Slashdot Mirror

Some would argue that there are other reasons for North Dakota's prosperous time.

The UK is looking at massive library closings due to right-wing ideology on how to close their budget shortfall:
http://www.npr.org/2011/02/10/133656983/britain-faces-closing-the-book-on-libraries

Plus, it's also been seen here in the states with the big budget shortfalls in municipalities:
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6618984.html
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/04/10/trustees_vote_yes_on_library_closings/

So in the end, we'll have no text books, no libraries, and you'll have to own your own iPad or other tablet, or rent it from the school.
Isn't it cool that our dystopian future is already here?

We must have ruskies working for the MBTA then.

Snowzilla has been in use for years.

The study I saw said only the father's age mattered: http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/mental/articles/2006/09/05/autism_study_finds_fathers_age_a_factor/ but a more recent study, http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/170/9/1118.abstract says that they both contribute. Early studies were complicated by examining maternal age and not controlling for paternal age, which is correlated. It appears to have since shaken out that both contribute.

In addition, one newer study suggests a U-shaped relation between paternal age and autism. (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02223.x/full) Older fathers also appear to change the gender balance of the disorder, which supports the idea that a separate mechanism might be at play.

Ultimately, I believe we will discover the causes of autism, not a single cause.

Now that you put it that way, I can see the burning cars and places of worship all across France in my mind right now. ;)

That's nothing new.

Why 112 cars are burning every day

France's New Year's Tradition: Car-Burning

Anti-Semitic Violence Sweeps France

France: Thickening Anti-Semitism

Anti-Semitism seen rising among France's Muslims
 

Sure it's 525 children, but how many children have been recovered WITHOUT Amber Alert? That's the real question. Unless it's statistically significant, you are literally just as effective doing nothing. Actually, we already know this answer, and it's Amber Alert does nothing.

So we failed to reject the null hypothesis (that Amber Alerts are no more effective than not having Amber Alert). This that means that an effective Amber Alert needs to do something different from what they're already doing. Unfortunately, this announcement is just more of the same failed strategy. Think about it. I'm sitting at home, or perhaps at work. I check FB and see an amber alert. Now what? The roadside light signs at least catch people on the road telling them to look for a specific car. Alright. I can do that. I'm on the road. I can look for that. But when I get the Facebook Amber Alert, I'm not on the road. I'm at the computer. Oh sure, I could fish my phone out of my pocket if I happen to have a smartphone with push notifications enabled. and what not. But I doubt I'd bother, especially given the large number of status updates that the FB newsfeed pushes. So instead, when I get a chance, perhaps at lunch, or at home, I dig out my phone, go through the updates, and see that three hours ago, I should have looked for some car. And let's be honest about what "looking" means in this case. It means looking up from my Big Mac and staring out the nearest window for perhaps two seconds. It's not combing the neighborhood for hours, people just don't do that. They want to feel like they're helping, but not actually DO anything to actually help.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/07/20/abducted/

I did not say that I had better ideas; however, I am not the only person to point out that the AMBER Alert system is not highly effective:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/07/20/abducted/

The Australians got it from a British site, which helpfully changed the Americanism equipment to something more British.

How many public servants do you know who are serving prison sentences for breaking ethics rules?

You kidding? Just off the top of my head,
this guy, this guy, local to me this lady, and this guy who just got out last year.

But the question is not simply ethics violations, it's specifically that of maintaining personal data. How many people at TJX are going to jail for losing 50 million credit card numbers? Even more, how many people at your local supermarket chain are going to jail for selling their customer loyalty card data to outside interests? How many at your credit-score company get arrested for selling your profile to mortgage advertisers? Oh right, that's not a crime, those people got *promotions*.

For extra fun, sew it into a Yankees jersey and wear it to Boston. They love blinking lights in Boston.

Boston Globe

Kansas Matters (w/ large AP story)

Fox News (appears to be the same as first, from the AP)

Huffinton Post

NYTimes (Economix blog)

allmilitary.com (Miami Herald article)

Another good one

A great one, a 1993 article from Reason

Orrin Hatch

This is from the first couple pages of the first two Google searches I tried. Not fucking hard to find.

