Slashdot Mirror

One of the core problems today is that the CDC has lost focus [usatoday.com] , and instead of controlling infectious disease, they spend money things like playground safety, workplace accidents, guns, and birth defects. And then there was the NIH grant to study why gay men are often thin and lesbians are often obese. [newsmax.com]

We don't need to change the Constitution, just the spending and research priorities of a bunch of bureaucracies.

Who says? Some right-winger who doesn't know anything about public health and has never been responsible for saving the life of a dying child, in an editorial that only gets one side of the story?

The CDC is setting its priorities according to the morbidity and mortality of the causes of illness, which is a rational way to do it.

Since there are about 4-5,000 workplace fatalities a year, virtually all of them preventable, that's a good return for the money.

There are about 30,000 firearms deaths a year, and when Congress, after NRA lobbying, cancelled the CDC's firearms research 15 years ago, nobody else did scientific research.

So if CDC doesn't do this stuff, nobody will. Particularly not the states, which are cutting back their local health departments.

I'm speaking as someone who has talked with CDC scientists, and read their MMWR regularly, so I know what they do.

What do you know about the CDC, besides what you get from anti-government opinion pieces?

one could argue that the United States is hobbled by an outdated constitution in responding to epidemics

The USA has handled many epidemics in the past. The experience of Western Samoa vs. American Samoa during the Spanish Flu epidemic is an interesting example. The TL;DR: version: Western Samoa decided they couldn't stopping the importation of plantation laborers, and as a result 20-25% of the population died. American Samoa self-quarantined, and nobody died.

One of the core problems today is that the CDC has lost focus, and instead of controlling infectious disease, they spend money things like playground safety, workplace accidents, guns, and birth defects. And then there was the NIH grant to study why gay men are often thin and lesbians are often obese.

We don't need to change the Constitution, just the spending and research priorities of a bunch of bureaucracies.

There seems to be cities in which are somewhat majority muslim. Dearborn Michigan I think is one of them. Youtube that and you will see a lot of videos posted by people protesting it.

But I think the original poster is thinking of the mosque that the boston bombers attended has produced many radicalized muslims and keeps being investigated but ignored by the FBI.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfro...

The Democrats will make sure this merger gets approved

Of all the things there are to blame Obama for, sending his kids to a private school is not one of them. His kids are not public property, and his duty as a parent is to get them the best education he can afford.

That being said, he's a flaming asshole for throwing his weight into killing DC's voucher program.

-jcr

85% of reported rapes in Sweden are perpetrated by Muslim immigrants.

http://www.newsmax.com/jameswalsh/europe-immigration-muslim-obama/2013/05/29/id/506837

But slashdot has already told me that any sexual action is "rape" -- look at Asange.

Maybe they should start prosecuting all of the immigrant child rapists instead of letting them get away with it. Oh no, can't do that because it would be deemed "racist."

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.friatider.se%2F11-aring-gruppvaldtogs-pa-badhus&act=url

85% of reported rapes in Sweden are perpetrated by Muslim immigrants.

http://www.newsmax.com/jameswalsh/europe-immigration-muslim-obama/2013/05/29/id/506837

And of course, there's the insane requirement enacted in 2006 that the USPS pre-pay healthcare benefits 50 years in advance

According to the Times, the real financial problem facing the Post Office may have been created by Congress in the first place through the 2006 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. The law required the service to begin prefunding the healthcare benefits of future retirees 50 years in advance. The requirement costs about $5.6 billion a year, and it caused the Postal Service to lose $5.1 billion the first year after it was enacted.

So for the last 7 years, they've had a $5B handicap -- limiting what they can do wrt expanding into other markets, upgrading services, and so on. I'd say they're doing pretty amazing.

Institute something modeled after the standard non-compete clause used by industry; except it would prevent any individual from holding a government position which directly regulates, affects or promotes the same sector or type of business they left the private sector for, to become a public servant.

Conversely, once leaving public service, the individual would be enjoined from contacting officials on behalf of, promoting, lobbying or attempting to influence legislation for any business or industry, for a period of three years.

A perfect clause would prevent someone from taking a job in any industry, after lobbying on its behalf, for a period of five years.

Which would stop crap like this.

Since the 4,000 investigations are related to incidents I rather doubt that they are part of the usual cycle of reinvestigation. I doubt people are scheduling their breach of security protocols to coincide with their 5 year reinvestigation.

