Slashdot Mirror

Unfortunately because there was no on-site FAC because [...]

Because whatever. War is war and shit really does happen. The primary responsibility of Forward Air Controller (FAC) is, actually, assuring friendlies aren't accidentally hit from the air. The reporters are there at their own risk. No one wanted to kill journalists, but it happens.

It is not specific to air-borne assaults — when our tanks entered Baghdad, two reporters were killed by a tank shell. No FAC involved — a camera does look like a grenade-launcher. Do not carry one on somebody else's battlefield.

tell the difference between an AK-47 and a TV camera

I'd say, the camera — a shoulder-held one — looks just like a grenade-launcher from even 50 meters. Heck, a weapon can be, and has been — both in fiction and real life — hidden inside a camera so well, you can't tell while holding the device in your hands. Our enemies do not hesitate to masquerade as reporters and use ambulances for military purposes — no amount of camera-resolution can help against that.

That screwup was then made worse by the Pentagon's default reaction to such screws which is to cover them up.

Would their non-covering it up have helped resurrect the victims? No. So, then, exactly how did the cover-up make it worse? Bad publicity? Great — should we, perhaps, blame the leaker, who made the video-recording public for that publicity?

Either way, the very fact, that we are ashamed of it having happened, that we tried to cover it up — all of that makes our society better than our enemies'. The enemies, who deliberately go after civilians and publicize their deaths as part of "glorious" struggle.

Since I posted those two examples, another article came up with this very topic. I feel it was rather inflammatory and brings up left-right politics, but it does bring up some points:

How Ahmed’s clock became a false, convenient tale of racism

and another:

Suspicious Pop-Tart guns versus scientific suitcase clocks

In here is the white kid who was expelled for biting aPop-Tart into an "L" shape and expelled for bringing a gun to school. Another was pointing a finger and saying "bang". Yet another I recall was kicked out for saying "bless you" to a student that sneezed.

After all these examples, I think rather than point out the treatment white vs. minority kids get, I think the system as a whole needs a good enema.

" In the ole USA, almost 65% of the people on welfare at any given time will stay on welfare for 8 years or more." No they are not,. Try 23.1%

http://www.americanthinker.com...

@Gadget_Guy
> ...prove that such rigor isn't required of climate science...
One way to evaluate scientific hypotheses is to look at what the events they predict, then observe nature to see if the predicted events correspond to reality. In that sense, modern climate science is an epic fail because the "global warming" predicted by their models failed to happen. (Prompting the climate-alarmist "true believers" to switch to 'climate change' (so, up or down, can't lose))
http://www.americanthinker.com...

> ...most climate scientists have done a good job of keeping corporate interests away from their research...
BS. 'Big Oil' is a red-herring to divert attention away from 'Big Government', whose grants and funding tend to force researchers to become, in effect, lobbyists for political activism in order to 'pay the rent'.

I'm not anti-gmo

Bullshit.

but to suggest that putting Salmon genes in Tomato plants is the same as just selecting between different offspring is incorrect.

This is exactly why I despise the anti-GMO movement. You and the rest of them keep making up and/or spreading bullshit lies because you have this foolish belief that natural is better and/or you have competing economic interests.

First of all, no GMO food that ever makes it to your plate ever has genes from one organism transplanted to another. The "frankenfood" is just another lie that keeps on getting repeated. But it's just that, a lie, usually spread maliciously by people who have an axe to grind against Monsanto, (sometimes they work for the snake oil organic industry who is struggling to compete with inexpensive GMO food) even though Monsanto isn't the only company that produces GMO plants. GMO foods are the result of a study called proteomics, and usually consist of fewer than 200 nucleotides (one pair of AT or GC is a nucleotide) which isn't anywhere near enough to create a full blown gene, let alone being transplanted from another organism.

Second of all, this actually happens in nature all the fucking time. In fact human DNA carries the placenta of some other animal. It permanently ended up in our genome via viral infection. It's a part of one of three full virus genomes embedded into our genome. We have some 100,000 other partial virus genomes embedded into our DNA.

Third of all, no person and no animal has ever gotten sick from GMO food. Ever. Not once. You know what though? Thousands have died and continue to die because they consumed organic food. That is, the organic farming process that produced the food that they consumed was the sole cause of their death. Tens of thousands more have gotten sick from organic food as well.

Sources: (and lots of them)

http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~a...
http://www.cgfi.org/2002/06/th...
http://www.geneticliteracyproj...
http://www.realclearscience.co...
http://www.americanthinker.com...
http://www.science20.com/chall...
http://www.washingtontimes.com...

You know what though? Your stupid little anti-GMO movement doesn't make single a peep about the evils of organic food. Why the fuck do they demand warning labels for GMO food, but they never make any demands for warning labels for organic food?

