Short term, no because it’s hard to migrate from. Longer term, probably yes in Europe. Shipping in LNG is expensive and I really doubt there are many European leaders who want to return to such a high reliance on Russian fossil fuel.

It sounds like China may start buying up that natural gas instead. I only see this as a plus, given that China still gets 2/3 of its electricity from coal. While sources like nuclear and renewables would be ideal, anything that gets them off coal is at least an improvement.

Malcolm X and Huey Newton have little to do with US jurisprudence, given that what the US government did to them was often itself criminal. The position that Snowden is in also has little to do with free expression. He released classified documents. I support what he did and the government has treated him like crap, but in the end any government is going to come down hard on employees that intentionally release classified information.

The answer to the second headline - “Do Today’s Activists Face The Same Threat?” is an easy “no”. US jurisprudence has since trended much more strongly towards freedom of speech, culminating in decisions like Brandenburg v. Ohio in the 1960’s. By that time the law that Eugene V. Debs had been convicted under had long been repealed so it could not be directly challenged, but there were still holes in the First Amendment jurisprudence that could allow laws against free expression. Brandenburg narrowed that to only speech that was “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action”. If we needed anymore evidence, note the date on this article: 2003, in the lead up to the Second Gulf War. There were large protests then, but as far as I know there were no charges filed that were comparable to Debs.

I was talking about the Podesta leak specially. It was released within hours of the Access Hollywood tapes. I don’t get what Wikileaks would have even dropped to counteract press hits.

Ah yes, the “Wikipedia is biased because it says something I don’t like” line. The article has plenty of citations.

The USSR harassed LGBT people quite openly. They were raided, censored, and imprisoned. The state regularly released propaganda conflating homosexuality with pedophilia.

How so? If anything, it was worse.

NATO’s history is not nearly as full as that article suggests at first glance. I see three distinct conflicts:

• Balkans
• Afghanistan
• Libya

Say what you will about those conflicts, but it’s equal or less than, say, Russia’s history over the same time period.

enough insane people

There are insane people in Russia who want to expand this conflict. It doesn’t mean shit if they don’t have enough people willing to go along with them.

Wikileaks went as far as saying they timed their leaks to counteract hitpieces from the press

It wasn’t a hit piece. The leak was timed to blunt the release of the Access Hollywood tape, where Trump bragged about sexually assaulting women. Regardless of how exactly the coordination happened, Stone did coordinate. He also had been in direct communication with Assange over Twitter DM.

But it’s also not proven that it was unrelated. Seth Rich could very have been the leak.

A key part of the conspiracy theory is that Seth Rich was a computer person or something at the DNC, and would therefore have had access to the email servers. The problem with this is that he was the wrong type of computer person. At no point was he in a position where he would have been given access to the email servers.

To cinch it up, the actual source of the leak, the GRU cover persona “Guccifer 2.0”, communicated with Wikileaks four days after Seth Rich was dead.

They always leaked what they could verify.

If they kept to merely releasing leaks I might buy this. But the moment they started timing it specifically to protect Donald Trump, that’s where they have crossed the line from anti-secrecy organization to political operatives with a weak veneer. The fact that they were playing political operative for Trump, a man who has broken numerous transparency norms and glorifies strongmen leaders, just makes it worse.

I know it was verified (or at least Podesta’s emails, I don’t think the DCCC and DNC leaks were verified). It doesn’t change that they actively coordinated timing with Roger Stone with the sole purpose of protecting Trump. It also doesn’t change that Assange actively whipped up conspiracy theories by dropping hints about the unrelated murder of a DNC staffer, Seth Rich. Wikileaks’ involvement in that entire election was a corruption of their purpose. They went from a transparency organization speaking truth to power to a willing laundering front for Russia and Trump.

They can, yes. But the idea is that if you have every getting together and consulting with each other, cooler heads will prevail. NATO doesn’t want to get sucked into a war. It exists so that attacking its member states - especially the smaller ones - is unappealing.

But does that not tell you more about where China was economically in the past than anything to do with connections between its economic system and its emissions? After all, there are plenty of countries with similar per capita histories that are fully capitalist.

I’ve found this point amazingly hard to beat into people’s noggins. Some will even say that per capita doesn’t matter, and give some bullshit reason. The lack of logical thinking astounds me.

I wonder if anyone will still be onboard the “Elon is a brilliant businessman” train after he’s finished his romp through Twitter.

AP almost started WW3

This is an extreme exaggeration. NATO has the Article 4 process where member countries must consult first. The aim of the Article 4 process is to favor deescalation.

Except for the Russia-provided hacks related to the 2016 US presidential race and working with the Trump team. The Russian government and Trump are both entirely incompatible with the ideal of a transparency organization. Acting as a patsy for them was shameful.

What are historical emissions supposed to tell you about economic systems? Also, the per capita emissions for China aren’t exactly stellar at around 8 tons/person/year. Yes, I know there are trade adjustments to do to better represent Chinese consumption.

On the other hand, communism doesn’t hinge on growth and constantly producing things in order for the economy to function.

Theoretically, sure. Realistically, see China.

Communism is perfectly capable of ruining the environment. See: the Soviet Union sucking the Aral Sea dry.

With climate change, there’s a good chance we will no longer be able to meet humanity’s needs. Besides, better yields means that we could be converting land back to nature, much like with reduced meat consumption.