Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Since I happily landed on this board last Spring I've enjoyed... ...'the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error'.
Soooo many f*ckin' collisions.
If there were insurance against such collisions, saving 15% with GEICO wouldn't be enough to shield me from ruinous deductibles from multiple claims.
It's a virtual bumper car ride.
Appreciate the job you and DD do. Happy New Year to everyone!
John Stuart Mill > Quotes > Quotable Quote
John Stuart Mill
“The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.”
The very same who, in the wider world, squeal 'political correctness!' every time they are called out for speaking and behaving like assholes. Snowflakeism, ironically.
That's better. I'm a big fan of specificity, not so much of broad brushes. I await newmedman's almost certain insight on the geography of the matter.
Golden Globes are this Sunday. Rick Gervais alone raises the potential for worthwhile viewing.
Odds are that there will at least one more prominent entry for the 'in memoriam'.
You too.
It's a fully staffed embassy and not a consulate, you dumb ass.
Meanwhile, the asshole in chief is being impeached and now we have additional evidence that Trump's 3 main advisers told him to not hold up the arms deal.
What do you bet that there will be still more evidence against Trump by the time the articles make it over to the Senate?
Few things I've read have better confirmed what I've intuited about these 'holy warriors' over the past 30 years.
No matter how many finger wagging sanctimonious jackasses wind up on police blotters for committing the very 'sins' they rail against, they never change their tune.
Moral chaos? How about the moral imbecility that theocracy has always and everywhere been?
No we don't, could be any bar USA.
R.I.P. Dan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Hicks_(singer)
Following an on-and-off relationship spanning two decades, Hicks married concert promoter Clare "CT" Wasserman (a protege of Bill Graham and the former wife of bassist Rob Wasserman) in February 1997.[16] He was diagnosed with throat and liver cancer in 2014.[17] In March 2015, Hicks announced on his website that he had been diagnosed with liver cancer.[2] On February 6, 2016, he died from cancer at his home in Mill Valley.[18][19]
You lost touch with reality long ago.
Muzzle velocity and the resultant inflicted soft tissue, organ and bone damage make it an assault rifle. Find a single ER doctor who does not attest to as much.
Rooster, once again you've pulled a bullshit number out of your feathery ass. As I've challenged many times, on this board and on others, if you can find a link to corroborate your claim DO it.
Otherwise just F.O.
This is what you need to contradict with hard evidence:
Are ‘Antifa’ and the Alt-Right Equally Violent?
https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/08/17/are-antifa-and-the-alt-right-equally-violent/
Violence has been ratcheting up on all sides during white supremacist rallies in recent months — but "antifa" is not planning the rallies, and statistically poses a lesser danger.
Bethania Palma
Published 17 August 2017
And yeah, it's only become more one-sided since this article.
Marilyn Mayo, senior research fellow for the Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism, said that statistics show that radical leftists have been dramatically less likely to kill people than their counterparts on the opposite side of the political spectrum.
Over the past decade, extremists of every stripe have killed 372 Americans. 74 percent of those killings were committed by right wing extremists. Only 2 percent of those deaths were at the hands of left wing extremists. Mayo told us:
I don’t want to give moral equivalence to the two sides because one side is fighting against white supremacy. On the Antifa side, they’ve never murdered anyone but there have been many murders done by white supremacists, so we have to be concerned about that movement.
But, she said:
You have an escalation of rhetoric and you have people who are willing to fight it out in the streets. With this political polarization in the country right now, you have people who come dressed for battle, and when they confront each other it can lead to violence.
This is kind of a watershed moments because we saw one of the largest and most violent white supremacist rallies in over a decade. It brought together a lot of strains under one umbrella and the fact these groups were able to unite shows they feel the moment is very ripe to get their message out and be in the streets.
They’re not afraid to be out and open in their views. When you have people who have so much hate and bigotry, shouting things like “Jews will not replace us,” it shows that they are rearing for action. And there’s always the potential for violence when you have hate groups going out into the streets.
John Sepulvado, a reporter who has been covering far-right groups for Bay Area public radio station KQED, told us the violence at recent alt-right demonstrations has been used to recruit, and when “antifa” shows up to fight them it can play into their game plan. “They’re turning the traditional desire for objectivity by the media on its head,” he told us.
Citing a lyric from rapper Jay Z’s song “Takeover” that says, “A wise man told me don’t argue with fools, cause people from a distance can’t tell who is who,” Sepulvado told us the pattern of inciting violence at rallies from the alt-right has gone this way:
Announce an event that’s going to piss everyone who has common sense off, something so outrageous it’s going to piss 99 percent of the population off, then when someone gets on Twitter [and threatens them], send out a press release saying, “we can’t practice our free speech rights because of leftist violence.”
Then show up anyway. They have canceled so many rallies that they showed up at anyway and still rallied. The “threat of leftist violence” means they need to wear body armor and bring weapons. If it’s an open carry state they’ll have [firearms]. If it’s not an open carry state they’ll bring firecrackers and sticks.
And then when someone… pushes them or spits on them, they’ll use that as an excuse to strike out. Then the leftists will strike out, and the media won’t know who’s who.
The important distinction, he said, is that “the leftists aren’t organizing the protests.” They’re just responding to them. Sepulvado added:
You know [the alt-right] is guiltiest when they say, “look at them, we’re not the only ones.” They’re not arguing whether the [car attack] was actually committed, they’re just trying to bring everyone down in the muck with them. This is like a bottom feeding monster trying to convince the world that dolphins are ugly creatures.
Ah, let's begin it and end it with the most mellow of songs about him.
What a rush of memories. Altar boy by 9 or 10, 10 years later and from there on no church save for weddings and funerals.
Too many funerals with flag draped coffins soured me on the whole shebang. Religion AND the war.
I long ago concluded that that real Christians internalized the teachings, as you referenced, and shit-canned the dogma.
The faux Christians know the words but not the music; and their insecurity about their own faith or, more probably, lack of faith, screams out with their every theocratic impulse/wish to impose their beliefs on others.
