foxbat

The "old Muda" didn't seem to believe so.

From the "old Muda" perhaps a simple question ... not so much from the new.

So the person who once talked about being against censorship is now taunting folks with the idea of deleting posts? Guess times do indeed change.

Here you go again ... since you deleted the last one with your "new power." https://www.rjionline.org/stories/who-trusts-and-pays-for-the-news-heres-what-8728-people-told-us?link=mktw

Probably depends on who the processor is and, my guess would be that processors have changed while the policy hasn't. At one time Lafayette used to only process certain items, then they moved to processing a bunch more and pretty much went to no-sort recycling. I suspect that what ended up happening is that they changed processors or the processor determined that they'd eat the cost of doing the sorting at their center to encourage more recycling volume ... especially with the expanded categories. Might be a good question to ask your local government/utility as it might be more effective/efficient if the separating isn't really needed or the trucks that are doing those pickups and mixing them might actually be violating policy. In either case, something better hopefully comes from the inquiry.

That's the same plane; just different sides of the same plane. Breitbart isn't a necessarily trusted source ... NPR is. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/these-are-the-most-and-the-least-trusted-news-sources-in-the-us-2017-08-03

Got anything a little less open about their leanings? From MRC's "About the MRC" page: "MRC’s sole mission is to expose and neutralize the propaganda arm of the Left: the national news media. This makes the MRC’s work unique within the conservative movement." https://www.mrc.org/about

Yes, the post that that I presented is pretty much all my writing, based on my synthesis of info from various sources. That's one of the reasons that I didn't give any links ... I don't think I quoted anything directly other than Statistica's graph and the info about the rate of compliance under FCMP. The post was pretty much my own writing based on my knowledge picked up from regular reading over time. I don't have any issue with the situation that there is an increase in families crossing causing a different set of issues including the same issues that Obama ran into back in 2014 when it was a huge problem tied to unaccompanied minors. Where my issue is is that there's a distinct difference between there being a humanitarian and declaring a national emergency to address the crisis through additional agents to process families and having resources available to address the change in types of people that are coming vs. shutting down the government and declaring an emergency over WALL FUNDING which has nothing to do with the crisis component. As I pointed out, what's disingenuous about the arguments from the likes of Senator Johnson and similar supporters, the White House, and the President is the NOW there's an issue of trying to make the humanitarian issue look like what the shutdown, emergency, etc. has been about all along ... and it hasn't and still isn't. Similarly this is just like the President promising that the money's going to be used for a wall, then a barrier, then for national security as a whole and claiming that his wall was just a metaphor. Similarly, Mexico's going to pay for it ... well, not actually pay for it, but maybe through tariffs ... well, maybe not through tariffs, ... but Xfinity is raising the monthly cost of Telemundo access. For Trump this has always been about THE WALL ... now that he's finding out that he was in an echo chamber about how many people actually really backed A WALL, he's trying to spin it anyway he can. If Trump has asked for $5.7 billion for more agents, for more port of entry processors, for more immigration judges/attorneys, etc., then I don't think there would have been a shutdown nor an emergency and he probably would have gotten Democrat votes to do that. The problem is that, Mr. Art of the Deal really seems to be less about negotiations and more about bullying/bluffing and then trying to spin if he runs into someone who doesn't back down. Let's face it, he completely misread Pelosi and misread the new Pelosi/House situation as well as misreading the support for bullying vs. negotiating this time around. The Quinnipiac poll that just came out yesterday supports the idea that he misread the public response too; both to the wall and his emergency declaration to build the wall. https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2604 2-to-1 respondents disapprove of Trump using emergency powers to try to fund a wall. By 55-41 they disapprove of the building of a wall in general. I don't think anyone is claiming that there's not a humanitarian issue at the border ... but what just about everyone is arguing against the emergency action is that a wall doesn't address the problem nor alleviate the issues associated with it. Also, that the reasoning for the emergency and the shutdown, regardless of what Trump is NOW saying, isn't the reason for the shutdown, the emergency, or what Trump really wants out of this situation. Folks trying to use a humanitarian issue to claim credibility for Trump's emergency declaration, at this point and in this fashion, are trying to switch the discussion and coverup the fact that for Trump it's always been about The Wall ... and it still is if he can get away with it. I'm not sure that Breitbart and NPR are on the same plane.

