And again, this began during the Obama years. This is a link to the U.S. Census' records of median household income for all races by year for each quintile of the population. After the recession of 2008-2009, median household income made a recovery.
The Social Security Administration shows the growth in median wages (as opposed to median household income):
Notice that the ratio of the median to the average gets much lower as time goes on, a measure of the increasing level of income inequality (average wages are higher than median wages since they're distorted by high-income outliers).
This is yet another trend that clearly predates Trump. I don't remember how many times I've posted data demonstrating that a positive trend came before Trump took office.
Trump's first year had greater gains than all of Obama's 8 years. By a substanial margin, more than Obama's ECI usually fluctuated between years.
There is no reason to believe this is just a wave being rode rather than one made greater by policy as all evidence indicates.
How about just comparing Obama's last year (after he fixed the dumpster fire he was left with by Bush) and Trumps first year instead of everything?
Doing that, you'll note, that Obama created more jobs than Trump who couldn't keep up the momentum.
I am still waiting for this all to crash as Trump's tariffs are slowly eating away at profits for a majority of American companies and for him to blame the Federal Reserve for the fallout. (he's already planting the seeds) or even the now Democratic House. I am giving it till February/March.
I was using every year, not his first, in my previous posts.
And I don't dispute the fact that Obama had good years of his own, most notably 2014, out of some partisan defensiveness. He did do good on unemployment.
And that combined with the good policies of this admin is why we are still really good on unemployment.
Nobody is saying Obama was a disaster. He had slow but steady growth during his tenure. Only his best year really compares though.
And that year was better than Trump's so far. And Trump is doing some really horrible stuff to the economy with his tariffs. Let's just say Trump's effect on the economy is neutral, and may be trending to the negative,
The fact that we have been paying tarriffs for a long time to one of the fastest growing economies in the world should tell you they work. Countries have been thriving under protectionism at the expense of us. I don't concede in the slightest that tarriffs are a terrible thing in this instance. The amount of terrible buisness practices, including tarriffs and not being able to have majority stakes in buisneses, U.S buisnesses are subjected to in other markets like China, and the amount of freedom they have in ours, is obviously a one sided deal and needs to be addressed.
Is there a better solution to the unjust deal the U.S is getting? Just today the WSJ released a story about new negotiations regarding their mutual tarriffs. Looks to me like it has potential as either a negotiating tool to lower tarriffs on both sides or a long term strategy to shift incentives. I don't see why it is so self evidently terrible, unless one rejects the notion that short term pain is worth long term gain, or one likes unfair deals.
ECI is the employment cost index - the equivalent for employment costs to the CPI for prices. There's a graph showing historical progression on the Wikipedia page on that - that does suggest a small upwards impact under Trump.
The fact that we have been paying tarriffs for a long time to one of the fastest growing economies in the world should tell you they work. Countries have been thriving under protectionism at the expense of us. I don't concede in the slightest that tarriffs are a terrible thing in this instance. The amount of terrible buisness practices, including tarriffs and not being able to have majority stakes in buisneses, U.S buisnesses are subjected to in other markets like China, and the amount of freedom they have in ours, is obviously a one sided deal and needs to be addressed.
Is there a better solution to the unjust deal the U.S is getting? Just today the WSJ released a story about new negotiations regarding their mutual tarriffs. Looks to me like it has potential as either a negotiating tool to lower tarriffs on both sides or a long term strategy to shift incentives. I don't see why it is so self evidently terrible, unless one rejects the notion that short term pain is worth long term gain, or one likes unfair deals.
There has got to be one that doesn't trash our economy.
U.S. soybean farmers hang on for dear life in Trump's China trade war
The prison-industrial complex is so out of control that private prisons have the sheer audacity to order states to keep beds full or face their wrath with stiff financial penalties, according to reports. Private prisons in some states have language in their contracts that state if they fall below a certain percentage of capacity that the states must pay the private prisons millions of dollars, lest they face a lawsuit for millions more.
