Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
IronLionZion
IronLionZion's Journal
IronLionZion's Journal
December 5, 2017
These are the women who could elect Roy Moore
http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/05/politics/white-women-class-divide-gender-divide/index.html
If Republican Roy Moore wins next week's Senate special election in Alabama, it will be largely because of his support among women.
More specifically, Moore's ability to survive the allegations of sexually pursuing young girls, which have rocked his campaign, will likely turn on whether he can maintain his pre-scandal advantage among white women without a college education -- even as their college-educated counterparts have moved toward Democrat Doug Jones in much bigger numbers than usual for deeply conservative Alabama, according to public and private polling in the race.
With that contrast, the Alabama race is illuminating one of the least understood political trends of the Donald Trump era. Many commentators have warned that Republicans face a systemic problem with female voters under Trump -- and could see that difficulty deepen if Moore wins and is seated in the Senate. But that conclusion is far too sweeping. Rather than a monolithic response, the Trump era instead is widening the divide between the political preferences of white-collar and blue-collar white women.
The much-touted gender gap hasn't disappeared. Whether looking at whites, blacks or Hispanics, Democrats consistently run better among women than men (or from the other angle, Republicans run better among men than women).
But in the Trump era, the class divide looks more powerful than the gender divide, especially among whites. In the 2016 presidential race, Trump ran much better among white women without a college education than those with an advanced degree. In fact, the gap between the two groups was by far the widest recorded in exit polls since at least the presidential race of 1980.
If Republican Roy Moore wins next week's Senate special election in Alabama, it will be largely because of his support among women.
More specifically, Moore's ability to survive the allegations of sexually pursuing young girls, which have rocked his campaign, will likely turn on whether he can maintain his pre-scandal advantage among white women without a college education -- even as their college-educated counterparts have moved toward Democrat Doug Jones in much bigger numbers than usual for deeply conservative Alabama, according to public and private polling in the race.
With that contrast, the Alabama race is illuminating one of the least understood political trends of the Donald Trump era. Many commentators have warned that Republicans face a systemic problem with female voters under Trump -- and could see that difficulty deepen if Moore wins and is seated in the Senate. But that conclusion is far too sweeping. Rather than a monolithic response, the Trump era instead is widening the divide between the political preferences of white-collar and blue-collar white women.
The much-touted gender gap hasn't disappeared. Whether looking at whites, blacks or Hispanics, Democrats consistently run better among women than men (or from the other angle, Republicans run better among men than women).
But in the Trump era, the class divide looks more powerful than the gender divide, especially among whites. In the 2016 presidential race, Trump ran much better among white women without a college education than those with an advanced degree. In fact, the gap between the two groups was by far the widest recorded in exit polls since at least the presidential race of 1980.
December 5, 2017
Damn. We are so screwed.
US missile defenses fired 5 shots at an incoming target and it looks as if they all missed
http://www.businessinsider.com/us-missile-defenses-fired-5-saudi-houthi-riyadh-missed-2017-12
A member of a special force loyal to the Houthi rebels riding atop a vehicle during a military parade in Sanaa, Yemen.
Officials have said that interceptors from a US missile defense system took out a ballistic missile fired at an airport in Saudi Arabia, but a new analysis by The New York Times suggests that didn't happen.
The likely failure of the US missile defense system shows a weakness as Saudi Arabia's enemies seem intent on firing more and more missiles.
In late November, a missile fired by Iran-backed Houthi militants in Yemen came streaking through the sky toward the airport in Saudi Arabia's capital, Riyadh.
The Saudis spotted the incoming fire and shot off five missile interceptors from a US-supplied missile defense system to stop the threat, they say.
"Our system knocked the missile out of the air," US President Donald Trump later said of the incident. "That's how good we are. Nobody makes what we make, and now we're selling it all over the world."
But a new analysis by The New York Times suggests that the missile's failure to hit its target was a fluke and that the missile interceptors all missed.
