SpoonDog

Isn't it? If you need to clear $300/week to cover rent, utilities, groceries, gas, car payment, healthcare, childcare- that's what you need. No one needs to compromise their financial stability so Walmart and McDonald's can make an easy buck. No one owes them that. I think a lot of folks grew up watching Walmart gut business districts and still think Wally World's the only game in town. But if they have an internet connection, folks can work remote as a data entry technician for $12-$25/hr. They can make $20/hr or more with Uber or DoorDash or Instacart. Set their own schedule- work when they want, for how long they want, make as much as they want. Laziness has nothing to do with it, they're not applying to Walmart for the same reasons as you. It's not worth their time. Every hour spent there is an hour they could've made more somewhere else. I have a friend undergoing chemo. Can't get the vaccine. Can't go back to work safely until we've reached herd immunity. Complaining on the internet isn't going to get him back in the workforce, but getting vaccinated will. If you haven't been vaccinated, and you're complaining folks like him won't stock your shelves or flip your burgers- these are the consequences of choices you've made.

They could. We typically take it for granted that wild populations are more genetically diverse than hatchery fish, and usually that's the case. But it's hard to overstate the scale of the 2017 flood. Take the entire Mississippi flowing past St. Louis right now, double it, then send it down a narrow Ozark valley. That's the volume of water that was flowing down NFOW that day. I floated it a couple weeks before the flood, and visited the following September. The only other damage I've seen on that scale was the Joplin tornado. If you had a thousand fish per mile before the flood, maybe 30% of them were adult size. If 90% of those died, it leaves 30 spawners per mile. In April. They have to find enough food, and enough cool water to hide out in, to make it until spawning season in Dec/Jan/Feb. They have to consume enough food during the growing season to produce eggs, find spawning gravel, build a redd, and do the deed. And hope that one of those other 29 fish/mile finds them, of the opposite sex, finds them. There's a lot of long, dead holes on the NFOW. If there's any predation by stripers or walleye, that population of spawning fish drops even further. I don't have hard numbers, it's just a thought experiment, but you can see how that population could drop down to just a couple spawning pairs per mile of stream. *If* populations dropped that low, it's likely genetics will be screwed up anyway. We have a human hangup that if ten fish are spawning in a riffle it's a miracle of nature. Put the same ten fish in a hatchery and it's Frankenstein's lab. Mathematically, it's the same thing. Genetically, it's the same thing. It's a stupid analogy, and I apologize in advance, but: imagine the stocked fish of the 1960's are a supreme pizza. Cheese, sausage, pepperoni, green pepper, onion, mushroom. Subsequent generations of wild fish aren't adding Canadian bacon and pineapple (on a 50y time scale). They're subtracting green pepper and onion. They aren't wasting energy on stuff they don't need to survive. The flood knocked out sausage, pepperoni and onion. What you have left is a cheese pizza. Cheese pizza is fine, but cheese pizza is not a supreme. While a cheese pizza may be equipped to survive a catastrophic flood, there is no guarantee the next disaster will be a catastrophic flood. Sausage and bacon may be better equipped to survive catastrophic drought. But you don't have sausage and bacon. You have cheese pizza. Because you everyone is better off cxdswq1` (whoops, dog needed consoling because of fireworks. happy new year everyone). Because the 2017 flood wiped out so many fish, there's a realistic possibility the remaining fish in the river are less genetically diverse. You can use hatcheries to reintroduce bacon. Or green peppers. Or black olives. You can add Canadian bacon or pineapple. Or you can argue cheese pizza is the best kind of pizza because it's the only kind of pizza we have. Or hope black olives and pepperoni appear magically, out of nowhere.

I don't think that's the case at all. There's all sorts of literature out there on how C&R has altered vulnerability of some fisheries to angling, and how those traits are passed down from one generation to the next. I bet if you did a similar study between populations of pressured and naive fish, you'd find differences in gene expression, too. 723 genes sounds like a lot. If any of the remaining 72,356 genes in a rainbow trout's DNA allows them to successfully spawn in NFOW, I think we'll be alright. We'll entertain building a wall, shutting down a fishery, a river, put folks out of business, because the stocked version of a nonnative fish is only 99% of what the previously stocked version was. People go bonkers for trout. Every single rainbow that's ever lived in the North Fork is ultimately derived from a stocked fish. Whatever genetic information is necessary to produce a wild population was present in hatchery fish, otherwise you wouldn't have a wild population. The presence of a wild population in NFOW is proof hatchery fish can reproduce in the NFOW- otherwise, there wouldn't be a population. This species exists from southern California into Alaska because it's genetically diverse. It occurs from sea level to 10,000+ feet because it's genetically diverse. Within its native range a beaver dam can divide a population for a century, an earthquake can divide a population for millennia. Those populations diverge, eventually water finds a way around, and the populations recombine. An earthquake, an ice sheet, a lava flow can shunt one river into another, with two (or more) distinct populations mating with each other. A sea-run steelhead can wander into a river next door and swap gametes with the locals. Drought or floods or wildfire or other events cause populations to blink out, and those habitats are eventually recolonized by fish with a different genetic heritage. Isolated populations of rainbow trout are part of the species' evolutionary history, but not the entirety. And probably not the norm. We're insisting on a level of genetic "purity" that doesn't often exist in nature, and that often comes at significant risk to a population's persistence over time. It isn't a reflection of the species' evolutionary history, it's a reflection of our desires. Happy new year!

