Slashdot Mirror

This is, however, a clear warning of how unpopular views are readily suppressed. It's not clear to me what the best answer is.

There is no clear answer. But as a metric, We can compare The activities of the White Supremacists and Neo Nazis to other groups.

Bastille day celebration with a terrorist driving a truck through it. 84 people killed. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0...

Man drives into crow of people in Israel, killing one http://www.timesofisrael.com/d...

Man tries to drive a car through a crowd in Belgium https://themuslimissue.wordpre...

How ramming cars into crowds became a major terror tactic (London attack) https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Another attack in Stockholm https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

Attack in Heidelberg http://www.nbcnews.com/news/wo... Isreal again. http://www.westernjournalism.c...

London again: http://www.dw.com/en/terrorist...

And that is just some of them.

So what we have here is a tactic used by terrorists. Pick a crowd, and play Bowling for Humans. Looks like the Bastille Day guy has the highest score so far. This is pretty obviously Terrorism, and the only people who support it is likewise terrorists and their supporters.

So we have a group of people who support supremacy of one race over another - That would be the Klan. They have a history of violence and murder.

We have Neo-Nazis. Another group of people that support the National Socialist movement and all that entails. These two groups dovetail rather nicely together.

Then we have a member of the second group who runs his car through a crowd of people in Virginia.

It all fits. I don't negotiate with terrorists, nor do I wish to appease them. Appeasement doesn't work with Nazis, if we recall our history. And Blut und Boden puts the Neo's directly into Nazi ideology.

Which is why I put support for these people into the support of terrorism, support that it's practicioners desire to become mainstream. And if that happens, what are the odds that they extend anything remotely resembling free speech to others. Historically it has been exactly opposite.

Perhaps my detractors will mod this up to 5 to show their support for free speech that offends them.

The Dow Chemical Company said Liveris would remain on the council.

Of course the Dow Chemical CEO would stay on Trump's "council".

Here's why:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us...

Aren't you glad the swamp is drained?

Does she use her FB account as an official communications channel? Sean Spicer specifically said that Trump's twitter account is an official communications from the POTUS. http://www.nbcnews.com/politic...

By doing so, the administration as changed the nature of Trump's twitter account from personal to official. The courts will need to decide if this is the case. If the courts find that Trump's twitter account is an official communications channel for the POTUS, then a lot of rules apply to it. As a personal account, he could do what he wanted.

Apparently he is.

Too bad for you that the White House officially contradicted your statement back in June. They have yet to issue any "correction" on this until today.

"The president is president of the United States, so they are considered official statements by the president of the United States." White House Press Secretary Spicer

Just because Spicer no longer holds that position doesn't automatically make all his previous statements null and void. Now, Sebastian Gorka said "there's a difference between tweets and policy and @realDonaldTrump's feed is the former, not the latter" so once again the White House is giving contradicting messages on their policy. Therefor, since they can't give a coherent policy, the courts will have to decide this. But the White House Communications Director/White House Press Secretary is higher up on the food chain than a Deputy Assistant.

I don't know if CNN counts as 'neoliberal,' but I just searched for "CNN google memo," and the first link that came up was this one, which says, "his opinion seems to be that women are underrepresented in tech because of psychological differences between women and men, not because of bias."

A search for "msnbc google manifesto" came up with this as the first search,, which says, "[Damore] claims to explain why more women aren't in engineering positions, chalking up the disparity to "biological" differences, including generalizations that women don't tend to handle stress well and are more neurotic."

That's not an exhaustive search, but I think it shows there is at least some nuance in media coverage.

I'll grant you that Irish construction consortium, however two website articles discussing the lack of men in women dominated industries is not the same as the industry itself trying to "fix" the "problem".

What do you mean by the industry itself? Some sort of monolithic whole? Baffling request that.

I would instead disavow such a concept, but I merely hoped you'd get some awareness of the depths of your ignorance on the subject, and seek to improve your cognizance, though both pages actually mentioned the existence of programs.

You want me to find more? You could look for them.

Really? I don't see any other industry other than tech making a large, concerted effort to recruit a certain class of humans.

And that seems a personal issue.

