Slashdot Mirror

... to "gotta-pay-for-those-social-welfare-benefits" dept.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/21/air-conditioning-military-cost-nasa_n_881828.html

DOWNVOTING BEGIN!

You deserve downvoting, because you are a liar and/or an ignoramus who nonetheless speaks authoritatively.

Your opinion is worth less than nothing, as it is based on faux news.

PETA's Secret Slaughter of Kittens, Puppies. Just to let you know that they might not always be what they claim to be.

I am against animal cruelty (mostly because it ruins the taste of the meat) but I am more against hypocracy.

Quorn is fine just so long as you're not violently allergic to it and realise that it's artificially fortified because it is naturally low on vitamins and minerals.

The modern incarnation of tea party groups is basically a lesson in major party co-option and poisoning of a movement to neutralize it. The Democrats certainly don't want to focus on its origins, because those are rooted in an anti-war / anti-coroporate welfare philosophy and Democrats still like to pretend they aren't neo-cons. The GOP certainly didn't want it to spread and disturb its social issue message which it uses to cover its financially wanton behavior.

As for recent history, which has been effectively erased by both parties, there were Ron Paul Tea Party events in 2007 with a major focus on ending the wars in the middle east and protecting civil liberties: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... Check out the tags on the boxes being thrown in the the water for example around 1 minute in: "iraq war" "corporate welfare" "homeland security" etc. Or this video from Nov. 2007: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... which is 80% anti-war (warning, pictures of burned and blown up kids from Iraq or Afghanistan).

Then shortly after Obama's election, Karl Denninger popularized an idea of sending tea bags to Congress. http://market-ticker.org/akcs-... His focus was on the fraud and abuse the Feds winked at during the financial meltdown, and he was livid when the GOP coopted the Tea Party, and turned it into some "Guns, Gays, God" focused BS: http://market-ticker.org/akcs-... Indeed, it took almost no time for the GOP to co-opt the Tea Party: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

And in case you think Denninger is just another Koch brother wannabe, he voted for Obama in 2007: http://voxday.blogspot.com/201...

He also supported the Occupy Movement's focus on banking fraud and interestingly, thought it's lack of centralization good, seeing centralization as the fatal exploitable flaw for tea party groups: http://rt.com/usa/tea-occupy-d...

Anyway, today's Tea Party is a caricature the DNC and GOP created for their own purposes by poisoning the original ideas.

Except that GP was not talking about copying the US' computer-based espionage operations, but the US' various illegal wars.

The story is about Russian hacking. Naturally the subject won't turn to Russian hacking, or even Russia's invasion of Ukraine, but to false allegations of "illegal" wars by the US. Typical, and a diversion.

So, which "illegal wars" is the US uniquely "guilty" of?

You know, there is a bit of a mess unfolding in Ukraine. There are pro-russian and pro-european factions and the russians are obviously supporting the former -- with a completely illegal show of force.

I've heard.

Less well known is that the pro-european factions supported by the West are largely far-right nationalists. Neonazis, pretty much. See, e.g. this piece by Max Blumenthal.

Yes, I'm familiar with Russian charges that they are going to fight fascists in another smaller neighboring country. That was the excuse to invade Finland. The charge is recycled to invade and take territory from Ukraine.

During the Stalin era, Soviet propaganda painted Finland's leadership as a "vicious and reactionary Fascist clique". Marshal C. G. E. Mannerheim and Väinö Tanner, the leader of the Finnish Social Democratic Party, were targeted for particular scorn.[52] With Joseph Stalin gaining near-absolute power through the Great Purge of 1938, the Soviet Union changed its foreign policy toward Finland in the late 1930s. The Soviet Union began pursuing the reconquest of the provinces of Tsarist Russia lost during the chaos of the October Revolution and the Russian Civil War. The Soviet leadership believed that the old empire had ideal security and territorial possessions, and wanted the newly christened city of Leningrad to enjoy a similar security. -- Winter War

Yes, that is all too familiar.

As for Max Blumenthal, I'm aware of his work. I don't consider his views useful given their crank fringe attributes.

Are Mainstream Liberals Embracing Max Blumenthal’s ‘I Hate Israel Handbook’?

