fauxlaw

What a woman! As much as I denigrate "science" as it relates to Earth-bound climates, a deserving woman of a more mature science, astronomy, is honored this week as the leading edge of space-based astronomy, who, among other accomplishments, spearheaded the Hubble telescope project. A new telescope, named in her honor, will soon launch to examine, more accurately than any telescope in space or on Earth, the nature of dark matter.

Nancy Grace Roman now has a supreme view of all, having passed from us on Christmas Day of 2018. In her beginning career, she earned her PhD at the University of Chicago, and spent several years thereafter, but never attained tenured status, only because she was a woman! Nancy left to join NASA in 1959. The rest is historic. Here's her story:

https://science.nasa.gov/mission/roman-space-telescope/who-is-nancy-grace-roman/

This week's disastrous flooding in Nepal [suggested to have been caused by earthquake] is a testament to our poor ability to respond preventively to natural disasters.

No climate change wizardry, no dollar contribution to the Green New Deal would have prevented this disaster. To think we could have predicted this with any accuracy of timing or preventive action is about as wishful thinking as if we had any ability to clean the clouds.

In terms of what science can do, in this regard, we're still trying to figure out how to plant corn and expect to harvest a crop.

Climate science? That's what you really think it is? An infantile science, at best, right now. Hell, predicting the weather by the detail of neighborhoods accurately, hour-to-hour, is still beyond us, let alone an event like what happened this week in Nepal. God bless those people affected, and succor those in desperate need now, and in their grief for those they have lost.

While Mesoamerica [Maya, Aztec] had sophisticated written language, north of Mexico, the indigenous tribes had virtually no phonetic or logographic written language. It was oral tradition. They used colored beads and tied knots by which to leave counting and measurement records, and ideograms on cave and mountain surfaces, but little else than oral language.

How does religion deal with human suffering. [Your #12]

By music? It certainly helps, and you have later said as much, and I agree. But to blame God [not that you do, but I have seen posts of yours wherein that blame is suggested, if only because, if He exists, He is responsible for all things - a concept with which I disagree] is not the right answer, either. I maintain that man, himself, is wholly responsible for his suffering other than natural disasters, for which I blame no man, but not God, either. In the vernacular, --it happens, and no one should be blamed. We were never, ever promised by anyone that we would be spared all suffering. How we deal with it, yes, we are responsible, if we choose to be irrational in our response.

In the meantime, religion deals as well as one might expect to help resolve the results of suffering. It is likely ill-equipped to solve all of it, but every effort is and should be appreciated.

 ' ...human who fart in church, must sit in own pew '.

Yes, we can run around shouting at the moon that we are responsible for Earth's erratic climate until adults in the room caution the running, shouting children that before humans ever populated the planet - yes, we have not always been here - the Earth had far more violent climate conditions than we now endure. Oops. 140M years ago, when mammals first began populating Earth - before humans - they endured these more violent climates to the era when humanity first arrived. We will not, now, lose our superior intelligence over other animal life, enabling us to create structures wherein we control our interior "climates." Thereby, we will survive, if by no other means. But, our intelligence should also provide means to have greater control, by innovation, to master the natural climates. We will never, however, need to achieve control of Earth's climates [plural] to make all sustain within ±1.5º C. That's absurdity. All of Earth's flora and fauna would not survive if all of life were held within that silly, limited, and artificial range. And we think we have mastered climate science, or that with our limited knowledge of it to date, we should even call it "science?" Also absurd. It isn't science if we cannot even measure it all with the same measurement equipment around the world [and we don't] to standardize our measurements and expect them to be accurate within any reasonable plus-or-minus tolerance.

There is a constant argument in America that indigenous tribes should have retained land authority over the colonists' claims of sovereignty. This issue is not unique to America. All over the world, this conflict has plagued humanity. Civilization has meant conflict in land domination, even when the world population was much smaller than today, when land was abundant all over the world, [frankly, it still is, but that's another subject] and until sovereignty organized nation-states.

