Leaderboard

Come on man, just because I was caught exposing my genitals to the Moon light before it was popular in conservative circles.

I would need to go through all of them again, but most of the time income as a measure is used. That being said, there are a few studies looking at wealth separate from income and overall it seems that income had a higher effect on improving health outcomes rather than incorporating wealth. An older study showed that African Americans had a 67% higher likelihood of dying than White Americans when accounting for age sex and marital status. Including wealth reduced it to 54% and introducing income (without wealth) the difference was "only" 43%. So while wealth and income attenuate issues, it clearly does not come close to closing it. The other observation in other studies is that whenever there is an economic downturn, black folks are more vulnerable to these effects. That is an interesting question, and there is no clear answer, mostly as universal health care system differ quite a lot. In Canada provincial differences are huge and depending on racial composition it could be difficult to compare national data. However, I do expect that with improved access much of the bigger issues we see in the US to be attenuated. A lot will also depend on the characteristics of the non-white population. In the US native black Americans fare much worse than recent black immigrants, for example. And in the UK and Canada, recent immigration of highly educated folks with high income would need to be separated out from these issues. That being said, there are still erroneous assumption and mistreatments in happening in universal health care system even fairly recently (forced or coerced sterilization, for example), but I would need to see what is out there in literature. I should also add that for about the last 10 years the medical community has become more aware of racial inequities and also has allowed more research in that area to happen. As such, practices are (slowly) changing relevant to racial disparities and I know that these conversations are also happening in Canada. I would need to take some time to find numbers but I will say that in order to uncover issues, it would be necessary to conduct research that actually tries to quantify inequities. As an anecdote, when I was doing more research looking at biomarkers of health, several of my proposals were shot down because the area I had collaborations with serviced more black folks. The reviewers contended that those were not representative of the majority white population and were therefore not of interest. I am moderately sure that today I had a much better show to have this cohort included. It depends on the definition of racism, and I think you might think of something else. Racism in this context is refers to a system that does something that somehow results in different outcomes, depending on your race. It may or may not have roots in some racists ideology and it really does not matter for this. Often, it is a mix. As I mentioned, wealth or income affect the outcome, but do not explain it sufficiently. Others include things like living in an area with little to know medical services or with underfunded schools or any of the dozen positive factors that even poor white folks have access to. The way to think about it is that we have a black box (the complete system that affects health) and if we put a white person in and a black person with same income wealth and so on, we get different outcomes. This is the issue with systemic racism. It is not about someone being shitty to someone or even someone thinks badly about a race. It is a system (such as a medical algorithm) that somehow and even inadvertently creates inequity, even if it was not designed to so. As such race-blind measures require at minimum non-race blind analyses to figure out whether they do create equity. Historically, we have been really bad at it. Of course, not political party in pretty much any country is free from blame. I am not sure why it seems to be a kind of revelation to you. The main difference I would say is that at least in recent times Dems try to say they are better than that whereas the GOP has weaponized racism to rally their base. So I think the way to look at it is that there is a weak hope that the Dems are willing to undo some of the harm they have done and the GOP is hellbent not to, as it seems to be their new identity fetish. Not sure, but the GOP has shown how powerful identity politics is. You can do whatever you want and lie the heck out of it and still escape repercussions. Meanwhile, Dems have to acknowledge that black folks exist lest they lose their elections.

I think you two should just get a divorce already. You’re traumatizing the kids and neighbors with your bickering

Of course he was being facetious. And while we're busy tooting our own horns, I'd like to point out that I have never beaten my wife, nor have I ever argued that women should not be allowed to vote in any election whatsoever! That is just my moral stance that I have stood by for years, and I don't care if you criticize me for my stand. I am not backing down! Let me say it again. And while we're busy tooting our own horns, I'd like to point out that I have never beaten my wife, nor have I ever argued that women should not be allowed to vote in any election whatsoever! That is just my moral stance that I have stood by for years, and I don't care if you criticize me for my stand. I am not backing down! (Just to be clear, I was being facetious there! 😀)