You can see the nonsense in his piece that you link to. As part of the "proof" he mentions "white supremacist banners and Confederate flags," but somehow passes over the British, French, Canadian, and other flags present. Does that mean that the Ukrainians are also secretly French, British, and Canadian too, or just crypto-Confederates? It contains no small bit of rubbish. He is a useful idiot making excuses for Russia's invasion.

Besides, if it the concern that prompted the invasion really was fighting "fascism," why didn't Russia take care of their own neo-Nazi and fascist problems at home first? It isn't a small problem, and they have been letting it bleed into Ukraine.

Russian Neo-Nazis Are Now Beating Up Gays in Ukraine
Russia neo-Nazis jailed for life over 27 race murders
Russia: Far-Right Nationalists And Neo-Nazis March In Moscow
Viral Vigilantism: Russian Neo-Nazis Take Gay Bashing Online
Russian Neo-Nazis Made These Horrifying Videos of Anti-LGBT Attacks

The Russians seem to be good at finding fascism and fighting it in all their neighbors, not

> or did you forget the 6 year old that made it on the sex-offenders list?

Don't exaggerate.

Because the same people try to get competing foods banned.

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

In the case of Purell, its Triclosan that is an issue.

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

Maybe they have removed it, maybe not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

On its own its not the worst threat in the environment, but when you add it along with
others the combined threat is pretty bad and would explain the reduction of quality of
health compared to some other nations.

Well there was a "turd on the run" on Apollo 10. Tellingly, no one owned up to it.

Compare it to what the head of the Federal Bureau of Prisons knows about a prison cell: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

This is the guy in charge of every federal prison in the United States of America, and he makes up a bullshit answer for a Congressman. I'm very disappointed in this Administration.

Not a worry- seems like many cops would just shoot Lassie first and then try to ask questions (probably "bark if you don't want us to search").

Does PITA know about this? /ducks and covers

Don't worry.

When they find out they'll start indiscriminately slaughtering every horseshoe crab they can find.

Just like they do to every other animal they get their nasty hands on.

Huh? First of all - define 'wealth'

It's [assets] - [liabilities] = wealth. The IRS already has a form for calculating it.

then define what it means to: "hoard wealth"

Well define it how you want. This is something the progressives have been complaining about when they excoriate the wealthy for causing income inequality.

explain to me why taxing ONLY somebody's 'wealth' would eliminate the incentive to hoard it.

Right now, since you have a significant tax liability for income, but not for idle money, people leave their money idle, or they store it somewhere considered "safe" like treasury bonds, which earn low rates (less than 1% for under 5 year notes). If income is not being taxed, but all idle money will be, a rational actor would prefer to take a higher risk with their money, and hope for a better return.

I don't think you've thought this through.

I have, as have many other folks. You should give it a try, rather than just hammering out the first snarky response you can come up with.

The true answer is to allow people to get through a full background check in exchange for skipping the screening process entirely. Frequent travelers (the majority) would do so, and this would cut the number of people waiting in line to almost nothing.

But they won't do that, because the TSA is primarily a jobs program, not a security screening service.

Well, as a matter of fact, the process you propose has been in use for over a year at a few airports and airlines, and is expanding.

That all may well have some truth. Also, many decades ago, social roles and courtship procedures were more clearly defined (as "manners", and also religious systems). So, it may have been easier back then for Aspies to marry at a younger age with less unstructured social situations to navigate?

Still, another factor could be that vitamin D deficiency may also cause autism, and I wonder if older parents may spend less time outdoors in the sun and so have their young child outdoors less? Older skin also has more trouble making vitamin D. And certainly many Aspies may have intense indoor hobbies and jobs.
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org...
http://www.psychologytoday.com...

This recent study somewhat questions the link through for mothers and kids though (except they cite the population mean which itself seems to be low, which may confound the study IMHO):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

Contrast with supplements needed to adjust for our indoor lifestyle:
http://www.grassrootshealth.ne...

Maybe also of interest on the implications of living in a world with so many artificial toxins in the air and food (like lead and artificial colors) -- where a lack of things like vitamin D and iodine make it harder for kids to deal with the toxins:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Anyway, a complex topic, with pros and cons about everything relative to different situations.