Both Western and Eastern civilizations from antiquity [Greece in the West; China in the East] up to and perhaps even earlier than 5,000 years ago when written language, the root of civilization, began, primarily with Sumarian Cuneiform and Old Kingdom Egyptian hieroglyphs. Language allowed the creation of society, and society quickly learned that rule of law needed to be developed, including what constituted nation-states from random collections of populations. Rule of law created sovereignty.

This is why the indigenous peoples [tribes] failed to establish sovereignty, because they did not develop organized, written rule of law, and the colonists did. Until the 1960's, they continued to refer to themselves by their tribal names, and not as cohesive, unified "Native Americans."

Debby,

Now Trump and his family are exempt from IRS tax review.

How do you figure, since neither Trump's annual personal financial statement nor his tax return is co-mingled with those of Trump Org?

its basically irrational to not be willing to state your reason. Probably you cant give a reason because its defenseless.

Ah, so you think. Rationale has nothing to do with it. My defense is one of the best there is. It's called "freedom of speech." That includes, my verbose friend, the unwritten, but obviously implied right, also enshrined in the 5A, to remain silent. That is not an express admission of guilt for any reason. I am not compelled, period. I know that is something the media despises, because it does limit the number of pages they can otherwise fill with their usually absurd assumptions, but we all do enjoy that right. Defenseless? Nope. Neither your need nor your right to know can be proven by you.

For its knowledge, AI [I don't care which provider] is totally dependent on its programmer[s] to provide the means to research and conclude anything. As constructed, wired, and activated, not a single thought flows through AI components that is not first suggested by a programmer. If I can demonstrate that Chat GPT, for example, hasn't a clue how to translate Egyptian hieroglyphs to English, or any other human language, when Egyptologists around the world can do so, and me, too, to an elementary extent, I conclude that the number of AI programmers who can do it count less than 1 in 10000. The same is probably true in any number of detailed disciplines in any number of fields. Period.

I'll give you a personal discovery. More than a year ago, I asked Chat GPT to tell me what time it was on Mars at that moment at the same coordinates on which I live on Earth. I asked the question at 4am the morning after the news was announced by NASA that coordinatre/time information on the entire surface of Mars was announced, but Chat GPT told me it could not be calculated. Fault of programming. However, my own Apple Siri [same sort of search engine like Google, but far better than Google, which also didn't know how to calculate the answer] had my answer in three seconds, and I asked Siri before Chat GPT.

I don't think AI is going to replace us anytime soon.

Debby:

How many times are you going to insist on this media lie? DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH!!!

DONALD TRUMP HAS NEVER, EVER, BEEN PERSONALLY INDICTED, TRIED, NOR CONVICTED OF TAX EVASION. TRUMP ORG, A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ENTITY, WAS. GET IT YET?

And I have already told you I understand your question. I reply, again, that as it is not currently a requirement for a president to release tax returns to the public, you, personally, have the option to suggest it to be legislated as a statute to require it by direct contact with your Senators and congressman. It's on you. My preference is that it remain voluntary.

OK? We disagree. Live with it.

You still haven't explained why a president shouldn't have to disclose all that

I haven't? Was the provision of the statute prohibiting disclosure not read by you? Here it is, in a nutshell, since your own research seems incapable.

26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

(a) General rule

Returns and return information shall be confidential, and except as authorized by this title—

(1) no officer or employee of the United...

(2) no officer or employee of any...

(3) no other person (or officer or employee thereof)

shall disclose any return or return information obtained by him in any manner in connection with his service as such an officer or an employee, or otherwise, or under the provisions of this section. For purposes of this subsection, the term "officer or employee" includes a former officer or employee."

"No officer... shall disclose" is pretty doggone specific for a statutory law. No other statutory law, nor Executive Branch policy, exists demanding that a president or presidential candidate disclose their tax returns to the public, period. That means your "should" is DOA., unless either a statutory law is passed by Congress or an issued policy from the Executive stipulates otherwise. Do you get it, yet? That it is voluntary is, currently, the end of the road, boyo. But keep blowing. Your wish balloon is in dire need of bozone to keep it afloat.

