Bye Chet.

Oh crap, Wapner too.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/26/arts/television/joseph-a-wapner-judge-on-the-peoples-court-dies-at-97.html?_r=0

The crazy thing is i think the Russians got the man they really wanted in Tillerson.

Exon and Russia have untold billions of dollars tied up in sanctions.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/12/world/europe/rex-tillersons-company-exxon-has-billions-at-stake-over-russia-sanctions.html?_r=0

I give it a year, TOPS, before their greed 'trumps' any concerns over perceived impropriety .

No, I didn't confuse anything. Almost every single country benefits from 'illegal' immigrants as well as regular ones. France, for example, has thousands of illegal immigrants from mostly Islamic countries that provide services to it's mostly aging native population. We benefit no more and no less than any other nation from illegal immigration, as @newtboy mentioned, if you import food products or grow them locally you probably are benefiting from illegal immigration.

As far as your evidence, I hope this will suffice as 'some':

Steven A. Camarota, PhD, Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies, in a Jan. 6, 2015 article, "Unskilled Workers Lose Out to Immigrants," available at nytimes.com, stated:

"There are an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the country and we also admit over a million permanent legal immigrants each year, leading to enormous implications for the U.S. labor market. Bureau of Labor Statistics data show that there are some 58 million working-age (16 to 65) native-born Americans not working — unemployed or out of the labor market entirely. This is roughly 16 million more than in 2000. Equally troubling, wages have stagnated or declined for most American workers. This is especially true for the least educated, who are most likely to compete with immigrants (legal and illegal).

Anyone who has any doubt about how bad things are can see for themselves at the bureau's website, which shows that, as of November, there were 1.5 million fewer native-born Americans working than in November 2007, while 2 million more immigrants (legal and illegal) were working. Thus, all net employment gains since November 2007 have gone to immigrants."

Jan. 6, 2015 - Steven A. Camarota, PhD

George J. Borjas, PhD, Robert W. Scrivner Professor of Economics and Social Policy at Harvard University, in a Sep./Oct. 2016 article, "Yes, Immigration Hurts American Workers," available at politico.com, stated:

"[A]nyone who tells you that immigration doesn't have any negative effects doesn't understand how it really works. When the supply of workers goes up, the price that firms have to pay to hire workers goes down. Wage trends over the past half-century suggest that a 10 percent increase in the number of workers with a particular set of skills probably lowers the wage of that group by at least 3 percent. Even after the economy has fully adjusted, those skill groups that received the most immigrants will still offer lower pay relative to those that received fewer immigrants.

Both low- and high-skilled natives are affected by the influx of immigrants. But because a disproportionate percentage of immigrants have few skills, it is low-skilled American workers, including many blacks and Hispanics, who have suffered most from this wage dip. The monetary loss is sizable...

We don't need to rely on complex statistical calculations to see the harm being done to some workers. Simply look at how employers have reacted. A decade ago, Crider Inc., a chicken processing plant in Georgia, was raided by immigration agents, and 75 percent of its workforce vanished over a single weekend. Shortly after, Crider placed an ad in the local newspaper announcing job openings at higher wages."

Sep./Oct. 2016 - George J. Borjas, PhD

Vernon M. Briggs, Jr., PhD, Emeritus Professor of Labor Economics at Cornell University, in an Oct. 14, 2010 briefing Report to the US Commission on Civil Rights, "The Impact of Illegal Immigration on the Wages and Employment Opportunities of Black Workers," available at usccr.gov, stated:

"Because most illegal immigrants overwhelmingly seek work in the low skilled labor market and because the black American labor force is so disproportionately concentrated in this same low wage sector, there is little doubt that there is significant overlap in competition for jobs in this sector of the labor market. Given the inordinately high unemployment rates for low skilled black workers (the highest for all racial and ethnic groups for whom data is collected), it is obvious that the major looser [sic] in this competition are low skilled black workers…

It is not just that the availability of massive numbers of illegal immigrants depress wages, it is the fact that their sheer numbers keep wages from rising over time, and that is the real harm experienced by citizen workers in the low skilled labor market."

Oct. 14, 2010 - Vernon M. Briggs Jr., PhD

There are more educated people than I that hold the same opinion, but let me give you an easier to understand, and absolutely true, example. How do I know it is true? When I was a much younger man, I worked for a roofing company. So I lived it.

