Angelia

Pa ne videh ih nigde na snimku, posto mi je to bila prva pomisao. I ne zvuci kao citanje. Jasno je meni zasto, uz to kao sto rekoh vecina US je religiozna, tako da to zvuci onako kako treba da zvuci. Moras i da razumes zasto ateistu malo zulja toliko velicanje religije Ostatak poruke jeste dobar. Inace totalitarni rezimi napadaju religije jer prosto ne mogu da dozvole da imas "dva gospodara".

Ako gleda dnevnik dosad se sigurno propio.

Karijes se ne prenosi, zato je nesrecno poredjenje. Najbolja varijanta je grip, koji i danas svake godine ubija, iako je grip vise sezonski, a kako vidimo korona nije. Ako hocemo da koristimo poredjenje, mislim.

BCG vaccine protection from severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) A series of epidemiological explorations has suggested a negative association between national bacillus Calmette–Guérin (BCG) vaccination policy and the prevalence and mortality of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, these comparisons are difficult to validate due to broad differences between countries such as socioeconomic status, demographic structure, rural vs. urban settings, time of arrival of the pandemic, number of diagnostic tests and criteria for testing, and national control strategies to limit the spread of COVID-19. We review evidence for a potential biological basis of BCG cross-protection from severe COVID-19, and refine the epidemiological analysis to mitigate effects of potentially confounding factors (e.g., stage of the COVID-19 epidemic, development, rurality, population density, and age structure). A strong correlation between the BCG index, an estimation of the degree of universal BCG vaccination deployment in a country, and COVID-19 mortality in different socially similar European countries was observed (r2 = 0.88; P = 8 × 10−7), indicating that every 10% increase in the BCG index was associated with a 10.4% reduction in COVID-19 mortality. Results fail to confirm the null hypothesis of no association between BCG vaccination and COVID-19 mortality, and suggest that BCG could have a protective effect. Nevertheless, the analyses are restricted to coarse-scale signals and should be considered with caution. BCG vaccination clinical trials are required to corroborate the patterns detected here, and to establish causality between BCG vaccination and protection from severe COVID-19. Public health implications of a plausible BCG cross-protection from severe COVID-19 are discussed.

Ne treba ici u paranoju, ali karijes jeste nesrecno poredjenje. Iako se potpuno slazem s njim da treba da naucimo da zivimo sa ovim virusom, dosta vise panicenja.

A kako su casne sestre, njih 130 dobile koronu ako ne izlaze? Divine intervention....

Nisam imala vremena da odslusam ceo govor, recimo ima neke stvari Bog, devine i to sto mi se ne svidja. Ali mu se mora priznati da je dobar govornik. Nije mi jasno kako moze da govori tako dugo a da ne cita? Cak i Reganov legendarni govor je napisao pomocnik, koji je on procitao. Da li ima neke slusalice da ga podsecaju ili on ovo govori iz glave (dal naucio napamet ili govori iz glave)? U svakom slucaju impresivno, i znam da ce oni koji ga ne voli to da napadnu. Ali to je prosto cinjenica.

Pre nego me stavis na IL, samo da ti pojasnim, tebi deluje da ja reagujem na tvoje pominjanje Trampa, a u stvari ne kontas da ti trpas Trampa u svakakve rasprave - tako da je logicno da veliki % mojih postova ima Trampa u odgovoru na tvoje pominjanje Trampa, iako moji odgovori nemaju veze sa Trampom. Zasto si uvukla Trampa u ovoj raspravi? Zasto je Tramp bio u prici o odluci Sc na izuzetke Obamacare? Zasto je Tramp bio u prici u lokalnom odgovoru na Covid 19? Zasto je bio u prici oko riots? Zasto si me optuzila da podrzavam Trampa kad krsi ustav, kad za to nije bilo 1% dokaza, niti sam ja rekla ikad da podrzavam krsenje ustava? U svakom drugom postu (manje/vise) ti iskoristis Trampa, i onda se cudis kako ja reagujem na ime, kad ga ti upotrebljavas stalno. prosto - ja nemam opciju da odgovorim, a da ti nekako nisi ugurala Trampa u pricu