As far as I know, that Irish construction initiative is a one-off, where as you see tech companies constantly complaining about the lack of diversity, and the latest money-sink push to get more ethnic minorities and women on their payrolls.

Maybe you just hang out in forums where tech companies get more attention, and you don't see as much about construction or healthcare or education because they aren't names you even know about.

This, however, applies to a lot of industry news. Perhaps because, things like construction, nursing, and teaching, are operated on a much smaller, at least in terms of impact, scale. Comparatively, a large district like New York City's is regional, even though it has over a hundred thousand employees.

It's widely accepted in the intelligence community that Japan is nuclear capable. From what I've read they decided after the US pulled out of Vietnam that we couldn't be relied upon to defend them in a "local" conflict and decided they needed a backup plan. They have an established industry for making and refining plutonium and are currently sitting on a stockpile of ~95 tons. They're also quite capable of putting a device wherever they want. They skirt around the status by not refining the plutonium to weapons grade purity so they can legitimately say they don't have nuclear weapons but they're quite capable of doing so on short notice. Ironically, the only thing that's really keeping them from announcing that they can is their own citizens. While re-militarizing is gaining support with conservatives, nuclear weapons are still a very toxic subject that no politician would touch with a ten foot pole (and for very understandable reasons).

No, it isn't. You are flat out lying.

Here is an earlier article from the EFF that was carried on Slashdot titled More Than 40 ISPs Across the Country Tell Chairman Pai to NOT Repeal Network Neutrality

Here's one showing who is really supporting the repeal of net neutrality -- with the bulk of all lobbying money ($572 million) being spent by just four companies: AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, and the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA).

The simple truth is the big telecom companies want to have the benefits of common carrier legal protection, without the limitations. They ALREADY have the rights, and abilities, to provide quality of service based on type of traffic. There is NOTHING stopping them from prioritizing VoIP traffic over e-mail because of the real-time nature of the service.

That is what they try and claim they can't do, but that isn't what they really want.

What they want is the ability to shape traffic based on DESTINATION. That is, Comcast will prioritize *THEIR* VoIP traffic but not competitors, like Vonage, unless they pay a premium for it.

That immediately sets up a protection-like racket where major ISPs can force non-ISP content providers to pay extra or their traffic gets degraded.

They've already tried to do this with Netflix and Vonage, to name a couple.

Net neutrality requires that any QoS or throttling that is done for bandwidth management be done UNIFORMLY, and not selectively.

What the hell, more links just because it is so easy:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21376597/ns/technology_and_science-internet/t/comcast-blocks-some-internet-traffic/

https://www.wired.com/2014/05/google-fiber-netflix/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-to-improve-its-streaming-1393175346

https://www.theverge.com/2014/4/28/5662580/netflix-signs-traffic-deal-with-verizon

How about Comcast astroturfing the FCC with bot-generated comments attacking net neutrality?

Comcast injecting packets to slow or disable traffic? Sure!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Comcast#Net_neutrality

Hey, how about Municipal Broadband? Guess who opposes it tooth-and-nail even in areas they have no presence in? That's right, the Big ISPs.

Net Neutrality is by far and away in the best interests of both consumers and small ISPs.

Turns out there's more than one horse in the barn. You don't leave the barn door open just because one got out. We've not had any problems. Every impact so far? Great, we've survived them. Heck, hundreds of people survive a drunk drive every night. We still try to stop them if we can. And no, the serious people looking have done more than just guess or blow smoke.

Don't conflate them with the people full of shit.

So you're saying Warren Buffet thinks he's Scrooge McDuck?

When even the wealthy are saying that they should be taxed more and calling tax breaks for the wealthy a bad idea, only the most retarded continue putting forward strawman arguments like the one you're presenting here.

So Obamacare was an improvement on what was before? Have we seen a population explosion as a result of Obamacare?

Infant mortality rates have dropped 15% in the past 10 years. That adds about 4000 children per year who would have died in infancy. Obviously not all of these saved lives are because of Obamacare, but the industry certainly cites increased access to healthcare over the past decade as a major driver of this trend.

Certainly not a population explosion, but then again you were probably merely mirroring the same level of hyperbole as the AC you were replying to.

