Ten oz

Energy, food, raw materials (wood, stone, metal, etc), and variable which require more those things like weather is what was referencing.

ATG film!

This assumes Humans are and or would be the most interesting lifeform on Earth to an extraterrestrial species. Depending on the environmental conditions of their planet maybe various insects and fish could be integrated into their eco system where Humans could not. Perhaps Sea Slugs contain a gene that could help extraterrestrials cure some disease on their planet. If extraterrestrials have been visiting earth I see no reason to automatically assume they would care more about Humans than other species. Yes human launch things into space and build structures but dependent but that doesn't automatically mean we the most important thing on Earth. For example Ants build structures and come into human homes and budings yet I am not uniquely interested in Ants. When I do see them they are just a nuisance. Humans are not automatically more interested (performance of research) in more intelligent life here on Earth. We study the intelligence of Orca's, Chimpanzees, Elephants and etc but not to the exclusion of botany, entomology, Ichthyology, and etc. If extraterrestrials have been visiting earth or are here now it seems to me they are as likely to care about specific minerals or plants as they are about Human life.

That would depend on how you set up your business. If you were renting lab/shop space to include equipment you'd probably be able to insure the business a d then would have various types of liability clauses for specific pieces of equipment. In my opinion it would be difficult to set up a work area with all the necessary tools for multiple disciplines. So you'd need to figure out what type of projects you'd be supporting. Looking to see what techincal schools are in the area might be a good place to start. It would give you an idea of what type of shops may already exist in your area.

Transporting goods requires more resources. So where populations are located becomes increasingly important as resources become more scarce.

You mean AIPAC interference? As a lobbyist organization they do not speak for all Jewish people. It is an important distinction that the criticism is launched at AIPAC and not Jewish people in general. One is a standard Politic opinion and the other is anti-Semitic. Jewish people and Jewish communities everywhere are not all responsible for or associated with AIPAC.

No doubt it will be block. I don't think this is about the border or a wall. Trump doesn't care about concrete things. This will keep his agenda in the headlines, waste loads of time in Congress, is enable more rallies.

I have to hand it to Trump on this Border Wall stuff. He really knows how to monopolize all the attention and time available. Republicans controlled every branch of Govt for 2yrs and nothing happened with Trump's wall. Soon as Democrats took over the House it's a national crisis that the Wall gets built. Trump is successful manipulating Congress's time and keeping people preoccupied with a completely made up issue. After the longest shutdown in history Trump is now going to sign a Bill which gives him LESS money for a wall than what he was offered before the shutdown back in December. Next on deck he plans to declare a national emergency which in uncharted territory for funding a long term engineering project. This will surely run Congress in circles for months. It is terrifying for the nation that we have a President who is purposefully scheming to keep Congress dysfunctional for long as possible. Just does thing to intentionally waste as much of everyones time as humanly possible. Yet it is a brilliant strategy for Trump personally because it forces his opposition to expend time, resources, political capital, and etc fighting meaningless battles.

No, just a several more words. She could have just said something like It's all about the Benjamins for U.S. Politicians who are bought by lobbyist. Instead she left it ambiguous.

AIPAC wasn't mentioned in Omar's tweet or the Tweet by Glenn Greenwald she was responding to. It may have been what was on her mind but she didn't specify it. That is part of what the issue with her tweet was.

A comment can be both well intentioned and offensive. It isn't one or the other. The tweet Omar was responding to when she posted it's all about the Benjamins did not reference AIPAC or any other lobbyist. The tweet mentioned U.S. support of Israel. Only after being asked to clarify did Omar mention AIPAC in a separate post. Even then she didn't elaborate. So while AIPAC may have been her intended target all along it wasn't clear in her initial post and she didn't make a specific case. There are groups ranging from Islamic based religious extremist to White Nationalist organizations that promote the notion that Jewish wealth manipulates any number of evils in the world. Those tropes are used to justify killing Jewish people. A context free post like it's all about the Benjamins made in response to a tweet about Israel easily can be read as promoting those hateful ideas. I think far more people are familiar with the Jewish money tropes than are with AIPAC (which wasn't mentioned in the tweet) specifically as a lobbyist organizations. As a politician and public figure one should more be care with their words. Had Omar posted that Lobbyist have too much influence over Politicians or that AIPAC has too much influence there wouldn't have been any controversy. That is not what she posted though. It might have been what she meant but it is not what she posted. I also don't think that the average person on Twitter is familiar enough with AIPAC to have known what she specifically meant. Especially in the absence of AIPAC being mentioned in her tweet or the tweet she was responding. I am not calling for her to resign. I accept her apology. I think it was just a mistake. She failed to add the correct context and accidentally posted something that played into anti-Semitic tropes. It is far from the end of the world. However we do live during a time when people literally march in the streets chanting "Jews will not replace us" and religious extremist blow up public centers in Israel. So in my opinion public figures need to be careful how they address issues associated with Jewish communities and Israel.