This is the most disgusting thing I've ever heard about the criminal justice system. Who in the hell negotiated these contracts? Who the hell would be such a shameless pawn of a for-profit prison company that s/he would actually include a clause that makes the government spend taxpayer dollars compensating profits for a private corporation because the state had the audacity to keep crime rates low and protect their citizenry?
This shouldn't be a surprise. While private companies have become involved in many sectors historically delivered by government, they are not typically willing to take volume and legal risks. That's because they're not in the best position to control those risks and policy decisions can radically change the risk profile.
In the instance of prisons your outrage suggests you believe that government is neutral in this. Consider the following scenario though: - a state currently runs all its own prisons - occupancy levels are falling as a result of crime falling in recent years. The state believes that trend will continue and is faced with potentially expensive and controversial decisions about which prisons to close - they decide to outsource all the prisons to the private sector In that situation would the private sector really be willing to take control if they have to take volume risk?
We can take the problems further though if we assume that governments at various levels can act unethically. In such a case a decision to outsource prisons could be immediately followed by decriminalizing drug use, or no longer interning illegal immigrants. Such decisions would make total nonsense of any possible business plan. Governments could also change costs directly through regulation, e.g. introducing taxes or compliance rules specifically targeted at prisons.
I've mentioned before that I've been involved with a number of PFI contracts. The logic behind those is essentially to transfer to the private company only the risks they are best placed to manage (that doesn't normally include volume risk, though there have been a few instances of that, e.g. with toll roads / bridges). There are good points with that methodology, though my general assessment is that the costs of determining that split of risks and policing it over time through exceedingly complex contracts outweigh the benefits. In the case of prisons I would either have no private provision at all, or a very limited amount (say 5% of capacity) to provide a means to try out new policies and practices that might be more difficult to do in a more regulated public system. However, if you are going to have a general system of private prisons, it's unrealistic to expect those to take all (or even most) of the volume risk.
Trump is calling for Florida to simply "call" the Senate election for Rick Scott. And.....look, all that is going on in Florida is they are finishing counting votes. I know this country has no semblance of patience, but law enforcement has flat-out said TWICE now there is no reason to to doubt what is taking place. The only actual controversy involved an issue of some ballots not having "matching" signatures, and considering that I myself haven't signed my name similarly twice in over a decade (I mostly just scribble a line on a piece of paper) that almost seems like complete nonsense to even argue about. The votes need to be counted. That includes people who voted for Rick Scott.
Ironically, as Trump is declaring the counting of votes should end, it's worth noting that in Florida, military absentee ballots have until November 16th to arrive. So Trump, on Veterans Day, by calling for a vote count to be ended early, is essentially saying the votes of those soldiers shouldn't count. Remember everyone, Republicans are pro-military. Just ask them, they'll tell you so.
It's also stupid to mandate 95, 98 or 100% occupancy in a private prison. One would think shutting prisons down would be a good thing, not a bad thing. Less crime= less need for prisons. Why not, say 30 or 50% occupancy? Why so high?
It's also stupid to mandate 95, 98 or 100% occupancy in a private prison. One would think shutting prisons down would be a good thing, not a bad thing. Less crime= less need for prisons. Why not, say 30 or 50% occupancy? Why so high?
Depends on whose perspective you are considering it from. If a private firm builds any sort of facility, they're unlikely to be able to make a profit from it if it's only half full, so it's clearly in their interest to either mandate a much higher occupancy or be paid irrespective of occupancy.
While a small amount of private prison provision can potentially provide innovation, one of the problems associated with using private prisons is that it actually makes the system as a whole less flexible, rather than more. As you say it would seem obvious that if you have less crime you would want fewer prisons, but that's not at all obvious if all your prisons are private. Not only will private providers potentially skew the penal system directly by lobbying for harsher punishments (as one of the stories you posted earlier referred to), but they will also have an indirect influence by requiring the government to pay for provision that's no longer actually needed. In those circumstances it's entirely possible that government will decide to make more use of prisons than they otherwise would do in order to meet short-term political objectives - there are always some loud voices in society calling for stronger punishments.