Ford set the hours at 8 because of extensive experimentation on his workers. He targeted the optimum hours to get the most product out of people. He found that working more hours actually reduced net production. It was not altruism, it was a simple realization that if you give your "machines" proper maintenance they function better. The AC's narrative actually fits better with the reality that Ford was a cold yet smart brutal capitalist. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us...

You've never heard of Judge John C. Murphy of punch the public defender fame?

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us...

Rather sadly, we do in the west too. (although probably fewer than they do). There's the classic report from ABC News a few years ago that said that the average chocolate bar had 8 insect parts in it.

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/...

It's not just chocolate. Almost all our processed food has insect parts in them.

He didn't create it.
He wasn't the first one to release it.

But not only did he publish it, he published it as an official statement of the president of the united states.

But the USSR did not know how many we had and it only took 2 for Japan to surrender because they believed we could keep bombing them with nukes. It would have probably only taken one for the USSR to surrender, considering the shape they were in. War is rarely about annihilation, it is about destroying your enemies will to fight. Don't believe the revisionist bullshit.

The activity in the world by the US from the '50s to the '90s was with good intentions, if not always ideal results. The so called democratic governments that were overturned were brutal dictatorships or oligarchies who murdered millions of their own citizens. Only simpletons like you think that calling a government a "democratic republic" makes it so...

Korean war: Korea was being invaded by communist proxies from China and the USSR and was in the middle of a shooting war when the US got involved.
  South Korea lives in comfort as a first world nation, North Korea is perpetually on the brink of starvation and a shooting war with the world as they sell nuclear weapons tech to rogue nations and develop ICBMs to try and threaten the world.

Vietnam: Vietnam was also invaded by communist proxies from China and the USSR before the US got involved. About 900,000 men, women and children were murdered by the communists "democratic republic" government of Vietnam. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

US activities in south and central America were mostly to deal with drug cartels who had taken over entire countries, or rogue dictators who were massively violating the human rights of their citizens. If you don't know this, go read something that is actually historically accurate, not some pointy headed idiot on NPR or BBC who hates the US...

Iraq war 1 was in response to their invasion of an ally and strategic partner, Kuait. We told Saddam to leave and he gave us the finger, so we obliterated his military.

Afghanistan was actively helping Al Queda who murdered 3000 US civillians and, unlike Pakistan, was openly resisting our efforts to eliminate Al Queda. So we invaded Afghanistan.

Iraq war 2 was in response to Saddam's clams of biological, chemical (which he had used on the Iranians and the Kurds in the past) and nuclear weapons claims. Saddam was supporting terrorisim, paying money to homicide bombers families, and asserting that he had WMD and was willing to use them. He kicked out weapons inspectors, and 18 global intelligence agencies said he had WMD capacity. After the war, the US exported 550 TONS of uranium http://www.nbcnews.com/id/2554... from Iraq that Saddam had bought on the black market. We also found the equipment to manufacture nuclear bombs buried in Baghdad: http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/... That he did not have a chance to use his chemical or biological weapons is a testament to US military air power effectiveness. That he didn't have a nuclear bomb yet was purely luck.

Because the shootings that gain national media attention tend to be committed with illegally owned weapons.

That is simply not true. In fact, it is the exact opposite of true. Eighty percent of the mass shootings in the last three decades were committed using legally-purchased weapons.

http://time.com/4367592/orland...

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyli...

http://www.nbcnews.com/politic...

The right does not disavow their crazies, you elected one as President.

All well and good - now somebody please tell me why fixing the ridiculously stupid loopholes in the background check laws would not meet all those criteria in a heartbeat ?

BTW, regarding the effectiveness of background checks: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us..., this morning's shooter passed Illinois' background checks. Yeah, he was suspected of earlier crimes, but those cases were dismissed, and we clearly don't want to go down the road of punishing people for merely being accused of a crime. That would be both wrong and unconstitutional even if there's a chance (not a guarantee, just a chance) that it would have prevented this morning's tragedy.

This is an extremely common story, too. The problem is that background checks are an attempt to figure out which people are likely to commit a crime in the future, based on what they've done in the past. That's an effort which is always going to be doomed to failure.

