Power lines are protected by breakers, although the max current is obviously very high compared to the household sort. Apparently some power companies have installed "reclosers", which attempt automatically to close breakers that have tripped, restoring power. These have been implicated in the recent California fires:

http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Power-line-restart-device-implicated-in-past-12324764.php

Sounds totally nuts, but customers do hate to lose power.

Trump will veto that, hide and watch....but I hope not so you can see that this memo is nothing but republicans making accusations, not evidence, just inferences drawn from implications based on not reading reports. The classified report they claim to reference isn't being released, just the partisan Republican memo...while the Democrat version of that interpretation memo was kept classified.

Funny, Trump's people claimed McCabe stepped down of his own accord, a few months before his scheduled retirement. He's not fired, he didn't quit, he wasn't even asked to leave, much less forced out. He just switched positions...ostensibly to avoid any further contact with Trump who acts like a bully on the phone, taunting the man's wife then hanging up.

Only one falling here. This should cause even republicans to vote to protect Mueller from removal. That will be Trump's death nail.

Bob, I must congratulate you. Your caricature of gullible republicans is spot on.

I guess Obama is going down for being an illegal immigrant from Kenya, right? Hillary for Benghazi, and all federal law enforcement for......having some agents who don't like or respect orange Kanye, just like every Republican senator and representative just months earlier. I guess you're just lucky that wasn't Obama's move, or they would have released all their damming info about Trump and not implicated Clinton last minute, but somehow now that they're investigating Trump they're all deep state democrats (that threw an election to elect Trump).
You cannot be that dumb, the fact you remember to breathe is proof you have too much intelligence to believe such flipflopping theories that require amnesia of yesterday to believe today's new utter bullshit story.

It's hilariously transparent that, according to Trump, the FBI, CIA, and NSA are suddenly republican enemies (so much for being the law and order party, huh?) and Putin is your friend. Reagan would be so proud.

I didn't express disapproval of the demand for sex work.

I am creeped out by men who bring sex into the workplace.

I am a huge fan of Dan Savage. He is a deeply moral man who is helping people become more fully themselves. That includes sexual expression in the privacy of the home or other agreed upon public spaces, while respecting the agreements made consensually between adults.

I also didn't say anything about the women being forced to look the way they do. It is their free choice to sell barter themselves on their sexual attributes in an arena that has nothing to do with sex -- a shooting range.

And I think it is creepy that men want this. To bring sex out of the dating world. Out of strip clubs. Out of sex clubs. And into a mundane world of a shooting range. It has implications about the treatment of women, the objectification of women, that creep me out. The blindness of it creeps me out.

Anyway.

Glad to know you weren't talking about me. Because I don't recognize myself in the way you talk about the conversation I have been engaged in. Sooo many times I say -- I didn't say this. I didn't say that.

It does get frustrating having a conversation on the Sift (not just you) where my words get twisted and embroidered.

And I love it when someone says something that shows I am incorrect or have stated something that doesn't clearly communicate my point of view. It helps me understand the world a little bit more, helps me see my own bias, and teaches me to communicate better. (Like blaming Keanu -- that was a huge mistake.)

Thanks for engaging with me. I appreciate you taking the time.

FBI Implicates Obama & Clinton In Russia Bribery Plot has been added as a related post - related requested by newtboy.

*related=https://videosift.com/video/FBI-Implicates-Obama-Clinton-In-Russia-Bribery-Plot

I don't know if I would go that far, but she sure made it far worse.

I fixed the description....again....that was from another report (the same one that claimed they used guns)...I should have fixed it with the gun comment though. My bad.

I've read a few reports that the "service dog" was an emotional support dog. Without certification, training, and a vest it's just a pet in my eyes, but I'm not sure if it had those. They implied it didn't, but implications are meaningless, I admit. Even with them, it's still a pet though, isn't it?

Edit: I note in the article, they said they offered to have her deplane and get the allergy shot (epi pen?), but they slyly don't mention that they would not have allowed her back on under any circumstances. Shot or no, it's the policy to not let her fly with animals on board if she's said she's allergic. They tried to trick her, then tried to pretend they offered a solution.

No NHS in the states. Personally, I think that'd be the way to do it. And I think it kind of needs to be a long and difficult road, to make sure that drastic option is necessary and won't be regretted later.

It's a bit hard for me to accept it, because I tend to think of it like that episode of South Park. Kyle can't actually become a tall black kid, and his dad can't actually become a dolphin.

But even though I think that is true -- you can't really become something you aren't -- I recognize that gender reassignment surgeries can be life saving / massively beneficial to quality of life in many cases.