Do you want to do carbon credits next? That one should be even easier.

Palin just lost my vote. I liked her because she managed to balance the budget in Alaska ...

Balance the budget in Alaska? How hard is that?

More than 80% of Alaska's state revenue is from oil taxes, royalties and fees.
In Alaska you don't pay state income tax or state sales tax, the state pays you

As the price of oil increased she could (and did) spend more

has its Hubble Space Telescope advent calendar for the third year, with RSS feed.

has its Hubble Space Telescope advent calendar for the third year, with RSS feed.

Studies suggest that giving people facts that contradict their beliefs only serves to make them hold more tightly to that belief.

People like Michael Chertoff.

MA has pristine gov instuitutions? Really? I live in MA and that is news to me.

body scanners can cost up to and exceeding $100,000

Maybe Janet got a offer to join the last Homeland Security secretary's comany the Chertoff Group. The Company that produces the body scanners, with a no-bid contract from the government. Maybe Janet needs to keep the scam growing to profit once she is out of government.

He don't own the company but he has a consulting firm that gets paid by the body scanner company. Source: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/01/02/group_slams_chertoff_on_scanner_promotion/

Presuming you don't necessarily mean that, but this is /. , so have to examine.

Let's assume that the prisoners in question are young (so as to be physically capable of the trip), so we'll start at age 25. Let's also assume that their life expectancy in prison is 50 years. So, the math at that point is fairly simple, so long as we don't calculate for the additional expense of medical care that geriatric prisoners incur in their waning years.

Using the report at http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/statsbrief/cost.html/ as our guide, let's assume that your average prisoner costs $55/day to house and feed.. So, discounting any other costs and inflation, the cost of keeping an average prisoner in jail for 50 years is around $1,000,000 (based on $55/day * 365 * 50).

Not sure, by that standard, that it would be cheaper to shoot them into space on a one-way trip to Mars, given the cost of fuel and the various other things to keep them alive. I mean, yeah, you get free labor and all, but unless the plan is to send them up as mere lab rats or unskilled labor, you'd presumably have to teach them to do stuff that they may not know, unless you pick an exceptional prisoner (someone w/ an MD or something like that..

Still, probably a good cost:benefit ratio, all told.

By calling the soldiers murderers, you are no better than the ignorant hippie pieces of shit who spat on the crippled Vietnam veterans and called them baby killers.

Except that 90% of Vietnam veterans said they received a friendly welcome and the spitting was an unconfirmed myth.

The UK has 36,700 more deaths in winter than in summer, mostly among the elderly. (Your blood thickens when you are cold and you are more likely to have a heart attack or stroke.) So the most likely cause of the difference in death rates would be that US homes are better insulated, being generally newer, and have better heating.

It seems questionable to me that a typical new American house, made of vinyl siding over foam board, is necessarily better insulated than an older stone or brick home. But it's certainly the case that the U.K. is farther north than most of the U.S. population, so people have a colder environment regardless of insulation, and they get less sun, thus raising the risk of vitamin D deficiency, which has been tied to a host of health problems.

Many old Victorian homes are not the "cavity brick" you are imagining, but solid brick that leads to them being cold and often damp. It's a well-known problem. Foam board would be much more insulating.

The UK has 36,700 more deaths in winter than in summer, mostly among the elderly. (Your blood thickens when you are cold and you are more likely to have a heart attack or stroke.) So the most likely cause of the difference in death rates would be that US homes are better insulated, being generally newer, and have better heating.

It seems questionable to me that a typical new American house, made of vinyl siding over foam board, is necessarily better insulated than an older stone or brick home. But it's certainly the case that the U.K. is farther north than most of the U.S. population, so people have a colder environment regardless of insulation, and they get less sun, thus raising the risk of vitamin D deficiency, which has been tied to a host of health problems.

How about U.S. senate republican staffers (not just some random individual republicans) who exploited a security hole to access senate democrats' private files and internal memos for a period of several years during the Bush admin?

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/22/infiltration_of_files_seen_as_extensive/

This may be the only relevant example in the replies, but I was unable to find out if anyone was punished... where they?