In 2009 the CIA reported received between 90,000 to 180,000 resumes. I think there might more than 0 people associated in some way with terrorist groups that applied, especially since there have been double agents identified in the past. Since there were multiple terrorist groups mentioned, as well as foreign intelligence agencies, I think it is a safe bet that at least one person from each applied. What do you think?

I'm going to go with the story and assess your analysis as flawed. (Or at the very least your numbers as tainted, given their provenance.)

I know that bashing Fox News is a popular opinion. But of the mainstream papers, websites, and news TV stations, it's actually rather moderate.

"Moderate"? Compared to what? There is almost endless evidence that Fox News intentionally presents a staunchly conservative viewpoint and they have an audience to match. It's not even a meaningful debate at this point.

You're just as likely to find a liberal view on a panel segment as you are a conservative one.

Just because they invite some token liberals on to some of the shows doesn't mean their coverage is remotely balanced. Fox News is basically a mouthpiece for the republican party. Name one talking head (ala Sean Hannity or Rachel Maddow) on Fox News who is a clear liberal. Go ahead, I'll wait...

Fox News can be a bit odd. Next time you're reading about an event open google news and look at the Fox News stories as well, they tend to be relatively mainstream with a mild conservative bias.

But mixed in with the news are their pundits and opinion pieces, and that's when they go off the deep end. They'll have some fact based coverage followed by analysis that is completely detached from reality.

The relatively rational news could be the reporters pushing back but I suspect it's a deliberate tactic. Give a balanced story so the viewers feel informed, but then pump them full of deranged analysis so you control their opinions.

I know that bashing Fox News is a popular opinion. But of the mainstream papers, websites, and news TV stations, it's actually rather moderate.

"Moderate"? Compared to what? There is almost endless evidence that Fox News intentionally presents a staunchly conservative viewpoint and they have an audience to match. It's not even a meaningful debate at this point.

You're just as likely to find a liberal view on a panel segment as you are a conservative one.

Just because they invite some token liberals on to some of the shows doesn't mean their coverage is remotely balanced. Fox News is basically a mouthpiece for the republican party. Name one talking head (ala Sean Hannity or Rachel Maddow) on Fox News who is a clear liberal. Go ahead, I'll wait...

Fox News gets its ratings because there are enough liberals and moderates to attract a broad audience.

The audience of Fox News contains a minority of moderates and VERY few liberals. 94% of Fox News viewers self identify as republican or republican leaning. In what universe is that a "broad audience"?

Look at who is buying newspapers now. Extreme right and left wing political donators.

Really? Warren Buffet is an "extreme" political donator?

So - you DO have school shootings. All the propaganda that tells us that Europe is gun-free and safe is bullshit at the end of the day then. Rationalize it how you will, spin like crazy, you do hae school shootings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting#Europe

I will note that the death tolls are lower than the US - is that due to ineptitude on the part of the shooters, or better police response, or some other element at play?

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Lott-guns-Connecticut-shooting/2012/12/15/id/467903

        Newsmax: The media typically spins these mass shootings as an American phenomenon. They suggest we ought to be more like Europe, with strong gun control, because then we would not have these problems. Is that true?

        Dr. Lott: No. Europe has a lot of multiple victim shootings. If you look at a per capita rate, the rate of multiple-victim public shootings in Europe and the United States over the last 10 years have been fairly similar to each other. A couple of years ago you had a couple of big shootings in Finland. About two-and-a-half years ago you had a big shooting in the U.K., 12 people were killed.

        You had Norway last year [where 77 died]. Two years ago, you had the shooting in Austria at a Sikh Temple. There have been several multiple-victim public shootings in France over the last couple of years. Over the last decade, you’ve had a couple of big school shootings in Germany. Germany in terms of modern incidents has two of the four worst public-school shootings, and they have very strict gun-control laws. The one common feature of all of those shootings in Europe is that they all take place in gun-free zones, in places where guns are supposed to be banned.

        Newsmax: So can you give us a correlation between crime rates in jurisdictions that try to ban concealed guns and the crime rate in those that do not?

        If you look over past data, before everyone that was adopting [concealed carry laws], you find that for each additional state that adopted a right-to-carry law . . . you’d see about a 1.5 percent drop in murder rates, and about 2 percent drop in rape and robbery . . . Just because states are right-to-carry doesn’t mean they’ve issued the same number of fees. You have big differences in states’ training requirements.