Explain that one. Why the fuck do we need warning labels for GMO food, but not organic food, when organic food is the only farming process proven to actually kill people?

Sorry, if I'm in charge of security for a church, I'm still frisking the nuns, because to do otherwise would be irresponsible.

Poe's law strikes again. I literally can't tell if you're being satirical or stark raving mad. You're not cold fjord, at least (then I'd know for sure).

I merely convey (often unwelcome) facts to you, and report the goings-on of a mad world. If you cannot separate the teller from the tale, then you are in no position to judge whom is mad. But of course you may be a madman yourself.

What do you make of these?

Fears grow Boko Harm may use suicide bombers dressed as Catholic nuns for attacks
Sublime irony: Muslim TSA guard feels Catholic nun's genitals
In a Chilling Phone Call, Yazidi Woman Made a Sex Slave by ISIS Begs for West to Bomb Brothel
Isis use torture device dubbed 'The Biter' to impale women who breastfeed in public

Islamic State updates horror show

Last December, in a video addressed to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, a veiled woman representing "Muslim mothers" argued that beheading was too humane for the Jordanian pilot. She recommended that al-Kaseasbeh be subjected to a traditional Ottoman method of execution called the Khazouk in which the victim is impaled with a thick spike hammered up his rectum and through the torso. She felt that this would deter other foreign pilots from flying missions against the Islamic State. And we may yet see the Khazouk on Youtube.

Does ISIS risk blowback, or is there a plan?

I like how the anti-GMO crowd comes out and speaks about potential damages, but then ignores the real damages (and deaths) caused by organic food:

http://www.cgfi.org/2002/06/th...
http://www.realclearscience.co...
http://www.americanthinker.com...
http://www.science20.com/chall...
http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~a...

We've already had countless cases of people dying and getting sick from organic, and not a single case of anybody dying or getting sick from GMO, in spite of GMO already being consumed in bigger numbers than organic. Meanwhile we're supposed to listen to the food religion about the dangers of GMO.

Yeah the left or as they've recently been styling themselves "progressives" in the hopes of using two bit public relations to paper over the gulags and mass murders don't own climate science. They don't own environmentalism. They don't even own social safety nets despite the mutual hand jobs they give one another over it. Welfare systems existed thousands of years ago in Rome, a thousand years ago in China, hell even the middle ages had the assize of bread.

In fact "progressives" aka the same family of ideologies that murdered over a hundred million people last century almost uniformly make it harder for genuine social good to happen as they hollow out real progress and use it as a vehicle for their shambling march towards borg-dom. People know what you're doing, they're not half as stupid as the local kommissar would like to believe.

So if you identify as a "progressive" congratulations, you're actually as bad as or worse than a nazi (another fine gang of leftists http://www.americanthinker.com...). How bout them apples.

Some people question whether ocean acidification is caused by scientific fraud.. I have no idea about the data. Maybe the article is completely bogus. I'm just pointing out that there are still scientists who seem to disagree with the mainstream alarmist view. Also see this picture from the same source.

Some people question whether ocean acidification is caused by scientific fraud.. I have no idea about the data. Maybe the article is completely bogus. I'm just pointing out that there are still scientists who seem to disagree with the mainstream alarmist view. Also see this picture from the same source.

Number 5 is applicable if you rephrase it:
5. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) Members of my faith can be forced to create something endorsing activity my religion prohibits with legal repercussions if they refuse. (Colorado)
B) I am now prohibited from forcing people with beliefs contrary to my own to create something their religion prohibits. (Indiana)

This is directly applicable to what is happening:
http://www.latimes.com/opinion...

The customer, named Bill Jack, also wanted Marjorie Silva to add “an image of two men holding hands, covered in a big, red X.” ... We're not doing this.... Jack has filed a religious-discrimination complaint

http://www.americanthinker.com...

the bakers in question are not refusing service to a type of people — they are refusing to be party to a type of message.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...

[Judge] Spencer ordered Phillips to bake cakes celebrating gay marriage for any other parties that ask for such a cake in the future.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new...

An Oregon bakery will have to pay a gay couple up to $150,000 for refusing to bake them a wedding cake ... pay up to $75,000 each

I don't know, if you sincerely don't understand my request, or are trying to weasel out without losing face (too much).

Here it is again: please, post pairs of links. The first link in each pair shall point to a quantifiable prediction, the second — to its materialization within 80% of the predicted quantity.

In particular I direct your attention to this graph of Arctic sea ice models vs. observations.

That chart references some predictions without links. The dramatic bold red line on it begins in 1950 — is that, when the first predictions were made? Where are they, can I read them?

