a parking lot where they could spend the night

DRY

Be aware that overly nested rules will result in over-qualified CSS that could prove hard to maintain and is generally considered bad practice.

healthier staples,

So many of these families were doing ramen noodles or anything that they can buy in big packages and store for long periods

the cost of gas to make the drive to Bentonville or another town with a supermarket is significant

“Essentially what the dollar stores are betting on in a large way is that we are going to have a permanent underclass in America. It’s based on the concept that the jobs went away, and the jobs are never coming back, and that things aren’t going to get better in any of these places.”

For instance, you can’t use the outFile option while targeting commonjs or umd, but with TypeScript 1.8 and later, it’s possible to use outFile when targeting amd or system.

A common mistake is to try to use the /// <reference ... /> syntax to refer to a module file, rather than using an import statement.

for new projects modules would be the recommended code organization mechanism.

Just like namespaces, modules can contain both code and declarations. The main difference is that modules declare their dependencies.

Just like all global namespace pollution, it can be hard to identify component dependencies, especially in a large application.

First, we can use concatenated output using the --outFile flag to compile all of the input files into a single JavaScript output file:

compilerOptions: { outFile: "foo.js" }

Multiple files that have the same export namespace Foo { at top-level (don’t think that these are going to combine into one Foo!)

Do not use namespaces in modules

If you’re only exporting a single class or function, use export default

Optionally, a module can wrap one or more modules and combine all their exports using export * from "module" syntax.

In TypeScript, just as in ECMAScript 2015, any file containing a top-level import or export is considered a module.

Anxiety is the most common mental-health disorder in the United States, affecting nearly one-third of both adolescents and adults,

Jillian, a 16-year-old who, when she wasn’t overwhelmed with anxiety, came across as remarkably poised and adultlike, the kind of teenager you find yourself talking to as if she were a graduate student in psychology.

On a group outing to nearby Dartmouth College, for example, Jake’s therapist suggested he strike up conversations with strangers and tell them he didn’t have the grades to get into the school.

Those numbers — combined with a doubling of hospital admissions for suicidal teenagers over the last 10 years, with the highest rates occurring soon after they return to school each fall — come as little surprise to high school administrators across the country, who increasingly report a glut of anxious, overwhelmed students. While it’s difficult to tease apart how much of the apparent spike in anxiety is related to an increase in awareness and diagnosis of the disorder, many of those who work with young people suspect that what they’re seeing can’t easily be explained away.

In its annual survey of students, the American College Health Association found a significant increase — to 62 percent in 2016 from 50 percent in 2011 — of undergraduates reporting “overwhelming anxiety” in the previous year. Surveys that look at symptoms related to anxiety are also telling. In 1985, the Higher Education Research Institute at U.C.L.A. began asking incoming college freshmen if they “felt overwhelmed by all I had to do” during the previous year. In 1985, 18 percent said they did. By 2010, that number had increased to 29 percent. Last year, it surged to 41 percent.

In fact, "connectivity" has only further ghettoized politics, and served as a useful playground for vicious authoritarians as often as it has a vital medium for revolutionaries. Here, too, the heirs of the KGB have only exploited human nature. What Alexander Herzen, the great 19th-century Russian liberal, said he feared most for the future was "Genghis Khan with the telegraph."

For good reason did Andrey Krutskikh, a senior advisor to the Kremlin, liken Russia's latter-day information warfare capability to the testing of the Soviet atom bomb. If nothing else, he and his cohort have given the lie to the utopian conceit that the Internet would necessarily be a force for greater democratization and the broadening of political horizons.

The overriding goal was the same, however: portray a superpower in terminal decline, ruined by violent race wars and a plundering plutocracy, and hollowed out by imperial overstretch.

a helper is a reusable snippet of Razor sytnax exposed as a method, and is intended for rendering HTML to the browser, whereas a function is static utility method that can be called from anywhere within your Web Pages application. The return type for a helper is always HelperResult, whereas the return type for a function is whatever you want it to be.

We call declarations that don’t define an implementation “ambient”.

To describe the shape of libraries not written in TypeScript, we need to declare the API that the library exposes. We call declarations that don’t define an implementation “ambient”. Typically, these are defined in .d.ts files. If you’re familiar with C/C++, you can think of these as .h files. Let’s look at a few examples.

ECMAScript 2015

Change the default SessionStateBehavior for your Controllers. Simply decorate your controllers (or a BaseController) with SessionStateAttribute and apply either ReadOnly or Disabled. Many of your actions can require session but only a few will write something in session state.

with many AJAX requests per page, live interfaces, multi-tabs browsing, it is really easy to have bottleneck in our systems and performance issues at the client side.

If you need to work with larger amounts of data, reporting data, create dashboards, or work with multiple disparate sources of data, you can use the more heavy duty ViewModel object.

Active Setup runs before the Desktop appears.

Active Setup is used by some operating system components like Internet Explorer to set up an initial configuration for new users logging on for the first time.

LoginViewModel

dynamic

“in case signals can neither be seen or perfectly understood, no captain can do very wrong if he places his ship alongside that of the enemy.” If in doubt, go get ‘em!

In fact, at least three officers—Markham, and the skippers of Victoria and Camperdown—saw the hazard bearing down on them. They nonetheless failed to act as “circuit breakers” interrupting certain disaster.

