Political Randomness

[Holman]

Plus the whole premise about neighborhoods is wrong: gentrification is an effect of falling crime rates, not a cause.

[LordMortis]

I'm not sure I buy your thesis. Poverty and crime/desperation go hand in hand. Pockets of Detroit are being gentrified by brute force of the ironic combination of Corporations and millennial hipsters and artisans which is driving crime down with increased accessed to public works (minus access to education which is remains FUBAR in a for profit sort of way, though still largely not affecting hipsters whom are delaying or perhaps denying becoming family units)

[Holman]

Trumpian hero "Sheriff" Clarke on the media: "MAKE THEM TASTE THEIR OWN BLOOD."

[Max Peck]

The shape of things to come.

The political economist Benjamin Friedman once compared modern Western society to a stable bicycle whose wheels are kept spinning by economic growth. Should that forward-propelling motion slow or cease, the pillars that define our society – democracy, individual liberties, social tolerance and more – would begin to teeter. Our world would become an increasingly ugly place, one defined by a scramble over limited resources and a rejection of anyone outside of our immediate group. Should we find no way to get the wheels back in motion, we’d eventually face total societal collapse.

Such collapses have occurred many times in human history, and no civilisation, no matter how seemingly great, is immune to the vulnerabilities that may lead a society to its end. Regardless of how well things are going in the present moment, the situation can always change. Putting aside species-ending events like an asteroid strike, nuclear winter or deadly pandemic, history tells us that it’s usually a plethora of factors that contribute to collapse. What are they, and which, if any, have already begun to surface? It should come as no surprise that humanity is currently on an unsustainable and uncertain path – but just how close are we to reaching the point of no return?

While it’s impossible to predict the future with certainty, mathematics, science and history can provide hints about the prospects of Western societies for long-term continuation.

Safa Motesharrei, a systems scientist at the University of Maryland, uses computer models to gain a deeper understanding of the mechanisms that can lead to local or global sustainability or collapse. According to findings that Motesharrei and his colleagues published in 2014, there are two factors that matter: ecological strain and economic stratification. The ecological category is the more widely understood and recognised path to potential doom, especially in terms of depletion of natural resources such as groundwater, soil, fisheries and forests – all of which could be worsened by climate change.

That economic stratification may lead to collapse on its own, on the other hand, came as more of a surprise to Motesharrei and his colleagues. Under this scenario, elites push society toward instability and eventual collapse by hoarding huge quantities of wealth and resources, and leaving little or none for commoners who vastly outnumber them yet support them with labour. Eventually, the working population crashes because the portion of wealth allocated to them is not enough, followed by collapse of the elites due to the absence of labour. The inequalities we see today both within and between countries already point to such disparities. For example, the top 10% of global income earners are responsible for almost as much total greenhouse gas emissions as the bottom 90% combined. Similarly, about half the world’s population lives on less than $3 per day.

[El Guapo]

Doug Jones to be sworn in on Wednesday.

[tjg_marantz]

Not broken at all.

[El Guapo]

What if you attach a sign to your gun?

[Jaymann]

What if you attach a sign to your gun?

"Go ahead-make my day!"

[Isgrimnur]

Bring back the Sashimono!

[Skinypupy]

What if you attach a sign to your gun?

The ultimate conunndrum:

[Carpet_pissr]

What if you attach a sign to your gun?

The ultimate conunndrum:

Dang, you beat me to it! First image that popped into my head! Ha!

[Holman]

Word out now is that Roy Moore's Jewish lawyer voted for Doug Jones and helped raise money for his campaign.

[Freyland]

Word out now is that Roy Moore's Jewish lawyer voted for Doug Jones and helped raise money for his campaign.

To be fair here, so did Moore's horse.

[Jaymann]

So did his beard.

[Holman]

Are they... really this stupid and paranoid?

Twitter's follow suggestions are based entirely on who else you follow and whose page you're viewing at the moment.

e.g. when I look at Eric Trump's page, it gives me Mike Pence and Kellyanne Conway.