I know that Lafayette had reported that they save around $200,000 in tipping fees at landfills. Subaru went zero-landfill a while ago and has saved some $13 million or so in doing so. Sometimes things that don't seem to make sense on the surface end up being some big-ticket items in the end. An employee came up with the idea of shipping polystyrene packaging back to the supplier. It seemed an odd idea because the shipper was overseas and it didn't seem like there was any savings at all that could be recognized. Instead of just nixing it, they did the analysis and found that, if the packaging was re-used at least four times. They've tracked some packaging re-use now at 26 times and have saved $1 million from that idea. More info on their success appears in the following link. https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2018/07/27/indiana-subaru-plant-hasnt-taken-out-trash-14-years-saves-12-million-lafayette-landfill/825735002/

Here's a list according to WalletHub https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/ which is based on data collected from the Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Census Bureau, USAspending.gov, Bureau of Labor Statistics and Governing.com. You can also go to the link and sort by the state residents' dependency as well as by the state government's dependency. They also have plenty of other comparisons such as red-state/blue-state and other items like top 5/bottom 5 states getting grant funding or federal contracts received or GDP. From this data, while not next-door neighbors, it does look like Indiana's in the same neighborhood. Indiana's residents rank 7th in fed government dependency while the state is kind of in the middle around 22. South Carolina and North Dakota have a similar disparity between what the state relies on and how dependent its residents are. North Dakota's government can brag that it doesn't rely on the federal government for anything ... it just leaves that up to its residents to take the top mark. Here's the part obscured by the black bar ... not sure where it came from on the screen shot ...

Deleted since it was a duplicate post of the above post.

https://www.vox.com/2019/3/6/18253444/border-statistics-illegal-immigration-trump https://www.statista.com/statistics/329256/alien-apprehensions-registered-by-the-us-border-patrol/ https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/immigration-border-crisis/obama-era-pilot-program-kept-asylum-seeking-migrant-families-together-n885896 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/10/us/politics/trump-asylum-border-.html https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/02/04/migrant-border-smuggling-us-policy-metering/2708632002/ https://www.voanews.com/a/lawsuit-challenges-us-border-turnbacks-metering/4685171.html https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-imagines-14-million-new-illegal-aliens https://www.wsj.com/articles/illegal-immigration-is-down-but-asylum-requests-are-at-an-all-time-high-1544184001 https://www.texastribune.org/2018/12/19/federal-judge-overturns-white-house-asylum-policy/ https://www.themarshallproject.org/2018/11/07/the-immigration-crisis-jeff-sessions-leaves-behind https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2019/01/17/falling-illegal-immigration-numbers-confirm-no-border-crisis/#54a384c33fbc https://qz.com/1525779/how-many-undocumented-immigrants-cross-the-border-with-mexico/ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44319094 Not all of these were used to produce numbers or statements in the post, but instead is a decent sampling of what's out there to give foundation to my assertions.