Mozda nisam najbolje objasnila zasto prigovaram @Baby spremna sam da to bolje obrazlozim ako zatreba, ali po meni, ovo je cist napad na moderaciju, totalno nezasluzeno. Da ne pominjem da se radi o novim moderatorima, ali izjednacavanje njih, i ljudi koji imaju autoritet, a koje neko smatra "bilmezima", jednostavno znaci da su i moderatori "bilmezi". Staviti na pocetku "e ovo se odnosi na vas" kad se ocigledno odnosi, je samo zavijanje u shiny paper. Ili sto neki kazu ovde na forumu zavijanje u celofan. Cak i da je neki moderator pogresio, obrisao post jer je mislio da je uvredljiv ili neprimeren, nema potrebe da se tvrdi da ga je "vlast zveknula u glavu"

Ovo su sve tvoji zakljuchci koji proizilaze iz nedostatka samokritike. Nije ti jasno da ja komentarisem tvoje stavove po pitanju moderacije, a ne Trampa, samo si njih izjednacila sa tvojim misljenjem o Trampu i Vucicu, koje je ocigledno negativno. Tvoj izbor koga stavljas na ignore, ja to jos nijednom nisam uradila na forumu pa to necu ni ubuduce praktikovati, posto verujem u slobodu govora, i da je korisno znati sta neko misli cak i kad se ne slaze sa tvojim misljenjem. izbaci trampa iz tvog posta, i ja cu ti isto odgovoriti. Napravila si generalizaciju svakog na "vlasti" ili sa mogucnoscu odluke, kao moderacija, da im moc udara u glavu, ali si izuzela one koje smatras da taj efekat nemaju, znaci samo one koje smatras za negativne primere je vlast "zveknula u glavu". Losa insinuacija.

Otvoreno pismo koje je uzrokovalo napade na neke potpisnike (iako se ne slazem sa politizacijom oko Trampa, u svakom slucaju u pismu objasnjava mnogo stosta sto sam ja pricala za slobodu govora tokom godina): A Letter on Justice and Open Debate Adjust Share July 7, 2020 The below letter will be appearing in the Letters section of the magazine’s October issue. We welcome responses at [email protected] Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial. Powerful protests for racial and social justice are leading to overdue demands for police reform, along with wider calls for greater equality and inclusion across our society, not least in higher education, journalism, philanthropy, and the arts. But this needed reckoning has also intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity. As we applaud the first development, we also raise our voices against the second. The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful ally in Donald Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy. But resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion—which right-wing demagogues are already exploiting. The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides. The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement. This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us. Elliot Ackerman Saladin Ambar, Rutgers University Martin Amis Anne Applebaum Marie Arana, author Margaret Atwood John Banville Mia Bay, historian Louis Begley, writer Roger Berkowitz, Bard College Paul Berman, writer Sheri Berman, Barnard College Reginald Dwayne Betts, poet Neil Blair, agent David W. Blight, Yale University Jennifer Finney Boylan, author David Bromwich David Brooks, columnist Ian Buruma, Bard College Lea Carpenter Noam Chomsky, MIT (emeritus) Nicholas A. Christakis, Yale University Roger Cohen, writer Ambassador Frances D. Cook, ret. Drucilla Cornell, Founder, uBuntu Project Kamel Daoud Meghan Daum, writer Gerald Early, Washington University-St. Louis Jeffrey Eugenides, writer Dexter Filkins Federico Finchelstein, The New School Caitlin Flanagan Richard T. Ford, Stanford Law School Kmele Foster David Frum, journalist Francis Fukuyama, Stanford University Atul Gawande, Harvard University Todd Gitlin, Columbia University Kim Ghattas Malcolm Gladwell Michelle Goldberg, columnist Rebecca Goldstein, writer Anthony Grafton, Princeton University David Greenberg, Rutgers University Linda Greenhouse Rinne B. Groff, playwright Sarah Haider, activist Jonathan Haidt, NYU-Stern Roya Hakakian, writer Shadi Hamid, Brookings Institution Jeet Heer, The Nation Katie Herzog, podcast host Susannah Heschel, Dartmouth College Adam Hochschild, author Arlie Russell Hochschild, author Eva Hoffman, writer Coleman Hughes, writer/Manhattan Institute Hussein Ibish, Arab Gulf States Institute Michael Ignatieff Zaid Jilani, journalist Bill T. Jones, New York Live Arts Wendy Kaminer, writer Matthew Karp, Princeton University Garry Kasparov, Renew Democracy Initiative Daniel Kehlmann, writer Randall Kennedy Khaled Khalifa, writer Parag Khanna, author Laura Kipnis, Northwestern University Frances Kissling, Center for Health, Ethics, Social Policy Enrique Krauze, historian Anthony Kronman, Yale University Joy Ladin, Yeshiva University Nicholas Lemann, Columbia University Mark Lilla, Columbia University Susie Linfield, New York University Damon Linker, writer Dahlia Lithwick, Slate Steven Lukes, New York University John R. MacArthur, publisher, writer

