Hubble has a problem. NASA says that one of the cameras on the almost 30-year-old space telescope – the Wide Field Camera 3 – is no longer operational because of a hardware problem.
"WFC3 is the major imaging instrument on HST [Hubble Space Telescope]. It is, frankly, the best view of the heavens that humanity has," Simon Porter, an astrophysicist at the Southwest Research Institute in Colorado, wrote on Twitter. "But apparently some bloody fence is more important."
Although the Hubble Space Telescope has been observing the sky since 1990, the WFC3 was added just 10 years ago during a service mission. Over the last decade it has captured spectacular images, including a high-resolution version of the iconic 'Pillars of Creation' – a gas cloud inside the Eagle Nebula that was first imaged by Hubble back in 1995.
(Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @12:44AM (32 children)
If this numbnuts was a real scientist he would leave politics out if it. Instead, in typical Democrat fashion, he had to whine about something on Twitter.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @12:48AM
Not only that. If it was *that* 'bloody' important go into work and take care of it. Or is it an extended vacation where he can bitch about it?
They democrats 6 years ago voted to fund 46 billion to 'security'. A) what happened to *that* money. B) why not now? (we know why and it is not because they want to help anyone).
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @12:48AM (11 children)
He should be grateful President Trump doesn't sign an executive order to repurpose Hubble for border defense purposes... point it at Mexico to keep an eye on the invading caravans.
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Friday January 11 2019, @12:56AM (6 children)
The spy satellites are already better than Hubble anyway. They can donate a Hubble-class telescope [wikipedia.org] like its an old lawn mower.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Knowledge Troll on Friday January 11 2019, @01:13AM (5 children)
I saw a video where someone said a spy satellite is like a Hubble space telescope pointing at the ground. Ooooofffffffff.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday January 11 2019, @01:29AM (1 child)
Was.
Hubble doesn't have the advanced/adaptive optics one would expect to find in a spy sat launched in the last decade.
Let me go check what's in the one on the pad at Vandenberg right now. BRB...
(Score: 2) by Knowledge Troll on Friday January 11 2019, @04:06AM
Are they doing stuff like ARGUS-IS [wikipedia.org] but in orbit?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday January 11 2019, @02:38AM (2 children)
Other than it not being optimized for that purpose (surface tracking, etc.), not having a good orbit, and almost certainly being smaller than the U.S. govt's current spy sats (operated by the NRO, Air Force...), I don't see the problem with that statement.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @02:58AM (1 child)
Just tell Trump there are "bad hombres" in space, and he'll authorize use of those spy satellites for astronomy.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday January 11 2019, @03:03AM
Considering the scale of the universe, there probably are some "bad hombres" somewhere in space (not counting Earth).
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Informative) by John Miller on Friday January 11 2019, @02:42AM (3 children)
You're joking, but it's not funny. The caravans are real. They keep coming [reuters.com]. It's a dangerous trip for the migrants. When they cross our border illegally, they become criminals. When they bring drugs into our country, they become criminals. Many of them become victims of human traffickers. President Trump knows that we need border security. For two years, Congress blocked the funding. They put politics ahead of the good of our country, and of the migrants. Now President Trump is working hard to make a deal with the new Congress. He sees an opportunity to fund the border barrier and reopen the government. Good luck to him!
(Score: 5, Informative) by NotSanguine on Friday January 11 2019, @03:23AM (1 child)
Not so much. Trump/Senate Republicans could have had US$25Billion for a wall/border security a year ago, but *they* rejected the deal. [wtsp.com]
Your narrative is smooth, but it lacks a crucial piece -- reality.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday January 11 2019, @06:42AM
*they* *senate* *republicans* *congress* blocked the funding, right? You only need a few. It only took a few democrats to block universal health care for the two years they held the power. This is a bipartisan method of business, while the wars get funded without debate. It's the game they play. This is the congress that wins elections over and over, so why blame them? Nobody lifts a finger to replace them with something more palatable.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @01:00PM
President Trump campaigned on building a border wall AND making Mexico pay for the wall.
Why is the US government now in partial shutdown because the president is demanding the USA pay $billions for a wall?
AKA: Moving the goalposts.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @01:05AM (1 child)
^^^^This.
Fucking good it will do to us that tincan in the sky when hordes of Mexicans invade us and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
Doncha get it?!? Trump's wall is survival, folks, anyone who oppose it is a fucking scum that real people need to clean with fire!!!1oneone1!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @03:27AM
All in all, this timeline is progressing closely to how these events went when I was growing up in Chicago under President Clinton. The pretext for the national emergency was a suspected Russian biological weapon. Air travel was immediately restricted. I remember a rumor on Facebook, after the national emergency was declared, started by nurses saying it was not nearly as widespread as reported, but Snopes debunked that. Posts like that were banned by the Oval Office a few days later.
Martial law had been effectively declared, and the military was deployed on US soil. Later, President Clinton would order FEMA to open the concentration camps. There were no elections in 2020.
This timeline already has ICE concentration camps; expect them to be expanded after martial law is effectively declared.
unless
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @01:20AM (14 children)
What he fails to realize is that, yes, the bloody fence is more important. It will do no good to have Hubble up in space, if the culture which put it up there is no longer in existence. For there will be no one down here who can retrieve or interpret the data from the Hubble in the first place.