How about U.S. senate republican staffers (not just some random individual republicans) who exploited a security hole to access senate democrats' private files and internal memos for a period of several years during the Bush admin? http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/22/infiltration_of_files_seen_as_extensive/

The stars commanded it.

"The [oil and gas] industry has donated $180 million to political candidates since 1989, making it the eighth biggest spender out of 80 industries analyzed. Currently, ExxonMobil has donated over $600,000 to political candidates - second only to Koch Industries, a small oil company known for its high spending on Congressional candidates. The oil industry clearly favors republicans to push its agenda on Capitol Hill and ExxonMobil is no exception. In 2006, 89 percent of ExxonMobil's donations went to republicans."

http://www.exxposeexxon.com/ExxonMobil_politics.html

"Through June, Exxon employees have given Obama $42,100 to McCain's $35,166. Chevron favors Obama $35,157 to $28,500, and Obama edges out McCain with BP $16,046 vs. $11,500," the center said. But McCain has raised more from nearly every other top giver in the oil and gas industry, including Hess Corp. -- $91,000 to Obama's $8,000. And, overall, McCain's campaign has received about three times more from the oil and gas industry than Obama's has -- $1.3 million compared to about $394,000."

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/08/both_mccain_oba.html

Exxon donated more to Obama than any other person in office, so that isn't true either, and that tidbit just chafes the leftwing mantra.

I can see how some people would be chafed by that tidbit, since it doesn't appear to be true.
I looked.
The best I could find was that Obama received more than McCain -- not "any other person in office."

Furthermore, those donations were only in the 5 digits, while it looks like Exxon regularly spends $600,000+ in political bribes every year. Seems to me that any of their favourite senators could easily rack up triple digit donations over the years - and according to this article which does not name names so is unfortunately a PITA to verify, the top 20 cumulative recipients of Exxon money since 1990 are all republican.

If you have some citations that show otherwise, I am all ears - I'm looking for the truth, not truthiness.

A year ago, some MIT undergrads wrote up a short piece called Project Gaydar which showcased how they were able to successfully identify gay men who were still in the closet.

Facebook might not expose this information directly (via the "sexual preferences" profile information), but your friends list is enough to extrapolate it. Since there's money in that kind of data and it is easily fetched via the Facebook API, it's being done.

Apparently the Internet needs a "Let Me Scroll To The Bottom Of The Page For You" service as well. See the talk page for additional primary sources.

... was it THAT difficult for a number of US Administrations to realize the strategic inportance of rare earths, ...?

Or Helium? See Scientists warn world's supply of helium close to depletion or simply Google +helium +depletion

The information in that article sounds like spin and misinformation to me. If the gasoline engine is acting as an electric generator, there's no reason it couldn't power both the traction motor and the planetary gear set motor, regardless of the batteries' state of charge.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/

You're exhibiting a very common behavior, sticking to the false information you already built your beliefs around, rather than incorporate new facts into your knowledge.

As to why the Volt might work this way:
It takes more HP to drive at higher speeds. It's possible that the generator is not large enough to generate enough energy to run the car at those high speeds, even though the motors could accept enough energy if it could be generated.

It's also possible that GM could drive those motors via electricity but chose not to because it would be less efficient (this is in fact what they claim, for what it matters). It is also why the Prius uses its ICE directly at high speeds.

But, spin or no spin, and whether you know exactly why the Volt works the way it does, you are wrong.

The Volt's ICE only connects to the wheels when the battery is flat AND you go at high speeds, not OR you go at high speeds. So it does run in pure EV mode for the first 40ish miles, all the way up to top speed (a not terribly impressive 85mph). Thus, if you have a reasonably short commute and you plug it in at night, you can go without gas on normal trips. If your commute is 10 miles each way, in a week (M-F) a Prius would use a very respectable 2 gallons of gas a week, a Volt would use no gas at all, a big difference. So if you really are into not using gas, a Volt does hold an advantage over a Prius. If you're just in it for the money, let's face it, you'll never save enough money on energy costs to make the Volt make sense, get the Prius.