That's why they want the authority of the state behind their beliefs, even though all of history teaches us that such an alliance ends badly for all involved.
I didn't baptize pigeons but I did tape my pet turtle to a baking soda powered ballistic missile. I figured that I could shoot him from my backyard, across the alley, into another backyard.
Let's just say my grammar school physics were a little off. i heard a hard landing in the alley.
Thankfully his shell assured his survival. I pictured his terrapin brain thinking 'aw shit, the dumb-ass miscalculated. Tuck head in and hope for the best.'
Anyway, I never watched another Mercury, Gemini, Apollo launch without thinking about my intrepid turtle. Chuckled at the 'Turtle Wax has a hard shell finish' TV ads too.
It's peanut BUTTER whiskey. If I don't throttle back I'll be an alcoholic by ground hog day.
Happy New Year buddy.
Right, a distinction without a difference. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion mostly assured a secular government, with the help of a few SCOTUS decisions along the way.
It's now no school sponsored sectarian prayers in public schools.
Students can gather in groups and pray as they choose and, as thy have always done, upon learning of a pop quiz.
I've actually persuaded some friends who've lost their shit over 'no prayer in schools' by asking how they would feel if the rulings were reversed and some PUBLIC schools in Muslim majority communities began piping the Muslim call to prayer over the intercom....several time/day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
In 1962, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of officially sponsored prayer or religious recitations in public schools. In Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), the Court, by a vote of 6-1, determined it unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and require its recitation in public schools, even when the prayer is non-denominational and students may excuse themselves from participation.
(The prayer required by the New York State Board of Regents prior to the Court's decision consisted of: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country. Amen.") As the Court stated:
The petitioners contend, among other things, that the state laws requiring or permitting use of the Regents' prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because that prayer was composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs.
For this reason, petitioners argue, the State's use of the Regents' prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State. We agree with that contention, since we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that, in this country, it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government.
The court noted that it "is a matter of history that this very practice of establishing governmentally composed prayers for religious services was one of the reasons which caused many of our early colonists to leave England and seek religious freedom in America."[50] The lone dissenter, Justice Potter Stewart, objected to the court's embrace of the "wall of separation" metaphor: "I think that the Court's task, in this as in all areas of constitutional adjudication, is not responsibly aided by the uncritical invocation of metaphors like the "wall of separation," a phrase nowhere to be found in the Constitution."
In Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968), the Supreme Court considered an Arkansas law that made it a crime "to teach the theory or doctrine that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals," or "to adopt or use in any such institution a textbook that teaches" this theory in any school or university that received public funds. The court's opinion, written by Justice Abe Fortas, ruled that the Arkansas law violated "the constitutional prohibition of state laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
The overriding fact is that Arkansas' law selects from the body of knowledge a particular segment which it proscribes for the sole reason that it is deemed to conflict with a particular religious doctrine; that is, with a particular interpretation of the Book of Genesis by a particular religious group." The court held that the Establishment Clause prohibits the state from advancing any religion, and that "[T]he state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them." [51]
Is there any way we can entice Alex Jones to post here?
This Lib needs a new speed bag.
ALEX JONES:
This isn't some game people. There's a total Islamic takeover taking place. Behind the scenes, they got Muslims following me around.
PAUL SOLMAN:
In April, the company sued Jones for false and defamatory reports.
ALEX JONES:
And I'm ready to take them on. Christ, please help us win this. Please help me be strong.
PAUL SOLMAN:
The following month, Jones issued an apology and a retraction.
Here's my last word on it. Anyone, child or adult, who believes in fairytales is, by definition, engaging in subjective behavior heedless of facts, evidence and reality.
That was my point in my first response. And it should have been clear to anyone who understands what subjectivity is.
I don't need rhetorical questions from you, asshole. The ability for you to think and write clearly, and understand the terms you use, would be helpful though.
F.O.
What you clearly don't give a crap about is communicating your thoughts clearly.
THIS is what keeping up with a conversation looks like....
You can't credibly substitute 'objective' for 'subjective' so of course, like so many unsupportable beliefs, the belief in an Easter bunny is subjective for anyone not having attained the age of reason and the existence of those things is never objectively true no matter what anyone believes.
That should have ended it, for anyone whose comprehension doesn't suck.
This is the original post of yours that I responded to....
Somehow I think that reading for comprehension is as much of a challenge for you as is clearly communicating your meaning.
THIS, on the other hand, could not be clearer...
Charley is on the cusp of reason. And he may need to cling to his beliefs a little longer, as Linus does to his blanket, to compensate for Lucy snatching that football at the last moment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Brown
Charlie Brown began in an early strip (November 3, 1950) that he was "only four years old", but he aged over the next two decades, being six years old as of November 17, 1957, and "eight-and-a-half years old" by July 11, 1979. Later references continue to peg Charlie Brown as being approximately eight years old.
You seem to be having difficulty communicating clearly about the meaning of the word 'subjective'.
What are we to make of this sentence of yours?
Belief in the Easter bunny IS subjective, it's almost the very definition of the word. Otherwise we would have seen the Easter bunny theorem by now.
1. based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
"his views are highly subjective"
Science Under Attack: How Trump Is Sidelining Researchers and Their Work
Subtitled....what happens when you place a science illiterate, sharpie wielding, weather map altering, windmill oncologist in the WH.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/28/climate/trump-administration-war-on-science.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_191229?campaign_id=2&instance_id=14840&segment_id=19924&user_id=4598f2b6c0cd59a7a59daee9f650852d®i_id=222124461229
By Brad Plumer and Coral Davenport
Dec. 28, 2019
WASHINGTON — In just three years, the Trump administration has diminished the role of science in federal policymaking while halting or disrupting research projects nationwide, marking a transformation of the federal government whose effects, experts say, could reverberate for years.
Political appointees have shut down government studies, reduced the influence of scientists over regulatory decisions and in some cases pressured researchers not to speak publicly. The administration has particularly challenged scientific findings related to the environment and public health opposed by industries such as oil drilling and coal mining. It has also impeded research around human-caused climate change, which President Trump has dismissed despite a global scientific consensus.