Fuchsia is impossible to talk about without mentioning a hundred other related projects that also have code names. The interface and apps are written using Google's Flutter SDK, a project that actually produces cross-platform code that runs on Android and iOS. Flutter apps are written in Dart, Google's reboot of JavaScript which, on mobile, has a focus on high-performance, 120fps apps.

Through careful cultivation of the deans and judicious philanthropy, Bower secured a quasi-monopoly on Baker Scholars (the handful of top students at the Harvard Business School). Bower was not so foolish as to imagine that these scholars were of interest on account of the education they received. Rather, they were valuable because they were among the smartest, most ambitious, and best-connected individuals of their generation.

As students of philosophy know, Descartes dismantled the edifice of medieval thought by writing clearly and showing that knowledge, by its nature, is intelligible, not obscure.

The idea that philosophy is an inherently academic pursuit is a recent and diabolical invention. Epicurus, Descartes, Spinoza, Locke, Hume, Nietzsche, and most of the other great philosophers of history were not professors of philosophy

return Promise

The ES2015 arrow function in the callback is more succinct than the equivalent function expression and gracefully handles this.

You may use a data URI to use embedded images

Async Services and Promises

We should be able to create a component in a test and not worry that it might do real work — like calling a server! — before we tell it to do so.

Years of experience and bitter tears have taught us to keep complex logic out of the constructor, especially anything that might call a server as a data access method is sure to do.

That's as much drama as we can muster for now.

#name="ngModel"

[hidden]="name.valid

myfun a b | trace ("myfun " ++ show a ++ " " ++ show b) False = undefined

We have introduced another keyword: new. new is strongly related to this. It creates a brand new empty object, and then calls the function specified, with this set to that new object.

micah: I basically subscribe to the theory that the Democrats don’t have a major problem. Or that all their problems are marginal. They need a little better messaging, a little better messenger. Maybe they should tweak a couple of parts of their platform, emphasize economic mobility a bit more. They need a big tent so that more conservative Democrats can win in rural areas. harry: Remember when Bush won a second term in 2004? Democrats picked Howard Dean to be the Democratic National Committee chair. Democrats then went on a tear. Things change. micah: Yeah, I think the “DEMOCRATS SHOULD TEAR IT DOWN AND START OVER” arguments are as wrong as they were then. And those takes read too much into this one presidential election.

micah: I guess my point is just that basically every prediction in U.S. history that a party would have lasting political control has been wrong. harry: This is a closely divided country. This election was not a blowout. Democrats nearly won the Senate and very nearly won the presidency. Even after being elected, Trump still has a terrible favorable rating. micah: So maybe Democrats just need a fresh haircut and not a total makeover. clare.malone: I think that’s true that they don’t need to do a full overhaul, but I think they need to do a MESSAGING overhaul.

both Hillary and Obama voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which put up a 700 mile fence along the US-Mexican border.

Dog whistling seems to be the theory that if you want to know what someone really believes, you have to throw away decades of consistent statements supporting the side of an issue that everyone else in the world supports, and instead pay attention only to one weird out-of-character non-statement which implies he supports a totally taboo position which is perhaps literally the most unpopular thing it is possible to think.

Compare to eg Bill Clinton’s 1996 platform (all emphasis mine):

The temptation to accept the Trump administration’s unreality—particularly given increased distrust of the media and his ability to insulate his base from the truth—will be tremendous. His ability to use the powers of the federal government to bolster his dishonesty will magnify his powers of deception a thousandfold. And the inability of the Democratic opposition to affect the outcome given their marginal presence in the U.S. government will ensure that any dissent is muffled.

the ability of the Bush administration to use its power to compel the press to adopt its alternate reality led to the greatest foreign-policy blunder since Vietnam, and the deaths of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, as well as the rise of ISIS. The consequences are, arguably, immeasurable, and the stats I have mentioned simply cannot do them justice.

Another obstacle is that media objectivity is not a fixed point. It is carefully calibrated to the perception of public opinion, because media organizations do not want to alienate their intended audience.

For Trump administration mouthpieces, both public and anonymous, lies will now come with an officiality that will be difficult to contest. The total Republican control of government means that Democrats will struggle to get their objections to carry much weight, much as they did prior to the Iraq War.

The first reason is that political journalism is highly dependent on official sources, which are chased with abandon.

These are people who could argue that the sky is green without a blink. They were able to win a presidential election while doing so. Now they will have the entire apparatus of the federal government to bolster their lies, and the mainstream press is woefully unprepared to cover them.

“My job isn’t to assess the government’s information and be an independent intelligence analyst myself. My job is to tell readers of The New York Times what the government thought

Surely the American system of government is more robust than the Turkish or Hungarian or Polish or Malaysian or Italian systems. But that is not automatically true. It is true because of the active vigilance of freedom-loving citizens who put country first, party second. Not in many decades has that vigilance been required as it is required now.Your hand may hesitate to put a mark beside the name, Hillary Clinton. You’re not doing it for her. The vote you cast is for the republic and the Constitution.

Yet Trump does not need to achieve a dictatorship to subvert democracy. This is the age of “illiberal democracy,” as Fareed Zakaria calls it, and across the world we’ve seen formally elected leaders corrode democratic systems from within.

I appreciate that Donald Trump is too slovenly and incompetent to qualify as a true dictator.

