Slashdot Mirror

Actually, there are shorter cycles as well, kind of like harmonics.

Interesting comment you made there about harmonics.

Harmonics can be deadly: Tacoma Narrows Bridge Collapse "Gallopin' Gertie"

So, at the moment the Obama administration has the following scandals brewing:

Justice Department: Gov't obtains wide AP phone records in probe
IRS: The IRS’s Tea-Party Targeting
State Department and Office of President: The Benghazi Deception

There are a few other things brewing in the background as well.

It might be a hot summer for the Obama administration regardless of the weather.

Actually, there are shorter cycles as well, kind of like harmonics.

Interesting comment you made there about harmonics.

Harmonics can be deadly: Tacoma Narrows Bridge Collapse "Gallopin' Gertie"

So, at the moment the Obama administration has the following scandals brewing:

Justice Department: Gov't obtains wide AP phone records in probe
IRS: The IRS’s Tea-Party Targeting
State Department and Office of President: The Benghazi Deception

There are a few other things brewing in the background as well.

It might be a hot summer for the Obama administration regardless of the weather.

Government slaughter of civilians should be everyone's problem.

It is a long standing problem in Syria.

Hama 1982 – The Syrian massacre you never heard about

In 1982 the Syrian government killed 30,000 – 40,000 of its own citizens. Assad leveled an entire city with an air bombardment followed by artillery and tank fire. Why? They were anti Baath party, and apparently in 1982 in Syria that was a death sentence

CAUTION: Graphic descriptions of atrocities in the article

You can take that caution seriously if you are of delicate constitution. The SS didn't really have anything on the Syrian army.

Hama makes an interesting counterpoint to the frequent claims of massacre or genocide made against Israel by various Arab groups and their allies. Those claims generally prove to be false, misleading, or exaggerated, once exposed to scrutiny.

Have a Rotten Eggroll, Mr. Goldstone
Fighting the Lies Harder Than Fighting the War - Israel does not "deliberately" target civilians.
Palestinian Myth Machine

Government slaughter of civilians should be everyone's problem.

It is a long standing problem in Syria.

Hama 1982 – The Syrian massacre you never heard about

In 1982 the Syrian government killed 30,000 – 40,000 of its own citizens. Assad leveled an entire city with an air bombardment followed by artillery and tank fire. Why? They were anti Baath party, and apparently in 1982 in Syria that was a death sentence

CAUTION: Graphic descriptions of atrocities in the article

You can take that caution seriously if you are of delicate constitution. The SS didn't really have anything on the Syrian army.

Hama makes an interesting counterpoint to the frequent claims of massacre or genocide made against Israel by various Arab groups and their allies. Those claims generally prove to be false, misleading, or exaggerated, once exposed to scrutiny.

Have a Rotten Eggroll, Mr. Goldstone
Fighting the Lies Harder Than Fighting the War - Israel does not "deliberately" target civilians.
Palestinian Myth Machine

America, land of the obese,

Don't worry, Europe is competitive - especially certain countries.

Obesity in America Compared to Europe

Europe is competing with the U.S. for first place in the obesity crisis. According to a report issued by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development out of Paris, more than half of European adults are overweight or obese. Obesity rates have doubled in the past 20 years for the 27 member states of the European Union. It is estimated that 1 in 7 children in these states is obese. The disparity among countries is significant, however. The prevalence of obesity is less than 10 percent in Romania and Italy, but greater than 20 percent in the UK, Ireland and Malta

-------

home of the gun NUT

Tough Targets - When Criminals Face Armed Resistance from Citizens
Stories That Happened In MI

In some countries, the following two people would likely be dead or badly injured. Can you figure out why they aren't?

80-year-old Flint man fires shots at five robbery suspects
Elderly Woman Shoots at Intruder

A rather different picture than what has happened in the UK.

Two Cautionary Tales of Gun Control

Self-Defense: An Endangered Right

The withdrawal of a basic right of Englishmen is having dire consequences in Great Britain, and should serve as an object lesson for Americans. Today, in the name of public safety, the British government has practically eliminated the citizens’ right to self-defense. That did not happen all at once. The people were weaned from their fundamental right to protect themselves through a series of policies implemented over some 80 years. Those include the strictest gun regulations of any democracy, legislation that makes it illegal for individuals to carry any article that could be used for personal protection, and restrictive limits on the use of force in self-defense. . . .

-------

Yea, without huge-sodas and the ability to blow away your neighbours, America would have fallen to those commie-liberal-bastards a long time ago.

It might be too soon to tell.

The IRS’s Tea-Party Targeting

Cheers

I find your comments delightfully uninformed. Even though it is still early in this scandal, there are some troubling things already known. You did notice what the IRS itself is saying, didn't you? From the original story, "'That was wrong. That was absolutely incorrect, it was insensitive and it was inappropriate. That's not how we go about selecting cases for further review . . . '"

You do know that one group was subjected to this treatment for three years, only being approved after the election? Try reading the last paragraph on page 1 of the article, then get back to me.

The IRS’s Tea-Party Targeting

I have no doubt there will be more revelations to come on this. Congress is taking an interest.

The IRS has already admitted what they did was wrong. Your sense of this is faulty.

I think if you read this you'll see that this is way beyond inappropriate.

The IRS’s Tea-Party Targeting

Certainly. But if police pull over cars with "Weed is awesome!" stickers more often than "DARE to keep kids of drugs stickers", would you really be surprised?

