alexey

Quote

The memo goes on to praise Flynn's military career and his decision to "accept[] responsibility in a timely fashion."

"[D]efendant’s military and public service are exemplary," the memo stated. "He served in the military for over 33 years, including five years of combat duty, led the Defense Intelligence Agency, and retired as a 3-star Lieutenant General."

Although Flynn's "early cooperation was particularly valuable because he was one of the few people with long-term and firsthand insight regarding events and issues under investigation," Mueller's team made clear they thought he should have known better.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mueller-memo-michael-flynn-outlining-key-details-about-russia-probes-progress

 

I don’t have a problem with sending that message: flip early and tell us all you know.  

 

It is somewhat redeeming to come clean about everything, and do it early with useful info.  Also 33 years in the military is a lot of public service.  Without that background, zero jail time would not be ok.

1 hour ago, HoustonSkin said:

...

 

But hey, we all have our opinions I guess.

 

While I do find Dr. Ford to be credible, I hear you on all the memory things and I accept a possibility that she should be mistaken in several different ways.

 

Having said that, BK’s behavior during the hearing, in my view, provided sufficient evidence to disqualify him from being on the Supreme Court.  That alone is enough even without all the drunk rapey stuff.   He acted in a surprisingly immature way and he showed little respect for people, institutions, and processes that make this country work.

 

Even if this whole thing was a clever ploy by the Democrats to expose BK, expose him they did.  Having this kind of person on the Supreme Court would be a damn shame.

Respect goes a long way.  Kids are small but they still want respect.  Talk to them in the way you want your manager to talk to you.  Also remember that you are much bigger and stronger, you are basically a GIANT.  Upset/screaming giant is a very scary thing.

 

Not saying to be a softie, being firm is good, just respectfully firm.

 

Acknowledge and validate their feelings.  I understand this is really important to you.

 

When in conflict, tell them what you will do before doing it.  Make sure it does NOT sound like a threat.

 

Offer them choices (valid choices!)

 

Find a way to say “no” without saying it.  Can we have desert now?  Of course we can, right after dinner. (“no” without actually saying it) Yes sweetie it can be so hard to wait for desert!  (validation)

 

Find a way to tell them what to do without saying it.  I see some dirty dishes on the table!  We usually put those in the sink after dinner (hint hint).

 

Praise the effort instead of the result.

 

When presented with a piece of work (art, school, project, etc.).  Find some details about it and ask about those.  The kid did those for a reason and will light up and tell you all about them.

 

 

These are some tips I found very helpful, mostly from these two awesome books:

Positive Discipline by Jane Nelsen

How to Talk So Kids Will Listen & Listen So Kids Will Talk

3 hours ago, twa said:

 

Do you pay it or your employer? 

Which with higher premiums reduces other compensation in many cases

 

Medicaid certainly factors in too

https://www.statista.com/statistics/245347/total-medicaid-enrollment-since-1966/

 

expanded benefits as well...do you think ins companies control costs better than the customer?

In todays market they probably do, but it is a market they have created.

Right.  So money paid out by my insurance, how is that classified in the "out of pocket vs other people" graph?

 

I do not know how to compare cost control of companies vs customers.  They control costs in very different ways.

1 hour ago, twa said:

 

The OPM factor

 

I wonder how much of this is due to an aging population getting on Medicare.

 

also, when I pay into my insurance, and then my insurance pays for my services - is that classified as "other people's money"?

One of the biggest problems with Obamacare is that it became the default explanation for all problems with our healtrhcare system.

 

Maybe the conversation changes once it gets repealed.

Who comes up with this stuff? Jeez... Too many cooks!!! Guess what i'm dreaming about tonight. Thanks for sharing!!!11!!

@PeterMP - I found this article that deals with the costs of mitigation.

 

I'm not getting into an argument either way, just thought you could at least see one person's idea about mitigation costs.

"this article" is actually called "CO2 Mitigation: It's Dopey"

 

Wear it with pride.

Meh, call me jaded.  The oceans filling up with plastic bottles, 1.6 gallon toilets, mercury filled light bulbs, mini mansions, and Americans who think they can change the global temperature.  Recycle recycle.  Recycle all those plastic deerpark bottles and diet soda's your slurping down like there is no tomorrow.  But if I take a reusable bag to the grocery store I am changing the planet   Damn libs

Think of it as the liberal outlet for frustration.