Komplet sam shokirana, kazu nije u redu napadati fizicki mirne protestante i kontramitingovanje: 'Last night our community witnessed -- and many of our residents experienced -- physical violence and intimidation by counter protesters during a Black Lives Matter protest at City Hall,' Boise Mayor Lauren McLean said in a statement. 'I condemn those who showed up in our community under the guise of 'protection' and instead intimidated, shouted epithets and white nationalist slogans, and in some cases physically assaulted protesters. There is no room for this in our city.' Double standard, anyone?

Znaci nije patern ponasanja. Za njih ocigledno ne smatras da im je "vlast zveknula u glavu". Ali si moderaciji podmetnula patern ponasanja ljudi na vlasti koje smatras "bilmezima". Generalisanje i podmetanje, adekvatno bi bilo izvinjenje moderaciji za insinuaciju, ali ok nije da ocekujem da priznas gresku.

Ne postoji opcija da ja znam. Nemam pojma zasto zakljucujes da sam reagovala na Trampa koji se pominje. Mogla si da stavis neko drugo koje bi imalo isto znacenje. Posto nisi stavila Obamu, makrona, ili Merkel.....jasno je sta si htela da kazes. Reagujem na ono sto podmeces moderaciji, onako lepo umotano. Kao sto sad meni podmeces da se licno vredjam na pominjanje Trampa

WOW! Onako, samo usput kazes, udarila vam moc u glavu, ali se to uopste ne odnosi na moderatore Vucic, tramp....sta ti uopste insinuiras ovde? Pitanje je retoricko posto vidim sta insinuiras, samo se pitam da li to i sebi priznajes.

Pa nema tu zajebavanja drzave, mislim da nisi skontao o cemu pricamo. Posto nisi objasnio na sta mislis pa da ti odgovor na specificnu stvar moram na par: - Svi su dobili produzenje da podnesu tax return do 15og zbog Covid 19 - Expats imaju svejedno mogucnost da traze produzetak (zbog medjunarodnog oporezivanja) koji je do mislim 15og septembra ili oktobra - Vecina drzava ima sporazume o dual taxation tj posto u US moras da podneses tax return bez obzira gde zaradjujes pare imas pravo da pokazes da si porez vec platio u drugoj zemlji, pa ces u US platiti samo ako postoji razlika (komplikovana pravila ali ovo je ukratko) Znaci zakon. Zajebavanje bi bilo da tvrdi nesto sto nije po zakonu.

Na sta se odnosi ovaj komentar? Ne vidim da niko tu zajebava drzavu, to je po zakonu.

