Slashdot Mirror

I would suspect years of defunding regulators and appointing industry allies in key enforcement positions.

It's SOP for the GOP. Cases in point:
MMS and Deepwater Horizon. ("The reports portray a dysfunctional organization that has been riddled with conflicts of interest, unprofessional behavior and a free-for-all atmosphere for much of the Bush administration’s watch.")

Tax enforcement ("over the past dozen years, staff at the Internal Revenue Service has shrunk by about 20 percent. That affects the agency's ability to catch people who cheat on their taxes. One estimate of the annual loss in tax revenue is $300 billion.") And before anyone apologist says, "BV-b-but C-C-Clinton!", tell me who ran the House and Senate? That's right, the GOP.

As I've already pointed out, when you vote anti-government, you get sabotaged government. So let me take a page out of the right's rhetorical playbook and ask them, "Why do you hate America?"

The president's instincts are by now obvious to all: deflect blame, point fingers, and lash out at others, most especially his predecessor. We know from press reports (see here and here) that the strategy for the Democrats in 2010, two years after Obama was elected president, is to – you guessed it – blame George W. Bush.

Right. So, a small group of private scientists in random universities are able to pull of an intimidation campaign better than that of the CIA, whilst poor defenceless oil companies of the kind which can calmly deny journalists access to the Gulf of Mexico are completely unable to protect their own scientists. Right..

int; the "Big Government" is mostly controlled by the same people as the "Big Oil" and that is the problem.

Or maybe you are just too scared of losing that prosperity that you decide not to rock the boat.

It would be way better if you posted a link that didn't say, "You are not authorized to view this page."

And once they get to an economic level that is closer to what the rest of us enjoy in the Western world, they will start caring. When you are hungry, you only want bread. When you are homeless, you only want shelter. When you have plenty to eat and a decent place to live, you want freedom.

Well, that's always been the assumption, anyway. But apparently things are playing out a little differently in China.

That article's conclusions were misleading and implied that the middle class may not be interested in political freedom anymore. But all of the studies it discussed stated that the middle class still values political freedom, but that it values it less than creature comforts.

This highlights a new tactic by authoritarian regimes in recent decades. They have realized that it is easiest to keep a critical mass of the population comfortable in order to maintain control.

That doesn't mean they aren't primed for revolution. It just means that revolution isn't worth it for them... yet.

And once they get to an economic level that is closer to what the rest of us enjoy in the Western world, they will start caring. When you are hungry, you only want bread. When you are homeless, you only want shelter. When you have plenty to eat and a decent place to live, you want freedom.

Well, that's always been the assumption, anyway. But apparently things are playing out a little differently in China.

When you have plenty to eat and a decent place to live, you want freedom.

Or maybe you are just too scared of losing that prosperity that you decide not to rock the boat.

Not only reasonable, but justified...

I have to agree with your position. None of the requirements seem egregious or erroneous, even if I don't personally agree with the positions taken, they are all on topics which are legitimately debatable.

I believe the thinking of the board was that the perceived current bias in textbooks needed to be addressed. This is particularly evident from them specifying what shall be included, and not specifying any exclusions. They obviously wanted specific things included, and didn't bother specifying the inclusion of the other point of view because they felt that it would be included there anyway.

Responding point by point specifically to Newsweek's "10 silliest changes" http://www.newsweek.com/id/238322:

(1) Globalism is a real issue; many of the people at the Brookings Institute and the Hoover Institute see globalization as the single most important driving factor in increased terrorism, as "if you don't like it here, go some place else!" doesn't work very well if there's isn't some place else.

(2) Long term entitlements are something which should be considered carefully, in light of the current example of what Germany and France propping up Greece's state entitlements is currently doing to the economy of the European Union.

(3) Separation of church and state is an issue, and has been ever since churches and schools were forced by court decisions to stop sharing resources, such as buildings, particularly in rural states where population density is drastically lower. It continues to be each time someone like Michael Newdow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Newdow files a new lawsuit against the Pledge of Allegiance, the Ten Commandments on courthouses, or prayers at the opening of a session of Congress.

(4) There is no "instead" here; again, the intent appears to be to include contrasting opinion, not replace one opinion with another.

(5) Joseph McCarthy's crusade via the H.U.A.C. is generally acknowledged as a bad thing, even by the most right-wing people. But it's also correct to acknowledge that it was reactionary, and didn't originate from one man's mental instability.

