Slashdot Mirror

You are conflating the existence of a right with respect for that right. A legitimate government always respects natural rights. The government of 1930s Germany did not respect those rights and so it was not a legitimate government. Same for your other examples.

Have a look Here.

Simple: this bill takes these rights away for all 300+ million Americans. At a pen stroke. Poof, gone.

I don't know how you do your crime calculus on this issue, but it would have to be a pretty strange method for any conceivable level of murder to exceed this level of violation of our rights.

What is the murder equivalent of the loss of 3e8 rights?

If this passes and doesn't get repealed, double that cost in lost rights every 74 years, because the crime continues while new Americans are born.

Actually, I think it was a typo. I think they meant "their isn't already".

We need 800 *million* hydrogen stations

Really? We need to replace every single gas station with over six thousand, eight hundred, thirty-one hydrogen stations? Citation provided.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, as of 2002 (the most recent data available), there were 117,100 gas service stations in the U.S.

I know what you mean. I didn't believe it at first either.

Here's a list of births by year in the US: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005067.html

Abortions by year:
http://www.mccl.org/page.aspx?pid=400

Looks like I was a little off. The numbers seem to be a closer to 1 out of 4 than 1 out of 3. Which is better, but still a staggering amount.

I guess I should have kept my research links from the first time I did this.

But a subject as mundane as birthdays? If your religion forbids them from being mentioned then I'll happily ridicule you, and you'll deserve it.

I don't think you'll get the chance. This has nothing to do with anyone's religion and everything to do with political correctness. Politicial correctness is the practice of imagining reasons why others might be offended and then taking steps to prevent the alleged cause of offense. The politically correct often get it wrong. For example, many schoolteachers tell children that they mustn't say "American Indian". This dispite that fact that American Indians do not generally consider the term offensive and in fact somewhat prefer it to "Native American". (See: http://www.infoplease.com/spot/aihmterms.html)

Execution in the US is too rare to make much of a dent in organ donation numbers. Under 50 executions took place in the last two years (source); in contrast, there's around 2000~2500 heart transplants in the US annually (see this page for more organs). As for China, from TFA,

Some human rights groups estimate that China puts to death thousands of prisoners annually, but official figures are a state secret, according to BBC correspondents.

They sure did! All the way up to the ripe old age of forty or so. What has medicine ever done for us, anyway?

Can I just say fuck 0.8 now? Ok? This has all been perpetuated and forced upon us by MADD.

In the United States the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that 17,941 people died in 2006 in alcohol-related collisions, representing 40% of total traffic deaths in the US. NHTSA states 275,000 were injured in alcohol-related accidents in 2003.[1] The Bureau of Justice Statistics estimated that in 1996 local law enforcement agencies made 1,467,300 arrests nationwide for driving under the influence of alcohol, 1 out of every 10 arrests for all crimes in the U.S.,

So injured + killed is order of 300,000 Out of nearly 1.5 million arrests. And what multiple of "drunk" drivers are not pulled over or not arrested? 5X? 10X? 100x?

In 1982 there were 26,173 alcohol related fatalities in the US. So in going from a BAC of 0.12 to 0.8 a whopping drop of... 8,000. When you factor in that cras today are much safer and the larger number of miles driven it becomes clear that DRUNK DRIVING LAWS ARE ALL HYPE. Most people drive worse while rushing to work, eating food in the car or any other number of things. It is time to put the limits back where they were, stop the witch hunt (apolgies to my pagan friends) and go after those who truly are drunk.

ref: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908129.html

My understanding is that it will have to be the equator, which gives them a choice of Ecuador, Colombia, Brazil, Sao Tome & Principe, Gabon, Republic of the Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, Kenya, Somalia, Maldives, Indonesia and Kiribati. Or maybe they're going to build an artificial island and port, I would imagine that's child's play compared to the elevator itself.

Here is table backing the above up. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html It shows that the average lifespan of someone who survives childhood has increased from 60.1(20 + 40.1) in 1850 to 76.7 (20 + 56.7) in 2004. That is an increase of 16.7 years.

Compare that with a newborn. 38.3 in 1850 to 75.7 in 2004. That is an increase of 37.4 years.