Or worse, no one who bothers to retrieve it, because they don't care.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @01:45AM (13 children)
"the culture"
*eye roll*
I guess some Murricans really are this dumb. Scientists and atheists primarily did all the amazing things, most of them immigrants from a variety of countries. YOUR culture is best known for being ignorant, racist, and believing in sky fairies AKA milquetoast American.
Nothing wrong with being white. Nothing wrong with being dumb if you at least try to get things right. Nothing too terribly wrong with being religious, just don't persecute other people over YOUR beliefs. Sadly the Trumpsters are willfully dumb and actively prejudicial.
Gone are the days where I assume such stupid shit is satire.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 11 2019, @03:12AM (4 children)
If you are so infatuated with "scientists and atheists", then you should want to stop the flow of superstitious Catholics from the south. And, you might want to stop the flow of death worshipping gang members. So, what is your real goal? What is it that you really want here?
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Friday January 11 2019, @03:24AM (3 children)
Non-sequitur - a positive perception of "scientists and atheists", even if exaggerated to infatuation, doesn't necessary imply opposition to the faithful, no matter the faith.
Other considerations need to come into play for the action to flow as you describe.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @05:00AM (2 children)
"ignorant, racist, and believing in sky fairies", however, does imply opposition to the faithful, regardless of the faith.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Friday January 11 2019, @05:29AM
Then use that instead of infatuated with "scientists and atheists".
Muddying the waters doesn't help anyone's point and doesn't even help the muddy-er put his own mind straight.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 4, Insightful) by aristarchus on Friday January 11 2019, @06:33AM
The "faithful", as you call them, are marks, dweebs, suckers, goyim, gentiles, and worse. Every religion ever devised is a mechanism to extract wealth from its victims. So of course we oppose the "faithful", since we wish them not to be so sorely ripped of by the leaders of their scams. Is that wrong?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @05:36AM (1 child)
There is a glut of Americans with PhDs. If all the foreign born scientists were deported tomorrow, and an increase in researcher pay was made, American born PhD holders could fill all the vacancies. It would take several years for the researchers to get up to speed on their new specialty field.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @06:44AM
This is not true. In fact, it is wrong. In error. Incorrect. False. You, my pathetic non-PhD AC, are a fucking asshole of a racist, and I hope you get punched in the face while dying in a fire. We can all dream, right?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @06:41AM (2 children)
Hi, I'm the AC you're replying to. I'm an agnostic, actually. Not only do I not worship any sky fairies, I don't worship scientists, politicians, or celebrities either. I'm so terribly sorry not to fit into the stereotype you have in your head.
Your description of American culture lets me know you're too filled with hate for me and mine, so there's no point discussing things with you. That you can't see any connection between the decisions a people make about where to put their resources, and what they'll choose in the future when the composition of those people has drastically changed, means either you've never thought about it, or the idea is beyond you. Or you're on the side of the invaders, and you yearn to see the current population of the US replaced with your own people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @06:48AM (1 child)
I hate you, AC! I hate what you are! I hate what you think! I hate what you wear! I hate how you smell! But most of all, I hate how you think, since I have no idea what you are or what you wear, or what your sexual orientation or tax-bracket is, or how you smell. But mostly I just hate you because you are a vanishingly small minority in America, whose children will soon be fucked by brown, yellow, red, or black people THEY ARE MARRIED TO! You fucking racist! I hate racists. I hate you. Ask me again, so I can hate you some more. And my God will, too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @02:37PM
My "internet boyfriend" once told me he was somewhat interested in my ancient aliens approach to eclectic paganism. You must not be a Yahweh worshiper, because Yahweh, even in his own propaganda (works collected in the "Bible"), freely admits to multiple counts of genocide, openly promotes infant genital mutilation and violence against LGBTQ people, and has directed many other crimes against intelligent life (including the orbital bombardment of Sodom and Gomorrah and also mass infanticide in Egypt using a genetically selective biological weapon).
Anyway, what god do you worship?
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday January 11 2019, @04:50PM (2 children)
You are quite contemptuous, it seems, of culture and of Americans. The American culture and ethos have attracted people from around the world. American culture is widely copied and emulated around the world. What's the hot music in Korea right now? Korean hip-hop. Where do the movies playing in European cinemas come from? Mostly Hollywood. Where do the best and brightest around the world clamor to study? America. Which country's companies dominate the global tech scene? America's.
All those are aspects of culture, from creative culture to business culture to education culture, and the American culture comprising those looms very large in the world. So why isn't all that worth protecting? Should we trade that culture for Somali culture, because reasons? If all cultures have equal value, then why not?
I also must say I rather bristle at your slamming Americans as stupid, racist, superstitious, and ignorant. Some are, yes, but show me a country in the world that doesn't have that. Europe? The last thousand years of that continent's history is one unbroken tale of woe with regard to stupidity, racism, superstition, and ignorance. South Asia? You mean, the place where Hindus regularly burn thousands of Muslims to death and vice versa? The place where people get stoned to death for adultery? East Asia? Where the Han oppress the Uighurs, or the Japanese ostracize burakumin, or Koreans pan mixed-race kids?