This November, however, I am voting not to advance my wish-list on taxes, entitlements, regulation, and judicial appointments. I am voting to defend Americans' profoundest shared commitment: a commitment to norms and rules that today protect my rights under a president I don’t favor, and that will tomorrow do the same service for you.Vote the wrong way in November, and those norms and rules will shudder and shake in a way unequaled since the Union won the Civil War.

I have no illusions about Hillary Clinton. I expect policies that will seem to me at best counter-productive, at worst actively harmful. America needs more private-market competition in healthcare, not less; lighter regulation of enterprise, not heavier; reduced immigration, not expanded; lower taxes, not higher. On almost every domestic issue, I stand on one side; she stands on the other. I do not imagine that she will meet me, or those who think like me, anywhere within a country mile of half-way.But she is a patriot. She will uphold the sovereignty and independence of the United States. She will defend allies. She will execute the laws with reasonable impartiality. She may bend some rules for her own and her supporters’ advantage. She will not outright defy legality altogether. Above all, she can govern herself; the first indispensable qualification for governing others.So I will vote for the candidate who rejects my preferences and offends my opinions. (In fact, I already have voted for her.)

Having failed to act promptly at the outset, it’s all the more important to act decisively before it’s too late.

The hungry and houseless Americans of the Great Depression sustained a constitutional republic. How shameful that the Americans of today—so vastly better off in so many ways, despite their undoubted problems—have done so much less well.

The outcome would greatly depend on the resolve, integrity, and courage of other leaders and other institutions, especially the Republican leaders in Congress. To date, their record has not been reassuring

America's first president cautioned his posterity against succumbing to such internecine hatreds: “The spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension … leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.” George Washington’s farewell warning resounds with reverberating relevance in this election year.

I more or less agree with Trump on his signature issue, immigration. Two years ago, I would have rated immigration as one of the very most important issues in this election. But that was before Trump expanded the debate to include such questions as: “Should America honor its NATO commitments?” “Are American elections real or fake?” “Is it OK for a president to use the office to promote his family business?” “Are handicapped people comical?”  

To demonstrate my distaste for people whose bodies contain mean bones, it’s proposed that I give my franchise to a man who boasts of his delight in sexual assault? Who mocks the disabled, who denounces immigrant parents whose son laid down his life for this country, who endorses religious bigotry, and who denies the Americanism of everyone from the judge hearing the fraud case against Trump University to the 44th president of the United States?I’m invited to recoil from supposedly fawning media (media, in fact, which have devoted more minutes of network television airtime to Clinton’s email misjudgment than to all policy topics combined) and instead empower a bizarre new online coalition of antisemites, misogyists, cranks, and conspiracists with allegedly ominous connections to Russian state spy agencies?Is this real life?To vote for Trump as a protest against Clinton’s faults would be like amputating a leg because of a sliver in the toe; cutting one’s throat to lower one’s blood pressure.

Yes, I fear Clinton’s grudge-holding. Should I fear it so much that I rally to a candidate who has already explicitly promised to deploy antitrust and libel law against his critics and opponents? Who incited violence at his rallies? Who ejects reporters from his events if he objects to their coverage? Who told a huge audience in Australia that his top life advice was: "Get even with people. If they screw you, screw them back 10 times as hard. I really believe it”? Who idealizes Vladimir Putin, Saddam Hussein, and the butchers of Tiananmen as strong leaders to be admired and emulated?Should I be so appalled by the Clinton family’s access-selling that I prefer instead a president who boasts of a lifetime of bribing politicians to further his business career? Who defaults on debts and contracts as an ordinary business method, and who avoids taxes by deducting the losses he inflicted on others as if he had suffered them himself? Who cheated the illegal laborers he employed at Trump Tower out of their humble hourly wage? Who owes hundreds of millions of dollars to the Bank of China?  Who refuses to disclose his tax returns, perhaps to conceal his business dealings with Vladimir Putin’s inner circle?

That’s a good slogan but a misguided one. It is not corporate propaganda that turns presidential voting into a binary choice—it is the unwieldy electoral system outlined in the Constitution, in which a candidate must win a majority of electoral votes to emerge victorious. In parliamentary systems, coalitions of parties can form governments. In ours, the coalition-building has to happen inside the party, since otherwise an outright Electoral College victory is impossible. This reality is so basic that it feels patronizing to describe it and yet every four years, a sliver of highly mobilized citizens emerge who think they can wish it away.

“We’re fed this corporate brainwashing, many times a day, that we are powerless,” Green Party candidate Jill Stein told the left-wing journalist Chris Hedges in February. “And therefore we have to choose between two oppressors. It’s really important to reject that lesser-evilism and stand up and fight for the greater good.”

This emphasis on the right to run, rather than the wisdom of running, is telling. Nader may have seen the citizenry as a collection of frustrated consumers but he departed from the doctrines of his consumer advocacy on one key point. He always demanded that corporations act responsibly, even if it interfered with their ability to sell whatever they want. In politics, however, he celebrates candidates’ freedom to claim their market share and voters’ access to an unfettered political marketplace whatever the cost to their common interests.

“The test case for me is going to be whether this Brand New Congress project manages to run lots of people in two years,” said Sifry. “That would be unprecedented.” The group, he said, is “based on the understanding that if you really want to change politics in America you actually have to change Congress, not change the White House alone. My guess is that given the current problems that Our Revolution is having, Brand New Congress has a much better chance of being the main focal point of the Bernie swarm going forward.”