Besides, if anyone worthy of the presidency is of ill repute, there are probably better ways to tell than by a tax return. But that, too, requires research capability.

The problem with capitalism is something inherent within it. In a capitalistic society, money = power, and basic human nature will always default to using that power to attain even more power. To put it more simply, wealth begets wealth. [from your #39]

Try inserting communism/socialism everywhere in that commentary in place of capitalism. Doing so results in the very same conclusions. The reason is not that capitalism is evil and C/S is good, but that both can be corrupted by greed. That is the enemy of both. However, the real flaw of C/S is that it does not know how to create personal or collective wealth; it can only spend, not make, and that is by their choice, and has always, and will always be their demise. Forced occupation of another's wealth is not creating wealth; it is simple theft. Pure capitalism knows everything about the creation of personal or collective wealth. It knows it is dependent on, first, ambition [to make something of oneself by one's own education, innovation, and ambition], then planning, and execution. The government can do the same by being more creative with tax revenue. Currently, this government [USA] is drunk on spending and poorly applies investment by leaving investment to produce its own growth. By the latter's means, my own investment in silver and gold since 1977 has seen value increase of 2,550% in silver, and 3,680% in gold, I've not sold and spent an ounce of either. I can go anywhere in the world where accepted by passport I desire to go, to do anything within the law I want to do. I can live just about anywhere in the wolrd I'd want to is enticing, but I live in the U.S., and spend over 95% of my time at home [on ground and water], because that's where I most want to be. I do not spend aggressively and continue to invest, while giving 20% of my income to charities of my choice, mostly within my own county, where I know and can see the results. I wish the government would do likewise. One day, it will.

Debby:

We are talking about human idealism. [youir #31]

Tell me what is truly "ideal" about communism/socialism. Given its single-generation demise, on average, wherever it has been tried is testament enough to consider C/S has any ideal worth imitating. Turn on your AI and offer a list.

Yes, but you must recall that Democrats [granted, not all, but enough] voted with Republicans to pass legislation allowing tax-exempt and tax-deferred investments that add to the 5%'s annual income, which is not the same as their net worth. It ususally akes two to tango, even to political music.

Presidents disclose taxes to show us he has no conflicts of interest and is paying and being productive and how. Why shouldn't that be expected disclosed? You seem to be giving a knee jerk reaction to say he shouldn't have to. But I question if you can justify that, especially given you aint his lawyer or public relations guy

I will address in order:

Presidents disclose taxes to show us he has no conflicts of interest

Presidents and presidential candidates, you mean?

Why shouldn't that be expected disclosed?

The disclosure of tax returns by political candidates is a political tradition, not a matter of statutory law or documented government policy. It can be made statutory law or Executive policy if you either contact your Senators and/or House Rep to make the suggestion. It's on you, my friend.

You seem to be giving a knee jerk reaction to say he shouldn't have to. But I question if you can justify that,

No knee-jerk. I am citing the current condition of the voluntary status of personal disclosure. That is my justification, pure and simple. That you disagree and want to change it is obvious, but you must accept the current condition of voluntary status. I've given you the means to make your wish balloon happen, but I am suspicious that Congress is not inclined to tie themselves to such statutory legislation to make such disclosure mandatory, and I doubt any President would sign himself and future Presidents to such disclosure by statutory law. Kind of like term limits, which amendment has been suggested and failed several times for the same reason.

There happens to be a good reason why such disclosure is currently, personally voluntary. By federal law (26 U.S.C. § 6103), all personal and business tax returns are strictly confidential by default. Unauthorized public disclosure of tax data by government officials is a felony [for which the New York Times, and perhaps others [IRS?], maybe ought to be charged.] A person is authorized to disclose his or her own tax returns, but no one else, particularly not the IRS. To do so would violate this statute. Stick that in your knee-jerk.