And while we're at it, I'll note that you, Mr. AC, did not reveal what superior culture or country you are from, that you deem yourself empowered to hurl down thunderbolts from Olympian heights.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @05:22PM (1 child)
Lolk
Or perhaps you could realize that "the culture" is the new dog whistle for racism. Even if not racist it is a stupid statement because US culture is a mix of immigrants from many countries. Only over sensitive dummies react the way you have. Since you're so interested I am almost 100% European descent so it is "my" culture too, I just don't have my head so far up my ass to say shit like I replied to.
Heavy handed lightning bolts from Olympus is all the OP's racust shit deserved. Not consideration, not understanding for these poor white folk afeared of their kids hooking up with a *gasp* brown person!!
PS: since reading comprehension is just the worst around here let it be clear, i was mocking the one person's idea that the US has one culture, theirs, and that it is under attack. I did not say all Americans are stupid and racist, but hey when has that ever stopped the stupid train.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday January 11 2019, @08:42PM
Or perhaps you could realize that culture and race are not synonymous, and that different cultures are different, meaning some are more successful at securing the fruits of modern civilization for their practitioners than others. Your conceit is to hand-wave all that away. You assume that people who talk about culture mean race, because everyone who differs with you on this question must be racist.
America's culture is an amalgam of many influences, but its ethos encompasses all that and gives the country a commonality, a through-line that animates our world view. That is what people are protective of, and it does not make them racist.
It might surprise you, but a lot of the people who oppose illegal immigration the most are blacks and Latinos. Are they racist too?
I don't care much about immigration myself. It's not my hobby horse. But you would have to have your head pretty far up your ass to think it's not a lot more complex and nuanced an issue than the MSM wants you to believe.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @01:55AM (1 child)
What are you saying ? That scientists don't have the right to be decent human beings ? That they don't have the right to be horrified by the thought that a narcissistic, psychopathic con-man, conpulsive liar, sexual predator and child molester with absolutely no redeeming qualities whatsoever is president of the United States ? And, what's even worse, that he was put there knowingly and on purpose by little dipshits like you ?
I would tell you to choke on Trump's dick and die, but unfortunately, knowing what we know about the disgusting sack of pus' anatomy, that doesn't seem to be possible.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @07:23PM
When are you idiots going to get it through your thick skulls.
Almost nobody thought PussyGrabber Trump would be a good president. They thought Evil Witch Clinton would be worse.
Radical Fucking Idea #1 : Instead of bitching about how bad Trump is, why don't you offer an alternative that is not worse.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Snotnose on Friday January 11 2019, @12:46AM (50 children)
A) Congress does not get paid, not retroactive. That pay is gone. Bummer is this gives the millionaires leverage, especially those that got rich from being a congresscritter (that is, being on the take).
A1) The salon, gym, restaurant, and most importantly health care is taken away from all congresscritters. Like most of us, you lose your healthcare it takes 3-6 months to get it back.
A2) If the prez leaves the oval office his security blanket stays put. Fly to Mar a Lago for golf? Good luck with all the yahoos with guns in the area, cuz the Secret Service is focused on the oval office.
Clearly not gonna happen, so plan B
B) If you ain't getting paid you don't go to work
B1) TSA shuts down airports so the Congresscritters are stuck in DC? sux2bthem. Get to the end of the line we plebes are in.
B2) Any congresscritter using a private jet leads all newscasts, and all news agencies look into where the money came from.
In other words, put the pain where it belongs, the congresscritters. Seriously, when are the R's gonna dump Forrest Trump and decide he's more a problem than a solution?
Side note. John McCain was diagnosed with a brain tumor. He lived for a year. A friend of mine was diagnosed with the same brain tumor. Diagnosed in September, dead in November. Not casting shade on McCain, just sayin' these asshats keep feathering their nests while taking away our support.
Of course I'm against DEI. Donald, Eric, and Ivanka.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @12:50AM (2 children)
What happened to the 46 billion they said to pay for this thing last time 6 years ago? Almost unanimous support too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @05:03AM
They built a few fences and the contractors were all friends of the right people, so it was no problem.
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Friday January 11 2019, @12:43PM
Two words.
Eminent Domain.
There are still 85 active cases in the courts, more than a decade later.
This is why it is a fools errand.
Good rural Republicans owning land on the border don't give it up to government over-reach easily. And they are already preparing to fight. Good Democrat environmentalists are preparing to fight it out in court as well over Butterfly's and other desert creatures. Hell, we are all siding with the Good Catholics don't want an ancient church desecrated.
See? We can agree on something! It's the NIMBY syndrome! The fence will be some miles north of the border, so ranchers will be losing lots of land and free access to water for their cattle. A Butterfly habitat will be disrupted by the clearing of land as well as loss of habitat and migration ranges of endangered species. And of course that church whom feel it disrespects their history of sanctuary and cuts off a large swath of land they rent to poor people for as little as a $1000 a year. No one wants the government to steal their land, regardless of how they feel about immigration and the wall. Many of the people who live there don't want it, or rather, want it but not on their land.
https://www.apnews.com/0b3d63c524214bbdbfb58ce8f61589f0 [apnews.com]
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @12:52AM
How did the tumor get from McCain's head into your friend's head?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @12:56AM (19 children)
Right now you should be more scared that Trump might declare a national emergency. Let's hope military insurrection is a real thing and the generals tell him to go to hell. Otherwise we are fucked good.
