Slashdot Mirror

Seriously, where the hell is this 5 cents coming from?

There was a court case where a police officer arrested a man for petty theft for plugging his EV into a school.
The estimated amount of electricity used in the ~20 minutes it was plugged in was about five cents. So no, it's not 5 cents per kwh.

The average 'cripple charge' EV port, IE a standard 110V outlet, maxes out at about 12A, or about 1.3 kWh/hour. So 5 cents in 20 minutes works out to about 15 cents/hour, or 12 cents per kWh.

In order for somebody to steal $5 of electricity from you they'd need to be plugged into your port for 33 hours.

At this point I'll note that this is just defining the problem, and yes, I'd support you telling them off if they plug in their car without permission. Indeed, I have. North Dakota, living in an apartment, had somebody plugging their car* into my outlet, on MY meter.

*Not an EV, but when it's really cold out we plug in a core heater to ensure the car starts in the morning.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Better Learning Through Expensive Software
Michael Beyer
12/29/2014

Recently, a kerfuffle erupted over the Mayor of Chicago Rahm Emanuel's appointed school board member, Deborah Quazzo. First the Sun Times detailed how several companies she invests in profit from business with CPS. Then, in a separate piece the Sun Times editorial board suggested she should step down because she invested in companies that do millions of dollars of business with the Board and with individual schools. Quazzo insists she has done nothing wrong and followed all ethical guidelines, and the Sun Times editorial board agrees, but nonetheless suggests she should step down.

For me, the real story is with the types of companies Quazzo invests in, along with the types of companies attracted to the educational investment conference she hosts in Arizona every year. Nearly every company presenting at the conference sells software or digital platforms. "Edtech" has been the rage for years now, and it's only getting hotter.

On a surface level this makes sense. We live in a digital age, and most people in education have heard the claims of our students being "digital natives", having grown up submerged and surrounded in technology. The claim is that because today's children have access to technology they learn differently. I have yet to find any scientific evidence proving this, and I've read enough to throw cold water on the claim.

teachers have "so much to do" and "not enough time to teach", which is why they should put our students on their digital platform, where they can get assistance from a live teacher online.

I was perplexed: What's wrong with the flesh-and-blood teacher in front of them? And who is this person that will communicate directly with our children? What are their credentials? Are they working in a call-center in a "right-to-work" state?

The real problem with all of these companies is that they claim they are revolutionizing education. They're not. Many sell nothing more than test-prep software. Their products show "gains" on the ACT and NWEA MAP because their product mimics the test format. The learning gains don't necessarily transfer to the real world, or last much longer than the end of the school year. Parents might wonder why teachers agree to use the test-prep software, but the fact so much is riding on high-stakes tests, even the most ethical and dedicated educator will make compromises.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

It is really easy to find, guys. This is not conversial. It is just really really hard for modern western society to deal with because we really want to be tolerant.

But just because our ancestors were frequently intolerant and nasty doesn't mean we need to be door mats for insanity.

This is a very important distinction. There is a difference between being a nice guy and being a door mat.

I believe in being a nice guy. I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt. I believe in trying to work for the common good of everyone. I believe in live and let live.

But I am not a fucking moron and I am not going to let someone just do whatever they want to me. I do not believe in being weak.

Islam needs to go through a reformation. Or if you prefer simply reform.

Call it reformist islam.

Here is the President of Egypt basically saying the same thing I am saying:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Lots of articles covering his statements on the issue if you don't like that one. I am not a bigot. I do not hate muslims. I do not think their faith or their culture is irredeemable.

However, it does need to go through reform. And contrary to what many foolish people have been saying mostly out of misplaced hope... is that extremism is extremely common in islam.

To say that most muslims are peaceful ignores that those that literally kill people are themselves a subset of a large number of people that approve of or encourage the killing. And that group is significant. It rarely falls below 20 percent in any muslim population and it can get as high as 90 percent in some countries. But it doesn't fall below 20 percent in any country. Look at the stats. I'd cite some now but people always say "oh that site is biased" even if I'm citing a Pew or Gallup poll.

So instead... YOU look it up. It is one easy google search away. It will come up on the first page and you can read it yourself. I don't like the facts of the matter anymore then anyone else. I wish things were better. I think they can be better. But the first step is acknowledging the problem. The denial makes reform impossible. Everyone denying that Islam has a problem with extremism is effectively ensuring that the extremism will continue. Stop it. Islam needs an intervention.