To stick with the car analogy .... this wasn't the police pulling over the car because of a sticker advocating a law change. This was the Department of Motor Vehicles refusing to issue license plates until you provide lists of everyone that will ride in the car, where they are employed, if any of them are planning to run for office to change the traffic laws, and an itinerary of where you plan to drive in the next year, and a slip signed by the chief of police saying it is ok to let you have license plates. All because of the name of your group . . . and the fact that you oppose the current (administration) "traffic laws."

Read it and weep. (Bottom paragraph, page 1 of article.)

What was that Ben Franklin said? A republic, if we can keep it? I think someone is putting grease on the handles.

However, organizations with those kinds of names are likely to be engaged in political activity which should render them ineligible for tax exempt status.

I see. So you want government officials to make judgments based on the name of the organization instead of what is on the application? Instead of what they actually do? Interesting. Probably not a good idea though.

The fact that the IRS has permitted the LDS and Catholics to get away with using tax exempt resources to campaign does not mean that the IRS should be required to let everybody do it.

Under the law you can advocate for policy. If you don't like that, you try to change the law, not use the government to disadvantage your political opposition.

There do appear to be some abuses of power here,

That seems remarkably restrained. I think your eyesight is likely diminished by the targets of this being political groups you oppose . . . what what's a little overstep by the government if the outcome is agreeable, eh?.

But allow me to correct you - the IRS has admitted that it was wrong, over the line. They aren't hedging, why are you?

You find nothing truly troubling in the following?

The IRS’s Tea-Party Targeting

. . . perhaps most troubling, those tea-party organizations were sent letters of inquiry demanding information that would seldom if ever be demanded of any other applicant in the process. The IRS demanded lists of donors, names of spouses and family members, detailed information about political views and associations — all of that “under penalties of perjury.” Many applicants dropped out of the process. The questions were remarkably invasive: For example, the IRS demanded to know not only whether political candidates participated in public forums conducted by the groups, but which issues were discussed, along with copies of any literature distributed at the forum and material published on websites. (The IRS has been less forthcoming with its own materials related to this investigation.) If the organizations collected dues, the IRS demanded to know how much they were. It demanded everything down to the résumés of employees. The inquiry was not limited to members of the organization, its executives, or its directors, but included even their family members: The IRS demanded to know — again, under penalty of perjury — whether any of their family members might be thinking about running for office. Its demand for the names of all donors — and all recipients of grants — is in violation of IRS policy. . . more

--------

but keeping an eye on organizations likely to be engaged in political activity isn't wrong.

That wasn't the job of the people at IRS involved in this, so yes, it was worng. Or do you want random government officials "volunteering" to keep the voters in line? You know, just until after the election is over? Or, hey, if it works, why stop? (You won't complain if the shoe is on the other foot, will you?)

If you still just can't quite bring yourself to identify this as a big problem, I'm tempted to suggest some supplementary reading material.

However, organizations with those kinds of names are likely to be engaged in political activity which should render them ineligible for tax exempt status.

I see. So you want government officials to make judgments based on the name of the organization instead of what is on the application? Instead of what they actually do? Interesting. Probably not a good idea though.

The fact that the IRS has permitted the LDS and Catholics to get away with using tax exempt resources to campaign does not mean that the IRS should be required to let everybody do it.

Under the law you can advocate for policy. If you don't like that, you try to change the law, not use the government to disadvantage your political opposition.

There do appear to be some abuses of power here,

That seems remarkably restrained. I think your eyesight is likely diminished by the targets of this being political groups you oppose . . . what what's a little overstep by the government if the outcome is agreeable, eh?.

But allow me to correct you - the IRS has admitted that it was wrong, over the line. They aren't hedging, why are you?

You find nothing truly troubling in the following?

The IRS’s Tea-Party Targeting

. . . perhaps most troubling, those tea-party organizations were sent letters of inquiry demanding information that would seldom if ever be demanded of any other applicant in the process. The IRS demanded lists of donors, names of spouses and family members, detailed information about political views and associations — all of that “under penalties of perjury.” Many applicants dropped out of the process. The questions were remarkably invasive: For example, the IRS demanded to know not only whether political candidates participated in public forums conducted by the groups, but which issues were discussed, along with copies of any literature distributed at the forum and material published on websites. (The IRS has been less forthcoming with its own materials related to this investigation.) If the organizations collected dues, the IRS demanded to know how much they were. It demanded everything down to the résumés of employees. The inquiry was not limited to members of the organization, its executives, or its directors, but included even their family members: The IRS demanded to know — again, under penalty of perjury — whether any of their family members might be thinking about running for office. Its demand for the names of all donors — and all recipients of grants — is in violation of IRS policy. . . more

--------

but keeping an eye on organizations likely to be engaged in political activity isn't wrong.

That wasn't the job of the people at IRS involved in this, so yes, it was worng. Or do you want random government officials "volunteering" to keep the voters in line? You know, just until after the election is over? Or, hey, if it works, why stop? (You won't complain if the shoe is on the other foot, will you?)

If you still just can't quite bring yourself to identify this as a big problem, I'm tempted to suggest some supplementary reading material.

Whom do you think the Soviet and Chinese communists use? You may recall that they were both part of a club that treated Christians poorly? China still is.

... though their 'not-launching-the-missiles' capabilities might be a problem.

I think Christians understand that the end of the world is in God's hands, not man's. Trying to start it themselves would seem to be a sin.