But the erosion of science reaches well beyond the environment and climate: In San Francisco, a study of the effects of chemicals on pregnant women has stalled after federal funding abruptly ended. In Washington, D.C., a scientific committee that provided expertise in defending against invasive insects has been disbanded.
In Kansas City, Mo., the hasty relocation of two agricultural agencies that fund crop science and study the economics of farming has led to an exodus of employees and delayed hundreds of millions of dollars in research.
“The disregard for expertise in the federal government is worse than it’s ever been,” said Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, which has tracked more than 200 reports of Trump administration efforts to restrict or misuse science since 2017. “It’s pervasive.”
Hundreds of scientists, many of whom say they are dismayed at seeing their work undone, are departing.
Among them is Matthew Davis, a biologist whose research on the health risks of mercury to children underpinned the first rules cutting mercury emissions from coal power plants. But last year, with a new baby of his own, he was asked to help support a rollback of those same rules. “I am now part of defending this darker, dirtier future,” he said.
This year, after a decade at the Environmental Protection Agency, Mr. Davis left.
“Regulations come and go, but the thinning out of scientific capacity in the government will take a long time to get back,” said Joel Clement, a former top climate-policy expert at the Interior Department who quit in 2017 after being reassigned to a job collecting oil and gas royalties. He is now at the Union of Concerned Scientists, an advocacy group.
Mr. Trump has consistently said that government regulations have stifled businesses and thwarted some of the administration’s core goals, such as increasing fossil-fuel production. Many of the starkest confrontations with federal scientists have involved issues like environmental oversight and energy extraction — areas where industry groups have argued that regulators have gone too far in the past.
“Businesses are finally being freed of Washington’s overreach, and the American economy is flourishing as a result,” a White House statement said last year. Asked about the role of science in policymaking, officials from the White House declined to comment on the record.
The administration’s efforts to cut certain research projects also reflect a longstanding conservative position that some scientific work can be performed cost-effectively by the private sector, and taxpayers shouldn’t be asked to foot the bill. “Eliminating wasteful spending, some of which has nothing to do with studying the science at all, is smart management, not an attack on science,” two analysts at the conservative Heritage Foundation wrote in 2017 of the administration’s proposals to eliminate various climate change and clean energy program.
Industry groups have expressed support for some of the moves, including a contentious E.P.A. proposal to put new constraints on the use of scientific studies in the name of transparency. The American Chemistry Council, a chemical trade group, praised the proposal by saying, “The goal of providing more transparency in government and using the best available science in the regulatory process should be ideals we all embrace.”
'Best available' as in the fox in charge of security for the hen house.
In some cases, the administration’s efforts to roll back government science have been thwarted. Each year, Mr. Trump has proposed sweeping budget cuts at a variety of federal agencies like the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation. But Congress has the final say over budget levels and lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have rejected the cuts.
For instance, in supporting funding for the Department of Energy’s national laboratories, Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee, recently said, “it allows us to take advantage of the United States’ secret weapon, our extraordinary capacity for basic research.”
As a result, many science programs continue to thrive, including space exploration at NASA and medical research at the National Institutes of Health, where the budget has increased more than 12 percent since Mr. Trump took office and where researchers continue to make advances in areas like molecular biology and genetics.
Nevertheless, in other areas, the administration has managed to chip away at federal science.
At the E.P.A., for instance, staffing has fallen to its lowest levels in at least a decade. More than two-thirds of respondents to a survey of federal scientists across 16 agencies said that hiring freezes and departures made it harder to conduct scientific work. And in June, the White House ordered agencies to cut by one-third the number of federal advisory boards that provide technical advice.
The White House said it aimed to eliminate committees that were no longer necessary. Panels cut so far had focused on issues including invasive species and electric grid innovation.
At a time when the United States is pulling back from world leadership in other areas like human rights or diplomatic accords, experts warn that the retreat from science is no less significant. Many of the achievements of the past century that helped make the United States an envied global power, including gains in life expectancy, lowered air pollution and increased farm productivity are the result of the kinds of government research now under pressure.
“When we decapitate the government’s ability to use science in a professional way, that increases the risk that we start making bad decisions, that we start missing new public health risks,” said Wendy E. Wagner, a professor of law at the University of Texas at Austin who studies the use of science by policymakers.
Skirmishes over the use of science in making policy occur in all administrations: Industries routinely push back against health studies that could justify stricter pollution rules, for example. And scientists often gripe about inadequate budgets for their work. But many experts say that current efforts to challenge research findings go well beyond what has been done previously.
In an article published in the journal Science last year, Ms. Wagner wrote that some of the Trump administration’s moves, like a policy to restrict certain academics from the E.P.A.’s Science Advisory Board or the proposal to limit the types of research that can be considered by environmental regulators, “mark a sharp departure with the past.” Rather than isolated battles between political officials and career experts, she said, these moves are an attempt to legally constrain how federal agencies use science in the first place.
Some clashes with scientists have sparked public backlash, as when Trump officials pressured the nation’s weather forecasting agency to support the president’s erroneous assertion this year that Hurricane Dorian threatened Alabama.
But others have garnered little notice despite their significance.
This year, for instance, the National Park Service’s principal climate change scientist, Patrick Gonzalez, received a “cease and desist” letter from supervisors after testifying to Congress about the risks that global warming posed to national parks.
“I saw it as attempted intimidation,” said Dr. Gonzalez, who added that he was speaking in his capacity as an associate adjunct professor at the University California, Berkeley, a position he also holds. “It’s interference with science and hinders our work.”
Curtailing Scientific Programs
Even though Congress hasn’t gone along with Mr. Trump’s proposals for budget cuts at scientific agencies, the administration has still found ways to advance its goals.
One strategy: eliminate individual research projects not explicitly protected by Congress.