Yeah, I've never understood the libertarian delusion about free markets and small government. If you want to know what a free market actually looks like, look at the drug trade on the Mexican-US border. This is what lucrative, completely unregulated markets look like. Sane people don't want to participate in that shit.

Libertarians are not anarchists. They do believe government has some specific, focused roles. One of those is peacekeeping (criminal law) and contract enforcement (civil law).

Regarding Fox News:

• http://watchingthedeniers.word...
• http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/de...
• http://mediamatters.org/resear...
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
• http://www.gcbl.org/blog/2014/...

Back in 2011 them Anonymous declared war on the Zetas --- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... --- and then what happened?

Nothing, absolutely NOT A _MOTHERFUCKING_ THING !!

Ok, it's a giant LAN, and...? They have 24 mln citizens, hence 16 million IPs are more than enough.

In the US if you "route" to an "irresponsible" IP address then the NSA will "route" to you instead. Some americans are being "monitored" by the FBI for buying books about Che Guevara online. Occupy Wall Street has been monitored since before its first rally, and the FBI even met with bank directors to warn them about the rallies, just like if it was a private security company:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

North Koreans are simply more explicit in their censorship. Just stop lecturing other countries on civil rights.

Yeah, I've never understood the libertarian delusion about free markets and small government. If you want to know what a free market actually looks like, look at the drug trade on the Mexican-US border. This is what lucrative, completely unregulated markets look like. Sane people don't want to participate in that shit.

Why leave it to the papers? Why leave it to the (cowardly according to American opinion) French?

EVERYONE should put one of Charlie Hebdo's caricature onto one's homepage.

This one seems to be fitting especially if you are a Jew (Texts reads in my miserable translation "You shall not critizise us").

Another nice one reads again miserably translated "Darling, I 'm just downstairs for 5 Minutes to search for that Journal" (not sure that actually is from Charlie Hebdo but it came up on google).

If you want others, especially if you are a Muslim and consider the above not annoying enough, there are more examples although lacking translation.

OR let me ask it this way. Name one Islamic Nation where Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Atheists or anyone else is actually FREE to practice their religion (or lack thereof).

I can't off the top of my head, but you still occasionally get things like this: Pakistani Muslims Form Human Chain To Protect Christians During Mass

Anti-abortionists are waging a campaign of terror every day at abortion clinics across the country. They show up with nasty signs and video cameras, yelling at and videotaping women who are attempting to receive medical care. They want to intimidate and shame them into compliance ... and there is an implicit threat of violence due to the history of terrorist attacks on abortion clinics.

Just try getting elected in America to any high political office without being or pretending to be a believer in some god.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

That Frank felt more comfortable going public with his sexuality in 1987 than he did with his secular beliefs at any point during his House career says a lot about the stigma surrounding atheism in electoral politics.

Better

Health can be measured, relatively objectively, in lots of ways. You can also just pull some meaning from self-reported surveys - even though there are plenty of problems with self-reporting, if religious people consistently claim to be happier and healthier, that certainly says something about the impact it has on average. One such study for reference: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

People are asking you for your supporting evidence. (like this http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...)

You're not giving supporting evidence. In fact, you don't seem to understand what supporting evidence is. It makes me wonder what you were teaching. You're not making a convincing argument.

One thing I have learned is that when you get both sides of the story, usually turns out to be different than it looked when you only got one side.

I wonder if there's something more to this story than "lazy teachers" and lazy parents.

Found a story about ending the camera system in AZ. Apparently my habit of setting my cruise control to the speed limit may have contributed to my lack of tickets. They ticketed at 11mph over so I had a 1mph buffer if I missed a speed limit change.

And doing so at the right time, before most people had formed an opinion about Google Glass.

http://www.livescience.com/105...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Probably because it has some basis in fact.

Well, that's an interesting way of looking at it. It's a long post, so it took e a bit of time to digest everything you said, and even now I'm not sure I've completely digested it.

So, my point is based on the clear fact that many artists, authors, and musicians have been motivated by money, and created art with the purpose of getting money. Mark Twain (the reason for his strange biographical release program was to make money for his descendents), Winston Churchill (they say every time he needed more money, he wrote another book), Beethoven (numerous examples, but Wellington's Victory comes to mind).