To take a stab at answering your other questions:

I believe that Trump is saying that the military is instituting a blanket ban on transgender people from serving in the military. If / how the military elects to enforce that remains to be seen. I don't know the full timeline on that sort of stuff, but back in the 60's one (considered extreme at the time) way for young men to get out of being drafted to go to Vietnam was to take photos of themselves naked with another man (implying they were gay) or wearing women's clothing (implying they were trans). The mere implication that you might be either was enough to disqualify you from military service.

More recently, during Don't Ask Don't Tell you could be gay or trans in the military, but couldn't reveal that you were. That ended only 5-6 years ago. The military definitely wouldn't have paid for trans-related medical treatments prior to that, and didn't for quite a while after until Obama OK'd it.

Again, I don't really think that the military should be required / expected to pay for those kinds of treatments for soldiers, BUT I'd be 100% OK with something like the NHS making it available to any citizen, as in the UK. For one thing, I wouldn't want trans people to see the military as the only way to get those treatments (short of paying out of pocket), and having that be a major part of their motivation to join.

And I 100% agree that this is a basically a political distraction that sets back the rights and acceptance of an already marginalized group that in no way deserves it.

I agree, don't make up your mind without proof, but give the horrendously slow process a chance to uncover it before dismissing the accusations. All indicators point to some collusion...who and how much are relative unknowns. Ignore speculations and wait is the best course right now, imo.

No, I don't accept either bowl. I never watch CNN, nor do I consider them more than a step above Fox. That's the nature of 24 hour "news"....it stops being news at all. My point was, their low standards don't erase the staggering implications of what little we do know or make the story "fake".

I can't accept that we shouldn't impeach a traitor (edit: should he be proven to be one) because his successor will be worse, but I do agree, president Pence is a horrifying thought.

Sorry, gotta disagree with you @enoch.
First, yes, America is guilty of interference in third world elections, but not so much in free elections.
Second, the level of interference in this election is unprecedented (EDIT: Including evidence the Russians tried to hack voting machines and virus many poll workers, and there's absolutely zero question which candidate they were trying to help).

Third, there is plenty of EVIDENCE his campaign colluded, they've admitted doing so after the election but before confirmation, and that at least he tried hard to hide that fact, and the fact that he has financial ties to them.
There is no publicly available PROOF that Trump himself colluded to steal the election....yet.

There is mounting proof that he has, since the election, at every turn, used the office for private financial gains from numerous foreign entities, which is totally illegal.

Does this translate to undeniable proof that he colluded to steal the election with a foreign enemy? Again, not yet, but the investigation is still in it's infancy, largely due to his interference in it and his stonewalling every legal question. It's far worse than just being a used car salesman abusing his power, it's the "leader of the free world" subverting the constitution for financial gains.

It was actually 17 agencies, and most of them were certain the evidence that Saddam had WMD's was suspect at best, and not credible....they said so, but were drowned out by the few agencies that went along with Bush's narrative...that has been shown fairly conclusively in the intervening years.

Again, I don't believe there was a joint statement about the gassing, that was again Trump's administration claiming certitude about Assad, not the intelligence community.

Not sure what you mean about Gadhafi, he did kill thousands, but again, I don't recall any joint public statement from the intelligence community.

In fact, I recall the joint statement being a first.

That doesn't mean they're right, just that your implication that they are so often wrong is a bit exaggerated and not factual as you wrote it....or at least as I read you.

Unfortunately, the evidence that would be proof is classified evidence...so we may NEVER see it without high level clearance of a bad leak. Not seeing it is no evidence at all that it doesn't exist, you should not be able to see it.

The term "deep state" is an Orwellian term meant to delegitimize ANYONE not in step with the current administration...just call them liberal holdovers and dismiss them...that's the idea...don't buy it. Most intelligence agents are non political....not all, but most.

CNN hasn't been pantsed IMO...they admitted what everyone knows, they are less about reporting important news than they are about ratings. That doesn't make their story wrong or fake, it makes it make sense that they ignore other actual news to talk incessantly about the one story that makes them money/ratings, even with no new information to share. Certainly that detracts from their value as a news source, but doesn't make them Breitbart willing to make up stories out of whole cloth and back them to the end.

Perhaps there's something there I'm missing since I won't watch a Breitbart story or give it a shred of credence, but not from what I've heard and seen elsewhere. I've not seen any evidence they made things up or lied, just that they are operating like a business rather than an independent news source.

@Diogenes

Thank you for your detailed answer. I do agree with you that context matters and that words are neither inherently good or bad by themselves. However, I think you’re looking at the situation from a more microscopic point of view as a simple joke between two people. I prefer to take a more macroscopic view of the situation. Allow me to explain.

Going back to my hypothetical example, it’s true that I didn't mean any harm when I used the term "retard" towards my brother. I think all people like to think of themselves as "good" people. For example, I would never in my life point at person with Down Syndrome and scream "Retard!" at the top of my lungs or attempt to belittle someone with an actual mental disability. The problem, however, is that by using the word in the way I did in the example I am tacitly--and quite publicly (remember this is happening in a parking lot)--endorsing the equating of people with mental disabilities to stupidity. I may be making a joke towards my brother but it isn’t just my brother that winds up being the butt of the joke.

