TheVat

And now Vance is the veep choice, who makes sense only if you want to narrow your base. Vance's fealty to Plan 9 from Outer Space, sorry I mean Project 2025, is a devotion to the most extreme framing of a MAGA administration that could drive away some of those near-centre groups Trump was supposedly wooing. Will be amusing to watch Dems dig up all those nasty things Vance said about Trump back in 2016. “I go back and forth between thinking Trump is a cynical asshole like Nixon who wouldn’t be that bad (and might even prove useful) or that he’s America’s Hitler. How’s that for discouraging?” - Feb. 2016 "To every complex problem, Trump promises a simple solution … He never offers details for how these plans will work, because he can’t. Trump’s promises are the needle in America’s collective vein.” - The Atlantic, 4 July 2016

I recall there was a cult, a mystique, at that time around JFK. I was pretty young and so I have some of this secondhand. The Camelot label may have been retroactive, but the worship was real. Movement might not be quite the term, though. He was viewed as this golden boy, political prodigy, so much younger than previous presidents, and also Hollywood rallied around him and added to his aura of "star power." He was buddies with Sinatra, and Peter Lawford, a member of the Rat Pack, was his brother in law. And Marilyn Monroe sang at his birthday party. At that point his charisma required welding goggles to look at. Haha. Yes, I forgot we're in Politics where no one ever speculates or offers predictions. Really don't know what came over me.

Trump will speak of it daily until Nov. 5. And perhaps after that. God intervened and saved him so he can save America!

John F Kennedy. "Camelot." Very much a personality cult. Agree with your definition. It is populism, but stripped of reason and any true devotion to the people on the leader's part.

Blank reliquary lofted to pellucid oesophagus, mostly cabbage monkey?

Yep, in nature the principal limiting growth factors are water and soil nutrients, so more CO2 is not going to necessarily help, especially if it is raising the temperature in places where that leads to more drought and wildfires. Plants need the right balance of water and soil nutrients and pH and so on to take advantage of more CO2 - a balance that rapid AGW tends not to provide.

This is the current toxic form that populism assumes here. Pathological liars who promise to protect you from all the lies. One reason I am glad he survived is that it preserves the chance that more of his lies can be exposed in a courtroom. Or, in Trumpian fashion, by his own future verbal slips ("running his mouth" as they call it where I grew up). If the bullet had taken him out, some of those lies would be buried with him. And some will, I am sure. I find it probable the shooter was just another American youth gone crazy, the standard quiet loner who saw opportunity in a big political rally coming to his little town for him to go out in a dramatic way as a mass shooter. Firing wildly, no particular target. Secret Service snipers on a nearby roof to ensure his suicide would go smoothly.

There might be a certain amount of flack that comes with calling yourself Alex Krycek, given that famous character's tending to switching allegiances and peddling disinformation (and being Russian-American, with attached conspiracies). That said, I have no reason to believe @Alex_Krycek 's opinions are not his own. I would vote for deep breaths all around and dropping the ad hommies. I find America's two party system fairly toxic, with both tending to require their members to wear tight ideological corsets. I think Dems have done better at letting new ideas percolate upward, which is why Independents like Bernie will caucus with them.

Polls seem to generally indicate Republicans, spurred on by Trump's violent rhetoric, are more approving violence. This Axios (Brookings/PRRI) survey from last October shows GOP leaning more towards political violence.... https://www.axios.com/2023/10/25/support-us-political-violence-prri-brookings-survey The survey found that 23% of Americans agree that "because things have gotten so far off track, true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country." That's up from 15% in 2021, when the Jan. 6 insurrection led researchers to start asking about political violence, using terms that seek out those who would see such violence as akin to patriotism. One-third of Republicans believe that "patriots" may have to resort to violence to "save the country," compared with 22% of independents and 13% of Democrats. Those percentages have increased across the board since 2021, when 28% of Republicans, 13% of independents and 7% of Democrats held this belief. I would guess the playful popping of those balloons that fall from the ceiling will be discouraged, this time around.

The decline Had a similar reaction. America is a huge amplification chamber (resonance chamber, in science jargon) for violence. Also, has marksmanship training declined along with book literacy and school arts programs?

You and @Peterkin both seem to see the Harris that I do. And just now @iNow has outlined some of the excitement and fresh interest that could be unleashed by an ovarian ticket instead of the wrinkled testicle tickets presently available. Seriously, yes, landmarks are a real thing and we need one over here. Also, full disclosure, I think Kamala is sort of a hottie. I can envision a Harris/Whitmer rally... ME: There's a rally in Denver tonight. Do you want to jump in the car and drive six hours to see it? SPOUSE: What is wrong with you? You have never gone to a political rally in your entire life. And you hate long drives. ME: They're so.... lovely. SPOUSE: What are lovely? ME: Um... the mountains! The mountains are so lovely! SPOUSE: You live in the mountains. Idiot.

Well I can't speak for others who posted there, but some of my comments there were reflecting a scientific perspective on this topic. You may be right that he can tighten his focus - perhaps on a metascience analysis of panpsychism, perhaps something else that takes a focused look at observed anomalies (and pursuant Replication Problem, the old bugbear of fringe research). Call me unduly optimistic (an Obamaish feeling that takes hold of me sometimes), but I think we can do a better 14 pages. And Luc is now familiar with the Ten Commandments of Science I posted over yonder in the Dark Place of Which We Do Not Speak. NOOOO! WAIIIIIT! Please take a moment, my friend. We can carve out a better space for this topic, with all its metascientific challenges. . . . Je t'en supplie, attends.

An interesting thread, I agree. I am confused as to why the whole thread wasn't just moved to Spec. Now we have to navigate over to the other thread to reference earlier posts?