(Score: 3, Informative) by RandomFactor on Friday January 11 2019, @02:32AM (14 children)
The US currently has ~38 declared emergencies. It has been in a state of 'emergency' for ~40 years.
This is not new ground.
I doubt any of these were not either an overreach to begin with, or by still being in effect.
This one is only special because it's a flashpoint. That's not a valid reason to oppose it. The fact that its an overreach is, but if you haven't been opposed to, or supportive of, the ones in place since Jimmy Carter whose Iran sanctions emergency declaration is still in effect, then are you really being consistent?
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday January 11 2019, @02:47AM (5 children)
[Citation needed]
Someone says 31 [fortune.com], but I'd be grateful for a list of them.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Friday January 11 2019, @02:56AM (4 children)
I just just searched and saw 31 also, I'll just concede the correction rather than digging for whereever I got 38 from (probably something outdated). The difference doesn't make much difference :-)
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Friday January 11 2019, @02:58AM (1 child)
Yeah, that post was for GREAT JUSTICE!
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday January 11 2019, @03:27AM
Don't worry, it's just just fine.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Friday January 11 2019, @07:31PM (1 child)
Actually, that would be interesting if 38 was right at some point. Does that mean that Trump has ended seven (plus however many he added) declared emergencies?
(Of course, much less interesting if your memory was just wrong by some random factor.)
200 million years is actually quite a long time.
(Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Friday January 11 2019, @10:40PM
The chart here gives it graphically as well as detail on all 31.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/07/politics/trump-wall-active-national-emergency/index.html [cnn.com]
Clinton created the most
Obama was next
GW Bush was third.
Trump has done 3 in two years and allowed 2-4 to lapse (hard to tell). I expect his numbers will pick up a bit now that he has an opposition house.
He's isn't really much of an outlier in terms of emergency declarations/year that I can tell, comparable to GW and Obama, but lagging well behind Clinton.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @03:08AM (7 children)
I'm a bit more scared of Trump. He is not fit. His predecessors were almost human compared to him (with maybe the exception of Clinton, he brought real slutty Hollywood sleaze into the white house, much worse than Nixon or Reagan).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @03:24AM (2 children)
brb, jacking it to melania nudes
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @03:38AM (1 child)
Really? A trophy wife makes it all ok? Does that bestow upon you some kind of vicarious male dominance or something?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @07:30AM
A trophy wife makes it all ok?
You gotta problem with that?
Does that bestow upon you some kind of vicarious male dominance or something?
You gotta problem with that??
GTFO!
(Score: 3, Touché) by Phoenix666 on Friday January 11 2019, @05:22PM (3 children)
That doesn't make any sense, based on the facts. Trump has faced North Korea down (at least for the moment). That should comfort you. Trump is bringing American soldiers home from Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, which should comfort you. Trump has been ripping up trade agreements that have been killing American workers. That should comfort you. Trump has created lower unemployment for black and Latino workers than the last four presidents combined. That should comfort you. Thanks to the disruption Trump has brought to the status quo, long, long overdue wrongs like #metoo have been exposed. That should comfort you.
But "he scares you." Why? Because CNN and other mouthpieces for the status quo want you to be? He's more sleazy than a predecessor who got blowjobs from interns in the Oval Office? Really? You do know that a great many of those people calling Trump sleazy are the very ones who perpetrated or covered up #metoo for decades, right?
Honestly, step back, take a breath, turn off the MSM, and take a good long vacation.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday January 11 2019, @08:23PM (1 child)
Trump has faced North Korea down
If by "faced down" you mean "made more legitimate and increased nuke development capability" then sure...
North Korea has increased nuclear production at secret sites, say U.S. officials [nbcnews.com] But hey, it's just the security assessment of the CIA and NSA, fake new amiright!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @09:59PM
Not to mention the fact that nothing came out of that "summit" for the US other than intentions, and all the US needed to do was to give up their troops in S. Korea.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @10:14PM
I thought this was a sarcastic quote, but then I really started to see that it wasn't. I disagree with many of your posts, but I guess I never really knew how ignorant you are of basic facts. Let's look at the data [stlouisfed.org] for a moment. You tell me where on that plot this supposed "Trump effect" starts. Fit a rough curve by eye to the data starting about 2011 and are you seriously claiming that Trump is the reason the curve keeps declining? About the only thing you can say is that he apparently didn't do anything to fuck up the trend. And what do you mean "last four presidents combined"? Are we supposed to add up the unemployment rates of the last four presidents?
I might be confusing you with someone else, but I seem to recall you making statements about having a physics or other technical background. If you do, and you are not currently in that profession, my guess is that it has a LOT to do with your lack of data analytic skills and graph comprehension skills. "Take a breath, turn off the MSM"?? It really sounds like you need to turn ON some kind of informative source. Here's a hint: it ain't anything to do with the words that come out of the President's mouth.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday January 11 2019, @03:29AM (3 children)
What is so bad about that?
President Trump declares a national emergency (just one of 30+). He siphons off some money from the Pentagon, which already gets too much funding as it stands, and gets to put up his fence or barrier down there. The government shutdown ends, and the Trump administration gets taken to court, again.
Sending troops to the border just before the election was worse - a wasteful stunt.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Redundant) by Phoenix666 on Friday January 11 2019, @05:13PM (2 children)
Yeah, I can't even remember the last time a President got a declaration of war from Congress before starting a war. Waiting for Congress to weigh in on anything is so passe. Did Congress even get it up to say anything about Obama assassinating American citizens by drone? I can't remember anybody peeping up about that.