Trump suggested using the 2nd ammendment as a threat against Hillary if she won.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politic...

Reap what you sow.

First: This guy isn't Trump, he didn't say that shit.

Second: Trump saying doesn't mean republicans think its OK.

shootings like Senator Gabby Giffords came from a leftist.

Leftist as in Libertarian supporting ideas from the Tea Party, not pro-government Democrats.

There's no doubt that hate crimes by Trump supporters have gone up (just look at the Quebec mosque shootingfor a prime example).

The "hate machine" comes from both sides, but the huge majority of it comes from the right against minority groups.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politic...

Reap what you sow.

Like the fact that Donald Trump was never under investigation for Russian collusion, but that didn't leak for some reason....

We don't know that for a fact, but the assertion was, in fact, leaked.

You should put that on t-shirts and sell it to those "Democrats" who always want to impeach presidents when the other party wins the elections...

"Always" is a disingenuous word to use here. We're in unprecedented territory here. George W Bush, the previous republican president, had pretty specific causes. Warrant-less wiretapping, the patriot act, misleading to get us into two wars... We're not talking "He gave us healthcare! THROW HIS ASS INTO JAIL!"

and who demonstrate their love of free speech by doing their best to disrupt and silence those who disagree with them.

The far left wing did shut down a few high-profile speakers at college campuses, it didn't silence them. For that to happen, Milo had to go making pedo comments. Ann Coulter is still spewing her brand of hate-speech, as is her right. The right wing is silencing people who disagree with them with violence.

Jesus H. Christ... another non-sequitur.

The controversy is not over a press conference, it's over a twitter account that allows followers, retweets, and replies, and for that matter one which Sean Spicer has publicly said is an official channel of the Presidency.

I don't give a damn about your theories concerning press conferences, because for Trump's twitter account every non-blocked member of the public is authorized to participate, and every non-blocked member gets to follow, retweet, and reply to tweets. I don't have to have some more contrived definition of a channel of communication because Sean Mother-F'in Spicer says that @realDonaldTrump is an official channel of communication and it's not operated remotely similarly to a press conference.

It's your burden to establish a valid analogy between a Twitter account and a press conference. You're the only one to bring it up in this thread. I utterly reject the premise.

While they find a lot of weapons it seems that they miss even more. By even more I mean about 19 times more. A couple years ago it was reported that they only found 5% of prohibited items and last year the reporting was that they had found 20% more when tested, which sounds great until you realize that they still missed 94% of things.

Considering what I have brought through inadvertently over the years it doesn't surprise me. This includes an almost full box of 7.62x54r ammo, a couple of handfuls of 3" magnum goose load 12 gauge shotgun shells, my small pocket knife (2.5" is the largest blade) my 4" lock blade with a brass handle, lighters when they were banned, toothpaste in a tube larger than 3oz that isn't in a separate bag. None of it was deliberately hidden nor were special steps taken to make it harder to detect. The ammo was in a coat pocket that went through the x-ray machine and the pocket knives were in my pants pocket. However if I take my Pentax Spotmatic F and lenses and send them through the x-ray machine open it is time for 20 fucking questions and everything gets checked out and swabbed for explosives because they are a bunch of retards.

It is not proven, but it is perfectly plausible — does not contradict anything we already know. We know, the Democratic Party has local operatives in major cities — certainly those, where the local government is Democrat-dominated — who are ready, indeed enthusiastic about inciting riots and commit other crimes to "win this motherfucker".

Why is it such an outrageous stretch to suspect, there are a few people, who are willing to commit actual murder — or pay a cynical someone for same — for the Greater Good(TM)? And we do know, that killing President would be considered Ok — what's so unbelievable about it seeming Ok to kill a lowly DNC-staffer, if he is deemed a traitor to the Progressive cause?

We also know, the very "heroine" of this story is afraid of being "disappeared" — despite being in government's custody. Is it because she would've approved of such "disappearance" of her political opponents? And if she can be afraid of being killed by government employees, why is it so unbelievable, that a Party's operative could kill someone on a street in bad neighborhood — political assassination masked as a botched robbery?