Now maybe from your perspective, it’s just one person saying a joke. Look at the context, you might say. It’s a distasteful joke but no big deal, right? And I could agree with that if it was just some off-color joke limited to a single individual. Unfortunately, and I think we can both agree on this, the use of “retard” to mean “stupid” is a relatively common occurrence in American vernacular. You couple that with the stigma against mental illness and mental disability and I think it becomes fairly plain to see that on the macroscopic level (i.e. society) we have a problem: a group that is socially disadvantaged and historically discriminated against is even further marginalized by the language people use in their everyday lives. Now, if you don’t agree this is a problem, I’m afraid the conversation has to end here since the logical conclusion of such a stance is that people should be free to say whatever they want and be immune to criticism, damn the consequences.

But if you do agree it is a problem, how are we going to solve it? My take on the situation is that doing absolutely nothing when witnessing a situation like the one I've described is unlikely to improve society in any way. The status quo will be maintained if people are not confronted about their language use.

That being said, people often say things without fully comprehending the implications of what they are saying. They often talk the way they were raised and never once questioned whether what they were saying was actually harmful or not. I don’t think people should be pilloried for that, but in the event that they are unaware of how they are contributing to the discrimination and oppression of others they certainly need to be educated.

This necessarily entails confrontation, although that confrontation might be very low key. Continuing the example above, I think a good way for the woman in the example to “enlighten” me about my misguided use of the word “retard” would be something along the lines of this:

“Excuse me. I really wish you wouldn’t equate having a mental handicap with stupidity. My nephew has Down Syndrome and even though, yes, he can’t do everything that a person without an intellectual handicap can do he is most certainly not stupid.”

Now, all of that said, I see nothing wrong with publicly shaming those who clearly understand the implications of what they are saying and out of either stubbornness, a need for attention, or actual spite willfully continue to use language that is degrading or oppressive. A white person frequently using the N-word in public to describe black people, for instance, is a situation where I’d be completely fine with them getting verbally eviscerated. We don't always have to be polite, even when being politically correct.

As a final note, I want to make it clear that I believe in free speech in the sense that everyone should be free to say whatever they wish. However, as a caveat to that I also believe that free speech comes with the responsibility that people must own everything they say. If someone wishes to use offensive, degrading, or oppressive language that is their choice. Free speech in no way gives them a free pass from criticism of that choice, however.

Testimony shows Trump is a liar, bold faced, in private and public.

Testimony also showed that Trump knew his actions were wrong, that's why he cleared the oval office to direct Comey to leave Flynn alone.

Comey shouldn't have said what Trump wanted, that he wasn't under investigation, because everyone around him and his campaign itself was under investigation and it seemed likely he would be personally implicated soon, and saying he's cleared or not under investigation is a claim that would not be fully honest. Also, because the FBI isn't supposed to comment on open investigations at all, nor are they a spokesperson for the president speaking at his direction.

I do agree with him, Comey was cowardly....he admitted as much. He should have refused and walked out of the room insistent he never be left alone with Trump again when Trump asked him to let Flynn go and gone straight to congress.

I appreciate your argument, but I don't share your alarm.

Displaced by sea level rise (which would be a gradual thing, but I agree very serious), combined with droughts/floods might potentially fall under "decimation". But only, I think, to the historical definition of 10% dead. Include wars resulting from territory and resource squabbles (should that count as fallout of climate change?), and it could be (much) worse. But still not on a 4-year timescale.

Second, if we're already "way past the tipping point", it logically follows that blame for that can't really be laid on Trump. His policies can certainly make things worse, but I think that 4 years of terrible climate policy in ONE country on Earth (granted, a country with a lot of influence) simply aren't going to be catastrophically, drastically worse than 4 years of magically ideal climate policy (even in a hypothetical scenario where Nader or Stein or Clinton or whatever ideal person was president and could dictate perfect climate policy without being filtered by congress).


So to answer your question, basically no, I don't think that "raising our emission levels exponentially while advocating closed borders will have an irreversible negative effect on the planet and humanity."

One, "exponentially" is an exaggeration. US emissions under Trump won't be an order of magnitude higher than they were under Obama, or would have been under Clinton. In the range of 10% to 50% higher seems well possible, but 100% higher (double) would be next to impossible. Worse, yes. Exponentially worse, no.

Two, "irreversible" is a word I would hesitate to use because it carries an implication that there is some magic bullet to immediately fix things. If a plague wiped humanity off the face of the Earth tomorrow, it would take some time for climate to adjust to pre-industrial levels. Like you said, it might take 25-50 years before things even could start getting better. But eventually, it could be mostly like we were never here. Some things about climate would never be the same, but in broad terms, things could get back to "normal" eventually.