“But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. -- Mark 13:32

This is in contrast to the Iranian branch of Shia Islam (the Iraqi branch is distinct) where many believe they can cause enough chaos in the world to bring the return of the Hidden Imam.

'Divine mission' driving Iran's new leader
Ahmadinejad: Chávez Will Rise Again with Jesus and the Hidden Imam

I get the impression you might be a little fixated.

Looks like we need to add more facts for the uninformed:

Hamas says still seeks Israel's destruction

(Reuters) - The Palestinian Islamist group Hamas rejected on Monday criticism by al Qaeda's second-in-command and said it was still committed to Israel's destruction despite a power-sharing deal with the Fatah faction.

"We will not betray promises we made to God to continue the path of Jihad and resistance until the liberation of Palestine, all of Palestine," Hamas said in a statement, in a clear reference to Israel as well as to the occupied West Bank. . . more

Who Are the Real Nazis?

Neither can I:
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/04/12/1857781/obamacare-smokers/
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/345153/smoking-preexisting-condition-kevin-d-williamson
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obamacare-Smokers-Huge-Penalties/2013/01/26/id/487522

Seems to me that Obamacare is changing that by adding penalties for smoking... and the states are reacting by hiding it under the "pre-existing condition" clause.

Obamacare is a farce... not because of what it is, but because of the FUD machine that has gone in to play around it (on both sides).

Maybe we need some anti-FUD laws -- you know, where unsubstantiated claims made by politicians can get them tossed out of office, similar to libel and slander (except this would be against society at large). I think this is something a lot of people could support as a plank in a platform... even though such a thing would NEVER make it through congress.

No, they aren't far right wing. And if you can't tell the difference between the neo-Nazi Stormfront and the Daily Beast, you need a depot level recalibration of your political sensibilities - something is fundamentally broken, malfunctioning, or miscalibrated. I understand from the far left the distance between them may seem to vanish, but it is a trick of perspective, they aren't even close... at all.

I'll get you started: In lieu of anything else, think of the difference between the Greens and Pol Pot's regime and apply. (And I think this is a generous narrowing of the difference.)

One other thing you might keep in mind: In American politics, the right did something the left has never been willing to do - drive out the dangerous fringe. Actual Nazis and neo-Nazis (including Stormfront), generally fringe nut cases in the United States in the last 75 years*, have not been, and are not part of the right in America. They are an offshoot of progressive & socialist politics. (Hence the Socialist in National Socialist.) Who Is 'Fascist'?

You might benefit from occasionally indulging in material from a viewpoint that challenges your views from a center-right perspective, and no, that doesn't include EDL or Stormfront. Since you comment regularly on American politics, some examples might include: National Review, The Weekly Standard, Commentary. You might try some reading on the first link in the previous post as well.

*Overlooking the regrettable and long gone German American Bund organization that had a hold in the German-American immigrant community for a time.

The complaint is reasonable, but has little-to-nothing to do with Civil Liberties. I'd rather ACLU concentrated on defending the Second Amendment and right to speak any language you damn please without fear of being kicked off of an airplane.

$10 says this was militant tea baggers. They all post so much crazy shit about killing people on facebook and eventually one of them snaps and acts on it.

Don‘t you mean £10? It’s hard to believe any American would be so clueless about the Tea Party.

If you are looking for bomb makers among political activists in the United States, here is a hint or two on where to look.

A war on decrepit infrastructure would probably be a good thing.

That was supposed to be the stimulus plan "shovel-ready projects." Whatever happened to that?

Comparing infant mortality rates across countries is not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison. France does not count infant mortality rates the way the US does, the way WHO recommends. The US considers any child with signs of life from the moment of birth to be alive, even if it required resuscitation, and if they die they are counted. France does not count children who die with in the first 24 hours or who are under a certain weight at birth.

The US though reports some of the of the highest percentages of pre-term births (something like 1-8), basically those born at less than 37 weeks, but we have the best survival rate among pre-term birth babies, better than all but 2 European nations:

Infant Mortality Deceptive Stat

The fact is that for decades, the U.S. has shown superior infant-mortality rates using official National Center for Health Statistics and European Perinatal Health Report data — in fact, the best in the world outside of Sweden and Norway, even without correcting for any of the population and risk-factor differences deleterious to the U.S. — for premature and low-birth-weight babies, the newborns who actually need medical care and who are at highest risk of dying.

Where we appear to fall behind, though, is mortality after 37 weeks, basically full term.

CDC Report

The infant mortality rate for infants born at 24-27 weeks of gestation was lower in the United States than in most European countries (except Norway and Sweden) seven countries had higher rates. For infants born at 28-31 weeks of gestation, the U.S. rate was lower than for all countries shown except Austria, Denmark, and Sweden. For infants born at 32-36 weeks of gestation, the U.S. infant mortality rate was lower than for all countries shown except Austria and Norway. However, for infants born at 37 weeks of gestation or more, the United States’ infant mortality rate was highest among the countries studied.

So the US healthcare system apparently does much better with premature babies, those that generally need the healthcare, than most European nations, but for those born at normal gestation we drop off. The question that isn't answered that I can find is why? Are these children's deaths because of healthcare or other issues.

Sociology study after study shows that there is significant racial bias in the police force against blacks. Minorities are more likely to get charged with crimes, arrested, and pulled over for committing the same traffic infraction as compared to whites.[1] This bias exists and is real. This is a significant portion of the story.

