SoylentNews

Today Theresa May's letter triggering Article 50, the UK's withdrawal from the EU, was delivered to Donald Tusk. Far-right populism appears to have triumphed over post-WWII cooperation. We live in interesting times. Scotland has voted to have another independence referendum, and Northern Ireland's regional assembly is in limbo as a result of a corruption scandal and republican parties have increased their presence. The UK's days are numbered.

The White House's official newsletter linked to an article sarcastically ripping apart Trump's budget

This budget will make America a lean, mean fighting machine with bulging, rippling muscles and not an ounce of fat. America has been weak and soft for too long. BUT HOW WILL I SURVIVE ON THIS BUDGET? you may be wondering. I AM A HUMAN CHILD, NOT A COSTLY FIGHTER JET. You may not survive, but that is because you are SOFT and WEAK, something this budget is designed to eliminate.

In a television interview on July 29, 2016 with KUSA-TV in Colorado, Trump said: "I wouldn’t do that [using federal authority to shut down recreational marijuana], no … I wouldn’t do that … I think it’s up to the states, yeah. I’m a states person. I think it should be up to the states, absolutely."

In a radio interview with WWJ Newsradio 950 in Michigan on March 8, 2016, Trump said "I think it certainly has to be a state — I have not smoked it — it’s got to be a state decision … I do like it, you know, from a medical standpoint … it does do pretty good things. But from the other standpoint, I think that it should be up to the states."

At a campaign rally in Sparks, Nevada on Oct. 29, 2015, Trump said: "The marijuana thing is such a big thing. I think medical should happen — right? Don’t we agree? I think so. And then I really believe we should leave it up to the states. It should be a state situation ... but I believe that the legalization of marijuana – other than for medical because I think medical, you know I know people that are very, very sick and for whatever reason the marijuana really helps them - … but in terms of marijuana and legalization, I think that should be a state issue, state-by-state."

He Lied:

"There is still a federal law we need to abide by in terms of when it comes to recreational marijuana and other drugs of that nature," White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters on Feb. 23, 2017. "I do believe that you'll see greater enforcement."

Not to take potshots at the "other site" but damn.

I had mostly stopped checking it because the comment signal-to-noise ratio had become so bad. But now they're running these giant floating ads that cover half the comment-text so you can't actually read them anyway.

As we're multiplying, the world's on the brink,
But that's just what the Devil wants you to think,
Don't ever stop shoppin', don't ever give in,
'Cause if we stop shoppin', the terrorists win.

-- The Claypool Lennon Delirium

Domestic Nuclear Shelters

How to Build a Fallout Shelter.

That nice Mr Putin has built many public nuclear shelters in Moscow in recent years.

Patriots who put their own countries first should always be prepared.

The strong are now putting their own countries first. Several countries are now putting themselves first. Obviously, all countries at present are confined to planet Earth. Who will win? What will happen to those who are second and third? Will the patriots be content?

"Racing for power, and all come in last." -- Megadeth.

We all breath the same atmosphere and drink the same water.

Patriots don't need affordable medical care. Only the weak get sick. President Pull-My-Finger is going to see to it that patriots get to keep as much of their own money as possible so that the weak, who drag the country down, are motivated to improve. On this side of the pond, the NHS is getting ready to be sold off cheap to American healthcare corporations when we get our massive trade deal with the USA. TTIP on steroids? The interests of American corporations will trump (see what I did there) our own interests under the law. Michael Gove is a great patriot.

We're also going to be withdrawing from the European Court of Human Rights. Fine, upstanding patriots don't need "Human Rights." Only criminals and deviants need Human Rights. It was a mistake our writing them in the first place.

I'm glad I'm not foreign. Come to think of it, I'm ethnic. I'm Scottish and live in England. Obviously, I can't be a true patriot. This is worrying.

And finally, here's one I made up all by myself:

Hey diddle diddle, Vlad did a piddle,
All over the Whitehouse floor,
The little Trump laughed to see such sport,
And the Brexiters clamored for more.

Christmas is coming, turkeys.

PS. At least patriots have democratically proved that Global Warming is a liberal-fascist Marxist conspiracy to keep the poor down.

PPS. That other great British patriot, Nigel Farage is taking a job with Faux News.

PPPS. UKIP's Eddie Hitler is standing for election to parliament in Stoke Central. Will the great patriots get a second MP?

It strikes me that many Soylentils are completely ignorant of the finer details of Theology. That is "theology": the study of the nature of god (theos, θεός). So let's delve, as they say.

Does god exist? To me, this is a rather silly question. Mostly because when someone asks it, they really have no idea what they are saying. What is a "god"? I like to think that god is an old Greek guy with a white beard, but that is only because I am an old Greek guy with a beard. No one obeys my commandments though.

Metaphysically, god is the source of existence, the "creator" (although that implies intention, which may not be appropriate), the origin, the causa sui or self-caused being. This is all Aristotle's fault, mostly since he could not abide the idea of an infinite regress of causes. Those of us who can, think he was just silly. Does existence have to have a source? Does there have to be a "first post"? Oh, sorry, a "first cause"?