10 feet thick, say we want 50,000 cubic feet of shielded volume, that's a cube about 37' per side, so 47' external dimension, round up and call it 6 plates 50x50x10, 150,000 cubic feet of shield - weighing 4.25 million kg - that would be 36 Saturn V launches to get the water up to LEO... yeah, it'll be more fun to track down water bearing asteroids, even though launch costs of $40B aren't really that high, for the cost of the Iraq war we could have launched 20 of these water shields.

if you go into 'democracy of some form', you can say that house of lords was a democracy in britain long before anything else. if you go into democracy of some form, you can call only the landed wealthy being able to vote, a 'democracy'. and if that kind of redefinition flies, anything can be redefined into a democracy.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004979.html

colonies have past the 30,000 scale circa 1640, and these are only british related populations. not counting anything else - pirates, smugglers and so on.

"Total tax rate" is as difficult to say in Canada as it is in the US thanks to different tax brackets, levels of government, etc. My personal income tax rate last year came out to a surprisingly low 18% (calculated by taking actual tax, divide by job income) thanks to various deductions. This includes federal and provincial taxes. What was *your* income tax rate?

(Obviously that excludes property and point-of-sale taxes).

The supplemental health insurance through my work is about $25 a month ($300/year). Key benefits for me personally: dental and prescriptions covered 100%, i.e. no deductible.

I can't sort out the mess of conflicting numbers for how much the average American pays for health insurance--some write that even with employers covering part of it, it ranges from $300-$500 a month ($3600-$6000/year). So I'll again ask, how much do *you* personally pay for health insurance through your employer's plan, and any additional, personal plans?

Then consider that America in 2007 spent almost twice as much taxpayer money on health care, per capita, than Canada ($6096 vs $3173). Americans should be on the streets protesting what a bad return-on-investment they're getting with their health care system... sorry, health *insurance* system.

Yeah, Canada's health care system has issues. On the whole I'll take ours over the American system though.

People who think that knives are less dangerous than guns have been watching too many movies.

Or they might have actually looked at the numbers: Murders in 2008 in the USA: 9484 by gun, 1897 by knife.

Yes, I'm sure there is a giant conspiracy to prevent your aunt from voting. I don't think it takes 5 years to establish state residency anywhere.

Fuck you, asshole. The military shipped them around every year and a half, and then in 3 states, she had to fight with them over residency because the Republicans running voter registration were trying to claim that spouses living on military base property were not "in the state" for purposes of residency.

If it's a giant Republican conspiracy, then why did Congress pass a law supporting absentee military ballots that Obama has been slow to implement?

Let's read your article, shall we you fucking liar? First point: it's a 2009 law - e.g. BEFORE the Republicans took over Congress. So it'd be the DEMOCRATS trying to enfranchise the military. Interesting.

Second point: They're comparing 2008 numbers (a Presidential election year) to 2010 numbers (an off year), but comparing by "percentage of military personnel." For reference comparison, in 2008, voter turnout in the US as a whole was 56.8%, while in 2010, it was only 37.8% - while at the same time, military participation (as a "percentage of eligible") declined from 5.5% to 4.6% VOTING ABSENTEE; the numbers by your dishonest "study" fail to account for military personnel attempting to vote in person stationed in the USA, and yes, most US military personnel are stationed at home. So if anything, Military absentee voting under the DEMOCRAT-passed MOVE Act beat the odds and didn't decrease as much as the national average, despite the transition between a Presidential election year and an off year.

Now kindly pull your head out of your ass and stop quoting dishonest fucking right wing stooges.

It's scary that you think that a large beast like an elk could sneak up on you while you're driving without you noticing.

Elk don't "sneak". They can actually move rather quickly when they're so inclined. Your homework assignment is to find "Elk" in this list and see if you can't then come up with a short explanation of how one might be involved in a vehicular accident.

It's also a bit scary that having a window shot out is one of the first things you'd think of. It must be an interesting war zone you live in ; I've considered job offers in Somalia, but I've never considered taking my kids (not that I have any, of course) to live there while I'm at work.

I'm pretty sure one of the first things I thought of wouldn't be "something in my car's electronics blew up". But hey, what do I know. One time I was riding in a car with an ex-Green Beret and absent-mindedly tapped a plastic side panel with my finger. The guy jumped and asked if I'd heard the gunshot. When I told him what it was, he said it sounded exactly like a pistol shot some distance away.