For example, just months after Mr. Trump’s election, the Commerce Department disbanded a 15-person scientific committee that had explored how to make National Climate Assessments, the congressionally mandated studies of the risks of climate change, more useful to local officials. It also closed its Office of the Chief Economist, which for decades had conducted wide-ranging research on topics like the economic effects of natural disasters.
Similarly, the Interior Department has withdrawn funding for its Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, 22 regional research centers that tackled issues like habitat loss and wildfire management. While California and Alaska used state money to keep their centers open, 16 of 22 remain in limbo.
A Commerce Department official said the climate committee it discontinued had not produced a report, and highlighted other efforts to promote science, such as a major upgrade of the nation’s weather models.
An Interior Department official said the agency’s decisions “are solely based on the facts and grounded in the law,” and that the agency would continue to pursue other partnerships to advance conservation science.
Research that potentially posed an obstacle to Mr. Trump’s promise to expand fossil-fuel production was halted, too. In 2017, Interior officials canceled a $1 million study by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine on the health risks of “mountaintop removal” coal mining in places like West Virginia.
Mountaintop removal is as dramatic as it sounds — a hillside is blasted with explosives and the remains are excavated — but the health consequences still aren’t fully understood. The process can kick up coal dust and send heavy metals into waterways, and a number of studies have suggested links to health problems like kidney disease and birth defects.
“The industry was pushing back on these studies,” said Joseph Pizarchik, an Obama-era mining regulator who commissioned the now-defunct study. “We didn’t know what the answer would be,” he said, “but we needed to know: Was the government permitting coal mining that was poisoning people, or not?”
While coal mining has declined in recent years, satellite data shows that at least 60 square miles in Appalachia have been newly mined since 2016. “The study is still as important today as it was five years ago,” Mr. Pizarchik said.
The Cost of Lost Research
The cuts can add up to significant research setbacks.
For years, the E.P.A. and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences had jointly funded 13 children’s health centers nationwide that studied, among other things, the effects of pollution on children’s development. This year, the E.P.A. ended its funding.
At the University of California, San Francisco, one such center has been studying how industrial chemicals such as flame retardants in furniture could affect placenta and fetal development. Key aspects of the research have now stopped.
“The longer we go without funding, the harder it is to start that research back up,” said Tracey Woodruff, who directs the center.
In a statement, the E.P.A. said it anticipated future opportunities to fund children’s health research.
At the Department of Agriculture, Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue announced in June he would relocate two key research agencies to Kansas City from Washington: The National Institute of Food and Agriculture, a scientific agency that funds university research on topics like how to breed cattle and corn that can better tolerate drought conditions, and the Economic Research Service, whose economists produce studies for policymakers on farming trends, trade and rural America.
Nearly 600 employees had less than four months to decide whether to uproot and move. Most couldn’t or wouldn’t, and two-thirds of those facing transfer left their jobs.
In August, Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, appeared to celebrate the departures.
“It’s nearly impossible to fire a federal worker,” he said in videotaped remarks at a Republican Party gala in South Carolina. “But by simply saying to people, ‘You know what, we’re going to take you outside the bubble, outside the Beltway, outside this liberal haven of Washington, D.C., and move you out in the real part of the country,’ and they quit. What a wonderful way to sort of streamline government and do what we haven’t been able to do for a long time.”
The White House declined to comment on Mr. Mulvaney’s speech.
The exodus has led to upheaval.
At the Economic Research Service, dozens of planned studies into topics like dairy industry consolidation and pesticide use have been delayed or disrupted. “You can name any topic in agriculture and we’ve lost an expert,” said Laura Dodson, an economist and acting vice president of the union representing agency employees.
The National Institute of Food and Agriculture manages $1.7 billion in grants that fund research on issues like food safety or techniques that help farmers improve their productivity. The staff loss, employees say, has held up hundreds of millions of dollars in funding, such as planned research into pests and diseases afflicting grapes, sweet potatoes and fruit trees.
Former employees say they remain skeptical that the agencies could be repaired quickly. “It will take 5 to 10 years to rebuild,” said Sonny Ramaswamy, who until 2018 directed the National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
Mr. Perdue said the moves would save money and put the offices closer to farmers. “We did not undertake these relocations lightly,” he said in a statement. A Department of Agriculture official added that both agencies were pushing to continue their work, but acknowledged that some grants could be delayed by months.
Questioning the Science Itself
In addition to shutting down some programs, there have been notable instances where the administration has challenged established scientific research. Early on, as it started rolling back regulations on industry, administration officials began questioning research findings underpinning those regulations.
In 2017, aides to Scott Pruitt, the E.P.A. administrator at the time, told the agency’s economists to redo an analysis of wetlands protections that had been used to help defend an Obama-era clean-water rule.
Instead of concluding that the protections would provide more than $500 million in economic benefits, they were told to list the benefits as unquantifiable, according to Elizabeth Southerland, who retired in 2017 from a 30-year career at the E.P.A., finishing as a senior official in its water office.
“It’s not unusual for a new administration to come in and change policy direction,” Dr. Southerland said. “But typically you would look for new studies and carefully redo the analysis. Instead they were sending a message that all the economists, scientists, career staff in the agency were irrelevant.”
Internal documents show that political officials at the E.P.A. have overruled the agency’s career experts on several occasions, including in a move to regulate asbestos more lightly, in a decision not to ban the pesticide chlorpyrifos and in a determination that parts of Wisconsin were in compliance with smog standards. The Interior Department sidelined its own legal and environmental analyses in advancing a proposal to raise the Shasta Dam in California.
Michael Abboud, an E.P.A. spokesman, disputed Dr. Southerland’s account in an emailed response, saying “It is not true.”
The E.P.A. is now finalizing a narrower version of the Obama-era water rule, which in its earlier form had prompted outrage from thousands of farmers and ranchers across the country who saw it as overly restrictive.
“E.P.A. under President Trump has worked to put forward the strongest regulations to protect human health and the environment,” Mr. Abboud said, noting that several Obama administration rules had been held up in court and needed revision. “As required by law E.P.A. has always and will continue to use the best available science when developing rules, regardless of the claims of a few federal employees.”