Sure.

Discrimination by height: discrimination by height, already happening

Discrimination against people with a "black name": yep, it happens already

Oh, and something I predict will soon mean a lot less jobs for homosexuals: Project Gaydar. If you remember the Futurama episode where Bender makes pronouncements about who's gay, yep, now apparently datamining your Facebook page for stuff like who you're friends with and such can produce a gaydar score for how likely you are to be gay.

And if you still think people won't do it, the best part is, racists never think they're racist. Think of all those "I'm not racist, but [insert horribly racist thing]" or "I'm not sexist, but [insert reasons why the bitch should be in the kitchen instead of having her own job]" and the sad thing is they actually believe it. They think their bigotry isn't bigotry but, why, almost pure science that blacks are dumb and criminal, and women working ruined the economy. And, oh, if you think the rest of the company or society wouldn't let them get away with it, yes, most proclaim they wouldn't, but actually more people choose to work with the white overt racist than with the black.

For reference, what you are referring to is duct tape (used to seal heating and cooling ducts)

Duct tape (as we usually understand the term) is not used for sealing HVAC ducts, at least not by knowledgeable persons.

Duck Tape is a name brand of duct tape that came long after people who didn't know what it actually was kept calling it duck tape.

The name "duck tape" came first, referring to "cotton duck" fabric, though whether that name was applied to the stuff we now called "duct tape" when "duct tape" first came out, is still open to debate.

Gaff (or gaffer's) tape is better than duct tape for many applications. For sticking stuff together, my three tape recommendations are gaff tape, 3M's relatively new transparent duct tape (more durable than the grey stuff), and the new style of blue masking tape, surprisingly strong without damaging a surface. Add transparent "scotch" tape for the occasional bit of book repair or gift wrapping, and electrical tape, and your taping needs are pretty much covered.

A lot of home printing is done by (mostly) women printing out recipes, knitting patterns, things like that (I'm not being sexist, this is the result of a pop survey of my own).

Ah, thank goodness you provided the citation for your 'proof'. You must be a real hit with the ladies.

HP makes money out of ink. That's basically it.

Not even close. As you can see in this article, imaging/printing/ink is less than 25% of their revenue. I'm not saying they're a great company, but the idea that they're making the lion's share of their money from ink is incorrect.

Yeah, that 6 year old study is a goto conservative argument against social programs these days. It is an interesting theory, but just because a couple of economists posit a theory doesn't make it true. For balance, here's a well stated summary of its flaws (that I'm sure the liberal camp likes to quote in response):

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/02/18/the_new_deal_and_right_wing_revisionism/

I have no inclination to play games where having a lot of cash can buy you substantial benefits that other players can't. However, I understand that there are some people out there, to whom $500 is like $1 to me. If Zynga can convince them to drop that kind of cash on their games, I say more power to 'em. If someone is dropping $500 and they don't really *have* the money, that person needs some help, in much the same way that anyone else with an addiction and possible other psychological problems, needs help.

Mostly, I view such games the same way I view high-stakes games of poker or other casino games - I simply can't afford to play, so I won't. For those who can afford to play, it might be a foolish way to lose their money, but hey, it's their money to lose, and I bet that whoever gets the money (the house/Zynga) will likely spend that money more responsibly. Or, you can look at it like a Rolex or luxury yacht. Some rich businessman or celebrity spends big money on a luxury good. You might think, well that money could have fed and clothed a lot of people. Well, even when people spend a lot of money on 'stupid' things, the money they spend provides jobs (often a lot of well-paid jobs) to a lot of other people, so they *are* feeding and clothing lots of people even as they 'waste' their money.

When someone buys a $30 Million yacht, for example, they provide jobs to the skilled craftsmen (and unskilled assembly workers) who work on building the boat, the engineers who designed the boat, the accountants and marketers and salesmen and managers who work for the boat company, plus the boat company buys materials, parts, services, advertising from *other* companies, so that money provides further jobs at the 'upstream' providers that the boat companies pays. Also, it will typically cause the person buying the luxury item to pay a large amount of tax (although, sometimes they find creative ways to avoid taxes), plus the taxes paid by the boat company, employees of the boat companies, any suppliers for the boat company and their employees, etc).