  God as a telos. In Greek, τέλος. And end, the Omega at the end of the Greek alphabet, the final purpose and reason of it all. This is the one that has always puzzled me, and it is related to Aristotle's phobia about infinite series: if there is not ultimate value, no one end and purpose to the universe, then we might as well just throw in the towel and the Sub-Etha Sens-O-Matic Thumb, because we might as well all be godless atheists. In fact, maybe we are. But the idea that there can be no morality with out an ultimate principal of good, this always seemed wrong to me, since most of the believers in god that I have know I would not trust enough to turn my back on them.

  God as Capitalist! Yes? God owns everything, since he (or, she?) created it all. That means that god is Lord God, to you, you miserable creature and peon! You can only get to Heaven if you suck up enough to the boss man so that he will Grace you with a ticket to paradise. I have to admit, this one is even more confusing to me. Why would a perfect being, an omniscient, omnipotent, omni-benevolent being, want me, one of his lowly creations, to kiss his ass? Is God a Donald? This is why I think there is no god, and if there is actually a god, I tell him to go and Donald himself (again, why is it a "him"? Red Pillars are welcome to interject [no ejaculation!!] here). Seems that god is often a parental substitute, for people who still have issues.

OK, time for some "real" God! Maybe it exists, maybe not; maybe this existence matters, probably not. The Egyptians built a rather large sculpture, know as the Sphinx. Head of a man, body of a lion, tail of a serpent. Alright, we get it. That is what god looks like. Not. The point of symbolism is to present a symbol (sum: "with"; bolos, "thrown") that stands for something that it is not. So the Sphinx stands for the Egyptian god, but what it really is saying is "Our god looks like nothing you have ever seen before, kind of like this!" Of course, the point religions always mistake, is that god does not look anything like the symbol.

So, Jesus! God looks like a man? Seriously? Well maybe, in some sort of metaphorical sense. Maybe god looks like a criminal executed by the Romans, if we are really to be literal. But there is something to be said for this. God is the most powerful, perfect being in the universe, and he has the audacity to incarnate as a puny human who gets himself executed for speaking up? What are we to make of the power and glory of that?

The point of this whole journal, however, it to poke Libertarians in their cocatarix theologis. You are going to have to serve someone. It may be the devil, it may be the lord, but you are going to have to serve someone. That's Bob Dylan right there, peeps! I, on the other hand, as a dyed in the wool atheist SJW, am free as a bird to warrior on for social justice. I do not do this because god tells me, since there is no god and I have no master, I am a free individual who pursues justice because, well, it is just the right thing to do, god or no god.

And to the alt-right, the worshipers of Eris, of Keke, of Pepe; your god does not only not exist, your god is a mirror representation of your own twisted values, or, lack of values. Or, most certainly, lack of values that would not destroy themselves immediately. If God is perfect, good, and immortal, god cannot hate. If your god hates, it might not be god. Just saying!

OK, I've really done it this time...

One of the things that Turgid jr. got for Christmas was a new Android tablet. It's useless.

Mrs Turgid suggested buying some kind of Amazon kids tablet, and I looked them up on line and they didn't look all that great, certainly not for playing Pokemon Go.

So I asked some of the guys at work about tablets for children. They said you can set up an unprivileged user account in Android and lock it down pretty well so that it's mostly safe for supervised use.

With that in mind I went online and ordered a 10" Acer tablet (Acer Iconia One 10) and lo and behold Acer have removed the ability to create multiple user accounts.

It's my own stupid fault for not unpacking it and trying it out as soon as I bought it. I could have sent it back...

To be honest, it never occurred to me that a manufacturer would remove the ability to have multiple user accounts. It just seems crazy...

Needless to say, this creates a tricky situation. How do you explain to a 7-year-old that Santa Claus is an idiot?

Can I root the machine and put something sane on it?

It's not Russia that's trying to impact our elections, it's our evil neighbor to the north!

Those hosers have launched a propaganda campaign designed to confuse and demoralize Americans in advance of the election.

Couched in condescending terms as a "love note" to Americans, Canadians tell lies, make unsubstantiated claims and generally try to blow smoke up our asses.

But we know the truth.

We suck donkey balls and anyone who says differently is either a Clinton shill or one of her many secret hit squads have abducted family members and threatened them if they don't toe the line.

Okay, maybe that's just a *little* hyperbolic. Actually, I think the ad campaign is kind of sweet.

See the "Blue Book" for more information

Amendment 69 proposes amending the Colorado Constitution to:
 establish ColoradoCare, a statewide system to finance health care services for Colorado residents;
 create new taxes on most sources of income, redirect existing state and federal health funding to
pay for the services and administration of ColoradoCare, exempt ColoradoCare from constitutional
limits on revenue, and require approval by Colorado residents for future tax increases;
 establish a board of trustees, initially appointed and then elected, to oversee the operations of
ColoradoCare; and
 allow the board to terminate ColoradoCare if the waivers, exemptions, and agreements from the federal
government are not sufficient for its fiscally sound operation.