        Newsmax: Would it be a good idea to have teachers who have concealed carry permits in the schools, to better protect kids?

        I’m all for that. I’ve been a teacher most of my life. I’ve been an academic. I have kids in college still, and kids below that. It’s not something that I take lightly. But it’s hard to see what the argument would be against it.

        People may not realize this, but we allowed permit-concealed handguns in schools prior to the ironically named Safe School Zone Act. And no one that I know has been able to point to a single bad thing that occurred, not one.

        We changed the law, and we started having these public-school shootings. So I don’t think they got the intended result that they were hoping for with that type of ban. Right now, [some jurisdictions] allow you to carry concealed-permit guns in the schools. There are not a lot of them. But there are no problems that have occurred with any of those states, either.

Cheers, man - my pleasure to help another Constitutionalist getting the truth out (even though I'm from New Zealand, I believe in the US Consitution and Bill of Rights as worthy evolutions of the Magna Carta, which our laws derive from a long time ago). Some sites you might consider adding to your daily reading list that have lots of information about the international Left (Cultural Marxists) and their Islamist allies:
http://frontpagemag.com/ Show what the Obama Regime is up to
http://frontpagemag.com/
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks
http://www.newsmax.com/
http://www.breitbart.com/

Liberty for everyone, everywhere - forever!

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.

In the UK, handguns are banned for civilians. And most police don't carry firearms either. So in your mind, everyone is helpless. Result? A homicide rate a quarter of the USA.

The UK's overall violent crime rate is almost twice that of the U.S.

The U.S.'s homicide rate has fallen by 50% since the early 90s, while the number of guns in private hands has risen and many states have liberalized CCW laws.

On the other hand, the U.K.'s gun ban had no impact on the murder rate -- in fact the homicide and gun crime rates went up the first few years after it was instituted. Gun crime in the U.K. roughly doubled between 1999 and 2009.

There are also serious problems with crime being under-reported in the U.K.. And some allege (I'm less certain about this claim) that even murder is undercounted in the U.K. versus the U.S., because U.K. rates are based on final disposition of cases (i.e., someone was convicted) while U.S. rates are based on reports (i.e., there's a dead body).

I suspect that even with that taken into account,though, the U.K.'s homicide rate may be lower -- not for any reason involving firearms, but because the U.S. has more of a problem with economic stratification, and a greater lead pollution problem thanks to our car culture.

He's selling his stocks, as other billionaires are doing, to get out of the stock market before it crashes again: http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/billionaires-dump-economist-stock/2012/08/29/id/450265

I guess we should look at DOJ and their gun running. Since they perveted the DOJ we should ban the DOJ. Since Congress has perveted the bill of right we should ban them too. Since the Executive branch has perved things like selling missile technology to China for DNC contributions we should ban having a president.

I think printing gun magazines is far less disruptive then arming durg cartels who kill people by the hundreds or giving away top secret military technology in order to get campaign contributions. Why are you not complaining about those things?

LOL I will personally give you $1000 if the government starts confiscating pistols and rifles and shotguns, because it is not going to happen and you're just rabidly paranoid

Those who do not learn their history are doomed to repeat it:

There are, however, numerous examples of similar government programs that later were used to confiscate weapons, including:

In the mid-1960s the City of New York started a registry of rifles and shotguns. Officials promised throughout the registration process that the information would never be used to disarm law-abiding citizens. Despite those assurances, the city banned and began confiscating many of the registered weapons in 1991.

California also banned certain semi-automatic weapons in 1989, but allowed guns owned prior to the ban to be retained, as long as they were registered with the state. After a 1999 court ruling invalidating the exception, the California Department of Justice notified the registered owners of those guns that they must be surrendered, without compensation, within 90 days.

A letter from Doug Smith, then chief of the California Bureau of Criminal Information and Analysis, detailed the consequences for failure to comply.

"Once the 90-day window of opportunity for turning in such assault weapons concludes, we will send each sheriff and police chief a listing of the [firearms' owners]," Smith wrote.

(link)

I wouldn't be so reckless to make promises on behalf of the government. It can change its mind at any time, and what power do you have to influence it? I will save your promise, though, because I can always use a $1K - even if by that time it is only good enough to buy a pack of a chewing gum.