So, in the end, if Zynga can convince some fool to part with $500 on their 'free-to-play' games, I have no problem with that - as long as there's no fraud going on (e.g. charging players who weren't expecting/didn't agree to charges, etc). Although, if other players are unaware that such a program exists which might be advantaging the people paying $500 against the people not paying, and not aware that the program exists, then that does seem a little shady - if people knowingly get into that situation, I don't blame Zynga, but if Zynga hides these deals, it's a bit like rigging a sporting event for bribes. If everyone *knows* the rigging is going on, but they still enjoy the game, well then, that's up to them.

It's not laziness and it's nothing new.

This article has a fairly good explanation of the phenomenon, albeit in relation to politics and not troubleshooting hardware. It's the same thing, though... present people with facts that prove that their beliefs are wrong and they will often cling even more tightly to what they believe.

I had never actually heard of this before, but man, what complete bullshit. And a single google search provides tons of examples, if not that specific case:

http://www.boston.com/ae/music/articles/2010/06/09/pay_to_play/
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100518/2341299481.shtml
http://www.woodpecker.com/writing/essays/phillips.html

At least Bruce seems to have some common sense (make sure you read the update):

http://gothamist.com/2010/02/04/the_boss_sues_midtown_pub.php

That pretty much represents the final straw on the camel's back for me. From this point forward, I will only ever pay for independent music. If your band is a member of any of those organizations, I will be performing civil disobedience against unwarranted extortion, and just pirate your shit if I want to have it. If you don't like it, leave those groups, and I'll buy it. And for the record, this is coming from someone who legally owns nearly 1000 CDs, and a good couple thousand iTunes songs (where the 99 cents was worth more than buying a full cd for one or two songs). But fuck it. I went to a lot of trouble (and expense, over the years) to do what I thought was the right thing. Apparently, I was wrong, since I was merely funding the absurdities of this kind of bullshit. My apologies to everyone else for helping promote this situation with my purchases. It won't happen again.

Well, yes, you gotta hand it to Larry. Whether it's using his money to basically bully those criticizing a pal for his defense of overt sexual discrimination (see, eg, http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2006/06/28/oracles_ceo_cancels_115m_gift_to_harvard/), or rescuing a pal which was likely actually ditched for being an asshole all around and driving employee morale to new lows, it's up to Larry to don his superhero cape and come to the defense of pricks, assholes and bigots everywhere. Making the world safer for well-connected sociopaths and the ol' boys' club, one person at a time. You can practically imagine him flying away from a crime scene, wind blowing in his cape, with starry eyed housewives going, "Thank YOU Captain Asshole! Whatever would we have done without you?" ;)

It's Ryanair, a lot of these suggestions are never intended to be put into service or even investigated. It's a way of getting free publicity for always looking for ways of cutting costs. And the press falls for it just about every time.

Oh yeah. They also floated the idea of pay toilets.

Universities, especially big-name ones like the Ivys, hate giving out low grades. So they don't. They get most of their money from tuition and alumni grants, and pumping the grades up keeps these two groups happy and paying out. This is particularly endemic at the graduate levels.

And, seriously, you need references? Is Google broken? 5 seconds:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/articles/2008/10/05/doesnt_anybody_get_a_c_anymore/
In 1950, 15% of students at Harvard got a B+ or higher. In 2007, >50% were A or higher.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2006/2/13/c-minus-prof-to-give-more-as/
"I was very delighted that I would find out what he thinks of my true performance while not hurting my transcript,"

"Harvard University is the poster campus for academic prestige - and for grade inflation, even though some of its top officials have warned about grade creep. About 15 percent of Harvard students got a B-plus or better in 1950, according to one study. In 2007, more than half of all Harvard grades were in the A range. Harvard declined to release more current data or officially comment for this article."

