SoylentNews

One in Three People Globally Think Gay Marriage Should Be Legal

Only 19 percent of respondents in Africa and 26 percent in Asia said they approved of same-sex marriage, against 35 percent in the Americas, 41 percent in Europe and 56 percent in Oceania the online survey found.

These divisions reflect that rights advocates in Africa and Asia have focused on more pressing issues, such as fighting discrimination against gays rather than promoting acceptance of same-sex marriage, said study co-author Aengus Carroll.

"This is so far off the agenda for Africa and Asia," Carroll told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

I was looking for more information on the emdrive, which is getting hyped to hell due to a patent application for the second generation (basically Harry Potter levels of magic) device, as well as the upcoming peer-reviewed paper in December, and I came across this fun story:

UFO ‘expert’ found ‘vomiting black liquid,’ sent warning to mom before his death
Mother of British UFO expert found dead in mysterious circumstances in Poland says she fears he was SACRIFICED by Satanists
UFO hunter texted 'If anything happens to me, investigate' before he died
Max Spiers: UK refuses to investigate 'suspicious' death of British conspiracy theorist
UK conspiracy theorist's mother fears he was murdered in Poland

Republican office in North Carolina hit with flammable material: authorities

Someone also spray-painted graffiti including a swastika and the words "Nazi Republicans leave town or else" on an adjacent building, the town of Hillsborough said on its website.

Orange County Republican Party Headquarters Vandalized

“This highly disturbing act goes far beyond vandalizing property; it willfully threatens our community’s safety via fire, and its hateful message undermines decency, respect and integrity in civic participation,” Hillsborough Mayor Tom Stevens said. “I believe I speak for the overwhelming majority of people who make Hillsborough their home: Acts like this have no place in our community. Our law enforcement officials are responding quickly and thoroughly to investigate this reprehensible act and prosecute the perpetrators.”

Podesta email: Would have been better if San Bernardino shooter was named Christopher Hayes

"Better if a guy named Sayeed Farouk was reporting that a guy named Christopher Hayes was the shooter," Podesta wrote in a Dec. 2, 2015, email to Karen Finney, a Clinton campaign spokeswoman.

Podesta was referring to MSNBC host Christopher Hayes, who had tweeted at the time that a U.S. citizen named "Sayeed Farouk" was believed to be one of the people involved in the shooting.

The next time somebody tells me that if we all block ads the web will cease to exist, I think I'll mention that if that really happens, we could always go back to reading books. There's a lot of great ones that have already been written.

How Howard Stern Owned Donald Trump

Lol.

Also, I can't keep up with all the new groping/sexual assault allegations against Trump. Was it two on Thursday and two on Friday (legit question, no joke)?

The perfect defense: Trump belittles accusers as unattractive, as more come forward
US election 2016: Presidential race goes down the drain
Physically Attacked by Donald Trump – a PEOPLE Writer’s Own Harrowing Story

tl;dr: a Syrian politician publicly claimed that the US coordinated attacks with ISIS that targeted the Syrian government, and a US politician (Hilldog) privately claimed that Saudi Arabia and Qatar are providing financial support to ISIL and "other radical Sunni groups in the region." For anybody who somehow missed the memo, ISIS is ISIL. Also, Aleppo is the capital of Syria. Now that Johnson is caught up to speed, this submission was accepted yesterday morning but by some error of man or machine appears to have never actually been posted:

Remember how the US government attacked the Syrian government two weeks ago and claimed that it was an accident, even after Russia publicly called them out on it?

Al Mayadeen reports (and Sputnik International translates) a story about a conspiracy. The Speaker of the People's Council of Syria, Hadiya Khalaf Abbas, has said that "the Syrian Army intercepted a conversation between the Americans and Daesh before the air raid on Deir ez-Zor." Abbas also alleged that the US military directed terrorists to attack the Syrian government after the airstrikes were over. She claimed that details would be made public at a later point, but there is no indication of when that might happen.

The Sputnik International story actually says that "the Syrian intelligence possesses an audio recording of conversation [...]," which would mean that the Syrian government might have audio recordings to leak. However, the direct quotes don't seem to say anything about recordings. This detail could be sloppy or purposefully misleading reporting; the Russian government has a stake in public perception of this event, and they control Sputnik International. The Syrian government could have actually intercepted a conversation without recording it, and that version of events would obviously be an easier lie to maintain.

Buckle on your tin foil hats, SoyLentils. Some of the governments and/or news agencies involved in this submission are telling lies. Do you think you know which ones? Care to enlighten the rest of us?