I've heard of states (or counties or cities) giving breaks to corporations for income, property, or other taxes, but I've never heard of an arrangement where the company is allowed to keep any withholdings from employee's payrolls as you claim... do you have a concrete example you could share?

No problem. Reuters says there are at least 2700 companies with such arrangements.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Comme...

http://thinkprogress.org/econo...

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

"For every job that pays a median wage of at least $15 an hour there are 7 job seekers, the report found. The study defined a low-wage job as one that pays less than $15 an hour -- which happens to be the wage fast-food workers demanded in protests around the country last week.

In some places even $15 an hour may not be enough to get by. The definition of what constitutes a living wage varies nationwide, the report found. Workers in Montana need just $13.92 per hour to make ends meet, while New Yorkers need at least $22.66 per hour. Regardless of the variation, it still takes a lot more than the current $7.25 national minimum wage, or even the $10.10 minimum wage President Obama has proposed, to survive anywhere in the country."

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

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

You probably consider Matt Lauer a "personality" at 25M.

Not listed on that report is Brian Williams who makes 10M/year now.
Diane Sawyer makes 12M/year.
Scott Pelley rounds out the nightly news anchors at a paltry 5M/year.

Leading up cable is Maddow at 7M/year.

CNN says the average anchor makes between "$40,000 and several million" depending on tenure and experience.

Hamas isn't saying that. They are still committed to the destruction of Israel

You mean they want their stolen property back, no different than Jews demanding the return of property stolen from them. And your talking point died when Carter visited Hamas and talked them into accepting Israel as party of a peace deal, just by actually talking to them.

Other parts left out of your storyline (cuz that's what you do), Israel created Hamas to undermine Fatah. And while you guys like to whine about the Hamas charter, the Likkud charter lays claim to all of the West Bank, which is flatly illegal and always has been. And then there's the odd Israeli official that nakedly talks about a "final solution" for their "Palestinian problem".

Of course, one side has the best military hardware a sugar daddy can buy along with hundreds of nuclear weapons, but it's a good thing we have people like you to focus on the other side: rock throwers and gunpowder rockets straight out of the 12th century.

CEO pay in general is too high I agree.

But I find it easier to stomach Silicon Valley CEO pay for a reason - they are producing an actual product whereas investment banks do not - they actually harm the economy, they don't help it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Furthermore, most Silicon Valley CEOs are either founders of the companies or were involved from an early phase. They put a lot of blood and sweat into these companies over the years. They are not just MBAs flown in for a couple of years to later on bail with golden parachutes when things get rough.

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

There is NO "Israeli Palestinian Conflict".

There is an Israeli boot, smashing a Palestinian face, forever.

Contrary to what's been reported in the news for years, there is no Israeli-Palestinian conflict. None, zero, zilch, diddly-squat. I can say with confidence that Palestinians have no agency. The Israeli government controls everything in the country. This total control which is most magnified in the West Bank, concerns everything from where Palestinians are permitted to travel, to how much water they consume per month. Currently, there is no 'conflict,' only the omnipresent power of the Israeli government and those who resist it. This is important to understand.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ferrari-sheppard/i-traveled-to-palestine_b_4761896.html

Yep, you're WILLFULLY blind.

I note that you utterly refused to respond to which side openly claims to have the goal of destroying the other.

The same side that teaches from textbooks with maps that omit the other side.

And you'll ignore that, too.

Ergo, willfully blind.

Because you don't have the guts or the brains to address facts that don't correspond to your close-minded views. (And I bet you all but twist your arm out of joint patting yourself on the back about how "open-minded" and "tolerant" you are. LOL at THAT!)

You're a total waste of protoplasm.

And still a fucking moron.

But now I know you're also too stupid to realize how stupid you are.

There is NO "Israeli Palestinian Conflict".

There is an Israeli boot, smashing a Palestinian face, forever.

Contrary to what's been reported in the news for years, there is no Israeli-Palestinian conflict. None, zero, zilch, diddly-squat. I can say with confidence that Palestinians have no agency. The Israeli government controls everything in the country. This total control which is most magnified in the West Bank, concerns everything from where Palestinians are permitted to travel, to how much water they consume per month. Currently, there is no 'conflict,' only the omnipresent power of the Israeli government and those who resist it. This is important to understand.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ferrari-sheppard/i-traveled-to-palestine_b_4761896.html

First link, http://www.techdirt.com/articl... [techdirt.com] proves my point. If the government is violating your rights, get a lawyer and appeal. That's what this guy is doing.