Surely there are plenty of artists today who (like Taylor Swift) want to make money off their art, but a lot of them won't admit it or will outright lie and say they want you to copy their music, because they don't want the same treatment Metallica got, or they let the RIAA be the bad guys while secretly favoring the RIAA's actions.

Agreed that "greenies" aren't the only ones making billions off of CO2 hysteria -- see the Koch brothers in the article below:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

but there are lots of people seeking to make money in the carbon and carbon trading game, and IIRC Gore is indeed one of them. A description of the billions at play already can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

where the number given is "60 billion dollars" which certainly counts as "billions" in any marketplace where people make a margin on all trades. The bulk of the people making money of of CO2 hysteria are, however, not Greenpeace volunteers or the like -- they are the same extremely wealthy individuals and companies who both "run civilization" and incidentally own the big energy companies worldwide. If you looked at where directly invested money intended to combat CO_2 goes (e.g. research money) a substantial fraction goes directly to the energy industry in the form of research grants, another substantial fraction goes to the energy industry in the form of subsidies. But the real payoff for the big carbon-based energy companies is, paradoxically, in the artificial inflation of carbon based energy costs to the consumer. Again, power companies make marginal profits, generally at what amounts to a fixed (publicly regulated) margin. The only way for them to increase profits at fixed production is to raise prices. The only way to raise prices in a world where coal is plentiful and cheap is to create an artificial scarcity, which has the added benefit of stretching out the lifetime of profitability of the resource to the owner. I would argue -- although it is difficult to put specific numbers to this since it is difficult to see just what fraction of the cost of a kilowatt-hour is directly attributable to the global warming hysteria, and because the media is strangely reluctant to follow the money (perhaps because they are predominantly owned by the same wealthy people, perhaps because they profit from things that rouse strong feelings, like an impending global catastrophe) -- that the increased marginal profits to the global energy industry due to catastrophe-driven price increases dwarfs all other money being made in association with the hysteria and is the great invisible elephant in the debate.

As Br'er Rabbit once said, "Don't through me into that briar patch, oh please no no no..."

I am, however, curious as to why you'd ask for citations and then refer to the billions being made off of "denying" climate change by (specifically) two large oil companies. Surely you understand that oil companies are nearly irrelevant to global warming, a small fraction (around 13%) of greenhouse emissions relative to coal fired electrical plants, industrial energy production, etc:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

and

http://www.epa.gov/climatechan...

The oil companies are perfectly happy to skim billions off of the artificial renewables industry that has been created by the hysteria, and until this year have been both investing and making billions from it. But the bottom has apparently fallen out of this:

http://www.eenews.net/stories/...

very likely driven by the increased supply of oil and gasoline that is reflected in oil prices dropping by nearly 1/3 this year. They are suffering far more from a SURPLUS of oil that leads to low prices and hence a serious hit on their profits than they ever suffered from global warming hysteria in a world where demand is nearly copmletely inelastic and generally growing. It also appears that the profitability of sustainables is taking a (in my op

'The Interview,' Greeted By Sold-Out Shows, May Net Millions This Weekend
'The Interview' Opens to Singing, Sold-Out Crowds as Sony CEO Explains His Decision to Show Film
'The Interview' Draws Sell-Out Crowds After Sony Flips On Release Cancellation
New York showings of âThe Interviewâ(TM) sell out

Oh yeah, it's "bombing" in the US alright...

"Care to point to the source"

Haha is this wikipedia? I'm telling you things you can google, not applying for a job as your bitch.

You know that statement about extraordinary claims needing extraordinary proof?
Well, ordinary claims just need you to use a search engine, or even just start on wikipedia. You don't get to play skeptic with life, assuming that before you change your precious worldview something has to be tied up and cited. You have the power to google it your goddamned self.

But, fuck it. I'm on vacation.

You can find a TON of first hand accounts of crazy fucking bullshit in North Korea. Here's some who talk on social media after having been there as a tourist:
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/c...
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/c...

Here's one on social media who mentions having taught there, and brings up the "repelled incursions" I referred to, in addition to crazier shit involving netting on cars:
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/c...

Also you can find firsthand accounts all over, not only from social media:
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/c...
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/c... ..but from other media as well
http://www.cracked.com/article...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
http://www.dailylife.com.au/li...