 

Frustrated conservative folks openly carry assault rifles and talk about revolution.  Frustrated liberal folks take reusable bags to the grocery store and buy free range eggs.

Climate change denial is so boring nowadays.  It's like a group of friends where the jokes have been told.  People are not even trying for a great delivery.  Soon even punch lines will be omitted.  Al Gore!  Ice!  Chinese!  Taxes! #12!

...

I can't complete your phrase because the two things (the boys who cried wolf and the current "consensus" range) have no relation, and it is not my contention that they do. The problem is a credibility issue (see Oppenheimer, who is still very much active and widely accepted by the more leftward "consensus" types, though they disagree with him).

Most "deniers" I know believe climate change is the chicken little horsecrap that was fed to them in the 70s and 80s. This is, IMO, largely the fault of the climate change crowd. Yes, an education is needed, but it's not because they're stupid! It's because they've been told the messiah was coming on Friday and they woke up on Saturday. Now there's a new preacher in town, but they just think he sounds like the last guy.

...

You are saying that there is no connection, climate change deniers make the connection... but it's not their fault.

Do you at least admit that they are making a mistake? Sounds like you do.

I am not into blaming other people for your own mistakes. Climate change deniers are making a mistake, and blaming some crazies from the 70's for it. Do you see anything wrong with that picture?

drtdrums,

Please complete this sentence:

Because some scientists have been wrong about some environmental issues in the past, that means current scientific consensus view about climate change is ......

Certainly, there's a pride element which prevents people from admitting what they thought was true isn't, and people who are aware of their own ignorance don't like to be reminded of it, a further impediment to persuasion. Still, I'm somewhat sympathetic to Joe Sixpack's plight - it's hard for the average person to know what to believe anymore when both sides can trot out "experts" who point to "studies" saying their side is the truth. Heck, tobacco companies used to feature doctors in their ads. It's really not that hard to deceive the public.

I see social/community dynamics to be the key here. It's not like every Joe looks at experts eand makes up his mind. For most things, it is about community beliefs driven by leaders of those communities and leaders of groups with which those communities self identify.

Global warming !!!! Yeah last winter was nice and warm! I must have been imagining those huge snow storms that hit all across the country.

It's called climate change now, and yes they say extreme weather events will be more common.

On a side note... I am sure there is something you do for a living, or at least something that you know a bit more about compared to most other people. Now imagine somebody comes who know very little about that thing, and says: "lolerz, you got it all wrong!!!111"

...

I don't think it's science denial that we're seeing so much as it's science befuddlement from the average American. There's so much information coming out these days, it's hard for Joe Sixpack to seperate the wheat from the chaff.

It's not just hard to form an informed opinion, it is also very humbling. Joe Sixpack does not like to be humbled.

Well there are tons of people who continue to make claims about GMO's that are completely not true. There is also the anti-vaccination group.

I don't think either stem from financial or religious interests.

Good points, I didn't think of that. Although anti-GMOs and anti-vacs can be kind of traced to financial interests (all naturals, alt medicine, etc.), I definitely see a healthy dose of straight up honest finance-free science denialism there.

Show me science denial that is not based on financial or religious interests.

I'm simply saying our focus needs to be redirected.

Which is more apt to get people to do something? Showing them this:

...

or this and saying "Gasp! The sea level has risen 3cm!"

I think you are right on, it is much easier to convince people about things that can be communicated with a single picture, like smog.

You have identified the problem... But your solution is what, to focus on smog instead? How is that related to managing human greenhouse gas emissions?

I am not even clear if you are arguing that greenhouse gas emissions are not a problem, that it is a problem but we should ignore it, or that we should deal with the problem using a different messaging strategy.

Anyway, simple solution to the problem of getting people to do what needs to be done - Take out the 'climate change' part. Keep it simple. We should NOT be trying to prevent climate change anyway as the ONLY way to do so would be to stop the rotation of the Earth.