Essentially, the analysis says that the parts of the Houthi-fired missile that crashed in Saudi Arabia indicate that the interceptors, fired from a Patriot Advanced Capability 3 system, did not hit the warhead as they were supposed to.
Instead, an interceptor probably hit a part of the missile tube that had detached from the warhead, The Times found. The warhead most likely continued to travel, unimpeded, to where it blew up outside the airport. Witnesses reported hearing the explosion, and satellite imagery uncovered by The Times suggests that emergency vehicles responded to the blast.
The missile, an old Scud variant, can be expected to miss by about a kilometer. The Scuds are old and error-prone, and the older ones used by the Houthis are relatively cheap.
But the missile defense system developed by the US costs a few million dollars and has been touted by defense officials as one of the most advanced in the world.
In South Korea, the same missile defense systems and technologies are designed to defend US troops and thousands of civilians from a North Korean missile strike.
A member of a special force loyal to the Houthi rebels riding atop a vehicle during a military parade in Sanaa, Yemen.
Officials have said that interceptors from a US missile defense system took out a ballistic missile fired at an airport in Saudi Arabia, but a new analysis by The New York Times suggests that didn't happen.
The likely failure of the US missile defense system shows a weakness as Saudi Arabia's enemies seem intent on firing more and more missiles.
In late November, a missile fired by Iran-backed Houthi militants in Yemen came streaking through the sky toward the airport in Saudi Arabia's capital, Riyadh.
The Saudis spotted the incoming fire and shot off five missile interceptors from a US-supplied missile defense system to stop the threat, they say.
"Our system knocked the missile out of the air," US President Donald Trump later said of the incident. "That's how good we are. Nobody makes what we make, and now we're selling it all over the world."
But a new analysis by The New York Times suggests that the missile's failure to hit its target was a fluke and that the missile interceptors all missed.
Essentially, the analysis says that the parts of the Houthi-fired missile that crashed in Saudi Arabia indicate that the interceptors, fired from a Patriot Advanced Capability 3 system, did not hit the warhead as they were supposed to.
Instead, an interceptor probably hit a part of the missile tube that had detached from the warhead, The Times found. The warhead most likely continued to travel, unimpeded, to where it blew up outside the airport. Witnesses reported hearing the explosion, and satellite imagery uncovered by The Times suggests that emergency vehicles responded to the blast.
The missile, an old Scud variant, can be expected to miss by about a kilometer. The Scuds are old and error-prone, and the older ones used by the Houthis are relatively cheap.
But the missile defense system developed by the US costs a few million dollars and has been touted by defense officials as one of the most advanced in the world.
In South Korea, the same missile defense systems and technologies are designed to defend US troops and thousands of civilians from a North Korean missile strike.
Damn. We are so screwed.
December 3, 2017
Some people think domestic sexual abuse is funny
Weekend Update: The Duncans on the Kama Sutra - SNL
Some people think domestic sexual abuse is funny
December 1, 2017
http://www.cracked.com/article_25375_catdog-lied-science-says-dogs-could-be-smarter-than-cats.html
Before cat lovers put me on ignore, I like both cats and dogs. Working dogs have been trained to do all sorts of jobs throughout history and have an uncanny ability to comfort and care for their humans. See any blind person with their service dog and be amazed as they navigate the mean streets while dodging cars. Cats can catch small rodents. Both will eat you if they get hungry enough.
It's very sad that society views affection, loyalty, and enthusiasm as signs of stupidity while generally selfish aloofness is a sign of intelligence. It happens with humans too where assholes are considered clever and nice people are considered suckers.
Who's Smarter, Dogs or Cats? Science Now Has the Answer
http://fortune.com/2017/11/30/dogs-or-cats-smarter-study/
They might chew your shoes, occasionally pee on the rug, or snarf down your entire dinner the minute you turn your head, but it turns out your family dog is measurably smarter than your cat.