It struck me what Attorney General Bill Barr said in interviews about his new book. Barr declared that Trump was "unfit for office." Barr investigated all of Trump's plausible fictions about "voter fraud" in the 2020 election. He found NOTHING. When asked if he would vote for Trump in 2024, Barr replied that he doesn't want Trump to be the GOP nomination. He will vote for someone else in the GOP primary. But if Trump wins the primary, Barr will vote for Trump. He said that Trump is preferrable over the "progressive agenda." What exactly does he mean? Here is what Wikipedia says about Progressivism: "Progressivism is a political philosophy in support of social reform.[1] Based on the idea of progress in which advancements in science, technology, economic development and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition, progressivism became highly significant during the Age of Enlightenment in Europe, out of the belief that Europe was demonstrating that societies could progress in civility from uncivilized conditions to civilization through strengthening the basis of empirical knowledge as the foundation of society.[2] Figures of the Enlightenment believed that progress had universal application to all societies and that these ideas would spread around the world from Europe." Progressivism - Wikipedia That makes sense to me. So, what's wrong with Progressivism? It all sounds positive to me. This is what Right Wing News says: "Despite voluminous amounts of saccharine coated “progressive” rhetoric to the contrary, today’s “progressives” do not care about “the little guy”, women, children, or minorities of any shape, color, creed, form or substance. Their method is to surreptitiously use cultural Marxism, critical theory and political correctness in combination with gradual inevitability to create divided, hyphenated special interest victim groups. Once those groups have been created, the next step is to inflame those groups with hate-filled red herring and straw-man hyperbole in hopes that the under-educated, under-informed and/or fully indoctrinated members of those hyphenated special interest victim groups will vote against Conservative Americans who have been targeted for character assassination." The “progressive” Agenda for America | John Hawkins' Right Wing News My initial reaction to this critique of progressivism in the USA is the GOP is projecting. What do you think?

What if when the first cars were invented, there was a collision between two cars and both gas tanks exploded and killed the people driving the cars? Was that an indicator that the internal combustion engine was unsafe and could never be useful in cars? No. Something like that may be going on with nuclear power. Just because the early nuclear reactors were not safe enough, does not mean that they will never be safe. Here are some ideas for safe nuclear reactors, thorium molten salt, and the Natrium reactor. Comments to this video: "Advantages of thorium: Much safer than uranium-no pressure vessel, no fuel rods to melt down. Much simpler reactor. Thorium salt liquid is pumped from the reactor tank through a heat exchanger and back into the tank. Thorium is much more plentiful than uranium--in fact so plentiful it is considered a waste product from rare earth mining. Thorium doesn't need expensive enriching to make it usable. Thorium is of little use for weapons. If power goes off, liquid simply drains into a pit which stops reaction. No fuel rods to cool or melt down if power fails. This technology has been around for years. Why was it not developed long ago? Politics, methinks." "I'm a retired nuclear engineer and have worked on nuclear fuel and safety aspects. In those early years in the 1980s, Thorium was not utilized in NPPs. But its potential was always recognized, and India's 3-stage strategy included Thorium utilization in stage-3. Hopefully, good progress has been made in the last 40 years and would not be surprised if Thorium bundles are loaded in the operating heavy water reactors." "...Thorium reactor, which is usually called Thorium battery, has already been used for decades in both US and USSR satellites to power satellites. It's not unknown. It's in fact well-known in aerospace field, but the knowledge of it has been closed for public by big energy engineering companies." "A good talk but he has a number of small errors. The two biggest are: --- Current nuclear reactors burn only 0.5 % of the U235, not a couple percent as he says. --- Thorium is about as common as Lead. We have enough Thorium on the planet Earth to power everyone for 100,000's of years. You can take ordinary dirt, and the trace amounts of Thorium are equal to 12 barrels of oil. Energy wise, we can burn the Thorium in ordinary dirt, and make an energy profit." "The reason we don't use Thorium for energy is because it can't be used for weapons and isn't rare enough to monopolize the market so it can be controlled by governments. It's cheap energy which means no one makes money which means those making money on energy right now which includes renewable energy are not going to support this energy source." "Recycling the nuclear waste is a must and very doable, France is currently doing just that. Nuclear waste holds 90% of energy still even after 5 years of use. Especially with electric cars becoming very popular it will put a huge strain on our current energy grid so nuclear plants will be a necessity sooner than later." I know the consensus here is probably opposed to ANY nuclear power, but renewables have bigger problems. France gets 71% of its' power from nuclear. Finland is spending billions of US dollars on a new nuclear reactor.

The IOC is working on it for Olympic competition. I'm happy to let them work out the kinks. Imperfect rules to begin with is not the same as evidence that it cannot work. I think allowing the Olympics to set their own rules, like they've been doing since the Olympics began, is the right way to do it. The following is from November 2021. https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/international-olympic-committee-issues-new-guidelines-transgender-athl-rcna5775

Definitely difficult to find a compromise. I don't at all think impossible. I don't believe we'll ever get truly fair and equitable inclusion of transgenders, but then we don't really have fair and equitable inclusion of anyone else either. We just need to get reasonably close.