[Rip]

I still don't get the whole twitter thing. When I think of grown people spending time reading these things it just makes me shake my head.

Never had it never will. Facebook at least has some redeeming qualities.

[Carpet_pissr]

I still don't get the whole twitter thing. When I think of grown people spending time reading these things it just makes me shake my head.

Never had it never will. Facebook at least has some redeeming qualities.

I'm with you. I got one of those initial "special" invites to open an account when it first came out, did so, was completely unimpressed (and uninterested), and remain so to this day. I am "on it" only in the sense that I have an account. And I am not some kind of social media haters either (although I am moving in that direction, having all but quit FB in the last year)...I'm on LinkedIn (use it daily), FB, I text, I chat, Skype, etc. I guess I lump it in with the "me too" social media apps that launched post FB, that to me, were not nearly as interesting or useful (or whose functions were IMO superfluous with FB being so widely used): Pinterest, Twitter, Instagram, et al.

[Captain Caveman]

I still don't get the whole twitter thing. When I think of grown people spending time reading these things it just makes me shake my head.

Never had it never will. Facebook at least has some redeeming qualities.

I'm the complete opposite. I'm rarely on FB anymore but I'm on twitter way too much. FB is just the same friends posting the same stuff day after day-- the friend who posts 25 pics of her kids everyday, the one guy who posts the same political opinions, etc. On Twitter, I follow people who report on my interests: politics, music, sports, etc. I follow a few friends but mostly Twitter is a place to get breaking news and analysis from voices I value (and check in on voices I don't... like Trump). Twitter is a completely self-curated platform. It's quality and relevance to you is exactly what you make of it.

[LordMortis]

Facebook at least has some redeeming qualities.

I'm not sure why I still use FB. Probably because it substitutes for having some sort of social life. I used to use it to catch up with friends and to plan social things. But then I became a total hermit and FB itself doesn't seem to be used a virtual house for being social anymore. So now it's mostly used to either literally talk at the wall, to see friends talk at the wall, or out of force of habit.

[Carpet_pissr]

I'm the complete opposite. I'm rarely on FB anymore but I'm on twitter way too much. FB is just the same friends posting the same stuff day after day-- the friend who posts 25 pics of her kids everyday, the one guy who posts the same political opinions, etc. On Twitter, I follow people who report on my interests: politics, music, sports, etc. I follow a few friends but mostly Twitter is a place to get breaking news and analysis from voices I value (and check in on voices I don't... like Trump). Twitter is a completely self-curated platform. It's quality and relevance to you is exactly what you make of it.

You, sir, make a compelling argument for me to give it another try. Hmmm...

[Kraken]

I still don't get the whole twitter thing. When I think of grown people spending time reading these things it just makes me shake my head.

Never had it never will. Facebook at least has some redeeming qualities.

I'm with you. I got one of those initial "special" invites to open an account when it first came out, did so, was completely unimpressed (and uninterested), and remain so to this day. I am "on it" only in the sense that I have an account. And I am not some kind of social media haters either (although I am moving in that direction, having all but quit FB in the last year)...I'm on LinkedIn (use it daily), FB, I text, I chat, Skype, etc. I guess I lump it in with the "me too" social media apps that launched post FB, that to me, were not nearly as interesting or useful (or whose functions were IMO superfluous with FB being so widely used): Pinterest, Twitter, Instagram, et al.

When it was new I created a business account for marketing purposes. Never figured out how to use it to my advantage and soon gave up. I think my business facebook still automatically posts to the twitter, so it's technically a live account. I'd be shocked if anybody reads it.

Pinterest would have been a better use of my time, but I was a stranger in a strange land there, too. Tools like that only work if you're genuinely interested in them.

[Captain Caveman]

I also tweet myself, but mostly just professionally about my research area. Most of my followers are other academics and people interested in my work. Academic twitter is actually a really vibrant sub-genre of Twitter, where I get access to interesting new papers, ideas, and debates.

[Rip]

http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/04/politics/ ... l?adkey=bn

GOP incumbent David Yancey won a "lot draw" in the race for Virginia's House of Delegates Thursday, giving Republicans control of the chamber.

