The Right Side of the News

They just outlined a democratic voting method for electing officials and presidents through elected officials.This kind of thinking means that we are not a capitalist country either, because "capitalism" isn't mentioned in the Declaration, the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or the pledge of allegiance. SHOCKING!!! Who knew??? Which, as used in the US, is a form of democracy.

quote:

---

Republic - Wikipedia

​

In the context of American constitutional law, the definition of republic refers specifically to a form of government in which elected individuals represent the citizen body[2][better source needed] and exercise power according to the rule of law under a constitution, including separation of powers with an elected head of state, referred to as a constitutional republic[4][5][6][7] or representative democracy.[8]

---

Again, I can make the similar but stronger argument that the US is a UNION of all the people because it is in the Constitution rather than the Pledge:

quote:

---

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

​

Preamble

​

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect UNION, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

---

Such a union would be a socialist association of all workers coming together for the greater good of all people:Government of the people, by the people, for the people, as Abe Lincoln said. Because it is a representative democracy rather than a direct democracy. Which uses a narrow definition of democracy to poison the well ...{abe}Note that the conclusion of this article about Jefferson and Madison says

quote:

---

Conclusion

​

The views of Jefferson and Madison, while not coinciding, were complementary. Madison sought to explain how the government under the new Constitution served to prevent the formation of factions; Jefferson's chief concern was the correction of the wrongful acts produced by whatever factions that might occur in spite of the Constitutional protections. Madison implied that the protection against majority factions was not absolute: that they "would be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union." Our republican system tends towards greater stability, and history has demonstrated the truth of his assessment. Jefferson argued for the inclusion of the people in every function of government where they were competent. Taking Madison and Jefferson together, we find we can actually enjoy the benefits of both: our representative system, where necessary for practicable reasons, insures stability and a tendency to act on behalf of the whole nation; citizen participation to the greatest extent possible insures honesty and the safety of our rights. The two concepts complement each other and work together to produce good government to the greatest extent possible.

---

The problem with this polyanna article built on cherry-picked comments is that we now have two factions that are often at each other's throats, so the Constitution absolutely failed to protect against the formation of factions or their actions to protect their factions against the needs of the people (McConnell et al), nor against the near absolute domination of corporate sponsorship in corrupting the politicians involved.{/abe}In reality we are near to losing our representative democracy republic because of rampant disenfranchisement of voters by the republican party.

quote:

---

Democracy - Wikipedia

​

Generally, there are two types of democracy: direct and representative. In a direct democracy, the people directly deliberate and decide on legislature. In a representative democracy the people elect representatives to deliberate and decide on legislature, such as in parliamentary or presidential democracy. Liquid democracy combines elements of these two basic types.

---

Why do that when I can look up facts and look at what is actually involved?EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

Which of course is all wrong. Scientists were aware of climate change over 100 years ago, and they wrote papers and letters to editors, and I know one personally that was on the National Science Board during Nixon's administrations that raised the issue to the president. The Paris Accord was about all countries coming together to address the issues, including who will "foot the bill" and it is appropriate that those that are the worst offenders will pay more. How do you dispose of nuclear waste? If you don't look at the full cycle including all the waste streams of a process you are not being honest. It's a scientific fact that some types of climate change happen that aren't in any was associated with human activity, and that they are inconsequential compared to the anthropomorphic causes of climate change.Fear mongering again. Get a horse. Join the Amish. Move to a hippy commune ...EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : ...

Just to add to the argument ...

quote:

---

The five corrupt pillars of climate change denial

​

The fossil fuel industry, political lobbyists, media moguls and individuals have spent the past 30 years sowing doubt about the reality of climate change - where none exists. The latest estimate is that the world’s five largest publicly-owned oil and gas companies spend about US$200 million a year on lobbying to control, delay or block binding climate policy.

​

​

At such a crossroads, it is important to be able to identify the different types of denial. The below taxonomy will help you spot the different ways that are being used to convince you to delay action on climate change.

​

1. Science denial

​

This is the type of denial we are all familiar with: that the science of climate change is not settled. Deniers suggest climate change is just part of the natural cycle. Or that climate models are unreliable and too sensitive to carbon dioxide.

​

Some even suggest that CO is such a small part of the atmosphere it cannot have a large heating affect. Or that climate scientists are fixing the data to show the climate is changing (a global conspiracy that would take thousands of scientists in more than a 100 countries to pull off).

​

All these arguments are false and there is a clear consensus among scientists about the causes of climate change. The climate models that predict global temperature rises have remained very similar over the last 30 years despite the huge increase in complexity, showing it is a robust outcome of the science.