Why bother with Pakistan? You have people in the US that want to ban free speech or remove the right to protect yourself while their kids are well protected.

Sounds to me like they just run a more progressive liberal government than the US currently does. I'm sure their leadership has full access to You Tube but its not right for their people to have the same freedom. Just like in the US, the leaders have freedom of speech and armed guards, but you the lowely citizen have no need for such things and they are trying to correct it. Pakistan just doesn't have that pesky Constitution to deal with so they can do it easier.

What you probably don't realize is Bill Clinton sold ICBM rocket technology to the Chinese for campaign donations to the DNC for his reelection and Al Gore's election attempt. Not a conspiracy, they don't even try to deny it. It was brought up in the 2000 presendental debate and Gore's response to the illegal selling of technology for foreign campaign contributions was "No controlling legal authority" meaning Janet Reno was the only one who could press charges and they told her not to.

Not sure why fighter jet engines would be a problem, unless the DNC was hoping for more contributions before handing them over.

Clinton giving Chinese secrets
There is far more than this one story covers, but you can see some of it there.

No, he's not arguing against "science". Science is the pursuit of knowledge. Engineering is application of science toward an end.

And business is application of engineering towards a profit.

Mini-nuclear plants run by universities are for science. Nuclear power plants are for business.

The largest nuclear operator in the US is Exelon, with operations in 47 states. It is a publicly-traded corporation, which means it is responsible to the shareholders for quarterly earnings. It's not responsible for any possible massive devastation because the US government handles that by socializing the risk (crony capitalism).

Exelon engages in mergers, acquisitions offers, and all the rest you'd expect any corporation to do.

By the way, Newsmax says the US couldn't fund a Fukushima-style disaster; that's not an enviro left-wing site.

"In 2009, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced its plan for a $65,000 fine against Exelon for permitting its contracted security guards that were guarding its Peach Bottom Nuclear Generating Station, a two-reactor nuclear plant located in Delta, Pennsylvania to sleep on the job."

We've never had any bother from the Muslims here, at all.

Apart from the 77 bombings, the Glasgow Airport attack, the Exetrer bomb attack, shoe bomber and dozens of failed attempts and arrests.

Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell publicly denounced the use of all modern medicine to save lives? Or is it that they have specific objections to specific technology (which is what my point was, and why the GP's position was such a strawman)?

Again, your post demands a big, fat, [citation needed].

The GP was not attempting to refute the statement that there were moderate Christians, and not refuting anything actually. The GP attempted to add the characterization of loud to what that poster was claiming was an "insignificant" group.

Without refutation, you cannot have a strawman. Now, I will admit it was terse and probably acerbic, but it is nonetheless accurate and insightful. It does not matter that the group of Christians is claimed to be small and not representative of the majority viewpoint if they are so "loud" that they seemingly represent a majority viewpoint in the media, and a significant representation in legislation and policy.

As for citations,

News story about Pat Robertson's organization

Interview by Pat Robertson of a Doctors book on bioethics in which he aligns himself with viewpoints supporting my characterization of him being against stem cell research

Jerry Falwell obit summarizing position against stem cell research

Another news story that expands upon the position in the obit

I could go on... but their position on stem cell research and bioethics is well known and based only the Bible. Although, Mr. Falwell was specific about a 3-part test including ethics, morality, and the Bible. Ethics is meaningless since it is just a lump of flesh freely given and whatever considerations for right and wrong are not derived from any inherent universal truth or logic. Morals in this instance are derived from the Bible and not from any distinct philosophy or culture. So really it just a Biblical test.

Also, "people who identify as christian" is absolutely worthless as a category. Check some of the polling stats to see how incredibly diverse that "category" is, from protestants to mormons to unitarians to people who went to church once back in '94. I think one poll had 75% identifying as christian, but only some 50% identifying Christ as the son of God, and even fewer believing in a personal God. I have no doubt that you can find self-identified christians who are in favor of just about anything you could think of.

That's kind of the whole point. The GP was stating that those Christians who opposed stem cell research were just a minority. Well, just about anybody can identify as Christian and sell their morality as the so-called correct derivation of Biblical truth. Heck, even the majority of KKK members claim to be Christian and can derive their racism from Biblical truth.

It is those who do so the loudest that are at issue here.

What do you know, Im one of them, because I dont think you can be a christian and have a subjective morality; it must be based on SOMETHING. That doesnt mean I deny the use of any modern medicine.