Second link, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com] Again proves my point. If the NSA is using data it has collected illegally in criminal trials as evidence, there is redress in court to get the evidence stricken and any convictions based on it overturned.

Third link: https://www.techdirt.com/artic... [techdirt.com] is on it's face the most troubling. However, In order for this to be a *real* issue, one must assume that the NSA data was used in collecting the evidence being used in the criminal trial. If such data was not used in the investigation, it is inadmissible and thus the defense is not necessarily entitled to a court order to get it.

You see, in each of these cases, the rules of evidence are being argued over and applied. Which is my point. There is a process here and that process IS fair.

Really? You've *seen* this happen before? (and not on TV, in real life)

http://www.techdirt.com/articl...

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

As I understand this, legally they have to disclose all evidence they have to the defense period.

https://www.techdirt.com/artic...

So if they have classified evidence, they have to let the defense have it. Yes, they can have the trial in a closed environment and seal the transcripts, but this is not unfair.

Just keep on spinnin' those wheels, defending a state you know to be corrupt, dude.

those privately owned complexes are only profitable beyond a certain level of occupation.

Tell that to the prisons in Arizona. They have a guaranteed 100% occupancy rate - IE they get paid whether they have a prisoner or not. I'd LOVE to be paid for XXX prisoners that I don't actually have.

It's becoming a real issue with crime rates falling like a rock - states are having to 'scramble' to find enough prisoners to get their money's worth for those facilites. My opinion: Don't renew their contracts. Buy the facility, if it's worth it, for cheap some time later.

Seriously? I know full well that at least in SFO, ATL and PDX that a solid sysadmin, DevOps, or DBA has no shortage of openings to pursue. I get pestered at least 6-10 times a week with reputable offers (and don't ask how many fly-by-night Indian outfits I've had to spam-can).

I think I know what's going on... or at least part of it. It's because the market is short-handed in many areas.

I'm trying to hire sysadmins right now - once we weed out the bullshitters and the obviously incompetent, the rest demand one hell of a high salary (call it at least $95k/yr outside of SFO, and $150k/yr inside SFO), and odds are good that management is going to be forced to cut loose with the funds to do it (and for myself as well, damnit). We managed to hire exactly one out of the four slots we have open... in the past 5 months. Meanwhile, I'm trying to make do with the staff I got. We avoid pushing anyone above 50hrs/week, but I often catch a lot of them working 60+ hours anyway.

IMHO, given the amount of work that is out there (at least in my neighborhood of tech), any employer who thinks they can treat employees like crap will quickly find that they're stuck with either no staff, or incompetent staff - either way they're screwed. Example? No problem. A local company around here tried to recruit me as a DevOps (they call it a "Systems Engineer" position.) However, not only was it named as one of the worst companies in tech to work for, but nearly everyone in the local area I asked has warned me off from 'em (there was plenty to say about them, and little of it good. To top that off, my own research backed it up.)

Along comes Chavez and demands that the country gets some revenue for the oil. He then poured this money into development.

What development? Inflation is up, infrastructure ever more decrepit, crime is up — homicides quadrupled over the last 15 years

No wonder he is hated by the USA.

I don't see, who but an enemy of the people could possibly like a ruler like that. No wonder, you prefer to stay anonymous.

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

Yes, i do find it sad to have to link a article with pictures because people have little common sense, and even less ability to use that google thing on that interweb of tubes.

You put facts in scare quotes and then argue with only two of them.

But I can provide citations for both. Rand Paul on the environment and Rand Paul saying he likes Ayn Rand.

And they're making out like bandits with the rip-off "lost phone insurance".

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

I believe the phrase "different points of view can help ...." makes for a decent excuse. Trust Your Doctor? When to Get a Second Opinion

This day in simple answers to bad questions.

The first thing Obama did was get Congress to sign off on all the domestic spying so that he wouldn't take the fall.

Senior members of Obama's own party have said they find out about these programs from the press, via whisteblowers like Snowden, before being briefed by the White House. How are you supposed to stop something you know about, and even if you did know, how does that make you more responsible than the trigger-man?

