Slashdot Mirror

No. the liberal feel goods hate Solar too.

Obviously neither of you use google much. He didn't post any links because he is lazy, not because liberal sites don't report on the matter:

Huffington Post - "Obama's Broken Promise: Federal Agencies Not More Transparent Under Obama Administration"
Media Matters - "Andrew Malcolm's opaque transparency attack"
Politicususa - "How The Huffington Post got it wrong about Obama and Transparency"

If you want to find a news source that only reports news from one perfectly biased perspective, look no further than FOX, the propaganda arm of the ultra-conservative movement.

Oh? I'd recommend reading The Top Ten Immediate Benefits You'll Get When Health Care Reform Passes:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-john-b-larson/he-top-ten-immediate-bene_b_501748.html

If you see suspicious activity, please call
1-800-ALQ-AEDA
Your information will be treated confidentially,

Yours In War,
President-VICE Richard B. Cheney

And which progressive and left-oriented site WOULD write about this, on the condition that it was true?

I believe I have your answer:

Huffington Post

Um, health care reform? Don't ask, don't tell? Closing Guantanamo? Helping Haiti quicker than Bush helped New Orleans?

here's a hufpo article on his first hundred days:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/29/obamas-first-100-days-10_n_192603.html

Here's a Media Matters article: http://mediamatters.org/research/201001270003

Denver post: http://www.denverpost.com/ci_14226357

I'm no fan of the man myself, and I agree, he could do a lot more. If only he really were the socialist some right wing loons claim he is. But he's not, he's a center-right politician.

But I am interested, what harm do you think he has done?

That's ultimately why this C-Span archive project will not interest most Americans, who seem to believe that history started last week, and there were no terror attacks on the US during the Bush Administration(a quote that Dana Perino, Bush Press Secretary has made numerous times).

She's not the only one saying that. Rudy Giuliani said "We had no domestic attacks under Bush; we've had one under Obama."

Mary Matalin said that the 9/11 attacks were "inherited" from Clinton.

That's ultimately why this C-Span archive project will not interest most Americans, who seem to believe that history started last week, and there were no terror attacks on the US during the Bush Administration(a quote that Dana Perino, Bush Press Secretary has made numerous times).

She's not the only one saying that. Rudy Giuliani said "We had no domestic attacks under Bush; we've had one under Obama."

Mary Matalin said that the 9/11 attacks were "inherited" from Clinton.

As far as I remember, the emperor takes off his hood sometimes also: http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/147161/VATICAN-GAY-SEX-SCANDAL-PIC.jpg

... it's who's buying the policy.

It's rather interesting that Buzz Aldrin has a completely opposite view of the new plan:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/buzz-aldrin/president-obamas-jfk-mome_b_448667.html

... The President courageously decided to redirect our nation's space policy away from the foolish and underfunded Moon race that has consumed NASA for more than six years, aiming instead at boosting the agency's budget by more than $1 billion more per year over the next five years, topping off at $100 billion for NASA between now and 2015. And he directed NASA to spend a billion per year on buying rides for American astronauts aboard new, commercially developed space vehicles-that's American space vehicles. Other NASA funds will go into developing and testing new revolutionary technologies that we can use in living and working on Mars and its moons. ... For the past six years America's civil space program has been aimed at returning astronauts to the Moon by 2020. That's the plan announced by President George W. Bush in January of 2004. That plan also called for developing the technologies that would support human expeditions to Mars, our ultimate destination in space. But two things happened along the way since that announcement, which became known as the Vision for Space Exploration.

First, the President failed to fully fund the program, as he had initially promised. As a result, each year the development of the rockets and spacecraft called for in the plan slipped further and further behind. Second and most importantly, NASA virtually eliminated the technology development effort for advanced space systems. Equally as bad, NASA also raided the Earth and space science budgets in the struggle to keep the program, named Project Constellation, on track. Even that effort fell short.

To keep the focus on the return to the Moon, NASA pretty much abandoned all hope of preparing for Mars exploration. It looked like building bases on the Moon would consume all of NASA's resources. Yet despite much complaining, neither a Republican-controlled nor a Democratic-controlled Congress was willing or able to add back those missing and needed funds. The date of the so-called return to the Moon slipped from 2020 to heaven-knows when. At the same time, there was no money to either extend the life of the Space Shuttle, due to be retired this year, or that of the International Space Station, due to be dropped into the Pacific Ocean in 2015, a scant handful of years after it was completed.