(6) I'll grant #6; it seems like a case of successful lobbying for a particular composer. Although there is a lot of cultural baggage and context tied up in "Old Man River" which could help to explain certain aspects of U.S. society, it's not a necessary Schelling point to explain these things.

(7) Imperialism implies "British Empire"-like colonialism, with the taking and intention of permanence in holding of territory. This is probably a semantic argument not worth fighting over.

(8) "The conservative resurgence" in the 1980's and 1990's largely characterizes those decades, in the same way that the anti-war movements and the civil rights movements characterize the decades before them. Unless there's no intention to talk about those decades, I don't think it's possible to escape talking about the underpinning social events.

(9) As one of only two presidents to have ever been impeached, it's probably worth noting Bill Clinton's impeachment. While proceedings were dropped, I'd keep Nixon in the list (and they do).

(10) "Explain how Arab rejection of the State of Israel has led to ongoing conflict", I think, refers more to the refusal of diplomatic recognition leading to ongoing conflict. You could easily replace this with something like "Explain how Western rejection of the State of Myanmar has led to ongoing conflict", and teach the same lesson, although with probably more controversy.

The fact that Newsweek, a supposed bastion of balanced reporting, takes such a strong side on these issues over which there is reasonable disagreement with the current doctrinal position in most textbooks indicates that the requirement to include opposing points of view is not only reasonable, it's justified.

-- Terry

I'd like someone to point me to the list of actual inaccuracies in there? I have read the first 10-15 most recent articles google turned up that seemed from the tile to be very critical of the new curriculum and hardly a single bit of information on what exactly is wrong with it. Newsweek has a list of 10 "silliest changes" http://www.newsweek.com/id/238322 and they don't seem particularly silly or factually inaccurate. If that's the worse there is then I don't understand what the fuss is about.

Given the number of them which are euthanized:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/134549

To see their hypocrisy, look at the statements made by their lawyers in the trial of PETA employees, or by their president, "We are not in the home finding business, although it is certainly true that we do find homes from time to time for the kind of animals people are looking for. Our service is to provide a peaceful and painless death to animals who no one wants."
-- Ingrid Newkirk, PeTA President, The Virginian-Pilot, July 20, 2005

http://articles.sfgate.com/2005-06-23/opinion/17379611_1_peta-s-web-animal-cruelty-dead-animals
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/
http://www.newsweek.com/id/134549

and so on and so forth.

Fuck PETA. I feel my money and time would be better spent supporting the ASPCA. At least they don't make me want to cringe every time I hear or read about them.

I've pretty much reached the point where I equate PETA to Scientology. They're both a bunch of loonies with more money than sense.

Since when does Oklahoma City count as a terrorist attack? McVeigh was a white American and that makes bomber/tax protester/survivalist/separatist not a terrorist.

Newsweek said so: http://www.newsweek.com/id/233949

I take it you don't like the decision?
Then you'd better hope we get more justices like the dissenters... Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, dissented in the case... (FTFA)

Yeah, I totally hope we get more justices who believe it's constitutional to execute the innocent and that the First Amendment's freedom of religion only applies to monotheists. Not to mention that the interests of the candidates in a disputed presidential election outweigh the interests of the electorate in selecting the candidate they voted for. Yeah, let's hope for more of that.

A judge's record is bigger than any single case; we'd be wise to keep that in mind.

Yes it does, perhaps you've missed moderate Republicans like Charlie Crist and Bob Benett losing their primaries because they aren't far-right enough in their views.

Even Reagan Wasn’t a Reagan Republican
NEWSWEEK's apostasy guide: why every recent GOP president wasn't conservative enough for today's party.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/237737

John Paul Stevens is an example of that. He was appointed by Gerald Ford and sold as a conservative. He is arguably the furthest Left of any Justice currently sitting on the Court.

John Paul Stevens is a conservative. He appears "left" only in comparison to the hard right composition of the rest of the court.

Robert Bork would almost certainly be considered not conservative enough by today's Republicans because he took the 2nd Amendment literally and believed it only applied to "well-regulated militias"

Taking the Second Amendment literally, one most certainly would not believe that is applies only to "well-regulated militias".