Arguments For
1) Amendment 69 creates a more equitable health care payment system that provides coverage for all
Coloradans. All people should have access to affordable health care regardless of their ability to pay. The
current health care system leaves many people uninsured or unable to access care due to insurance denials or
high deductibles. ColoradoCare prohibits deductibles and may reduce financial barriers to needed care. The
measure helps ensure that individuals and families will not face financial ruin when accessing needed health care
services.

2) Amendment 69 offers a means to control health care costs and improve patient outcomes. In the
United States, health care costs are higher than in any other industrialized country. Under Amendment 69, health
care costs could be controlled by lowering administrative costs, adjusting payment rates to health care providers,
and reducing the amount of unpaid care provided by health care providers. By creating a centralized system for
health care records, ColoradoCare may improve the coordination of care and create cost savings by more
efficiently sharing information between providers, monitoring medical conditions, and reducing diagnostic testing.

3) ColoradoCare provides a more transparent system that serves the interests of Coloradans, instead of the
interests of private corporations. The current private health insurance system is profit-motivated, which
contributes to rising health care costs. ColoradoCare offers an alternative that shifts incentives toward improving
patient care by allowing Coloradans to elect health care decision-makers. Under Amendment 69, Coloradans
also have control over tax increases for ColoradoCare, increasing local control over health care costs. Unlike
private insurance companies, ColoradoCare board meetings are subject to open meetings laws, which allows
Coloradans to monitor decisions made by the board.

Arguments Against
1) Amendment 69 imposes new taxes, which may harm the Colorado economy by burdening
taxpayers and eliminating jobs. The tax increases under this measure will nearly double state government
spending, which currently totals $27 billion for the entire state budget. In the initial years, taxpayers will pay
about $2 billion a year into a system without receiving any direct benefits. Many individuals and
businesses will pay more with the new taxes than they currently pay for health care. Additionally,
taxpayers must pay the new taxes even if they do not utilize the services offered through ColoradoCare.
Under Amendment 69, higher taxes and an uncertain economic climate could discourage businesses from
operating in Colorado. Finally, ColoradoCare may cause private health insurance businesses to downsize
or leave the state, leaving many people unemployed.

2) Amendment 69 offers no guarantee that ColoradoCare will improve patient care, expand access, or
reduce health care costs. Coloradans may never receive the benefits promised under ColoradoCare if
federal approval is not granted or revenues are not sufficient. The measure does not specify critical details of
how ColoradoCare will be implemented, and has no required implementation date. The measure concentrates
control for making important decisions and spending billions of taxpayer dollars in a 21-member board with limited
accountability and no required health industry experience. ColoradoCare may not solve fundamental problems of
rising health care costs and limited access. If the state fully transitions to ColoradoCare and it fails, it could take
years to re-establish a private health insurance market and government programs, and taxpayers will have paid
billions of dollars for a failed system.

3) ColoradoCare may limit consumer choice and strain the health care system. Health care providers may
be unwilling to serve ColoradoCare patients if reimbursements are too low, or they may choose to leave Colorado
due to uncertainties in the health care market. This could reduce options for patients and increase wait times to
receive services. Also, the health care system could be further burdened by people coming to the state to receive
health care without adequately contributing to the taxes that pay for their care. If the system fails to control costs,
health services covered by ColoradoCare may be reduced. Additionally, private health insurance may not be
available or affordable if Amendment 69 passes. This could leave people with limited options for accessing
alternative coverage or needed care, forcing some people to leave the state.

Personal take
Tentatively planning Yes on this one. Despite the costs we really need to move away from for-profit health insurance.

What say you Soylent?

A real-life swing-state voter checking in. I've got the 2016 State Ballot Information Booklet in front of me. Let's do this thing! (aka the "Blue Book," located here)

There's some pretty crazy stuff in here so I plan to go initiative by initiative and hit them all.

Amendment T proposes amending the Colorado Constitution to:
 remove language that currently allows slavery and involuntary servitude to be used as punishment
for the conviction of a crime.

Argument For
1) The section of the Colorado Constitution that allows slavery and involuntary servitude as punishment for a
crime should be updated because it represents a time in the United States when not all people were seen as
human beings or treated with dignity. Removing the language reflects fundamental values of freedom and
equality, and makes an important symbolic statement. There are 25 other states that do not have any language
related to slavery and involuntary servitude in their constitutions, and both prison work and community service
programs are able to operate within those states.

Argument Against
1) Amendment T may result in legal uncertainty around current offender work practices in the state. Prison
work requirements provide structure and purpose for offenders, while enabling skill building and helping to reduce
recidivism. Community service programs allow offenders to engage with the community and make amends for
their crimes.

Personal take: Definitely the least controversial item on the list, so, perhaps a bit boring to start off with. Since our state constitution is so easy to amend currently (more to come on that issue) we might as well make forced labor camps illegal while we can. Planning to vote Yes.

Your thoughts, SN?