Back when the focus was on pollution prevention (as the focus without a doubt should be) you had the Acts passed...stuff got done. Why would you switch the focus to something even more divisive? You have plenty of examples (Ohio's water, any city in China's air) of reasons for needing to change without invoking climate change or global warming, so why do it?

How about: let's not "prevent" climate change. Let's "manage" the relationship between our activities and climate.

I am not sure how to understand the rest of your point. Are you saying that managing greenhouse gas emissions is difficult, so we should do something that is easier and unrelated?

It's a shame nobody bothered to engage this post.

I also chimed in, explaining why "all of above" is basically a way to avoid acknowledging that fossil fuels have long term costs that are not being paid right now.

Subsidies that we currently have for fossil fuels need to stop. Government needs to take action and begin the drive to factor in long term costs of fossil fuels.

GOP uses two approaches to fight this

1) deflect the conversation with "all of the above"

2) if the conversation starts, engage in fear and tax mongering

I "all of the above" as a scam.

Government action is required to factor in the true cost of fossil fuels.

If you are not talking about the true cost of fossil fuels and us currently subsidizing/ignoring that cost, you are BSing.

I don't know if I agree that other countries follow America's lead. For instance, European countries are ages ahead of us while East Asian and Middle Eastern countries do as they please. You have to literally govern clean air and environmental change. Those governments are nothing like our own. The companies in those regions will do the least expensive practice, regardless of environmental impact. They do this to try and catch up to us in economy and technology. Their governments allow this because they want them to catch up to us in those industries.

Imagine when countries in Africa advance to some sort of industrial revolution, we will have to worry about that next.

I strongly doubt man's will to practice clean industry when immediate reactions do not hurt anyone. Man is inherently selfish.

Yes companies in those regions produce goods for us with least expensive practices, regardless of environmental or human impact.  And we buy them.

 

We implemented protections for our workers, but not for workers who produce goods for us in other countries.

 

We implemented protections for our environment, but not for environmental impact in other countries for us to get cheaper stuff.

 

I agree with you about the selfishness of man.  Selfish man has many explanations for his behaviour.  "they are selfish too" seems to be the most popular.  There are TONS of simple stuff that we should have done a long time ago, and need to do as soon as we can.

America cannot solve global warming by itself. If solving global warming were as simple as you make it out to be (which I doubt) then you'd still have to coerce dozens of other independent nations to follow America's lead. That is the part that is nearly impossible and that is the part that suing a political party doesn't address. Hence this just looks like political gamesmanship.

Countries do follow America's lead... unfortunately so far America's been leading them in the wrong direction.

 

The solution is simple... but do not confluse "simple" with "easy to implement".

 

At this point we have a major political party that openly denies reality and keeps getting elected.  That makes it difficult to implement simple reality-based solutions.

 

For example, it is a fact that we currently subsidise fossil fuels.  Besides short-term subsidies, there are also long-term costs to fossil fuels that we are currently ignoring.  Simple solution would be: stop ignoring those long-term costs, e.g. cap and trade.  Simple, but not easy to implement.

How would suing the republicans for denying global warming be any different than republicans threatening the economy over a debt ceiling increase or republicans impeaching the president for something that has zero bearing on the country as a whole. This comes across as nothing more than political one-ups-manship by democrats playing the republicans dirty game. Furthermore, I would want to be apart of no party that is so petty.

Now, what if this noble cause succeeds? They're sued, hell they're convicted of taking bribes and have to leave office. What then? Are more republican replacements going to magically take up the cause of reversing global warming? Let's say they do (which they won't), how would a nation united against global warming really change anything? How on earth would a united country prevent countries like China, India and other nations going through industrial revolutions from polluting the world? Hell, they can't even solve easier problems like the war on drugs, the war on terrorism and peace in the Middle East. You expect them to stop a problem that isn't even killing people??? Right.

I see important differences between political moves aiming to deny reality vs political moves aiming to prevent denying of reality.

Solving climate change is a matter of two things: not subsidizing fossil fuels, and investing in advancement of technology. Don't compare it to the stupid war on drugs. Compare it to the awesome moon landing program.

The absolute mindless and childish nature of this post is almost beyond comprehension. I weep for the human race.

You done it again twa! Good to see you're still in top form