We shouldn't have private industry involved in incarceration AT ALL. Adding a profit motive to the equation automatically makes it far more likely that the intrinsic forces at work will force more people to be locked up to feed the beast and make more money. In the same way that for-profit health insurance causes people to die because of denied claims, and the only reason claims are ever denied is one reason and one reason alone, which is that the company providing the insurance is more interested in making money than potentially saving someone's life. The idea of both for-profit incarceration and for-profit health insurance are predatory and immoral at their core. They can't be regulated or reformed. Their very existence is an abomination.
Why?? Bob Dylan summed it up in "It's Alright Ma (I'm Only Bleeding)" when he uttered the simple line "money doesn't talk, it swears". Attaching a profit motive to what are issues of basic human rights only serves to completely corrupt everything surrounding them. Incarceration is supposed to be about justice, punishment and rehabilitation. Medicine is supposed to be about saving people's lives. And yet, here we are, and in both issues, we bow down to the only god that really matters, which is the one that is made out of stacks of money.
Private prisons and private hospitals are two things that should not have a profit motive. When you have total power over another human being either because they are sick or incarcerated you should not be thinking about how best to squeeze the most money out of them.
Any opinions about "historical re-writing" on entertainment? Like the afronazis on cod ww2.
--------------------------
Talking again about "crimes without victims", anyone can explain to me the logic "5 or 6 guns in 400.000.000+ guns was used to commit a massacre, so people can't have guns, but can vote and elect someone who will regulate the security of hundreds of millions"
Any opinions about "historical re-writing" on entertainment? Like the afronazis on cod ww2.
Wait. People are concerned about the historical authenticity of an assassin's creed game?
Note, the video doesnt complain about the gigantic fictitious statues. The ability to slow time. The inaccurate portrayal of the actual battle of Thermopylae, etc, etc.
There are hundreds, and thousands of historical inconsistencies in the assassins creed games. because they're games
And for what feels like 11th time: The ability to play a black man in the wehrmacht in CoD:WW2 was only in multiplayer, and was a purely cosmetic allowance. Rather than restrict people's cosmetic options (which they could BUY) to certain factions, they just enabled everything. It wasnt an attempt to revise history or fool anyone.
Any opinions about "historical re-writing" on entertainment? Like the afronazis on cod ww2.
Wait. People are concerned about the historical authenticity of an assassin's creed game?
Note, the video doesnt complain about the gigantic fictitious statues. The ability to slow time. The inaccurate portrayal of the actual battle of Thermopylae, etc, etc.
There are hundreds, and thousands of historical inconsistencies in the assassins creed games. because they're games
And for what feels like 11th time: The ability to play a black man in the wehrmacht in CoD:WW2 was only in multiplayer, and was a purely cosmetic allowance. Rather than restrict people's cosmetic options (which they could BUY) to certain factions, they just enabled everything. It wasnt an attempt to revise history or fool anyone.
"because they are games", games, movies and series can be historical accurate or not. Verdun and Overwatch are both FPS but one focus a lot of historical accuracy. The problem is not when you put afrocybernazys fighting skeletons on a ww2 game, the problem is when you do that and claim historical accuracy.
See people complaining about the lack fo diversity on kingdom come deliverance
"I've watched like 5 hours of gameplay and I haven't seen a single person of color, gender diverse character, non-heterosexual character or even something as simple as a woman in a position of power instead of always being represented as servants or housewives, it's so disappointing for a game made in 2018." https://www.reddit.com/r/kingdomcome/comments/7xnvai/lack_of_diversity/
----------------------
And no, this is not restricted to gaming. Is very common to see afro ativists complaining that on Brazil most successful models are whites, like Gisele Bundchen and Marina Ruy Barbosa, but the same activists who criticize when a white minority country have white models, praise Naomi Campbell.
