31
Spin Zone / Re: Hillary just may be onto something!
« on: October 18, 2019, 06:18:56 PM »Tulsi is the only candidate they have anywhere near the center.
Yes, I agree. But she has no chance of getting the nomination.
PILOT SPIN
News:
Welcome to PILOT SPIN!
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Yes, I agree. But she has no chance of getting the nomination.
32
Spin Zone / Re: Abuse of power in the impeachment process
« on: October 18, 2019, 06:16:25 PM »https://noqreport.com/2019/10/17/no-mick-mulvaney-didnt-admit-quid-pro-quo-biden-investigation/
FWIW, this is how I understood Mulvaney's initial statement and I couldn't wrap my head around the way it was interpreted as a "confession" that Trump abused his office. His later statement of "no quid pro quo" muddied the waters for me. Of course there was a quid pro quo. The only question is whether it was done with corrupt intent. That seems highly questionable to me.
I agree, look into that question, there is cause for concern perhaps, so conduct an investigation. But do it fairly. That is clearly not happening, instead we have a witch hunt.
33
Spin Zone / Re: Good Riddence
« on: October 12, 2019, 10:25:27 AM »
Rush, I don't think we disagree on this. I was the target of off-color remarks in an elevator by a professor that I had worked under as a grad student for a time. I wouldn't have dreamed of bringing him up on charges of harrassment; to me he just proved what I had always suspected, that he was a pig. (He'd always been professional in his behavior towards me as a student, but I always had that sense that he might be a creep.) Then again, that was 2001 or thereabouts; today, if I'd mentioned that to anyone, that person would probably have gone to the Title IX officer and I would have gotten some pressure to file a formal complaint.
The Geoff Marcy case is one I have mixed feelings about. He seems to have been a socially awkward type who didn't know how to keep his hands to himself. He is my age, and when I was in high school I knew more than one boy who behaved like that towards girls. You avoided guys like that, but you didn't charge them with harrassment. Then again, they weren't in positions of power. But I suspect it is guys like that who grow up to be the Geoff Marcys and Garrison Keillors who we all avoid being alone with but most of us wouldn't dream of bringing up on charges. But now we're in the #MeToo era. Marcy should have known that he was on thin ice behaving that way as a professor toward students and postdocs. That he (apparently) kept it up for many years isn't acceptable. I don't think it ever was. But in the 1990s or even the early 2000s it wouldn't have led to being fired and stripped of professional honors. We seem to be moving toward zero tolerance, no second chances, all male professors had better watch out and not even look the wrong way at a female under their charge, or else. Marcy was sent a strict warning, and he apologized, but he was not given so much as a second chance. That seems awfully draconian to me, given that none of the allegations were of criminal sexual conduct.
I suspect the allegations against Marcy were investigated by the administration and the Title IX office and found to be "credible". Today, that's all it takes, not corroborating evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I'd hate to be a male, in my field, today.
The Geoff Marcy case is one I have mixed feelings about. He seems to have been a socially awkward type who didn't know how to keep his hands to himself. He is my age, and when I was in high school I knew more than one boy who behaved like that towards girls. You avoided guys like that, but you didn't charge them with harrassment. Then again, they weren't in positions of power. But I suspect it is guys like that who grow up to be the Geoff Marcys and Garrison Keillors who we all avoid being alone with but most of us wouldn't dream of bringing up on charges. But now we're in the #MeToo era. Marcy should have known that he was on thin ice behaving that way as a professor toward students and postdocs. That he (apparently) kept it up for many years isn't acceptable. I don't think it ever was. But in the 1990s or even the early 2000s it wouldn't have led to being fired and stripped of professional honors. We seem to be moving toward zero tolerance, no second chances, all male professors had better watch out and not even look the wrong way at a female under their charge, or else. Marcy was sent a strict warning, and he apologized, but he was not given so much as a second chance. That seems awfully draconian to me, given that none of the allegations were of criminal sexual conduct.
I suspect the allegations against Marcy were investigated by the administration and the Title IX office and found to be "credible". Today, that's all it takes, not corroborating evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I'd hate to be a male, in my field, today.
