csnavywx

Members
  • Content count

    41
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

9 Neutral

About csnavywx

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. Lots of different angles to look at this from: http://theweek.com/articles/680068/americas-spies-anonymously-took-down-michael-flynn-that-deeply-worrying https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-02-14/the-political-assassination-of-michael-flynn?utm_campaign=buffer&utm_content=buffere4d72&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com https://theintercept.com/2017/02/14/the-leakers-who-exposed-gen-flynns-lie-committed-serious-and-wholly-justified-felonies/ http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2017/02/14/kucinich-pins-flynn-leak-on-intel-community-warns-another-cold-war.html (Yeah, I know... it's Fox. I really just wanted to hear with Kucinich's points.) All I would have to say here is: careful with the weapons-grade partisanship flying around and its tendency to cloud judgment.
  2. Just to be fair, "Trumpettes" is not my term, but coined by Mark Blyth: If you're interested, take a dive:
  3. I would dissent a bit here. Be careful. It's this very mentality that arguably allowed him into office. I think it's easy to get caught up and forget that a) his base is rabidly loyal and fairly large, b) this is a global phenomenon. Trump is likely a symptom and not the cause. You can point to Europe (OECD countries in general in fact) and find plenty of "Trumpettes" rising under a swelling base of populist support. Mis-diagnosing the situation can have real consequences, imo.
  4. Yeah, I never got the "official language" argument. You're free to engage in whatever speech you like. It's English by convention, not because it's necessarily the best, but because it was first and it's what we're used to. I'd rather focus on the ideas and not the language they're spoken in. As far as the assimilation argument -- there I would largely agree. The country was founded with a secular constitution and (largely) on the principles of the Enlightenment. That can't and shouldn't change. We can't and shouldn't compromise on that part. Also, "Sharia" means law. So, saying Sharia law is saying "law law". A very common linguistic mistake, in my view (although it's used so much that it's taken on a life of its own). A better way to say it would be to say just "Sharia" or "Islamic Sharia". Be aware when you invoke the term that you're talking about a broad spectrum of religious law (and, in some cases a rather broad interpretation of that law by Islamic scholars (fiqh) and the resulting school of law (madhhab)). Some of it overlaps with Western law and some of it is wholly incompatible with it. If you're looking for the most problematic school, it's Wahhabism or Salafism (as they call themselves).
  5. Making fun of him is also a tool to use. It's how the KKK was de-legitimized. The protest DID accomplish something: https://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books/ref=zg_b_bs_books_1 Now he's #1 on Amazon's bestseller's list, right next to 1984. What a world we live in.
  6. We're not even close to that point. Recourse is still available and should be used. This energy would be better used by putting effort into remaking the Democratic party into a (more) populist, working class party and focusing on the next set of elections. By all means, protest the current administration and contest them in the arena of ideas -- but plowing over laws to throw violence their way will lead to disaster (not to mention turning public opinion against the cause). Pray tell, when they have your back against the wall, where will you turn with the law already being plowed over?
  7. Armed combat started long before the Reichstag fire. By the time of the fire, there were 400k armed SA and more than a few cities had already been reduced to combat zones. So no, this isn't remotely comparable. Violent suppression started long before the fire.
  8. This isn't the right way to go. Granted, if they step in and try to take free speech away and we are left without recourse, then violence will be justified. Not before then, however.
  9. Not to mention that calling yourself anti-fascist and promoting violence to silence those you don't agree with is highly ironic. We're entering dangerous territory as this is becoming increasingly common on both the far left and right (and not just here in the US). When you violate or propose to violate the free speech of someone else, you are en potencia creating a rod for your own back.
  10. For the 1000th time, it shouldn't have been close enough for that to matter. Obama was probably a substantial net positive. I do know one thing. The geniuses at the DNC need to be cleaned out. Keep putting corporatist establishment Democrats out there and you'll continue getting demolished. The faster the Tim Kaines and Evan Bayhs die out, the better. Millennials do not want these candidates and won't vote for them. To borrow and old DT line: "Put up or shut up." Instead of squandering yet another opportunity, take the next 4 years to rebuild a Democratic Party that caters to populism and Millennial voters. Orrrrrr.... just continue with the same losing strategy like you're doing right now by putting up Cory Booker and Kirsten Gillibrand as the future of the party. Eye-yi-yiiiiiii
  11. I'm all for those 80/8000 days, as long as they produce!
  12. That number is going to need to be like 60% to have any real chance. I view this as silly - just like all that secessionist talk by Texas a few years back.
  13. Yet it was written in such a way as to not be unconstitutional by relying heavily on national security language, using existing law as a base and using statues with broad interpretation (and a history of being upheld in court). That was my point. I'd be surprised if anything but "nibbling at the edges" can be done against the EO and follow-on action. At least part of this situation is simply risk coming back to bite us in the ass (as I argued extensively throughout the election season). You think this is bad? Just wait until the real shit show starts when climate refugees start in earnest. It's not that far off. James Hansen recently had one great word for it: "ungovernable".
  14. By the numbers: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/will-trumps-refugee-ban-have-public-support/
  15. It's sprayed on a significant fraction of the total land area in my region every year, sometimes multiples times on the same field. It's used so much that plants are starting to evolve resistances to it and it has led to a rising use of an old pesticide -- 2,4D, which is probably worse than glyphosate. Pest and weed pressure definitely aren't getting any easier to deal with nowadays. When glyphosate becomes ineffective, we'll be stuck with older, more toxic predecessors until they too, get resisted by weeds. Between this, increased pest and disease pressure and increased pressure from an increasingly variable and hotter climate, I have a hard time seeing how we increase yields in the long run.