You have people who disobey safety instructions and wander about the cabin when the plane is pitching and rolling, even with "Federal Law compels you to comply with all flight attendant instructions...." and you expect people to not talk because a 5'2 flight attendant asked nicely? Never gonna happen.

This is an example of "what's great for me sucks for you". For that shithead on the phone, s/he's breaking up the monotony of the flight and lack of blood flow to the legs with a fun phone call. It just hurts and annoys everyone else. Do you think at that point after being jammed into the middle seat with a seat reclining into his lap the caller is gonna care that the nice flight attendant calmly told them to knock it off?

Won't happen. Even with the Federal Law thing you'll still have people that try. And for someone who takes public transportation with "quiet cars" that depend on civility between people that is often ignored, I've seen a couple near fights on a 45 minute train ride with relatively (to airplanes) large and comfortable seats, fresh air, and the ability to walk around any time. How many fights do you think there will be on a 8 hour overland flight with Cell coverage? My body clock says it's midnight, time to sleep. This caller's clock say's it's 8AM, time for work. Do you think he's gonna back off? Do you think the cranky sleepy guy is gonna back off?

For those that say "let the market decide" this is preventing literal fistfights in the air where you'd probably need to vector 25% of those fight flights off to other airports, totally disrupting the web of flights that make up air travel today.

For the time being, though, it looks like America's going to continue to depend on the tax-free kindness of wealthy strangers to educate its kids

America spends vast amounts of money on its public education system, but it's not yielding better outcomes.

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

What these people who you denigrate as "wealthy strangers" are doing is provide a better, and usually less costly, alternative for education, after public schools have already sucked vast amounts of money out of the pockets of low and middle income Americans and wasted them on a poor public school system.

Hey, when the U.S. Secretary of Education turns to corporate sponsors and auctions to fund his Mother's afterschool program for kids of low-income families in the President's hometown, don't look for things to change anytime soon."

No, of course, things won't change. The problem with US public education isn't lack of money; it has plenty of that, it's is structure: an ineffective mix of curricula, bureaucracy, social engineering, tenure, unions, test scores, and outdated teaching methods. And the solution is to create alternative forms of schooling, and private money is important for that because tax dollars alone can't do it, in large part because of demagogues and ideologues like you.

Taking more money in taxes and shoving it into a failing educational system under the control of the same people who have given us our current system won't help students; creating viable and better alternatives, tailored to the needs of communities, will.

I realize that Big Pharma have a vested interest in their bottom lines but they also are allowed lengthy patents on all of their products, essentially giving them license to print money for years. India on the other hand has no interest in paying for patents when they have millions of people who can benefit from the medications that Big Pharma have produced. That's wrong too and two wrongs don't make a right.

I mean, you can get tons of generic medications, made in India, from all kinds of third party pharmacies all over the world. It's great for the consumer but it undermines IP rights and the research investments that Big Pharma make. Does this hurt Big Pharma? Well yes but I don't see any of them going bankrupt and only in nations where they're allowed to have a monopoly, like the US, would they not be more amenable to reducing their pricing structure? Last year it was reported that just on Medicare in the US Big Pharma netted $711 Billion in profits. That's not exactly going broke.

Why? Well the ACA didn't touch Big Pharma nor did it open the doors and allow more generics to be imported, that was a back room deal but it still remains that while they should be allowed to protect their IP, they shouldn't be allowed to charge outrageous, over-the-top prices for what they produce. Some of these companies even charge less for the same product in other nations than they do in the US. They even have gone so far as to sue Maine for allowing Candian pharmacy imports. If we're going to start reducing healthcare costs worldwide we have to start addressing Big Pharma and their political influence and to come to an understanding that they can't just live off the the ills of the people they're supposed to help. If we could get to that level, then there wouldn't be the need for $15,000 injections nor the need for India to circumvent intellectual property rights to keep their citizens alive nor for everybody else to pay outrageous prices for medications which improve the quality of life.
     

Yup..

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

"Pharmaceutical Companies Spent 19 Times More On Self-Promotion Than Basic Research: Report "

The grown ups want to discuss the news.

Why don't all of you Anonymous Coward "grown ups" hop on over to Huffington Post to discuss the news? Here's a fucking link for the lazy. In a month you can come back to Slashdot and you won't even know the difference.