Minutes before the draw, however, Democrat Shelly Simonds wouldn't commit to accepting the outcome, rather than pursuing a second recount or some other tactic to settle the race. She told reporters she's "keeping all options open, really."

[stessier]

I use Twitter to keep abreast of sports news. It's great to keep track of when people write new articles and to keep up with trades.

I have no use for FB outside of one game. I technically have an account so I can play a Star Wars game, but it's made up of bogus info and isn't connected to anyone.

[Captain Caveman]

http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/04/politics/ ... l?adkey=bn

GOP incumbent David Yancey won a "lot draw" in the race for Virginia's House of Delegates Thursday, giving Republicans control of the chamber.

Minutes before the draw, however, Democrat Shelly Simonds wouldn't commit to accepting the outcome, rather than pursuing a second recount or some other tactic to settle the race. She told reporters she's "keeping all options open, really."

So the GOP loses House votes in VA by around 10% but still hold the majority in the House thanks to gerrymandering, and as a result of this "luck of the draw", hundreds of thousands of Virginians likely lose out on the chance to access healthcare. What a system, what a system.

[Moliere]

Fix Utah law to protect 'free-range' parenting

Sadly a law is needed to protect parents who allow their kids to play or walk to school unsupervised.

[Punisher]

Fix Utah law to protect 'free-range' parenting

Sadly a law is needed to protect parents who allow their kids to play or walk to school unsupervised.

This is a bad idea.. I prefer that you keep your children on a leash. I don't know if they have all their shots, plus if they are free range, they end up pooping all over and I don't want to have to clean that up..

But seriously, this is crazy.. Growing up in Newark NJ in the 70's and 80's I walked all over the place by myself, including to and from school. one about 1 mile away and another about 2 miles away for 2nd-4th grades. My younger brother and I were also left home alone many times and we turned out fine...

[Zarathud]

Back in the 70s and 80s, you had at least one parent on each street watching out for the kids. Leave a kid home alone today, and they can get into more trouble on the internet than you could in the streets.

[Punisher]

Back in the 70s and 80s, you had at least one parent on each street watching out for the kids. Leave a kid home alone today, and they can get into more trouble on the internet than you could in the streets.

Not in my neighborhood.. The only time we had a parent watching us was if we were in a friends house... Other then that we had free reign to roam the streets.

[GreenGoo]

Absolutely no supervision whatsoever. There certainly wasn't 1 parent per street watching things, because we weren't on any particular street. My point is only that there wasn't even the appearance of supervision.

[Zaxxon]

Back in the 70s and 80s, you had at least one parent on each street watching out for the kids.

Lol.

[GreenGoo]

I just want to point out that everyone here is self selected by the nature of the topic. The ones that did NOT turn out fine are not here to tell us about how things weren't ok without supervision. Because they're dead.

We few are the lucky ones!

[Zarathud]

You were kids back then, not adults. Do you really think that parents had zero idea of what you kids were doing? Or that someone didn't disapprove to your parents? Or your priests found out back in the days of confession?

I had an interesting conversation about history with my 80 year old father-in-law. As a former Catholic priest, he pronounced the world as basically the same but things once discussed in secret and shame have now become open and normal -- for better or worse. We're more accepting of same sex relationships/sex/divorce, but can't pretend there is no child/spousal/substance abuse. He said only those who didn't really remember how things were could really be nostalgic for the good old days.

Diana Baumrind of the University of California-Berkeley called it authoritarian, authoritative and permissive parenting when she started parenting research in the 1960s. Now you can call it "helicopter", attachment and "free range" parenting. But it's still a spectrum of permissiveness.

Are parents more judgmental now about parenting? Yes if you forget about social peer pressure in the 1970s. Are kids less social? Yes if you forget that kids can now huddle online in their social media groups to text, rather than having to meet in person to talk -- or hog up the phone with multiparty calls. Same thing, different channel/data stream.

