Slashdot Mirror

Do you remember how women were normally treated before the feminist movement? I'm not interested in returning to the 1950s-type racism and sexism.

I'm not suggesting we go back to the 1950s, but I am suggesting things the benefits of the feminist movement have been unequally distributed. On average women have lower reported happiness now than 50 years ago. Only wealthy women can afford to get married and stay at home with kids today if they so choose. Evil arch-conservative reactionary Nazi Elizabeth Warren wrote a book called "The Two Income Trap" about it. My upper middle class wife stays home with our darling children, and when I walk through the rows and rows of cubes in Billing and Accounts Receivable on the way to my tech job office I see all the lower middle class women (the majority of whom are black) chained to their desks, getting yelled at by insurance companies for 8 hours a day and I think "gee, feminism, fantastic job freeing these women from, ugh, loving homes and children and chaining them to the corporate machine instead. Progress!!" I don't think those women are there by choice, pursuing their dream of a rewarding career in call center work.

Thankfully as a heterosexual white Christian male upper middle class engineer the progressives will never set their eyes on "liberating" me.

But as a percent of income the rich buy less, thus paying less taxes. That's why sales taxes are considered regressive, hitting the poor and middle class more.

For the most part, this is simply due to the tax on investment income (capital gains) being taxed at a lower rate than income you make from say your actual job. The more you have, the more you're likely investing it, the more it becomes the largest part of your income. And please note, I'm discussing "long term capital gains", not short term. For anyone interested, there's a good article explaining the rates here...
https://www.fool.com/retiremen...

NYT does a good historical story on it here http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01...

So, the question becomes, does it make sense to have a lower rate on investment income? There are arguments against it, primarily focused on "fairness", and how the govt. could increase it's tax base. The opposing side argues that it's better for the economy as a whole to keep the lower rates...
http://www.nola.com/business/i...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/h...

On the plus side, illegal immigration is at the lowest it's been in 2 decades

Not just illegal immigration, people are avoiding traveling to the US in general (Interest in travel to the US has "fallen off a cliff" since Donald Trump’s election - https://www.theguardian.com/tr...) Good! There are enough people here, we don’t need anymore, we’ll make that tourist money up in other ways. Silicon valley tech companies are avoiding letting employees travel to outside the US for fear they won’t be able to get back in. Good! show them with actions it’s better to only hire US workers. I mean what have immigrants ever done for silicon valley and the US anyway?! https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

the economy is up by 20%

%20? sure, I follow you brother no citation needed. Either way, great, nothing wrong there. ("Any improvement for the consumer will be balanced out by the higher value of the dollar," Mr. Payne forecasts. http://www.csmonitor.com/Busin...)

and we made a strong-but-measured move in Syria which has garnered praise from many world leaders.

Yes, strength! (Trump's Syria Strike Was Unconstitutional and Unwise - https://www.theatlantic.com/po...)

Hey don't forget it's not just Syria, we are showing our strength all over the world! (civilian deaths - more than 1,000 in March alone - that have come directly as the result of the Trump administration’s other reckless military campaigns across the Middle East over the past few weeks. - https://www.theguardian.com/co...) Yes, this is great! The heavy handed tactics accusations thrown at Hillary which would lead us into war, well now Trump has done them so it’s ok, yeah! We’re #1 we’re #1!

positive effect on relations and negotiations with Iran, N. Korea, and China.

Yes, for sure because they respect a useless reckless show of force over keeping their trade deals in tact.

Limiting illegal immigration should eventually bubble up into more jobs

Yup, I’m pretty psyched, I’m preparing for my new job! It’s at a nice outdoor location in sunny fields actually. Purportedly it reaches about 100F so I should get a good tan out of it to boot! The hours will be refreshing, I will be working from 5AM to 6PM and I’m working with nature, picking fruit, I think I can have a radio with me and I’m making $15 per hour! Great, looking forward to it! The other benefit is I'll be able to take some fruit home in my bag since I won't be able to afford it anymore at the supermarket.

Or is it just another example of government waste?

Yeah, i think it was one of those stupid "Obama liberal biased" attempts to help brown people not get railroaded by local law enforcement practices, good riddance I say!

Since the public sector teachers union apparently gave you a sub standard education, here is a link for you to educate yourself on the topic:

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfo...