Essentially ALL of these mention that the internet is pretty well shut down and only the North Korean fake version is available- in Pyongyang. You know, their BIG CITY.

Here's a wikipedia link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...

Some quotes:
"As of late 2014 there are 1,024 IP addresses in the country."
"Despite the incident, many citizens of North Korea may be oblivious to the existence of the internet."

http://qz.com/315969/in-north-...
http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/2...

"Nearly all of the country's Internet traffic is routed through China. Firms that monitor that traffic say it is comparable to only about 1,000 high-speed homes in the United States."

I'd like to repeat my earlier point, however:
You don't need to source a claim to be correct. The world isn't wikipedia.

He was never prosecuted, because he is anti-gun. However, he possessed a high capacity magazine in DC. Doing it on TV he should have been arrested immediately after and maybe allowed to negotiate a low jail term and fine. However, he was never even charged much less prosecuted. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/08/david-gregory-prosecution-magazine-clip-angry-response_n_2648295.html.

Because of racist assholes like you, two innocent men had ti die.

Citibank is famous for helping the drug cartels launder money :
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/...

And Bank of America, Western Union, and JP Morgan, Goldman-Sacks, etc. are guilty too :
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

http://www.washingtonsblog.com...
http://www.npr.org/blogs/paral...
http://www.infowars.com/big-ba...

Those robots doesn't count as life-forms. For one, they can't even replicate.

But they can create art. Sure, they're about six years old so their choice of subject matter is a bit crude, but what more do you need?

...and burn them at the stake as witches? That aught to take care of those pesky people who disagree.

Oh I wish we could do that. We'd be able to solve many problems at once.

Well, I always like to point people to this incident as a great example of guns and rage really not mixing well: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/19/michigan-concealed-carry-road-rage-two-dead_n_3956491.html

Politicians set up the next person from their party for votes.

Vice-President is traditionally nominated for the next Presidency by the same pary — unless (like Cheney) he explicitly rejects such plans from the very beginning.

I doubt, Joe Biden will score even so much as a nomination — despite his desires — which will, of course, be even more embarrassing for the Democrats, than him losing the subsequent election.

No, I don't think, Obama sincerely cares about his nominal "Number 2"... It was a marriage of convenience — the man was supposed to "bring foreign policy heft" to the ticket. Ha-ha-ha...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Here is my problem: Google has a long history of cooperating with NSA.

Don't believe me? Fine: read these links instead... Yahoo News article about cooperation between Google and NSA, Guardian article, Tom's Guide article.

Even if Google does not/did not/will not cooperate with NSA, Eric Schmidt himself has been cooperating with the US Government, which cast serious doubts about his desire to protect the private information of Google clients.

Again, don't believe me? Fine, read this instead: Julian Assange on Eric Schmidt. Or (even better) this transcript.

Even if Eric Schmidt does not cooperate with the US Government, he has said himself, repeatedly, that privacy is dead and that it's something for hackers.

Don't believe me? Fine, read this instead: EFF article, Gawker article.

In other words, a company that cooperated with the NSA, led by a man who does not care about your privacy (but cares very much about his) is telling you that there is nothing to see here, sure we are protecting your privacy, please buy our products, we are safe and professionals and there is nothing to be afraid of.

Seriously? How come this gasbag is a freaking CEO, paid millions of dollars a year?

I'm hopeful that someday we all can learn to peacefully cohabit this planet, and maybe even stand up for and protect each other.

Some people use religion as an excuse to hurt or kill, while others use it as inspiration to improve their own and others' lives. I think it has more to do with the person than the religion.

I've never driven a cab for a living but I've spoken w/ cabbies about it, and it's not an easy job. A good cab driver knows the turf. S/he gets you to your destination safely and efficiently... and doesn't rip you off or make you feel creeped out. Over time, failure to meet these criteria has resulted in licensing and regulation. The licensing requirements also provide a barrier to entry. So "official" cab services have evolved an ecosystem of sorts. And a skilled, hard-working driver can make decent, but not great, money. Here's a Huffington Post article that asserts some numbers for both Uber and traditional cabbies:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Now along comes Uber. Cool business model. Flexible price structure. Apps that get a ride to where you are when you need it. Disruptive to the old order. If you know what you're doing, you can use Uber to get around conveniently. If I understand it right, the Uber system addresses, using the clout of the company, some of the good cab requirements (e.g. they'll monitor their drivers).