Actually, I think that you actually put 'Fucked that for you'. America uses more ENERGY than any other nation. We are also the worlds largest user of Nuclear energy. China just surpassed on intstalled capability, but china's production is very low relative to most other nations because they do not have good areas to place it in.. We are one of the largest of the hydro. We are the largest of geo-thermal electricity.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_coa_con-energy-coal-consumption"> Now, as to coal, CHINA uses 30% more in 2008. Since that time, America's use has dropped, while China's has grown at the rate of 1-2 new coal plants EACH WEEK. At this time, they are approaching DOUBLE what America uses in coal. Worst, they run zero pollution controls and have some of the worlds dirtiest coal.
So, that leaves oil and gas.
Oil is used in transportation, but it is also used in chemical production, roads, etc. In 2009, America used about double in oil of China. But again, our oil use has dropped, while China's rises at ~10% or more a year (economy has been growing 8-12% for some time and then you add the fact that China is becoming a very rich nation; slop factor into this). China is already approaching America's oil use.

Finally in the end, simply look at the energy usage. In 2008, China and USA used almost the same amonut of energy. However, China's growth in all fossil fuels have jumped tremendously. America is basically flat, with much of the growth coming by moving to AE, as well as moving Coal to Natural gas. OTH, more than 90% of China's growth is in fossil fuels.

Sure, houses are more expensive now than they were 40 years ago. They're also bigger (2700 sq ft today vs 1400 sq ft in 1970) and better-made, with more features. The cost of building the same house today that was the average 40 years ago hasn't changed nearly that amount. In addition, minimum wage makes for an absolutely useless measure of average household income. The ratio of median home price to median income (a much more useful statistic) has roughly doubled in the last 30 years, and if you ignore the housing bubble, the ratio increased from 3:1 to about 4:1. That hardly constitutes a tripling of housing price/income ratio; in fact, it means that price per square foot has dropped.

I worked through college. My parents paid for my transportation to and from school and for phone calls home, but other than that, I was on my own. I'm now 30, and have a very good paying job (I'm in the top 20% income-wise). It's possible, but you gotta 1) choose the right school, 2) choose a useful major, and 3) work your tail off, all which requirements are increasingly ignored. It's also worth pointing out that the perception of a college education has created (in my opinion) a bit of a bubble. Just like the housing bubble, people are investing ridiculous sums of money into something which doesn't have near that amount of value. You can point the blame in any number of directions--at parents for pushing kids into college when the kid isn't made out for it, at the kids for choosing majors which provide no marketable skills, at colleges for helping perpetuate the perception that a college education is necessary to lead a comfortable life (and who can blame them, from a marketing perspective?), or at the government for artificially inflating demand by guaranteeing loans a ridiculously low interest rates.

There are still LOTS of good-paying, non-college-degree-requiring jobs out there. The trades particularly are (and have been for some time) suffering from a shortage. Plumbers, electricians, welders, and the like. A good welder with his own equipment can make a very nice living.

Social security isn't a ponzi scheme, its just the victim of the United State's own success and radical advancements in medicine and thus life expectancy. The life expectancy in the US in 1935 was 58, in 2000 it was 74. The initial planners probably just didn't expect the majority of people to live long enough to collect. I guess that's gambling, but making it out to be ponzi scheme I think is an incorrect assessment. It looks like the retirement age started out with SS at 65 or 62 at half pay or whatever. But the life expectancy increased past that dramatically after World War II, especially with women. So for the past 60 years now, we've had the average life expectancy greater than that of the retirement age, and probably social security didn't plan properly for that. I'm just looking at the numbers though, so it might be more or less than that.

The school year in South Korea typically runs from March to February. The year is divided into two semesters (March to July and September to February). School days are from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., but many stay later into the evening. In addition, students help clean up their classroom before leaving. Most students remain in the same room while their teachers rotate throughout the day. Each room has about thirty students with ten computers for them to share. South Korean student After 5 p.m. students have a short dinner at home, or eat at school, before study sessions or other activities begin in the evening. Students attend school Monday to Friday, with some Saturday classes scattered throughout the year.

http://www.infoplease.com/world/statistics/school-years.html

But, this article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4033261.stm) says "Finnish pupils have the least school hours of any industrialized country".