The company I worked for was owned by a family friend, who had worked for most of his life in the field and had an excellent reputation. However, in the 90's around the time NAFTA was passed and (not related, I hope) illegal immigration spiked in Texas, he began to lose out to other companies. He did some snooping around and found out they were often charging hundreds of dollars less in their estimates than he could possibly offer, at least while still making a profit. He also found out that the two companies that were taking most of his business were staffed with illegal workers, being paid much lower wages than he could give to his legal employees.

Fast forward a year and he was close to declaring bankruptcy. Just like any type of labor where you pay your employees little to nothing comparatively to their compatriots in the same field, you cannot compete fairly. Net result, he was forced to let us go one by one, replacing us with illegals.

Obviously, I moved on, learned a different skill and began to make far more than I would have as a simple laborer. But the fact remains that an entire industry was undermined and radically changed by the inclusion of cheap illegal labor. This will not change if we simply ignore illegal immigration because it is the 'nice' thing to do. What it will accomplish is that young people will slowly find that certain jobs are out of their selection. It also will get worse the more accepted and commonplace illegal immigration becomes. I know for a fact that while I worked at Apple there were entry level support techs that were illegally here. Perhaps you will say that it is a benefit because it would prevent offshoring, but I disagree. What it does is make the working class poorer and doesn't solve the other issues brought about by illegal immigration, such as Emergency Rooms being flooded by people who can't afford insurance. Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that it is common to go to the ER and see people stacked like cordwood because they can't refuse patients unless they are a private hospital.

As far as The Jungle, and my statement about it and it's author, I was merely pointing out that as much as you try to put forth that illegal immigrants have a bad life here in the USA, the fact is that we used to treat legal immigrants far worse. Perhaps it was a reach on my part, but it seemed logical at the time.

I doubt we will agree on any of this, but I respect your opinion. I live in a state that has a very large proportion of illegal immigrants, and while you are correct that they are generally not a criminal negative to society, they do have severe effects which I think you are overlooking. I do think that legal immigration policy needs massive change and businesses that exploit the almost slave like labor of illegals to make more profit should be punished severely. In the meantime, when we do catch illegals, they should be deported, not protected by a sympathetic politically motivated law enforcement group.

I can't name any organisation anymore that seems to hit it consistently. Frontline is still pretty consistently good. The few print papers like NYTimes are more likely to host real journalists in amongst everything else needed to keep sales going.

Largely it's individuals, and they are running short. Some of the best access to news is stuff like Charlie Rose, and the Daily Show in Stewart's day when they would have on knowledgeable or important guests on air. Neither Charlie Rose, Jon Stewart or their guests counting strictly as journalists, but they provided great access to individuals with good or unique perspectives. Neil McDonald on CBC seems good at staying balanced, one of the few names I can throw out as having a real journalistic credibility.

For the most part though, news paper journalism seems dead. The best sources of information on subjects seems to have become relegated to authors of old fashion books. There you can still find guys like Peter Galbraith writing good insightful and informed stuff.

And of course, the late Christopher Hitchens, now you've gone and made me sad...

I hate disagreeing with you, but I come at things differently. When I find an individual or new outlet is willing to wilfully obstruct and manipulate the truth, I stop trusting them and rarely waste my time with listening to it anymore. In the rare instance they have a story that seems important that isn't sourced anywhere else, or something otherwise unique I'll sometimes look, but always fact checking what is said. The amount of time that can be wasted on fact checking is why I largely dismiss strongly biased sources.

Fox and MSNBC are good examples, but RT puts them to shame.

Chris Hedges I was only familiar with in name, and not reputation. The fact he was speaking on RT was enough for me to dismiss him out of hand. The fact you seemed to think he was a lone credible individual got me to look further.

On looking further I'd encourage you to read Hedges own work form Nov 8, 2001:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/08/world/a-nation-challenged-the-school-defectors-cite-iraqi-training-for-terrorism.html

Despite the fact he's appeared earnest and genuine in the instances you've seen him, and despite him seemingly bravely standing against the American administration and it being an act of character to speak out against the war, the above article seems to reveal Chris Hedges true nature. He was a paid lackey of American propaganda to prop up the lead in to the Iraq war, but at some point afterwards Russia paid better and now he's singing the tune of the current highest bidder.

I wish I could say I'm surprised to find it, but an RT report or opinion piece on why Russia is innocent of something turns out to be being forwarded by somebody clearly willing to be completely two faced when the money is good.

@Fantomas
Don't forget Meatloaf! And Gary Busey could reprise his Buddy Holly. Celebrity Apprentice winners [because Trump LIKES winners] Trace Adkins and John Rich might consider it for old times sake.