The other significant portion of the story is that blacks are far more impoverished than whites, on average. " In 2010, 27.4 percent of blacks and 26.6 percent of Hispanics were poor, compared to 9.9 percent of non-Hispanic whites and 12.1 percent of Asians." [2] Poverty has a strong correlation to violent crime and drug use. "Nonviolent drug offenders now account for about one-fourth of all inmates in the United States, up from less than 10 percent in 1980. " [3] This figure does not include crimes which are committed to support a drug addiction.

Interestingly, violent crime rates are similar in impoverished black and white neighborhoods. "The violent crime rate in highly disadvantaged Black areas was 22 per 1,000 residents, not much different from the 20 per 1,000 rate in similar white communities." [4] This means that despite the proven police bias, for violent crimes, only 2 per 1000 more blacks are convicted of violent crimes as compared to whites in impoverished neighborhoods.

In summary... 50 years after Martin Luther King, Jr., we still have significant racial bias in American Culture. However, we have come a long way as compared to even 25 years ago. As we continue to improve as a nation, and treat others not based on their racial makeup, I believe the poverty inequality will begin to equalize in this nation. We still have a big problem with racism in the US. The racism issue is slowly improving, but there are practical and non-racist reasons why the incarceration rates differ so dramatically between whites and blacks. You don't enslave a population of people for hundreds of years and then turn around, snap your fingers, and suddenly have racial, economic, financial, and social equality. Repairing the damage that was done takes time. Now if our prison system could be more interested in healing instead of retribution...



Interesting Note: There is growing evidence that Lead is the cause of the majority of the violent crime. [5] If this is true, this may explain why the violent crime rates are similar--impoverished people are more likely to be exposed to lead, but impoverished blacks are just as likely to be exposed as whites.

[1] http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/08/09/blacks-hispanics-still-more-likely-to-get-traffic-tickets-in-illinois/ [2] http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/
[3] http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/269208/prison-math-and-war-drugs-veronique-de-rugy
[4] http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/badcomm.htm
[5] http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline

And what of the environmental groups like the Sierra Club who lobbied against renovation/expansion of flood control projects? Do you even know about that? Who's holding them accountable? Where's the "Sierra Club = Hitler" protests and "Sierra Club doesn't care about black people" slogans? Oh, right, leftist groups and agendas get a pass, no blood on their hands when they spent time and money doing whatever they could to prevent infrastructure improvements that could have saved lives. It's all Bush's fault!

Today, Holder testified before the Senate: "US Attorney General Eric Holder testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill today, and discussed the lack of criminal cases against financial institutions in the aftermath of the financial crisis." -- Forbes magazine online

Contrast this with Aaron Swartz. A soft target. It's unclear how much, if any, of a net cost he imposed with his illegal downloads of journal articles. "Illegal Downloads Of Journal Articles." It even sounds trivial. And they hounded him for it. To death. They presented the credible possibility of decades in jail to him.

But, as always, follow the money. Wall Streets spends a tremendous amount of money on federal politicians so they can keep running their swindles and funnel part of the proceeds back to Washington. Swartz was paying little if anything to the politicians as he was trying to provide information to the public at no personal gain.

To understand what's going on here, you have to understand politicians: "No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems — of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind." -- Thomas Sowell

Wahhabism is problematic, to say the least, especially when coupled with the immense wealth and backing of the Saudis. However, it isn't the all-encompassing explanation of the difficulties regarding Islam in the world.

A Wahhabism Problem - Misleading historical negationism.
WAHHABISM: STATE-SPONSORED EXTREMISM WORLDWIDE

Love that you mentioned yachts:

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/270855/corporate-jet-tax-rerun-yacht-luxury-tax

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/government_programs/jan-june96/budget_01-01.html

I included news sources from two different slants, didn't know what one you would distrust more.

As one article said, "If you want less of something, tax it more". If you are going to tax sales more, you are going to have LESS THINGS SOLD.
Again, awesome for the economy.

However, all of that said, I would be willing to accept a national sales tax if we taxed EVERY transaction, including bank deposits or stock purchases.

The United States is headed for another trillion dollar deficit. (Even the rosy CBO numbers project an $800 billion deficit.) And beyond that the debt bomb of unfunded entitlements and pension liabilities only threatens to make things worse.

"If you add up the total debt — state, local, the works — every man, woman, and child in this country owes 200 grand (which is rather more than the average Greek does). Every American family owes about three-quarters of a million bucks."

Where is the brokest nation in the history of the world going to borrow the money for more space flight? When hyperinflation kicks in, we won't be able to afford it or much of anything else.

Apparently they're getting pretty decent. So I'm guessing nobody told Obama.

You painted a sad but true picture of a rogue state.

If we had any integrity maybe we could have just publicly retracted our participation in the Geneva convention if we don't want to follow it.

No, "we" don't want to quit Geneva conventions because "we" want others to follow them when some of our soldiers are captured by the enemy. There was a lot of noise made that Iran took a picture of captured UK sailors "in violation of Geneva conventions." (I guess next time Iranians won't bother to prove that they treated their detainees well.)

The question is whether there is even a point trying to live up to a standard of morality and ethics in foreign relations

On an individual level everyone should live up to a standard of morality and ethics. Otherwise bad karma will bite you. Not in a religious sense; gods rarely interfere in human affairs (except FSM, who is always nearby, tweaking your measurements :-) Bad karma comes back just as a reflection of your own bad actions. Sell drugs, be killed by another drug dealer. Go shoot some "brown people" - don't wonder why you got shot up yourself. That's the primary mechanism of karma, and it works very well.