I remember Robert Ringer (civil libertarian) translating this as "Ask not what the people in power can do for you, ask what you can do for the people in power" He was entertaining if nothing else.

I believe you. What I'm getting at is the phrase itself. What does it mean literally? What does it mean culturally? What does its use indicate to another person speaking that symbolic language? I don't use those terms, and so to me, as an outsider, they sound like a code - they seem to stand for much assumption that is undeclared and unspecified. The charge "playing the race card" used to be a charge levelled at at anyone who raised the possibility of bias to defend a visible minority from some punitive action by an authority. Sometimes the defence was wrong and bias was not a factor. Sometimes the defence was right and bias was a factor. In all cases, the objective of the phrase "playing the race card" was to stop probing into whether it was or was not: a kind of verbal shut-off valve to inquiry. And that's what I wonder about this blunter, more graphic version of the term. An excellent new topic!

Throwing another vague cliche at an unasked question goes no way at all toward the the question of how language is used, subverted, perverted and corrupted. Yes.... Only the OP question was not so much directed at "What are progressives doing wrong?" as at "What's so bad about progressivism itself, that it must be avoided, even at the cost of reinstating the most grotesquely destructive presidency the US ever had."

I am a person working on negative mass. I'm not a pro, but I think my research will contain some useful information for you. The negative mass I studied is a particle with both inertial and gravitational masses having negative values. In 2009 and 2012, I wrote papers explaining dark matter and dark energy through negative mass. Hypothesis of dark matter and dark energy with negative mass https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228610043 Is the State of Low Energy Stable Negative Energy Dark Energy and Dark Matter https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263468413 After that, I did some more research, Introduce at least 2 papers and 1 video that you should read, 1)On Problems and Solutions of General Relativity https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286935998 2) Dark Matter is Negative Mass https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324525352 3)Is the State of Low Energy Stable? Negative Mass and Negative Energy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZtS7cBMIc4 The above papers contain contents related to the errors of mainstream academics related to negative mass. False claims or misconceptions about negative mass 1) The vacuum instability problem is wrong. 2) The runaway motion problem is wrong. 3) Perpetual motion problem(Wheel problem with negative and positive mass) is wrong. So, if you are interested in negative mass, I think the above 2 papers and 1 video will be helpful.

I wonder whether using this term 'racism club' (twice) is indicative of a particular sort of pre-judgment of another poster's motivation. And I wonder whether the inclusive but unspecific phrase 'everything one does not like' indicated less than objective or incisive intellectual inquiry. Is the 'racism club' a hyper-inflated version of the old 'racism card'? 'Playing the racism card' was a charge that used to be levelled at anyone who mentioned historical bias in relation to the distribution of anything from baby clinics to public transport to polling stations to secondary schools. Now that the very same inequalities of distribution have remained unchanged or increased through space-age gerymandering, the not-very-effective card has grown into an equally ineffective club.... ....which, I'm guessing, is only ever used by "progressives" who still don't like everything they didn't like 50 years ago.

I didn't realize rich white (and other) Democrats and their choir were the primary victims. I thought the primary victims were the ones they were claiming they wanted to help.

Very little, and likely zero, since the US system has been broken in numerous ways that favor power over majority support. Majority of Americans support progressive policies. They get blocked by those in the minority. There are certainly issues with playing identity politics and gaming the system for power, but you seem to be leveling your charge and blame at the primary victims of that process. This may have been true decades ago. Today, however, the median GOP voter feels Biden isn’t the true president and that “the left” are bigger enemies than autocrats.

Two questions. 1. When adjusted for wealth or just income? 2. Which problem is foremost, the discrepancy due to wealth with race factored out or the discrepancy due to race with wealth factored out? If wealth is the leading factor, why is racism so often assumed to be the driving factor? In countries with more universal health care systems, how do the root causes of the discrepancies differ? How much of what is considered systemic racism would disappear with a more universal health care system in place? How much systemic wealthism would be reduced with more restrictions on political spending and lobbying, and how much systemic racism would disappear with it? Easy to blame the GOP here, rightfully so,but are the Dems not implicated in much of this also? Especially when they are so quick to pick up and wield the racism club, and all the while protect the Clintons and the Bidens. How much more progress could be made if the "progressives" were more intent on real progress, and less on identity politics and power? There's a difference. And the GOP aren't the only ones taking advantage of the current system and exploiting others.

Some local news form near me. Indian relics returned https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-61510755 Exeter museum in 'historic' handover of regalia to tribal leader

Alien shopping-bag ocean weirdo has glowing Cheetos for guts | Live Science

Energetically so, except you cannot create three quarks, but only quark-antiquark pairs. These pairs will combine between themselves and with the original quarks in different ways. Actually, even 9 MeV could be enough. It could create one quark-antiquark pair, then an original quark with a new antiquark would make a meson, and a new quark would replace an original quark in the baryon.