Kids knew to stay away from the "mean old lady in the Blue House" because she'd tell your mom or call the police, now they stay away from the disapproving lady on her cell phone. Parents might find video of their kids playing inappropriately in their email rather than over the telephone. Kids are no longer driven to the mall to wander around, but instead go to a play group.

There were fewer cars, so you could play in the street rather than all the new parks. Why were the parks built? More accidents involving kids because there is more traffic. You need car seats because cars are no longer designed to withstand a direct hit and crumple on impact. You need a cell phone because strangers are no longer going to let you into their house to use the phone. You now wear sunscreen and don't smoke because we now know about skin and lung cancer. Parents no longer worry about their kids getting a hold of a dirty magazine, but video instructions. Parents now invest more in their children, because there are fewer of them. So some of these things are different for a good reason.

[GreenGoo]

I'm pretty sure no one knew I was in the boiler room of the local sportsplex. Or invading the corn fields of the experimental farm nearby. Or going through the playboy collection of a neighbourhood kid's dad.

Trust me Zarathud, our parents had no clue where we spent our days, and that was the norm for almost all kids of my generation.

It's not really up for debate.

[Pyperkub]

Well, there was the time we were playing cops and robbers with bb guns, wearing parkas for protection Hunting for scorpions in the hills, throwing rocks at beehives, pulling the fire alarms at school after hours and watching the fire trucks show up and leave, then pulling them again just after they had left, dirt clod wars, acorn wars, cardboard sliding, climbing 50' trees and rocks, biking all over the county, trying to make gunpowder with my chemistry set, etc.

All unsupervised. But with other neighborhood kids and someone could always run to a stay at home mom.

We did get caught playing with fire and taken to the fire chief for the lecture.

[Zarathud]

Do you think the owners of the corn field at the experimental farm didn't know you were there? You were not ninjas.

Dads also quickly realize that their pristine playboy collection has suddenly become well worn (and missing a few playmates). Did you really think your mom didn't know you were whacking it to the playboy collection? It all comes out in the wash, my friend. So do dirt clods and acorns.

The fire department knew the alarms weren't malfunctioning at the school. They probably thought it was good practice for the real thing. And how many times did you get stung by a scorpion or stung by the bees? And that cardboard came from somewhere.

You don't want to debate this only if you don't want to know how much your parents and other adults realized what you (or other kids) were doing -- and let you think you "got away" with it or didn't want to talk about it at the time.

My grandfather confessed to having a full report of my mother's first trip on the train to downtown Chicago. On the second trip, she had a friend drive so my grandfather's spies couldn't give him any intel. She never understood why her third attempt was blocked. He also knew my mom was sledding downhill and crashing into a tree instead of going into the stream nearby. He figured someone one of the other kids would tell once she fell in or that she'd realize it was a dumb idea if she hit the tree enough times (and, no, it didn't knock any sense into her and my uncle ended up with a broken arm instead).

[Zaxxon]

Ok.

It's rather incredible that you presume to know what an entire generation's parents were up to. So I'll just go with Ok.

[Zarathud]

I presume no more than those who characterize the current current generation's styles of parenting or yearn for the "good old days" of free range parenting. Or those who presume they were smarter than the adults in their childhood.

If you wanted to get into the data of stay-at-home patents in the 50-99s, we could do that too. Source.

In 1967, 49 percent of mothers were stay-at-home mothers. That proportion steadily dropped through the decades until 1999, when only 23 percent of moms stayed at home. Since 1999, the percentage of mothers who stayed at home began to increase again, rising by 6 points to 29 percent in 2012.

.

The neighborhood busy-body wasn't just a trope -- there was a time when it was true.

[Holman]

I remember the time I walked into the kitchen and realized that my mom was on the phone with my buddy's mom.

They weren't friends. They had no independent connection, just us kids. No one was in trouble. It was just routine information-sharing of the sort we didn't know was going on.

[Freyland]

I'm pretty confident my parents never found out that my older brother and I were part of a recurring game with his friends of shooting bottle rockets at each other from across the suburban back yard.

I know this because I'm not still grounded at the age of 46.