Past administrations have, to varying degrees, disregarded scientific findings that conflicted with their priorities. In 2011, President Obama’s top health official overruled experts at the Food and Drug Administration who had concluded that over-the-counter emergency contraceptives were safe for minors.
But in the Trump administration, the scope is wider. Many top government positions, including at the E.P.A. and the Interior Department, are now occupied by former lobbyists connected to the industries that those agencies oversee.
Scientists and health experts have singled out two moves they find particularly concerning. Since 2017, the E.P.A. has moved to restrict certain academics from sitting on its Science Advisory Board, which provides scrutiny of agency science, and has instead increased the number of appointees connected with industry.
And, in a potentially far-reaching move, the E.P.A. has proposed a rule to limit regulators from using scientific research unless the underlying raw data can be made public. Industry groups like the Chamber of Commerce have argued that some agency rules are based on science that can’t be fully scrutinized by outsiders.
But dozens of scientific organizations have warned that the proposal in its current form could prevent the E.P.A. from considering a vast array of research on issues like the dangers of air pollution if, for instance, they are based on confidential health data.
“The problem is that rather than allowing agency scientists to use their judgment and weigh the best available evidence, this could put political constraints on how science enters the decision-making process in the first place,” said Ms. Wagner, the University of Texas law professor.
The E.P.A. says its proposed rule is intended to make the science that underpins potentially costly regulations more transparent. “By requiring transparency,” said Mr. Abboud, the agency spokesman, “scientists will be required to publish hypothesis and experimental data for other scientists to review and discuss, requiring the science to withstand skepticism and peer review.”
An Exodus of Expertise
“In the past, when we had an administration that was not very pro-environment, we could still just lay low and do our work,” said Betsy Smith, a climate scientist with more than 20 years of experience at the E.P.A. who in 2017 saw her long-running study of the effects of climate change on major ports get canceled.
“Now we feel like the E.P.A. is being run by the fossil fuel industry,” she said. “It feels like a wholesale attack.”
After her project was killed, Dr. Smith resigned.
The loss of experienced scientists can erase years or decades of “institutional memory,” said Robert J. Kavlock, a toxicologist who retired in October 2017 after working at the E.P.A. for 40 years, most recently as acting assistant administrator for the agency’s Office of Research and Development.
His former office, which researches topics like air pollution and chemical testing, has lost 250 scientists and technical staff members since Mr. Trump came to office, while hiring 124. Those who have remained in the office of roughly 1,500 people continue to do their work, Dr. Kavlock said, but are not going out of their way to promote findings on lightning-rod topics like climate change.
“You can see that they’re trying not to ruffle any feathers,” Dr. Kavlock said.
The same can’t be said of Patrick Gonzalez, the National Park Service’s principal climate change scientist, whose work involves helping national parks protect against damages from rising temperatures.
In February, Dr. Gonzalez testified before Congress about the risks of global warming, saying he was speaking in his capacity as an associate adjunct professor at the University of California, Berkeley. He is also using his Berkeley affiliation to participate as a co-author on a coming report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body that synthesizes climate science for world leaders.
But in March, shortly after testifying, Dr. Gonzalez’s supervisor at the National Park Service sent the cease-and-desist letter warning him that his Berkeley affiliation was not separate from his government work and that his actions were violating agency policy. Dr. Gonzalez said he viewed the letter as an attempt to deter him from speaking out.
The Interior Department, asked to comment, said the letter did not indicate an intent to sanction Dr. Gonzalez and that he was free to speak as a private citizen.
Dr. Gonzalez, with the support of Berkeley, continues to warn about the dangers of climate change and work with the United Nations climate change panel using his vacation time, and he spoke again to Congress in June. “I’d like to provide a positive example for other scientists,” he said.
Still, he noted that not everyone may be in a position to be similarly outspoken. “How many others are not speaking up?” Dr. Gonzalez said.
His entire public life, and the policies he supports, belie the blackface as anything other than a dumb-ass southern affectation.
Compare and contrast.....remember how miserably you failed that test question in school?...……..with 'There were many fine people on both sides', as it related to a side consisting of white supremacists, neo-Nazis and KKK members.
Not all Trump supporters are racist morons, but all racist morons love Trump.
Colonial airports and the sharpie altered weather map push Trump, because he Is the dufus POTUS rfeddy, to the top of the ridiculous fucking joke list.
What a tortured, fact-challenged and laughably illogical attempt to twist the meaning of that poem.
So far it's mostly Trump badmouthing the groups listed below. But at least the logical consistency holds up.
The famous poem by an anti-Nazi pastor, rewritten for Donald Trump’s America
By Gideon Lichfield•June 9, 2016
https://qz.com/702497/the-famous-poem-by-an-anti-nazi-pastor-rewritten-for-donald-trumps-america/
First Trump came for the women
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a woman.
Then Trump came for the people with disabilities
And I did not speak out
Because I did not have a disability.
Then Trump came for the African Americans
And I did not speak out
Because I was not African American.
Then Trump came for the Mexicans
And I did not speak out
Because I was not Mexican.
Then Trump came for the Muslims
And I did not speak out
Because I was not Muslim.
Then Trump came for the gay, bi, and trans people
And I did not speak out
Because I was not gay, bi or trans.*
Then Trump came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew.**
Then Trump came for the journalists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a journalist.***
Then Trump came for the judges
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a judge.
And now Trump is coming for the Constitution of the United States
And if I do not speak out, what am I?
* Actually I am one of those, and I didn’t speak out about that.
** And one of those, and didn’t speak out about that either.
*** Ditto.
When I grew up in Britain, Martin Niemöller’s poem “First they came…” was a well-worn standard in any sort of Jewish education. It was plastered on posters issued by the Union of Jewish Students, printed in books and flyers, quoted at political meetings.
I saw it so often that it became, for me, a secular version of the shema, the prayer anyone with the slightest amount of Jewish upbringing knows by heart: “Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one.”