Enter the new Obama administration. Before deciding what to do about national space policy, Obama set up an outside review panel of space experts, headed up by my friend Norm Augustine, former head of Lockheed Martin and a former government official. Augustine's team took testimony and presentations from many people with ideas on what way forward NASA should take (that group included me). In October, it presented its report to the President and to Dr. John Holdren, Obama's science advisor and a friend and colleague of mine. The report strongly suggested the nation move away from the troubled rocket program, called Ares 1, and both extend the life of the space station and develop commercial ways of sending astronauts and cargoes up to the station. And it suggested a better way to spend our taxpayer dollars would be not focused on the Moon race, but on something it called a "Flexible Path." Flexible in the sense that it would redirect NASA towards developing the capability of voyaging to more distant locations in space, such as rendezvous with possibly threatening asteroids, or comets, or even flying by Mars to land on its moons. Many different destinations and missions would be enabled by that approach, not just one.

But with the limited NASA budget consumed by the Moon, no funds were available for this development effort -- until now. Now President Obama has signaled that new direction -- what

1. Invest big time money in Goldman Sachs and get a sweetheart deal that promises you 15% dividends
2. Whisper in the president's ear that he should bail out AIG. Which isn't too hard since you are one of his economic advisers
3. Laugh your way to the bank at all the taxpaying suckers and all the financial magazines that call you a genius investor

It only took 1 Brazilian heist to almost topple these 1100+.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/07/sao-paulo-tunnel-thieves_n_382415.html

While what you say is true, and some may just be bigots, you might want to read this, which is why I put it in there. Isn't kinda strange that all the GOP "I Hate Queers" types ended up getting busted doing something gay? Sorta like the Catholics spreading hatred against gays and then they have a male prostitution ring busted in the vatican ?

You DO have to admit the irony is thick and delicious, wouldn't you agree?

And the seizing of gaming consoles is a lie.

And who exactly said such a thing? Citation or it's a straw man.

Alberto Federico Ravell is a liar

First off, point of information which parent poster surely knows: Ravell was asked to step down as director three weeks ago by the majority stockholders, leaving Dear Leader without a favourite punching bag.

and a media terrorist.

Second, extending or redefining nasty concepts to include everything you don't like is a trademark of manipulative, fascist governments. "Enemy of the people", "terrorist", "destabilizer", "coupmonger", "spy"... In the last few years, Venezuelans have heard not only about "media terrorism", but also "media coup d'etats", "information blockades", a "soft coup" (sic), "juridical coups" and even an "electrical coup" (in reference to the crisis around the recent power shortage). I hate to say "look it up yourself", but I'm not doing your homework either. Please note that the latter reference is an opinion piece by a inconditional ally who has been vicepresident and head of several ministries.

In this country, Christians are sadly very often guilty of that. It's not surprising, therefore, that *some* atheists would react harshly to that and become unnecessarily vocal about their beliefs.

"Christians are ... very often"? The "guilt" of which you speak and suggest is done by most Christians is actually perpetrated by a minority. Those who have far too much zeal in their beliefs. Like the Atheists in this thread. Or the Atheists here. Or the Atheists here. Or the Atheists here. Or the Atheists here. Or the Atheists here. Or the Atheist here.

Don't try to justify what these whackjobs have done because you feel religious whackjobs have done it on the other side. Condemn it and move on!

Working for the top has its benefits for some. You can go to a lower end company and be the top man on staff. Or you can use it to get the girls. Tell them you worked for 2 years at EA Games. You have no idea of the things they made you do, no man should have to live through those horrors. Girls eat it up like cheese burgers. And the benefits!?! After you have worked for Apple (Who uses children for their factories http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/28/apple-child-labor-confess_n_479871.html Or EA Games and Activision who rapes your very soul. You can qualify for disability and Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. The retirement plan is wonderful allowing you to live comfortably in a mental institution, moms basement, or underpass / bridge of your choosing.

See this story: Why I Don't Owe GoDaddy $6,579.51 (or $969).