. . . and a disproportionate is being collected from the middle class and poor due to numerous tax breaks for the rich.
 
What exactly is your definition of "disproportionate?"
 
This is what I found with a quick google search: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0923085.html
 
I clicked on a link at random, because every source of actual facts will tell you the same thing (by the way, don't come back with a link of "wealth vs. taxes paid." We are taxed on what we make, not what we have. Those people saved their money (actually more likely they invested it, which helps the economy)).

Not to quibble, but I think you're confusing the Rural Electrification Administration (REA) with the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).

You're right, the $20 billion figure is for Iraq and Afghanistan. Thank you for pointing that out.

Total expenditures for Iraq and Afghanistan are expected to cost $170.7 billion this year, so the General is really claiming that we spend 11.9% of our war costs in Iraq and Afghanistan on air conditioning tents (and not the 18.9% figure I mistakenly came up with).

Still, 1/10 of our war cost is air conditioning? That is still beyond believable.

Oh, and according to Senator Mark Udall, $20 billion is what the Department of Defense spends as a whole on energy each year. Apparently this all goes to running air conditioning. *eyes roll*

Wow, you seriously underestimate the effort needed to maintain a household before modern appliances and conveniences don't you.

Justify that statement. I want to know what it is I do that should be taking all day every day if I didn't have a modern appliance.

Your belief is typically chauvinist: to think that women were chained to the kitchen or the washroom until some clever men saved them with their cunning automated substitutes for women. But it was the dearth of men during war and a consequent change of attitude both by and toward women which brought them out of the house. Then employers saw that they could drive down wages with a labour market twice the size, and what was temporarily a choice became an obligation if you want enough money to run a household. Most women have now lost the opportunity for a full motherhood, and we have pride in motherhood substituted with a pride in "juggling work and family" - about as safe for society as "juggling piloting and small-bore rifling".

The average male age 20 can expect to live for an extra 15 years compared to the 1900, the average female for an extra 20 years.

It's convenient to choose "just over 100 years" because then you get to factor in all the deaths of WW1, the influenza pandemic, etc. For the US, compare the white male at 1920. He gets around 10 more years. All the pain of modern living just for 10 more years at the end of your life? No thanks! And not even 10 more years of living, because religious mores the laws on which they are based mean that in almost all developed countries we don't prolong life based on quality of life but based on the idea that life must be preserved.

(Also note what's happening recently, perhaps using more recent data.)

Air conditioning.

That's it? That's what you have to offer? Fucking air conditioning? One side of our family has an apartment on the top floor of a block in a certain Mediterranean city. It's no longer the permanent home, but that generation have (the fates seemed to decree) always had a top-floor apartment. And never with air conditioning. You know what you do when it's hot? You don't sit in direct sunlight, you take some clothes off and you open the window. Or you cool yourself with water. It's free and it takes advantage of the fact that you're an endotherm.

Many people consider this one of the most valuable parts of living. So congratulations on showing that your definition of a "good life" is not in sync with that of many people.

I asked a question. Well done on reading it as an assertion. Are you sure that the yearning for travel is not something engineered into us by alienating us from those living next door and by constantly pummeling tourism adverts at us? Is it actually human nature to want to move around the world? The question is far more subtle than, "Do people today say they want to travel?"

(If you don't believe that such programming occurs, consider asking a white man in apartheid South Africa, "Do you agree with the system of South African apartheid?" Ask the same question in England. If you're born into and develop in a society with a particular strong opinion, and you're taught that the opinion is to your advantage, you take on that opinion.)

I know quite a few people who now lead successful lives due to treatment but a century ago would have been locked up.

Have you ever heard of the LA county jail being called the "largest de facto mental hospital in the world"? Then people were identified as insane and locked up. Today we regard people as free to behave as they please, hold them responsible for their crimes, and then lock them up. If your friends now lead successful lives it is either because they had the benefit of loving intervention or they didn't experience

Unfortunately, my particular model is not on the planned list for Netflix Canada support, although I hear it works just lovely for Netflix south of the 49th...grrr.