Researchers at Vanderbilt decided to put the age old debate to the test objectively, studying the number of cortical neurons in the brains of a number of animals. The results? Canines had a significantly higher number than felines.
Dogs, it turns out, have about 530 million cortical neurons. Cats have less than half that, coming in with 250 million. (We humans have about 16 billion.)
“I believe the absolute number of neurons an animal has, especially in the cerebral cortex, determines the richness of their internal mental state and their ability to predict what is about to happen in their environment based on past experience,” said Suzana Herculano-Houzel, associate professor of psychology and biological sciences at Vanderbilt, who oversaw the study with a collection of international researchers.
The paper, which will be published in the journal Frontiers in Neuroanatomy (and almost certainly maligned on reddit, the Internet’s haven for cat lovers), notes that the physical size of the brain doesn’t necessarily relate to overall intelligence. For example, researchers found that the brain of a brown bear, while 10 times as large as a cat’s, has roughly the same number of neurons. (Raccoons, also, are on par with cats when it comes to smarts.)
Despite the findings, don’t expect this argument to go away anytime soon. Herculano-Houzel herself admits that, while the study was objective, she herself does have a bit of a bias.
“I’m 100 percent a dog person,” she says, “but, with that disclaimer, our findings mean to me that dogs have the biological capability of doing much more complex and flexible things with their lives than cats can.”
They might chew your shoes, occasionally pee on the rug, or snarf down your entire dinner the minute you turn your head, but it turns out your family dog is measurably smarter than your cat.
Researchers at Vanderbilt decided to put the age old debate to the test objectively, studying the number of cortical neurons in the brains of a number of animals. The results? Canines had a significantly higher number than felines.
Dogs, it turns out, have about 530 million cortical neurons. Cats have less than half that, coming in with 250 million. (We humans have about 16 billion.)
“I believe the absolute number of neurons an animal has, especially in the cerebral cortex, determines the richness of their internal mental state and their ability to predict what is about to happen in their environment based on past experience,” said Suzana Herculano-Houzel, associate professor of psychology and biological sciences at Vanderbilt, who oversaw the study with a collection of international researchers.
The paper, which will be published in the journal Frontiers in Neuroanatomy (and almost certainly maligned on reddit, the Internet’s haven for cat lovers), notes that the physical size of the brain doesn’t necessarily relate to overall intelligence. For example, researchers found that the brain of a brown bear, while 10 times as large as a cat’s, has roughly the same number of neurons. (Raccoons, also, are on par with cats when it comes to smarts.)
Despite the findings, don’t expect this argument to go away anytime soon. Herculano-Houzel herself admits that, while the study was objective, she herself does have a bit of a bias.
“I’m 100 percent a dog person,” she says, “but, with that disclaimer, our findings mean to me that dogs have the biological capability of doing much more complex and flexible things with their lives than cats can.”
http://www.cracked.com/article_25375_catdog-lied-science-says-dogs-could-be-smarter-than-cats.html
Before cat lovers put me on ignore, I like both cats and dogs. Working dogs have been trained to do all sorts of jobs throughout history and have an uncanny ability to comfort and care for their humans. See any blind person with their service dog and be amazed as they navigate the mean streets while dodging cars. Cats can catch small rodents. Both will eat you if they get hungry enough.
It's very sad that society views affection, loyalty, and enthusiasm as signs of stupidity while generally selfish aloofness is a sign of intelligence. It happens with humans too where assholes are considered clever and nice people are considered suckers.
November 30, 2017
There are two governmental organizations that have conducted nonpartisan analyses of the anticipated effects of Republican legislation aimed at overhauling the tax system. There’s the Joint Committee on Taxation, established in 1926 with congressional oversight to prepare revenue estimates on proposals related to taxation. There’s also the Congressional Budget Office, which produces independent analysis of the budgetary effects of legislation.
Recently released analyses from both groups come to the same conclusion. Over both the short- and long-term, the benefits of the Republican proposal is weighted to wealthier Americans.
