I expect it's not the 40% who are donating. Its the officers who aren't pieces of shit. The ones who see their colleagues abusing their partners but don't feel like they can do anything about it because of the "thin blue line".

The last printed edition was published on Saturday 26 March 2016, leaving only the online edition.

source

It's not like it needs to go into a news paper. It's a website headline. "condemns" is only three letters longer than "slams" and doesn't sound lick clickbait.

I'm so tired of that word replacing "strongly criticizes", "rebukes", "condemns", "denounces", or "repremands". Why do articles have to use such a stupid, lazy word? Does it actually draw more clicks?

Allowing China to sell their cars at a loss in the US is definitely a bad thing. It allows China to take over the US market by undercutting the competition. The reason for the teriffs, as far as I understand it, is that the Chinese government is subsidizing the EV manufacturers in an attempt to kill competition and corner the market. It is an anti competitive practice that, if it paid off, would allow China to artificially push other EV makers out of the market, then raise prices when their competition is gone.

I don't understand why Republicans are so strongly on Israel's side at this point. I think almost everyone was on Israel's side on Oct 7th but since then there have been over 35,000 Palestinian deaths, including women and children, and their infrastructure has been obliterated. Israeli losses since Oct 7th only come to 260 soldiers.

Why would anyone suggest nuking Gaza? Oct 7th was terrible but it wasn't perpetrated by the millions of people in Gaza. It was perpetrated by the terrorist group that rules Gaza and, at this point, it seems they aren't much of a threat.

The only reasons I could see for nuking Gaza are:

• To kill all Gaza s before the new crop of radicals being cultivated by Israel's brutality become ripe.
• To try to create a broader conflict with the Islamic world.

350B in ticket sales per year. 100B over five years (20B per year) in public funds. That's 5.7% (not 25%) to regulate the industry, upgrade existing systems and equipment, hire and train a large number of new air traffic controllers, and increase customer rights. Some of that is to catch up on stuff that we should have been funding all along but haven't like hiring and training air traffic controllers.

IMO, this is a good thing and a worth-while expenditure.

$100B spread over 5 years wouldn't make much of a dent in health care. We spend over $4T per year on health care.

I agree that the airline industry has significant problems to be solved but I'd hardly call it broken. Annual US spending on airfare is a little less than $350B. There are nearly no accidents. Approximately 45% of Americans fly commercially in a given year.

As to high speed rail, I would love to see it and I'm sure it can be done more efficiently than it has been in CA. That said, the California high speed rail project has, so far, cost about $128B. It has been in the works for 15 years. About 120 miles of the originally planned 500 miles of track have been laid.

So, I don't think that your criticism is valid. There may be valid criticisms of the legislation but saying that the airline industry is "broken" and this should be spent on health care (with no identified plan for how to spend it) or on high speed rail is a lazy argument that seems like it is being made for the sake of arguing.

Palestine gets new rights from this but it also triggers a vote in the security council on whether Palestine will actually become a full member. The US will veto and has already signaled as much.

Palestine gets new rights from this but it also triggers a vote in the security council on whether Palestine will actually become a full member. The US will veto and has already signaled as much.

Right? It sequesters 0.0001% of our annual carbon output. They say they hope to reduce the cost to $400-$600/ton by 2030 so,even using their 2030 estimate, this plant cost $14.4M - $28.8M. To sequester 1% of our current carbon emissions per year would cost $144B - $288B. $7.2T - $14.4T to do 50%.

This doesn't sound like a productive use of the limited R&D funds that go into combating climate change.

This CNN article has a lot more information and context including who voted against the measure (nine countries including the US and Israel), the practical effects of the measure (new rights for Palestine to sponsor and support resolutions but still no vote), and what can be expected in the near future (a vote in the UN security council on whether to actually admit Palestine which might pass but which the US will veto).

I really don't think that's how that works. If you revolt against your employer, I don't think it's likely that you'll get to take over the company and continue running it.

My guess is that these were wealthy women who were able to afford the transfer. I highly doubt that the hospital or any insurance company paid for the transfers. I would bet that there were other women who were unable to afford similar care and had to suffer the consequences.

Where did I accuse you of being in favor of indiscriminate killing?

Hint: I didn't.

Do you want to try engaging with my argument that we shouldn't continue funding for Israel until they stop the genocide and follow international law?

Are you just dense? The idea isn't "no funding for Israel" the idea is "no funding for Israel until they start following international law and stop indiscriminately killing."

Hamas is awful and should be destroyed but two wrongs don't make a right and Israel is going much too far. Israel isn't attacking Hamas at this point. They are doing to the Gazans what Hamas did to Israel, but a hundred fold worse. They are acting like either a terrorist organization or a genocidal regime.

I'm all for Israel defending itself. I am mostly okay with funding Israel to defend itself and stand up for itself. I am absolutely not for funding genocide and wars of retribution. At this point Israel needs to be brought to heel and, when safe, needs to be held accountable for its crimes and it's long term policies of apartheid.

Ah, it's from an earnings call so it is trying to put everything in the best possible light. I wonder how much fan-splattered shit he is glossing over in that statement.

May I ask what service you switched to? I'm tired of my music app being cluttered with podcasts and audio books. I use other services for this things and don't need them in Spotify.

Amazon did. They kept the price the same, added commercials, then offered to remove the commercials for an additional $4/month.

The headline said exactly what happened. The aid group stated that they believed that their truck was bombed in a targeted attack. They didn't say who they thought made the attack but requested that the Canadian government reach out to Israel to request an answer. They also requested an investigation by Canadian authorities.

It is fairly clear that the aid organization thinks Israel committed the bombing but they are allowing the Canadian government the latitude to be delicate with the situation.