PearlY 6 days, 5 hours ago on Letter - Climate change puts lives in danger

paulgwine, I don't think anyone is saying that climate change isn't happening. The Earth's climate never has been in stasis and we humans are far from having the technology to render it static in the foreseeable future. In other words, "the same as ever" is that it has always been changing, and therefore climate change is nothing new.

And even if humans act on climate change, are we merely adding a nickel to a dollar's worth of warming, or maybe subtracting a nickel from a dollar's worth of cooling, or what, exactly? If we were to do what some insist is needed for long-term atmospheric CO2 stabilization (reduce emissions to virtually zero by 2030), this will be a devastating shock to the world's economies, especially the more developed ones that are the fountainhead of all technological advances, and would effectively eliminate human liberty along with it. And yet - how much would doing that actually affect the projected sea-level rises? From what I've read - not much at all.

In the long term, cities come and cities go. Heracleon and Port Royal went. Venice is probably a lost cause, regardless of climate change. But let's not forget that bad public policy can kill cities even without climate change, e.g. Carthage and Detroit.

0

PearlY 6 days, 6 hours ago on Letter - Climate change puts lives in danger

But the real world has so many more variables than a pail of water and a rock.

In theory, it is entirely possible for a rise in sea levels to create more, rather than less, coastline by intruding deeper into river deltas or other low-lying areas. Total land area would be reduced, but coastlines (the boundary between land and sea) themselves would be increased. Certainly some of the more extreme projections suggest that.

It (science) actually does have things to tell us about the real world, but in order to hear them, you can't be so deafened by ideology and smugness that you can't listen.

0

PearlY 1 week ago on Letter - Our world more complicated and violent

So you think the killing of an unarmed white person by an LEO, which is usually not accompanied by rioting, looting, and involvement of national figures like the President, the AG, and the ubiquitous Sharpton is as newsworthy as the Garnder/Brown/Rice incidents? Can't you honestly just admit you have no idea how many of such killings have happened because they are not considered newsworthy (with the exceptions of Ruby Ridge and Waco, of course)?

You know, I'd like to take you up on your offer, with a qualifier:

I'd like to see you list the unarmed AND NON-DANGEROUS blacks killed by white LEOs this year. I'm aware only of Tamar Rice, who turned out to be unarmed and non-dangerous, although the officers had no way to know that at the time. A 292 lb man who is mad enough to charge an armed police officer is dangerous, whether armed or not. A 350 lb man who is nuts enough to resist his 31st arrest is dangerous, whether armed or not.

Everybody keeps talking about "unarmed" as if that inherently negated all danger from a subject. Hundreds of people are killed every year by "personal weapons" like hands, fists and feet, and thousands suffer serious, sometimes life-destroying, injuries.

I really wonder what you think a police officer is supposed to do when he believes an angry, criminally minded (resisting arrest is a crime), strong, young and seemingly healthy individual is about to tackle him or pull out a gun and shoot him. Wait and see? Or, if the attacker is black, just take a bullet or a cracked skull for the "peace" of his community? How many cops do you think a community could hire if they were expected to sacrifice their lives every time a black person attacks them? And are they just supposed to let every black person who resists arrest go on about his business?

You can't honestly believe the officers involved in these incidents woke up that morning thinking, "I'll go out today and have some fun shooting a black person, 'cause that will enhance my career and make my life so much better." To the contrary, even the most bigoted police officer has to know that it is not an incident likely to add to his professional or personal well-being.

I'm not right on the timing, because I made no claim about it; I only reported what I'd read. For me, the jury's still out on that.

0

PearlY 1 week ago on Local coalition’s proposals aim to address homelessness

I meant 10% on net worth, not income. I've never even come close to those income figures, but as a frugal spender and a fairly lucky investor over a fairly long time frame, it turns out you don't need a top 10% income to attain a top 10% standing in wealth. (And checking the most recent figures, although I was there a couple-three years ago, I'm not quite there today, more like top 12% until/unless certain investments recover.)

But even top 10% in wealth is only about $1.8 million, which is enough to retire on without want if one continues to be reasonably frugal and lucky, but certainly not enough to enable anyone to "carve themselves a bigger chunk of the pie."

0

PearlY 1 week ago on Inslee budget proposal to include $1B in new revenue

If the interests of students and the teachers' union were so closely aligned, it's inexplicable how much educational standards have declined while the costs rose dramatically, over the exact period since teachers' collective bargaining rights were granted.

0

PearlY 1 week ago on Senate report: Spokane psychologists paid $80 million for torture program

This story really shakes one's confidence in government's good sense and competence, doesn't it? Good thing we don't turn over all the other important things to it, like our health care, the education of our children, the protection of our borders, the care of our veterans, the supervision of our financial system, etc.

0

PearlY 1 week ago on Senate report: Spokane psychologists paid $80 million for torture program

Just curious, paco, why the majority of Senate Democrats who supported the Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq (including Hillary Clinton and John Edwards) get a free pass from you? Or is that because Democrats can do no wrong in your eyes, even if what they did is exactly the same as what Republicans did? Let's not forget, either, that Bill Clinton and Al Gore both repeated the "lie" that Saddam had WMD.

And when will you stop slandering American soldiers by claiming they "killed more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians"? They absolutely did not, and you know it.

Not that I've ever known you to let facts get in the way of your preferred views, the Iraq Body Count project places the total number of civilian deaths from US and its coalition partners at most at under 14,000, half of them in March and April 2003. In comparison to any other war with even close to as many forces engaged, the number of civilian casualties is astonishingly low and that is to the everlasting credit of both the soldiers who went into war for us and the efforts of the Bush and earlier administrations, both Democrat and Republican, to obtain the weapons and intelligence needed to minimize civilian casualties. Your and other Democrats' constant lies about how many civilians have been killed by the US are an ongoing insult to those soldiers and others who worked so hard to minimize civilian casualties.

0

PearlY 1 week ago on Inslee budget proposal to include $1B in new revenue

"I would think it is understood that the PAC monies will go to support candidates that support public education and public educators. That's just common sense."

"Public education" and "public educators" are two very different things. It is common sense that the WEA supports candidates who support public educators; that's it's duty. Public education, i.e., students and taxpayers, are competitors for the public goods desired by public educators, so it is not common sense that the WEA would invest its resources there, and indeed they don't.

0

PearlY 1 week ago on Inslee budget proposal to include $1B in new revenue

fatherof5, I'm sure you've heard of "independent expenditures", right? According to the PDC, the WEA spent $2.5 million during the 2012 election cycle. Although only a small portion was in the form of direct contributions to the candidates, it was all spent to advance Democratic Party candidates (except for about $10,000 which went to Republicans). I don't know exactly where namvet got his $900,000 figure, but in relation to the overall spending, that sounds about right as what would have gone to benefit Inslee.

0

PearlY 1 week ago on Local coalition’s proposals aim to address homelessness

I guess I've never really understood the 1% vs. 99% premise. All the evidence suggests its much easier to get rich and richer by keeping 1% of a bigger pie than trying to carve yourself off a bigger chunk of a smaller one. Although not one of the 1% myself, I'm certainly one of the 10%, and my little pile always gets bigger when everybody else is doing better too.

0