The shema and “First they came” are both statements of something at the core of Jewish identity, and they form a kind of point and counterpoint stretched across thousands of years of history. The shema reminded the early Israelites that they were the people who, unlike their pagan neighbors, worshipped a single deity. Niemöller’s poem reminds modern Jews that, as a people who were almost wiped out, it’s our duty—as it is everyone’s duty—to speak up for other minorities under attack, lest we be next. The shema sets us apart from other peoples; “First they came” binds us together again.
To see Donald Trump methodically lay into one group after another during the months of the presidential campaign has been to see Niemöller’s warning writ large across our screens. But during all these months, I haven’t noticed much speaking out by one group in support of another.
A notable exception is the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the Jewish anti-racism body, whose head launched a blistering attack on Trump’s Islamophobia and racism in March. Yet just a week earlier Trump got standing ovations at the annual conference of the powerful pro-Israel lobby group, AIPAC—a moment that I believe should stand as a mark of eternal shame for the leaders of America’s Jewish community.
There are probably more gestures of solidarity by one group towards another than we can easily see. One small example: non-Jews adding the “echo symbol”—triple parentheses, (((like this)))—around their names on Twitter, in a fight back against anti-Semites on the “alt-right,” who have used the symbol to single out Jews.
Yet such moments, while mildly heartwarming, almost never command the emotional power that makes them go viral; they tend to be buried in the social-media maelstrom by the latest Trump outrage. Moreover, I suspect that such solidarity is largely confined to the grassroots.
How many African American leaders are there speaking out against Islamophobia, Muslim leaders speaking up for Mexican immigrants, and LGBT leaders coming out to defend people with disabilities? (If you’ve seen it happening, please let me know.)
It’s time for everyone to remember Niemöller’s words, and speak out in support of anyone who becomes the target of this hate-monger and his alt-right cohorts. At the end of the day, Trump is coming for all of us.
A FAIRYTALE WORLD
The question of the decade is: Why do people support President Donald Trump?
https://www.kentucky.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article224592530.html
We all know why white supremacists do, that is obvious. But why do good people support Trump? It’s because people have been trained from childhood to believe in fairy tales.
From childhood, they were told stories that were fascinating but simply not true. This set their minds up to accept things that make them feel good. Later in life some people mature, study facts and cause and effect, and start thinking more logically, even if the results are undesirable.
So you have this population that loves Trump because he makes them feel good. The more fairy tales and lies he tells the better they feel. Trump is a master liar who knows what makes people feel good and that is what he goes with. Sure, it would be nice if climate change did not exist.
Show me a person who believes in Noah’s ark and I will show you a Trump voter. There are multiple solid scientific reasons the ark did not happen. Some people learn this and some don’t, and those who don’t will accept Trump. But can the world survive on fairy tales?
David Bowles
Lexington
A FAIRYTALE WORLD
The question of the decade is: Why do people support President Donald Trump?
https://www.kentucky.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article224592530.html
We all know why white supremacists do, that is obvious. But why do good people support Trump? It’s because people have been trained from childhood to believe in fairy tales.
From childhood, they were told stories that were fascinating but simply not true. This set their minds up to accept things that make them feel good. Later in life some people mature, study facts and cause and effect, and start thinking more logically, even if the results are undesirable.
So you have this population that loves Trump because he makes them feel good. The more fairy tales and lies he tells the better they feel. Trump is a master liar who knows what makes people feel good and that is what he goes with. Sure, it would be nice if climate change did not exist.
Show me a person who believes in Noah’s ark and I will show you a Trump voter. There are multiple solid scientific reasons the ark did not happen. Some people learn this and some don’t, and those who don’t will accept Trump. But can the world survive on fairy tales?
David Bowles
Lexington
Well let me take a shot, freddy. I mean it's not the toughest fucking query I've had to face in my life.
J. McCain is deceased. He had his faults, as we all have, and he had his achievements.
His life trajectory changed, literally, when he parachuted out of his plane into Lake Hanoi and thence into captivity.
Hate the war, admire the wild hairs up the asses of those who chose the most dangerous course of action among many safer choices,
He refused early release, offered because he was the son and the grandson of USN admirals. Flash forward and he turned thumbs down on Trump's clumsy and really stupid attempt to repeal Obamacare, and with it coverage for pre-existing conditions.
Which, ironically, would have meant earlier deaths for many Trump voters because.....so very many of them live in those States where people with preexisting conditions live and die from, yep, preexisting conditions.
Comey is not dirty unless or until he is indicted, tried and convicted of whatever you conspiracy theory mongering assholes can come up with. And, unless or until stooge AG B. Barr goes after him, you're SOL.
What are YOU going to do about THAT? I mean 3 years and counting and the ONLY people 'locked up' are Trump associates.
With more to come.
Staying out late, and drinking peanut butter whiskey, impairs my critical thinking skills not in the least. Unchallenged though they were by your dumb-ass question.
Radio broadcaster Don Imus has died
Source: NBC News
Radio shock jock Don Imus, one of the early pioneers of his genre, died Friday less than two years after retiring, according to a family statement given to NBC New York.
He was 79.
The controversial morning personality’s last day on the radio was on March 29 of last year. He had announced on Jan. 22 that he was retiring, telling fans: “Turn out the lights...the party's over."
Imus
@WhereMyImusAt
March 29th, 2018, will be the last 'Imus in the Morning Program.' Turn out the lights...the party's over.
644
4:34 AM - Jan 22, 2018
Twitter Ads info and privacy
849 people are talking about this
The grizzled radio man was best known for his outsized cowboy hat and penchant for making controversial, often offensive, statements.
Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/radio-broadcaster-don-imus-has-died-n1108081?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma&fbclid=IwAR32JM9rNE9JJbMp561ibv5XEH5EKFB64B0UoFX_t08BdpAsZ8qi-q5aY7A&fbclid=IwAR31kPkQbxEh8jGZVYpfnm4NZM1WWNTF9NNJ8xcIBbEeqbhU6nmybdusGv4&fbclid=IwAR3rZvNpAo2Fnl579IsfzACF-vJFmf6zvqpevizGdW7CUdnKWy6eLGs8MUM&fbclid=IwAR3WtaD2tOgBKnZZc0l8BHdwprZXKIXyEWgTgsv4bzvK00NKOAjVaEjADrk
MAGA Heads Are Livid Trump's Home Alone 2 Cameo Was Cut From Canadian TV
And so, of course, some very dumb conspiracy theories have emerged. And yes, Fox News has weighed in.