So will it work if you move to Victoria, BC?

Heh, yeah. Also for Quebec City, Montreal, Ottawa and St. Johns NB I suppose.

This is off-topic for the article, but I had to reply to your rant....

Please take a look at US voter turnout for the last few elections. US Voter Turnout

Recently, the US seems to be alternating between ~40-50% voter turnout for the eligible voters. The 2006 elections, for example, saw 37.1% voter turnout. This is hardly the majority of Americans speaking up for their current system electoral system.

It sounds more like a disaffected population that feels little hope of altering the system. This may also explain why the Democrats rallied the highest voter turnout since 1968 in the last election with their talks of changing the way government is run.

On a side note, with only 40% of the eligible voters voting, and elections being split 50/50 (give or take), the ruling party is usually only ruling with ~20% of the population's consent. And, back to your point, when they get into power, they actually represent the interests of even fewer.

So it was the Republican party that pushed for the civil rights in the 60;s and lost the vote in the south.
Never knew that.
guess my history books had it all wrong about Johnson being a Democrat. And democrats controlling both the house and senate for most of the 60's.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774721.html

Well at least i can blame the Republicans for Vietnam.

There are three giant money-sucking programs that need drastic cuts if we want to do anything about the budget: Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, and Defense.

If my computation is correct, US4 mil is the cost of less than 13 minutes of war in Afghanistan in 2010

Yes, it's likely that the national paper with the third highest circulation* is of interest to no one.
*Data is admittedly out of date, thought I'm confident the premise still stands.

Hmm? I always thought Indiana was split between many time zones (with neighboring states' major cities). Are these articles wrong?
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/daylight1.html
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Time_in_Indiana

"An important implication of this study is that researchers are not able to examine the true extent of truancy in this country because each state has a different way of defining truancy. This also makes it impossible to interpret the statistical data on truancy rates because there is no system or statewide information. The lack of consistency in defining truancy makes it difficult to make comparisons. "

How many times has Slashdot said "IT should not be the solution to the business/societal/cultural issue"? Prime example right here, the GPS device should not be doing the job of the parent(s) and the community.

Cue the usual excuses about it being simply too difficult to offer broadband in such a big country as the United States.

Cue map of the US because regardless of how you dance around it we are a big country. The question isn't "can broadband be offered in the US", but "can broadband be offered to everyone in the US"? Geography and economics say no. Also note in the summary those it lists as needing broadband are already corporations in one form or another. They can afford to pay for their own broadband. And last "net neutrality". It doesn't do any good to clamor for more and faster broadband till you've had that issue resolved.

Voting for Rand Paul or Ru Paul or Ralph Nader or Mickey Mouse doesn't change anything either.

Not if it's just one person here or there, no. But for the last 20 years, we've only had about 50% of the voting populace turn out to a Presidential Election, and under 40% for midterm elections. Even if you ignore the fact that some percentage of the populace DOES show up and vote for Paul or Nader, if 50-60% of the voters did so it would make a difference.

"You" may not be able to effect change with your vote alone, but "we" can if we'd work together. I think that was the original point.

Assuming that the Depression is wholly responsible for the upper rate...

That's a rather large assumption and it appears to be incorrect. If you look at Figure 2 (pg 41) from your linked PDF, it shows that non-infant death rate declined during the Depression.

So, not only is it incorrect to compare the deaths caused by the policy-based Holodomor in the USSR to the total death rate in the US (you don't believe that everyone who died during the decade of the Depression died because of the Depression, right?), it appears that the stats wouldn't even support a claim that the Depression killed more people than were dying the decade before during the boom economy of the Roaring Twenties. (My personal bet? Improved sanitation was paying off.)

Google's Public Data and the CDC WONDER site don't go that far back, but here's a random Google result with annual death rates in the US, showing a general, steady decline from the beginning of the century. The worst year from the Depression era (1936) had an 11.6 death rate, which was lower than the 11.7 death rate from 1925:
U.S. Annual Death Rates per 1,000 Population, 1900-2005

Thanks for doing that research. However, I stand by my original statement: there's no legitimate comparison on this matter.

Number one murder weapon - knife.

What the fucking fuck? Check your facts before you say stupid shit.