You are a fun guy!
You always want the last word.
At least Reagan was not a large enough douche to use a teleprompter at a grade school: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/26/obama-teleprompter-sixth-grade-video_n_436406.html

Although it is possible that was their motivation, going on record as saying "we don't want that kind of kids at our pool" is more than stupid. Also, "public servants" DO make statements advocating racism, just like this guy, who said of interracial marriage, "I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way."

The occupying forces were seen as an enemy by Iraqis, but a lot of Afghans support the US.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/11/poll-7-in-10-afghans-supp_n_418252.html

Unfortunately, firefighters *starting* fires is a real problem, just this year...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479843,00.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/03/french-firefighters-admit_n_250133.html

The faulty parts were actually made in America, to sabotage Toyota and start a FUD campaign to encourage Americans to become afraid of foreign cars and buy GM's pieces of shit. But what about the Woz' criticism of his Prius?

The answer to that question is that the Woz is a bearish girly-man who dosen't know how to drive. If he can't even handle a Prius, he'd probably kill himself driving a Corolla or Town Car.

For ages our privacy was protected only by the others' ability to remember. A human being can only remember so many faces and facts about other people (and himself, for that matter)...

Written records reduced the privacy immensely. Computers made the next giant leap. The only thing we can do is legislate, what the computers are allowed to memorize, but those would be merely human (as opposed to physical) laws and have serious limitations. Legal pitfalls will abound — an Evil Corporation may lease a server in a foreign locale to keep your data, for example. WikiLeaks has shown the ways around various attempts to close access to information.

Information wants to be free. Does not it?

I no longer see pot being legal "any day now".

Months ago, President Obama announced a policy revision not to interfere with states that legalize medical cannabis. One might compare this to the 21st Amendment, which devolved the power to ban alcohol from the federal government to the states. I wait to see how this will apply if California voters put pot over the counter this November.

Shills don't need to demonize Google. Their own CEO has done a fairly good job of it on his own.

It's not just that, though... Google likes to tout how they're big in to open source. This is true... but only the parts that have the potential increase Google's market-share. How Google's mail and search systems work, for example, are tightly guarded secrets. Even Google's web server is not open source, despite the rumors that it's Apache-based.

You should actually learn what a tu quoque is -- the difference between formal and informal fallacies, and not just create a straw man.

knowing that atheism is NOT an ideology or even an actual group or movement.

Really?

Or better yet, treat people like they WANT to be treated.

"At the time of the winter solstice, let reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is just a myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds" -- Freedom from Religion Foundation

Do Atheists want their belief system mocked? Is that how they want to be treated?

The zeal appears ideological to me. In just this one example, it's being spread by "an actual group or movement" as I see it. Don't you agree?

I'm still fine with tossing a capital "A" for Atheists when appropriate.

(Offtopic yes, but I feel I must respond)

Anybody who thinks that vaccines cause autism in 100% of the cases is wrong. Anybody who thinks that the argument is that autism is *ONLY* caused by vaccines is wrong. You clearly fall into the 2nd camp. In 2007 the federal "vaccine court" found that the MMR vaccination *DID* cause autism in a child by the name of Bailey Banks in that the vaccine caused an inflammation of the brain that led to PPD-NOS. In 2008 this same court found that in the instance of patient Hannah Poling the vaccine caused "autism-like" symptoms by aggravating a pre-existing condition. (Autism-like? If it quacks...) In the vast majority of cases the vaccine is safe - the numbers don't lie. HOWEVER the vaccine appears to be safe if and only if the child is neurotypical and, as there is no incentive, nobody is working on determining just how atypical one must be and in what manner before the vaccines are unsafe. The prevailing attitude is "sit down, shut up, you cannot decide what risks are acceptable for your child, we don't care if it is safe in this particular instance and if it turns out to destroy your family's life then oh well." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr-and-david-kirby/vaccine-court-autism-deba_b_169673.html

Yeah, I call bullshit on that report unless you can find an actual DoD reference to back it up. Here's one reason I shouldn't believe it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/17/military-rape-reports-ris_n_176106.html

This is a liberal blog who, if anything, would have a anti-military slant. In their report they state the military received 2923 reports of sexual assault (which includes rape, of course). Keep in mind that's female AND male victims. There are over 200,000 women alone in the US military. Even if I'm willing to ignore the fact the stat includes men, 200000/2920 does not equal 30% of anything let alone just rapes. Oh and since you like the BBC, here's the same report from their mouths: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7950439.stm. So I'm guessing she decided to take the approximation that up to 90% of sexual assaults are never reported and come up with 30% of all women are raped by multiplying 90 by 2920. Which still gets you to only a little over 26%. She playing very fast and loose with the numbers and calling everything rape instead of using the broader term of sexual assault.