Yeah, I'm still not buying it. By the way the crisis use is fairly disingenuous both by the President and the WashTimes and conservatives like Ron Johnson. The numbers are still WAY off from anything that we had during the peak years prior to the recession: Obama oversaw a drop in apprehensions that was slightly more than a 42% drop from 2008 to 2016. Even pre-recession, there was never a power-grab attempt like the President's "emergency." Let's take a look at the crisis issue by the way. Let's take Senator Johnson's statement to start with as a way that this thing is being twisted. What President Obama stated was a humanitarian crisis was tied heavily to the idea of unaccompanied minors coming to the US ... something new that hadn't been seen in this fashion before and required a different way of handling to avoid the different and dangerous circumstances surrounding processing unaccompanied minors vs. adults crossing. If Trump's "emergency" was about garnering money to handle the similar crisis of unaccompanied minors, then he would have asked for $5.7 billion or whatever number he still hasn't settled on in the form of more people to process unaccompanied minors, more processing at ports of entry, more immigration judges to attack the backlog, etc. Not money for his wall. Trump would have been better off thinking things through and playing the humanitarian crisis much earlier and with much more sincerity. The problem is that Miller wanted what he wanted and Trump didn't care how it looked ... he wanted a news story right now and the wall played to his base, so that's what he went with. Now he's trying to put lipstick on that pig and sell it as a vegetarian special at the BBQ food cart. Johnson and the WashTimes are disingenuous trying to equate unaccompanied minors and the issues there with the emergency and the wall. This is like the guy driving the moped in Indiana who tries to convince you that he's doing it for the planet as he lights his next cigarette of the one currently in his mouth and tosses the spent butt on the ground. Sounds like a nice story, but kind of hard to buy. As for the increase in family member apprehensions, yes, off course that's going to be up as that's a new trend that has been seen, but frankly it's a swap in numbers. In the past, a big part of what you saw were singles crossing the border ... now that trend is more family. Those families have supplanted singles. Instead of five single guys crossing the border, what you are likely to see now is a family of five. It's not an exact swap, but it's not anywhere close to a family of five plus the original five single guys. Now let's take a look at many of the causes ... many of which are directly tied to the President and his policies. There's a throttling component that has been seen at ports of entry. Artificially delaying or slowing the processes means that folks look for other alternatives. The President and his people have been threatening to reduce legal immigration since he took office. Why? No real reason ... just feels like it ... or actually more like he wants a different type of people coming in tied to immigration. Folks end up seeing less legal options. The US has been processing some asylum seekers incorrectly and denying their opportunity to obtain even an asylum interview in some cases. Other attacks on legal immigration, while seemingly unrelated, change the perception, and possibly reality, of fair treatment. When folks understand and trust the system, they may be much more willing to abide by the system ... even if the potential outcome is negative. There's a general myth put out by Trump and parroted about how, if you accept someone for asylum and then turn them lose in society until they finally get their trial/hearing that no one will come back. A pilot program by the Obama administration, Family Case Management Program, in five pilot cities, saw 99% compliance with ICE check-ins and appointments while awaiting their asylum case outcomes. That program, however, was cancelled by Trump. The President's rhetoric as well as direct actions, including Sessions "zero tolerance" stuff that threw a wrench into immigration processes have all ratcheted up the propensity for folks, who may well have been willing to come through ports of entry or wait in lines, to find ANY way to get here now. In the end though, and tossing out all of the numbers and reasons, what conservatives and Trump followers are failing to address with a story like this is: Trump claimed that his stance on immigration caused a major drop in people crossing the border illegally compared to Obama. In 2017 the numbers dropped, but now they aren't? What changed? Did Obama take his fences with him when he left office and illegal immigrants just didn't find out until 2018/2019? Is there a "deep state" at ICE and CBP letting folks across illegally to embarrass Trump? Were all of those people able to do their job under Obama, who by the way had a pretty high record of deportations, even compared to Bush, but somehow or another are just collecting a paycheck under Trump? Trump claims that he's built walls ... despite the fact that it's mainly repair work or completion of stuff that was started before he got into office. If there is all of this "new construction," then why has this emergency all of a sudden sprung up? Did someone forget to spray "immigrant repellent" on the walls during the final construction? Did they forget to put up the pictures of Trump with the caption "Stay out! I really mean it!"? According to the WashTimes article, which focuses on this localized spike, but extrapolates outward, Trump is on track to have a higher immigration problem than Obama did, although less than Bush. What happened? The only emergency here, which tends to be almost par for the course, is that Trump makes and outlandish claim, takes credit for something, and then it goes sour. We're still short, by almost half a million though or where we were in the Bush years even if the WashTimes extrapolation comes to pass. If I hold a baseball right up to my eye, it certainly looks bigger than the moon, but when I step back and look at it in comparison and in context, it's not nearly likely to have any impact on the tides.

Here's one that ate up police time for a year and hurt a person's reputation. A year's worth of false reports, however, netted no action by the prosecutor nor the police department against the perpetrators. https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/man-gardening-black-case-sues-3-white-women-falsely-accused-stalking-pedophilia-120303797.html FTA: A black man is suing three white women who made up false allegations of stalking, threatening, gun violence and pedophilia against him for more than a year while he was building an urban garden in their Detroit community. ... The situation began in 2017, when Marc Peeples committed to building the garden in a vacant playground in local Hunt Park, according to Essence. The three women — Deborah Nash, Martha Callahan and Jennifer Morris — live close to the park and decided to call the police and accuse Peeples of “illegal gardening.” When officers wouldn’t take them seriously, the women allegedly escalated their claims, calling police on him numerous times throughout the year and into 2018 with various accusations. In one instance, the women accused Peeples of stalking and threatening to burn down Nash’s house and kill her. Nash even attempted to obtain an order of personal protection against Peeples, his attorney told Yahoo Lifestyle, but the court denied her request. In another call, they claimed that Peeples was painting vacant houses and trees in “gang colors.” And in a third, they said Peeples was involved in a drive-by shooting. When police officers responded to that call, according to the Detroit Metro Times, they found the gardener raking leaves. The women even accused Peeples of pedophilia involving neighborhood children who were helping plant the garden. ... Peeples is seeking $300,000 in damages from the three defendants. He is also trying to make the women answer to charges of lying to police and lying under oath. “We want some consequences,” Burton-Harris said. “We waited to see if DPD or the prosecutor’s office would investigate the women, and that didn’t happen, so that’s part of the reason we decided to move forward.”