I cannot help but wonder: How often do you hear someone use the term Anglo-Saxon when referring to the English language? On now many of those occasions is someone referring to the English they themselves use? How many of the people referring to their own language as Anglo-Saxon rather than English are conservatives running for office in a climate of extreme political division? How many of the occasions on which a conservative candidate running for office in climate of extreme division call the English they use 'Anglo-Saxon' on a televised interview with a high-profile spokesman for the far right, whose audience is guaranteed to be predominantly far right? Just asking.

It was actual analysis and the weight of observational evidence. You actually had meteorites in hand, and could compare them to stones from the area. And a large number of eyewitnesses of the same unambiguous event, rather than isolated events. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/1803-rain-rocks-helped-establish-existence-meteorites-180963017/ “Biot distinguished two kinds of evidence of an extraterrestrial origin of the stones,” Gounelle writes. First, the kind of stone that had fallen was totally different than anything else available locally—but it was similar to the stone from the Barbotan meteor fall in 1790. “The foundries, the factories, the mines of the surroundings I have visited, have nothing in their products, nor in their slag that have with these substances any relation,” Biot wrote. Second, unlike earlier falls, there were a number of witnesses “who saw ‘a rain of stones thrown by the meteor,’” Gounelle writes. They were from different walks of life, and, Biot wrote, it would be ridiculous to think they had all colluded to describe something that hadn’t happened. “One can follow Biot’s enquiry, village by village, step by step,” writes Gounelle.

The RAMM have been talking about doing this for several years. Glad to see it's actually happening!

I thought Moon lived in Georgia or the Carolina’s <pauses to check profile> Yep. North Carolina, in fact. Always nice seeing museums being respectful of artifacts and original owners, though.

What's wrong with progressivism? Absolutely nothing!! In fact it is a desired aspect ofr any and all progressive societies. We have elections in Australia this Saturday and we have the present tired old conservative government now playing politics and claiming now is not the time for change, against the Labor party, the party that gave us probably the best universal health scheme in the world, compulsory employer and employee contributing superannuation, general wage growth instead of stagnation, and a party for the people, leaving no one behind. The party I have been presently handing out leaflets for and have been a member of. But progressivnism like political correctnness can reach a stage of going mad and silly and shooting themselves in the foot in the progress.

And that’s a feature, not a bug. No unfair advantages. No more exclusions based on arbitrary historical reasons. Competitors don’t get displaced. It’s win-win. This is a problem… how, exactly? Your morals are clearly shit, and I thought you were better than this. I feel that my actual position and actual proposal solves for it, renders your concerns moot, and if enough people could simply extract their heads from their bungholes they might agree it’s the simplest, most logical, amd most fair approach and it could have a chance of becoming a reality. But alas… people often seem to get rather mad when you try to assist them in removing their craniums from their colons. Are you unfamiliar with try-outs in sports or physical skills testing? It’s no wonder you’re so confused. Last I checked, it was middle school and high school kids having laws written to prevent them from playing. And frankly, if a trans person can make it to the very pinnacle of their sport, then good for them… but I’m talking about legislation being directed at already marginalized kids in schools who simply want to play sports… laws that make it explicitly illegal for them to do so. This isn’t hypothetical. It’s happening. Where I live. Real children are getting hurt. And for what? Because we’re too lazy to update divisional thresholds to be based on skill and not how someone urinates?

You mean like your usual philsophical utterences? Or like this? I'm really trying not to laugh at your hypocrisy!

Great post and I gave you a like also. 😉 Yes, sadly extreme nonsensical PC does exist. I gave one example earlier. And just as sadly maybe the cause of the rise of the extreme looney right brigade and the Trumpists. The other rather notable situation that has developed is the facetiousness and sarcasm directed at anyone that dare stray from this extreme PC, under the guise of humour. That of course is evident with the uses of the positive and neg rep situations also. Stands out like dog balls sadly. A sadness reflected more as this being a science forum, is supposed to be populated with the highly educated with degrees and such, although I think that misuse and facetiousness only applies to probably a few, not all. Anyway I'm off! Election day and I am handing out "how to vote" cards.!! And I don't believe you. Although you may get a like for your usual facetiousness.

I suspect we're talking past each other, I'm not saying the question's are literally the same, I'm saying they think about the answer's in exactly the same way. It's a good job I took @MigL advice, and invested in a quality 'irony meter'...