To me it looks like Helen Benedict jazzed up the numbers to sell books. Low rape rates just aren't controversial enough for a military at war so she attacks a country who's not likely to ever hear of her bullshit. According to this: http://www.pcar.org/about_sa/stats.html civilian sexual assaults in the US are about 10% and again most sexual assaults (including rape) are not reported.

Don't believe everything you read especially when the person selling you the information is making money on its sale. I'm not denying there's a problem that needs to be solved but this woman is full of shit.

And were derided as birthers for wanting to make sure he was in compliance with the Constitution.

Irrelevant. You made a claim which essentially said his personal life was ignored. That is false.

Nobody complained about GWB's dad before election or during his time in office?

Again, irrelevant. We are talking about Obama, not Bush.

Someone chooses to associate with someone for 20 years, someone they call their spiritual adviser, and now that person is off limits too?

I never said they were off limits. I said people were examining (extensively) who his pastor was. A pastor, being a spiritual adviser, is a very personal relationship. You made a claim which essentially said Obama's personal life was ignored. That is false.

Fox News did some digging on him, they are the lone "they" from the media as far as your statements above go. Where were the other media outlets? Virtually all of them gave him a pass as far as investigating just who he was. Why else would Tom Brokaw feel the need to say that we don't really know who Obama is AFTER he was elected if he was fully vetted beforehand?

Again, bullshit.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/DemocraticDebate/story?id=4443788&page=1
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/wright-dominated-news-coverage/
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8630.html
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_weatherman_connection.html
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2008/09/23/barack-obama-bill-ayers-stanley-kurtz-makes-connection
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/02/obama-birth-cer.html
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_birth_certificate/2009/07/22/238969.html

Even fucking Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/21/obamas-church-pushes-cont_n_92802.html

Anyone that did attempt to dig through his history was excoriated for it. Look at what people did to Joe the Plumber just for asking him a question that exposed more of Obama's real views than the Obama campaign really wanted the public to know. The media ran cover for him, even going so far as to completely make up stories that would make him more sympathetic (like the one about someone publicly threatening to harm/kill Obama at a McCain rally. The Secret Service investigated and found no such threat).

Again, irrelevant. You made a claim which essentially said Obama's personal life was ignored. That is false.

Regardless of the reaction or fallout from looking into his personal life, to try and say it wasn't widely scrutinized is an outright lie.

And it's beneficial for women:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/27/ipad-video-madtv-predicte_n_438880.html

Bush also didn't inherit an enormous national debt from a previous administration, did he? No, I do believe he started out with a surplus... The sad thing is, somehow, the far right has managed to cloud the issue by calling into question the surplus, and, what's worse, spread the untrue and utterly ludicrous notion that Bush reduced spending. They mysteriously pull a few cherry-picked and sometimes completely fictitious numbers out of their hat, and *WHRRRR-CHUGA-CHUGA-CHUGA-CHUGA* there goes the spin machine, hard at work.

What's interesting to note is the record of debt between the two major parties, going back all the way to the Kennedy-Johnson era. Neither party has been stellar, but it does seem an awful lot that during the periods of the so-called "fiscal conservatives" have actually been some of the highest debt periods our nation has had. Care to explain that?

This is all off-topic anyway. This is an article about freaking India and their space program, ergo, the wrong place to start a squabble over US politics.

"Robots won't be rising up against us, they'll be integrating with us."

I know I have had the urge to "integrate" with 7 of 9 since the moment I first saw Jeri Ryan!

Newspapers and other news outlets endorse candidates for public office all the time. Just as an illustrative link, the first thing that came up from googling "obama newspaper endorsements". They usually write a big editorial explaining their position. This has been going on as long as newspapers have existed.

And I'm just sayin' you should be careful who you shine a laser at. For example, if you did this to the cop who brought a gun to a snowball fight, you just might wind up getting yourself shot!