But Uber disrupts an existing ecosystem... a system that lots of licensed, chartered drivers depend on for their livelihoods. While tech types typically revel in so-called "disruptive technologies," I worry that Uber spells the demise of yet another low tech job. I mean, shouldn't there be something between fast food workers and cube dwellers? So I can see both sides of this. There's not a simple answer to the problem.

Not so much. It prevents the surreptitious recording, but anything in public is still fair game.

and all the ones which succeed are ones which "clearly show the incompetence and futility of the security apparatus"

Not necessarily. I could bring a high explosive into the airport, or a chlorine gas bomb, and just set it off in the terminal. That would kill a bunch of people; so much for incompetence.

This is just uneducated white-guilt garbage. Yes, it's Americans who are walking into Arab coffee shops and detonating themselves.

Actually, we use drones. We've sent missiles from drones repeatedly over the past few years, racking up civilian casualties like pinball points. We don't walk into the coffee shops to detonate ourselves; we send a flying robot.

This has happened again, and again, and again. Americans have one event to remember, which was long ago; Arabs are constantly given reason to joint the fight against America, and have a whole slew of offenses over years to remember. A protracted war will favor the Arabs, who have much more to look to when seeking their moral right to vindication.

And this is just ignorant anti-American bullshit posing as open-minded progressive thought.

Well the liberal progressives at the New York Times, the Huffington Post, and other, along with piles of conservative bloggers, are all in agreement over this bit about Obama:

It is also because Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.

Even the favorite president of the Liberal Media doesn't get a free pass on that one.

Yes, just go ahead and label an entire nation an "axis of evil", based on the demonstrably false claim that they're targeting "anyone over 18".

Do you think the Arabs aren't doing just that? Or are you sitting around thinking, "Gee, America is so great. I bet the Arabs we blew up last week, their friends and families, I bet they think America is so great, too. I bet when people tell them, hey yo, America just murdered your children, your parents, your friends and lovers, they're like, nah yo, America is straight dope, so great, wave flags!"

No, they're sitting around going, "Fucking Americans! Blew up coffee shop where my sister was! Again I have lost friends and loved ones! American evil machine is set on killing my countrymen!" It doesn't take that much effort to piss people off; look at Nidal Hasan for a good example.

You can live in your fantasy world where America's hands are clean, but reality will continue to ignore your delusions.

In Nashville:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

"In June 2010 the Nashville Metropolitan City Council passed legislation raising the city's minimum fee for limo and sedan rentals, bumping it from $25 to $45. Drivers were prohibited by law from charging less. Other new regulations forbid limo companies from using leased vehicles, require cars to be dispatched only from the place of business, compel companies to wait 15 minutes before picking up a client, and ban parking in front of hotels and bars to wait for customers. More laws that take effect in January 2012 would also require companies to replace all sedans and SUVs over seven-years-old, and all limos 10-years-old and older. Vehicles older than five years cannot enter into service."

The legislation was paid for by mainly by Gaylord, which was exempted from the legislation.

"Opryland Hotel [note: owned by Gaylord] provides shuttle and limousine services to the Nashville airport about 10 minutes away. For the shuttle, a round-trip fare is $40; a single fare is $30. The limousine service costs $270 round-trip and $135 for a single fare. Gaylord Opryland and other big hotels that operate their own shuttle services were given exemptions from the new legislation."

The intent was to put smaller competitors out of business, one being Metro Livery. Thankfully they're still operating. When I lived in south Nashville I could get a ride to the airport from them for $35 or so, cheaper than a cab. That was for a sedan with a driver - not a cabby. The sedans at the time weren't brand new but they were in excellent shape.

Taxi regulations are bought and paid for by taxi cartels. Period. The whole idea that they have the regulations foisted on them is, at this point, so laughable that it barely requires a response.

The rest of your post is filled with bold speculation, and causual observation, and "what ifs".

I'm not saying you're not entitled to your views, I'm just saying its not science.

That's kindof the point of this article. So James Watson states an opinion based on
his casual observation and bold speculations and gets railroaded for it.
Here is an interesting article about it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Skip down to the "known facts section":
1) No one has a firm handle...
2) No one has a firm idea...
3) No one has proof...
4) As for "race", it's a sticky muck...
5) Like "intelligence", the term "race" is ill-defined...