"because they are games", games, movies and series can be historical accurate or not. Verdun and Overwatch are both FPS but one focus a lot of historical accuracy. The problem is not when you put afrocybernazys fighting skeletons on a ww2 game, the problem is when you do that and claim historical accuracy.
Can you cite where Assassins creed claims historical accuracy?
That's the screen that shows up before you start playing. It's inspired by historical events. That's it. That's not a claim to historical accuracy. It even calls it a "work of fiction". Keep in mind, in Assassins Creed Odyssey - you can literally fight the Minotaur, and are working to stop a precursor civilization from dominating the world.
It's objectively absurd to think that Assassins Creed is trying to be historically accurate.
"because they are games", games, movies and series can be historical accurate or not. Verdun and Overwatch are both FPS but one focus a lot of historical accuracy. The problem is not when you put afrocybernazys fighting skeletons on a ww2 game, the problem is when you do that and claim historical accuracy.
Can you cite where Assassins creed claims historical accuracy?
That's the screen that shows up before you start playing. It's inspired by historical events. That's it. That's not a claim to historical accuracy. It even calls it a "work of fiction". Keep in mind, in Assassins Creed Odyssey - you can literally fight the Minotaur, and are working to stop a precursor civilization from dominating the world.
It's objectively absurd to think that Assassins Creed is trying to be historically accurate.
You are right. But again the double standards are the major problem as i've said. If the media(not only game) wanna be historical accurate or not is up to the media. The problem is when they force an historical innacurate diversity upon historical accurate "medias" like KCD
As I've mentioned previously in this thread, this discussion is about politics; not games.
Please discuss gaming in another thread.
Sorry. I only mentioned gaming as an example. In fact, this happens with models, movies, series and even documentary. Here is some non gaming examples(please lets talk about non gaming examples, i know that is more easy to find game examples)
Assassin's Creed Odyssey's 4 main bosses are a Cyclops, Minotaur, Sphinx and Medusa. But they were going for realism?? That disclaimer has been at the beginning of every Assassin's Creed game since the first one in 2007. Now people are complaining about?? I actually came across that video last night, and left a comment that it was pedantic nonsense, which it is. It's the comment section that is truly revealing. It's showing that young male gamers have morphed into some kind of radicalized counter-culture that is OBSESSED with these type of pointless arguments. Now they are masking the misogyny in the cloak of going to bat for "historical accuracy". There is always some bullshit veneer to these arguments that covers up the real beliefs lying underneath. Count the number of times in that comment section you see the left or SJWs referred to as a disease or a cancer. But don't make it a drinking game, because you'll black out within 5 minutes.
The youth counter-culture of the 60s declared war on Vietnam and racial injustice. The counter-culture of this era has declared war on the very IDEA of diversity.
Skin color don't matter much to me, no matter what context it's in. I don't fuss over a black dude in medieval England (typically a conservative complaint) any more than a white actor playing an Egyptian (typically a liberal complaint). It's not possible for race to be good or bad.
If that Hamilton play had a 50-star flag somewhere in it, for example, I would recognize it as historically inaccurate, but it's not an inaccuracy that really matters.
Any opinions about "historical re-writing" on entertainment? Like the afronazis on cod ww2.
Honestly, who cares? School should provide an accurate historical image of Athens, not some computer game. And as @BallpointMan states, it is a bit strange how much those self-proclaimed historical accuracy concerned gamers always focus on women and minorities instead of all the other inaccuracies.
Fact is, that for many players having strong female characters and choices just makes the game more fun to play, same as the character being unrealistically capable in combat or finding purple colored epic weapons that just happen to increase your damage output by an order of magnitude.