Quite coherent...

Disclaimer: I'm one of these terrible, no-good, lazy, overspending millennials. I have actually a pretty good job situation, but that doesn't mean I'm going to lie to myself that somehow I've done better because I'm somehow a better person. I've been very lucky, and a lot of millennials are being screwed over through no fault of their own at all.

O rly?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tr...

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/1...

http://www.nbcnews.com/politic...

I can find more if you want.

I'm with you. As long as you are just as willing to condemn similar threats of violence against the other party, such as those that were directed at Obama,
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

and Hillary,
http://www.nbcnews.com/politic...

I believe he's referring to this..

The quote is:

And in fact when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said 'you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won.

I don't think it's a smoking gun. But it's still a bizarrely stupid thing to say when everyone is pretty convinced you fired someone for investigating you.

Who's the real crazy conspiracy nut here?

Given the fact that Flynn and Manafort are officially named as subjects of a criminal investigation into illegal foreign influence and grand jury subpoenas have been issued for their records?

You.

That's the weird thing about the Trumpster. He's a big talker and most of the things that he says are BS, but he's probably made more progress with getting companies to bring US jobs back to this country than the Obama administration did in the last 4 years.

Trump hasn't brought any meaningful number of jobs back to the US. He has however falsely taken credit for a bunch of decisions he had effectively nothing to do with. He certainly hasn't done more than Obama because he has done a reasonable approximation of nothing.

Trump's whole promise to bring back manufacturing jobs is based on a false premise. The only way to bring back substantial numbers of manufacturing jobs to the US would be for wages to fall relative to elsewhere. US manufacturing is alive and well but it's not labor intensive manufacturing. We make jumbo jets, not happy meal toys. The only way you get massive number of assembly line workers back to work is to drop wages by a LOT. Since that won't happen, Trump is telling yet another lie.

That doesn't mean that I like him or his policies, but I have to give credit where it's due.

When he actually does something to deserve credit then you should start doing that. No credit due so far.

That's a bit of an over-generalization. Have you never seen an engineer or scientist who had it wrong at some point?

That's not the point. The point is not whether they are right or wrong. This point is that he is not merely expressing his opinion; factually he's saying the engineers are wrong. In numerous articles, he contended that the calculation is wrong. "Convinced the cameras were using an out-of-date formula, he took his message to practically anyone who would listen — local TV stations, a conference of traffic engineers, and even the state board of engineer examiners."

Again, the state board has already said this issue with the lights is out of their jurisdiction as the city of Beaverton controls the lights; he needs to take up with the city. However, if he wishes to file a complaint with the state board, he may do so. So far he appears not to have sought to file a complaint.

The rest of your post is irrelevant as we already know he's doing this because he wants to be a member of the board.

You are aware that of the 11 members of the board, almost all of the positions require the registration/license that Jarlstrom says he does not need right? Can you see how it is relevant now?

When you keep your data in the cloud, and don't keep backups on hand, you're at the mercy of the powers to be

Indeed. And the even bigger picture here is that the Government — the single biggest "power that is" — is the primary source of problems. Every interaction with it — be it the TSA agents, the police (even if they aren't after you), the DMV, a hospital, or even the Post Office — carry a high risk of being unpleasant if not outright horrifying. Having an uneventful encounter with these officials is the surprise, not the other way around.

Folks demanding, government takes over this or that are either idiots or hope to profit personally without being subject of the takeover themselves.

It's going to legally be tough for them to wriggle out of.

This is morally wrong and dangerous. Morally wrong because if you commit suicide, you did it, not someone who made you feel bad. Dangerous because incentive payments for people who commit suicide is counterproductive unless you want more suicides.

Societies should disallow these types of lawsuits -- maybe with some sort of exception if you can prove someone had the specific intention of driving the person to suicide.

Yeah, paying people to commit suicide isn't a great idea. It's a lesson Foxconn had to re-learn a few years ago.

I suspect this is the driving factor.

That was self evident to me. They're not loyal to their employers because their employers are great and worthy of their time. They don't have options, so they cling to what they can get. In two other millennial stories appearing today and not being featured on Slashdot; millennials can't afford the world their parents have made for themselves, so they're still mostly at home, wondering who pulled up the ladder. As such, their prolonged childhood continues.