I did see a news item that they were having difficulty finding performers [even LYING ... shocker ... about who they've lined up]: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/23/arts/music/no-elton-john-will-not-perform-at-the-trump-inauguration.html?_r=0

I'm as surprised as most everyone at how the election turned out. In the week or so leading up to election night, I considered the possibility that Trump might win the popular vote but lose the electoral college, but not the other way around.

Still, as someone who thinks the electoral college is bullshit, consider this thing from all angles:

Hypothetical Possibility 1: At first, when I thought that Trump might win the popular vote but lose the electoral college, I thought that would be a good thing going forward. Both sides would have been screwed out of a victory by the idiotic system in recent memory, which might push for bipartisan support to scrap it.

But thinking further ... I don't think that would have actually panned out. The GOP establishment wouldn't have seen that as "their" candidate getting screwed, they would have been happy. They might have had to pay lip service to the idea of reconsidering the electoral college to pander to angry Republican voters who felt cheated out of a Trump presidency, but they could easily have just left it at that and sat on the issue until apathy took over again.


Possibility 2: The likely reality. Trump will win by electoral votes but lose the popular vote, and that will stand. The Senate and House are both Republican controlled, and the Supreme Court will very likely swing further in that direction. Possibly a LOT.

That sounds terrible. And it definitely means that in the short term, there will be absolutely zero traction for anyone wanting to push the idea of getting rid of the electoral college. BUT -- it also sets up a gold-plated opportunity to see real, actual movement on that front in 2 years. Think Trump is going to be horrendous? Think GOP-controlled Legislature will be abysmal? Look on the bright side -- if those expectations are correct, the blowback in midterm elections won't be a "wave". It'll be a fuckin' tsunami. And that's what we need to have a shot at killing the electoral college.


Possibility 3: Faithless Elector rampage. You can argue, with some merit, that the electoral college was intended to prevent or safeguard against exactly the kind of situation that we are in now. And I'd love to see President Bernie myself. But what would actually result if enough electors swapped to make that happen?

First, NYTimes projects Trump getting 306 electoral votes. That would mean that 37 faithless electors would have to happen to flip the election. You have to go back more than 100 years to find an election where there has been more than 1 faithless elector. There has only been 1 election with more than 37 faithless electors, and that was in 1872 because the candidate died. So realistically, it would be close to impossible to pull this off. (all info from wikipedia)

But forget the odds and just assume that it did happen. I think that would be a strategically terrible idea for Democrats, liberals, etc. Trump won because enough people didn't like the prospect of President Hillary and/or actually wanted to see what Trump himself could do. In either case, his voters generally aren't going to give him a whole lot of leash to screw things up or fail to deliver on their expectations. It will be next to impossible for him to keep those swing people happy. If Trump is 1/10th as terrible as the average Democrat expects him to be, he will alienate all of those people in very short order.

But if faithless electors "stole" the presidency from him (and you know that's how it would be perceived)? Oh, man ... he'd effectively be a political martyr. The anger and backlash would likely be apocalyptic and/or lead to revolt. Worse than almost any realistic way that Trump himself might fuck things up as the President. Even if that was somehow avoided, which I tend to think would be impossible, whoever got installed as President would have the shortest leash of all time, and a massively hostile and motivated Legislature that they would be forced to attempt to work with. Better have some sacrificial lamb to put in there that has zero political future, and even then they would probably cause massive damage to their party by association when they inevitably fall.

No, I think the clear best option is to let Trump (and the GOP) dig his own grave over the next year or two, and then graciously ride the wave of comeuppance.

There are actually a couple of other happiness-increasing technique that is somewhat non-intuitive, is shown to increase happiness in repeated studies, and is fairly easy to implement and difficult to reverse: Having a dog or cat.

It appears that being needed by the animal makes the human feel as if they have intrinsic value which...I mean it would be nice if we had that without pets but, there it is. If you want the best bang for your buck, I would suggest a small dog or cat from the pound as it will eat significantly less food than a bigger animal.

Another life change that actually effectively increases long-term happiness on average is marriage. This seemed a little too hairy for this video though. Also, DEFINITELY NOT DOSE-DEPENDENT. One spouse...better for happiness. Two spouses USUALLY NOT.

So there you go...get a pet, get hitched, and shorten your commute. You need to get home anyway, so you can feed your dog!

SOURCES:
Homeownership doesn't increase happiness: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/realestate/homeownership-the-key-to-happiness.html?_r=0
Short Commute = $40,000 raise
http://www.npr.org/2011/10/19/141514467/small-changes-can-help-you-thrive-happily
Commuting Linked to Lower Life Satisfaction
https://uwaterloo.ca/recreation-and-l...

