I thought he was either (A) truly paranoid and susceptible to right-wing conspiracy theories or (B) a radio host taking advantage of A-people for fame, power, and money. I still think it's B but more extreme. He is much more nefarious and selfish than I had imagined. He enjoys tearing people down. He would rather every single Sandy Hook parent kill themselves as punishment for defending themselves than admit one iota of his grift.
I think I remember hearing that the Mexican cartels are even part of the production line of narcotics made from opium in OP's post. The raw products are send to Mexico and other Latin American countries for processing, then smuggled into the US.
I don't understand why the US government doesn't solve the problem. It seems to me that it would be quite simple. Legalize drug use, criminalize distribution, provide amazing free and non-judgmental drug abuse therapy that includes medically minimizing withdrawals and long-term sobriety so that benefits of completing rehab would overwhelmingly attract and keep people dependent on drugs engaged with treatment through to completion and sobriety. We'd also need to get rid of the idea that once someone is an "addict", they are an addict for life. This would help people feel that coming to therapy for drug use doesn't automatically mark them for life. It would be a bit expensive up front, but in the long run, we'd save so much money in the criminal justice system, customs, and healthcare. Not to mention, increased productivity from a healthier workforce and quality of life would increase drastically, not for the drug users, but their families and communities. There's also the bonus of creating tons of jobs in drug rehab for a while, both treatment and research. And as is well-known, research in one field often has beneficial unexpected benefits for other fields, such as when Pavlov was studying salivation in dogs created an entire branch of psychology (behaviorism), which coincidentally, happens to have major applications in drug use treatment.
This is such an easy win for politicians on both sides if they would sell it properly. Republicans would look great to their base for doing something about drug abuse that is hurting rural America, reducing immigration issues, lowering crime, and tickling their anti-Mexican racism. Democrats would look great to their base for enacting caring government programs, reducing criminalization, and being effective at something. It would also help relations with Mexico. It's a win-win-win for everyone. I can't figure the cons.
yo, I used to think that guy was just a caricature of a zany person that's vulnerable to conspiracy theories and publicly charismatic to that population, but noooo ho ho hooo! I saw a documentary on him and Sandy Hook victim-families. the guy is deranged. something is seriously wrong with the dude, and it's not psychosis. i remember seeing him testify in court and thinking that i wouldn't have believed it if i hadn't seen actual footage. it's as if there was no soul behind those eyes. he's a soulless machine...omg, i get that term now!! lol soulless ...scary 😬
Latinoamerica divides up the Americas by ethnicity. North America is USA and Canada, Jamaica, the Bahamas, Trinidad & Tobago, Miami (lol), Saint Lucia, Dominca, US Virgin Islands, and other Anglosphere Antilles. The rest is Latinoamerica, including Puerto Rico (US) and Brazil (Portuguese ancestry).
Fun fact: there is a considerable portion of Latinoamerica that refuses to call people from the USA "Americans", and instead call them United Statians (Estado Unidenses) or North Americans (Norteamericanos). This is because they see everyone from the Americas as Americans, so calling people from the US Americans kind of implies that everyone else isn't American. This trend is more common in Latin American countries that have had an antagonized relationship with the US, especially in the 1900s during the Kissinger years.
Funner fact: In general, French Guiana and Haiti get grouped in with Latinoamerica, but not Quebec or Louisiana. I don't know about Martinique and Guadeloupe, but my guess is that they would.
Funnest fact: Lots of people in Cuba don't even use United Statesians or North Americans as identifiers. Instead, they call Americans "Yuma" after an American movie called 3:10 to Yuma where the part of the plot was to reach Yuma, AZ.
Thanks! However, I've heard that the yolk is actually unhealthy because it contains a lot of cholesterol. I don't really see a benefit to eating the yolk, so I just throw it out when I eat boiled eggs, which is infrequent anyway.
I get that part, but why is it a dysfunction? A specific mutation in the oculocutaneous albinism II gene causes less production of melanin in the iris resulting in blue eyes, but we don't call that a dysfunction despite being more sensitive to light and an increased risk of age-related muscular degeneration. Why would a mutation that makes it so lipids can't cross a membrane resulting in less odorous armpits be called a dysfunction?
From what I can tell, et al. is not about socio-political power*. It's just a necessity for ease and efficiency. In-text citations need to be short to limit wasted space. Otherwise, we'd have lots of text dedicated to unnecessary names. An in-text citation that reads (Perez et al., 2023) is much more efficient than (Perez, Washington, Smith, Iwukuni, Johnson, Patel, Boofy, Yamirez, Tate, Hendrix, Apple, Man, & Gargamel, 2023).
Using 7th ed. APA, the citation entries in the bibliography/references include upto the first 20 authors, so contributors are rarely omitted.
Perhaps being the first author is in many situations, but APA format can't really address that.
I'm no STEM major, so I may be way off, but this is how I see it.
V = IR isn't math. It's a way of defining the relationship and outcome of two specific physical qualities. It says that we combine the resistance of a medium ( R) with the current flowing through it (I) into another joint emergent quality we call voltage (V). We do this because it makes our understanding of the physical world easier to manage since this relationship has helpful applications.
Math is simply patterns in the relationships of quantities. It excludes any physical units or qualities. In other words, math is the art of counting.
The test to know if anything is an absolute truth is if it is called an absolute truth. If it is called an absolute truth, then it isn't an absolute truth. If it isn't called an absolute truth, then it isn't an absolute truth. Absolute truths don't exist. If someone tells you something is an absolute truth, stop listening to them.
awesome!