Looks like pretty clear-cut persecution to me...
> and about a secret Google group where the supposedly "independent journalists" were given marching orders and told what to push, what to ignore, and whom to attack. When the news came out? THIRTEEN gaming sites issued THE EXACT SAME STORY about how they didn't need gamers and that gamers were "dead".
A discussion group for journalists in a particular field... shocking, oh wait, all journalists in all fields have had those for decades, long before the internet they had forums like that via other means.
Journalists have been building relationships across publications and collaborating in this manner for-ever, it actually makes journalism STRONGER.
The only plausible explanation for you thinking this one is a scandal is:
1) You're an idiot who didn't know that this has been standard practise since Ben Franklin published a newspaper
2) You know that but are hoping WE don't, and want to deceive us.
Aaww you actually think calling somebody an SJW is an insult.
Being an SJW is pretty much the plot of every good action movie or series ever made. The A-Team were SJW's, MacGuyver was an SJW... dude, being an SJW is the ultimate real-man thing to do !
>. I can indeed think of things with more toxic branding, but not all that many mind you.
The tobacco industry, big pharma... okay, I'm out.
That is because the "corruption" never happened, there is no evidence that it ever happened - on the other hand, the death threats and harassment was very, very real.
>Nobody on the right
Mit Romney, Paul Ryan, Rand Paul and Ron Paul aren't "on the right" ?
They've all said it out loud.
Actually - not really, that statistic is simply based on crime numbers. More people are killed by spouse/partner than any other source. This is pretty much a global reality, the only significant exceptions are the middle of warzones.
The vast majority didn't make random choices, they just made WRONG choices.
Actually you answered your own question without realizing it. Morality is not in the sphere of science so by implication must not influence what is put in textbooks. Science is by nature progressive since there is no forbidden knowledge. He is right because the issue of the morality of birth control has absolutely no relevance to the question of whether a biology textbook ought to discuss birth control. Conservative thinking wants to restrict what people know. To control their behavior by controlling information. This is fundamentally at odds with the foundational principals of science which makes science progressive or at least anti-conservative. Scientist hold morality as applying to how you use knowledge never to the knowledge itself. The same physics that gave us nuclear power (arguably a moral good) gave us the deadliest weapons ever created (undeniably a moral evil). The application of knowledge has moral questions but science is liberal because it never allows anything (including morality) to dictate the knowledge itself. Whatever the scientific method produces is published without limit or exception. Indeed caring about what people may do with it is a fallacy - the appeal to consequences.
And Paul Krugman's PHD in economics qualifies him to say he knows better than you - and he is the one whom I was just citing.
And no, there isn't 51% conservatives in America, in fact you're a minority - which is why you struggle to win presidential elections.
You need to factor voter-turnout in. Several studies concluded that voter turnout among conservatives is over 80%, among liberals it is around 50% and thats in presidential elections where turnout is highest. In things like mid-terms, it's much lower.
More-over liberal voter turnout goes down MORE in things like midterms because very few liberals are retirees, indeed a large number of them are the very people who are affected by voter-suppression laws or simply such low-income earners that they literally CAN'T go vote because taking the time off work means starving that day.
If the USA made elections public holidays like every other civilized country on earth - the republicans would never win another election.
Now go ask an actual economist about the Weimar republic and they will tell you that not in Weimar nor anywhere else in HISTORY has spending in a recession EVER caused hyperinflation.
What DOES cause hyperinflation is severe social upheaval. Weimar republic had just come out of a massive civil war. Zimbabwe - just came out of massive unrest. Rome in Nero's time: just concluded a massive war while dealing with a famine caused by bad weather.
Spending in a recession does not, by itself, cause hyperinflation - I'm not saying it CAN'T but we have mathematical methods to work out how much you OUGHT to spend to get the results without causing problems.
Now consider that the MOST common cause of hyperinflation has nothing to do with monetary policy at all ! It's social inequality ! Yes, some of the worst cases of hyperinflation were caused by severe social inequality. A prime example would be the destruction of the Spanish economy right at the height of Spanish power.
The conquistadors were using slave labor and getting very, very rich in the New World- coming back and spending their fortunes the way sailors do - in giant short-bursts far apart.
So traders raised their prices to meet this high demand, which benefitted traders, and so OTHER traders raised prices since THOSE traders could afford it.
Very soon - traders and conquistadors were making fortunes, while everybody else were poor, but the prices were being set by the rich minority - pricing everything out of reach of almost the entire population.
A loaf of bread came to be about a week's average wages !
That's when the Spanish economy entirely collapsed because do you know what happens when people who work hard all week can't afford enough food for a week ? They stop working. What's the point of working hard if you aren't EVEN able to meet your basic needs ?It makes no economic sense. The opportunity cost of going to work is higher than the value of your wages.
The thing is - you can't act as if all costs are equal. At least you recognize that NEITHER side have actually done a balanced budget so you're not one of those who thinks Obama is a big spender (when in actual fact his deficit run-up is the lowest since Nixon) with a completely one-sided view.
But as I said, all costs aren't equal. Progressives are hugely in favour of cutting military spending - a LOT.