Try posting the correct info - http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html - Iraq is #4 in oil reserves. After all those wars its not producing anywhere near what it could.

For the past five years, corn subsidies have been $37b; oil subsidies only $14b.

So assuming he has his sources in order, yes, $37b is quite a bit more than $14b. Of course you claim invading for oil, which is great and all, but doesnt explain why we invaded Iraq, which ranks a whopping number 14 on "world oil producing countries". Thats right-- Iraq ISNT that big of an oil producer.

But sure, lets keep making ridiculous conspiracy claims ungrounded in reality.

As far as I know, studies have shown that it doesn't matter whether you were born as a healthy baby back then versus now, as a person's life expectancy when controlled for infant mortality, has remained basically steady, with improvements in healthcare cancelling out all the crap we try to kill ourselves with. It's just that we manage to keep more babies alive til they get cancer.

That's not entirely true. While the increase in average life span is not as dramatic if you remove the effect of infant mortality, there is still a huge increase in the last 150 years. For example, if you look at the life expectancy for a 10-year-old white male, in 1850 it was 58 years, in 1900 it was 60.59 years, in 1950 it was 68.98 years and in 2004 it was 76.3 years. There are lots of factors other than infant mortality that have improved over that time: safer working conditions, access to health care, even refrigeration (an astonishing number of people died of food poisoning in the "the good old days" speaking of "crap we try to kill ourselves with").

How many terrorist attacks of any sort have taken place in Sweden or The Netherlands?

Sweden had its first suicide bombing this last weekend. The Netherlands have seen a number of killings, perhaps to some disturbing views: Dutch Muslim: 'Murder is normal'.

How many middle class persons of any country - people two or three times above that country's poverty line - have parked an explosives-laden truck next to a building and blown it up?

The middle class are strongly represented among terrorists and leaders of terrorist organizations. Here are just a few examples, there are many more:

“Doctor’s Plot” Trial Examines Unexpected Source for UK Terrorist Attacks
MOHAMMED ATTA - 9/11 Ring Leader
Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri (MD) - Al-Qaeda's theological leader

It might be easier if this was all about poverty and social safety nets, but that isn't the case. Increasing numbers of young Muslims born and raised in the West are taking up arms and bombs to kill in the name of what they call Jihad. They are being radicalized in Western Europe.

The poverty/terror myth

List of top US banks. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763206.html

The following list shows the largest banks in the U.S., as of March 31, 2010. The assets are listed in millions of dollars.

1. Bank of America Corporation (Charlotte, NC) $2,340,667,014
2. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (New York, NY) $2,135,796,000
3. Citigroup Inc.(New York, NY) $2,002,213,000
4. Wells Fargo & Company (San Francisco, CA) $1,223,630,000
5. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., The (New York, NY) $880,677,000
6. Morgan Stanley (New York, NY) $819,719,000
7. Metlife, Inc. (New York, NY) $565,566,452
8. Barclays Group US Inc. (Wilmington, DE) $427,837,000
9. Taunus Corporation (New York, NY) $364,079,000
10. HSBC North America Holdings Inc. (New York, NY) $345,382,871
11. U.S. Bancorp (Minneapolis, MN) $282,428,000
12. PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., The (Pittsburgh, PA) $265,432,977
13. Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, The (New York, NY) $220,966,000
14. Capital One Financial Corporation (Mclean, VA) $200,707,587
15. Ally Financial Inc. (Detroit, MI) $179,428,000
16. Suntrust Banks, Inc. (Atlanta, GA) $171,796,255
17. BB&T Corporation (Winston-Salem, NC) $163,700,076
18. TD Bank US Holding Company (Portland, ME) $154,722,170
19. State Street Corporation (Boston, MA) $152,881,394
20. Citizens Financial Group, Inc. (Providence, RI) $143,962,035
21. American Express Company (New York, NY) $142,295,548
22. Regions Financial Corporation (Birmingham, AL) $137,287,286
23. Fifth Third Bancorp (Cincinnati, OH) $112,651,313
24. Keycorp Cleveland, OH $95,260,404
25. Unionbancal Corporation San Francisco, CA $85,471,728
26. Northern Trust Corporation Chicago, IL $76,318,597
27. Bancwest Corporation Honolulu, HI $75,215,088
28. M&T Bank Corporation Buffalo, NY $68,439,222
29. Harris Financial Corp. Wilmington, DE $65,531,083
30. BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc. Houston, TX $65,169,102