Trumpanazees, a cease fire has been called in The War Against Christmas. All hands on deck now for the War against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
By Gabrielle Bruney
Dec 27, 2019
https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/movies/a30344542/donald-trump-cbc-cut-home-alone-2-cameo/?source=nl&utm_source=nl_esq&utm_medium=email&date=122719&utm_campaign=nl18959836&src=nl
Before his political ascendency, the America's future president had a long acting career that included roles such as Donald Trump in Zoolander, Donald Trump in Two Weeks Notice, Waldo's Dad in The Little Rascals, and Donald Trump on Spin City.
But Trump fans who tuned into the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on Christmas Eve were deprived of his truly chameleonic seven-second performance as himself in Home Alone 2. Because of that, of course, some think a very stupid conspiracy is afoot.
For the Love of God, Get the Net
Despite the fact that movies are regularly trimmed to make room for commercials before they’re run on television, Trump's excision from the Canadian TV cut of the best Home Alone film was greeted with scorn from Fox & Friends.
“How bad is the Trump derangement syndrome for you to cut that out of a happy movie?” asked Ed Henry on Thursday, even while acknowledging that the film had been edited for TV. “It’s also censorship,” Ainsley Earhardt added.
“It’s also censorship” — here’s Fox & Friends whining about a Canadian network cutting a scene featuring a Trump cameo from a broadcast of “Home Alone 2” pic.twitter.com/WXYVEhoZ0l
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 26, 2019
The president himself commented on the very dumb controversy in a series of Tweets. "I guess Justin T doesn’t much like my making him pay up on NATO or Trade!” he wrote, referring to his famously tense relationship with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, a person who doesn't have anything to do with the CBC's edits of decades-old children's films.
The movie will never be the same! (just kidding) https://t.co/FogquK1ei7
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 27, 2019
Of course, there was no grand Canadian anti-Trump conspiracy behind the film’s edit. On Thursday, a spokesperson for the CBC confirmed that Trump’s blink-and-you’ll-miss-it cameo and other scenes were cut from the movie to make way for commercials—and that this TV edition was edited way back in 2014, back before Trump had even begun his presidential run.
MAGA Heads Are Livid Trump's Home Alone 2 Cameo Was Cut From Canadian TV
And so, of course, some very dumb conspiracy theories have emerged. And yes, Fox News has weighed in.
Trumpanazees, a cease fire has been called in The War Against Christmas. All hands on deck now for the War against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
By Gabrielle Bruney
Dec 27, 2019
https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/movies/a30344542/donald-trump-cbc-cut-home-alone-2-cameo/?source=nl&utm_source=nl_esq&utm_medium=email&date=122719&utm_campaign=nl18959836&src=nl
Before his political ascendency, the America's future president had a long acting career that included roles such as Donald Trump in Zoolander, Donald Trump in Two Weeks Notice, Waldo's Dad in The Little Rascals, and Donald Trump on Spin City.
But Trump fans who tuned into the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on Christmas Eve were deprived of his truly chameleonic seven-second performance as himself in Home Alone 2. Because of that, of course, some think a very stupid conspiracy is afoot.
For the Love of God, Get the Net
Despite the fact that movies are regularly trimmed to make room for commercials before they’re run on television, Trump's excision from the Canadian TV cut of the best Home Alone film was greeted with scorn from Fox & Friends.
“How bad is the Trump derangement syndrome for you to cut that out of a happy movie?” asked Ed Henry on Thursday, even while acknowledging that the film had been edited for TV. “It’s also censorship,” Ainsley Earhardt added.
“It’s also censorship” — here’s Fox & Friends whining about a Canadian network cutting a scene featuring a Trump cameo from a broadcast of “Home Alone 2” pic.twitter.com/WXYVEhoZ0l
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 26, 2019
The president himself commented on the very dumb controversy in a series of Tweets. "I guess Justin T doesn’t much like my making him pay up on NATO or Trade!” he wrote, referring to his famously tense relationship with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, a person who doesn't have anything to do with the CBC's edits of decades-old children's films.
The movie will never be the same! (just kidding) https://t.co/FogquK1ei7
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 27, 2019
Of course, there was no grand Canadian anti-Trump conspiracy behind the film’s edit. On Thursday, a spokesperson for the CBC confirmed that Trump’s blink-and-you’ll-miss-it cameo and other scenes were cut from the movie to make way for commercials—and that this TV edition was edited way back in 2014, back before Trump had even begun his presidential run.
Six Conundrums the Left Can’t Answer … Really?
Note, the 'you and 'your' in the piece are the authors replies to someone's post.
https://stephenpruis.wordpress.com/2014/05/28/six-conundrums-the-left-cant-answer-really/
These, he claims, are conundrums that the Left can’t answer.
I don’t know about the “Left” as there is not much of one remaining in the U.S., but I can answer them.
#1 America is capitalist and greedy … uh, yes. But the estimate that half of the population is subsidized is too low. It is much closer to 100%. Every corporation, they are people, too, you know, is on the take. They get tax breaks, etc. from their bought and paid for politicians, so every one working for a corporation is also being subsidized. (Consider just the benefits Wal-Mart’s employees get to support their substandard wages.)
Then all of those people getting Medicare, all of those people getting Social Security, all of those people getting a tax deduction to buy their homes (the greedy takers), all of those taking education expense deductions, etc. It would be hard to find anyone in this country not getting a subsidy.
The problem here is the amount of the subsidies. The corporations get billions. The rich get millions. The poor get peanuts and bad mouthed at the same time.