First, every able-bodied adult male is a member of the militia under federal law; and "well-regulated" is a term of military art meaning only prepared and trained. Second, if we consider a law saying, "A well-educated populace being necessary to the liberty of a nation, the right to keep and read books shall not be infringed", does that mean that only the "well-educated" have the right to have books? No; the introductory clause merely states the reason for the directive.

Your assertion that the Catholic church is an organisation that routinely rapes children is gross misinterpretation of facts.
In this article: http://www.newsweek.com/id/236096 the numbers show close to (but below) an equivalence in the number of men in secuar society. Are you going to leave society? It's not even a religion.
But that said, any number above 0 in *any* organisation is too many. We all need to focus on stamping out this horrible outrage.

Remember the Christian militia that was plotting to kill government officials? Wasn't that long ago. Whatever happened to them?

They've all joined the Tea Party movement.

Paranoia, really? Did you know that "gullible" is not in the dictionary? The first part is a fact. The second part I have no proof for, but IMHO it is a fair assumption. Would it benefit them? Yes. Would there be a blowback? Hardly. So what would prevent them from doing it, if not now, then starting with the next patch?

The JSF is being built at the same cost (or frikken more) as the F22 with lower end tech to be sold to allies (where the F22 is under high-end tech restrictions).

Guess which one is going to be chosen by the USAF to buy?

Neither?

such as, the FACT that the "civilians" were actually enemy combatants. For more details: http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201878.php

What disturbs me is how quickly people judge a video when they were two airships meaning you're only seeing one view from one of the apaches. Other people are calling in RPGs and AK47s ... and those that were pulling the triggers were acting on that information. Personally, from watching the video, I saw very unfortunate movement by a photographer with a very large camera (405-415 on the wikileaks site) that at first looks exactly like an insurgent with an RPG trying to get an unseen angle on a gunship. Only after I was told that they were photographers was my imagination allowed to see that as a very large lens camera (and you conveniently can't see those frames where the RPG looks more like a camera at the site you linked to). And even then, with the low resolution Youtube footage, who's to say what it looked like to those there? Missing something like that could cost not only your life but also the lives of people flying with you.

I'm not trying to excuse what happened but I am saying that a series of mistakes were most likely made in those videos that lead to the unfortunate deaths of at least a couple innocent people.

And this is war.

If you're a United States citizen, you paid for that gunship. You paid for that scenario. Don't get me wrong, you also paid for the scenario when real insurgents trying to kill innocent people were stopped. That scenario just isn't interesting to us though. You see it as a byline on a newspaper but those stories are just something to yawn at these days. I was for the war in Afghanistan and I knew that things like this video would happen. I was not for the Iraq war because these scenarios were not worth ousting Saddam. Friendly fire happened in Desert Storm and probably every large scale conflict before that as long as guns have been involved. Do you think a reporter was never killed accidentally by United States forces in Vietnam or even World War II (commonly viewed as one of the few 'justified' war)?

I'm glad everyone got to see one of the faces of war. I'm sad that these people wrongfully died but I'm glad that this rightful outrage might cause us to really reconsider what half or more of us had decided when our elected Commander in Chief brought us into both these wars. I don't get it. I was ~20 years old during our invasion of Afghanistan and people just seemed humdrum "Hey, let's go to war, I won't be dying in it" and I'm still a little bit confused about that sentiment. How many of these conflicts must we have before we realize that declaring war means that civilians -- not just soldiers but women and children -- will die as some direct result of this war?

War is war. At some point the US populace just decided that war is different today. And then once we started two wars, we forgot about them. Just declared victory and tucked them away. Our soldiers are still dying, this is still happening. Wake up.

And lastly, I would like to point out that like soldiers, these reporters did know what they were entering when they entered a war zone. Again, not to absolve the Coalition forces but to quote Reuter's official word on the footage:

There is no better evidence of the dangers each and every journalist in a war zone faces at any time.

And as Newsweek added:

These newsmen knew what they were getting into; it's the public watching the video now that has been caught unawares.

How do you know that their system tells you that?

NO ONE knows what the damn things record.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/233585

http://americanaffairs.suite101.com/article.cfm/high_std_rates_abstinence_ed_link
http://www.newsweek.com/id/74005
http://gayteens.about.com/b/2009/11/17/rising-std-rates-linked-to-abstinence-only-education.htm
http://www.avert.org/abstinence.htm

Just a few links off the top google search results on the subject. While facts will certainly never really matter to people who feel so strongly in favor of religious indoctrination and against sex, it's certainly easy for the rest of us to see the obvious effects at work here. It's a lovely subject of discussion between fundamentalists and enlightened people, but for the sake of all adolescents who are just starting out on this whole sex thing, I'd rather see that relgious brainwashing stay out of sex education (or any form of education for that matter).