It’s a near-tragic irony that Nader, of all people, confused the grubby work of politics—the deal-making, the favor-trading, the assemblage of ungainly coalitions—with the wish-fulfilling work of marketing.

Ultimately, though, Nader’s most powerful example was negative, providing Bernie Sanders with a template of what not to do. Sanders, Nader said, is “obsessed by the way I was shunned. He hasn’t returned a call in 17 years. He’s told people 100 times he didn’t want to run a Nader campaign.” Determined not to be marginalized as Nader was, Sanders worked within the Democratic Party instead of going to war with it.

Nader concedes that it also failed to push the Democrats to the left in the following election.

Nader’s run, said Micah Sifry, author of Spoiling for a Fight: Third-Party Politics in America, “did not help the Greens grow. It didn’t get them on a significantly greater number of ballot lines. It didn’t get them a burst of popular support.

Nader’s enormous rallies didn’t translate into impressive turnout, and the Greens garnered only 2.7 percent of the national vote.

The next eight years put this proposition to the test. Nader told me that the 2000 election “showed the pundits that, together with our votes and Gore’s votes, we had a majority progressive turnout.” Perhaps it did, but without winning office, the display of a progressive majority counted for nothing.

he implied that Bush would be better for the left than Gore. “If it were a choice between a provocateur and an ‘anesthetizer,’ I’d rather have a provocateur,” he said. “It would mobilize us.”

Nader’s movement never constituted a real cross section of the left; even sympathetic observers noted that it was overwhelmingly white.

Sixteen years later, supporters of Bernie Sanders would also decry a “media blackout” on coverage of his enormous campaign events. That’s only one of the obvious and striking parallels between the Nader and Sanders campaigns. Both men were gruff, older leftists—Nader, like Sanders, didn’t like kissing strangers’ babies—who became unlikely youth culture heroes. (It helped that both called for free tuition at public colleges.) Nader and Sanders both believed a populist message could draw disaffected nonvoters into the electoral process, promising not just a challenge to the Democratic status quo but a political revolution. In a recent phone interview, Nader called the similarities of his movement and Sanders’ “uncanny.”

Nader told me in a recent interview. “That should have been a real eyebrow-raiser for the mass media. We filled the Portland Coliseum in Oregon and got almost no media. Eleven thousand people, that was the first rally, and we got maybe a squib in the New York Times.”

high priest of anti-consumerism turned voting into an act of individual self-affirmation

Part of his technical revolution, one that made Amundsen’s expeditions over the Arctic and deep into the Antarctic so boringly successful, was an obvious one. Rather than patronize or even antagonize the Inuit, Amundsen spent years learning from those who knew the most about survival in the most inhospitable places on earth. He adopted their clothes, their hunting techniques and absorbed just about everything else they had to teach.

may we approach the unknown more in the spirit of Amundsen than Franklin.

When the Northwest Passage was finally traversed in 1905 it was by a Norwegian, Roald Amundsen, in a boat almost a-tenth the size of Franklin’s behemoths. Amundsen is the most accomplished polar explorer of all time, but his exploits have long been overshadowed by the more melodramatic, if unsuccessful, adventures of the British. By comparison, Amundsen’s expeditions largely unfold with a sort of boring competence. When the Norwegian later became the first to reach the South Pole as well, even that feat was largely overshadowed by the more exciting but altogether disastrous expedition of Robert Falcon Scott. Scott left behind a haunting farewell note and a trail of bodies along the path to the South Pole. His men exemplified grit in the face of unspeakable hardship and, in doing so, captured the world’s imagination. Amundsen, on the other hand made it to the South Pole and back easily—even jettisoning food on the return trip. The world shrugged at his accomplishment. “Adventure,” he wrote, “is just bad planning.”

On May 19, 1845, two iron-reinforced juggernauts, the 340-ton HMS Terror and 370-ton HMS Erebus, set out from Greenhithe, England to defeat the Arctic. In grand Victorian style, the ships boasted a well-appointed library, an organ, a seemingly inexhaustible supply of tinned food, and a British admiralty’s conception of itself as lord, not just of the constellation of nations, but of the natural world as well. Led by naval officer John Franklin, the expedition’s aim was to subdue nature—to bring even the otherworldly grandeur of the Arctic under the heel of the Empire. Alas, the tins were poisoned with lead, the ships were crippled by ice, and the crew of 129 men—deranged by lead poisoning and starvation—became cannibals hopelessly wandering a stark, and almost featureless, icy wilderness. Everyone died.

One of the most disturbing poll results I have ever read is the recent World Values Survey finding that only 31% of Americans born in the 1980’s say it is “essential” to “live in a country that is governed democratically.” That figure compares to about 44% in Europe, where the memory of totalitarianism is both physically and temporally closer. We American millennials take our freedom and prosperity for granted. My generation has so little experience of authoritarianism and illiberalism that over two-thirds of us basically say we wouldn’t mind living in a non-democratic society. Because we have no historical reference points, when we see Trump, we think only of a silly reality television show star, not a nascent dictator. If Trump wins, we’ll get what we deserve.

26% of voters aged 18-29 say they will vote for Johnson; 10% back Stein.

26% of voters aged 18-29 say they will vote for Johnson; 10% back Stein.