34
Spin Zone / Re: Good Riddence
« on: October 12, 2019, 08:08:43 AM »The other thing that really pisses me off is he loses his job and is destroyed in media and court of public opinion and any responsibility the woman had whatsoever (like going to his room drunk a second time) is totally overlooked. Plus, what happened to innocent until proven guilty? These men are fired before being convicted in a court of law. At the point of accusation it is equally possible the whole thing is a lie and it’s the woman guilty of a crime. So why not fire her right away? After all she has been accused (by the man) of false accusations which is a crime. If a mere possibility of a crime is enough to get one fired, then shouldn’t the woman be fired for possibly having committed a crime just like the man was?
Actually, at universities, it's enough to be found in violation of the faculty code of conduct. Definitely doesn't have to rise to the level of criminal behavior. There's a famous case of an astronomer who was rumored to be in the running for a Nobel a few years back for his work in discovering new planets, who lost his tenured professorship at Berkeley and his position as principal investigator of a prestigious project, over allegations going back many years of unwanted behavior, kissing, groping, etc... but never outright sexual assault or rape. More and more professional societies and funding agencies in science are making such offenses cause for denying funding, stripping offenders of fellowships, and even expulsion.
You can read about the case here:
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/azeenghorayshi/how-harassment-stays-secret
This year's physics Nobel went to two famous astronomers in the same field, so those rumors definitely weren't whistling Dixie...
35
Spin Zone / Re: Hillary is gonna go for number three
« on: October 10, 2019, 05:49:56 PM »Be careful what you dismiss.
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2019/10/08/hillary-maybe-we-need-rematch-with-me-and-trump-i-can-beat-him-again/
Yes, I saw that interview. When she said "I can beat him again" I wondered what she had been smoking...
36
Azure, did you see that video discussed above on any of the stations or sites that you frequent? If so, how was it presented or commented upon?
YES. PBS Newshour showed it. I don't remember that they commented about it specifically. It was shown as background information, I believe, to a story about the investigation into corruption inside Ukraine.
That said, PBS consistently says that allegations against Biden of improper activity viz. Ukraine have been "thoroughly debunked". I'm not certain how, or whether they even tried to, square those two facts.
Me, I'm keeping an open mind on the whole matter.
37
Spin Zone / Re: President Trump's promises
« on: October 08, 2019, 06:22:07 PM »Between Trump and Warren, if bad and worse, which would you pick?
Trump: Continue growing the economy with the tax cuts and deregulation.
Warren: Reverse the Trump tax cuts and spend $trillions to force us all completely off coal, oil and gas in about ten years. What are you going to put into your airplane to make it go?
That's a true Sophie's choice, and one I hope not to have to make. Basically, it's almost certain economic ruin vs. (at best) loss of respect for America from most of the rest of the world, and a weakening of the alliances that have kept us from plunging into another world war.
I'm still hoping that the eventual Dem nominee is someone we haven't seen yet. But I'm getting more and more worried that it will, indeed, be Warren.
If I could be confident that the Republicans won't lose the Senate, I'd vote for Warren. A progressive without the power to enact her socialist agenda would be the lesser of two evils. But if Warren won and the Senate flipped, I'd never forgive myself.
So yeah, let's not go there until we have to.
38
Azure, what do feel are non-biased news sources?
I don't know of any. But bias is not the only problem, and not the one that bothers me most about sites that push conspiracy theories. I'm more concerned about stuff reported as facts that are outright lies.
It may well be that mainstream news organizations like NPR selectively ignore important stories because they don't fit the narrative they want to present. And that is something I worry about. If the people are not getting an accurate picture of what is happening in the world from news companies with a long reputation for accuracy to protect, then we are truly fucked as a nation that is supposed to be governed by the people. If you believe that is what is happening then it makes sense that you would turn to alternative sources for the truth, but consider this: how do you know these alternative sources are feeding you the truth? How do you know what they're giving you isn't just alternative lies? Why would you trust Gateway Pundit, to name one source, over WSJ or WaPo?
39
When azure makes arguments using her 'sources' she's responding to the subtle brainwashing of her profession and colleagues, along with the desire to 'go along to get along,' at the expense of facts and truth.
LOL!!! I can't even remember the last time I discussed politics with anyone at work. Go along to get along? Yeah, right, that's why I use global warming as a vehicle to talk to my astronomy students about uncertainty in science. There are people in my college who will certainly try to put the fear of God in me if (when) they find out - I don't have tenure.
You're pretty far off the mark on that one. Sure, everyone has biases. One of my main ones is to be very skeptical of conspiracy theories. I don't care which side pushes them, I have a high bar to give them any credibility.