That sounds contradictory.

Without trying to offend you, I believe that all morality derived from the Bible is more or less subjective. By that, I mean that other than some universal truths in the Bible, most of the morals derived from it seem pretty damned arbitrary to me and mostly just related to the culture at that time.

The fact you mention subjective morality indicates to me that you are a thoughtful Christian and your faith is constructed by carefully reasoned interpretations of the Bible. Much better than some idiot just parrotin

Since a president has somewhere near zero influence on social issues, I don't think you have anything to be scared of. This also makes me wonder why people vote for a president based on social views. Congress is a different story. Fiscal views also a different story. The reason I'd be scared if Santorum wins is due to something over which he does have control--he's stated that he wants to bomb Iran asap:
http://www.newsmax.com/US/santorum-nuclear-iran-strike/2012/02/27/id/430721
Personally, I think that if we bomb Iran, Iran and it's even crazier president will respond in kind, and is therefore idiotic. We'll just get bombed. I'm glad I live in a rural place rather than a big city center.

Considering he has never retracted this story, nor reported on the fact that Gingrich was later exonerated of the charges, I think that's a fair assessment of him.

Gingrich was not exonerated; after negotiation he was reprimanded and fined $300,000 (apparently the cost of the investigation) for ""intentional or . . . reckless" disregard of House rules. The matter was then referred to the IRS for review and they eventually concluded that the the foundation broke no laws. The foundation was exonerated, Gingrich was not!

from Wikipedia: "The Ethics Committee's Special Counsel, James M. Cole, concluded that Gingrich had violated federal tax law and had lied to the ethics panel in an effort to force the committee to dismiss the complaint against him. The full committee panel did not agree whether tax law had been violated and left that issue up to the IRS.[71] In 1999, the IRS cleared the organizations connected with the "Renewing American Civilization" courses under investigation for possible tax violations[72]."

A few quotes:
Some guy with an axe to grind about Obama doing the same thing:

In 1996, President Bill Clinton personally signed an executive order transferring control of satellite technology to the Department of Commerce; thus releasing restraints on a wide variety of sophisticated space and missile technology which were then exported to China.

CNN, 1998/05/22,

WASHINGTON (May 22) -- President Bill Clinton on Friday defended a controversial satellite deal with China, even as White House officials delivered documents to the House International Relations Committee about the arrangement.

The president said the deal to launch U.S. satellites on rockets owned by other nations was "correct" and "based on what I thought was in the national interest and supportive of our national security."

Newsmax, 2003/9/29 :

Newly declassified documents show that President Bill Clinton personally approved the transfer to China of advanced space technology that can be used for nuclear combat.

The documents show that in 1996 Clinton approved the export of radiation hardened chip sets to China. The specialized chips are necessary for fighting a nuclear war.

"Waivers may be granted upon a national interest determination," states a Commerce Department document titled "U.S. Sanctions on China."

"The President has approved a series of satellite related waivers in recent months, most recently in November, 1996 for export of radiation hardened chip sets for a Chinese meteorological satellite," noted the Commerce Department documents.

These special computer chips are designed to function while being bombarded by intense radiation. Radiation hardened chips are considered critical for atomic warfare and are required by advanced nuclear tipped missiles.

Judicial Watch obtained the documents through the Freedom of Information Act, a Washington-based political watchdog group.

As I recall from the time, a lot of folks in the military and intelligence communities who were 'in the loop' were really vocal about this. It's been a long time so I don't recall too many details, so this will have to do.

It does make it look like he hates Newt.

Considering he has never retracted this story, nor reported on the fact that Gingrich was later exonerated of the charges, I think that's a fair assessment of him.

> Even if you cook up crack in your garage they don't take away your home.

You haven't been paying attention, have you?
The government CAN AND DOES take away any of your property they want just based on their SUSPICION that you were involved in a crime.
They call it 'civil asset forfeiture', and with some twisted logic fueled by greed and a total disregard of the rule of law they CHARGE YOUR PROPERTY with committing a crime. The cases have names like: "United States vs. one 1998 Mercedes Benz," and "California vs. 1711 Main Street,"

From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture

Asset forfeiture in the United States

There are two types of forfeiture cases, criminal and civil. Almost all forfeiture cases practiced today are civil. In civil forfeiture cases, the US Government sues the item of property, not the person; the owner is effectively a third party claimant. Once the government establishes probable cause that the property is subject to forfeiture, the owner must prove on a "preponderance of the evidence" that it is not. The owner need not be judged guilty of any crime. In contrast, criminal forfeiture is usually carried out in a sentence following a conviction and is a punitive act against the offender. Since the government can choose the type of case, a civil case is almost always chosen. The costs of such cases is high for the owner, usually totaling around $10,000 and can take up to three years.