In June, the Southern Baptist Convention approved a resolution calling on churches to welcome refugees at their annual meeting. “Scripture calls for and expects God’s people to minister to the sojourner,” the resolution reads. “We encourage Southern Baptist churches and families to welcome and adopt refugees into their churches and homes as a means to demonstrate to the nations that our God longs for every tribe, tongue, and nation to be welcomed at His throne.”

“We’ve consistently had significant support from churches across the board from very conservative churches to other more liberal churches. It’s never been an issue for us to really emphasize with churches that need to help some of these refugees,”  said Jenny Yang, the vice president of advocacy and policy at World Relief, one of the agencies that partners with the federal government to resettle refugees.  

The other is that fraud is sometimes an emergent property of complex institutions, and that there can be widespread misbehavior at a bank without senior management approving it, or knowing about it, or wanting it.

Eventually we will all stop reading and writing articles about Why No Senior Executives at Big Banks Went to Prison for the Financial Crisis, but that time isn't quite yet. There are basically two views about the answer. One is that senior bankers knowingly countenanced fraud, but were good at covering it up, and prosecutors couldn't quite find the smoking gun. The other is that fraud is sometimes an emergent property of complex institutions, and that there can be widespread misbehavior at a bank without senior management approving it, or knowing about it, or wanting it. This case is, I think, useful evidence for the latter view. "Wells Fargo knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that its employees open unauthorized accounts," said the L.A. City Attorney last year, but it's hard to believe that any actual human in senior management wanted that to happen. They wanted employees to open lots of real accounts, and designed a system that they hoped would encourage that. But they designed it badly, and ended up instead encouraging employees to open a lot of fake accounts. That's not what anyone wanted, but it happened anyway.

Breitbart’s collapse into all-but-open racism, then, wasn’t just predictable — it was predicted. That, at the very least, should cause mainstream conservatives to question why they saw things differently.

"Andrew Breitbart despised racism," Ben Shapiro, the former Breitbart reporter who penned the Friends of Hamas story, wrote in the wake of Bannon’s appointment to the Trump campaign. "Andrew’s life mission has been betrayed." But this is letting Breitbart, and the conservative movement itself, off the hook. What Breitbart would say today is unknowable. But what we do know is that Breitbart’s entire ethos, his weird obsession with cultural Marxism and penchant for misleading "scoops," is in his website’s DNA.

Once again, Yiannopoulos faced no consequences for his dabbling with a demonstrably racist movement. In fact, Bannon embraced it, applying the alt-right label to his own vision for the outlet. "We're the platform for the alt-right," Bannon enthused to Mother Jones’s Sarah Posner in a July interview.

Breitbart was consciously founded on the idea that those leaders were wrong, that Republican voters really cared about the culture war, and that conservative ideology was the discardable bit. The site’s growing influence on the right proved its vision right, making it impossible for the conservative mainstream to purge it even if they wanted to. The mainstream conservative movement has mostly been in denial on this point. "Conservative intellectuals, and conservative politicians, have been in kind of a bubble," Avik Roy, a GOP health care wonk who worked for the Romney campaign, told me in July. "We’ve had this view that the voters were with us on conservatism — philosophical, economic conservatism. In reality, the gravitational center of the Republican Party is white nationalism."

. In a private email sent shortly after Breitbart’s death, he was more blunt. "This is about power," Bannon wrote, "and who is going to exert it."

If you would like to donate to the recovery, she recommends Foundation Beyond Belief and Team Rubicon.

individuals will be forced through a complex process that many homeowners have described as a full-time job.

Most people do not have the resources to pay out of pocket for their own recovery. A recent survey found that 63 percent of Americans cannot afford a $500 emergency.

Though response is a trying experience, it is the recovery that is especially arduous and requires the dedication of resources and personnel to be sustained over a long period of time. Survivors often call recovery "the second disaster" because of how difficult it is.

“All the soul-searching we need to do has been provoked already,” he said. “I would rather not see him win. That’s my view. The impetus is already there. I’m not sure what ore is gained by four years of this.” At the thought of that prospect, a shudder seemed to go through the room.

Chief among the many disturbances to the Republican psyche prompted by Trump is the realization on the part of many of the party’s erstwhile mavens that their voters were not nearly as interested in their agenda as they previously believed. The party base proved, in this year’s primaries, not only willing to go along with a candidate who called many of its dogmas into question, but perhaps actively supportive of his heretical ideas. “So much of what you read, what’s in the political agenda, is just so wrong,” Cochrane sputtered, exasperated. “It’s really frustrating. Immigration is good, and trade is good!”

But in other quarters, there are heretical whispers. What if Trump has exposed something fundamental—the hollowness of the party’s old agenda, the troubling priorities of its most reliable voters? What if nobody wants the old-time religion of supply-side economics, or the neoconservatism that produced the Iraq war? Can there be any going back once that realization sets in?

But Trump has been playing the attention-seeking game for decades now, and so far his response to its inefficacy in a general election has been more thrashing. Counting on the leopard to change his spots would be a serious mistake.

Trump’s only hope for turning the ship around is to do exactly what he’s been refusing to do the entire campaign — pivot, and start running a lower-key, more disciplined, less egomaniacal campaign that’s less about his grudges and attention-seeking behavior and more about focus-grouped slams on Clinton.

while “losing candidate complains about media coverage” is the ultimate dog-bites-man story, Trump has managed to add an edge of real threat and menace to his approach.