40
Of course she truly believes it. AND she’s being manipulated by adults. Teens are extremely easy to lead around by the nose, aside from when they’re in the rebellious phase. But the rebellious phase can happen anywhere from 11 to 23 or later, may only last a short while, or may only be confined to their parents or only to one or two issues. Just pack their head full of extremist ideology and hint that they’re doing something heroic and you’ve got a dedicated minion. It’s why late teens are the best military recruits.
I don’t understand why y’all are arguing about this.
Yep, that is pretty much my position. The only qualifier being that being autism spectrum, I suspect she is less susceptible to influence from adults than most teenagers would be.
And this started because I challenged Lucifer for proof that Soros was backing her financially. Mainly to see what sites he would cite. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if he, or Greenpeace, or some other leftist eco-lunatic organization was giving her the money to travel the world preaching her message. The assertion just smacked of conspiracy theory nonsense to me, so I wanted to see if there were any hard facts to back it up.
41
I think you're ignoring the facts, and the reality, and deluding yourself. Yes, I am sure she believes the script she reads, but she is being used by backers that want to push more taxes, and more income and wealth redistribution on a worldwide scale. Using the NARCOTIC of giving people's lives meanings in that they can actually "save the planet". How ridiculous.
No, I'm not deluding myself, I'm quite aware that she is ALSO being used, or at least supported, by people with a socialist agenda. Why would you think I don't see this? I've said before that the findings of climate science have been appropriated by people pushing social and technological changes that would seriously damage the world economy, especially if implemented on the timescale the "crisis" meme says is needed. Many of Thunberg's supporters clearly fall into that camp. That's a separate issue from whether her words and actions are controlled or significantly influenced by those people.
42
Question: Are you aware that this teenager has Asperger's and is also OCD?
What happens when someone takes a child with these mental conditions and starts feeding them endless stories about "climate crisis"?
Would you say someone using a mentally challenged child to push an agenda is wrong?
This is a whole other issue, and one on which I'm generally in agreement. It IS child abuse to use her to push an agenda. The flip side of that is that Asperger's children tend to be remarkably focused and intelligent, and that's another reason I tend to read her as a true believer who is following her own script... which unfortunately overlaps with that of people with a somewhat different agenda.
43
And you constantly push left leaning sites as your sources, sites that have been proven to misrepresent facts to drive a narrative.
I tend to cite sources with an established reputation for getting at least the facts straight, not fringe sources on either the left or the right. It's true that most of those sources are now rather left-leaning (National Review excepted). That's unfortunate, but I'd still prefer them over "alternative" sites for hard facts.
Quote
BTW, Gateway Pundit has a remarkable record of being correct on their stories, not that facts would matter to you.Seriously? Gateway Pundit? Even Wikipedia names them as a source of "false stories and conspiracy theories". No thanks, that is specifically the type of site whose "facts" I wouldn't trust for a second.
44
I presume you can understand why people can suspect that the financial backer would extert influence.
Suspect? Of course. But suspecting something and claiming it as fact are two different things. From what I've read of her story, she learned about the climate "crisis" either on her own, or at school, and became obsessed with the issue, won over her parents and then decided to take her message to a wider audience. She seems to be a true believer. Doesn't sound like someone who would need to be under someone's control. Absent solid evidence, I relegate claims that she is controlled by sinister forces to the tinfoil hat / conspiracy theory bin.
45
When I see something suspicious, I dig down to find out the truth behind it. In today's world, this is not difficult.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/09/surprise-the-official-escort-for-16-year-old-global-warming-expert-greta-thunberg-is-a-leftist-hack-funded-by-george-soros/
http://muchow.dk/ttrttc/?p=6086
https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3781109/posts
https://www.europereloaded.com/george-soros-is-backing-climate-activist-greta-thunberg/
BTW, it took me less than one minute to find the articles.
And this is exactly what I mean... other than (perhaps) muchow.dk which I've never heard of, they're all highly partisan sites that push propaganda rather than facts. Hardly what I would call reliable.
Again... not that it matters. I have no doubt that some leftist groups are paying for some of her activities, most 16 year old girls wouldn't have access to all that money. Her parents could possibly be sponsoring some of it, but likely not all. So maybe Soros is involved, maybe he isn't.
Once again... so what? No proof she is delivering any message but her own.