​

​

The shift in public opinion means that undermining the science will increasingly have little or no effect. So climate change deniers are switching to new tactics. ...
... In other words, climate change is now about the cost not the science.

​

2. Economic denial

​

The idea that climate change is too expensive to fix is a more subtle form of climate denial. Economists, however, suggest we could fix climate change now by spending 1% of world GDP. Perhaps even less if the cost savings from improved human health and expansion of the global green economy are taken into account. But if we don’t act now, by 2050 it could cost over 20% of world GDP.

​

The International Monetary Fund estimates that efficient fossil fuel pricing would lower global carbon emissions by 28%, fossil fuel air pollution deaths by 46%, and increase government revenue by 3.8% of the country’s GDP.

​

3. Humanitarian denial

​

Climate change deniers also argue that climate change is good for us. They suggest longer, warmer summers in the temperate zone will make farming more productive. These gains, however, are often offset by the drier summers and increased frequency of heatwaves in those same areas. For example, the 2010 Moscow heatwave killed 11,000 people, devastated the Russian wheat harvest and increased global food prices.

​

Deniers also point out that plants need atmospheric carbon dioxide to grow so having more of it acts like a fertiliser. This is indeed true and the land biosphere has been absorbing about a quarter of our carbon dioxide pollution every year. Another quarter of our emissions is absorbed by the oceans. But losing massive areas of natural vegetation through deforestation and changes in land use completely nullifies this minor fertilisation effect.

​

Climate change deniers will tell you that more people die of the cold than heat, so warmer winters will be a good thing. This is deeply misleading. Vulnerable people die of the cold because of poor housing and not being able to afford to heat their homes. Society, not climate, kills them.

​

This argument is also factually incorrect. In the US, for example, heat-related deaths are four times higher than cold-related ones. This may even be an underestimate as many heat-related deaths are recorded by cause of death such as heart failure, stroke, or respiratory failure, all of which are exacerbated by excessive heat.

​

​

4. Political denial

​

Climate change deniers argue we cannot take action because other countries are not taking action. But not all countries are equally guilty of causing current climate change. For example, 25% of the human-produced CO in the atmosphere is generated by the US, another 22% is produced by the EU. Africa produces just under 5%.

​

Given the historic legacy of greenhouse gas pollution, developed countries have an ethical responsibility to lead the way in cutting emissions. But ultimately, all countries need to act because if we want to minimise the effects of climate change then the world must go carbon zero by 2050.

​

​

Deniers will also tell you that there are problems to fix closer to home without bothering with global issues. But many of the solutions to climate change are win-win and will improve the lives of normal people. Switching to renewable energy and electric vehicles, for example, reduces air pollution, which improves people’s overall health.

​

Developing a green economy provides economic benefits and creates jobs. Improving the environment and reforestation provides protection from extreme weather events and can in turn improve food and water security.

​

5. Crisis denial

​

The final piece of climate change denial is the argument that we should not rush into changing things, especially given the uncertainty raised by the other four areas of denial above. Deniers argue that climate change is not as bad as scientists make out. We will be much richer in the future and better able to fix climate change. They also play on our emotions as many of us don’t like change and can feel we are living in the best of times — especially if we are richer or in power.

​

But similarly hollow arguments were used in the past to delay ending slavery, granting the vote to women, ending colonial rule, ending segregation, decriminalising homosexuality, bolstering worker’s rights and environmental regulations, allowing same sex marriages and banning smoking.

​

The fundamental question is why are we allowing the people with the most privilege and power to convince us to delay saving our planet from climate change?

---

So if you find yourself wallowing around in any one of these denial swamps, you should recognize that you have been pwned.Sounds like you hit every one marc. You talked about climate change being a well funded liberal fear hoax, but in actuality the well funded hoax is on the part of the deniers funded by big oil.Enjoy

Amuse me Faith: So you are saying that we can't take action because other countries are not taking action.ROFLOLEnjoy

Again you amuse me Faith, right on cue ...

quote:

---

2. Economic denial

​

The idea that climate change is too expensive to fix is a more subtle form of climate denial. Economists, however, suggest we could fix climate change now by spending 1% of world GDP. Perhaps even less if the cost savings from improved human health and expansion of the global green economy are taken into account. But if we don’t act now, by 2050 it could cost over 20% of world GDP.

​

The International Monetary Fund estimates that efficient fossil fuel pricing would lower global carbon emissions by 28%, fossil fuel air pollution deaths by 46%, and increase government revenue by 3.8% of the country’s GDP.