She is a Congresswoman. I would hope she in fact does know a lot of things. She chose to serve in public office as her profession. People paying attention to her public statements is part of the job.

By your own count you have asked for a direct qoute 5 times yet it was already contained in the OP. I don't feel you are posting in good faith. You've insisted upon information you already had and now you're demanding further explanations 3 pages into a thread where each question you have raised has already been discussed by myself and other posters. Please take a minute and read the thread. Repeatedly posting requesting information already available isn't constructive. Omar's comment has been condemned on all sides. Even by her political allies. She has already stepped forward and apologized "unequivocally" for the comment. It is totally fair for you to hold the opinion that the situation is overblown. It is fair for you to hold the opinion that there isn't anything overtly anti-Semitic about what she said. Your opinion on this matter is equal to mine. However I think we are past the point of claiming to completely not understand what happened or why.

I qouted the entirety of what she said in the OP and it has been discussed throughout the thread.

In a perfect world I would agree with this post 100%. Unfortunately the world isn't perfect. There simply isn't a one size fits all way of speaking to or about people. Different groups of people have been and continue to be treated differently. It is a reality of life. Sometimes things can seem ridiculous and like someone is just looking to be offended. By their very nature most stereotypes and tropes are ridiculous in the first place. For example people stereotype African Americans as liking Chicken. It doesn't make any sense. Who other than vegetarians in Northern America doesn't like Chicken? The absurdity of the stereotype lends plenty of cover to itself. Yet most people in North America are savvy enough to catch something about Black people and Chicken in a tweet and understand the negative subtext. Of course room would still exist for one to honestly claim they don't understand what's offensive about it. Again, everyone likes Chicken. The stereotype is objective absurd. Often trying to explain an offensive remark can be like trying to explain why in a cartoon some rules of physics apply some of the times but not all they time. Tremendous amount of artistic liberties are taken. Just as there is nothing wrong with liking Chicken there is nothing wrong with pointing out the influence of lobbyist money in politics. There is lots of plausible deniability. No doubt. Of course Omar hasn't gone to route of plausible deniability. She has apologized and in the apology itself referenced history and need to step back and evaluate ones criticism. I think it was a good apology. I am surprised that in spite of its quality and perspective some are say it was forced or made only to satisfy others. I am of the opinion that she probably was criticizing lobbyists and simply forgot the silly tropes which could be read as subtext. Whether or not it was a innocent mistake an apology was in order and I hope she is more careful in the future. Only time will tell. If you honestly do not understand I think you'll need to do some research on your own. The issue has a long history and is nuanced enough that I doubt any single post will be able to encapsulate it for you.

I had expected he'd already would have moved on but he didn't. Sure I am not sure what to expect. We see within the next 3 days.

Klien is still providing unwarranted exposure. Point it out doesn't absolve him of it. It's really been bizarre. I literally have had people ask me to explain to them who Schultz is and then warn me that he'll split the Democratic votes. Seems silly to me that people would assume someone that they have never heard of would win million of votes in the general election. Clearly they are getting that impression from from somewhere.

Ironically Trump may reject it anyway. It is a couple hundred million less than they offered him in December. So he might pushback against it. Trump will be asking for more money this summer as part of the 2020 budget anyway. So this whole thing is far from over. After Obama had a single shutdown in 8yrs Trump may very well end up with 4 shutdowns in 3yrs.