But, Ok, let's stipulate the prediction really was made. Was it a scientific one — based on a decent scientific theory, or is it one of those "stalled clock" sort of thing, that happens to be correct twice a day? Two questions arise:

1. If it were a solid theory linking Global warming to declines in sea ice, why did sea ice grow in Antarctica during the same period? Maybe, it did not grow at quite the same rate, but the overall ice-cover decline is certainly far less dramatic, than your chart shows.
2. The second question is, can we trust the cited observations at all — or are they being "adjusted" to, infamously, "hide the decline"? Seems like the latter is the case — the American Thinker article linked to above is rather illuminating: the actual measurements measure area of ice-cover, but the scary charts plot the adjusted extent values, without explanation for the adjustments and their inconsistency. It does not have to be outright fraud — but such measurements are inherently imprecise. Observations are made by satellites and then need to be munged (for "quality control and homogenization") by computer algorithms. Programs, that change over the years (as do the #defines inside them) at the hands of people. People with agendas and the burning desire to convince.

So, after much back-and-forth, you were able to, sort of, cite one very questionable observation (that disappeared since then as the ice returned on both poles since 2012), that may or may not have been predicted... And you want the world to change its way of life based on that?

hmm.. A simple google search shows that nobody is a lot of organizations that appear to be somewhat scientific in their approach and presentation.

Also, the new scientis or articles on their site seem to attempt to make predictions about tornadoes

http://www.newscientist.com/ar...

Mother Jones does another story connecting it too.
http://www.motherjones.com/env...

Of course one article is dated march of 2014 and the other august of the same year. But of course politicians have been making claims about the links for a while now. Here is an article presented in october of 2014 which examines political discourse about the global warming tornado threat somewhat.

http://www.americanthinker.com...

Now note, one of those sites is a conservative site. Can you guess which one that might be? Well, it doesn't matter because the information is not inaccurate and came about before this was even on the radar. In fact, it was attempting to impeach the credibility of the political hack appointed to oversee the ebola fiasco and manage political fall out from reported cases reaching American shores.

So lets not ignore the fact that connections have been made.

On the Democratic side, the argument is that a healthy nation is a better nation, and it is worth a very significant cost to achieve that. Argue that it isn't.

It is very easy to argue, actually. By demonstrating, what "healthy nation" means in the Democratic speak. It is not, where fewer people are sick — it is one, where everyone has health-insurance. Now, that I've rephrased their point closer to reality: "A nation, where everybody has a health-insurance is a better nation," — it is slightly less unassailable.

But they don't mean even that. As Obama and his kept saying, if he had a choice, he'd have a single-payer health-system — and that is very easy to attack. Especially for people like myself, who grew-up in such a "worker's paradise"...

And the more cynical among us (and you can't be too cynical discussing the government's intentions) would argue, that Obamacare was designed to fail to make the single-payer system more palatable to the tired electorate.

Egalitarianism

Wage gap myth:

http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf

Majors by Gender: Is It Bias or the Major that Determines Future Pay?

There Is No Male-Female Wage Gap

The Gender Pay Gap is a Complete Myth

Gender pay gap is not what activists claim

Equal pay statistics are bogus because they don’t compare like with like

Fair Pay Isn’t Always Equal Pay

Wage Gap Myth Exposed -- By Feminists

5 Feminist Myths That Will Not Die

The Wage Gap Myth

Don’t Blame Discrimination for Gender Wage Gap

The pay inequality myth: Women are more equal than you think

Women Now a Majority in American Workplaces

Labor force participation rate for men has never been lower.

Share of Men in Labor Force at All-Time Low

Women In Tech Make More Money And Land Better Jobs Than Men

Female U.S. corporate directors out-earn men: study

Female CEOs outearned men in 2009.

Women between ages 21 and 30 working full-time made 117% of men’s wages.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, single women between 22 and 30 years old earn an average of $27,000 a year. That’s 8% more than comparable men.

Workplace Salaries: At Last, Women on Top

Young Women’s Pay Exceeds Male Peers

The 15 Jobs Where Women Earn More Than Men

Women aged between 22 and 29 earn over £10 per hour on average, compared to men their same age who earn just under this amount.

Young women now earn more than men in UK

No, crime did not go down.

Not to mention places being specifically targeted.

I agree

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/04/paper_its_ok_to_lie_about_climate_change.html

There have been MANY examinations of the claim given the way the alarmists cling to it like drowning men clinging to life rafts. In the REAL world, you rarely encounter so many voices making shrill claims using the exact same percentage number for ANYTHING. It does not matter if some political people at NASA echo the claim (James Hansen, after all, was famously working for NASA at Goddard while hustling for AGW...)

Let mey point out a just one of the many dissections of that claim. If you do not want to read that in its entirety, try this brief summary.

Of course, if the Forbes link is too "right wing" for you, you might prefer the get the 97% bubble popped by a left-leaning source

Be VERY wary when lots of political activists all start chanting a slogan with a very-specific number like "97%"... it's rarely honest and usually scripted propaganda no matter WHAT party you think might be behind it.