Talking again about "crimes without victims", anyone can explain to me the logic "5 or 6 guns in 400.000.000+ guns was used to commit a massacre, so people can't have guns, but can vote and elect someone who will regulate the security of hundreds of millions"
The logic is rather easy to see, I think. Any individual with a gun is likely to kill me just by himself, if he really wants (the aggressor has a huge advantage). No individual by himself can elect a politician who then ruins my life through legislation.
I am not going to argue for or against gun control (never results in anything anyway), but your comparison does not work. At all.
By the way, your estimate is low. Unless you have an oddly specific definition of massacre.
jjstraka34 about "supernatural" creatures, if someone make a movie based on African religion/folklore and by no reason, Odin or Amaterasu appears and take much more screen time than an African deity like Ogun, it will not be silly?
The logic is rather easy to see, I think. Any individual with a gun is likely to kill me just by himself, if he really wants (the aggressor has a huge advantage). No individual by himself can elect a politician who then ruins my life through legislation.
I am not going to argue for or against gun control (never results in anything anyway), but your comparison does not work. At all.
By the way, your estimate is low. Unless you have an oddly specific definition of massacre.
"In 2002 Canada's auditor general released a report saying initial cost estimates of $2 million (Canadian) had increased to $1 billion as the government tried to register the estimated 15 million guns owned by Canada's 34 million residents "
(...)
"Legal long guns were used in 11% of killings that year, according to Statistics Canada, while illegal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, which by definition cannot be registered, were used in another 12%."
So, gun restriction costs a lot of money and din't worked. Nothing new... Keep in mind that "From 1997 to 2005, only 13% of the guns used in homicides were registered." If i wanna commit a crime, of course i will do with a illegal weapon. This is why gun registration can't work. Lets suppose that someone died by a .45 ACP and there are 3 people with .45 ACP registred pistol firearms nearby the victim. if the killer used an registred firearm, is much easier to the police to investigate, this is why criminals use illegal guns and why any type of gun control will fail and gun registration is just a waste of tax money.
Talking again about "crimes without victims", anyone can explain to me the logic "5 or 6 guns in 400.000.000+ guns was used to commit a massacre, so people can't have guns, but can vote and elect someone who will regulate the security of hundreds of millions"
1) I don't understand the juxtaposition of the phrase "crimes without victims" and "used to commit a massacre."
2) Where does "so people can't have guns" come from?
3) "but can vote and elect someone who will regulate the security of hundreds of millions of people" - yes, this is more or less the entire idea behind government of, by and for the people: the government holds a near-monopoly on the use of violence; it holds that power in trust on behalf of the citizenry; and elections and a constitution ensure that anyone using such power in violation of that trust will have the power removed from them.
So, um, "can't have (certain types of) guns (without meeting certain reasonable requirements) but can vote and elect someone who will regulate the security of hundreds of millions of people" sounds... perfectly fine?
Having an X and using an X to commit crimes are two different things. People can commit massacres with cars, gasoline and fire, etc; About the government holding a "monopoly of the violence", that is why you should fear the government.
Any opinions about "historical re-writing" on entertainment?
Yeah: "who on God's green earth gives a flying fork?"
I like my historical re-written entertainment just like my baths: steamy, dreamy and full of hazy vapor. Also, THERMAE ROMAE is the best historical movie I ever saw on a screen. The books are even better, albeit kinda more serious in tone.
Comments
Is there a better solution to the unjust deal the U.S is getting? Just today the WSJ released a story about new negotiations regarding their mutual tarriffs. Looks to me like it has potential as either a negotiating tool to lower tarriffs on both sides or a long term strategy to shift incentives. I don't see why it is so self evidently terrible, unless one rejects the notion that short term pain is worth long term gain, or one likes unfair deals.