Commuting and Metabolic / Cardiovascular Health
https://uwaterloo.ca/recreation-and-leisure-studies/crunched-time-commuting-linked-lower-life-satisfaction

Commuting related to lower social activity and lower general trust
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4509867/

10 Things Commuting Does to your Body
http://time.com/9912/10-things-your-commute-does-to-your-body/

Golden quote from McFuckface Wikileak rapist who is hiding from the law:

But there is a responsible tradition of redacting potentially harmful private information. In 2010, just before publishing the first Afghan war logs provided to WikiLeaks by Chelsea Manning, Mr. Assange and a group of journalists from The Guardian, The New York Times and Der Spiegel were engaged in a tussle over redacting the names of Afghan informants. The three publications all decided to do so, but Mr. Assange disagreed. As he told Nick Davies of The Guardian, “If an Afghan civilian helps coalition forces, he deserves to die.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/opinion/can-we-trust-julian-assange-and-wikileaks.html?emc=edit_ty_20160808&nl=opinion&nlid=40977923

It's so involved that Hillary had to have known. She may be dishonest, but she isn't stupid.

I came across this comment on reddit:

"
We all know Debbie Wasserman Schultz (DWS) was the co-chair of Hillary's 2008 presidential run, where she lost the nomination to Obama. So, in order to lock down the nomination for 2016, Hillary was able to get DWS in charge of the DNC and manipulate it from within. That's the theory anyway, except....

In order for this to work, they would first have to, not only get the DNC chair to step down, but also get them to recommend DWS for the position. The Clinton's would have to promise something to that person, something more prestigious than being head of the Democratic party. So who was that person and what did they get in return?

It would appear that Donna Brazile was in-line to get the position, but she was only the interim chair after the previous chair left, served only one month. According to this, http://rulers.org/usgovt.html#parties, the previous chair of the DNC prior to DWS was Tim Kaine.

Yes, HRC Vice President running m8 Tim Kaine.

www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/tim-kaine-hillary-clinton-vice-president.html?_r=0

"

/sauce:

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/4ur359/atheist_group_calls_for_dnc_cfo_to_resign_over/d5scevf

Interesting to see the differences in coverage. Let's play spot the contrast:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/us/politics/melania-trump-speech.html?_r=0

vs

http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/07/19/phony-controversy-melania-trump-accused-plagiarizing-michelle-obamas-2008-remarks

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/17/opinion/campaign-stops/a-week-for-all-time.html?emc=edit_th_20160617&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=40977923

Golden quote:
"In this week of trial and tragedy, Trump showed us how he would govern — by fear, by intimidation, by lies, by turning American against American, by exhibiting all the empathy of a sociopath. Seal this week. Put it in a time capsule. Teach it. History will remember. But come November, will we?"

By the way, I've stayed out of this extremely boring back and forth. There was nothing to be gained by weighing in. It finally has come to a blessed end, just as this op-ed was published in the New York Times.

So I'll say it again, since this video is my contribution to the Sift and I am claiming final word. I may not be accorded it, but I am claiming it.

It is a stone hard fact that eligible does not equal fit. A brain-damaged accident victim with the right birth certificate, with the right age, is eligible to be president. That person is not fit to be president. This is logic. It just is. You can ignore the crystalline beauty of the fact of this analogy and have a fine time talking around it. Doesn't change the fact that Ken Burns is right, Timothy Egan is right, Mitt Romney, both Bushes, Meg Whitman, and the Republican strategist who is quoted in this op-ed are all right.

Trump is unfit for the Presidency.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/05/opinion/sunday/what-does-a-lifetime-of-leers-do-to-us.html?emc=edit_th_20160605&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=40977923&_r=
0

This is a GREAT article. Includes loads of people calling themselves Feminist, too!

"Saudi Arabia has told the Obama administration and members of Congress that it will sell off hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of American assets held by the kingdom if Congress passes a bill that would allow the Saudi government to be held responsible in American courts for any role in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks."

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/16/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-warns-ofeconomic-fallout-if-congress-passes-9-11-bill.html

That's an interesting threat, if true. US treasury securities are the safest asset there is, and given the ginormous shortage of AAA assets worldwide, those would be vacuumed up in a split-second. Hell of a threat, really.

Operative K's latest hit piece on Sanders, Sanders Over the Edge, was so off base with regards to the role of big banks in the financial crash that there's some really interesting comments on it floating around.

Just two examples: Paul Krugman Crosses the Line by Gerald Epstein and Why the Banks Should Be Broken Up by Matt Taibbi.