Corruption isn't just 100 billion dollar bad. If it was, any steadfast leader would pay it each year to remove it. Corruption is destroy your government, society, and civilization bad, and in the short run people's lives can be ruined.

Exactly. And that is before we factor in the cost in human lives. For example see the incredible increase in suicide rates in Spain in the wake of its scandalous banking and housing corrupticon, wheremajority of the top bankers and politicians have been implicated or sentenced but not jailed in corruption cases.. It got so bad that the bailed out banks were forced to tone down their house repossessions as pensioners were leaping from the windows to their deaths when the police came knocking to throw them out into the street. (tone down, not stop).

Isn't it funny that you almost never see a graphic displaying suicide statistics, especially lately. If there is one statistic a corrupt politician does not want the common folk to see too often, this must be it...

Thanks for the informative reply. On livestock, sadly with so many Confined Animal Feeding Operations, it seems their waste from CAFOs will go to "waste" in huge lagoons? But I'm not sure if that is just manure or whether the urine goes into such lagoons too. From:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
http://www.nrdc.org/water/poll...
"According to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a non-profit environmental advocacy group, these lagoons often break, leak or overflow, allowing microbes from animal waste to seep into the ground and contaminate air and water supplies."

I've read half the water in the USA is polluted by livestock production (not sure if that is true).

And this is a very good illustratration of one of the BIG problems with such registries: no matter how trivial the crime, people will assume (A) that you're guilty

If you've had your due process and been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt the presumption of innocence is over.

Guilty of what? Sexting with a fellow high school student? That first childhood romance? Public urination? The words "sex offender" bring up images of rape - forcible, drug-aided, whatever - and other serious sex crimes, but the "sex offender registry" is a lifetime tattoo that puts everyone from serial rapists to "huggy" 10-year-olds in the same basket.

And it also shows why a national registry is an outrageously BAD IDEA. A person who was an offender in one state would face a lifetime stigma, even in other states where the "offending" activity was perfectly legal.

And? If I went to Amsterdam to smoke pot it's legal, if I do it at home I'm a criminal and I'd get a "drug offense" on my record.

If you smoke pot in the US and you're white, you get a ticket. If you smoke pot in the US and you're black, you get 30-90 days in jail. If you mastermind a network that imports and distributes tons of marijuana over the course of a decade, you get 20 years. After you've paid your fine or done your time, you get released and can rejoin society.

If you kissed your high school sweetheart and her daddy got upset, then you are never allowed to live within 1000 feet of a school or (in many areas) a school bus stop. If you kissed your high school sweetheart, your presence will reduce property values for any neighborhood you move into. The marijuana equivalent would be to put everyone from the kingpin to the weekend toker to the kid taking her own adderall on a "drug addict registry." After all, recidivism among drug offenses is nearly 70%, where recidivism among sexual offenders is more than 5%. (actually, if you break the sex-offenders into "high risk" and "low risk," then you can find recidivism nearly 70% within the 1-in-5 minority of sex offender registrants, but that already admits that there are identifiably different kinds of sexual offenders)

The point is that the sexual offender registry, as implemented is bad policy and bad law. Repeated studies have show it has no effect on recidivism or re-arrest rates. If your point is "It's the law: whether it's good or bad, you need to accept it because public opinion is irrelevant," then your point is ridiculous. The Law is supposed to represent a codification of common values. The Law can change based on the public's experience of it, and the way we make that happen is by pointing out the flaws in existing laws.

Customs is also supposed to prevent importation of tainted goods. For example, shoes are legal to import, yet...

When was the last time you heard about someone buying a counterfeit shirt, putting it on, then dying from it, or killing someone else?

Oh, and various multi-million dollar drug busts:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
http://www.abc6.com/story/2336...
http://www.news.com.au/nationa...
http://www.celebritynetworth.c...

You're never too young to learn a life lesson - or, rather, a business lesson. As this local news report shows, the aptly named Daniela Earnest of Tulare, California had her lemonade stand shut down by town officials. (It turns out the stand lacked proper business permits.) Daniela, who's just seven years old, had the heartwarming goal to save enough money to send her family to Disney Land.