U.S. soybean farmers hang on for dear life in Trump's China trade war
https://www.axios.com/american-soybeans-china-trump-trade-tariffs-eecdc72c-30d8-40db-895f-e38ecd9f9fe1.htmlThe real cost of Trump's tariffs
https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2018/10/23/the-real-cost-of-trumps-tariffs-beme.beme'It hasn't benefited us a dime': Georgia steelworkers' verdict on Trump tariffs
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/11/trump-tariffs-georgia-steel-trenton-economyTrump’s tariffs against China are hurting U.S. tech companies instead
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trumps-tariffs-against-china-are-hurting-us-tech-companies-instead-2018-10-11How short term is short term?
In the instance of prisons your outrage suggests you believe that government is neutral in this. Consider the following scenario though:
- a state currently runs all its own prisons
- occupancy levels are falling as a result of crime falling in recent years. The state believes that trend will continue and is faced with potentially expensive and controversial decisions about which prisons to close
- they decide to outsource all the prisons to the private sector
In that situation would the private sector really be willing to take control if they have to take volume risk?
We can take the problems further though if we assume that governments at various levels can act unethically. In such a case a decision to outsource prisons could be immediately followed by decriminalizing drug use, or no longer interning illegal immigrants. Such decisions would make total nonsense of any possible business plan. Governments could also change costs directly through regulation, e.g. introducing taxes or compliance rules specifically targeted at prisons.
I've mentioned before that I've been involved with a number of PFI contracts. The logic behind those is essentially to transfer to the private company only the risks they are best placed to manage (that doesn't normally include volume risk, though there have been a few instances of that, e.g. with toll roads / bridges). There are good points with that methodology, though my general assessment is that the costs of determining that split of risks and policing it over time through exceedingly complex contracts outweigh the benefits. In the case of prisons I would either have no private provision at all, or a very limited amount (say 5% of capacity) to provide a means to try out new policies and practices that might be more difficult to do in a more regulated public system. However, if you are going to have a general system of private prisons, it's unrealistic to expect those to take all (or even most) of the volume risk.
Ironically, as Trump is declaring the counting of votes should end, it's worth noting that in Florida, military absentee ballots have until November 16th to arrive. So Trump, on Veterans Day, by calling for a vote count to be ended early, is essentially saying the votes of those soldiers shouldn't count. Remember everyone, Republicans are pro-military. Just ask them, they'll tell you so.
Kansas City Health Department Pours Bleach on Food Intended for Homeless
The Health Department said in a tweeted statement that they had received “multiple complaints” about FHS KC. One of the volunteers told KCTV that the complaints were made by people unhappy with the homeless gathering in the North Blue Ridge neighborhood. A community meeting agenda found by KCTV shows an item concerning “unsanitary” conditions in the area including homeless camps that “have infiltrated the neighborhood.” A list of action steps began with “Remove Free Soup KC from the park.”https://splinternews.com/kansas-city-health-department-pours-bleach-on-food-mean-1830397793?rev=1542077781663&utm_source=splinter_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow&utm_campaign=socialflow_splinter_facebook&fbclid=IwAR37dSbFz23k9FyDu8jI6PboCuFmwCEOy2dajGvdOWzxum69zi6ofUY0ST4
This is just wrong. They got around it by handing out-prepackaged food, but that's not as good to eat as real food.
The War Inside 7-Eleven
The company has been battling its store owners for years. It seems to have found a new tool: U.S. immigration authorities.https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-11-09/7-eleven-is-at-war-with-its-own-franchisees-over-ice-raids?fbclid=IwAR222zXvXG10GGd7a5P0Ofz7lwwWl4ALP7NCba2FLAdfQLU4-q3NofTxpqk
Mississippi Sen. Hyde-Smith, facing black opponent, jokes about attending 'public hanging'
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2018/11/11/hyde-smith-jokes-public-hanging/1970396002/?fbclid=IwAR2C08jUW8bCBoVm6BDTmcmsgdSksGdF6NPsm5q5jQAfrF-k7duCRjVPjCENot funny. Not funny at all.