---

So still using bad/wrong arguments. I'll gladly donate 1% of my income to fight climate change, in fact I have already donated significantly more than that to help make up for self-centered and selfish people that want to wallow in coal ash, CO2 etc.Enjoy

Which are more like the republicans of the day when the women's vote amendment was passed, than today's republicans who refuse to pass the equal pay amendment. Seems to me passing one would mean you would also pass the other ... if you were dealing with the same political ideologies.And he didn't say democrats, he said liberals. There used to be many republican liberals back in the days (1920) and many democrat conservatives -- such as southern democrats.

quote:

---

Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

​

Final congressional challenges

​

In 1918, President Wilson faced a difficult midterm election and would have to confront the issue of women's suffrage directly.[42] Fifteen states had extended equal voting rights to women and, by this time, the President fully supported the federal amendment.[49][50] A proposal brought before the House in January 1918 passed by only one vote. The vote was then carried into the Senate where Wilson made an appeal on the Senate floor, an unprecedented action at the time.[51] In a short speech, the President tied women's right to vote directly to the war, asking, "Shall we admit them only to a partnership of suffering and sacrifice and toil and not to a partnership of privilege and right?"[42] On September 30, 1918, the proposal fell two votes short of passage, prompting the NWP to direct campaigning to senators who had voted against the amendment.[50]

​

Between January 1918 and June 1919, the House and Senate voted on the federal amendment five times.[42][51][52] Each vote was extremely close and Southern Democrats continued to oppose giving women the vote.[51] Suffragists pressured President Wilson to call a special session of Congress and he agreed to schedule one for May 19, 1919. On May 21, 1919, the amendment passed the House 304 to 89, with 42 votes more than was necessary.[53] On June 4, 1919, it was brought before the Senate and, after Southern Democrats abandoned a filibuster,[42] 37 Republican senators joined 19 Democrats to pass the amendment with 56 ayes and 25 nays.[54]

---

Not really. It was passed by a Democrat President, by 304 (to 89 against) representatives that would include a lot of democrats, and by 19 democrats (with 37 republicans) in the senate, so there was very strong democrat support and it was passed with bi-partisan votes. It also looks like President Wilson actively campaigning for its passage in the senate and scheduling a special session in congress was critical to it finally being passed.But let's just ignore the rest of the list because of this one little quibble? That how reason works in your world?It's a facebook meme -- want me to find some conservative facebook memes with bigger lies? I can think of several that I read today ... you know ones that call people communists, right?And I can also find some on what unions have done for working people while the current GOP is trying hard to turn all workers into poor starving sick wage slaves.Enjoy

Let's include the rest of my comments on this issue, the ones you didn't respond to, where I had replied to your Message 4150 comment Among other causes healthcare increased because the the ACA now prevented then from excluding/omitting people with pre-existing conditions and provide insurance for more people than before, especially ones they considered high-risk patients. This is a good thing. This is what public healthcare would cover.We also KNOW that a universal single payer public healthcare system (medicare4all), like exists in every other advanced country, would result in lower net costs to the individual tax payers, but that Republicans block that as well. Because the republicans are owned by the big insurance companies.Enjoy

Increasing as need increases for social and economic justice.What we need less of is socialism for the rich and the big corporations. Companies that pay no taxes are living off the socialist teat instead of paying their fair share. Companies that pay starvation wages while reaping record profits are living off socialist teat instead of paying their workers a living wage (so the workers don't apply for and get for medicare, food stamps, etc -- the socialist teat paying what the corporation wages should).You want to reduce socialist spending on the poor, then make these companies pay a living wage. If they can't afford that, then they shouldn't be in business. Those 3 states still are net payers of tax to the Federal Government while the Conservative states mentioned are net receivers of tax benefits.Losing population is not the same as being economically successful.An ALEC report, color me surprised. Another cherry picking wonder. AND one published "By Troy Senik
Thursday, April 26 2012"Let's look at a more recent review "Submitted by Arn Pearson on January 21, 2016"

quote:

---

The Koch-Fueled ALEC's "Rich States, Poor States" Paints a Happy Face on Failing State Policies | PR Watch

​

Today, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) rolls out another edition of its "Rich States, Poor States" publication. The publication annually slaps a fresh coat of paint on the flawed fiscal and economic austerity policies favored by the group and its corporate patrons.

​

It's going to take a lot of paint this year.