The United States Marshals Service is responsible for managing and disposing of properties seized and forfeited by Department of Justice agencies. It currently manages around $1 billion worth of property. The United States Treasury Department is responsible for managing and disposing of properties seized by Treasury agencies. The goal of both programs is to maximize the net return from seized property by selling at auctions and to the private sector and then using the property and proceeds for law enforcement purposes.

A form of asset forfeiture is roadside forfeiture during a vehicle stop. Usually enforcing State policies by Highway police, local law enforcement have built up seized funds and spent them with oversight only from local judges who sometimes benefit from the expenditures of such funds. The presumption is that travelers hiding large amounts of cash are transporting drug money. Often, the vehicle occupants are required to simply sign a waiver that they will leave the State and not return, thus also not attempt to retrieve their funds. Some complain that this is law enforcement action requires more oversight in order to minimize the impact on travelers who are not involved in drug money but who simply wish to avoid further involvement with law enforcement agents and sign the waiver anyway. Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, chair of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee is investigating the Tenaha, Texas Police seizures scandal.

The number of federal statutes giving the government the right to confiscate citizens’ assets has nearly doubled since the 1990s, by one count. More than 400 federal statutes allow for forfeiture for a wide range of reasons, including violations of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act.

Also read:
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/27/191414.shtml

Hey, at least that's ~1.25 fewer drones at $8m apiece flying around blowing up innocent people. I'm all for the US simply wasting money rather than wasting innocents and creating the conditions for more terrorism.

To agree with you: http://www.eco-action.org/dt/affluent.html
"The Original Affluent Society... Hunter-gatherers consume less energy per capita per year than any other group of human beings. Yet when you come to examine it the original affluent society was none other than the hunter's - in which all the people's material wants were easily satisfied. To accept that hunters are affluent is therefore to recognise that the present human condition of man slaving to bridge the gap between his unlimited wants and his insufficient means is a tragedy of modern times. ... The world's most primitive people have few possessions. but they are not poor. Poverty is not a certain small amount of goods, nor is it just a relation between means and ends; above all it is a relation between people. Poverty is a social status. As such it is the invention of civilisation. It has grown with civilisation, at once as an invidious distinction between classes and more importantly as a tributary relation that can render agrarian peasants more susceptible to natural catastrophes than any winter camp of Alaskan Eskimo."

And "The mythology of wealth"
    http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/?q=node/402
"All of the "laws, ordinances, customs and usages" that regulate control over resources and relationships between people -- including their business relationships -- are nothing more than a set of rules invented by the imagination of some human being -- frequently one who has been dead since the middle ages. Those rights are frequently exchanged for -- get this -- printed pieces of paper with pictures of dead people on them. Where is the value of those pieces of paper? The answer is in your mind, in the mind of the person you are "bargaining" with -- and nowhere else. Itâ(TM)s all a big game. It is our mythology, and it is no more real than belief in Zeus, Hera and Aphrodite."

On the wheels coming off our system (scary, but incomplete as it ignores automation and the general decline of the paid value of most human labor, so it will be worse):
http://www.aftershockeconomy.com/
http://w3.newsmax.com/a/aftershockb/video.cfm

On moving beyond that (by me):
"Five Interwoven Economies: Subsistence, Gift, Exchange, Planned, and Theft"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vK-M_e0JoY

The Vatican's Catholic Church tells everyone (and I mean everyone) that the entire reason for life is to be tempted to sin, but instead to have faith in Jesus and avoid sin. Life is a test, they say, where god tests our faith in Jesus. Pass and go to heaven; fail and go to hell.

Actually, the Catholic Church teaches that reason points us towards faith (para. 36). The Church doesn't teach us to have "blind faith" in Jesus, but to use reason towards establishing faith. This is the reason why carrying a geek card and being a Catholic are not mutually exclusive, contrary to the drivel that you might see here.