Story about DOJ Picking Who to ProsecuteThe Obama administration is saying that it will only bother with people who violate both state and federal law, yet those who are consuming marijuana in accordance with state law may be running afoul of federal law. Regardless, the Obama admin is going to turn a blind eye. As for "having a court case" how could you have a court case if nobody brings a case to prosecute BECAUSE they're choosing not to prosecute?

...and sources a relevant picture.

Or fake/altered photos/videos - if you're Fox News...

• Fox News airs altered photos of NY Times reporters
• Fox News caught red-handed (again) doctoring video
• Hannity video switch-up is only the tip of Fox News' video-doctoring iceberg
• Behind the scenes video at 9/12 protest shows Fox News producer coaching crowd
• The Ten Most Egregious Fox News Distortions (VIDEO)
• ...etc...

In other news, Ben Affleck apparently died in pakistan

No one pays attention to Fox anyway

Don't let the facts stand in the way here. Ok?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/30/fox-news-dominates-3q-200_n_304260.html

Total number of food allergy deaths per year in the US appears to be about 11. That's all foods though, not just nuts.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/meredith-broussard/food-allergy-deaths-less_b_151462.html

A secondary source, I know, but it sums things up reasonably well.

The Huffington Post is not a very good source for scientific articles.

For example, its a prime supporter of the Anti-Vax crowd.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/autism-vaccine-mercury

Animal Testing doesn't work. These quotes are from a very *SHORT* article that describes the issue well:

More than 90 percent of all new drugs which proved effective in animals end up not working for humans. It's because animals -- however similar they are to us -- have different physiological systems. What works in a mouse usually doesn't work in a human.

History is filled with stories of drugs that didn't work in animals -- Aspirin, for example -- that ended up working in humans. And the obituary pages are filled with stories of people who died from drugs that looked safe in animals. The painkiller Vioxx, for example, tested safe in mice and five other species but ended up killing many thousands of Americans.

snip ....

If the chemo drugs I'm trying now don't work, I do have one last option. I could try a Phase One trial. That's when a drug looks promising in animals and is first tested in humans. My doctor started to tell me why so many participants die in Phase One trials -- but it turned out I already knew the answer. Drugs that work in animals, he explained, usually don't work in humans.

Full Article

And do you know the actual context in which he made that statement?

Yes - he was asked about whether google should be trusted. Here's , with VIDEO.

CNBC's Mario Bartiromo asked CEO Schmidt in her December 3, 2009 interview: "People are treating Google like their most trusted friend. Should they?"

Schmidt's reply hints that if there's scandalous information out there about you, it's your problem, not Google's.

Schmidt tells Baritoromo:

If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

He expands on his answer, adding that the your information could be made available not only to curious searchers or prying friends, but also to the authorities, and that there's little recourse for people worried about unintentionally "oversharing" online:

But if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines, including Google, do retain this information for some time. And [...] we're all subject, in the US, to the Patriot Act, and it is possible that that information could be made available to the authorities.

The implication is clear - Google will roll over when there's a request made for your info, rather than saying "no, gimme a warrant, you insensitive clod." Look at their activities in China and, more recently, India.

Only the activists search for porn on the Internet.

Officials are encouraged for morality:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/14/chinese-officials-told-to_n_358021.html

And for all whose who want to get free porn, they surely search for freedom, so they are potential activists.

It will be difficult to find online chinese porn.

they are not our enemies, they do the job we give them.

Really... You give them the job of tazering a 16 year old boy 19 times, for not standing up when ordered by police, because he is too busy screaming that his back is broken... source

And you give them the job of dumping a quadriplegic man out of his wheelchair when he comes to the police station to ask for help... source

And you give them the job of murdering tens of thousands of innocent people whos only crime was living in the same apartment complex as as drug user or dealer. source

And you give them the job of destroying peoples laptops for having the audacity of knowing what the law says.. source, hell just scroll up to the TSA article on slashdot...

You sir are a bad horrible person, and represent a major problem in our country.

According to the reports, the snow doesn't 'stick' because the LED's don't get hot enough. It just collects in the visor.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/16/led-traffic-lights-that-c_n_393769.html

"In Minnesota, where authorities have upgraded hundreds of traffic lights to LEDs, the Transportation Department occasionally gets reports of an obstructed light. But by the time a highway crew arrives, the wind has often knocked out the snow and ice, said traffic systems specialist Jerry Kotzenmacher. Minnesota is experimenting with weather shields."