​

The poster child for the ALEC anti-tax, low-wage policy agenda is Koch Industries' home state, Kansas, which has been plugged by Governor Sam Brownback as a "real live experiment in supply side economics. But Brownback's tax cuts have thrown the state into fiscal crisis, saddling the state with a projected budget deficit of $190 million for the next fiscal year, no reserves, slashed public services, and lagging job growth. Although wealthy taxpayers and businesses have reaped big benefits, it's an economic disaster for working families.

​

Sold to the press and state policymakers as an objective, academic measure of state economic performance, "Rich States Poor States" is in reality a scorecard ranking states on the adoption of extreme policies pushed by the Koch-funded ALEC that have little or nothing to do with good economic outcomes.

​

Report's Methodology Has Been Debunked

​

The lead author of the "Rich States, Poor States" report is economist and "ALEC scholar" Arthur Laffer. Influential in Republican circles, Laffer is considered the father of "supply side" economics—the notion of slashing taxes and government spending to spur economic growth. Adoption of Laffer's policies generated enormous federal deficits under presidents Reagan and Bush I, and have been widely dismissed as "voodoo" and "junk" economics.

​

Since ALEC first published the "Rich States, Poor States" report in 2007, with its Economic Outlook Ranking, experts say states rated better by ALEC have actually done worse economically.

​

"Obviously ALEC is ranking states based on each state's level of deregulation and awarding the most deregulated states, but the outcomes seem to have very little bearing in where companies actually want to launch and do business," Weisenthal said.

---

IE you used an out of date fake news report by biased and misrepresenting ALEC, not reality. Since that report we have had the disaster of Brownback's Kansas bankruptcy proving GOP economics just don't work. As is the post office. And all still socialist programs in being run by the government for the people's benefit/s.The GOP wants to "privatize" the post office because it doesn't make a profit, so I wonder if the military and the highways should be run for profit? Curiously, I was using that as a counter example to your silly claim that the Pledge of Allegiance meant we weren't a democratic government. Similar logic means we are a union run by the people, and it's much more specific than the Pledge, which didn't come along until 1942 and was authored by a socialist, and modified in 1954, when the words "under God" were added. As in ICE is not mentioned in the constitution (which includes all amendments, of course).Reserved ... to the people. So we can enact things through our representatives that we want enacted, or we can do it by popular referendum ... including things like universal healthcare.Doesn't it also mean that congress cannot pass laws restricting the rights of people? Like voting rights?Enjoy

Not really, and certainly not so much with our freedom and our pursuit of happiness, justice and the common good, and the degree that it goes against those means it is not the sole ideal economic system for this country. Interesting. Am I not allowed to comment on posts not directed at me?Enjoy

Coal burning industries. Steam locomotives and ships burning coal. When that technology includes using fossil fuels, yes. US companies today are not paying for 1900 technology and innovation, why should others?The technology and innovation of concern today is the use of alternative energy systems. Meanwhile Germany closes down all its Nuclear Generation plants. That's what the data shows, certainly when we look at the rate of change in climate we see nothing in past climate changes of that order of magnitude of changes/year (decade, century).Of Note, saturday January 11th we set a new highest temperature for this day in history -- 69°F -- in Providence RI. The next day we broke it with 70°F, and that's over 100 years of documenting temps here. Except one is real and yours is fake alarmism. Chicken Little claiming the sky is going to fall if we do anything to try to hold back climate change.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

I'm sure you can cite a library full of fake denial documents by people who are not climate scientists (like your electrical engineer), none of which cite any real evidence of a hoax.Meanwhile you ignore the article on The 5 corrupt pillars of climate denial, while citing a conspiracy paper that is pure science denial and obscurantism.Yes, I read it, it's worthless pandering to fear and outrage, but not to facts. It relies on a lot of debunked garbage that is decades out of date. Why do you think Yahoo search is not liberal? Curious. More to the point would be a search of scientific articles as opposed to conspiracy theorists.I searched for: scientific papers on climate change denial and the top paper was

quote:

---

The 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change are all flawed Quartz

​

It’s often said that of all the published scientific research on climate change, 97% of the papers conclude that global warming is real, problematic for the planet, and has been exacerbated by human activity.

​

But what about those 3% of papers that reach contrary conclusions? Some skeptics have suggested that the authors of studies indicating that climate change is not real, not harmful, or not man-made are bravely standing up for the truth, like maverick thinkers of the past. (Galileo is often invoked, though his fellow scientists mostly agreed with his conclusionsit was church leaders who tried to suppress them.)

​

Not so, according to a review published in the journal of Theoretical and Applied Climatology. The researchers tried to replicate the results of those 3% of papersa common way to test scientific studiesand found biased, faulty results.

