We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
If President Trump or anyone even remotely close to his presidency, including his best friend from 2nd grade that he hadn't seen in 40 years, sought to meet with key Russian nuclear officials, in Moscow, just months before the federal government approved a very controversial deal handing Vladimir Putin 20% of U.S. uranium reserves, despite an ongoing investigation into Russian fraud, bribery, extortion and money laundering, it would be the only story played on a 24 x 7 loop on CNN and MSNBC.
Ken Burns portrays the young soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines of the Vietnam War as pot-smoking, drug-addicted, hippie marauders.
Those with whom I served were anything but. They did not commit the atrocities alleged in the unforgivable lies John Kerry described to a congressional committee so prominently featured by Mr. Burns. The troops my brother and I were blessed to lead were honorable, heroic and tenacious. They were patriotic, proud of their service, and true to their God and our country.
To depict them otherwise, as Mr. Burns does, is an egregious disservice to them, the families of the fallen and to history. But his treatment of my fellow Vietnam War veterans is just the start. Some of the most blatant travesties in the film are reserved for President Nixon...
As the days grow shorter, my annual request that dawn, twilight, and night road walkers wear highly-visible or reflective clothing, or a reflector vest as in photo. Cheap, lightweight. Wearing a light is good too. I suggest both.
I do not want to hit you, but I might get close if you walk on a roadside dressed in dark clothing. That would be a bad thing for you and me. Please do not make yourself invisible. I have come too close to night walkers.
Poor Bjørn Lomborg. In the world of global warming, he's always been something of an outlier. An outcast. A heretic. A pariah.
Basically, both sides hate him.
He wholeheartedly believes in man-made global warming, thereby earning the eternal wrath of those Evil Deniers. On the other hand, he doesn't believe that we're all going to die in 2055 when Antarctica melts and sea levels rise 2,000 feet, thereby earning the eternal wrath of the Climate Catastrophists.
On the plus side, he believes that it doesn't hurt anything to reduce CO2 levels as long it doesn't — you know — destroy the world's economies, and I think we can all agree with that.
And that's the inherent problem with the Paris climate accords. It doesn't do much to reduce CO2, yet it does seriously hurt the richer nations' economies. I actually paid lots of attention to the accords as they were underway, and a surprising number of eco-warriors were saying the same thing. Of course, they were complaining that the accords weren't strict enough and that the richer nations should have their economies destroyed even more — but never mind those pesky details.
First off, just to set the tone, here's Mr. Lomborg on the Greg Gutfeld Show a few months ago:
Germany just shut down all their nuclear power plants because they were worried about a tsunami? What the hell?
A few years ago, I wrote an article on the Fukushima disaster that mentioned the same thing. Remember the event? A big earthquake in Japan and then a tsunami caused the Fukushima nuke plant to implode. Except that it wasn't a tsunami.
For further Lomborg videos, PragerU's YouTube 'Environmental Science' page is here.
So, let's hear Mr. Lomborg's formal presentation. This was done almost a year ago, so when he refers to "the president", he's referring to Obama.
If we generously assume that the carbon cuts for 2030 were not only met, which, itself, but would be a UN first...
The Clintons and their foundation raked in a cool $145 million in donations and "speaking fees" just from Uranium One- and Rosatom-affiliated donors while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was supposedly keeping all Clinton Foundation business at "arm's-length."
No surprises there. My advice: Tell spouse what you are going to do first. You lose the thrill of secrecy but gain in lack of guilt, shame, and self-hatred.
I think the documentary seeks to fix the record in falsity. To take only one example, as I say in my “Notes,” Burns and his colleagues were apparently unable to find a soldier to recall his service in anything other than shades of disillusion, disgust and shame. Much more remains to be done on this deeply dishonest work to prevent it from becoming the received history of the war.
Epstein’s private jet, which transported his friends to Little St. James Island, was nicknamed “Lolita Express.” Initial records claimed that Bill Clinton was listed as a passenger on the jet at least 11 times between 2001 and 2003. That number was then changed to more than double with 26 trips, showing that Clinton flew on the plane at least once a month during the two-year period.
At long last, the people who do the strategic planning for Hillary Clinton and tell her what emotions she should imitate in response to various stimuli have weighed in and they have decided that Harvey Weinstein is not a nice man:
Executive orders allowed the past administration to keep the program alive. They allow this administration to destroy it. Like his predecessor, President Donald Trump has been frustrated by lack of action in Congress on Obamacare. Like his predecessor, he has resorted to executive fiat to get around that obstruction. Only instead of frantically trying to save the troubled program, he is yanking out the life-support cords installed by President Barack Obama.
This week saw two executive actions. With the first, Trump is trying to expand health insurance options outside of the Obamacare exchange for individual insurance plans (which will have the side effect of making on-exchange policies less attractive to healthy customers).
The second is even more serious: After threatening it for months, the president has finally ended the cost-sharing reduction payments to insurers, which subsidize the provision of special policies with lower out-of-pocket expenses for people who make less than 250 percent of the federal poverty line. At the very least, this will probably mean a further increase in premiums, and growing instability in at least the parts of the individual market that aren’t eligible for subsidies to offset the increase. At worst, especially if it gets bogged down in lawsuits, it may cause insurers to say “enough is enough,” leaving broad areas of the country without any firm willing to sell individual policies through the Obamacare exchanges.
While the Congressional Budget Office has issued a delightfully counterintuitive forecast that ending the subsidies could actually increase insurance coverage, there’s little question in my mind that these policies are bad for the exchanges. 1 At the very least, I think we can all agree that they put the exchanges at greater risk. There is also little question that this is at least part of the reason that the administration is pursuing them. And yet, believe it or not, there are still arguments for both.
It has become evident that millions of uninsured Americans are uninterested in buying insurance on the exchanges, because it’s too expensive, or the “narrow networks” don’t cover enough doctors and hospitals. The new options the administration aims to create could be a genuine boon to those people. If you have spent years bemoaning the dire fate of the uninsured, you have to take that benefit seriously.
As for ending the subsidies … what am I, some sort of monster? Do I just hate the poor so much that I can’t stand to see them getting help paying for health care? Well, no. I have no particular objection to the payments as policy. Except for one small thing, which is that they seem to be sort of illegal...
Is "unconscious racial bias", in other words, unconscious racism, the main cause of racial disparities in the US? I don't think so, not for even a minute. The article notes that the research that supported the oppression theory is turning out to be invalid, but because of its political usefulness the idea will no doubt persist anyway.
There are many reasons for individuals to be socio-culturally, or otherwise, "disadvantaged." There are many reasons for people to be stereotyped too. Everybody stereotypes until they know somebody.
In my opinion, "unconscious bias" is akin to "microaggression" because at some point the pursuit of oppression becomes absurd.
Yes, 
Should Inclusive Restrooms
How to
As the days grow shorter, my annual request that dawn, twilight, and night road walkers wear highly-visible or reflective clothing, or a reflector vest as in photo. Cheap, lightweight. 
Two