Didn't the Founding Fathers establish a nation, and write a Declaration of Independence and Constitution, predicated on the idea that all men are created equal, yet still left the issue of slavery to be fully addressed until after the founding of said nation and acceptance of said declaration and constitution? They certainly addressed it to start with and then nixed it when it was clear that it was a sticking point that would never allow for passage of the Declaration in particular. Did not the US, which still had slavery, enact new policies to curb that while still allowing it by admitting states to the Union in alternating slave/non-slave for a while? As @BARRYOSAMA said ...

True, but we can't get something that simple to have justice blind, so I'm not holding out hope at this point for bigger items. Not pessimistic; just living in reality as a necessity.

Don't know. Tell you what ... when Blacks get charged and sentenced at the same rate as their White counterparts for something like weed, then I'll be happy to believe that it is blind.

Needs to be an "Amen" emoji for GID.

South Africa, India, and Hong Kong come to mind pretty quickly. One of the "perks" of marriage. 😀

Nothing hypothetical about it. Yes, if cause could be shown that that is what drove it. https://blavity.com/black-man-charged-with-a-hate-crime-after-an-altercation-with-white-woman-he-believed-to-be-a-white-supremacist https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdga/pr/usisraeli-man-indicted-hate-crime-and-threats-jewish-community-centers-israeli-embassy https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/z4jadx/can-you-commit-a-hate-crime-against-a-white-person However, hate crimes can also be performed against people for non-race or non-ethnic reasons like crimes against gays or transsexuals or, in some jurisdictions, disability, and religion. It is also possible for a Latino person to be charged with a hate crime against a Black person. Or an Israeli-American charged for anti-Semitic threats. Again, hate crimes are not tied to any definition or perceived definition of racism. Hate crime legislation usually never mentions the issue of racism directly.

Yes, but I think he went to the idea that that would be the only alternative available ... as it does tend to be in Haiti.

I think she'd need more experience and a willingness to remodel based on that. She has some generally good ideas to start with, but they aren't necessarily practical in her initial presentation. She, like the President, strikes me as someone who also may not take modification of an idea very well. Also similar to the President, I'm not sure that there's as much willingness to take suggestions/modifications and that things have to be a particular way. If there really was "an art of the deal" with the President, much more could have / could be accomplished ... although the latter train has probably left the station. Similarly, I think if AOC would look toward the realization that good ideas are sometimes impractical in their extremes and work toward figuring out how to make it more practical, she'd probably have a broader following. Then again, given the current state of politics, if all you really need is a strong based of 30% or so and you can talk loud enough, maybe 2024 may well be her year. Her best bet to 2024 is trump winning re-election in 2020 ... her worst chance is someone like Biden winning in 2020.

Haiti's problem is due to the fact that it's the citizenry that is doing the deforesting ... a true situation where the "market drives the activity." As an extremely poor country, money can be made by selling wood for fire or by creating charcoal the old-fashioned way. Without effective controls to keep the cutting in control and managed, there's no/very little replanting that takes place and it's pretty much everyone for themselves, to an extent. Crippling debt imposed by countries like France as "blackmail" not to invade, US intervention that has backed dictators, then toppled them, then destabilizing the folks that they backed to topple the dictators that they backed, and other things have taken place since Haiti became the first democracy in the world based upon a slave revolt have all taken what was once a promising country and put it in a position of almost mere survival. A lot of lost potential there.

Unlike solar/wind, the difference is that logging/lumber can be exhausted without proper control.

Equal housing provisions, equal hiring provisions, etc.