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/articles/2008/10/05/doesnt_anybody_get_a_c_anymore/

"Plus, tough grading makes a student less likely to get into graduate school, which could make Harvard look bad in college rankings."

and also from that article this interesting bit:

"Fewer than 20% of all college students receive grades below a B-minus, according to a study released this week by the American Academy of Arts & Sciences. That hardly seems justified at a time when a third of all college students arrive on campus so unprepared that they need to take at least one remedial course."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2002/02/08/edtwof2.htm

Or how about a student testimonial:

"The article reported a record 91% of Harvard University students were awarded honors during the spring graduation. Said one student, Trevor Cox, "I've coasted on far higher grades than I deserve. It's scandalous. You can get very good grades and earn honors, without ever producing quality work."

http://www.endgradeinflation.org/

And you could really argue they "had a say" if they weren't educated (oftentimes thanks to conservative abstinence-only no-contraceptive education policies, like the federal policies Bush Jr. and co. backed) and thought simply pulling out was a proper contraceptive?

Yeah. Actually, you could. As long as you give kids accurate information about what causes pregnancy, you gave them the tools to not get pregnant...So yeah, if you were told, "Keep it in your pants, and you won't get pregnant", and you decided not to keep it in your pants, that's the choice you made, and you have to live with the consequences. So yeah, if you were told, "Keep it in your pants, and you won't get pregnant", and you decided not to keep it in your pants,

And that "keep it in your pants" philosophy of sex education is why abstinence-only education is a statistical failure; many states outright rejected it during Bush Jr.'s time despicte having to turn down federal funding in the process. "Accurate information" about what rcauses pregnancy entails exactly what one has to do to not get pregnant, and these education policies do not provide that information. HAll those kids who were told to "just keep it in their pants" are going to fuck anyway, especially in urban centers full of poor people, because the urges of puberty effortlessly surmounts abstinence education. Tell people not to fuck and they'll do it anyway. Pretending they'll keep to themselves when told is an absolute denial of human nature, and the statistics are there to prove it.

It's not a matter of statistics. It's a matter of a) biology, b) mechanics, and c) chemistry. Materials sometimes fail, and contraceptives are not 100% effective. If you engage in penis to vagina sex, and you both have health sex organs, you run the risk of getting pregnant. If you don't do that, you don't.

that's the choice you made, and you have to live with the consequences.

"live with the consequences"? According to who, God? Whose god? And what gives society the right to mandate this for any woman (especially when women are underrepresented in the political world)? Moralizing about punishment and proper consequences puts the cart before the horse.

This is why I brought up the Civil War. One of the lessons of that conflict is that you don't get to say, (in my best Cartman voice) "Screw you guys, I'm goin' home!" every time a vote doesn't go your way. If the votes are there (for a new piece of legislation, or for a constitutional amendment, if necessary), then the votes are there. End of story. That's how it works. One way or the other, the majority gets their way -- either by enacting a law within the confines of the Constitution, or by changing the Constitution, if necessary.

And then, if the thing's not aborted, the kid's going to be born to parents that didn't want it. And that's fair to the kid? You could argue never having been born is more fair if the resultant person's completely unwanted.

You could argue that, but you probably shouldn't. Lots of people are raised (or not raised) by incompetent, unloving parents, and they do fine. If someone acts like a sociopathic asshole later in life, it's because of how they responded to the hand they were dealt.

"Doing fine" how so? Where abortion's arguably the most needed (poor inner-city people, oftentimes teenagers, who couldn't support a kid if they had one, and don't know much about what it takes to avoid conception because of bad education), those unwanted kids don't do just fine, at leasto insofar as they go on to make the same mistakes their par

And you could really argue they "had a say" if they weren't educated (oftentimes thanks to conservative abstinence-only no-contraceptive education policies, like the federal policies Bush Jr. and co. backed) and thought simply pulling out was a proper contraceptive?