On the national level ... well, accept the fact that you, as a citizen, have no control or even influence over political decisions. You are nothing but a worker ant whose only purpose is to make war materiel for your masters. Humanity knows of only one way to repair the damage; it's in the fourth box at this point.

I would rather live in a country where we had more expensive gasoline than one where we try to be the biggest bully, but maybe I am just naive.

Consider the option of Canada, if you are not afraid of -20C temperatures (at best) in winter. As the exodus picks up (for many reasons, political being the least important) the immigration rules will be tightened. At least you will stop financing killing people all over the world. As things are, you are "running with a machine gun and shooting brown people up" for about two months per year, considering your tax share and the percentage of taxes that directly and indirectly go to the altar of death. You don't have to be a grunt with a rifle; your hands are just as bloody if you buy ammo for the grunt, or even food, so that he can do his job in comfort. Every US taxpayer is guilty of that, and every US voter is guilty of electing a member of the War Party to the throne.

So, you admit that people are going to try to wound each other, sometimes on a grand scale, even when guns aren't available, and then you say “well, they'll do it less if we don't give them guns to do it with”, but only after declaring that it's not a mental illness that causes people to do this, it's guns?Let me try:

The mental illness is not the problem.
There are mentally ill people all over the world. They don't go around stabbing up classrooms and theaters.
The KNIFE is the problem.
Recently a mentally ill woman in Rhode Island went on a car rampage. She drove her car into another car belonging to a woman who claimed to have a romantic relationship with her husband died. No one died. Horrible crime. But no one died (at least from what I read)
If she had had a knife, there would have been 1 dead (or more, gasp!).
The KNIFE is the problem.
Less knives - less knife violence. Pretty simple.

There, I spewed my rhetoric, balanced it atop a strawman for support, suggested a hyperbolic hypothetical situation for which we can never know the result, and then reiterated my base stance in the form of a tautology. I still don't feel any better about you or myself though. :(

This article is interesting and states that the high point for mass killings is actually 1929: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund

This one points out that fire was a quite effective method of killing large amounts of people prior to automatic weapons: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/07/aurora_shooting_how_did_people_commit_mass_murder_before_automatic_weapons_.html

Finally, I leave you with the fact that there have been quite a few horrible things pulled off in the last twenty years with little more that trucks full of fertilizer and knowledge of chemistry, or if you'd rather, box cutters and a few lessions as a flight school.

Guns aren't the problem. The problem is that your reality doesn't have enough bubble wrap on it.

And anti-slavery, pro-Civil Rights.

So am I to understand that Democrats are thus "Anti-Business"? That would explain a lot of their actions...

The way you worded your dad's social security made me wonder if you are aware that current old folks are getting much more than they put in. I've read they hit parity after only 4 years. I looked for a reference and instead found this one saying they average triple what they paid in. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/256212/medicare-and-social-security-what-you-pay-vs-what-you-will-get-maybe-veronique-de-rugy The comparison to people living like kings are a comparison not to present day rich, but to the rich back in the days before automation. Central heat, hot and cold indoor potable water, autos, etc.

I can't imagine why anybody would trust or accept the rationale given to them by somebody who threatens them with physical force. But somehow government is different. Right.

Threats of force seem to work in suppressing speech.

BBC Covers Muslims Differently Because of Violence

How to Stifle Speech - Lessons from the Netherlands, the University of California, and Yale.

Self-Censoring South Park

With that said, it should be blindingly obvious that censorship isn't about stopping terrorism. It's about profit,

At the moment it seems to be mainly about "the Prophet," not profit.

America Again Submits to the Istanbul Process

Call to Ban Bible Under Pakistan’s Elastic Blasphemy Laws

I can't imagine why anybody would trust or accept the rationale given to them by somebody who threatens them with physical force. But somehow government is different. Right.

Threats of force seem to work in suppressing speech.

BBC Covers Muslims Differently Because of Violence

How to Stifle Speech - Lessons from the Netherlands, the University of California, and Yale.

Self-Censoring South Park

With that said, it should be blindingly obvious that censorship isn't about stopping terrorism. It's about profit,

At the moment it seems to be mainly about "the Prophet," not profit.

America Again Submits to the Istanbul Process

Call to Ban Bible Under Pakistan’s Elastic Blasphemy Laws

I can't imagine why anybody would trust or accept the rationale given to them by somebody who threatens them with physical force. But somehow government is different. Right.

Threats of force seem to work in suppressing speech.

BBC Covers Muslims Differently Because of Violence

How to Stifle Speech - Lessons from the Netherlands, the University of California, and Yale.

Self-Censoring South Park

With that said, it should be blindingly obvious that censorship isn't about stopping terrorism. It's about profit,

At the moment it seems to be mainly about "the Prophet," not profit.

America Again Submits to the Istanbul Process

Call to Ban Bible Under Pakistan’s Elastic Blasphemy Laws

I can't imagine why anybody would trust or accept the rationale given to them by somebody who threatens them with physical force. But somehow government is different. Right.

Threats of force seem to work in suppressing speech.

BBC Covers Muslims Differently Because of Violence

How to Stifle Speech - Lessons from the Netherlands, the University of California, and Yale.