Democrat Kyrsten Sinema Wins Arizona Senate Race, Flipping Second GOP Seat
I can only bet Donald Trump is seething with rage about this...https://www.npr.org/2018/11/12/667214148/democrat-kyrsten-sinema-wins-arizona-senate-seat?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=2041&fbclid=IwAR0gnL0CV-8QjAkLPu8wzpeKTsvAB-dD7I8pNBvnBqbgfVrQJkiTLh_KSmY
And, not just Trump missed out on the Ceremony at Arlington Nation Ceremony, so did Pence!
Trump, Pence miss Veterans Day observance at Arlington Cemetery
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-pence-miss-veterans-day-observance-at-arlington-cemetery/ar-BBPDaLU?ocid=ob-fb-enus-280&fbclid=IwAR25NCE_hE2A4Xh8Lc92SyHcNYoGAf0fPmZLvfxuHA7IrZni6AEUEbxO1pcThis is wrong. Plain Flat-out wrong.
Black security guard apprehends barroom shooter only to be killed by police responding to the scene
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/ny-news-security-guard-shot-police-barroom-20181112-story.html?fbclid=IwAR2UWRdg4M14Ad8tsjZgwZKyw8xGFfjwQgmeI22GsN5eACab0r6to2wnMU8&fbclid=IwAR1hzhob5Jp58gQ0YuzDyuWB56YJ5wFpdk0pJ6UtoRRPa2QxSi2j7-N34VgWhile a small amount of private prison provision can potentially provide innovation, one of the problems associated with using private prisons is that it actually makes the system as a whole less flexible, rather than more. As you say it would seem obvious that if you have less crime you would want fewer prisons, but that's not at all obvious if all your prisons are private. Not only will private providers potentially skew the penal system directly by lobbying for harsher punishments (as one of the stories you posted earlier referred to), but they will also have an indirect influence by requiring the government to pay for provision that's no longer actually needed. In those circumstances it's entirely possible that government will decide to make more use of prisons than they otherwise would do in order to meet short-term political objectives - there are always some loud voices in society calling for stronger punishments.
Why?? Bob Dylan summed it up in "It's Alright Ma (I'm Only Bleeding)" when he uttered the simple line "money doesn't talk, it swears". Attaching a profit motive to what are issues of basic human rights only serves to completely corrupt everything surrounding them. Incarceration is supposed to be about justice, punishment and rehabilitation. Medicine is supposed to be about saving people's lives. And yet, here we are, and in both issues, we bow down to the only god that really matters, which is the one that is made out of stacks of money.
Private prisons and private hospitals are two things that should not have a profit motive. When you have total power over another human being either because they are sick or incarcerated you should not be thinking about how best to squeeze the most money out of them.
Trump says he's not a racist. That's not how white nationalists see it
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/12/politics/white-supremacists-cheer-midterms-trump/index.htmlWhat a surprise... You know what they say about ducks... If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
Filming on cop show 'The Fifth Boro' ends with harassed woman mistaking actor for a real police officer
Art imitates life, which imitates art...http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-ent-fifth-boro-actor-police-20181109-story.html?fbclid=IwAR1B1rqTZCb_tmxGjmq2o0XF210BFxIPSe8ELL5jPJSRVr2A3inHq_1Ydsw
Town responds to Nazi salute prom photo
https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2018/11/13/nazi-salute-prom-photo-reaction-lemon-sot-ctn-vpx.cnnWhat photographer tells a bunch of kids to make a Nazi salute? And what kids do it?!
Any opinions about "historical re-writing" on entertainment? Like the afronazis on cod ww2.
--------------------------
Talking again about "crimes without victims", anyone can explain to me the logic "5 or 6 guns in 400.000.000+ guns was used to commit a massacre, so people can't have guns, but can vote and elect someone who will regulate the security of hundreds of millions"
Note, the video doesnt complain about the gigantic fictitious statues. The ability to slow time. The inaccurate portrayal of the actual battle of Thermopylae, etc, etc.