If you substitute "progressive" for Liberals you might be on to something.

It's Official: Leftist-Islamist Alliance against the West
RADICAL ISLAM'S ALLIANCE WITH THE SOCIALIST LEFT
The Leftist-Islamist Alliance in Pictures

There is a growing movement to put people in one of three categories: victim, victimizer, or champion of the oppressed (not my idea, found it here). Once people have a mindset that you have to be in one of those three buckets, there are no gray areas.

The UN is so ridiculously and blatantly anti-Israel that they sanctioned israel 22 times in a single year but completely ignored genocide in Africa. Top level UN officials have repeatedly admitted the UN is biased, and a majority of the "sanctions" and "statistics" put out are directly from arab nations and representatives within the UN.

http://www.theguardian.com/com...
http://www.americanthinker.com...
http://www.unwatch.org/site/c....

Actions like this are how you get the other half to agree to do things to reduce CO2 emissions.

Good step: Offer to eliminate tariffs on solar panels and other things.
Bad step: Call anyone who so much as questions ANYTHING a denier.
Good step: Get behind building LOTS of modern nuclear plants. LOTS.
Bad step: Say that anyone who so much as questions ANYTHING should be arrested. https://theconversation.com/is...
Good step: Get behind building LOTS of electric cars, and the technology to increase batteries' energy density.
Bad step: Say that anyone who so much as questions ANYTHING should be killed. http://www.americanthinker.com...

Much of the political opposition that the Global Warming people get is because they believe that all of their solutions are so good that they should be mandatory. They come to you and say that you'll have to give up your money, your freedom, your independence, and your quality of life. This is all demanded at the barrel of a gun with the implication that if you don't capitulate, you'll also have to give up your life itself.

Environmentalists have made many great missteps, the two largest being not loudly denouncing those among them that call for murder of anyone who dissents, and continuously pushing plans that they know half the population will never get behind.

You want to reduce CO2 emissions? Suggest plans for it that everyone can support. Leave the death threats at home. ; )

"Being black in a black neighborhood" isn't a chargeable offense. Unlawfully carrying a concealed weapon or drugs is.

You shouldn't ignore that there are differences in the rate of offenses. You can see that in murder stats.

Murder by Numbers

In over 52% of the murders in the US in 2011 in which the race of the murderer was known, the murderer was black. Over half of the victims of murder were also black. But blacks are only 13.6% of the population. Put all that together, and the murder rate in the US for non-blacks was more like 2.6 per 100,000 in 2011.

As Peter Baldwin put it in his book, The Narcissism of Minor Differences, "Take out the black underclass from the statistics, and even American murder rates fall to European levels."

Read my orignal link.
http://www.techtimes.com/artic...

I can see how they would back down from that.

http://www.americanthinker.com...

http://gawker.com/arrest-clima...

It's not like they are free to say anything about anything they find without fear of repercussions.

Please provide a single scientific proof of anything Al Gore ever accomplished?

OTOH:

Blood And Gore: Making A Killing On Anti-Carbon Investment Hype

Al Gore invests millions to make billions in cap-and-trade software

Al Gore Invests $6M To Make BILLIONS In Cap And Trade

Gore lies to Congress about personal finances

Gore’s Dual Role: Advocate and Investor

The Money and Connections Behind Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade

Al Gore pushes Global Warming for personal profit

Cyber-Thieves Make Millions from Emissions Cap-and-Trade Scam

Obama's draft budget projects cap-and-trade revenue

Cap-and-trade: The biggest scam of all

Experts: Carbon Tax needed and NOT Cap-and-Trade Emission Trading Scheme (ETS)

Leading Global Warming Crusader: Cap and Trade May INCREASE CO2 Emissions

Cap-and-Trade's Unlikely Critics: Its Creators

Fraud in Europe's Cap and Trade System a 'Red Flag,' Critics Say

Spending Cap and Trade Auction Revenues Will Undermine California’s Climate Goals

Yet LFTR get's pooh poohed because it's experimental. Amazing.

The Koch brothers also donate to the Democrats. A lot.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/d...
http://www.americanthinker.com...

http://www.americanthinker.com...

Stalin was not the first and not the only Russian tyrant who was ready to turn the whole nation into âoecamp dust.â You may be interested to know that after the Crimean War of 1854â"56, the government of Tsar Nicholas I sold at auction for fertilizer the bleached bones of 38,000 Russian soldiers who fell in the battle of Sevastopol.

Today the world is threatened with a second Crimean War. The troops under the command of the new tsar of Russia are on alert.

http://www.americanthinker.com...

So, either the parent or this article are correct. I'd be interested in hearing arguments for or against it.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/warren_buffett_the_keystone_pipeline_and_crony_capitalism.html

Actually his post contained considerable nonsense as I point out in my other post in this subthread.