That was submitted before the Podesta leaks hit. One juicy bit of those not discussed in the comments was Hillary Clinton talking about Saudi Arabia and Qatar providing secret support for ISIL (emphasis added):

>> 4. Armed with proper equipment, and working with U.S. advisors, the
>> Peshmerga can attack the ISIL with a coordinated assault supported from the
>> air. This effort will come as a surprise to the ISIL, whose leaders
>> believe we will always stop with targeted bombing, and weaken them both in
>> Iraq and inside of Syria. At the same time we should return to plans to
>> provide the FSA, or some group of moderate forces, with equipment that will
>> allow them to deal with a weakened ISIL, and stepped up operations against
>> the Syrian regime. This entire effort should be done with a low profile,
>> avoiding the massive traditional military operations that are at best
>> temporary solutions. While this military/para-military operation is moving
>> forward, we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence
>> assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia,
>> which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and
>> other radical Sunni groups in the region. This effort will be enhanced by
>> the stepped up commitment in the KRG. The Qataris and Saudis will be put
>> in a position of balancing policy between their ongoing competition to
>> dominate the Sunni world and the consequences of serious U.S. pressure. By
>> the same token, the threat of similar, realistic U.S. operations will serve
>> to assist moderate forces in Libya, Lebanon, and even Jordan, where
>> insurgents are increasingly fascinated by the ISIL success in Iraq

Back on the topic of the Abbas allegations, the ever trustworthy Wikipedia says this about Al Mayadeen's political slant:

The name of the channel, Al Mayadeen, means "the squares" in English, indicating its objective "to provide coverage for the Arab popular actions on the squares of change in the context of the Arab spring revolutions".[20] The channel argues that it provides journalism, which is “committed to nationalist, pan-Arab and humanitarian issues within the template of professional journalistic objectivity.”[21] In addition, it presents itself as a “free and independent media project” with 500 staff and reporters in Arab and Western capitals.[6] Its slogan is “Reality as it is” and its editorial policy emphasizes that Palestine and resistance movements wherever they are found are its point of reference.[6] It was also stated that the Palestinian cause is the channel's centerpiece.[22] On the other hand, It is also argued by France 24 and Mohammed Al Jazairy of Asharq Alawsat that Al Mayadeen represents the latest expansion of Iran, Syria and Hezbollah in the field of media.[9][13] It is further claimed by Zeina Karam of the Associated Press that the channel's close ally in Lebanon is the powerful Shiite militant group Hezbollah.[23]

Al Mayadeen prefers to refer to the rebels as "terrorists," and to the actions of the Syrian government against the rebels as "cleansing" when reporting the Syrian civil war.[24] Following its first year of broadcast the channel began to be known by Matthew Keys as "anti-Al Jazeera".[25]

On 6 November 2015, the Saudi-controlled Arabsat satellite TV organization suspended and banned Al-Mayadeen from broadcasting on Arabsat's satellite system. The motive was the editorial stances of Al-Mayadeen news programs, including the spirit of Al-Mayadeen's coverage of the Saudi military intervention in the ongoing civil war in Yemen.[26]

[...]

It is stated that the owners of the channel are anonymous Arab businessmen.[6] There are speculations about the funding of the channel. Western media claim that the channel is a propaganda platform for Iran and Hezbollah and is funded by them.[1] Omar Ibhais, a freelance Lebanese TV producer, argued that the channel is a joint venture between the Iranians and Rami Makhlouf, cousin of Syrian President Bashar Assad.[27] However, Ghassan bin Jiddo, director of the channel, denied these claims and stated that the channel is funded by Arab businessmen whose identity he would not disclose.[1]

"In war-time, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies." --Churchill

"Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia." --Orwell

We went to the beach last week, and I drowned my phone. Ironically I didn't drop it in the ocean; I left it on my chair, came back, and my water bottle had turned over and leaked a puddle into my chair, so the phone was having a swim. Could have happened anywhere, but it happened mere yards from the Gulf of Mexico.

The thing about this phone is it's a good old dumb phone because I'm a dinosaur. I like my flip phone. I really, really like my flip phone. Circa 2004 an equivalent phone without a camera cost $250, and I think that was with my employee discount (Cingular Wireless back then). I bought one for me and my wife that year. Mine got laundered soon after that and I lived on old phones for awhile.

Circa 2012 we switched to Verizon prepaid phones that were sub-$15 from Wal-Mart. $15! Same basic phone plus a camera. I have steadfastly resisted the rise of smart phones. I want to be able to feel the buttons because I can text at crazy speeds with them. While carrying on an in-person conversation, which is kind of cool. And I've had everything just right on this phone for 4 years, I use it like a pocketwatch, like an alarm clock, etc. I know a tablet phone could do all that, but I want my cheapo phone.

My wife switched to an android phone at some point, then a used iphone. We put her $15 flip phone away so I could use it when mine died. So of course it was nowhere to be found when we got back from the trip where I drowned my phone! Even though I had just seen it the week before!

My phone was a Samsung Gusto 2. The Gusto 3 is the "current" model, but it is vanishing. Wal-Mart has empty slots for it with the price hanging there taunting me. I found out I could order one online for pickup at my local Wal-Mart, so I did. When I got there they apologized for not actually having the Gusto and offered me a free upgrade to a $40 android model. Kind of cool, so I took it, realizing it was a good deal and thinking I might end up with no other option. But when I got home I contemplated the $10 rise in monthly fees and the loss of my beloved physical phone buttons, and decided to order a used Gusto off of Amazon.

So of course, before that Gusto even arrived, the lost phone that used to belong to my wife showed up. Thank goodness I have a flip phone again, and one in reserve! That should keep me going as a dinosaur for another 8 years or so, maybe.

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?