Eat a dick.

How eloquent. Nice job hiding as an AC, too. Man up and post so we know who you are, loser. :-)

No, seriously. I'm sure you were cheering when Shrub forced a trillion dollars of wars down our throats, wiretapped American citizens in direct violation of the FISA regulations, and illegally ordered prisoners of war to be tortured.

Nice talking points, with oh so little substance though. I guess you forgot there was broad bipartisan support for both wars, and almost every country's intelligence agency thought Iraq had a nuclear weapons program. Apparently many have forgotten that UN inspectors actaully observed both chemical and biological agents in Iraq.

I suppose you've also forgotten that 0, among his myriad broken campaign promises, has kept right on slogging both in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And your claim regarding HCR isn't even accurate, not that it would matter given how many lies the Rethugs have put out there.

"Rethugs", how clever.

At any rate, you are dead wrong once again. Check out this Gallup poll, showing only 36% approve of 0's handling of healthcare. Even the most left leaning of "news" sources can't ignore the facts. Get yours straight next time.

How can an elected body pass legislation with a majority of the votes and NOT represent the will of the people? THAT'S HOW DEMOCRACY WORKS.

Your comprehension of English is abysmal. The "will of the people" is most directly what the majority of the people want. Of course, we don't live in a pure democracy, we live in a republic, but I'm sure you knew that. THAT is why our "elected representatives" have power instead of it being straight majority rule.

The idiocracy currently in power will find out about the true will of the people in November this year, and on election day 2012. That is if 0 doesn't ban elections in the name of some convenient crisis or another. I'd put very little past him given his narcissism, arrogance and hatred for America.

And just to contradict myself..

The NHS reimburses homeopathic treatments. Which is actually worse, since it means that those who don't believe is such nonsense are forced to pay for it via taxation.

.

Actually, I don't mind paying for such things. It is a relatively low cost option for give patients such treatment while nature does what nature does, of for those who seek comfort to cope with chronic conditions.

As long as it doesn't displace treatments with proven therapeutic advantages, why not? It’s not as like anti-depressants are much better than a placebo. I'ld much rather pay for people to have a nice head massage than being given an anti-depressant – it works just as well

Bring on the placebo effect!

The big mitigating factor of course is that China's own economy and foreign reserves depend on the health of the US economy.

It does. For now... "It's China's World. We're Just Living in It" - a recent Newsweek article - pointed out that China is forming the Asia-only regional reserve fund. Side-effect of China bankrolling it is that the deals are made now in yuan instead of dollars in that part of the world. The big question is this - how long will it take to transition from "depend on" to "one of the assets" to "why bother, lets collect the debt"?..

are you concerned about "liberty" or are you concerned about the budget?

And these are mutually exclusive because...? I'm concerned about both.

are you concerned about the budget or are you concerned about paying taxes?

And these are mutually exclusive because...? I'm concerned about both.

are you concerned about paying taxes or are you concerned that your tax money is going to fight wars from 100 years ago?

And these are mutually exclusive because...? I'm concerned about both.

your arguments lack cohesion

I disagree and with all due respect would suggest your reading and comprehension skills are lacking in something.

here's the deal: the health care system in this country is broken. to fix it

If it's broken, why are most Americans happy with their health care? Stop repeating that meme. It's not true.

I'll agree that it needs REFORM -- but the current bill is not reform and doesn't really attempt to "FIX" (even going on the assumption that it's broken) the current system so much as it's tearing it down and rebuilding it. That's like tearing down my house and rebuilding it because I've got loose floor boards and need a new roof. Waste of money and effort. But to obfuscate the issue, I'd assume you'd ask a silly question like "But are you concerned about reform or are you concerned about wasting money on it?"

If what you are suggesting is true, there is NO way a Democratic executive with his party having supramajority in the Senate and a huge majority in the lower house would have trouble passing such "reform". Yet there has been MAJOR difficulty addressing this "crisis" by the party in total power. Why? Because the problem is not as bad as you think it is nor as bad as it's being painted by our President. The only "true" bi-partisan support on this issue is the vote AGAINST this particular direction of "reform".