One aspect of the JCT’s analysis included an estimate of how many households in various income ranges would see increases or decreases in the amount of tax paid. The vast majority of those making under $10,000 a year — 96 percent — would see a minimal change (no more than $100 in either direction) in their tax bill by 2019. By contrast, 91 percent of households making between $500,000 and $1 million a year would see a cut of at least $500.
It’s worth noting that there aren’t that many households making more than $500,000 a year, relatively speaking. But scaling the figures to the number of households in each group, the same broad effect can be seen. There are about 18.4 million households that earn under $10,000 a year which will see little change in their tax bill. There are about 24.5 million households that earn $100,000 to $200,000 a year which will see a savings of at least $500. The 18 million households in the $50,000 to $75,000 range will save at least $500. About 3 million in that group won’t see much change.
Lots more good graphs at the link showing how blatantly they are screwing the rest of us. Even many of the people who think they are getting a tax cut will actually pay more when they lose important deductions. It shifts the tax burden downwards.
How the Republican tax bill benefits the rich, according to government analysis
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/30/how-the-republican-tax-bill-benefits-the-rich-according-to-government-analysis/There are two governmental organizations that have conducted nonpartisan analyses of the anticipated effects of Republican legislation aimed at overhauling the tax system. There’s the Joint Committee on Taxation, established in 1926 with congressional oversight to prepare revenue estimates on proposals related to taxation. There’s also the Congressional Budget Office, which produces independent analysis of the budgetary effects of legislation.
Recently released analyses from both groups come to the same conclusion. Over both the short- and long-term, the benefits of the Republican proposal is weighted to wealthier Americans.
One aspect of the JCT’s analysis included an estimate of how many households in various income ranges would see increases or decreases in the amount of tax paid. The vast majority of those making under $10,000 a year — 96 percent — would see a minimal change (no more than $100 in either direction) in their tax bill by 2019. By contrast, 91 percent of households making between $500,000 and $1 million a year would see a cut of at least $500.
It’s worth noting that there aren’t that many households making more than $500,000 a year, relatively speaking. But scaling the figures to the number of households in each group, the same broad effect can be seen. There are about 18.4 million households that earn under $10,000 a year which will see little change in their tax bill. There are about 24.5 million households that earn $100,000 to $200,000 a year which will see a savings of at least $500. The 18 million households in the $50,000 to $75,000 range will save at least $500. About 3 million in that group won’t see much change.
Lots more good graphs at the link showing how blatantly they are screwing the rest of us. Even many of the people who think they are getting a tax cut will actually pay more when they lose important deductions. It shifts the tax burden downwards.
November 30, 2017
More officials should call him a moron. What's the average duration of a Trump cabinet member? a few months?
White House Plans Tillerson Ouster From State Dept., to Be Replaced by Pompeo, Within Weeks
Source: New York Times
WASHINGTON — The White House has developed a plan to force out Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson, whose relationship with President Trump has been strained, and replace him with Mike Pompeo, the C.I.A. director, perhaps within the next several weeks, senior administration officials said on Thursday.
Mr. Pompeo would be replaced at the C.I.A. by Senator Tom Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas who has been a key ally of the president on national security matters, according to the White House plan. Mr. Cotton has signaled that he would accept the job if offered, said the officials, who insisted on anonymity to discuss sensitive deliberations before decisions are announced.
It was not immediately clear whether Mr. Trump has given final approval to the plan, but he has been said to have soured on Mr. Tillerson and in general is ready to make a change at the State Department. John F. Kelly, the White House chief of staff, developed the transition plan and has discussed it with other officials.
Under his plan, the shake-up of the national security team would happen around the end of the year or shortly afterward. But for all of his public combativeness, Mr. Trump is notoriously reluctant to fire people, and it was not known if Mr. Tillerson had agreed to step down by then. Public disclosure of Mr. Kelly’s transition plan may be meant as a signal to the secretary that it is time to go.
Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/30/us/politics/state-department-tillerson-pompeo-trump.html
More officials should call him a moron. What's the average duration of a Trump cabinet member? a few months?
November 29, 2017
WeRateDogs Owner Realizes Net Neutrality Killer Ajit Pai Follows Him On Twitter, Gives Him A Taste
‘WeRateDogs’ Owner Realizes Net Neutrality Killer Ajit Pai Follows Him On Twitter, Gives Him A Taste Of His Own Medicine
https://www.boredpanda.com/message-ajit-pai-we-rate-dogs/
November 29, 2017
Great images at the link in a format that I can't link to here.
We better hope our missile defense system works correctly to intercept it. We have two nuclear armed idiots who are mentally unstable, deeply insecure, and have something to prove.
How four recent launches signaled new leaps in North Koreas missile capabilities
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/north-korea-launch/
It wasn’t a big surprise, but it was a big deal — so much so that North Korea issued commemorative stamps. Two successful missile launches in July almost certainly proved that the country had produced an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of striking the United States. A Nov. 29 test that flew even higher and longer indicated that the entire U.S. mainland most likely was within range.
According to U.S. intelligence analysts, the country also has nuclear warheads small enough to fit on its missiles. On Sept. 2, the country tested its most powerful nuclear device yet, a blast seven times the size of the bomb the United States dropped on Hiroshima.
Nonproliferation experts had long assumed that the secretive country’s nuclear capability was further along than many people wanted to believe, but seeing the proof was still jarring.
North Korea has launched 20 missile tests in 2017, and 15 were successful, according to a database maintained by the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. The tests represented giant leaps forward in technology.
It wasn’t a big surprise, but it was a big deal — so much so that North Korea issued commemorative stamps. Two successful missile launches in July almost certainly proved that the country had produced an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of striking the United States. A Nov. 29 test that flew even higher and longer indicated that the entire U.S. mainland most likely was within range.
According to U.S. intelligence analysts, the country also has nuclear warheads small enough to fit on its missiles. On Sept. 2, the country tested its most powerful nuclear device yet, a blast seven times the size of the bomb the United States dropped on Hiroshima.
Nonproliferation experts had long assumed that the secretive country’s nuclear capability was further along than many people wanted to believe, but seeing the proof was still jarring.
North Korea has launched 20 missile tests in 2017, and 15 were successful, according to a database maintained by the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. The tests represented giant leaps forward in technology.
Great images at the link in a format that I can't link to here.
We better hope our missile defense system works correctly to intercept it. We have two nuclear armed idiots who are mentally unstable, deeply insecure, and have something to prove.
November 28, 2017
As if the Venezuelan people haven't been through enough already.
Even sex is in crisis in Venezuela, where contraceptives are growing scarce
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/even-sex-is-in-crisis-in-venezuela-where-contraceptives-are-growing-scarce/2017/11/27/5d970d86-b452-11e7-9b93-b97043e57a22_story.html?tid=pm_world_pop&utm_term=.405286fb4339
CARACAS, Venezuela — Yorlenis Gutierrez, a 28-year-old mother, spent months vainly scouring pharmacies for a drug whose scarcity is complicating her sex life and that of countless Venezuelans. In a country beset by shortages, this is one of the hardest: the disappearance of contraceptives.
When she couldn’t renew her supply of birth control pills, Gutierrez and her husband made a choice. Long-term abstinence was not an option, they agreed.
They tried to be careful, but soon she was pregnant with her second child.
“We barely eat three times a day now,” said a distraught Gutierrez, a former hair washer in a beauty salon who lost her job because of the economic crisis. “I don’t know how we’re going to feed another mouth.”
In Venezuela, a collapse in oil prices coupled with nearly two decades of socialist policies has sparked a severe recession and one of the world’s highest inflation rates. People often wait hours in line to buy bread. Prices for staples jump almost by the day. Medical shortages range from antibiotics to cancer drugs.