And please, never fucking compare what this is to MLK again.

you never fucking talk on stuff you dont know about.

go fucking learn civil activism history. mlk and his organization BROKE segregation laws. it was not about 'protests' and them requiring a permit. they have opposed and disobeyed LAWS in the states there were segregation.

and despite not knowing what kind of thing it was, despite being your OWN history, you qued a lot of bullshit like 'brat'.

moron. this is why people dislike americans thanks to idiots like you. you do NOT know something, yet then come up talking about it and insisting.

here. have a little timeline.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/civilrightstimeline1.html

and while at it, even in this little bit, learn at least some shit.

April 16 1963

Martin Luther King is arrested and jailed during anti-segregation protests in Birmingham, Ala.; he writes his seminal "Letter from Birmingham Jail," arguing that individuals have the moral duty to disobey unjust laws.

United States L= 78.0, im= 6.4, cost $7290, 16.0% of GDP
Canada L= 80.3, im= 4.6, cost $3895, 10.1% of GDP
.
Austria L= 79.2, im= 4.5, cost $3763, 10.1% of GDP
United Kingdom L= 78.7, im= 5.0, cost $2992, 8.4% of GDP
Denmark L= 78.0, im= 4.5, cost $3362, 10.4% of GDP
Finland L= 78.7, im= 3.5, cost $2840, 8.2% of GDP
France L= 79.9, im= 4.2, cost $4763, 11.0% of GDP
Germany L= 79.0, im= 4.1, cost $3527, 10.4% of GDP
Greece L= 79.4, im= 5.3, cost $2727, 9.6% of GDP
Italy L= 79.9, im= 5.7, cost $2686, 8.7% of GDP
Norway L= 79.7, im= 3.6, cost $4763, 8.9% of GDP
Spain L= 79.8, im= 4.3, cost $2671, 8.5% of GDP
Sweden L= 80.6, im= 2.8, cost $3323, 9.1% of GDP
Switzerland L= 80.6, im= 4.3, cost $4417, 10.8% of GDP
Ireland L= 77.9, im= 5.2, cost $3424, 7.6% of GDP
Portugal L= 77.9, im= 4.9, cost $2150, 9.9% of GDP

USA is not worst in class; Ireland and Portugal both have slightly lower life expectancy.

The study cited in TFA only discusses US citizens 65 and above, i.e. those benefiting from nationalized public health care in the form of Medicare. I think the data unequivocally says that people with life-long national health care almost always live longer, and get much more bang for their health care buck.

Canadian life expectancy = 80.3 years, UK ife expectancy = 78.7 years, and US life expectancy = 78.0 years (in 2007) according to http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004393.html and that's because Canada and the UK have life-long public health care.

But when medicare starts to cover US citizens at age 65, suddenly US citizens have a much better outlook. US citizens lucky enough to survive until age 65 and receive medicare coverage have a longer life expectancy than their British peers.

Actually, if you go back and study the data at http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004393.html and http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/33/38979719.pdf you'll discover that the US has both higher infant mortality and lower life expectancy than Canada and almost every developed European democracy (even Germany who absorbed the disaster known as East Germany a few decades back). For what its worth, the US also pays much more per capita for their lower life expectancies. I wonder if this data would change anyone's mind about the benefits of health care reform...

Canadian life expectancy = 80.3 years, UK ife expectancy = 78.7 years, and US life expectancy = 78.0 years (in 2007) according to http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004393.html and that's because Canada and the UK have life-long public health care.

But when medicare starts to cover US citizens at age 65, suddenly US citizens have a much better outlook. US citizens lucky enough to survive until age 65 and receive medicare coverage have a longer life expectancy than their British peers.

Actually, if you go back and study the data at http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004393.html and http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/33/38979719.pdf you'll discover that the US has both higher infant mortality and lower life expectancy than Canada and almost every developed European democracy (even Germany who absorbed the disaster known as East Germany a few decades back). For what its worth, the US also pays much more per capita for their lower life expectancies. I wonder if this data would change anyone's mind about the benefits of health care reform...

we could have sent up thirty Hubble telescopes ($5B).