And then you get studies of the usefulness of psychotropic drugs and wonder whose black hole they pulled that out of...

Indeed. Normally I would never cite an article in a McNews magazine like Time or Newsweek, but I found this explanation of the state of antidepressant drug efficacy to be one of the best I've run across so far - hundreds of billions of dollars all depending on some really, really bad math. Its like the collateralized debt securities of the drug & psychiatric industries:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/232781

Has there been a similar study comparing various kinds of psychotherapy to a placebo? For example comparing the effects of a priest, a witch doctor and a psychotherapist?

And then you get studies of the usefulness of psychotropic drugs and wonder whose black hole they pulled that out of...

Indeed. Normally I would never cite an article in a McNews magazine like Time or Newsweek, but I found this explanation of the state of antidepressant drug efficacy to be one of the best I've run across so far - hundreds of billions of dollars all depending on some really, really bad math. Its like the collateralized debt securities of the drug & psychiatric industries:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/232781

This is just another variant of the "prosperity = peace" argument. While the two often go together, one does not ensure the other. Most of the prosperous nations in the history of man have been so while invading their neighbors, or even across the other side of the world. We had this same prediction 20 years ago... the increased trade with China would make it a free country and bring political liberalism. How'd that work out?

I'm all for expanded trade and opening more markets. But that just brings wealth, not freedom, and certainly not utopia.

That's true. And you aren't the only one to notice, either.

The government isn't requiring us all to get iProducts ... yet ;-)

Oh? It is military issue now.

I want them to catch up with the rest of us, because as their people become more educated, they will want to know about this thing we call "Freedom" (speaking as a Canadian, not that the US isn't "Free"). Then people start to get angry, blah blah blah.

Not necessarily.

The belief that censorship is wrong is not very wide at all. The first amendment would have no chance of passing anywhere in today's world, including the US. That whole part of "no Law" is a real stickler. Despite the supreme court's weasel words stating otherwise. The majority, and especially the middle class is very authoritarian. Nobody wants to rock the boat during sweeps week.

Done any good double blind studies lately ?

I don't have the money to properly study the device yet. It helps me relax like nothing else (see my other reply). I only recently started selling the Appliance, and everyone who uses theirs loves the effect.

At least one double-blind studies has been done by others: Improvement of Circulation Using The Radial Appliance

You dismissed the Appliance as a placebo, but don't give the phenomenon the credit it's due. There has been some very good research on placebos in the past few years - how they trigger the same pathways in the brain as the actual drug...

Imagination Medicine: "Brain imaging reveals the substance of placebos. Expectation alone triggers the same neural circuits and chemicals as real drugs"

The Depressing News About Antidepressants: Studies suggest that the popular drugs are no more effective than a placebo. In fact, they may be worse.

... But when Kirsch compared the improvement in patients taking the drugs with the improvement in those taking dummy pills--clinical trials typically compare an experimental drug with a placebo--he saw that the difference was minuscule. Patients on a placebo improved about 75 percent as much as those on drugs. Put another way, three quarters of the benefit from antidepressants seems to be a placebo effect.

Or maybe your miracle box works, your "quantum energy filter" based on SECRET KNOWLEDGE revealed by the sleeping prophet. Done any good double blind studies lately ?

Marketing the device to a skeptical audience can be challenging. Especially so when I can't very well explain in sciencey-type terms how exactly it works. I know a physicist who can explain the quantum principles involved, but I haven't had a chance to visit & get a recording yet.

PETA == "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals"

Its not about hate, its about recognising that animals have feelings too. If you ever had a pet you would know this of course.. Also, I just saw this comment about copyright law and the UK Pirate Party which applies to PETA just as much. You can be sure that they won't get anywhere near what they are asking for but they know that and want you to consider that already you are sitting in an unethical position. They want to and need to rub your face in it because otherwise you just ignore what is going on in your name..

You been punked!

Since 1998 PETA has killed more than 17,000 animals, nearly 85 percent of all those it has rescued.

Wow, that's pretty bad.

Just how bad is PETA?

PETA’s “Animal Record” report for 2009, filed with the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, shows that the animal rights group killed 97 percent of the dogs and cats in its care last year. During all of 2009, PETA found adoptive homes for just eight pets.