So, really, Trump declaring a national emergency for this would be quite par for the course of every president in my lifetime.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Friday January 11 2019, @08:20PM (1 child)
So, really, Trump declaring a national emergency for this would be quite par for the course of every president in my lifetime.
Declaring actual disasters a disaster is par for the course.
Declaring a fake disaster a disaster in order to usurp the Congress' power of the purse is completely unpresidented.
Suddenly executive overreach isn't a thing. Color me surprised.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @10:22PM
Yeah, remember when it was considered an impeachable offense [theatlantic.com]? Seems like only yesterday.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @12:59AM (2 children)
What about giving the American people the wall and helping to end the trafficking across the Southern border?
Too soon, we're still mourning that tumor - a true American hero! [newspunch.com]
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Friday January 11 2019, @11:30AM
Newspunch? Really? Where truth is whatever I thought up while taking a shit this morning....
Now, I disagreed with much of the man politically, but he was one of the few I had even a modicum of respect for.
Some conspiracy website with a miscaptioned photo is hardly evidence. Try again.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Friday January 11 2019, @08:52PM
> giving the American people the wall and helping to end the trafficking
What? Are those 2 things connected?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @01:47AM
Nobody gives a fuck about your anecdotal evidence, conspiracy-theorist trumptard. Nobody with a brain, that is.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Friday January 11 2019, @02:06AM (16 children)
There's a much better solution, and it's one that representative democracies have been using for a long, long time.
If the ruling party cannot get their budget approved by parliament, then parliament has no confidence in the government, which falls, triggering a general election.
This means that everyone who voted the budget down has to explain to the electorate why they did that, which focuses people's minds a bit.
This tends to work well, in countries that have some sort of electoral barrier to entry, meaning tiny extremist parties don't get much say. (Looking at you Italy).
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday January 11 2019, @03:30AM (15 children)
Except the US doesn't have a parliamentary system. The US executive branch is not made up of *serving* congresspeople/senators. The only "no-confidence" vote for president comes every four years. No vote in congress (well, except impeachment in the House, followed by conviction in the Senate) will cause the government to "fall." Our system is different.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Friday January 11 2019, @12:55PM (2 children)
Does the executive have to approve the budget if the house and senate agree on it?
(Score: 3, Informative) by cmdrklarg on Friday January 11 2019, @03:23PM (1 child)
Yes, that is why the POTUS signs or vetoes the bills sent to their desk.
Mind you, if Congress wants something bad enough, they can vote again to override that veto. If they get two-thirds of both House and Senate to vote for the bill it is law, regardless of the POTUS.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 1) by DECbot on Friday January 11 2019, @04:21PM
Which is why I feel like Congress isn't working hard enough. POTUS made it clear what he wants to see in the budget. If two-thirds of the House and the Senate thinks the president's demand to be unreasonable, like you said, then they can give the POTUS a big "fuck you" and vote whatever they want into law which would reopen the government. Why we don't see that is because the Democrats don't have a super majority and thus have to cooperate with the Republicans to get anything passed. And for the past decade or two, the only thing the two parties agreed on is voting for was wars on things. So the question remains, how many Republicans can Trump convince to keep supporting the wall during the shutdown? Because that will determine how long the government will remain in shutdown if the Dems are definitively not funding a wall. If there is any good to come from this shutdown, it creates a reason for the Democrats and Republicans to come to the negotiation table. When that finally happens, it'll likely result in a budget including a wall/fence or Articles of Impeachment. Both of which would likely get the majority of support from the American people.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Friday January 11 2019, @09:28PM (11 children)
Yes, I am aware of that.
I was merely pointing out one of the ways in which your 18th century government system could be reformed, if there was a will to do it.
Yes, I am aware there is no real will to reform it.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday January 12 2019, @04:44AM (10 children)
The issues with the US Federal government (and with most democracies) isn't the system itself, rather with how those who are elected to serve approach using the levers of power.
When such levers are used to perpetuate the power/influence of those elected, rather than to govern in the interests of the electorate, we find ourselves in the situation with which we are now faced.
The current partial shutdown is a symptom of the widespread effort to put partisan politics over good governance. This is *not* a weakness of our system of governance, rather it's the culmination of decades of effort to expand the political franchise and personal liberties.
Those who would limit personal liberty are unwilling to compromise. Since compromise is at the heart of successful political action, we're stuck in a cycle of recrimination and blame.
The strict separation of powers is meant to make the various government branches work together and to restrict the ability of the majority to just ram through legislation without constraint. That Congress can't just dissolve the executive branch with a vote of no-confidence is a *feature* of the US system, not a bug.
I'd also point out that parliamentarism [wikipedia.org] pre-dates the US Constitution by quite a bit.
There are some aspects of parliamentary democracy, especially the ability of fringe/less popular groups to have their voices heard in legislative debates, which are lacking in the US system. However, the strict separation of powers is one of the US system's greatest strengths IMHO.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Saturday January 12 2019, @10:43PM (9 children)
I live in a parliamentary democracy, and we have strict separation of powers too, thta's not unique to the American system.
We also cannot have a government shutdown for the reasons I outlined, so I think your system is a poor one.