Self-Censoring South Park

With that said, it should be blindingly obvious that censorship isn't about stopping terrorism. It's about profit,

At the moment it seems to be mainly about "the Prophet," not profit.

America Again Submits to the Istanbul Process

Call to Ban Bible Under Pakistan’s Elastic Blasphemy Laws

I can't imagine why anybody would trust or accept the rationale given to them by somebody who threatens them with physical force. But somehow government is different. Right.

Threats of force seem to work in suppressing speech.

BBC Covers Muslims Differently Because of Violence

How to Stifle Speech - Lessons from the Netherlands, the University of California, and Yale.

Self-Censoring South Park

With that said, it should be blindingly obvious that censorship isn't about stopping terrorism. It's about profit,

At the moment it seems to be mainly about "the Prophet," not profit.

America Again Submits to the Istanbul Process

Call to Ban Bible Under Pakistan’s Elastic Blasphemy Laws

If you think that the neocons are derivatives of the John Birch Society, or McCarthyism, you are working with some seriously defective information.

Fighting Words
"Neo-Con" as Renegade

You are already too late. Humans causing volcano erruptions

Coming from an educated man such as you, I'm intrigued. I would love to review any link, reference, or citation you care to provide since I'm sure you must have some facts to back that up.

By now it must be well over a thousand terrorists killed by drones in Pakistan by the US, few if any high value terrorists captured recently, and a decade ago three terrorists waterboarded.

This is no surprise, but a natural outcome.
Detainee Madness
Washington Post Confirms We Are No Longer Capturing & Interrogating High-Value Terrorists

Coming from an educated man such as you, I'm intrigued. I would love to review any link, reference, or citation you care to provide since I'm sure you must have some facts to back that up.

By now it must be well over a thousand terrorists killed by drones in Pakistan by the US, few if any high value terrorists captured recently, and a decade ago three terrorists waterboarded.

This is no surprise, but a natural outcome.
Detainee Madness
Washington Post Confirms We Are No Longer Capturing & Interrogating High-Value Terrorists

The charisma is why Obama got the Dumb Vote

Guess you are a Jon Stewart fan

You want your predictions to be understandable. Often point odds in American Football center around 3 & 7 points. Why? Those are the easiest, most likely ways to score points. Maybe an expert in discrete predictions can chime in.

I'm chiming in. Even if he really could measure his estimate of the likelihood that Obama would win to three places (and he can't), it's not useful to us to have that much precision.

I used to drive a car, and I almost died in one when it crashed! Cars are horrible things - I'm glad we still have horses!

Horses can bite and kick. I guess there is no perfect answer.

Britain’s NHS: No Fun and Games

. . . Sunday’s British papers report that a study by the research firm Lloyd’s TSB Premier Banking found that nearly two-thirds of Britons earning more than $78,700 a year have taken out private health insurance because they don’t trust the NHS. A survey by the British health-care organization Bupa found that two-thirds of its customers cited the risk of infection from superbugs as a top reason for buying private insurance. Shaun Matisonn, the chief executive of PruHealth, says that “patients today are sophisticated consumers of health care. They research the treatments they want, but cannot always get them through the NHS.”

Horror stories about the NHS abound. A 2007 survey of almost 1,000 physicians by Doctors’ Magazine found that two-thirds said they had been told by their local NHS trust not to prescribe certain drugs, and one in five doctors knew patients who had suffered as a result of treatment rationing. The study cited one physician who characterized the NHS as “a lottery.” A new study this year by GP magazine supports that conclusion. Through Freedom of Information Act records, it found that 90 percent of NHS trusts were rationing care. . . . more . . .

I used to drive a car, and I almost died in one when it crashed! Cars are horrible things - I'm glad we still have horses!

Horses can bite and kick. I guess there is no perfect answer.

Britain’s NHS: No Fun and Games

. . . Sunday’s British papers report that a study by the research firm Lloyd’s TSB Premier Banking found that nearly two-thirds of Britons earning more than $78,700 a year have taken out private health insurance because they don’t trust the NHS. A survey by the British health-care organization Bupa found that two-thirds of its customers cited the risk of infection from superbugs as a top reason for buying private insurance. Shaun Matisonn, the chief executive of PruHealth, says that “patients today are sophisticated consumers of health care. They research the treatments they want, but cannot always get them through the NHS.”

Horror stories about the NHS abound. A 2007 survey of almost 1,000 physicians by Doctors’ Magazine found that two-thirds said they had been told by their local NHS trust not to prescribe certain drugs, and one in five doctors knew patients who had suffered as a result of treatment rationing. The study cited one physician who characterized the NHS as “a lottery.” A new study this year by GP magazine supports that conclusion. Through Freedom of Information Act records, it found that 90 percent of NHS trusts were rationing care. . . . more . . .

I admit my considerable ignorance of Nate Silver's blog - and humbly ask for pardon. i did not mean to question anyone's integrity and I don't think I was "making up shit" :-)

I question the value of any polling - even if it is well done. example: The Carter/Reagan 1980 election was "too close to call" according to the polling data - and reagan won an electoral college landslide. Of course most /.'s probably remember Gore/Bush and the exit polling brouhaha (and "hanging chads" who could ever forget "hanging chads" I've also heard pollsters complain about the limitations of current methodologies (if you are calling people on landlines then you are using an increasingly smaller portion of the likely voters) - I'm wondering if a "Dewey defeats Truman" event could be in the works ...

They're not necessarily useless, but state-by-state polls are critical for determining a winner because of the electoral college. Fortunately, they conduct state-by-state polls.