And if your knee jerks up and smacks into your chin with a "uneducated plebs and their sense of entitlement" view, you should think about who we have for a president now and how well your indifference is working out for you. You can't actually shit on a whole class of voters forever without consequence until you take away their vote.

And in related news, imploding socialist government in Venezuela illegally steal GM plant.

Trump will release full visitor logs five years after the current term ends.

Obama just decided to keep many records secret

Isn't Trump's mere delay instead of outright refusal much better?

Trump will release full visitor logs five years after the current term ends.

Obama just decided to keep many records secret

Isn't Trump's mere delay instead of outright refusal much better?

Trump will release full visitor logs five years after the current term ends.

Obama just decided to keep many records secret

Isn't Trump's mere delay instead of outright refusal much better?

And the US Constitution made the Federal government *somewhat* more powerful in a few select areas, but the Federal government still remained relatively weak.

Yes, it failed in its moral obligations to a high degree, allowing the abuse and persecution of citizens to a high degree. That was a terrible thing of weakness.

Now we have a government that re-interprets the plain meaning of words to expand it's power & scope, like Commerce Clause/Wickard v Filburn and requiring every citizen to purchase something from a private third-party simply to remain within the law and avoid penalties including prison under threat of lethal force,

Actually, the individual mandate is an alternative to paying tax, letting you purchase something from a third-party, in order to reduce the tax burden that arose from conservative ire over free-loaders taking advantage of EMTALA, which compelled healthcare providers to deliver care absent an ability to pay, if they wanted to be able to take money from the federal government. Which they did, since it pays for A LOT of healthcare, due to Medicare, its own employees, and more. Very few hospitals want to turn that down. Yet what to do, since there was so much uncompensated care? Eventually that bill came due.

Add in the removal of denial of coverage by insurers, and it became a necessary condition, since insurers didn't want to have to deal with people only seeking to pay in order to get treatment. So they want an incentive for YOU, the individual, to buy their coverage. Hence a tax, that you, an INDIVIDUAL, can alleviate by making a third-party purchase.

Same as you can get a tax rebate by getting education, a new roof, or any number of things.

They had to pass a Constitutional Amendment to both prohibit alcohol and another to un-prohibit it,

Nope! Read the 18th Amendment again. It mandated a law, it required an action. It constrained Congress, in fact, by requiring it to perform a function, even if Congress decided otherwise.

Naturally an amendment was necessary to undo that, since it was compelling, not simply authorizing.

but magically, now after some dudes in funny black robes declared that silly old Constitution didn't really mean what it said, drugs can be declared 'controlled' and/or 'prohibited/illegal' and placed in, and moved around between, various levels of legal control and prohibition by unelected government bureaucrats,

If you don't want it happening, start voting for Congressional Representatives who will tell the bureaucrats to do something else. You do realize they're the ones at fault, for example, it's Congress preventing Marijuana from being removed from Schedule I.

the Federal government ties our border agent's hands to prevent them from doing their job of stopping illegal aliens coming in, but practically no resource or manpower is spared to check carefully for trucks crossing the border with contraband toilets that flush over the legal US federal limit.

You're claiming to be both upset that the border agents can't abuse the civil rights of individuals, and wringing your hands over toilets, toilets, which BTW, most frequently dump water into a sewage system that impacts potentially millions of other people, and you pretend you're thinking logically?

It can't work. Either you recognize that your effluent is subject to regulation, as it is not remaining within yourself, or you're not concerned about how other human beings are treated.

Besides, the budget for CBP has been cut, so you're even lying over that. Why do you come up with so many hysterical falsehoods, Bluestrat, why?

Then there's domestic spying, "parallel construction", the IRS and other agencies/departments used as political weapons t

The Obama administration never bombed Syria. They bombed other countries, but not Syria.

Syria was bombed many times by the US in 2016. Citations here and here.