Yeah, everything works for me, too, except for those who I know block me [Double-R and Debby], but Sidewalker doesn't, but my replies to him must be manually addressed to him. I tested it just before my notice to you.

I beieve 98% of the people who would insist on seeing Trump's tax return would not have a clue how to read his, let alone their own.

What is it about "voluntary" that is misunderstood, even with tradition? Voluntary is a candidate-by-candidate choice, correct? To hell with tradition. Doing something because everyone does it is the worst justification.

Re: your #25

And that claim is based on a NY Times article, which is about as certified true as the lie that I am a closet communist. Or that the Sun is the precise center of the Universe. Hell, it's not even the precise center of the Solar System.

In trying to reply to my friend, Sidewalker using the reply option in Forum posts [lower-right option] a post does not reply to him. I'm having to write his username manually within the message field as if it's a general comment. He assures me he has not blocked me.

Sidewalker:

Then I guess the above [#14] is. a glitch. I am replying to you by the [reply], but it does not address to you. I'll message the management of this outfit.

Test

Re-test

Sidewalker;

I suppose you saw it when you vacationed with the Trumps in the Hamptons.

No, that was Epstein's Island.

Debby,

You are repeatedly quoting nay sayers. [to Shoresy, your #21]

John Adams is a naysayer? Yeah, against blather. At least Shoresy bothers to quote rather than post stuff that is too easily refuted by doing your own research. Don't have time? You make time; it is too easily wasted. Adams knew that, too.

Debby;

Charity cannot raise the high amount needed to support welfare of the people.

11% of the US population lives below the poverty line. https://usafacts.org/answers/what-is-the-us-poverty-rate/country/united-states/

The average household in the US is 2.5 people https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/HCN010222

The poverty line for a household of 2.5 people is $27.3K. https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/federal-poverty-level-fpl/

26% of people below the poverty line have less education than a high school diploma

https://www.idra.org/resource-center/college-degrees-are-worth-it-people-with-bachelors-degrees-have-lower-poverty-rates/

These stats tell me that lack of education is a major problem contributing to poverty. In every state of the union, a high school education is free of tuition charges. Also, a common excuse rthrown up ids that school supplies are not free. Wrong: https://www.propel.app/blog/free-school-supplies-for-low-income-families/

What's the excuse for not having a high school diploma? Not poverty.

Debby:

The billionaire class pay less taxes than your average teacher.

That is not true by either percentage [and no one pays taxes by a commodity known as "percentage points"] or by dollars [the actual commodity of taxpaying].

And by dollars, remember [that is if you ever knew] just because one is a billionaire does not mean their annual increase is $1B or greater annually. Oops.

"Billionaire" status, or "millionaire," is a statement of net worth, not annual income. Further, the top 1% [anyone earning $750k annually or greater] pay over 40% of the total income tax revenue. There are about 1.3M 1 percenters in the US. That is about 0.52% of all taxpayers. So, your 1 percenters, 1.3M of us, are paying >40% of the total txx revenue. That's MORE than fair share, sister. Get it? Yet? Another lesson in doing research before posting.

Yes, books are inanimate objects, but human animation creates them, just as it creates empires. Far from a combination that always fails, it has the capacity to make both wildly successful. That outcome is worth the effort to see to its accomplishment, but not by pessimism.

Debby:

The Democrats already impeached Trump twice but could not get the Republicans to convict Trump. It would have ended like the other sex scandals Trump has been implicated in. There were more important issues facing the country.

The failed impeachments violated House Rules that Nancy Pelosi, herself, ratified each beginning session in which the impeachments were attempted to be convictions. Pelosi appointed two keystone cops to develop the charges and prosecute their cases before the Senate. Failed cases at the outset. A third - also a failure, will come out of the 120th Congress for the same reasons if Democrats take the House.

Debby:

Given your propensity to offer unsourced claims, I'll add this to them. Cite it. By the way, Jamie Raskin [D-MD] is a bleeb, not a credible source. See Eric Swallowell.