Biden seemed focused and really on top of foreign policy last night in his press conference. His decades of expertise showed, something we really needed to see right now. I didn't see any hand tremors (it would help if they would provide him a glass of water at these appearances - being able to see him lift a glass would provide further confirmation). He also said he would accept having a neuro exam, if his team of doctors recommended it. Best strategy might be to let Kamala out of the basement i.e. give her more high-profile assignments and public visibility (something many VPs do not get much of), to help us get a stronger sense of her as a potential back-up POTUS. (I don't suppose they could just reverse the ticket. )

These might be useful in approaching the study of mind. https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/the-scientists-10-commandments/ Sure, it’s important to have ideas, formulate hypotheses, and then devise methods to test those hypotheses, gather results, and draw conclusions that either support and validate or contradict and refute those hypotheses: the rough outline of how science is performed. But there’s so much more that goes into being a scientist that gets to the very core of what it means to investigate the origin, nature, and root cause of any phenomena that we dare to observe, design experiments around, and measure. Here, without further ado, are the 10 commandments that anyone who wishes to conduct good, quality science needs to follow... 1.) Thou shalt not assume thy preferred conclusion is correct. 2.) Thou shalt always consider the full suite of relevant data when drawing conclusions. 3.) Thou shalt remember the limits of thy theory’s range of validity, and only extend it cautiously. 4.) Thou shalt make public thy data, methods, and results, for all to consider and scrutinize. 5.) Thou shalt remain tenaciously skeptical of any hypothesis that thou encounters. 6.) Thou shalt quantify, respect, and not minimize thine sources of error and thy potential biases. 7.) Thou shalt not accept a new theory as representative of reality until it clears all three of the necessary, critical hurdles. 8.) Thou shalt obtain approval and consent from all relevant bodies before conducting research that may impact others. 9.) Thou shalt not exaggerate the significance of thine results in thine studies. 10.) Thou shalt hold even the best of scientific theories, models, and frameworks as provisional only, and constantly seek to test, revise, and refine them.

Bullshit. Both U of I and ISU have satellite campuses there. Drake is not religious affiliated and has an outstanding reputation in journalism and law. People aren't helpless. You have many affordable options that can bring your power usage down, like putting up a radiant heat barrier in the attic, and/or an attic exhaust fan that draws air through the soffit vents. We cut our summer energy use 45% doing this.

I feel like the issue kind of splits into two different ones - one is an objective (and one hopes compassionate) determination of Bidens present fitness and what sort of presidency he can have in a second term. The second is the problem of personal anecdotes and how they feed red meat to the GOP opposition, who will watch every stumble (and remind us of the vileness inherent in American politics). George Clooney in the NYT says the Joe he met this Spring isn't the same Joe he met in 2020. That is anecdotal, highly dependent on particular circumstances of their meeting, and does unintentionally feed the GOP narrative. Clooney worked in an ER, but only on tv, so his opinion may be taken with a grain of salt. I guess the GOP narrative puts them at risk of the dog catching the car. If they help push the narrative of unfitness, and Biden steps down, then what happens? They only wanted Trump to beat a Biden widely viewed as incapacitated; now they have a younger candidate from the A List who might beat Trump. Woops. This post is the poster child of severely mixed metaphors. But show me someone who can eat their child while they are on fire, all while firing a rifle, and I will believe! Also questionable professional ethics to offer a diagnosis on national television of someone you have not met with or examined.

I can't watch atm so one question: did he give the president a neurological exam? GOP/MAGA = Cult. It might be indicative of the non-cultish nature of Dems, a good thing, that they are more willing to question candidate fitness. I think Parkinson's is a red herring, and the question is more (from those millions who viewed the debate) if Joe is simply old and tired and at risk of offering only a figurehead presidency. I will say I just don't know. It would help a lot if Joe would get a neurological checkup and not just make defiant statements about not bowing out unless "the Lord Almighty" tells him to.

+1. One of the few biofuel ideas that might be cost-effective and not withdraw arable land from food production or lead to toxic algae blooms in (e.g.) the Gulf of Mexico. (a pleasing irony there - vats of algae preventing mats of algae)

Necro post, in two senses of the word. I remember the snowball stunt - a friend in Norman viewed Inhofe as a leading embarassment to the state. Having him on the Senate Environment Committee was a real howler.

Almost as puzzling as why do conservatives use "liberal" as a pejorative description of a vast range of progressive/Left policy ideas they don't like. Liberalism is defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary as: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy (see AUTONOMY sense 2) of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (such as those involving race, gender, or class) Your definition of authoritarian doesn't sound like the one I have heard or used, or representative of how progressives use the term. The use I am familiar with, and thought was agreed upon, is: of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people. Probably a near synonym of an authoritarian leader would be an autocrat or dictator. So, I wouldn't care to characterize someone asking for equal rights before the law as being authoritarian or an imposition of one's own will on others.

I went to fast the other day, but gave up after sixteen hours - was just too hungry. Lang may yer lum reek!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science Fortunately for us, we humans have language with which to report on our subjective mental states, and inter-subjectively compare them with others. This allows an empirical approach.

A diesel cooker sounds like an air quality issue, depending on where you use it, given its production of PM 2.5 particulates (AKA diesel soot) which are a serious health hazard. A LNG or propane cooker may be a better option.

Starting to think RFK Jr. could be more a spoiler for DT than Biden (or any other Dem). His responses are sounding more Trumpian and bizarre as the campaign progresses. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/05/robert-f-kennedy-jr-september-11 Of course third party candidates often lose momentum in the fall, so his present 8% slice could dwindle to insignificance. More people will say they like third party candidates than actually bother to vote for them. Still, his brand of conspiracy mongering and dismissal of sexual assaults could attract some disaffected Trumpians who still prefer a weirdo with a raw and unfiltered outsider vibe.