Most racists don't consider themselves racist.
Most people who voted for Trump are sympathetic to his racist, misogynist, xenophobic, islamophobic views.
Your rationalization is that you wanted a "Scalia" replacement. He was a blatant racist so you are a racist for wanting someone like him.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballo...
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nb...

But we already know another blatant mistake of the governments, which has lead to the explosion of the obesity epidemics and millions of premature deaths — the War on Fat. And on cholesterol — though manufacturers are still marketing "low cholesterol" foods, the government's current stance is Cholesterol is not a nutrient of concern for overconsumption...

I'm with you so far.

Though Americans — and other nations following America's lead — grew obese, no one was punished for that mistake.

Umm, maybe. Who do you think should be punished? The scientists? They were saying at the beginning of the War on Fat that the science was inconclusive. It was the politicians who said, "We don't have time to wait for facts. We need to act."

Without any accountability for the FDA personnel even when the fault is obvious, what is there to restraint the EPA? What "checks and balances" are there to prevent them from banning anything another "charismatic and confident" doctor suggests to ban without much proof?

I see how you can get there. But as I said, the problem wasn't with the scientists. It was the politicians pushing the agenda, and the sugar industry funding it.

The "Trust Us" science is junk science — and Congress is absolutely right to fight it, even if they are too chicken to abolish the EPA altogether.

And that's where you go off the rails. In the case of fat, there was heavy industry lobbying in favor of a position that scientists said was unsupported by current research. We now know that it wasn't just unsupported; it was wrong.

In the case of environmental regulations, the industry money is all lining up to say we don't need to reduce fossil fuel use. And the vast majority of scientists are saying that the science is settled, and it goes against what industry is pushing.

But my biggest gripe with your solution is the suggestion that if the EPA isn't perfect, the solution is not to fix it but to abolish it. That's a common solution for certain advocacy groups (and political parties) who know that it's a lot easier to destroy programs that benefit society than it is to build them.

All research affected by HIPAA would be banned by this bill.

No. If it is not personally identifiable, you can publish it. EPA could still use a paper, that says, for example, "Of the 5000 people exposed to such-and-such-sulfate, 537 developed such-and-such-iasis." As long as it does not identify the patients.

Indeed, if doing research in the first place and making it available to the EPA was not in violation of HIPAA (or, rather, HITECH) privacy rules, the EPA can publish it further.

To pretend, this is about "privacy" is a gimmick — a spin, employed by people afraid of the sunlight shining on the darker corner of the government.

This is not a fault of people not caring whether or not research is reproducible, but simply of errors

One is still at fault even if his was an honest mistake...

Whether Global Warming is, indeed, a (grave) threat to humanity remains to be seen. But we already know another blatant mistake of the governments, which has lead to the explosion of the obesity epidemics and millions of premature deaths — the War on Fat. And on cholesterol — though manufacturers are still marketing "low cholesterol" foods, the government's current stance is Cholesterol is not a nutrient of concern for overconsumption...

Though Americans — and other nations following America's lead — grew obese, no one was punished for that mistake. Without any accountability for the FDA personnel even when the fault is obvious, what is there to restraint the EPA? What "checks and balances" are there to prevent them from banning anything another "charismatic and confident" doctor suggests to ban without much proof?

The "Trust Us" science is junk science — and Congress is absolutely right to fight it, even if they are too chicken to abolish the EPA altogether.

And more importantly, he received $38 *million* back in his tax returns. Sure, he probably paid more than the entirety of slashdot, but he also probably got a larger percentage of that money back than we receive in our tax returns.

[citation needed]
According to this, he had a tax liability of $38,435,451 when he finalized his return. Payments by trump were that he had $433,365 of federal taxes withheld on W-2/1099 forms, he made estimated tax payments of $13,291,993 through the year, and then payed an additional $22,400,000 on April 15th with his request to file an extension, which left him an additional $2,292,945 short when he finalized his return which cost him $68,738 in underpayment penalties and $88,564 in interest.

I don't see anywhere he received $38 *million* back in his tax returns...

The drone thing again, eh? Obama's drone strikes killed 117 civilians over 8 years. Trump's drone strikes killed 200 civilians in one day this month. And if you're going to bring up killing kids, don't forget the 8 year-old American girl Trump killed.