Yes, there is polling done on a state by state basis - but that does not seem to be what is being discussed: from the blog, emphasis mine: "And increasingly, it is hard to find leads for Mr. Romney in national surveys — although several of them show a tie."

I'm sure you don't mean to be obtuse, but what I wrote was, "passed without anyone reading the whole thing first." Are you going to deny that is true? They were making massive deletions and additions up till the last moment. Do you think passing major laws with massive effects on 1/6 of the economy without reading them first, let alone study, understand, and debate them, is a good thing?

Obviously I can't speak to what each congressman did or did not read before voting, but my point was that by the same token neither can you. Neither of us know the inner workings of what each and every congressman does in preparing for a vote and it's possible, since this is what they do for a living, that they have a way of dealing with last minute changes. Let's see how the bill turns out before shunning them for supposedly not doing their job.

Such was the case with a 300-page amendment to the cap-and-trade bill the House passed on June 26.

A March 18 report from House Ways & Means Committee Republicans estimates the IRS will need to hire between 11,800 and 16,500 new agents to enforce the bill.

Strawman

Fox New, AP, whatever, I can't account for you being uninformed.

Kids with Pre-Existing Conditions NOT Covered By Obamacare Now the AP tells us

Nice how you only quoted the first half of this article, let me finish it for you Mr. Informed:

However, if a child is accepted for coverage, or is already covered, the insurer cannot exclude payment for treating a particular illness, as sometimes happens now. For example, if a child has asthma, the insurance company cannot write a policy that excludes that condition from coverage. The new safeguard will be in place later this year.

Full protection for children would not come until 2014, said Kate Cyrul, a spokeswoman for the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, another panel that authored the legislation. That's the same year when insurance companies could no longer deny coverage to any person on account of health problems.

Most of the bill takes effect in 2014.

href="http://online.wsj.com/article

Please.

The healthcare reform bill referred to as "Obamacare" was sloppy work done in a reckless manner, passed by hook or by crook, that stands a good chance of being an expensive fiasco. It has already had plenty of unintended consequences, and more are likely.

I can see why you think that, and I'm not saying it's a perfect solution but your facts don't add up.

Yes assuming this "new negative news stream" that I haven't noticed is coming from Fox News. It also explains why you think no one has read the bill.

I'm sure you don't mean to be obtuse, but what I wrote was, "passed without anyone reading the whole thing first." Are you going to deny that is true? They were making massive deletions and additions up till the last moment. Do you think passing major laws with massive effects on 1/6 of the economy without reading them first, let alone study, understand, and debate them, is a good thing? This isn't the first time that happed.

Passing unread laws

Welcome to Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s House of Representatives. The “people’s House” is now a place where bills are voted on not only before legislators or the public have read them, but also before parts of the bills even have been written. Such was the case with a 300-page amendment to the cap-and-trade bill the House passed on June 26. The House leadership could not even produce this amendment on paper, in final form, before it was voted on.

Fox New, AP, whatever, I can't account for you being uninformed.

Kids with Pre-Existing Conditions NOT Covered By Obamacare
Now the AP tells us

Hours after President Barack Obama signed historic health care legislation, a potential problem emerged. Administration officials are now scrambling to fix a gap in highly touted benefits for children.

Obama made better coverage for children a centerpiece of his health care remake, but it turns out the letter of the law provided a less-than-complete guarantee that kids with health problems would not be shut out of coverage.

Under the new law, insurance companies still would be able to refuse new coverage to children because of a pre-existing medical problem, said Karen Lightfoot, spokeswoman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, one of the main congressional panels that wrote the bill Obama signed into law Tuesday.

- - - - -

So let's perpetually bend over to the insurance companies hoping to God that they keep rates reasonable. The point of the exchanges is to introduce some competition so that insurance companies can't easily abuse customers as you describe.

To borrow your phrase, do you know who you will bending over to instead? (And won't that be so much better? You can always try to change insurance companies, at least till now, but you aren't really going to change the IRS, are you?)

IRS looking to hire thousands of tax agents to enforce health care laws

A March 18 report from House Ways & Means Committee Republicans estimates the IRS will need to hire between 11,800 and 16,500 new agents to enforce the bill.

No One Would Miss ObamaCare, but the Window for Repeal Is Two Years
Its alleged benefits are overrated, and by 2014 the bureaucratic mess may be impossible to untangle.

The primary place ObamaCare's pre-existing condition provision will have an impact is in the individual market, where about 14 million people buy their own coverage. Individuals are the ones most likely to wait until they need coverage to buy it; hence ObamaCare's mandate requiring them to have insurance.

However, most states had made provisions for the "uninsurables" long before ObamaCare came around. Thirty-five states have created state-based high-risk pools—Minnesota and Connecticut established the first ones as far back as 1976

of course, our infrastructure is in fine shape, our roads don't need upgrading. neither do our comms infra or any of the other social programs that help raise the overall qualtiy of life for everyone.

oh, but the infra can go fark itself. it will just self manage. right? that rotting bridge or overpass - we don't need to invest in fixing that.

You'll never make any real progress until you start identifying the actual source of the problems.