Attention per se is not a valuable commodity in a context where even objectively uninteresting people like Bob Dole and Al Gore manage to garner massive attention.

by focusing attention on himself, he prevents his campaign from executing on the one strategy that could put an unpopular candidate over the top — getting people to pay more attention to their feelings about his opponent.

Trump is a longstanding proponent of the “no such thing as bad publicity” school of thought, and he’s freakishly good at executing on a strategy of attracting attention at any price. But while this theory may apply to luxury condominium development, reality television, and presidential primaries, it most certainly does not apply to presidential general elections.

He tweeted constantly. He made himself widely available to the media in unscripted settings. He said and did wild things. He was great for ratings, so people wanted to cover him. And obtaining constant coverage helped him find and bond with a base of core supporters, who got enthusiastic about him, turned out to vote in unexpectedly high numbers, and ultimately built up too much momentum to be stopped.

xsi:

xs:

information items

The verbosity of XML in data serialization is primarily due to its use of both start and end tags to wrap elements like this: <FirstName> Michael </FirstName>.  The duplication of the label “FirstName” is a source of concern for many programmers who hate to waste any bandwidth or processing power.  In JSON, this would be { FirstName: Michael }.

For all their imperfection, the polls are a far better indicator than the conspiracy theories made up to convince people that Trump is ahead.

Isn’t it more plausible the people who get paid to know what they are doing are right, while some anonymous website on the internet with unclear methodology is wrong?

But let’s say this plainly: The polls are not “skewed.” They weren’t in 2012, and they aren’t now.

Party identification is an attitude, not a demographic. There isn’t some national number from the government that tells us how many Democrats and Republicans there are in the country.

But there’s no reasonable connection between the discussion of Amiri’s case on email by Clinton’s staff to Amiri’s eventual execution. There’s no evidence her server was hacked. The Iranians knew all about Amiri well before the emails were released publicly. His kidnapping story never held water and his fate was sealed long before his sentence was carried out. Add Shahram Amiri to the list of deaths Trump has carelessly speculated that Clinton is responsible for with no real evidence. At least he can’t blame her for the Kennedy assassination; he’s already got a conspiracy theory for that one.

The Iranian government may have threatened his wife and 7-year old son. He may have hated life on the run. He may have had a change of heart.

He never explained how or why he was able to record Youtube videos during his alleged capture, each of which had different accounts of what happened to him.

It’s not just bugs. Urban ecologists have repeatedly found that monetary wealth affects biological richness. Wealthier neighborhoods also contain more species of birds, lizards, and bats—a pattern known as the “luxury effect.”  

“It’s vegetation at a neighborhood scale that’s really having this big effect,” says Leong. In affluent areas, people might be more likely to plant trees or shrubs, and not just in their own yards but in public spaces beyond. Alternatively, richer people might be more likely to move into greener places. Either way, the bountiful vegetation then fosters a thriving community of arthropods that can then find their way into homes.

It long has been the duty of the Democratic Party to the nation to beat the crazy out of the Republican Party until it no longer behaves like a lunatic asylum. The opportunity to do this, to act unilaterally in returning sanity to the Republic, never has been as wide and gleaming as it is right now. To argue that responsible government requires that you treat sensibly a party that has gone as mad as the Republicans have is to argue for government by delirium.Trump doesn't need an intervention. His party does.

The president is not budging. Why should he? He's not the crazy one. He doesn't belong to the party that, with its eyes wide open, nominated a vulgar talking yam for president.

There have been three chances since 2000 for the Democratic Party to beat the crazy out of the Republicans. The first was after the thumping that the Avignon Presidency received in the 2006 midterms. The second was immediately after the election of Barack Obama. Both of those went a'glimmering because the Democrats listened to people who convinced them that, because they were the grown-up governing party, they had to make nice with the pack of vandals on the other side of the aisle.

Ever since the late 1970s, when it determined to ally itself with a politicized splinter of American evangelical Protestantism, having previously allied itself with the detritus of American apartheid, the Republican Party has been reeling toward catastrophe even as it succeeded at the ballot box, and taking the country along with it. Crackpot economic theories were mainstreamed in the 1980s. Crackpot conspiracy theories and god-drunk fantasies were mainstreamed in the 1990s. Crackpot imperial adventures abroad were mainstreamed in the 2000s. And all of these were mainstreamed at once in opposition to the country's first African American president over the past eight years.

Modern conservatism has proven to be not a philosophy, but a huge dose of badly manufactured absinthe. It squats in an intellectual hovel now, waiting for its next fix, while a public madman filches its tattered banner and runs around wiping his ass with it. It always was coming to this.

For the good of the nation, the Republican Party as it is presently constituted has to die.

There already is a strong undertow pulling HRC toward "reaching out" to the GOP, toward governing from "the middle," and toward not accelerating the now-rapid descent of the Republican Party into the final madness of the prion disease it has welcomed so warmly into itself ever since the late 1970s. Ryan Lizza of The New Yorker even posited that, as a gesture of good faith, HRC should allow the Republicans to pick a Supreme Court justice, a stratagem that has been proven to work only on The West Wing, which was not a documentary series.

The president has basically unconstrained authority to use nuclear weapons, a seemingly insane system that flows pretty logically from America’s strategic doctrine on nuclear weapons. The US needs a system to launch weapons fast for deterrence to work properly, which means one person needs to be able to order the use of nukes basically unencumbered. The president is the only possible choice.