Yeah. Actually, you could. As long as you give kids accurate information about what causes pregnancy, you gave them the tools to not get pregnant...So yeah, if you were told, "Keep it in your pants, and you won't get pregnant", and you decided not to keep it in your pants, that's the choice you made, and you have to live with the consequences. So yeah, if you were told, "Keep it in your pants, and you won't get pregnant", and you decided not to keep it in your pants,

And that "keep it in your pants" philosophy of sex education is why abstinence-only education is a statistical failure; many states outright rejected it during Bush Jr.'s time despicte having to turn down federal funding in the process. "Accurate information" about what rcauses pregnancy entails exactly what one has to do to not get pregnant, and these education policies do not provide that information. HAll those kids who were told to "just keep it in their pants" are going to fuck anyway, especially in urban centers full of poor people, because the urges of puberty effortlessly surmounts abstinence education. Tell people not to fuck and they'll do it anyway. Pretending they'll keep to themselves when told is an absolute denial of human nature, and the statistics are there to prove it.

that's the choice you made, and you have to live with the consequences.

"live with the consequences"? According to who, God? Whose god? And what gives society the right to mandate this for any woman (especially when women are underrepresented in the political world)? Moralizing about punishment and proper consequences puts the cart before the horse.

And then, if the thing's not aborted, the kid's going to be born to parents that didn't want it. And that's fair to the kid? You could argue never having been born is more fair if the resultant person's completely unwanted.

You could argue that, but you probably shouldn't. Lots of people are raised (or not raised) by incompetent, unloving parents, and they do fine. If someone acts like a sociopathic asshole later in life, it's because of how they responded to the hand they were dealt.

"Doing fine" how so? Where abortion's arguably the most needed (poor inner-city people, oftentimes teenagers, who couldn't support a kid if they had one, and don't know much about what it takes to avoid conception because of bad education), those unwanted kids don't do just fine, at leasto insofar as they go on to make the same mistakes their parents did (having kids early and forgoing any chance at a career). The outlook is far from rosy for those unwated who enter into foster homes--"nearly half of foster children hae have a clinical level of [behavioral or emotional] problems: 47% of children ages 6 to 11, and 40% of children ages 12 to 14." If this is the case, how can you say their mental health later in life is entirely up to them, any more than you could say that of an abused child? On top of that, "almost one-third in foster homes live below the poverty line". http://www.childtrends.org/files/FosterHomesRB.pdf

Don't tell me about how huge the adoption backlogs are--if abortion was made illegal, that backlog (if there even is one) would be obliterated within a year or two.

And that's a bad thing, is it? I'm not doubting there would be more

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/07/28/senate_republicans_thwart_campaign_spending_bill/

Kickbacks are illegal just like "payola" is illegal but they sill find a way to happen. I mentioned payola because my Dad was a radio DJ for a huge metro radio station when he was young and he's described the exact same situation in his industry as mentioned above with the NHS.

As for malpractice reform in Texas, insurance rates have stayed the same in Texas while the caps put in place have made so that only wealthy people can file medical malpractice lawsuits Texas now.

IMHO, these guys are out for a cheap thrill, a book deal and dangerous.

Check this link:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/08/22/men_banned_from_national_parks_after_vandalism/

Here's an excerpt:
"Jeff Michael Deck of Somerville, and Benjamin Douglas Herson, of Virginia Beach, Va., pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court in Flagstaff after damaging a rare, hand-painted sign in Grand Canyon National Park.

They were sentenced to a year's probation, during which they cannot enter any national park, and were ordered to pay restitution.

Authorities said Deck and Herson, both 28, toured the United States from March to May, wiping out errors on government and private signs.

While at Desert View Watchtower on the South Rim on March 28, they were accused of using a whiteout product and a permanent marker to deface a sign that's a National Historic Landmark."

So you have no proof to offer?

we didn't need to have these informants named in these documents, champ.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/04/ap_afghanistan_kandahar_041210/

That your bus incident? Already plenty well-publicized, if the ARMY TIMES is distributing the AP coverage of the incident. I don't exactly think that's evidence of some sinister coverup that we needed these leaks to reveal.

But then, of course Americans are to blame for every civilian death there, right? How inconvenient that six people died about a week ago to a roadside bomb (I think it's safe to say that's not an American device that did it). Or another ~30 killed in another incident months back by another roadside bomb? Or 25 dead about 2 weeks ago?

Yes, you're right. American forces are clearly just killing untold numbers of civilians, and getting away with it there. Fuck off.