It was really great in 1776, but is not really fit for purpose now.
Could you expand on that point a bit? I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday January 13 2019, @11:01PM (8 children)
Do sitting members of parliament hold positions in the executive branch of your government? If so, that's not the separation of powers I was talking about. In the US system, no sitting member of the Legislative or Judicial branches may hold positions in the executive branch.
If that is, in fact, not the case in your country, I don't see how a divided government can prevent a shutdown. Please elucidate on how that can be.
That's a complicated story. I'll try to hit some of the high points:
While the story begins much earlier (the 13th [archives.gov] and 14th [wikipedia.org] amendments, Jim Crow [wikipedia.org], Women's suffrage [wikipedia.org], miscegenation laws [wikipedia.org], sodomy laws [wikipedia.org]), I'll begin with the white/black integration of the US military after World War II [wikipedia.org]. Outside the military, blacks were once again subject to Jim Crow laws and societal segregation. This irked many, as they served their country and fought bravely for "freedom and equality," abroad. This added additional energy to the ongoing struggle to end anti-black segregation/discrimination.
Continuing along these lines, over the next 20 years, a number of supreme court decisions (Brown v. Board of Education [wikipedia.org], Loving v. Virginia [wikipedia.org], Griswold v. Connecticut [wikipedia.org], and even into the 1990s, with Lawrence v. Texas [wikipedia.org]) and acts of Congress (Civil Rights Act of 1964, Voting Rights Act of 1965), as well as the failure of the Equal Rights Amendment [wikipedia.org] caused many Democrats (who, for a century after the US Civil War, were staunch segregationists/misogynists) to abandon their party in favor of the Republicans. This was solidified with the campaign and election of Richard Nixon in 1968, where he used fear of changing social norms/racial integration/fear of the evil black man to bring those people who felt abandoned by Lyndon Johnson's Democratic party into the Republican fold.
This tension served to change the constituencies of both parties, which were, until the mid 1970s, fairly diverse. This mass sorting of ethnic/economic groups has driven a wedge between those in each party, which came into prominence in 1993, with Newt Gingrich being elected Speaker of House and encouraging his compatriots not to compromise -- on anything. That was not just a quirk of Gingrich's, rather it was the culmination of strategies hatched in the late 1950s and early 1960s by folks who didn't want to see real equality for *all* Americans.
Nancy MacLean's excellent treatise [amazon.com] on this should give you much more information as to how this has metastasized over the last sixty years or so.
If you're not inclined to read books, you can hear it from her directly [c-span.org].
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday January 14 2019, @12:20AM (7 children)
The executive are made up of sitting MP's yes, but they have different responsibilities to non-cabinet members.
We (the people) also know in advance who they're going to be, and can vote them out if they're useless. This also prevents the appointment of people like the odious Betsy DeVos (for example).
As far as the shutdown thing does, I stand corrected, instead of "cannot" have a shutdown, I should have written "do not" have shutdowns. The reason being that if the government loses a budget vote, that is automatically a confidence matter, triggering a general election.
Anyone that triggers an early general election is pretty much always punished by the voters, and they know it. That is one of the moderating factors on the behaviour of MP's.
Thanks for the rest of your post. It's very interesting.
It often surprises me just how vicious and self-interested some of the South in your country is.
Anyway, I suppose the point I was trying to make is that government services have been shutdown again in your country, and for purely political reasons.
It really is time you guys reformed your government
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday January 14 2019, @01:00AM (6 children)
Actually, it's time that we cleaned house. Our governmental structure is actually pretty good. The problem is those who populate the political offices of that structure. We managed not to shut down the government, even with divided government, for most of the history of our nation. This is primarily because those in the minority were considered the "loyal opposition" and both sides engaged in legislating on behalf of their constituents, rather than demonizing them for political gain.
I again suggest that you check out Nancy MacLean's book (or at least her presentation). It provides, in quite a bit of detail, how there are folks who are actively seeking to destroy our governmental structures to gain/retain power and influence in a changing world. Modifying our governmental structure will do nothing to remedy that, given that the problems are purely political and not a result of poor governmental structure.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday January 14 2019, @01:30AM (5 children)
Thanks.
We probably will have to agree to disagree on your governmental structure.
I am of the view that it is a huge part of the problem that your country of 300-odd million people has only two political parties, and seems destined to only ever have two. The seems to be pretty fundamental to the whole thing, as you have only ever been able to muster two parties (even if their names have been different). Two parties seems to be really easy to capture by various versted interests.
I will have a look at the Nancy MacLean presentation, as I currently have a stack of books on my bedside table I need to get through, including one for the Soylent book club.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday January 14 2019, @03:33AM (4 children)
I think we're in violent agreement here. Political parties are not governmental structures, IMHO. The governmental structures I was referring to are defined in the US constitution. And political parties aren't discussed at all. In fact, several of the founders warned against political parties.
I've often thought that having more *relevant* (as we do have many other political parties) political parties would expand our political discourse and make more voices heard.
And so, I agree that the *political* system has significant issues. However, I don't believe that the structure of government is the cause of those issues.
It's worthwhile to note that the US Constitution does not specify how each state should conduct their elections (even for those elected to serve in the federal government, up to and including the president). The winner-take-all elections we have here (except in the state of Maine as well as a number of municipalities, who have implemented ranked-choice voting [ballotpedia.org]) could be reformed, but aside from our Electoral College [wikipedia.org], there are no Federal (national) rules governing elections.