CARACAS, Venezuela — Yorlenis Gutierrez, a 28-year-old mother, spent months vainly scouring pharmacies for a drug whose scarcity is complicating her sex life and that of countless Venezuelans. In a country beset by shortages, this is one of the hardest: the disappearance of contraceptives.
When she couldn’t renew her supply of birth control pills, Gutierrez and her husband made a choice. Long-term abstinence was not an option, they agreed.
They tried to be careful, but soon she was pregnant with her second child.
“We barely eat three times a day now,” said a distraught Gutierrez, a former hair washer in a beauty salon who lost her job because of the economic crisis. “I don’t know how we’re going to feed another mouth.”
In Venezuela, a collapse in oil prices coupled with nearly two decades of socialist policies has sparked a severe recession and one of the world’s highest inflation rates. People often wait hours in line to buy bread. Prices for staples jump almost by the day. Medical shortages range from antibiotics to cancer drugs.
As if the Venezuelan people haven't been through enough already.
November 28, 2017
Who needs the invisible hand of the market when you have the iron fist of Trumpsters. Mick Mulvaney is going to strangle the CFPB and drown it in the bathtub.
Consumers won't be getting much protection from these predators.
After political drama at consumer agency, what happens to its open investigations?
http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/27/investing/cfpb-mick-mulvaney-consumer-agency/index.html
Mick Mulvaney argues the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is "trampling on capitalism" -- a problem he has promised to fix immediately.
During his first day as the watchdog agency's acting director on Monday, Mulvaney announced a 30-day freeze on new regulations so he can make sure they are not "choking off" lending. Mulvaney said he will soon be briefed on the roughly 100 lawsuits the agency is involved with.
"Anything that is discretionary we're putting a 30-day hold on," Mulvaney told reporters.
Mulvaney has long been a sharp critic of the CFPB. Now his distaste for the bureau is raising questions about what will happen to the many open investigations and lawsuits it has launched against companies and banks.
Court documents and regulatory filings show these targets include Wells Fargo (WFC), online real estate database Zillow (Z) and student loan processor Heartland Campus Solutions. The CFPB is also likely looking into other companies that have not yet disclosed the investigations.
"Rumors that I am going to set the place on fire, blow it up or lock the doors are completely false," Mulvaney said.
However, Mulvaney, who as a lawmaker voted to abolish the CFPB altogether, said President Trump wants him to "fix" the CFPB because the previous administration "went too far."
Mick Mulvaney argues the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is "trampling on capitalism" -- a problem he has promised to fix immediately.
During his first day as the watchdog agency's acting director on Monday, Mulvaney announced a 30-day freeze on new regulations so he can make sure they are not "choking off" lending. Mulvaney said he will soon be briefed on the roughly 100 lawsuits the agency is involved with.
"Anything that is discretionary we're putting a 30-day hold on," Mulvaney told reporters.
Mulvaney has long been a sharp critic of the CFPB. Now his distaste for the bureau is raising questions about what will happen to the many open investigations and lawsuits it has launched against companies and banks.
Court documents and regulatory filings show these targets include Wells Fargo (WFC), online real estate database Zillow (Z) and student loan processor Heartland Campus Solutions. The CFPB is also likely looking into other companies that have not yet disclosed the investigations.
"Rumors that I am going to set the place on fire, blow it up or lock the doors are completely false," Mulvaney said.
However, Mulvaney, who as a lawmaker voted to abolish the CFPB altogether, said President Trump wants him to "fix" the CFPB because the previous administration "went too far."
Who needs the invisible hand of the market when you have the iron fist of Trumpsters. Mick Mulvaney is going to strangle the CFPB and drown it in the bathtub.
Consumers won't be getting much protection from these predators.
Profile Information
Gender: MaleHometown: Southwestern PA
Home country: USA
Current location: Washington, DC
Member since: Mon Nov 10, 2003, 07:36 PM
Number of posts: 45,528