Just sayin'.

Though I get what you are sayin', I don't think that would be true. Iff there were no ISS, there probably would be a huge increase in how much it would cost to put people up into space. For one, maintaining the shuttle program for the Hubble would not have happened, so it might be the $50B Hubble telescope, or the nice idea that never was.

The ISS kept (keeps) the space program in operation, and without it, I doubt there would be much drive to keep going back into space. The ISS is more than just NASA too. Don't forget about ESA, that probably wouldn't have existed, the CSA that barely is, in Canada, and the RSFA (Russia) that would be much worse off without it.

This is a big deal throughout the world, and is a significant contribution to space exploration, etc.

If you don't care about space exploration, then fine. $100B is a bunch of money. But then we can compare with other big recent expenses like oil spills, $3 billion for the BP disaster in the gulf canada.com -- which arguably didn't help humanity in any good way. Or, $750B for the Iraq war and the $300B for the Afghanistan war and the $28B for higher security (at airports? really?)... Then a $100B starts looking like the good looking sister. infoplease.com

Numbers at these huge values are always deceiving on what they bring and value they produce. Saying that spending x on y would do better is nonsense... it would bring something equally increased, but, also, something completely different. Spend it on oil spills and we'd have great oil pick up technology and nothing for space... Or maybe we would have some really nice houses and crappy oil pick up technology still, and nothing for space. It looks like the $30B for security brought us much better civic spying technology. I wonder if that is improving humanity? Maybe not as much as the ISS after all.

ironic since only a few cities in Indiana even observed DST prior to 2005

"The needs of the many [WOLVES] outweigh the needs of the few [SHEEP]." Yup, utilitarian democracy sucks if you're a sheep... or black... or an illegal alien...

In the real world, the predators are few and the prey are many.

There is safety in numbers - if not for the individual, than for the group.

If not for the parent, than for the child.

132.8 million
The projected Hispanic population of the United States on July 1, 2050. According to this projection, Hispanics will constitute 30% of the nation's population by that date.

22.4 million
The nation's Hispanic population during the 1990 Census--less than half the current total.

2nd
Ranking of the size of the U.S. Hispanic population worldwide, as of 2009. Only Mexico (111 million) had a larger Hispanic population than the United States (48.4 million).

Hispanic Americans By The Numbers

With an expected voter turnout of 37% ( http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html ) , isn't all this analysis too much bellyaching over nothing? The reality is, most "Citizens" don't seem to care. Core partisans, who are generally loyal to their party or philosophy won't be persuaded by any kind of ads. I don't think the Citizen's decision, bad though it might be, is not all that harmful. In fact, from a Libertarian viewpoint, what is the harm in ads that don't reveal donors? An intelligent voter should be able to recognize the third party sponsor and filter the ad appropriately. I think the citizens who do vote are generally capable of keeping their skepticism & cynicism threshold high. (At least I am, I generally ignore all 3rd party ads, unless it points me to something I can independently verify)

Sorry, but I have to set you straight on the crime rate. Detroit and Flint are in the top 5 highest crime rates in the country. See http://www.infoplease.com/us/cities/safest-dangerous-cities.html to see. Yes the crime rate is better than 5 years ago, but to ignore it saying Michigan crime rate isn't high is almost a lie.

Of course I do agree with you for everything else. I moved to Flint from Ft. Worth about 8 years ago. I love the climate here. The need to turn on the a/c for only about a week the whole year is awesome. Just about everyone I talk to, and I work in retail, so that is a very large cross sampling, hates winter. I'm the odd-ball that loves it when it snows.

P: What was different about either the US as a country or the rules for nomination then compared with now.

Well:

• What the GP alleges never happened, see here - sometimes there were more viable candidates, but in those cases they didn't all belong to different parties.
• By 1836 almost all states transitioned to a "winner takes all" system, so the system which allowed more candidates doesn't exist anymore.

It's not very surprising that once you have two big parties they would attempt to shape the system so that things would disadvantage 3rd parties. You may have a chance to change that, but not by ignoring the reality that it has been changed.