I am going to enjoy re-reading The Moon is A Harsh Mistress myself. It has been described as a re-telling of the American Revolution and it does have some similarities. I look forward to participating in discussion about it with you and others.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday January 14 2019, @06:44PM (3 children)
I'm skipping the Moon... and going straight to We are Legion (We are Bob) as I have not read it before.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday January 14 2019, @07:14PM (2 children)
Apparently, TMIAHM garnered the most votes [soylentnews.org]. So doesn't that make it the next selection?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday January 14 2019, @08:49PM (1 child)
I thought the one after that was WAL(WAB)
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday January 14 2019, @09:49PM
Sounds good to me. Enjoy!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday January 11 2019, @03:46PM
Well you can thank Reagan [politico.com] for why Plan B doesn't work. Got another?
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday January 11 2019, @04:57PM (3 children)
They would love to, but they can't. They tried very, very hard to shut him out in the primaries. He won through. The trouble for them is Trump is basically an independent flying the Republican flag for convenience. He has a message that appeals to average voters because he's sticking it to the elites who have been sticking it to them for 40 years.
So casting things as Democrat vs. Republican misses the reality.
I think if Bernie Sanders had not been cheated out of the nomination and had won the general, we'd be talking about the same dynamic, whereby the Democratic Congress hates the Democratic President who's really an independent but flying the Democratic flag for convenience; and because he's going after their cash cows.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @05:24PM (2 children)
Trump is sticking it to the elites?
When did I miss this development?
Citations please.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by deimtee on Friday January 11 2019, @07:45PM
Trump may or may not be sticking it to the elites. The voters definitely were by electing him.
And from those voters' perspective, if Trump isn't sticking it to the 1%, why are they squealing so much?
200 million years is actually quite a long time.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Friday January 11 2019, @11:45PM
His message is about sticking it to the elites.
His actions are very different.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by eravnrekaree on Friday January 11 2019, @01:59AM (12 children)
The US spends at least $200 billion per year on welfare to foreign aliens and their children, a wall is about 1/4th that, at a one time cost, if amortized over 20 years, is about $2 billion per year, and this assumes a $50 billion wall, quite a bit over what Trump is requesting. If anything, by reducing the costs of immigration the wall could in fact save quite a bit more money that could be put toward things like the space program. Whats damaging the US budget is entitlements, average foreign alien consumes about 2 times as much welfare as US citizens do. The US spends many trillions every year on welfare and entitlements. Democrats want universal health care which alone would cost $3 trillion, much more since they want to give it to foreign aliens. So to complain about the cost of the wall, as you can see, is ridiculous, as it would pay for itself.
(Score: 5, Informative) by PartTimeZombie on Friday January 11 2019, @02:21AM (3 children)
Well, goodness.
First of all, those foreign aliens arrive at airports, so the wall won't keep them out.
Secondly, as the first table shows on this site [federalsafetynet.com] the federal government spent $354 billion in welfare, so I guess you think foreign aliens used nearly 60% of the total?
Citation Required
No, you don't. Unless you'd like to include the massive corporate welfare entitlements, but I don't think foreign aliens are getting much of that.
No, it would be cheaper than the stupid, expensive system you have now, as every other first-world country already knows.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 11 2019, @03:30AM (2 children)
https://www.gao.gov/products/HEHS-98-30 [gao.gov]
https://cis.org/Report/Welfare-Use-Legal-and-Illegal-Immigrant-Households [cis.org]
https://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2011/04/most-illegal-immigrant-families-collect-welfare/ [judicialwatch.org]
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/cashing-in-illegal-immigrants-get-1-261-more-welfare-than-american-families-5-692-vs-4-431 [washingtonexaminer.com]
Yes, stopping the influx of illegal aliens would indeed pay for the wall with savings in welfare. The only question is how quickly the wall would pay for itself.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 4, Informative) by Pslytely Psycho on Friday January 11 2019, @12:10PM
It is a waste of time, resources and will end as badly as last time.
Most drugs/weapons are brought through tunnels and legal crossings mixed in with legit traffic.
A wall addresses none of that.
The biggest hurdle is Texas. Landowners took the Government to court over eminent domain. There are still 85 cases active in the courts from last time. That's over a decade and they have not been resolved. This is the main reason IMHO that the wall is a fools errand. The money will be eaten by court cases with those good rural Republicans who live on the border and maybe, just maybe a small amount of new fence will be added.
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-border-wall-mexico-texas-private-land-use-2017-9 [businessinsider.com]
Plus, we catch more persons of interest on terror watch lists entering from Canada than Mexico. That is one wide open boarder. I live in Washington, and you can wander over the border quite easily in places. Before Legalization, we used to get a lot of B.C. Bud, they just hiked it over the border in backpacks. (hehe, now we grow better shit) There are border patrol, but it is nothing at all like the southern border, you can say it's there, but there are so few patrols from either country that it's essentially unguarded between legit crossings.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4824976/us-mexico-border-terrorists-canada/ [globalnews.ca]
Not to mention current traffic is much less than it used to be.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/25/us-illegal-border-crossings-analysis-trump-migrants [theguardian.com]
"According to the latest statistics from US Customs and Border Protection (CBP), 396,579 undocumented people were apprehended after entering the country illegally in 2018.
