"The reemission is higher energy because it combines the energy from the incoming photons with phonons, vibrations in the crystal lattice of a material. This phenomenon is called anti-Stokes cooling, and it was first demonstrated in a solid back in 1995 when a team of scientists cooled an ytterbium-doped fluoride glass sample with laser light."
It's more the messenger than the message. Or in this case the people funding and staffing the messenger, and who desperately need this number to be as low as possible.
It's unfortunately not limited to the current administration. We've had the government telling us to not trust our lying eyes about inflation at least since the Biden administration. At the time government officials were reassuring everyone that there wasn't inflation while everyone could see the prices going up everywhere.
Not so much THIS report, but you can't trust any data that the Trump administration puts out after all the blantant corruption. Remember the Sharpie on the hurricane chart?
This kind of deliberate both-sides-ist ignorance is PRECISELY why those arguments work. You aren't being smart, you are giving your overlords permission to lie to you.
These are tractable (if complicated) questions with real (if imprecise and inevitably debatable) conclusions. Ignoring them because you don't like argument and are confused by the talking heads on the news is, to be blunt, destroying society.
You misunderstand. I shut my ears to their propaganda, not my eyes to real research and verified information. Then, I talk this way or that to friends/family, and vote accordingly.
With respect to those numbers, I remember this recent accusation of price-fixing across 2019-2021 [0] that might have an effect, although I also have reservations about how much to trust anything coming out of the rotting US Department of PresidentsPersonalLawyers these days.
You can get a hefty tax break on forest land in WA state as long as you have a forestry plan in place, and the same goes for fields in Florida for cattle grazing.
There's this notion from the Supreme Court case Burdick v. United States (1915) that accepting a pardon is an implicit admission of guilt. Therefore, a person can refuse a pardon. There isn't anything in the decision to justify the argument that accepting the pardon is an admission of guilt, it's just stated as a fact. It seems at odds with situations where pardons have been used to correct miscarriages of justice in cases of factual innocence.
Just to clarify, a pardon in the ordinary sense can't be refused. If you're imprisoned and the President pardon's you, you can't decide to refuse the pardon and remain in prison. As soon as the pardon is granted you are released, whether you like it or not, whether you "accept" it or not.
The Burdick case had to do with an individual who had not yet been convicted of anything being offered a pardon in exchange for testimony that could have otherwise incriminated him. The Supreme Court ruled that in that specific scenario someone accepting a pardon could be seen as admitting guilt, so the pardon couldn't be forced on Burdick to strip away his fifth amendment right and compel his testimony.
From what I recall last time I looked into it, sort of by current legal theory.
A pardon does not automatically require a confession (though it could be part of the terms), however blanket pardons remove the ability to plead the 5th on the topic if subpoenaed as a witness. The 5th precludes being forced to testify against yourself, but if the government has declared it not a crime then you can’t testify against yourself even if you wanted to.
From what I recall, non-global pardons still maintained some level of 5th Amendment protections. Ie you were pardoned for A, but talking about A might reveal you did B, so you could still potentially testify against yourself.
Iirc, non-global pardons usually come with a stipulation like “must testify that or about…” because of this.
No; there have been a number of (controversial) pardons for people who were either not charged or had not been convicted. Gerald Ford set something of a precedent by pardoning Richard Nixon for activities related to the Watergate cover-up, and Joe Biden pre-emptively pardoned his whole family.
These applications of the pardon power have been controversial, but never successfully challenged.
"The reemission is higher energy because it combines the energy from the incoming photons with phonons, vibrations in the crystal lattice of a material. This phenomenon is called anti-Stokes cooling, and it was first demonstrated in a solid back in 1995 when a team of scientists cooled an ytterbium-doped fluoride glass sample with laser light."
reply