#2 The only people claiming victimhood are Fox (sic) News commentators. I’m sorry, the poor don’t have mouthpieces, or blogs, or paid PR flaks to make their point. Where do you get this idea that the “poor think they are victims?”
Oh, you just made it up? Well, I can prove that the poor have been victims. Just compare the wages of the poor, go on, use the minimum wage, and compare it to the pay of CEOs whose companies hire workers for minimum wage jobs.
Anybody who thinks that corporations are not using an economic downturn to hold wages down or are virulently anti-union to keep their workers wages down isn’t playing with a full deck of cards.
#3 The poor have representatives? Really? All those K Street Lobbyists the poor hired are having an effect, eh? Are you effing crazy? Our elected officials serve only their wealthy donors. Study after study proves this. On what planet did you grow up that has poor with effective political representation?
Has this ever been the case in human history? When the minimum wage law was enacted in the 1930s, there were two groups of workers excluded; do you know which those were? They were farm workers and servants, i.e. black people. Did you see all of the black people’s lobbyists swarming Washington, D.C. to get that fixed? No? Neither did I.
#4 The poor’s representatives run the government? You mean like in the House of Representatives in which the average personal wealth of members is over $1,000,000? Rich people are just lining up to represent the interests of poor people, . . . uh, not.
This idea runs counter to your other idiotic idea that government is transferring wealth from ordinary folks (really rich people) to the poor (the shiftless and lazy, really, you know “dem folks”). If there were such massive transfers occurring, would the poor still be getting poorer? See #3 for more.
#5 Yeah, our poor have things people in other countries just dream about, people in countries like Chad and Bangladesh. Our poor are really living a life of luxury … as victims, too.
The “socialist European” countries you sneer at have better health care outcomes for far less money spent, often to no cost to their citizens than do we. What kind of price to you put on your health? Is having a wide-screen TV or a pickup truck better?
Is there a reason that black folks in this country live lives so much shorter than do others? Could it be they often can’t afford health care because they want to, you know, eat or stay warm? You would not get any of the citizens of those “socialist” countries willing to trade places and be “poor” in the U.S.
#6 Hell, even I want the U.S. to be more like those other countries. Countries that care about people and who provide support to citizens in the form of health care and child care. What is so effing special about “everybody is on their own?”
Surveys of whether or not people are happy show Canadians are far happier than Americans. They have fewer worries. They have a banking system that didn’t melt down like ours did because they regulated greed out of their banking system, for example. And they have the dreaded “single payer” health care system (falsely maligned with made-up stores by the U.S. Right).
I know the bubble that just opened in your head: if you think Canada’s so great, why don’t you go live there? Am I right? As if my wanting to live near my family and friends had no bearing nor does whether Canada wants people like me. Let me flip that around and say “if you think “everybody is on their own” is so great, like in Afghanistan or Somalia, why don’t you go live there?
Stop making asinine claims you can’t support. They are not even original, but that is not surprising as I suspect you have no thoughts of your own.
Way to cut to the heart of the matter. But you're saying the tax cut was not targeted to expand the size an prosperity of the middle class?
Huh, we were told otherwise; as I recall.
Maybe repealing health coverage for preexisting conditions will make life less nasty, brutish and short for those least able to pay for healthcare?
No, that doesn't sound right either.
Feudalism it is then. Best stay in school to earn that knighthood.
I've twisted and turned no figures; the articles and links that I posted supported my sarcastic rejoinder to your 'association is causation' crap.
Your description of crimes of violence means what to the victims?
Are they any less injured or dead because of 'crimes of passion'?
And you have stats to back up your distinction without a difference passion VS nature? You pulled that out of your ass.
And no, your trite 'figures never lie.....' is neither salient to what I posted nor a rebuttal.
For the last time, this year, to you and other Trumpanzees who post here, post links that support exactly the opposite of what I post and spare me the personal anecdotes
I'm particularly interested in the GDP and tax redistribution part. You don't create that kind of disparity in productivity without large numbers of hard working people in the most diverse number of industries and professional services of any major city. And most make it to work everyday without stepping in either human or dog shit or without having to visit an ER for a gunshot wound.
I wouldn't walk in the areas you mentioned either, so I don't. 2 zip codes do not a city unmake.
My snark is earned by your ridiculously disproportionate concerns and your downplaying of far more harsh health, education and economic conditions throughout the States mentioned in my articles.
Finally, the shit on the streets in SF is not something replicated in other major cities. It has more to do with the lack of availability of public rest rooms and homeless shelters, which the new mayor is going to allot more money for.
The flow of effluents into our rivers and streams, do to lax enforcement from Trump's EPA, is a far bigger and far more widespread problem affecting far more people.
Bull shit, unless you think Paul Ryan could have reigned in the worst impulses of Trump.
You don't get the kind of sweeping win and popular vote majority the Dems had because of who the opposing Party's speaker was.
It was a repudiation of Trump and Trumpism.
The only ones who are going to pay next Nov are Trump and those who support him.
One sided RW polemic that overlooks the reality of GOP incompetency at a national level. What kind of magic will GOP mayors bring to the cities you revile?
What kind of Red State health, prosperity and morals do you propose to import to those cites? The health is worse, the GDP is lower and the divorce and spousal abuse rates are higher in your imaginary, GOP governed, Red State Utopia.
Counterintuitively, for you anyway, the crime Rate is higher in Red State Murica. too.
https://editions.lib.umn.edu/smartpolitics/2009/09/16/red-states-have-higher-crime-r/
Guess that 'gimme that old time religion' and get off my lawn shit aren't as effective as you believe them to be.
The economy won't save Trump. It was doing just as well in the Fall of last year; didn't save the GOP House
•December 26, 2019
Public support for Donald Trump‘s removal from office is the highest it has ever been, according to a new poll.
Fifty-five per cent of those asked said they were in favour of the US president’s conviction by the Senate, a figure which has shot up from 48 per cent the week before.
Meanwhile, the number of people against Mr Trump’s removal has dropped to an all-time low, according to the MSN poll...............................
Read more: https://news.yahoo.com/public-support-trump-conviction-time-091925963.html