On the other hand, if the plague wipes us all out on the last day of Trump's 4 years in office, it might take longer for that adjustment to happen. But not by a comparatively massive margin. So that's why I dislike "irreversible"; depending on what timescale you are referencing things are either already irreversible, or pretty close to a statistical wash (what's another 4 years in a recovery timeline of 250 years, or 100 in 10000?), or not worth worrying about at all (on a geological timescale that doesn't care 2 cents about things like species extinctions). Does that make sense?

Finally, "negative effect on the planet and humanity" is something that I totally agree with. And that negative effect will be real and significant. But I don't think that the walking disaster that is Trump will make things inescapably, horrifically worse. Not enough worse that it makes a persuasive argument to me that I should have voted for Clinton (again, I didn't vote for Trump, but I didn't vote for Clinton either).

I dunno. Maybe I'm a cockeyed optimist.

What I understood him to be claiming was a large portion of 'anti Trump' people are stuck on the accusations about Russia, but there are so many other issues they are ignoring because of that focus, and I wholeheartedly disagree, with the constant non-Russia protests as my evidence. I just do not see the myopia he decries.
I also disagree the world is laughing at our claims about foreign interference in our election, they are laughing at the hypocrisy of America complaining about our M.O., but they think Russian interference is both real and serious for us and themselves.

I'm talking recent history, last 3 years. No point in rehashing the 20th century. Had NATO really been a thought, he would not have invaded Crimea nor annexed the East Ukraine. I see NATO troops as sacrificial lambs, put in harm's way to force member nations to act if they are over run by a hostile nation....and even then there's no guarantee any action will come, but it's easier to sell military action if some of 'our boys' are killed or captured.

Russia, Russia, Russia is about the implications of world, or at least super power war. If they did collude (like we often do in other countries) to subvert our election, that's an act of war that could lead to military action if not handled carefully and thoughtfully....something Trump is incapable of.

Is there evidence...apparently, according to the FBI and several prosecutors at least. Has the public seen enough of it to evaluate it for themselves...no. That means one should keep an open, engaged mind on the important subject....not act like he's already convicted, and not pretend there's nothing there but whining. Certainly not forget it and move on to the next scandal....I think we are capable of being outraged about numerous things at once....and again I point to constant protests as proof (not that they accomplish much).

@newtboy
gonna have to disagree with ya there mate.

not so much on the speculation in regards to trump involvement,or some kind of capitulation with russia.there quite possibly be some co-ordination between the kremlin and the trump administration.trumps alleged ties with putin may all be true,but until i see some actual evidence,that is all it will ever be;speculation.

and i think chomsky's criticism is a valid one.
the "russia russia russia" drum beating is reminiscent of the republicans and their meth-induced media barrage of "benghazi benghazi benghazi",and even after their precious political whipping tool had been debunked,they STILL beat that drum.

and of course it is hypocritical of the US government to cry about political election interference! america has been interfering with other,sovereign countries democratic elections for decades!

because here in murica' we like our allies to be either be run by despotic leaders,or rigid theocracies,because democracies are hard to manipulate and control.can't be bribing an entire citizenry now can we? we like our foreign allies like we like our meat,juicy and tender and easy pickings.

now i am not here to defend putin.the man is a brutal authoritarian,who may appear to some as a russian patriot,but i just see a ruthless and saavy political player who appeases the only constituency that matters to him.the russian oligarchs,and they OWN that fucking joint.

but it was NATO who began to encroach on russian borders,not the other way around.in fact,as early as the 80's we began that encroachment.we lied to gorbachev,who was removed as president in shame,to be replaced by yeltsin.who was america's pick for their own little tool of the kremlin.

russia's military build-up has been a direct response to our ever-increasing wars of aggression in the middle east.putin has stated so publicly.

russia's biggest export is oil and natural gas,and russia pretty much is the sole provider for all of europe.with our wars in the middle east,and now qatar aggressively seeking to push through their own oil and gas pipeline to sell to europe.(what?you thought yemen and syria were about civil wars and terrorists?).

what did you THINK russia was going to do?
sit back and let their only major export be challenged?

and now that trump,like the buffoon he is,publicly stated that if the baltic states are not willing to pay their fair share towards NATO,then they will be removed.opening the door for putin.

poor latvia...

but lets waste all this time on "russia russia russia",while ignoring the larger implications of a fucking world war.

did russia manipulate US elections?
possibly..probably..
was the trump administration complicit?
possibly..probably..

is their any evidence beside speculation,and coincidence?
nope.

chomsky makes a valid point.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russia-us-nato-deal--20160530-snap-story.html