The natural question to ask, then, is whether he could actually do that. The answer is deceptively simple: Yes, he can. No matter what.

With its own version of a powerful troika of cross-state networks combining policy research, legislative orchestration, and public advocacy across dozens of states, the American left would become much more able to elect and support progressive politicians at all levels of government. As the US right well understands, that sort of combined clout across the states is what it takes to move the needle in American politics and public policy. As liberals continue to relearn through hard experience, capturing the presidency and operating in Washington, DC — is simply not enough.

a common left-wing pitfall

Architects would need to deal with the perennial left-wing issue of too many advocacy groups and donors pushing dozens of issues and causes.

An estimate of SiX’s 2015 budget puts it at around $3.5 million — approximately half the revenue commanded by ALEC and only about 2 percent of the recent budgets of Americans for Prosperity.

SiX’s future success will likely depend on its ability to build an organizational brand that can appeal not only to dyed-in-the-wool progressives but also more moderate members in purple and red states.

A failure to reach beyond the blue-state core

Progressives now hope that this picture can change with the emergence of a new group — the State Innovation Exchange (or SiX) — the product of a 2014 merger of several older progressive networks focused on state lawmakers

But the various left-liberal competitors have never gotten beyond competing for (insufficient) grants from unions, center-left foundations, and wealthy donors. Few of those liberal funders ever stuck with cross-state projects for long, given the preference of liberals in the United States for national initiatives launched from Washington, DC.

ALEC moved through various experimental phases before it eventually realized it could build enduring clout by enrolling both businesses and conservative-minded state legislators as dues-paying members who collaborate in issue-focused task forces. Dues give members a sense that they have a real stake in the organization — they serve as a signal of the commitment of the lawmakers.

Americans for Prosperity has expanded since 2004 into a nation-spanning federation comparable in size and resources to the Republican Party itself.

The presidential contest takes up most of the air in the media, but it is at the local and state level that political movements are built, as conservatives in recent years have recognized better than liberals.

“Every member should remember this the next time they see a Club for Growth or Heritage Action vote alert,” said a national Republican strategist. “Never put their interests before your district or the country, or there will be a price to pay.”

Club for Growth

Americans for Prosperity

The problem for Donald Trump is that his supporters believe what he says. If he says that a Trump loss means that the election has been stolen, there are millions of people prepared to believe it. And on the day after the election, professional provocateurs on talk radio and the internet may be ready to tell them to reject the results of the election and the peaceful transfer of power that comes with it.

Whether or not Trump intends to contest the legitimacy of Clinton’s election after the fact, he’s certainly giving license to his followers to do just that. Trump’s followers adore him in part because he says things they’d always believed but had simply been afraid to say; if he stops saying them, they won’t stop believing them. Just ask Bernie Sanders.

Taken altogether, it looks less like the efforts of someone preparing to mount a post-election challenge (which, after all, takes a lot of work) than the efforts of someone trying to make sure he emerges from a loss unscathed.

And a few days before that — at a rally in Colorado — he blamed his very own supporters for a potential Trump loss:

But to be honest, Donald Trump probably isn’t thinking that far ahead. Instead, he seems to be worried he’s going to lose, and so he’s trying to make sure everyone but him gets blamed for it.

In North Carolina, the State Senate leader and House speaker have been even more explicit. When the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down several provisions of North Carolina voting laws last week, they speculated, “We can only wonder if the intent is to reopen the door for voter fraud, potentially allowing fellow Democrat politicians like Hillary Clinton and Roy Cooper to steal the election.”

In a year where anti-establishment anger is running high, it’s an appealing message. In fact, there are plenty of people — dissident Democrats and Republicans alike — who don’t like Donald Trump per se, but who already believe that the Democratic Party rigged the primaries for Hillary Clinton, or that Democrats are trying to rig the general election for her.

An underrated truth of American politics is that large numbers of people in both major parties believe that, if their side doesn’t win an election, it’ll be because the other side cheated.

When he offered to pay the legal fees of anyone who was arrested for restraining anti-Trump protesters, and then a Trump supporter punched a protester in the face, he quietly reneged on his promise.

President Nicolás Maduro signed a decree at the end of last week

The next presidential election is due in April 2019.

At 74.3%, voter participation was high, suggesting a sizeable proportion of the population backed change

Demographics: In the aggregate, voters tend to be older, wealthier, more educated and whiter than non-voters.  Age: Young people are much less likely to vote than older ones. From 1972 to 2012, citizens 18-29 years old turned out at a rate 15 to 20 points lower than citizens 30 year and older.

But, in Schmitz’s opinion, the two in five Catholics who support Trump may do so because churches have left their parishioners open to Trump, because, “Catholics have failed to articulate a political vision — in either party — that appeals to those left behind by progress.”

I don't really hold anything against Southwest

There were reports of missed youth basketball tournaments and being late for the first day of work at a new job.

a night spent camped out at the airport

By the end of last weekend, about 2,300 flights were canceled, affecting up to an estimated quarter of a million passengers.

We'll drive 12 hours instead

As any trader will tell you, if you are stuck lower, you want volatility, uncertainty. No matter how it comes. Put another way. Your downside is flat, your upside isn’t. Break the system. The elites loathe volatility. Because, the upside is limited, but the downside isn’t. In option language, they are in the money. To put it in very non-geeky language: A two-tiered system has one set of people who want to keep the system, and another that doesn’t. Each one is voting for their own best interests. (Yes, there are always altruistic people. But…..)