Am I correct that your concern is the corruption of Congress, as they are the ones who write the laws? I'm trying to understand, and be sure you're not claiming that all government employees are corrupt. Since members of Congress are elected locally, I'm unclear how this would be helped. Campaign finance seems to be the most obvious place where such issues would take place. Would you agree that having an organized election system, where each candidate presents a set of views, and have that funded equally to ensure fairness would eliminate the appearance of corruption that exists now? Alternatively, do you believe that unrestricted campaigns would be better?

I also don't see where you read me as being against self-determination. People are free to do what they want. That's the point of equality of opportunity. Affirmative action attempts to provide that on a racial basis, under the assumption that college acceptance is biased. That was clearly the case in the past, and has improved over time. Should it be permanent? Of course not, but where making a cereal commercial with an interracial couple causes outrage (as was the case last year) suggests that racism is still a problem.

I will now gloss over the rest of that paragraph, as I can't see a common theme. Yes, human rights are universal. Yes, they should therefore be applied universally. I don't see where I claimed otherwise. Just because I support the current administration doesn't mean that they're without flaws.

Continuing: research. Figure out the solution beforehand. The world is not a series of unforeseeable random attacks. You can figure out how things will work before you try them. It's convenient that you bring up the ACA, as this is an example of attempting to solve a problem (uninsured citizens) by doing something (everyone needs insurance now) and then offsetting problems (insurance companies get new members, but can no longer discriminate. Some people are too poor to afford insurance, so use the tax breaks and existing medicaid system to cover them at lower cost). It's already doing exactly as it was designed to do: get more coverage to more people. People no longer have to go without preventative treatment because they're afraid of what they might find. Isn't this a good thing?

The NSA spying story is something where my actual response was, "didn't we already know this?" Is it ideal? No, but I also don't see this as the beginning of internment camps for everyone. Why? Because it's impractical. Step A: everyone goes into camps. Step B: ? Why? The government doesn't really benefit from that. The evil corporations don't benefit from that. Banksters don't benefit. So, if no one benefits (except some hypothetical God-King that has decreed this), then why assume it'll happen? What to do about it? Shut it down, and if it were a perfect world, send people to jail. Is this the greatest concern right now? Not when Congress wants to cut SNAP funding by $5e9. That will hurt people now. Although your concerns on the NSA are justified, they are not hurting people now, and do not justify hurting more people in the name of "freedom."

For your final list, how do you fix that? Do you try to elect new members of Congress that are not beholden to external interests, and more interested in governing than voting 40+ times to stop a single program that might help people, or do you claim that the whole system is broken, and must be burned down to the ground and destroyed? When your car runs out of gas or gets a flat tire, do you push it off the road and set it ablaze? Besides, why not talk about government programs that work? Hurricane relief, the interstate road system, college grants, the head start program ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... ), NASA, Social Security, the TVA, NIH, etc.

Why the sigh?

Genital regeneration may lead to the restoration of parts lost via genital mutilation. And science looks a lot more appealing than this foreskin restoration method. NSFW.

I wouldn't be surprised if some of the tissue used for this type of 3d printing is sourced from genital mutilation. In the United States, neonatal foreskins are harvested and used for commercial products like skin grafts, anti-wrinkle creams, and tissue samples for research. Not surprisingly, this stuff isn't cheap.

By the way, I'm not suggesting that this happens 100% of the time but the fact that it happens at all and is perfectly legal is pretty disturbing. If harvesting healthy, normal, erogenous tissue from living human beings without their consent doesn't scream "human rights violation" then I don't know what does.

At least GWB would have been honest about cutting a deal with the Insurance Lobby -- Obama went around touting the public option after he'd already promised it would be killed.

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

Obama gave us Nixon's health care plan, with the liberal parts stripped out. NOT AN ACHIEVEMENT.

Neither did his gay lover.

After all, if Obama got this prize, why wouldn't Snowden get it?

<sarcasm>Because Snowden hasn't droned enough civilians.</sarcasm>

Well we can imagine all we want about who may be on a watch list however the documents that have come to light clearly shows that the feds and other police infiltrated the occupy movement. Hardly a libertarian or Tea Party group.

...than being denied particular coursework on an Internet they're not allowed to access anyway. Things like surviving on $20 a month and avoiding getting arrested for owning unauthorized shrimp.