Another 124,511 people presented themselves at ports of entry, many seeking humanitarian protection, but immigration officials found them inadmissible.
In 2000, however, more than 1.6 million illegal border crossers were apprehended. In 2001, the figure was 1.3 million.
In the early 2000s, the largest group of undocumented migrants caught entering the US were Mexican men crossing to work. When caught, border patrol sent them back without long-term detention or court proceedings.
Many crossed again and again and some eventually succeeded in evading border enforcement. The high apprehension numbers certainly include many individuals caught and counted more than once.
Small ups and downs in the flow continued until a significant drop off at the end of the decade – from 556,041 in 2009 to 340,252 in 2011 – coinciding with the great recession, and the disappearance of the jobs many migrants came for.
In the following years, apprehension numbers continued to fluctuate between 350,000-500,000, with a low of 310,531 in 2017."
So, I fail to see the crisis in this. If anything, he should be touting it as a win, of course, he thinks himself Pharaoh and needs a monument to his (imagined) greatness.
If Mexico directly pays for it as he promised, fine. But I don't condone one dollar going for it from my pocket, just as you don't condone a dollar of your money for others healthcare.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @03:05PM
Thing is, that the wall will have two ends, past that, there are miles of ocean.
You might think that ocean makes a good wall, but the fact is, it makes an even better road.
http://time.com/4063972/refugee-crisis-massimo-sestini/ [time.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @02:27AM
[Citation needed]
Implicit assumption: the wall will cause the expenditure "on welfare to foreign aliens and their children" to drop to zero.
An extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence.
(Score: 4, Informative) by NotSanguine on Friday January 11 2019, @03:36AM (3 children)
Given that the US government Especially since non-citizens are barred from received such aid. What's more *legal* immigrants are less likely to, and receive fewer benefits, on average, than, citizens. [usgovernmentspending.com]
tl;dr: you're talking out of your ass and it smells that way too.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday January 11 2019, @03:37AM
More details here:
https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/immigration-welfare-state-immigrant-native-use-rates [cato.org]
I screwed up the links in my previous reply. Grrr.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by ChrisMaple on Saturday January 12 2019, @05:44AM (1 child)
Gee, there's no such thing as Welfare fraud?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 12 2019, @06:41AM
What's wrong? You're not blaming that on the niggers any more?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @05:11AM
Reinforced Concrete structures can last a long time, without much maintenance. The Edison Concrete Houses built over a century ago are still standing. The Pentagon was built during World War 2. Hoover Dam was built during the 1930s. The wall doesn't have to stop half of the people coming across the Southern Border. It has a one time cost, low recurring costs, and will last for 50 to 100 years.
(Score: 5, Informative) by isostatic on Friday January 11 2019, @12:53PM
universal health care which alone would cost $3 trillion
Interesting.
The UK spends about £120b on universal health care for 65m people, that's about £1850 per person.
If the U.S. spent £1850 per person on providing the same universal health care, it would £606b, which is $773 billion.
The U.S. currently spends $705b on medicare alone, and an additional $581b on medicaid - a total of $1286b on governemnt spending.
Universal health care would save the government money -- install the NHS, move everyone from medicare/caid onto NHS, and you save $500b. Perhaps Trump should suggest that, and say he wants 10% of the savings for his silly wall.
Total U.S health spending is $3500b, so even if your "3 trillion" number was accurate, it would still be a net saving.
(Score: 2) by mattTheOne on Saturday January 12 2019, @05:51AM
Where are you getting your numbers for, such as $200B /yr?
Why would a wall matter? Wouldn't drones be more effective and cheaper depending on the area? In urban areas there's already a wall between the countries.
Why would universal healthcare cost $3T? I'm already paying for folks over 65, folks in the military and folks on medicaid. Why would the cost balloon to cover others who already pay healthinsurance? My family including my company portion spends $25K on healthcare, and we;re not even sick.
How to illegals cost the gov money? I've travelled all over the world and folks love the money foreigners bring in. I travel and I'm spending money at restaurants, hotels, attractions.
Someone here illegally would have a hard time getting an apartment, a job, attending school, even getting utilities or a drivers licence and insurance. All of these things required me showing my social or photo ID of some sort. Who are all these ghosts and how are they surviving without any valid ID? If they can fake all that, they should work at the CIA, not picking strawberries.
(Score: 2) by corey on Friday January 11 2019, @02:13AM (3 children)
This dude sounds like a bloody Aussie. The wall will also keep the rabbits out. :)
He's got a great point though.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday January 11 2019, @02:34AM
Not to mention the birds [wikipedia.org] and the mice [wikipedia.org], as demonstrated many times over by well known documentaries.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @05:13AM
Humans are bigger than rabbits, can not digest cellulose, and take 13 years to reach reproductive age, and tend to have only 1 offspring at a time. Rabbits are puny, can eat grass, and start reproducing within a year. Rabbits also don't collect welfare.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday January 11 2019, @05:04PM
Not necessarily. I worked with a woman in my late twenties who had spent a semester abroad in London in college. Ten years later she relished lacing her speech with British terms like, "bloody," and "whinge." She even affected clipped British diction.
Washington DC delenda est.