For the entire history of modern conservatism, its ideals have been wedded to and marred by white supremacism. That’s Roy’s own diagnosis, and I think it’s correct. As a result, we have literally no experience in America of a politically viable conservative movement unmoored from white supremacy.

As someone who has covered President Obama’s foreign policy fairly extensively, I feel confident in stating that he has never expressed such a negative view of the U.S. We are truly in uncharted waters.

RG: I do. I think manufacturing has been much easier to automate. I think there are limits in the ability of robots as they're currently built and conceived to do things like hotel room service and making beds and folding laundry, and doing many of the jobs in the service sector in education and the gigantic health care sector. Even something as mundane as the employees in hospitals who push you down the corridors from your room to an x-ray machine or an MRI test, that's all still being done by humans. You'd think that would be the first job to be replaced by robots, but there’s nothing like that happening yet.

RG: This idea that we're on the verge of some kind of fundamental transformation implies that there's going to be a major replacement of people by machines across the wide span of the service sector. And we just don't see it. We don't see the foundations of the innovations that would make this possible. Look across retailing. Look across medical care and education. Look at finance, which had its big computer revolution back in the 1980s and 1990s — where everything is already being done by computers. We’re not seeing anything on the horizon that's analogous to the movement from typewriters to personal computers that was the big driver of productivity growth.

RG: Almost all truck drivers have two roles. They drive the truck to the destination, they get out, they take the goods out of the back, load them on a pallet, and wheel it into the shelves. The people arranging the beer and the cola on the shelves are often truck drivers from the wholesaler. Having a self-driving truck is not going to eliminate that role. You might have to have employment reorganized so that there are additional employees in the stores to take the merchandise off the trucks.

RG: Consumer Reports did a very detailed analysis of self-driving cars and pointed out that they're not ready for primetime. Self-driving cars can't see lane markings when there's snow and rain. We saw the tragic death of a tech enthusiast who was blindsided by a truck and the car didn't see it. The entire world has to be mapped in 3D, not just two dimensions, for cars to recognize all of the obstacles, all the signals, all the lights, all the construction zones. The self-driving car may eventually take over, but we've got hundreds of millions of existing cars, all of which are going to have to co-exist with these self-driving cars. You can't make people buy them. And if self-driving cars are more expensive, as they surely will be because all the extra equipment that’s included with them, you'll still have a mix of autonomous and person-driven vehicles for quite a distance into the future.

Now, of course, we do have predictions that with the rise of the minimum wage, that we're going to have more installation of automated machinery in fast food restaurants. I fully expect that to happen. That would create an increase in productivity in the restaurant sector. So I agree that digitalization and computers are going to gradually replace many jobs. But I think the word is gradual. There are big obstacles in the way of physical robots taking over many of the physical jobs that people do in their everyday lives.

seems primitive that supermarket shelves are stocked by humans. Where are the robots coming to replace humans stocking shelves in supermarkets?

seems primitive that supermarket shelves are stocked by humans. Where are the robots coming to replace humans stocking shelves in supermarkets?

The GOP now finds itself lacking an intimate’s ability to criticize productively, given its demographic and cultural divergence from the majority of the country.

Reagan hagiography has stunted the GOP: “No one under the age of 51 today was old enough to vote for Reagan when he first ran for president,” the authors of the party’s 2012 election post-mortem, a reviled document in some corners of the party, wrote. “We sound increasingly out of touch.”

The rise of Donald Trump and the shock of Brexit has sent a message to many professional commentators that globalization requires more economic protection at home.

The legacy of President Bill Clinton’s reform is complicated. But most experts agree that welfare reform failed the most vulnerable by obliterating the safety net for the poorest single parents. The male participation rate has fallen more since 1996 than it fell in the 20 years before 1996. That’s astonishing, given that one goal of welfare reform was to get people to work.

The emerging Republican Party is a self-sustaining machine of perpetual rage, suppressing the prospects of working-class men while being powered by their growing frustration.

Rauch believes that restoring the kludgy legislative structures of the postwar era would bring back the same results those systems produced. But the 20th-century party system worked because the parties of that era were qualitatively different. Rauch’s proposal is merely one more in the latest of a series of well-intentioned but doomed plans to bring back a world that can never be restored.

A series of polls have all found that Democratic-leaning voters want their leaders to compromise, while Republican-leaning voters do not. Many Democrats feel frustrated with the system, but they want to make it work. Republicans do not feel this way at all.

The political scientists Matt Grossmann and Dave Hopkins have found that Democrats tend to conceive of their policies in concrete terms, while Republicans present theirs in ideologically abstract terms.

The disconnect implies a fatal flaw in Rauch’s analysis. Since he identifies causes of illness that afflict both parties equally, while the symptoms have manifested in only one of them, what reason is there to trust his diagnosis?

The more serious problem with Rauch’s argument is this: Virtually every breakdown in governing he identifies is occurring primarily or exclusively within the Republican Party. Democrats have not been shutting down the government, holding the debt ceiling hostage, overthrowing their leaders in Congress, revolting against normal deal-making, or (for the most part) living in terror of primary challenges. Rauch is right that Sanders has encouraged unrealistic ideas about a revolution that would make compromise unnecessary, but the signal fact is that Sanders lost.

We reformed pork