The Church doesn't teach that "life is a test." Instead, the Church teaches that God gave man free will, and that you are free to allow him in your life or not, as the case may be (para. 1). It's all about choice. There is no pass/fail test. If you choose to follow God, and to live a life that fulfills the greatest of the commandments (love God and your neighbor), then the kingdom of God is yours.

It's not a cult of baby rapers, headed by an evil pope who protected (and protects) them worldwide.

I realize this is sarcasm on your part, but you might be interest in knowing that the US Dept. of Education estimates between 6% and 10% of school-aged children have been molested by teachers and other school employees. Considering there are about 74 million school-aged children in the US, I'd say the child molestation epidemic in the US public school system is a vastly larger problem than that of the Catholic Church. Maybe you should devote your energy towards that cover-up.

Thanks to the way Slashdot hides certain posts and shows others (despite my settings to promote up certain posts and hide others) I missed the parent post.

That being said, there are people in this very thread who are insisting these murders are due to political rhetoric.

Looking at the facts revealed thus far about the shooter, that isn't remotely the case.

I don't listen to Glenn Beck since I avoid crazy shock jocks on both sides. But don't suggest that only one side has ever wished ill on their political opponents. Because of this debate I just saw a video clip from a MSNBC segment back in October where a guest was calling for violent revolution against the US government, and a Democratic Congressman also said in October that a political rival of his should be lined up against a wall and shot.

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Defeated-Scott-florida-Shot/2011/01/12/id/382582

This kind of hyperbole and speech is prevelant on both sides, and has been for years. You can't try to suggest it is isolated to one side, or that nutjob murderers are tools of Republicans or Democrats.

So yeah, I'm calling bullshit.

Whenever I give an example that refutes what you say, you just say the feds broke the law.

Are you saying they didn't?

http://www.charityandsecurity.org/news/Judge_Rules_Warrantless_Wiretap_of_US_Charity_Unconstitutional
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/8/17/120536.shtml
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/law/09/26/patriot.act/index.html
http://www.erowid.org/freedom/courts/supreme/supreme_case2_comment1.shtml ... ad nauseum

If that were the case they really are a bunch of criminals aren't they?

You have a better word for it?

It would be love if MS didn't decide to jump on the mobile phone bandwagon. If the company making the OS was split from the one creating the office automation tools, things might have been different. To think it almost happened... Sigh.

More realistically, the generators and traders realized that with just a bit of lying and a big pile of evil, they could game the regulations to profit handsomely at the cost of blacking out the state and bankrupting the suppliers. They didn't hesitate for even a second.

Which ones? Do you include participating governments like Los Angeles (their Department of Water and Power sold a lot of profitable electricity during the crisis)?

Davis should have slammed them hard and immediately, but he sat on the sidelines. Yes, the regulators could have prevented the problem had they realized they were regulating some of the most vile scum to ever live in the state, but it would also wouldn't have been a problem if the regulated had behaved in a vaguely ethical manner.

Davis was one of the worst of the lot. That's why things got so out of hand. In hindsight, I wouldn't be surprised if he turned out to be on Enron's payroll (well, he did receive $120,000 in campaign donations, apparently, though past that, the link is a Newsmax hatchet job). It would explain a lot of things.

2) Pulling out of the UN. Since the UN wants to always extort money from the US for every project under the sun and constantly tries to weaken the sovereignty of the US, we'd be much better off if we pulled out. True, the rest of the world would lose their sugar daddy who pays for all of their programs, but that's the whole point of a countries government - to look out for their citizens, not the rest of the world.

Fuck you, too. Do you really believe the U.S.A (richest country in the world) pays too much?

2000-12-23 Turner Pays U.S. Dues; U.N. Budget Deal Goes Through,

http://www.betterworldcampaign.org/issues/funding/us-funding-for-the-un-an-overview.html.

When a private person (billionaire Ted Turner) has to cough up some millions to pay the USA's due because he would otherwise be ashamed of his country, what does this tell you about "the UN wants to always extort money from the US"? You've signed a treaty, abide by it!

  I hope the U.N. isn't there for you when you need it. I don't think there's ANY other country in the world where the UN is bashed so much as in the USA, which even has one of its headquarters.

link 1.
link 2.
link 3.
link 4.