​

Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech University, worked with a team of researchers to look at the 38 papers published in peer-reviewed journals in the last decade that denied anthropogenic global warming.

​

Every single one of those analyses had an errorin their assumptions, methodology, or analysisthat, when corrected, brought their results into line with the scientific consensus, Hayhoe wrote in a Facebook post.

​

One of Hayhoe’s co-authors, Rasmus Benestad, an atmospheric scientist at the Norwegian Meteorological Institute, built the program using the computer language Rwhich conveniently works on all computer platformsto replicate each of the papers’ results and to try to understand how they reached their conclusions. Benestad’s program found that none of the papers had results that were replicable, at least not with generally accepted science.

​

Broadly, there were three main errors in the papers denying climate change. Many had cherry-picked the results that conveniently supported their conclusion, while ignoring other context or records. Then there were some that applied inappropriate curve-fittingin which they would step farther and farther away from data until the points matched the curve of their choosing.

​

And of course, sometimes the papers just ignored physics altogether. In many cases, shortcomings are due to insufficient model evaluation, leading to results that are not universally valid but rather are an artifact of a particular experimental setup, the authors write.

​

The review serves as an answer to the charge that the minority view on climate change has been consistently suppressed, wrote Hayhoe. It’s a lot easier for someone to claim they’ve been suppressed than to admit that maybe they can’t find the scientific evidence to support their political ideology They weren’t suppressed. They’re out there, where anyone can find them. Indeed, the review raises the question of how these papers came to be published in the first place, when they used flawed methodology, which the rigorous peer-review process is designed to weed out.

---

None of it actual science. For instance here's a review of the scientific papers:

quote:

---

Climate Change Denial: Why don’t they publish scientific papers?

​

I was thinking of writing a lengthy post about climate change denial being completely unscientific nonsense, but then geochemist and National Science Board member James Lawrence Powell wrote a post that is basically a slam-dunk of debunking. His premise was simple: If global warming isn’t real and there’s an actual scientific debate about it, that should be reflected in the scientific journals.

​

He looked up how many peer-reviewed scientific papers were published in professional journals about global warming, and compared the ones supporting the idea that we’re heating up compared to those that don’t. What did he find? This:

​

The thin red wedge. Image credit: James Lawrence Powell

​

Oh my. Powell looked at 13,950 articles. Out of all those reams of scientific results, how many disputed the reality of climate change?

​

Twenty-four. Yup. Two dozen. Out of nearly 14,000.

​

Now I know some people will just say that this is due to mainstream scientists suppressing controversy and all that, but let me be succinct: That’s bull. Science thrives on dissenting ideas, it grows and learns from them. If there is actual evidence to support an idea, it gets published. I can point out copious examples in my own field of astronomy where papers get published about all manners of against-the-mainstream thinking, some of which come to conclusions that, in my opinion, are clearly wrong.

​

So let this be clear: There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 percent made-up political and corporate-sponsored crap. When the loudest voices are fossil-fuel funded think tanks, when they don’t publish in journals but instead write error-laden op-eds in partisan venues, when they have to manipulate the data to support their point, then what they’re doing isn’t science.

​

It’s nonsense. And worse, it’s dangerous nonsense. Because they’re fiddling with the data while the world burns.

---

So there's 24 papers you could have cited with an actual (if flawed) scientific basis.LOL, thanks for the chuckle chuckles. Yes, the whole world is in a conspiracy against you.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : ..Edited by RAZD, : ...

During the Bush 43 (Schrubbia) administration there was no requirement to insure those of us with pre-existing conditions. This meant that I could no leave my then current employment without losing my insurance (I was diagnosed with cancer while there) and then paying exorbitant fees (plus high deductibles and co-pays) to cover my cancer ... if I could get anyone to take me. Curiously I call that an extreme increase in healthcare fees AND an infraction on my right to work where I want to.Then I retired and got on medicare, and then the ACA was passed ... and my fees didn't change. That's what would have happened with the public option or with universal single payer medicare4all, but that was blocked by the republicans. ie -- you need to blame the republicans for your high fees, not the ACA or Obama. Sorry not sorry. Well I'll be happy to take the Climate Change debate there, but here's a little tid=bit for you from facebook That's a scientific notice published in a newspaper in 1912.See Message 563 on Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : changed photo link

See Message 564 on Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!Enjoy

See Message 565 on Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!Enjoy

That would be my concept of supply side as well. The problem of course is that if you don't have consumers -- people that want and can afford the product -- you end up with a large inventory that won't move until you cut prices ... if then. I was in Canada for most of the Reagan/Bush1 era of voodoo economics and its resultant recession.Enjoy