Obama and the Women’s Lobby

. . . The 2009 stimulus program set the pattern. The president had originally called for a two-year “shovel-ready” plan to modernize roads, bridges, electrical grids, and dams. Women’s activists were appalled. Op-eds appeared with titles like “Where Are the New Jobs for Women?” and “The Macho Stimulus Plan.” More than 1,000 feminist historians signed an open letter urging Mr. Obama not to favor a “heavily male-dominated field” like construction: “We need to rebuild not only concrete and steel bridges but also human bridges.” Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women (NOW), attacked the “testosterone-laden ‘shovel-ready’ terminology.” Christina Romer, who chaired the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, would later say, “The very first e-mail I got . . . was from a women’s group saying, ‘We don’t want this stimulus package to just create jobs for burly men.’”

The president’s original plan was designed to stop the hemorrhaging in construction and manufacturing while investing in physical infrastructure. It was not a grab bag of gender-correct transfer programs. The whole idea was to get Americans back to work, and it was “burly men” who had lost most of the jobs following the financial collapse of 2008. But as protests mounted, the president’s team reconfigured the bill according to NOW’s specifications. In a column entitled “Economic Recovery: What’s NOW Got to Do with It?” Gandy could hardly contain her elation: “As we looked through the act, over and over we saw reflections of the very specific proposals that we had made, and with big numbers next to them. Numbers that started with a ‘B’ (as in billion).” To read Gandy’s column is to understand why shovels are still standing idle and the stimulus was such a disappointment . . . .more . . .

No Country for Burly Men - How feminist groups skewed the Obama stimulus plan towards women's jobs.

A "man-cession." That's what some economists are starting to call it. Of the 5.7 million jobs Americans lost between December 2007 and May 2009, nearly 80 percent had been held by men. Mark Perry, an economist at the University of Michigan, characterizes the recession as a "downturn" for women but a "catastrophe" for men.

It’s the public sector that’s ‘doing fine’

- - - - -

but lets give the rich more reasons to not help out. they'll just naturally be good people on their own, right?

right??

left to their own devices, they'll steal you blind. this class of people need to be watched more than the worst criminal among us.

You could watch the rich all day long and completely miss what happened to the stimulus as noted above. You would be better off watching the government and governing class with vigilance rat

of course, our infrastructure is in fine shape, our roads don't need upgrading. neither do our comms infra or any of the other social programs that help raise the overall qualtiy of life for everyone.

oh, but the infra can go fark itself. it will just self manage. right? that rotting bridge or overpass - we don't need to invest in fixing that.

You'll never make any real progress until you start identifying the actual source of the problems.

Obama and the Women’s Lobby

. . . The 2009 stimulus program set the pattern. The president had originally called for a two-year “shovel-ready” plan to modernize roads, bridges, electrical grids, and dams. Women’s activists were appalled. Op-eds appeared with titles like “Where Are the New Jobs for Women?” and “The Macho Stimulus Plan.” More than 1,000 feminist historians signed an open letter urging Mr. Obama not to favor a “heavily male-dominated field” like construction: “We need to rebuild not only concrete and steel bridges but also human bridges.” Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women (NOW), attacked the “testosterone-laden ‘shovel-ready’ terminology.” Christina Romer, who chaired the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, would later say, “The very first e-mail I got . . . was from a women’s group saying, ‘We don’t want this stimulus package to just create jobs for burly men.’”

The president’s original plan was designed to stop the hemorrhaging in construction and manufacturing while investing in physical infrastructure. It was not a grab bag of gender-correct transfer programs. The whole idea was to get Americans back to work, and it was “burly men” who had lost most of the jobs following the financial collapse of 2008. But as protests mounted, the president’s team reconfigured the bill according to NOW’s specifications. In a column entitled “Economic Recovery: What’s NOW Got to Do with It?” Gandy could hardly contain her elation: “As we looked through the act, over and over we saw reflections of the very specific proposals that we had made, and with big numbers next to them. Numbers that started with a ‘B’ (as in billion).” To read Gandy’s column is to understand why shovels are still standing idle and the stimulus was such a disappointment . . . .more . . .

No Country for Burly Men - How feminist groups skewed the Obama stimulus plan towards women's jobs.

A "man-cession." That's what some economists are starting to call it. Of the 5.7 million jobs Americans lost between December 2007 and May 2009, nearly 80 percent had been held by men. Mark Perry, an economist at the University of Michigan, characterizes the recession as a "downturn" for women but a "catastrophe" for men.

It’s the public sector that’s ‘doing fine’

- - - - -

but lets give the rich more reasons to not help out. they'll just naturally be good people on their own, right?

right??

left to their own devices, they'll steal you blind. this class of people need to be watched more than the worst criminal among us.

You could watch the rich all day long and completely miss what happened to the stimulus as noted above. You would be better off watching the government and governing class with vigilance rat

Dr. Mann complains about two statements: 1) that as "the man behind the fraudulent climate-change 'hockey-stick' graph," he is "the very ringmaster of the three ring circus" on climate change; and 2) that he "could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet." Neither of these statements is actionable. Moreover, if Dr. Mann decides to pursue this matter, he and his research would be subjected to a very extensive discovery of materials that he has fought so hard to protect in other proceedings. Such materials would be required for National Review to defend itself.

Dr. Mann complains about two statements: 1) that as "the man behind the fraudulent climate-change 'hockey-stick' graph," he is "the very ringmaster of the three ring circus" on climate change; and 2) that he "could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet." Neither of these statements is actionable. Moreover, if Dr. Mann decides to pursue this matter, he and his research would be subjected to a very extensive discovery of materials that he has fought so hard to protect in other proceedings. Such materials would be required for National Review to defend itself.