Note that this is an article that comes out AGAINST James Watson but clearly admits
that noone knows. So a man was crucified for stating an opinion in a largely gray area.
Here is another quote from James Watson:
If someone's liver doesn't work, we blame it on the genes; if someone's brain doesn't work properly, we blame the school. It's actually more humane to think of the condition as genetic. For instance, you don't want to say that someone is born unpleasant, but sometimes that might be true.
and another:
We're not all equal, it's simply not true. That isn't science.
and another:
Our goal should be to understand our differences.
and another:
Ultimately, we'll help the people we discriminate against if we try to understand more about them; genetics will lead to a world where there is a sympathy for the underdog.

James Watson firmly believes that there is a strong genetic component to intelligence and personality.
This doesn't instantly make him a racist. It makes him fall on one side of the nature/nurture debate
that is still very much up in the air. This isn't just some random part of him, if he didn't strongly believe
in the nature side then it's very probable that he would have never discovered the DNA that gave him
his nobel prize.

Romney is done. Even if he did run again in 2016, he wouldn't get the nomination. And while it's too soon to place any money on it, I'm leaning towards Rick Perry having a shot at it. He'll have to overcome his poor performance last debate, but the fact he was in pain is forgivable.

The act was introduced by a Republican, and all House Repubs except 3 voted for it. For comparison, 62 Democrats opposed it.

And how do you explain away the 98:1 votes for the law in Senate? Or the fact, that the law — originally meant to automatically expire — was just extended by everybody's favorite Democrat? He said:

"It's an important tool for us to continue dealing with an ongoing terrorist threat"

It's interesting that you omitted the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 [...]

You were referring to post-9/11 legislation (see title of this subthread). The Clinton-signed Act of 2000 was the closest to 9/11 (before or after). While it was possible, you've made a mistake of one year, I could not imagine, you'd be associating a law of 1984 with anything "post-9/11".

All the articles I've read call that act the turning point in Civil Forfeiture.

Then you've been reading crap. The civil forfeitures are just another manifestation of the major flaw of our — and British — law. While there are various commendable protections for your person (habeas corpus/presumption of innocence, right to bail, 4th and 5th Amendments, et ctera), there is nothing explicitly protecting your property. It can be — indeed, has been — seized by the Executive on a whim. And, of course, Democrats (such as the already-mentioned FDR) are guiltier of it than Republicans.

The income tax may be considered another manifestation of the same flaw...

I don't think any reasonable person would read this thread and think I implied Republicans have trampled the second amendment.

He-he... I doubt, we'll get a poll, but here is what it looks like:

• me: Second Amendment gives us the right to weapons.
• you replying to me: Republicans are assholes

Why would you bring up Republicans at all — in a follow-up to a tiny post about the Second Amendment — if not to blame them for the blatant Second Amendment violations?

Republicans have (throughout my lifetime) been the advocates of National Security at all costs, and Crime Control at all costs.

They may have been misguided at that, but they weren't evil. Whereas anybody openly advocating for Hamas or Communists are advocating for evil...

You only seem to want to argue in favor of your tribe

Republicans are not my tribe. But a Libertarian in today's USA would be crazy to align with the Democrats. Because "it is the economy, stupid". Even if some uber-Conservative manages to gain power and outlaw abortions, gasp, I'll still have enough money to afford my daughter's trip to Canada, should she ever want the procedure. On contrast, if Obamas are allowed to run the country for much longer, we will all be so poor, having a 24x7 free abortion clinic next door will be of very little consolation...

I guess we should ban all rough sex

Good news, the UK is way ahead of you there! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/02/sex-acts-banned-porn_n_6254330.html

Maybe the father can give his daughter examples of actual princesses' lives and deeds, since it seems to be such a spontaneous center of interest for her. Like the bios of Grace Kelly, Diana, Margaret of Snowdon, Beatrice of York, etc.

Full disclosure: my 5 year old niece is a prime piece of Disney'dest princess-wannabe, and I regularly take great delight in trolling her with facts about real princes and princesses, and alternate versions of her favorite stories.

