems to talk about their huge salary compared to other western countries but then complain all they do is work and have little free time to use the money
"Unlike the Europours, we have so much money! We get paid more!"
No healthcare if not working
Rarely paid time off
Less holidays
Less workers rights
Most states don't allow time off for voting
Tax dollars go more to bombing people than education of the future workforces
No major way of sending donations to political groups
Taxes are done inefficiently on purpose to enable companies to get money from doing your yearly legal requirements as a citizen
Still tested for drugs on your private time
Longer commutes other nations
Commutes are often paid by the worker, not the company
Commutes are in cars because public infrastructure doesn't allow most workers to get to work on time or doesn't have the last mile covered.
Cars that cost money to just exist, let alone actually use.
Commutes and needing to eat food take time away from the 16 hours "free" from work, meaning people have to cut on sleep or other important self regulations
I feel so fucking free you guys man we have it good.
Unemployment insurance payouts are at or below poverty level at best, short in duration (normally 12-24 weeks at most) despite complete wildcard on how long finding a job may take, and aggressively restricted or even denied in many states(remember Republican controlled states refused free federal funding to bolster their unemployment payouts because they wanted people back working during a global pandemic without a vaccine at that point).
Unions and organizing and employees thinking of organizing are aggressively and illegally attacked, discriminated and retaliated against while the enforcement mechanisms to hold powerful companies to law are so underfunded the laws nearly don't exist
OSHA, FLSA and other cornerstone pieces of workplace law are so routinely broken and have been by so long and enforcement so underfunded and penalties so trivial the laws don't exist in practice. Injuries at work, minimum wage, overtime are so commonly violated, suing through the courts has been the only recourse for employees. With the court system now captured, even that menial disincentive is gone for companies to comply.
Companies systematically underpay and are able to collude on wages thanks to market salary tools to suppress wages. Switching companies is the only way to get a raise.
I mean, yeah. Most people don't even come close to that when adding up everything they earn in a lifetime. So to get a billion before 30, where more than half of your life was in school and growing up. Not much to generate wealth for investments. Building companies takes time and money too and you're not going to be a billionaire from working enough regular jobs.
theguardian.com
Top