IbrChris

I'm glad the Women's marches/protests were non-violent. I think it was great to see demonstrations that were well-planned and peaceful. Over the last decade or maybe longer it seems like we've increasingly seen the violent variety (or perhaps those are the ones whose media coverage gets a lot of clicks and viewers). Anyway if MLK could accomplish what he did through peaceful means I think it's wrong to think that violence is the way to get a message across today.

Lol...must be why it's thrashing one of his key demographics.

I get that people wanted to "drain the swamp" but they forgot that we need folks who know how to compromise and work for the good of the American people...not a single interest group, or one side of the aisle. Personally, I think a good synergy of those traits could be found in Rand Paul, sure he has his flaws but he has experience in national politics, he knows how to work with different groups in Congress and he also isn't afraid to take on an unpopular position while also explaining to Americans why he holds that position, without coming across as a condescending prick or an angry man-child. The main thing he lacks is the type of charisma and willingness to "wrestle in the mud" that we seem to crave in politics.

Wow! Can't recall seeing a high risk for Dixie Alley in recent years.

Trump is used to being the boss...people don't question him. He hasn't developed a thick skin and emotionally he's quite juvenile. One thing being said for career politicians ascending to POTUS is that they've developed a thick-skin...they can shrug off criticism from detractors...they've learned to work with a variety of different groups/factions and know the value of compromise as well as what can be compromised and where they should dig their heels in and not waver. Trump has none of those abilities and seems to have arrived at the White House thinking he will run America as he ran his real estate and media empire...but that isn't going to work. We are not employees of Trump Inc., we are American citizens and the government belongs to every one of us.

For instance I personally don't take issue with the Russian hackers that phished DNC emails from the accounts of John Podesta and others. They revealed a lot of information about the behind-the-scenes scheming, especially within their own party in preventing Sanders from having a fair/equal opportunity to achieve the party nomination. I believe this created a schism on the left that cooled much of the support/momentum Hillary had in the final weeks leading to the election. These same hackers gleaned information on the RNC most of which they didn't release (although I'm doubtful it would have harmed Trump that much considering his unconventional campaign). I would have been very interested to have had a chance to see behind the scenes of the RNC as well, they're no shining examples of integrity either. As long as it's truth being disseminated I take little issue with the source...if you want to play politics, a necessarily public affair, you can't cry too many tears when your supposedly secret correspondence becomes public.

A healthy press that remains as objective as reasonably able given human limitations is necessary as a bulwark against the tendency of centralized government to engage in propaganda to further their interests at the expense of an ignorant or misled public. It's not that the press needs to oppose Trump because he's Trump, so long as the veracity of statements made by his administration can be corroborated there's no issue. But the American people...and the health of a republic...demands that the leadership be held accountable and that demonstrable lies be revealed as such.

Good example. The Gulf of Tonkin incident as a pretext for the Vietnam War would be another IMO. WMDs in Iraq...lol. List goes on. Of course those are more government-sponsored lies than coming from the press, though the press has worked to sway the public by publishing false information in recent years.

I tend to see "fake news" as in part much ado about nothing. You can't legislate to force people to get their information outside their confirmation bias echo chamber, that's a choice they have to make themselves. Of course I would contest the assertion of someone who says they're "informed" who does get their news from the echo chamber, whether on the right or left. There were fake news/yellow journalism/outright printed lies long before the advent of the internet. I'm definitely not for government-backed censorship of the press, even extending to what could be deemed "fake news"...that sets a dangerous precedent and makes it too easy for folks like Trump to determine what is "fake news" and what isn't.

Agreed...nothing wrong with reading their articles as long as you balance it with something like NPR, WSJ, the Guardian, Reuters etc. I like the Atlantic, which tends to be center-left, because they have a lot of well-written insightful articles that go beyond talking points and just scratching the surface of an issue. Heck just yesterday I read articles on The Guardian, HuffPo, one on Breitbart, a couple on CNBC just to name a few.

Agreed...and I've been critical of Trump for the "schoolyard" style back-and-forth he seems to enjoy engaging in on social media. It IS unbecoming of someone who is now POTUS. It's certainly shameful...I'd expect it from candidates, congresspersons, political commentators etc but not from a sitting POTUS.

It's no revelation to most people that the press tends to lean fairly solidly liberal/progressive today. I'm not excusing Trump's behavior but personal beliefs do tend to influence biases in reporting, even when journalists try to remain objective. Bias doesn't just creep into news articles either...it's often shown by the choice of which stories to report on, which interviewers to have on news segments, etc (because of course it's impossible to give ideal coverage to every story, or to give every person equal air-time).

Probably the most obvious is the tendency to sign controversial legislation on a Friday afternoon after the press corps has adjourned for the weekend (and this isn't just something Obama did...Bush and other presidents have as well). Often by Monday there's something else in the news to distract people, especially during the last campaign season.

John Tyler famously told his cabinet to "f*ck off" and over half of them resigned. Then again since William Henry Harrison died a few weeks into his term they referred to Tyler as "Vice President acting as President". Back then the whole presidential succession was hotly contested and later amendments clarifying that indeed the VP becomes president upon the death or incapacitation of the latter hadn't been written. Calvin Coolidge was arguably one of our best presidents from a limited government perspective. Let's be logically consistent and oppose a given behavior or action regardless of which party it comes from.

To be fair my yard could use a mow about 9 months out of the year...with our frost-free period here typically at or above 200 days.

Yeah...I think this was mentioned earlier. However it's pretty accurate for the places where 90% of the population lives.

To be fair Obama did the same thing...misdirection works.

Yeah petty dictators tend to like state-controlled media.

80 days of snowcover is pretty impressive.

Yep...but far less ice than most of the rest of the metro, a trade-off I have no issue with.

It's only utilizing NOAA first-order stations like PDX, SLE, EUG, SEA, etc. The contours are drawn by computer based on the data.

Yeah it has really been a disappointing year back east...at least climatologically your chances continue into April though. Realistically ours are pretty well over by mid-Feb outside of fluke events and minor shower accumulations favoring the PSCZ. As much as it might anger some folks, we can almost see the end of the tunnel in the models. Not an absolute of course, I've seen flakes amount to a light dusting in March here.

The torch in Nov was almost as anomalous as the ice box in Jan...I guess things have a habit of equaling out. It would take one heck of a Feb to give us a warmer than normal DJF. Don't tempt the weather gods though.

Would also be neat to see a map of variability of snowcover...I'm betting in some places the average was almost solely due to one or two winters with snow.

This one looks better IMO...looks like Portland averages 2-5 days with snowcover per winter. Wait...I see a hole over Portland. 1-2 days a year it is then.