Walter Cronkite, "The most trusted man in America", is one of the greatest journalists to ever live.
To say he had no credibility is only to prove how ignorant you are.

in fact it so colors you that we can safely assume you believe that the "mainstream media" has a liberal bias (which also indicates you have no idea what "liberal" even means), instead of a corporate one, and that you further believe that Fox isnt part of the mainstream media, even though its rating and audience and influence are larger than all the other news channels.

Wow, in response to a post about CBS pushing propaganda. you demonstrate that you swallowed it all - hook, line, and sinker.

Walter Cronkite Biography Reveals His Dark Side

One Ukrainian says to another:

• Hey, whatever you say about the rest of them, I still know one good Russian...
• Who?!
• Gérard Depardieu!

Apparently, it does not work on gay boy scouts. Also, something-something Obama.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

You probably missed the Bill O'Reilly interview as well.

About 5% of the US population identifies as atheist. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in any of our legal founding documents. It was pulled from a letter that Jefferson wrote to a church assuring them freedom of religion since there would be no official state religion. The great majority of the initial wave of immigration to the America was from European countries that required people to join the state religion, and they immigrated seeking religious freedom.

This wasn't used against you in your senate run (which certainly lacked any semblance of tact), but I GUARANTEE you that your past will resurface when you did things like this:

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1005572/how-mike-capellas-castrated-carly

...Carly did not tell Capellas that the sad love affair between Heloise and Abelard ended up with the man in the affair being castrated... when Capellas found out he shuddered and said: "I'm glad I didn't know".

And this, as well as the "bad hair?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/09/carly-fiorina-open-mic-vi_n_606723.html

"God, what is that hair?"

Cops tend to (understandably) have an us versus them world view and see everyone's actions as those of a potential suspect.

What? Why is that understandable? You could say that it's understandable that waiters have an us-vs-them worldview. Or IT support. Or musicians. Or doctors. Or ANY group of people that interacts with anyone else in a professional capacity. And all of it is bullshit tribalism that makes for shitty services.

Hate is probably the wrong word for most cops but it would be fair to say cops don't trust anyone who isn't a cop. ... Apply a bit of low grade racism and you have a real problem with police distrusting a minority population and the minority population growing to distrust the police.

Hell, I'm a pasty-ass cracker from upper-middle society and I distrust the police. I know that I can afford a lawyer that means a whole swath of laws actually apply to the police during their interactions with me, but things like civil forfeiture, swatting, and local events give me good reason to distrust the cops. The complain that this teaches children to fear and avoid cops might be accurate, in all ways.

Now it's not like all cops are bad cops. It only takes one rotten apple to poison a department though, and they seem to have a culture of looking after their own. So if one screws up, the rest will cover for him. Because hey, for most of them it's just a job. Something they go into in the morning, and leave at night. They want to retire eventually. And they don't want to rock the boat. And now you have a perfectly reasonable guy who suspects that O'maley down the hall got into the evidence locker when his buddy punched that guy, but doesn't really have any proof, and sure as shit isn't going to rat on his co-worker, and generally just goes along with the flow.

Their first concern is to not get shot in the head.

That's a bit paranoid. Cop isn't even in the top 10 jobs for on the job fatalities. Also, most cop fatalities are from car accidents - yet they refuse to wear seat belts. old citation to show this has been known for a long time newer citation to show that nothing has changed. If they wore seat belts at the rate the general public did, being a police officer would be a pretty safe job. Police don't need to violate the fourth amendment to be safe.

And because President Kennedy died in 1963 (before he could completely back away from the commitment)...

Do you have any evidence that he intended to do that, or are you just looking for an excuse to blame everything on LBJ and Nixon?

It's fairly well known among space historians, though like much of the factual matters surrounding the space program it's practically unknown by the fanboys. Anyhow, a tape containing a discussion between Kennedy and Webb was released a few years back where Kennedy voices his doubts. In 1963 he proposed a joint mission with the Soviets, which has also long been interpreted as a backing away from his original commitment. The Space Review also has a two part story shedding some light on the issue.

And no, I blame nothing on Nixon - after the Congressional budget cuts of '65-'67, Apollo was already essentially cancelled. Nixon inherited a program already running short of funds and operating mostly on momentum and force a habit - and Congress disinclined to change that. He didn't kill Apollo, he just stood by while a patient already in a deep coma and dependent on machines for every bodily function simply slipped away.