Just eight animals -- out of the 2,366 it took in. PETA just broke its own record.

Nice to know PETA managed to put EIGHT whole pets up for adoption in 2009.

Woo hoo. Bunch of dedicated animal rights activists there, eh?

Ain't you the fool.

Your GPS position is just a number.

GPS is just a number to you or me, but it's a real location someone or some company with a the ability to use those numbers (if my cell phone can show me where I am on a map someone's servers can too). What's to prevent a wireless carrier from selling that location data just like a company tracking license plates can?

Government and law enforcement don't need a warrant to get the info on where you've been. Some wireless carriers even have internet portals to make it as easy as possible.

Sure GPS is just a number - it's the combination to the history of your movements.

Antidepressants have been shown to work no better than a placebo... are they going to stop funding them as well? Or just stop funding them for mildly or moderately depressed patients?

Personally, I take a placebo every day, because scientists have conclusively proven it has a somewhat beneficial effect for more different conditions than any other medication known to mankind!

You know Lomborg was dishonest? Based on what?

LOMBORG: Out of Europe's 731000000 inhabitants, 14000000 die of cold-related causes every year, so warming is obviously a good thing! (cite: WHO documents so and so)
FRIEL: I checked those WHO documents. They say no such thing as 14 million dying of cold related causes every year, you lying scumbag.
LOMBORG: Hey, I only meant to cite the WHO for the population of Europe part! What is this, some kind of witch hunt? I'm being persecuted!!1!

(freely paraphrased from the Newsweek review of Friel's book)

I hear you, however this era of 'altruism' may feel like we are patronizing the Haitians. It is true that giving food and temporary shelters is great and will save some lifes, but you cannot just rebuild a country by doing this.

But, in order to rebuild a country, you need more than just throwing food at refugees. This article is interesting as it brings Katrina experience to help Haiti. It seems the best results happen when the locals are involved. There are many reports of this in Thailand after the tsunami.

There is nothing wrong with helping but helping without asking the opinion of the locals and keeping out of the loop will never give good results, it will leave the impression that you treat them like children and infantilize them. Now that the local ISPs have voiced their opinion, we should listen to their proposals and try to formulate a plan.

Just to add some perspective on the US cost, note that the US contribution is about $500 million - also remember the LHC has been constructed over about a 15 year period I believe, so on average that's a yearly cost of $33 million. For comparison, the US yearly military budget is over half a trillion dollars.

Alternatively, based on estimates of the cost of the Iraq War, of $2-3 billion a week, the entire worldwide cost of the LHC over 15 years is about 3-4 weeks in Iraq...

Actually, "the serotonin-deficit theory of depression is built on a foundation of tissue paper" This is one reason why SSRI drugs are basically no more effective than placebos for most depressed people.

Actually, the placebo effect has increased markedly in the U.S. over the last decade, so much so, that if the clinical trials for current anti-depressants had taken place today most of them would not have crossed the "threshold of futility" and been approved for market by the FDA. And quite possibly the reason the placebo effect has increased is because people are being subjected to so much Big Pharma advertisement over the last decade or so since the FDA permitted the industry to market its wares directly to the public. Kinda funny, actually, in an effort to increase sales (and incidentally, hypochondria and anxiety in society at large) the drug companies may have made it much harder for themselves to release new compounds as their patents slowly expire. My heart pumps piss...

The trick is finding the truth in the whirlwind of lies and deceit.

The truth appears to be that the peer-reviewed study that is the basis for arguments that autism is linked to vaccines... isn't valid. Against that are numerous studies which did not find a link, and clear and obvious health problems with not vaccinating children. Specifically brain damage, blindness, death.

So basically the "don't vaccinate your kid" side now only has old playboy models and paranoia going for it. Forgive me if I think the "whirlwind of lies and deceit" is actually all on one side of the "debate."

everybody gets a basic 'level' of insurance

1) No. Everyone is FORCED to get a basic level of insurance, or pay extra taxes or fines or whatnot if they don't. It is also likely that many employers will need to change their existing plans to be compliant and will pass that cost to the employees. http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0909/Ensign_receives_handwritten_confirmation_.html
http://www.newsweek.com/id/227310

Here's what I know from personal experience in dealing with the VA, the SSA, and Medicare. I know that finding someone to talk to is extremely difficult. I know that if a claim is denied there is almost zero recourse in appealing. I DO NOT want to have to deal with a similar bureaucracy for my family's health care.