And that could solve the problem easily - without actually putting America at any risk. America right now has a military spending 13 times bigger than the next biggest, and 6 times bigger than the entire rest of the world COMBINED.
Nobody needs that.
Just the part of the military budget that goes to contractors - that's not barracks or feeding soldiers or even bullets and guns, just the part that's spent on contractors is 700 billion a year.
The total budget for social security is 70 billion.
One welfare-ish program, is about one TENTH of one part of the military budget.
Cut the military budget in half, you can have the same number of soldiers and the same level of military prowes (do you really think it makes a difference whether you buy 11 new aircraft carriers a year or 5 - when almost nobody else has even one ?) while at the same time paying for every welfare and safety net program you need without running up a deficit.
You may EVEN be able to do it without actually making the rich pay taxes (though you SHOULD anyway because nobody should get the benefits of living in a country without contributing to it's upkeep).
But show me one conservative who would even consider that
Now here's the real problem - America doesn't have a liberal party in government. The greens are liberal but they aren't on the hill, the democrats sure aren't progressive or liberal, they are center-right, the reps are just batshit insane.
The real problem America faces is that the 60% progressives in the population have no party actually representing them, Liberals don't vote democrat because democrats are liberal, they vote democrat because center-right is better than batshit insane.
And just how center right ? Compare actual policy and the following presidents were ALL more leftwing than Barack Obama:
Millard Filmore (refused to grant Utah statehood until governor Brigham Young created a welfare system).
Richard Nixon - created the EPA, supported welfare reform.
Ronald Reagan - argued for matching the capital gains tax to the income tax (basically he was trying to pass the Buffet rule 3 decades before Buffet was). Ran up a massive deficit.
Truman - tried to pass universal healthcare (and single-payer at that - which is a hell of a lot more liberal than Obama's version which made everybody a customer of an insurance company).
Gerald Ford - tried to pass Nixon's healthcare reforms but wasn't in power long enough to succeed.
Rooseveldt - the one who sent in the army to protect UNIONS from corporate thuggery and called for a second bill of rights that could have come right out of a democratic socialist country like Denmark.
Eisenhower - by a huge margin.
And ultimately - this is the wrong time for your suggestion. Despite what Austrian economists say - there's a reason they are a tiny fringe group in economics who get laughed at a lot. A recession, by definition, is CAUSED by a LACK of spending. Nobody spends, means nobody else has INCOME - so THEY don't spend either.
The only way OUT of a recession is for SOMEBODY to start spending - a LOT. And the only actor who can do that is the government.
Every government that tried austerity made their recessions worse, MUCH worse. The biggest economic problem in the USA today is that your government is underspending, massively. The stimulus package was no more than 40% of what economists were recommending.
Actually the typo was "aren't" instead of "are".
The goods at Wallmart are NOT cheaper than anywhere else, they cost the same or perhaps even MORE than elsewhere.
You just don't realise you're paying the difference because what Wallmart has done is to outsource most of their wagebil onto the wellfare system. By allowing Walmart to pay slave wages you aren't saving money on goods - you're just paying that money to the same people walmart would have paid it to - only you're doing it through the government instead of through walmart.
In the end - you're still the one paying it though and the only people who gain from this are the executives of walmart because on THEIR balance sheet a major cost has been removed.
The cost still exists - they've just externalized it onto to their customers through the tax system.
Externalities are ALWAYS market failures, they are one of the defining types of market failure. The market cannot accurately price things when part of the costs have been externalized which leads to inefficient economic outcomes.
Okay... I didn't think I would need to spell this out - but a core part of the theory of evolution is the process of natural selection and the drivers of natural selection - which is scarcity and competition for resources.
Without scarcity, there's no competition and the species stagnates. Species at the top of the food chain can go millions of years without branching or any visible alteration.
According to fossils the Ceolacanths and great whites are identical to the ones that shared the oceans with ichthyosaurs - but both were in states of abundance.
If they evolved at all it was only things like their immune system - their physical structure untouched.
Where Malthusian dynamics aren't present - natural selection doesn't happen since there's nothing to select.
This doesn't mean (or say anything about) other forms of selection such a human-controlled breeding programs, but those didn't even come into existence until the last few thousand years. They aren't responsible for more than a tiny fraction of the earth's diversity - the force that did nearly all of it was competition due to scarcity as a result of Malthus.
Now that doesn't mean Malthus was perfect, I don't think anybody today thinks he was entirely right actually. At the time the ONLY mathematical series KNOWN was linear and exponential so he used those to explain the clear pattern he saw, that species always outbreed their foodsources (which of course ultimately restores the balance when food becomes scarce enough that most of the eaters die - and now the food can recover again).
Today's versions use much more complicated mathematical series which were unknown in the 19th century, but the basic principle remains entirely intact among biologists.
Because rightwingers are too stupid to figure out that if you allow companies to outsource most of their wagebill to the taxpayer then you are getting cheaper goods DESPITE the goods having a lower sticker-price. You're just paying the difference via a rather inefficient middle-man called the government.
Throw away Malthus - you have to give up the theory of evolution.
Darwin cites Malthus repeatedly in his books and for very good reason: without Malthus, there can't BE evolution.