There are hundreds, and thousands of historical inconsistencies in the assassins creed games. because they're games
And for what feels like 11th time: The ability to play a black man in the wehrmacht in CoD:WW2 was only in multiplayer, and was a purely cosmetic allowance. Rather than restrict people's cosmetic options (which they could BUY) to certain factions, they just enabled everything. It wasnt an attempt to revise history or fool anyone.
See people complaining about the lack fo diversity on kingdom come deliverance
"I've watched like 5 hours of gameplay and I haven't seen a single person of color, gender diverse character, non-heterosexual character or even something as simple as a woman in a position of power instead of always being represented as servants or housewives, it's so disappointing for a game made in 2018." https://www.reddit.com/r/kingdomcome/comments/7xnvai/lack_of_diversity/
----------------------
And no, this is not restricted to gaming. Is very common to see afro ativists complaining that on Brazil most successful models are whites, like Gisele Bundchen and Marina Ruy Barbosa, but the same activists who criticize when a white minority country have white models, praise Naomi Campbell.
Can you cite where Assassins creed claims historical accuracy?
That's the screen that shows up before you start playing. It's inspired by historical events. That's it. That's not a claim to historical accuracy. It even calls it a "work of fiction". Keep in mind, in Assassins Creed Odyssey - you can literally fight the Minotaur, and are working to stop a precursor civilization from dominating the world.
It's objectively absurd to think that Assassins Creed is trying to be historically accurate.
Please discuss gaming in another thread.
The youth counter-culture of the 60s declared war on Vietnam and racial injustice. The counter-culture of this era has declared war on the very IDEA of diversity.
Skin color don't matter much to me, no matter what context it's in. I don't fuss over a black dude in medieval England (typically a conservative complaint) any more than a white actor playing an Egyptian (typically a liberal complaint). It's not possible for race to be good or bad.
If that Hamilton play had a 50-star flag somewhere in it, for example, I would recognize it as historically inaccurate, but it's not an inaccuracy that really matters.
Fact is, that for many players having strong female characters and choices just makes the game more fun to play, same as the character being unrealistically capable in combat or finding purple colored epic weapons that just happen to increase your damage output by an order of magnitude.
The logic is rather easy to see, I think. Any individual with a gun is likely to kill me just by himself, if he really wants (the aggressor has a huge advantage). No individual by himself can elect a politician who then ruins my life through legislation.
I am not going to argue for or against gun control (never results in anything anyway), but your comparison does not work. At all.
By the way, your estimate is low. Unless you have an oddly specific definition of massacre.
"In 2002 Canada's auditor general released a report saying initial cost estimates of $2 million (Canadian) had increased to $1 billion as the government tried to register the estimated 15 million guns owned by Canada's 34 million residents "
(...)
"Legal long guns were used in 11% of killings that year, according to Statistics Canada, while illegal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, which by definition cannot be registered, were used in another 12%."
So, gun restriction costs a lot of money and din't worked. Nothing new... Keep in mind that "From 1997 to 2005, only 13% of the guns used in homicides were registered." If i wanna commit a crime, of course i will do with a illegal weapon. This is why gun registration can't work. Lets suppose that someone died by a .45 ACP and there are 3 people with .45 ACP registred pistol firearms nearby the victim. if the killer used an registred firearm, is much easier to the police to investigate, this is why criminals use illegal guns and why any type of gun control will fail and gun registration is just a waste of tax money. Having an X and using an X to commit crimes are two different things. People can commit massacres with cars, gasoline and fire, etc; About the government holding a "monopoly of the violence", that is why you should fear the government.
Also, THERMAE ROMAE is the best historical movie I ever saw on a screen. The books are even better, albeit kinda more serious in tone.
Are you against car and driver licensing and registration?