You're a fucking idiot, you know that?

erm.... what about actually ANSWERING what was put to you earlier and you dodged it eh?

what about the CRU leaks that showed , without a shadow of a doubt the sheer scalke of the gaming of the numbers and the sheer scale of the collusion in that? ANSWER IT DON'T DODGE IT!!

also what do YOU mr cyberax have to say to the fact that global warming thery is at odds with the laws of thermodynamics???

full report here in pdf

so cyberax answer those two points....... save me the preachy bollocks and just answer PROPERLY that which is put to you

"If you are wondering why the prisons in California are so full,"

Because California wants (in contrast to Arizona) to get as many illegals as possible into their state.

Enjoy your Reconquista, my Leftist Left Coast friends:

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/27/114208.shtml

It also works well for the leaders of other countries, namely Iran. Technology may for the short time give the regular person the upper hand until it can regulated into oblivion

You mean like this?

http://www.newsmax.com/SciTech/US-TEC-Internet-Rules/2010/05/06/id/358010

I hate to break it to you, but the government already has far greater powers than this law provides. In certain situations, I've heard that they're even allowed to kill people.

They are allowed to kill people. They can even roast 76 men, women, and children without consequences. And people wonder about the rise of militias and the attacks on government.

Whenever a government does not intervene and regulate, power vacuums are quickly filled by mustachioed land barons

Oh, you mean like when the government gave land away to robber barons during the Gilded Age? Cornelius Vanderbilt, John D. Rockefeller, Andrew W. Mellon, Andrew Carnegie, Henry Flagler, and J.P. Morgan didn't all get wealthy purely by hard work, they were handed land others owned but was taken away by the government when it used the power of Eminent domain. Kind of like how they just steal land. Or Kelo v. City of New London, when the city forced a bunch of citizens off their land so a large pharmaceutical business could build on the land.

I hope you never have to endure governments as powerless as you desire them to be.

I hope you never have to deal with a government as powerful as you wish them to be. Any government powerful enough to give you what you want is powerful enough to take it way too. Now if you really do want powerful government then there's Iran and North Korea you can move to. Or Zimbabwe.

Falcon

[goes off, looks it up]
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/10/20/172811.shtml seems to be a good overview. I get the point, anyway.

I'm also reminded of the old not-quite-a-joke:

The mission is to steal sand from an American beach.

The Soviet Union sends a stealth submarine, which disgorges a camo'd scuba dude who swims up to the beach in the middle of the night, grabs some sand, and swims away.

Red China sends a million tourists to the beach.

Yes. I'm pretty sure "shall not be infringed" is awfully clear. Just because you don't like the implications of the constitution doesn't mean it can be completely ignored. If we, as a country, disagree with the constitution, we have very clear and defined ways of changing it. I'm getting quite tired of seeing SCOTUS opinions that use consequences, or possible consequences as legal justification for blatantly ignoring the constitution. http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Scalia-terror-Guantanamo/2009/12/14/id/342437 It is not the court's job to determine what's best for the country. It's the court's job to determine law.

And it extends way beyond China. I see this as simply another example of "yellow peril" thinking. What about the Brits, who want to monitor everything? What about the French, who want to kick people off the net for misbehaving? All this "evil Chinese" stuff is getting tiresome.

I don't recall a top military official in the U.K. or France threatening to vaporize Los Angeles. I do recall a high ranking Chinese general making that threat.

You don't see Dick Channey out running charity organizations.

Well, he's not running them, and it's at least somewhat dirty money in my book, but there is this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, bullshit.

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

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

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

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

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

I'm sure it relates to this: http://archive.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/10/30/223902 Can't find a better source

TCP reset technology brought to courtesy of Cisco Systems.


Cisco, our motto is the "Human Network". What we really mean is, the "Repress Humans Network". After all John Chambers needs his rogaine for that 3 hair comb over he sports, and that stuff isn't cheap! CVS Pharmacy started locking it up!


http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/30/163555.shtml

Unfortunately? Son, there have been UK citizens living there since 1765. It's theirs. Deal with it.

As far as Argentina vs UK:

Right. Argentina would have been incinerated. There is no way Thatcher would have let a third-rate power like Argentina keep the islands.

Even if Maggie didn't incinerate various Argentine military targets, the nuclear attack subs in the area could have made life difficult for Argentina for years to come. I'm a bit disappointed that Thatcher decided to let Argentina even have a military after the invasion; she should have parked the second carrier along with a few support ships off their coast and immolated them.