As wild as they are, NFOW rainbows are a product of our invention. We can intervene to stock fish throughout the 1900s, we can intervene to quit stocking fish in the 1960s, we can intervene to rebuild a dam...but we can't intervene to augment populations? Because we don't want to wreck the genetics? That horse left the barn with catastrophic flooding. Whatever individuals remain represent only a fraction of the population's former genetic diversity. Stop and get gas in a little Ozark town and tell me there are no genetic consequences for small, isolated populations breeding with near-relatives over generations 🙂 After an event like 2017, there's an argument for stocking to increase genetic diversity. I don't know if it's a silver bullet, but it solves a bunch of problems a dam doesn't address. Does it pretty quick, does it pretty cheap. I think it's a little premature to start tossing out alternatives in favor of the biggest, flashiest, most expensive "solution," based on little more than a hunch. I think it's pretty ham-handed asking other folks to foot the bill on your "solution," because someone who isn't paying for it finds it the most palatable option. It's easy to make the perfect the enemy of the good when you have no stake in the game. There's gotta be a handful of vulnerable endemic species in this state where a $500,000 investment would make tremendous impact on their conservation. But hey, they're not trout. So we'll try spending half a million dollars hoping to prevent one of the most widespread critters on the planet from being eaten by one of the next most widespread critters on the planet. Perfectly sane, rational, well adjusted people go absolutely bonkers for trout, and that's as much a problem here as the flood or the stripers or Dawt Mill Dam. Don't believe me? Replace "trout" in Al's OP with "bluegill" and ask if it'd still be worth $500,000.

Found this in my inbox, thought some of you may be interested: https://go.bhafundraising.org/e75fa1?ReturnUrl=%2FCampaigns%2FSetup%2Fe75fa1%2FOptions

My high school teacher had a bumper sticker that said "I passed Organic Chem."

The Lincoln Memorial. Civil Rights Act of 1964. International asylum code Bears Ears National Monument That's off the top of my head, my guess is there's more.

Did the money going out change, though? I know folks who've had to pay through the nose for health insurance because of instability in Obamacare, and farmers who have struggled finding a market for their products as a result of the trade wars.

But what does that mean, Mitch? Is "youth" under 30? 20? 15? Does sending everyone a $1200 check count as socialism? Giving everyone out of work $600/month? It's a very simple answer to a very complicated question, which should tell you it's almost certainly wrong.

yeesh. No. All the girls want to work there because they can't make $75/hr under the table working at Sonic. Or Wal-Mart. Or as a math teacher, a a nurse, a bank teller, an insurance agent, a social worker, a physicist, a park ranger, a bus driver, a trash hauler, a long-haul trucker, a radio personality, a journalist, a farmer, an engineer, a lineman, a short-order cook. No one's paying them $75/hr under the table to take a risk and open their own business. Most people are going to go for the most lucrative job. If the most lucrative job is showing T&A, so be it. I don't know the statistic, but there's a lot of women who fly from LA to Las Vegas for the weekend...to work. If the folks who have money have decided T&A is the only thing they're going to spend on...can't really blame everyone else for following suit.

There is no shame- I had to look up the definition of temerity, just to make sure. But maybe it is a good example of how each of us has more information at our fingertips than anyone else in recorded history. There's no excuse for ignorance any more.

I think Pebble is a great example of the sort of headwinds younger generations face when dealing with the legacy of the past. Many young people today understand their history- many understand it better than their parents. They understand where we came from- warts and all. In the case of Pebble, they understand we've destroyed every single major run of Pacific salmon up and down the coast- and now we're set to wreck this one, too. Previous generations let salmon runs collapse because we wanted cheap timber, or cheap metals, or cheap beef, or cheap power, or enough water to irrigate potatoes or sugar beets in a part of the world that gets ten inches of rain a year. Each one of those compromises tied the hands of future generations. Now, there's precious little left to compromise. Young people understand that. I don't have the temerity to argue someone working two or three jobs has a poor work ethic. I think a lot of young people understand older generations have created a situation where work ethic is immaterial. That Guy complaining about young people's work ethic isn't going to pay them $12/hr to put a roof on the house, when they can run down to Home Depot and get a crew that'll do it for $8/hr, all the while crowing about personal responsibility and fiscal responsibility and free-market economics. Young people today understand That Guy. They've been dealing with That Guy for a while now. That Guy complains how young people don't understand How We Got Here, as young people deal with 30-40 years of stagnant wages, rising healthcare/insurance/education costs, student loans, crumbling infrastructure, etc. We got here because That Guy didn't want to deal with it. That Guy complains about college students cheering about affordable healthcare, when young folks realize health insurance in this country is largely tied to employment, and 2008 wasn't a particularly spectacular job market. That Guy complains about schools he votes to defund as being bastions of liberal/socialist ideology because they can only attract teachers who aren't in it for the money-because there isn't any. That Guy complains about students not reading history books their district couldn't afford to purchase because That Guy voted someone into office who demonized education and committed to slashing budgets. That Guy's decisions tie the hands of future generations. Now, they're trying to navigate a way out.