As to your link, I suggest that anyone that reads it pays careful attention to the British inquiries section.

They may also want to do some follow up reading, or maybe even start here first:

About that 500 tons of yellow cake...
Case Closed - The truth about the Iraqi-Niger "yellowcake" nexus.

I've been trying to sort out the "guns" issue from a scientific point of view. After some extended searching, I believe the answer is "more guns is better".

This is made enormously difficult by the vast ocean of misinformation put forth by advocates on both sides of the issue. It's an interesting exercise in clear thinking just to sort through the claims to come up with an opinion unfettered by bad logic. I've included some examples below.

In summary, the best measurable statistic appears to be "chance of death from all causes" at the national level. This statistic avoids most of the bad math and bad thinking, and it's easy to measure and verify. The US does not have good health care, and this [national] attribute has a large effect on the mortality rate unrelated to gun-related deaths, so you can't use the US for comparison purposes at the national level. A better comparison is made between two countries with similar national health care and different gun policies. England and Switzerland, for example.

Comparing England and Switzerland indicates that "more guns" is associated with "less mortality". This echoes comparisons made within the US at the local level, where areas with public access to guns have less crime and mortality.

It's pointless to debate the issues in this forum due to the enormous and convoluted "poor statistics" cited by people on both sides of the issue, and virtually everyone is cognitively dissonant and emotionally invested in the answer.

A good analysis of the issues can be found here.

Below are just a few examples of popular claims, and how they mislead the reader into one side or the other. There are misleading claims on both sides, so don't read too much into the choice of examples.

Example 1: "Guns do not make a nation safer, say US doctors who have compared the rate of firearms-related deaths in countries where many people own guns with the death rate in countries where gun ownership is rare." (source) (False comparison: when gun ownership goes down, deaths due to other causes rises.)

Example 2: England has fewer gun-related murders, but a much higher rate of beating murders. (Undecidable: In the US, a non-suicide gunshot victim is automatically a murder, in England it's not a murder unless there's a trial and conviction.)

Example 3: If you have a gun in the house, you're more likely to accidentally shoot a family member than a burglar. (Wrong statistic: Having a gun depresses the chance of crime for your neighbors, the overall gain in safety for the community may be more than the loss of safety for the individual. See Polio vaccine.)

I think a lot of people would argue that the vast majority of "defensive use of firearms in deadly situations" would not even be necessary in a country where it is even slightly difficult to get your hands on automatic firearms.

I think you are making some faulty assumptions about defensive firearms use. They are used in many differ sorts of circumstances as you can see from a few of the stories at this link: Stories That Happened In MI

No, actually it doesn't. Toss out suicides and criminal-on-criminal violence and you're still left with outrageous numbers of cases of "defensive use of firearms" (which you mentioned in the first paragraph but had forgotten in the second?).

I think you will find some interesting commentary here: Murder by Numbers

I still don't get it. You say that (a) a few fraudulent scientists are acting as a gateway to bad data, and (b) I can look at the data and see for myself. It seems to me that, if I can look at data, numerous other scientists can too. Most of these are going to be honest (since most scientists are honest), and many are going to see the opportunity to write a paper that gets them some attention.

Scientists are writing papers that point out that the Global Warming consensus is wrong. They get labelled as "deniers". This is a classic tactic of the political Left and their allies (of which the environmental movement is an undeniable part), the tactic is: "Do not address the facts, but slander the message bringer".

For example, Richard Lindzen of *MIT* finds the IPCC report "hilarious":
http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/29/top-mit-scientist-un-climate-report-is-hilariously-flawed/
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/09/mit_scientist_says_new_climate_report_is_hilarious_incoherence.html

"You have politicians who are being told if they question this, they are anti-science. We are trying to tell them, no, questioning is never anti-science."

What matters is not whether there is or is not global warming. What matters is that a particular political view (which in this case, happens to come from the Left; but would be just as wrong as if it had come from the Right) is trumping science. The [Cultural Marxist] Politically Correct view is that there is Global Warming. Now that the evidence is against Global Warming there is no big pronouncement that the models were wrong. Instead, the Politically Correct terms is changed to the scientifically meaningless "Climate Change" (nb: the climate is *always* changing - being alarmist about this natural and normal process is anti-scientific, and well, political).

So, unless you can explain my observations of the scientific community, I'm going to continue to accept its consensus.

As you wish, but understand this is a *political* decision, and not based on the observed data. Like I said, look at that lovely sinusoid - alone it is enough to *destroy* the Global Warming hoax): http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/10/17/nasa-spokesman-reacts-to-the-spectacular-growth-in-arctic-ice/
And there are plenty more predictions of the Global Warming Theory that have not met observation (eg. *zero* hurricanes in the US in the last season; global warming theory predicted larger and more frequent hurricanes; then there was a record number of states in the US that had below average winter temperatures; then we have both the Arctic and Antarctica putting on more ice; sure, we have variability like my own New Zealand having a very warm winter this year - but one year is natural variation. When it is 15 years without global warming that is a trend.