Ummm, the techdirt article is based on an unsourced report - and if you look at the article that techdirt links to, it's a totally unsubstantiated piece of garbage, Are you really going to believe Amazon is losing money on every e-book transaction because of this nonsense article? No "facts" are provided, just unfounded conjecture.

This NY Times article says the same thing: "American publishers chafe over Amazon's pricing policy for the Kindle, under which it generally sells digital versions of best sellers at $9.99 - less than the wholesale price that Amazon pays for many of these books."

So does this article on Slate: "For a typical hardback that retails for $26--say, E.L. Doctorow's Homer & Langley--Amazon pays $13 and then sells it for $9.99 on the Kindle, taking a $3 loss on each sale." The same article also ran in Newsweek.

Here is an article at Publisher's Weekly: "That Amazon is currently treating the bulk of Kindle editions as loss leaders--items it either breaks even on or loses on to build market share in e-book sales and to fuel the growth of the Kindle--is one of the worrisome aspects of the current system."

Seems like a remarkable journalistic conspiracy by The New York Times, Slate, Newsweek, and Publisher's Weekly to cover up the truth. Or do you imagine that all these publications ran stories by all these reporters without making sure that the statements in them had sources?

When someone has pointed out that you've made a factual error, usually the best response isn't to get angry.

This is an interesting supposition, but there's no evidence that anything other than a quick revival would result in life being restored. We know that thermodynamically, the body is a veritable panic of high energy formations that are just dying to degrade (literally). We know that cryogenic freezing would suspend many of these processes...but all of the critical ones?

We've not yet begun to imagine what those processes even are, much less say with any certainty that cold temperature will suffice to prevent them over a sufficiently long period of time.

Quite the opposite, actually. There is evidence that in cases of cardiac arrest (where the body is generally healthy aside from the fact that the heart has stopped), slow revival can allow for a higher success rate after longer periods without oxygen, because the cells themselves only die hours after cessation of blood flow. If you read to page 2 of that link, you see that induced hypothermia is sometimes used precisely because it does help slow the process of cell death which follows clinical death. Granted, as far as I'm aware, we don't know that cryogenic freezing would suspend all of such processes, but the state of research in this area is much farther along than you seem to think.

In 1975, American Scientist, Nature, and New York Times were publishing story after story about the imminent New Ice Age that would plunge the world into subfreezing temperatures for the next 100 years.

That's not true, please check your sources again. Some pop sci pieces on the subject appeared, but no serious scientist ever claimed that a new Ice Age was imminent.

You can read about the history of the 1970s global cooling scare on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Here's Newsweek talking about its own coverage of the issue, and quoting William Connolley:

The point to remember, says Connolley, is that predictions of global cooling never approached the kind of widespread scientific consensus that supports the greenhouse effect today.

From http://www.newsweek.com/id/72481

And finally here's Connolley himself:

Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70's? No. If you can find me a reference saying otherwise, I'll put it here.

From http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage

Scrap Cap-and-Trade: Americans would spend $100 billion to $200 billion a year for limited results: a 15 percent cut in U.S. emissions would reduce global emissions by less than 4 percent, which would have a negligible worldwide impact. Investment bankers need cap-and-trade to make their "green energy" deals successful. That's great (and profitable) for them, but their earnings would come at the expense of every other American.

Is there any way to do something like that on iPhones?

Evidently, the iPod touch is already providing popular service to US troops in Iraq.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/194623

Admittedly - that article's for translation software. It may not directly answer your question about military / restricted apps for the iPhone - but it seems to lay the foundation in that the DoD is already pretty okey-dokey with the use of these devices by the troops.

Newsweek also had an article last week on the higher level and political implications of the change in the US Air Force's mission.

...is that the Republicans-and probably more than a few Democrats-are going to blame Obama and his administration for something THEY ruined.

The media quickly started spinning the apparent 'failure' of Obama et al. Newsweek blog headline: "Losing the Olympics Bid Is Good for Obama" http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/10/02/losing-the-olympics-bid-is-good-for-obama.aspx I saw that one coming a long way off. Watching certain Chicago TV newscasters react in utter disbelief - as if it was a fait accompli Chicago won - was also amusing. Chicago weather typically suxs, anyway (although I do love the city).

The Case for Killing Granny