They're making the same decision the business is. They need X dollars to cover rent, gas, utilities, insurance, student loans, etc (plus party expenses). They can only afford so many $250 days over the course of a season before they need to go look elsewhere. It's a two-way street: if employers aren't providing an incentive to stay, and employees aren't making enough money to justify sticking around...they're not going to.

So no taxes, no SS, no bennies? Then they are breaking the law...

They use them out west to control suckers and other non-target fish, so one would think they could be used in Taney to reduce numbers of white sucker.

Obviously. That's why you support affirmative action, because it protects black candidates from racist employers.

People have imperfect knowledge. They ask questions to get answers. They ask questions to get people to challenge their assumptions and views about the world. They ask questions to get people to think. I don't know why you're hostile to critical thinking, but it's been a cornerstone of western thought for 2500+ years. Take as long as you need to catch up. In my experience, bandying the term racist about only serves to blow up conversation. It's an easy, lazy, escape hatch for those who don't want to critically examine their own thoughts and values. I do believe everyone has blind spots, and should know enough about themselves to know that. I think people should be adult enough, honest enough, and objective enough, to realize when their perception of a situation is informed by their own bias.

But we don't say "Odell got the job because he's so experienced and knowledgeable." Or "Odell got the job because he's a great leader." Or "Odell got the job because he always put more effort in than anyone else." Or "Odell got the job because he's a great guy, and a good person." We say "Odell got the job because he's black." We're telegraphing to the world what we think is important about guys like Odell. It isn't their experience, work ethic, or character. We see them as black folks, first and foremost. The only way an employer is going to run afoul of affirmative action is if they're not interested in hiring intelligent, hardworking, talented, honest, decent employees- regardless of their skin color. Is that the sort of business you want to be supporting?

Where you or I live doesn't matter a lick. We both live in a society which recognizes citizens of Ellisville and citizens of Berkeley as citizens, full stop, entitled to the same rights and privileges as any other citizen in any other community. Doesn't matter where they're from. Doesn't matter how much they make. If it isn't important what happens in places like Berkeley, it isn't important that our society live up to its stated values.

Affirmative action means an employer can't discriminate against a qualified candidate because of their race or sex. It does not mean an employer is legally required to hire unqualified candidates. An employer can hire however many women he wants, he didn't exceed the quota because he didn't want to. He wanted to do the bare minimum. He didn't want to give a man's job to a woman. That's the reason affirmative action exists.

I don't know a ton about the field, and I don't want to tell you how to feel about your own experience. But how many women and minorities were you working with as a roustabout in Oklahoma in the 70s and 80s? Maybe they just had the same experience you did.

Sorry, I misunderstood your position. I accept violent protestors exist, even though I haven’t seen any. I just don’t think all protestors, or even most of them, are violent. And I think the folks writing all protestors off as violent thugs and all police as guiltless heroes would be well served going to a couple protests and seeing for themselves.

The median value of a home in Ellisville, Missouri is $173,700 more than median home value in Berkeley, Missouri. Proportion of owner-occupied homes in Ellisville is 75.3%. In Berkeley, it's 48.5%. The proportion of high school graduates in Ellisville is 95%. It's 85% in Berkeley. The proportion of college graduates in Ellisville is 50%. It's 15% in Berkeley. The proportion of folks <65 with a disability is 4.9% in Ellisville. It's 12% in Berkeley. The proportion of folks without health insurance in Ellisville is 2.9%. It's 17% in Berkeley. The number of businesses in Ellisville is 1178. The number of businesses in Berkeley is 644. Median income in Ellisville is $75,017, median income in Berkeley is $33,874. Poverty rate in Ellisville is 5.7%. It's 17% in Berkeley. The most common jobs in Ellisville are: Sales (16% of population) Management (14%), Administrative (10%), Business (9%), Education (7%). The most common jobs in Berkeley are: Administrative (17%), Sales (8%), Food Service (7%), Facilities (7%), Personal Care (7%). Ellisville has 21 police officers. Berkeley has 35. ...and Ellisville has 600 more residents than Berkeley. Of course you don't see the difference. You live in Ellisville. We don't have to mention race at all, folks. We can talk about discrepancies in housing, healthcare, education, employment, policing. It accomplishes the same thing, and it doesn't let us off the hook.

...you are so bad at this. The NPR piece is suggesting everyone should read all sorts of different books, by all sorts of different authors. The lawenforcementtoday.com piece is telling us the NPR piece is telling us we shouldn't read books by white folks any more. The worst part is, the lawenforcementtoday.com folks provide all the documentary evidence necessary to demonstrate they're peddling BS. They understand their audience isn't gonna bother checking. I don't think anyone's shocked to learn Russia Today knows how to push your buttons.

Oh. I'm supposed to take secondhand accounts of violent protestors seriously, just not secondhand accounts of police brutality. The evidence is acceptable, so long as it doesn't challenge our worldview. Got it.