A scientist must change their position based on *all* the observations. If the observations were for global warming I'd be more than happy to promote this theory. I have nothing ideological nor political against global warming theory. All I can say is that there are significant sets of observations that are against global warming - that means the theory cannot be accepted as is. Then I couple that with the fact that it is now known that scientists have been manipulating data (indicating that their case is very weak). That leads me to conclude Global Warming is, at best, an unproven and weak theory - and there is a higher statistical probability that the null hypothesis (no warming) is correct than the probability that warming is happening (when evaluating the untampere

Consider the doublespeak inherent throughout the "progressive" Goliath's flowery self-representation:
       

The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.

Now contrast that depiction with ACLU founder Roger Baldwin's candid vision:
       

I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.

from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/aclu_v_religious_liberty.html

Far more likely it would have shown that Martin threw the first punch thinking Zimmerman was unarmed.
Then, the press would have been forced to show Martin as the true punk thief that he was which the suppressed evidence
would have shown: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/05/new_evidence_shows_trayvons_life_unraveling.html
The kid had a history of assault a mile long.

What electric vehicles are selling in large numbers? The article in question mentioned how Tesla has about 2k vehicles selling per month, which puts it on par with the Chevy Volt and even the Nissan Leaf. Compare that to what is just a random month picked out for a Honda Accord, and those sales figures pale in comparison.

Strangely, in the market of electric vehicle, Tesla seems to be very much a major competitor in spite of the very low sales figures you seem to be complaining about.

The one thing about a Yugo was that they were extremely cheap to buy and cheap to maintain. That encouraged sales. Perhaps Tesla can get there with a cheap low end consumer vehicle, but at the moment their capital is tied up with producing luxury sedans and possibly re-introducing the Roadster again. There is also the Model X, which is going after the SUV market. My point is that Tesla is still ramping up production. We'll see who produces more cars.

If the statistics are clear, can you link to them? Because I've seen the opposite of what you're claiming. Countries with higher % of gun ownership have fewer murders than those with a lower % of gun ownership. And here's the link.

Murder by Numbers

I'm amazed the Media didn't manage to convict him, despite how hard they tried.

No kidding! - Most media outlets deliberately used this old 'cute' picture of Trayvon:
http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1393803.1373385834!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/neighborhood-watch-trayvon-martin.jpg
which is both several years old and not how he looked when the incident happened.

These are newer pics - note the attitude, the gangsta gold teeth and the tats:
http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/trayvon-martin-finger.jpg
http://topconservativenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/trayvon_steroetype.jpg
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/assets/trayvon-martin.jpg

If Trayvon behaved as the character he appear to be in these pics when Zimmerman challenged him, it's pretty obvious that he would have felt threatened and thus fired the shots justified. But as we don't know what really happened, it's more or less impossible to say if Zimmerman should be acquitted or not.

Apparently, Crawford was an industrial engineer for GE and a KKK member -- which just makes it all that much weirder that they'd try to sell it to Jewish organizations.

Maybe, maybe not.

Klan members are able to prioritize their hate to suit their concerns.
David Duke of the KKK hates Jews/Zionists more than blacks
United In Hate? Fmr. KKK Leader David Duke Endorses Black Anti-Zionist For Congress

There are many Muslims in the United States as recent immigrants. As Klan members they could be expressing the traditional Klan hatred towards immigrants. Or maybe the Klan has decided to add a new line item on the hate list. They might have an added incentive since New York was the target of half of the 9/11 attacks, and maybe the 10 year anniversary planted a seed. I doubt that some identifiable group attacking the US would fill the Klan with love for them. After all, in the Klan's eyes, Jews may be the hidden cabal controlling the world, but they aren't openly killing Americans by the thousands. There was also the "Ground Zero mosque" controversy. I expect more will come out at the trial.

At first, the Ku Klux Klan focused its anger and violence on African-Americans, on white Americans who stood up for them, and against the federal government which supported their rights. Subsequent incarnations of the Klan, which typically emerged in times of rapid social change, added more categories to its enemies list, including Jews, Catholics (less so after the 1970s), homosexuals, and different groups of immigrants. -- more

They were probably just broke and got solicited by undercover FBI goons to make a "terrorist" plot.

Looks like they both had jobs.

KKK Member Tried to Sell X-Ray Weapon to Kill ‘Israel’s Enemies’

The FBI charged Glendon Scott Crawford, 49, who is an industrial mechanic with General Electric in Schenectady, and alleged co-conspirator Eric J. Feight, 54, who works for an electronics company in Columbia County, with material support to terrorists, including use of a weapon of mass destruction.

