My solution is not giving a shit about the giant load of crap that is climate change and that every morning we invent a new thing to be terrified about.
There is no crisis in wildfires.
There is certainly no crisis in the 'threat' of wildfire smoke.
Don't like it? Move away from forests. Nobody in the Bahamas suffers from wildfire smoke.
Why is the world in general less important to you than the US you ethnocentric prick?
There's also the subject-verb disagreement bubble.
Global area burned and wildfire emissions have fallen steadily since the 1930s.
https://share.google/images/l6...
https://www.nature.com/article...
But by all means, don't let me interrupt your insistence the sky is falling.
He wasn't the one pissing himself to flee Bagram though, was he?
... I'm more concerned about how *astonishingly* fucking stupid Google as an organization must be that nobody along the way from dev to testing to implementation apparently considered this?
This isn't me writing some macro in Excel that doesn't work. This is Google. 50? 100?
How do you not see this for the obvious publicity stunt that it is? You must have voted Trump.
But it worked, you got enraged and engaged with the content.
Congratulations, you're the problem with the internet today.
Oh, and I am aware of the irony of posting a reply in order to condemn it, so you needn't bother pointing that out.
Just say what you mean.
Democrats are the party of the wealthy now, btw.
https://politicalsciencenow.co...
I dunno. China is a "market socialist" system -- which is a contradiction in terms. If China is socialist, then for practical purposes Norway and Sweden have to be even *more* socialist because they have a comprehensive public welfare system which China lacks. And those Nordic countries are rated quite high on global measures of political and personal freedom, and very low on corruption. In general they outperform the US on most of those measures, although the US is better on measures of business deregulation.
It makes no sense to claim Chinese courts have a lot of power, although it may seem that way â" itâ(TM)s supposed to seem that way. One of the foundational principles of Chinese jurisprudence is party supremacy. Every judge is supervised by a PLC â" party legal committee â" which oversees budgets, discipline and assignments in the judiciary. They consult with the judges in sensitive trials to ensure a politically acceptable outcome.
So it would be more accurate to characterize the courts as an instrument of party power rather than an independent power center.
From time to time Chinese court decisions become politically inconvenient, either through the supervisors in the PLC missing something or through changing circumstances. In those cases there is no formal process for the party to make the courts revisit the decision. Instead the normal procedure is for the inconvenient decision to quietly disappear from the legal databases, as if it never happened. When there is party supremacy, the party can simply rewrite judicial history to its current needs.
An independent judiciary seems like such a minor point; and frankly it is often an impediment to common sense. But without an independent judiciary you canâ(TM)t have rule of law, just rule by law.
The Left assumes the Right is just the same sort of Cult of Personality that they themselves are, just on the other side.*
*(Sadly, as an old school conservative, I'm actually just as or more troubled by the what-we-formerly-called-neoCons and activist Republicans who DO act just like Dems just marching behind a different flag, cf the FCC/Kimmel thing I think is a conservative own-goal because it is asinine the US gov't is 'weighing in' on the content of some mid-talent late night show with like 120k viewers. Likewise most of Trump's bombast just gets in the way of what he's trying to do.)
They don't realize the Left and the Right FUNDAMENTALLY see the relationship to power differently, in a different framework, and with an entirely different context.
Promising costs nothing, it's the delivering that kills you.