I think the media either hasn't learned it's lesson after Trump or did and doesn't care. The overwhelming media exposure Trump was given daily for free bolstered his success Republican primary. News channels would carry his rallies live, news paper would give Trump the front page above the fold daily, and etc. Trump became a major part of everyones daily media diet at a time when his competitors could hardly get billing anywhere. It got them ratings. It sold newspapers. Fast forward and the very tease of a 3rd run by Schultz is generating endless press. There are 3rd party candidates in every election. Some combination of the Reform Party, Green Party, Constitution Party, and Libertarian Party have people on various ballots around the country every election. I follow politics closely and bath know who Schultz is. All the media he is receiving confuses me. He is not a major political figure. Yet the media is treating him like a major figure. I suppose if the media keeps it up Schultz could potentially become a major political figure. Currently he is generating more articles, news segments, and etc than any of the Democratic Candidates. So I say shame of Ezra Klien for contributing to the over exposure of Schultz. Giving Schultz endless press because it is successful click bait is problematic. Aside from few causal dissimals of Democrats like Harris and AOC Schultz hasn't done anything to establish what his positions are or what his campaign platform would like if he chose to run. If Schultz runs that is fine. Let him build a platform and launch his campaign. Let's hear what his plans are and how he would make them a reality. Maybe he has great plans. However until that day happens I don't think journalists should be covering him with the fervor they are. They just build hysteria. I have already be told by numerous people who have no idea who Schultz is that Schultz is going to ensure Trump get re-elected by splitting votes with the Democratic nominee. Seriously, people know I follow politics so they've been asking me who Schultz is but also telling me about the harm he'll do Democrats. It's crazy.

I am disappointed Democrats have offered anything. The majority of the nation is opposed to the wall. Politicians should be serving the people and not placating Trump will billion dollar consolation prices. This isn't a 50/50 Partisan issue which demands compromise. The nation is solidly opposed to the wall.

What would be the point in mentioning anti-Semitic tropes if she wasn't referring to her own comment? The context of the statement was an apology for her comment. There is nothing else she's referencing. I guess for you only time will tell. Surely Omar will hit the apology circuit and give numerous interviews. She'll address this issue some more and you'll hopefully you'll hear the right words in the right order to convince you her apology is for using an anti-Semitic trope....Or maybe I am crazy and she will explain that her apology had nothing to do with using an anti-Semitic trope.

She cleared referenced her own statement as a antisemitic trope. If she wasn't referring her own statement as such than what else could she have possibly been referencing? It was a Glenn Greenwald tweet. We aren't talking about an official statement related to policy concerns. My advice to any Politician using Twitter would be to mind what they say and avoid re-tweeting or jump into tweets by others. When it comes to Omar co-signing bills advocating for policy, and voting in the House she should 100% stand for what she believes. As it relates to a flippant comment on a Greenwald tweet she practiced poor judgement and has already unequivocally apologized.

No place in her apology did Omar state she was apologizing because people may have been offended. Rather she stated that she'd been educated about the history and rethought her criticism. What I read in her apology is that once the connection between her comment and the trope was brought to her attention she saw the error in her comment and is sorry. The apology as made is "unequivocal". She did not hedge referencing people she "may" have offended. She did offend people, she is aware she offended people, and she apologized. She could have said something to the effect of "the influence individual lobbyist organizations like AIPAC in the U.S. is too great." Or perhaps she shouldn't have said anything. The tweet she commented on was by Glenn Greenwald. It challenged why U.S. Politicians are so protective of Israel. It made no reference to AIPAC. Omar brought up AIPAC in a later tweet after being asked what money she was talking about. The initial tweet was about U.S. Politicians and Israel as a whole. I don't follow your logic. Because most Politicians choose to swear in using a Bible you think that means there isn't a separate between church and state? Not all Politicians choose to use a Bible and there is no requirement any Politician use a Bible or be religious at all. Omar herself is Muslim but there are also Hindus, Buddist, Christian, and atheist in Congress. U.S. policy is determined by a diverse group and not by a specific set of religious scripture. Yes many members are religious but that is a freedom as individuals they have.

None of this justifies any of the violence perpetuated against Jewish people throughout history. I am not a religious scholar by any means but it seems to me that all abrahamic religions are stuffed full of contradictions and hypocrisy. The Torah, Quran, and Bible shouldn't be used by govt officials. In the U.S. we have a separation between chury and state.

@nymnpseudo every individual lobbyist group in Israel doesn't speak for the whole of Israel. Just as the U.S., UK, and all other countries have various political factions so to does Israel. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) shouldn't be confused with the Israeli govt boardly or Israel's citizens.