Crawford told undercover FBI agents dujring a year-long investigation that he is “a member of the Ku Klux Klan, specifically, the United Northern & Southern Knights of the Ku Klux Klan.” -- more

Given that the KKK tends to hate Jews as much, or in some cases more than blacks, you have to wonder if they really intended to benefit Jews? It seems unlikely. Perhaps they intended to sell them sabotaged devices, or would turn one on them after taking their money. Or maybe their thinking was that it would in some manner discredit Jews generally if an anti-Muslim plot that could be linked to some Jewish people or organizations was found out by authorities. Hard to say. Very strange though. I certainly wouldn't expect genuine racist Klan members to willingly advance the interests of Jews.

David Duke of the KKK hates Jews/Zionists more than blacks
United In Hate? Fmr. KKK Leader David Duke Endorses Black Anti-Zionist For Congress

The claim is that the US waterboarded three people. Libya is not the US.

...but I imagine you've already chosen who you prefer to believe.

I imagine that works both ways. I would be curious to know your thoughts on the fact that al Qaida training materials have been found in which they teach their members to lie about the conditions of their captivity, to fabricate claims of torture and abuse. Does that ever enter into your thinking? Do you ever view their claims with skepticism, or only those of Western nations?

It is also good to not forget that the Islamist extremists that resort to terrorism have an ideological base in the Islamist movement, and that the Islamist movement has allies in the West.

The Leftist-Islamist Alliance in Pictures
Leftist-Islamist Alliance against the West

As is common in this matter, you have things badly confused. Israel did nothing to Iran to deserve they way the new Iranian government turned on them. If you think otherwise, please provide a list. One hint to reduce the chances of you going down the wrong path again: the Palestinians are not Iranian, and the Iranians are not Arabs.

As to "untermenschen," that would be the view of post-revolution Iranian government, and many Arabs living in Palestine.

Reading Mein Kampf in Tehran

On Monday, the Iranian Foreign Ministry held an international conference. Nothing unusual in that: Foreign ministries hold conferences, mostly dull ones, all the time. But this one was different. For one, "Review of the Holocaust: Global Vision" dealt with history, not current politics. Instead of the usual suspects — deputy ministers and the like — the invitees seem to have included David Duke, a former Ku Klux Klan leader; Georges Theil, a Frenchman who has called the Holocaust "an enormous lie"; and Fredrick Toeben, a German-born Australian whose specialty is the denial of Nazi gas chambers.

The guest list was selective: No one with any academic eminence, or indeed any scholarly credentials, was invited. One Palestinian scholar, Khaled Mahameed, was asked to come but then barred because he holds an Israeli passport — and also perhaps because he, unlike other guests, believes that the Holocaust really did happen.

In response, Europe, America, and Israel expressed official outrage. The German government, to its credit, organized a counter-conference. ...

Hamas video: Killing Jews is 'worship that draws us close to Allah'
The Jews Were Brought to Palestine for the Great Massacre

As to the rest, you should catch up on some reading and get back to me.

UN agency stops aid imports to Gaza, cites Hamas 'thefts'
Looters strip Gaza greenhouses
Gazans seethe over taxes and blackouts
Sewage flood causes Gaza deaths
Hamas Bulldozes UN-Designated Historical Site to Make Room for Terrorist Training Camp
In Gaza, Hamas rule has not turned out as many expected
Rights watchdog accuses Hamas of torture, abuse of Palestinians
Hamas accused of routine torture of detainees in Gaza Strip
Palestinian Authority: Still Stealing "Hundreds of Millions," Hamas Taking Over
NY Times ignores Gaza's millionaires, hypes poverty, blames Israel (natch)

According to reports in the Arab press, a thriving smuggling economy in Gaza has produced no fewer than 600 millionaires. Hundreds of tunnels to Egypt have become bustling export and import conduits -- with the ruling Hamas elite siphoning off milli

Do a quick search for "why are taxis regulated?" on your favorite engine and come up with a grab-bag of hooror stories about taxi drivers taking advantage of customers

A city/state has an obvious interest in making sure their drivers and cars count as safe, and in occasionally auditing the driver's choice of routes to make sure they don't take people on a 20 mile trip to get one block away. And that ends any legitimate regulation the government imposes.

Charging a million bucks for a medallion, telling the industry what kind of cars they can drive, the extortionate "airport" surcharge - These all need to end yesterday. I find it nothing short of disgusting that getting around the crown jewel of capitalism, NYC, amounts to a perfect lesson in crony fascism.

That said - Bloomberg, while arguably a convictable felon, actually has nothing to do with this situation. This story goes back long, long before NY's Little Nero took office, and reeks more of the mob than of overzealous local government.

Although sometimes the torture is indeed deliberate policy.