Zadnji put kad sam proverila bilo je do 15og. Ja sam odavno predala pa nisam proveravala da li su nesto menjali. Ako ti bas frka da ne mozes da zavrsis, podnesi zahtev za produzetak, to ti onda daje do septembra - ali mislim da hoces da probas za 15ti juli.

Taj cek je njoj stigao pre 2 meseca, samo ona nije bila tamo Sledeci ako stigne bice zbog izbora... Onda kad poplacas evropske i radis US tax return, ne platis nista Bar bi tako trebalo, valjda imaju sporazum. Posto predpostavljam da radite joint.

I kad napises nesto ovako, ja se zapitam da li ti znas gde zivis. Da li znas da je sloboda religije zagarantovana ustavom, i da je vecina u US, religiozna. I da ce naravno da se striktno bore protiv pokusaja da im drzava ulazi u prostor. Sto nema nikakve veze sa time da im religiozne organizacije vode politiku, nego upravo suprotno, striktna podela. A uz to opste je poznato da danas jedan ateista, i verovatno ne skoro, nema teoretsku sansu da postane predsednik US. Predsednik moze da bude AA, ali nema sanse da bude ateista (ne vidim ateiste na ulici kako protestuju zbog diskriminacije). Zna se da religiozne organizacije ne placaju porez, znaci generalno povlascen polozaj. I onda ti "ako je do toga doslo u tri lepe". Pa nije do toga doslo, nikad se nista nije ni promenilo. Nekako mi se cini da ces i prvi amandman da pripises Trampu

Ja se uopste ne uzbudjujem, samo ti objasnjavam da preterujes sa reakcijom. Tebi nije normalno, a ono ustavom zagarantovano pravo da se bunis kad mislis da ti drzava krsi ustavna prava, takvih slucajeva milion, a tebi je bas ovaj nenormalan Nisi se nesto iscudjavala kad su ono onomad potvrdili Roe vs Wade, u slucaju gde bese iz Luizijane mislim. Nisi smatrala da je to nenormalno, ali ovo jeste.

Ama, to nema veze sa svim firmama, nego samo sa onima koje tvrde izuzetak jer je "moralno" protiv njihovih ubedjenja, tj. u pitanju su religiozne organizacije. I izuzetak je odobren 7:2 u SC, to ti sve govori, jer stiti prvi amandman. Znaci razumes da je tuzbu podigla religiozna organizacija, jos pre 10 godina, i da je to bilo sigurno kako ce se zavrsiti. Ja se savrseno slazem da religija ima kretensku agendu, ali sta da ti kazem, ja i ti smo manjina u US po tom pitanju, ali to si mogla da znas prvim citanjem Ustava.

Pa sad ako cemo ulaziti u motivaciju svakog glasaca za Trampa, i onda to drzati protiv Trampa..... Sta mislis zasto je Obama u zakon odma ubacio opt-out na osnovu religije? Pa zato sto to vecina u US hoce. protekcija crkve je given. Katolickoj crkvi? Pa naravno. Sta si drugo htela da im smeta u zakonu koji se bavi kontracepcijom, naslovi clanaka?

Ocigledno da ne razumete temu, a Baby odma u preterivanje. 2010 pod Obamom su zakonom obavezali poslodavce da kupuju osiguranje koje pokriva kontracepciju (viagra nikad nije bila predmet zakona - niko ga nije zahtevao). Cak i Obamacare je nudio opciju da na osnovu religije poslodavci dobiju izuzetak, ali su morali da ponude alternativu, da kontracepcija bude besplatna. Protiv toga su se pobunili religiozni poslodavci (katolicka skola), da nije ustavno da se obavezu da obezbedjuju kontracepciju kad su oni "pro-life". Jedna od tuzbi je dosla do ustavnog suda, i to je ova presuda. Nemam pojma zasto se to vodi kao Trampova stvar, kad se rasprava vodila od 2010. Znaci niko nije nikom oduzeo pravo na kontracepciju.

Pravo nije oduzeto. Zavisi, nema zakona koji to propisuje.