They simply need to design a better visor for these that doesn't leave such an easy surface for the snow to collect to begin with or look to other workarounds to remove it if it does. Apparently this isn't news as it has been going on for years. Some cities use heated lenses, some use compressed air, and some just brush them out with a broom if needed. In all cases, someone blaming a blocked street light in the middle of a storm for running the light is no different than the old bulbs burning out and leaving the light dark to begin with. From the sounds of the reports, lights burning out are far more common than one of these being totally blocked by snow for any length of time. If they are driving that fast, without caution, in a snow storm or bad driving conditions, then they have no excuse.

You can still express your individuality. For example, make your hair like this.

They were considering IT uniforms where I work and solicited ideas. I submitted this, but I never heard back from anyone. I guess they were afraid it would discourage people from asking for help. Or overload the help line. One or the other. Maybe both.

And you haven't thought it through very well: protectionism works both ways. Cut yourself off from the world, and US companies won't be able to outsource any of their products. They'll have no option but to move their entire operations outside of the US, then you won't have any jobs at all.

That's fine. They can sell their products outside of one of the largest markets in the world. Plenty of other companies will be happy to sell products in the American marketplace, employing Americans to produce them.

Globalism is nothing new. It's been going on since the 1500s. Protectionism works very well for countries who want to build themselves up. All of the countries that have become industrial powerhouses -- the United States, Great Britain, Germany, Japan, Korea, and now China -- did so by using tarriffs to block imports, and government subsidies to foster national industries. Check out this Thom Hartmann article:

"Yet "free trade" is a guaranteed ticket to the poorhouse for any nation, and the evidence is overwhelming. The concept was introduced, in fact, by Henry VII, as something that England should encourage other countries to do while it maintained protectionism; a process known as the 1485 Tudor Plan that led to the rapid industrialization of England and the deeper impoverishment of its trading "partners."

...But again, at a closer look, the reality is the opposite of what Friedman naively portrays in his book. In fact, Japan subsidized Toyota not only in its development but even after if failed terribly in the American markets in the late 1950's. In addition, early in Toyota's development, Japan kicked out foreign competitors like GM.

Thus, because the Japanese government financed Toyota at a loss (for roughly 20 years), built high tariff and other barriers to competitive imports, and initially subsidized exports, auto manufacturing was able to get a strong foothold and we now think of Japanese exports being synonymous with automobiles.

... For about 200 years, we understood this in the United States. Had the fathers of the United States like Lincoln, Washington, Jackson or Grant applied for IMF loans, they would have been denied: All of them believed in high tariffs and a heavy control of foreign investment, and considered "free trade" to be absurd.

In 1791, Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton submitted his Report on the Subject of Manufactures to the US Congress. In it he outlined the need for our government to subsidize new industries and subsequently protect them from the international markets until they become globally competitive.

Additionally, he proposed a roadmap for American industrial development. These steps included protective tariffs on imports, import bans, subsides, export bans on selected materials, and the development of product standards.

It was this policy, followed largely for most of the history of our country with average tariffs through most of the 19th and 20th centuries of around 40 percent, which built our American industry. All three times we radically dropped tariffs - for 3 years in 1857, for nine years in 1913 (just down to 25%), and in 1987 - what followed were economic disasters, particularly for small American manufacturers.

Since Reagan blew out our tariffs in the 1980s (and Clinton kicked the door totally open with GATT, NAFTA, and the WTO), our average tariffs are now around 2-4 percent. And the predictable result has been the hemorrhaging of American manufacturing capacity to those countries that do protect their industries through high import tariffs but allow exports on the cheap -- particularly China and South Korea."

Various states have greater requirements.

As do other countries. The HufPost article refers to conditions ar "Some of the Amazon warehouses in the UK." I don't know what labor laws there are like, of course. But regardless of whether it's legal, Amazon's crappy working conditions are yet another reason while I'll keep shopping elsewhere.

While I wouldn't be surprised if it hasn't done much to change the situation, I see nothing in that huffpo article describing the efficacy or lack thereof of the PREA.

This one seems to describe some progress.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/23/60000-inmates-sexually-ab_n_219385.html