It turns out that this "torture" is a routine medical procedure performed daily for large numbers of people, from infants to the elderly: Feeding tube. Are they being "tortured" too?

So, question for you - if the US authorities were to stop forced feeding, and 60 detainees actually did starve themselves to death, would you complain? I expect so. Sort of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation, isn't it? What do you think would happen if the threat of starving yourself to death becomes a "get out of jail free card?"

Keep in mind that the Islamists fighting the West do not fight alone, they have allies.
The Leftist-Islamist Alliance in Pictures
It's Official: Leftist-Islamist Alliance against the West

On a related note, can you post any facts on whether the CIA had or has a policy of followup drone strikes . . .

Maybe this will help:

Pakistan Says Drone Strikes Have Been Effective

Major-General Ghayur Mehmood spoke to a group of Pakistani reporters on a rare trip to Miran Shah, the administrative center of North Waziristan.

The Pakistani general says that information the military has gathered from its sources suggest most of those killed in drone attacks are hardcore militants, and the number of innocent people being killed is relatively low.

The official paper distributed among reporters says that there have been 164 drone strikes in the militant-dominated region of North Waziristan since 2007, killing 964 "terrorists". There were 171 al-Qaida fighters among those killed, mostly belonging to central Asian and Arab countries.

------

I'm more than beginning to have the disturbing sense that the US government/military has stared too long into the abyss.

The media is having its intended effect.

If you have any brainstorms about how to do this better, I'm sure the Pentagon would love to hear about it. Send them a letter. Maybe something like, "Dear General, I know how you can get all the Al Qaida to stop fighting. All you have to do is ....."
If the next part is, "give up their fringe religious views and dreams of conquering the world for Islam," that isn't going to be very helpful.

Before you think about such a thing, you might want to read up on Al Qaida's goals.
The Future of Terrorism: What al-Qaida Really Wants

Two words for you: Liberal Fascism

Barack Obama, the Quintessential Liberal Fascist

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/02/the_resilient_conservative_majority.html

If you had bothered to read Murder by Numbers you would have a more useful understanding. Many American states have murder rates below common European rates, and European Americans tends to commit murder at rates typical for other Europeans. And the United States tends to have less violent crime than Europe. So yes, you probably did waste your time going to Wikipedia instead.

Now, watch this: The rate of firearm-related deaths per capita . . .

Do you see the difference?

Indeed I do. You pulled out that old canard that people shot dead are more dead* than people beaten to death with cricket bats, wrenches, or tire irons, or stabbed to death. You try to divert the question from dead bodies to one of "dead bodies with a bullet in them." Not going to work I'm afraid. Now, watch this. Looking beyond murder, to total violence - the UK, Australia, and much of Europe have more violent crime than the US. Even when it comes to murder, there are a number of European contries with higher rates. This is an interesting general article.

Murder by Numbers

Some of the articles I listed address the very interesting question of avoiding being killed to begin with by means of effective self-defense. Did you know that even old men, women, and the infirm have used firearms to protect themselves against thugs, and gangs? When you deny them the right to arm themselves they become victims. Objectively, gun control is pro-thug.

80-year-old Flint man fires shots at five robbery suspects
Elderly Woman Shoots at Intruder

*Or was it their souls go straight to hell? I forget.

Although the new technology may have an impact, it appears unlikely there will be significantly more restrictive gun control laws passed at the Federal level in the US. The public and the facts are against it overall. In various states, such as New York, Colorado, and California, there have been a number of new, highly restrictive laws passed, that at least in some cases are unpopular, are opposed by the police, and are unlikely to survive challenges in court. The brilliant governor in New York managed to get a law passed that outlawed even police weapons - New York is in the best of hands although California is a contender as well.

The idea that ordinary citizens can't protect themselves with guns is ridiculous.

Tough Targets - When Criminals Face Armed Resistance from Citizens
Stories That Happened In MI

What about the murder rate?

Murder by Numbers

Gun control's general effect on crime?

Two Cautionary Tales of Gun Control
Crime soared with Mass. gun law
England has worse crime rate than the US, says Civitas study

Self-Defense: An Endangered Right

The withdrawal of a basic right of Englishmen is having dire consequences in Great Britain, and should serve as an object lesson for Americans. Today, in the name of public safety, the British government has practically eliminated the citizens’ right to self-defense. That did not happen all at once. The people were weaned from their fundamental right to protect themselves through a series of policies implemented over some 80 years. Those include the strictest gun regulations of any democracy, legislation that makes it illegal for individuals to carry any article that could be used for personal protection, and restrictive limits on the use of force in self-defense. . . .

Political support for more restrictive nation gun control measures in the US has fallen.

USA Today: Support for gun control bill falls below 50%
During a manhunt, 69 percent of voters want a gun
NRA Has 54% Favorable Image in U.S
Dems push gun control agenda in DC, but not in battleground states