> Either way, stupid aftermath doesn't seem to figure into the calculus of either Putin or Trump.
Maybe they can share the Nobel Peace Prize that the U.S. president so covets.
2,467 karma · joined September 23, 2021
Maybe they can share the Nobel Peace Prize that the U.S. president so covets.
Let’s just say that the alleged shooter’s political philosophies are likely complex and are yet to be fully understood.
Very little was needed. The U.S. president had already ominously threatened Kimmel and other late night hosts the day after Colbert was canceled, weeks before the shooting.
I thought Kimmel was hilarious; but as they say, there’s no accounting for taste.
The most ridiculous thing about this is that the world doesn’t cleave neatly into “radical left lunatics” and the righteous real Americans. I still can’t tell what the murderer was. Whatever that was, he acted on his own impulses - ones that are not broadly celebrated, irrespective of claims to the contrary.
I retired from medicine, having spent my career at a well-known institution in the upper midwest of the U.S. Over the course of my tenure there, I took care of patients from all parts of the world, all walks of life. Some of my most cherished patients hailed from rural farm communities. Whatever that commenter’s issues might be, this doesn’t line up with my experience at all. The work of the physician is to tailor their work to meet the needs of the patient by understanding their needs in ways that may be difficult to discern through ways other than empathic understanding.
In many cases, the rebalancing that is needed is from subspecialties to community based primary care in rural and other underserved areas. Some new medical schools appeared in the 1970’s to address the need for more family medicine docs. What happened was completely predictable… more subspecialists. Graduates follow the money trail when choosing residencies and fellowships.
That’s certainly one version of how events may have been different - a sort of “It’s a Wonderful Life” scenario. (Though comparing Elon Musk to the kind and ethical George Bailey would be quite a stretch!) But it’s not inconceivable that other possibilities would have emerged.
As you said, the story is complicated. Even in 2015, a decade ago:
> There is one other stark difference: only upper-income families realized notable gains in wealth from 1983 to 2013.
During the period of analysis then, either consumption among the lower two tiers eliminated their available savings ability, or the real purchasing power over this period declined, leading to the same effect.
There’s a definitional problem here. What is “rich”?
At scale, the value of individual users approaches zero.
Unless you consider service responsiveness as a factor of integrity. Still waiting on a service message reply from third week of May. I’m sure it’s right around the corner though.
My wife and I are not conservative; but I would agree that no one is tracking the election results as a go/no-go indicator for child-rearing. My wife and I have 3 children, two of whom are adults so our decisions were made in a different era. Instead of bipolar political outcomes, I think many are affected by a sense of unchanging disinterest in the wellbeing of the great mass of people that populate the country. As long as the GDP rises, it’s good times, right? Few on either side of the political divide want to talk about the distribution of U.S. national income. Want more kids? Make life less difficult for families. Both major parties have completely failed to do this.
Until recent human history, though, humans had far less control over childbearing than now. And children in the past were relied on to provide supplemental labour to maintain the household which was, much more often than now, a farm. So at times there were very practical reasons for childbearing.
But agree, deeply held values enable some to overcome obstacles.
Email, phone, text.
I have a few friends who won’t communicate outside of Meta products and I just don’t interact with them any longer.
They are lift-producing devices; but I wonder how the inability to change the lift according to flight regime with leading and trailing edge devices would affect the viability of the solution.
It’s a curious study in the psychology of cognitive blind spots I suppose. Surely farmers in the course of their work understand the phenomenon of cause and effect. Why is it so difficult then to port that to the political sphere? This is a man, who regardless of one’s own position on the political spectrum, seems so grossly under-equipped - both in terms of education and disposition -to steer a large complex economy, that it beggars comprehension as to how these farmers could have made the decisions that most did.
I suppose a follow-up question would be to ask whether the respondents believe that such decisions _should_ be made on the basis of evidence. It seems that many are perfectly fine with arbitrary or ideologically-driven decisions irrespective of the evidence.
It really should be a shared responsibility to report and understand the meaning of statistically significant correlation. Unfortunately, few journalists seem to have much interest in understanding it. And given that their readership likely has about average (i.e poor) numeracy and iffy understanding of probability, it’s a bad combination. The widespread misunderstanding about the iterative way that science converges on truth also contributes to this problem.
That said, I would rather know about interesting findings such as this if for no other reason than to start digging for the original paper.
Must have actually been an EEG by the description, right?
Considering the United States only for a moment; the distribution of national income has not been so unequal since the robber baron days. At the same time the visibility of wealth to make upward comparisons has never been greater due to complete permeation of media, both traditional and social. If my share of income in real dollars was slipping as is the case for many, while watching the .1% pocket it, I’d be pretty doggone dysphoric.
I am curious about whether your model of how the current Administration in the U.S. has benefited various countries so strikingly includes the United States itself.
I honestly don’t know what the actual factual answer to the question is. 1? 2? But the question warranted an answer, even if it was “I don’t know.” Given that the answer to many questions about mass shooting, specific or otherwise, is “too many,” the answer he gave offered no factual data. Maybe he was prepared to offer something more fact-based and nuanced. But to me the answer he gave comes off as dismissive, lacking in additional data, and possibly ideologically-motivated.
I imagine the question was posed because many in the community adjacent to Kirk are looking for an excuse to see trans people further isolated and stripped of their rights. Forcing the debate - if we can call it that - into the world of facts doesn’t seem problematic to me.