I honestly can't tell what you are saying beyond that. I get the concept of collective bargaining, but it only goes so far in a free market. If you and all your co workers work collectively is worth $50/hr per person to your employer and they pay you $35/hr (this is typical and how all economic transactions work, your work is always more valuable to them than what your employer pays you, that is how they make money, expand the business and pay back investors etc.) but you demand $60/hr in wages and benefits, one of two things happens, the company either goes bankrupt paying you more than you are worth collectively (and you have no job), or they fire you and hire other workers who are willing to work for a lower wage (and you have no job). The best way to increase wages is to vote for politicians that will un-FUBAR our business environment, making it easier to start and grow a business and hire employees. The more demand for labor there is, the higher prices will go. You should also vote for politicians who will restrict H1B and immigration in general (legal and illegal) because those are both sources of cheap labor that will keep the price of labor down, which keeps down your paycheck.

This is all being said in the context of jobs that require minimal specialization/training and are generally easy to do (like teaching grade-school children, which used to be performed to a higher standard than today by high school graduates). If you have specialized skills or knowledge either through experience, invention or advanced knowledge/degree, you can more easily bargain with your employer on a per person basis.

United Airlines Flight 3411 is NOT a United Airlines flight. The U.S. government allows mis-labeling. Flight 3411 is a CommutAir flight.

United's CEO Oscar Munoz made the situation FAR worse by the pretend caring in what he said: United is investigating why authorities dragged a passenger off a flight -- here's what it found.

Quotes from the CEO:

"... we approached one of these passengers to explain apologetically that he was being denied boarding..."
It was not "apologetic". The passenger was already boarded. There was no "we".

"Our agents were left with no choice but to call Chicago Aviation Security Officers..."
They could have tried asking someone else, and increased the price they would pay.

To employees: "I want to commend you for continuing to go above and beyond to ensure we fly right."
That badly worded sentence also shows a lack of social ability.

The incident was like a billion-dollar advertisement saying, "Don't fly United Airlines." A New York Times story, United Airlines Passenger Is Dragged From an Overbooked Flight, now has 4983 comments! (07:48 am PDT)

The issue was not connected with anything United Airlines did. The result, however, is that the United Airlines CEO demonstrated that he isn't a good choice to lead a company. In my opinion, the United Airlines Board of Directors should consider getting a new CEO.

Background information: When airlines overbook a flight, these federal rules apply.

Trump did publicly ask Russia to hack Clinton's e-mails. His supporters didn't seem to care about him asking a foreign government to interfere with the election or the threat to national security having a foreign government hack a presidential candidate presents.

“I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” the Republican nominee said at a news conference in Florida. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

He also said: "By the way, they hacked -- they probably have her 33,000 e-mails. I hope they do. They probably have her 33,000 e-mails that she lost and deleted because you'd see some beauties there. So let's see."

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0...

http://www.politico.com/story/...

https://www.theguardian.com/us...

NYT is saying that after the Syrian strike it's obvious Trump and Russia are at odds.

Pretty much all major news outlets are saying the same thing.

Shame you only believe fringe nutter news outlets which still maintain the fantasy that Trump and Russia are in any way friends. They are what the mafia would call "associates". They know each other well. That doesn't mean they LIKE, or do things for each other...

There are retracted news articles all the time, you should be able to do better.

1) This appears to be referring to this article:

http://www.politico.com/story/...

Here is the Fox (Faux) News article you are probably basing your statement on:

http://insider.foxnews.com/201...

Politico seems to have gotten the basic facts correct in this case and Competitive Enterprise Institute seems to have gotten it wrong. The mistake Politico had made in the original article was stating that OneWest had done the foreclosure when it had been CIT who had merged with OneWest. The mistake was using the old company name instead of the new company name. Mnuchin was on the board of CIT when the second foreclosure took place.

"CORRECTION: This story has been corrected to reflect that CIT Bank, successor to OneWest after a 2015 merger, was the entity that filed foreclosure proceedings against Ossie Lofton over a 27-cent payment error. The story has also been revised to clarify that there were two separate foreclosure proceedings against Lofton. At the time the second foreclosure was filed in 2016, Mnuchin had sold his stake in OneWest and was on the board of CIT."

Other fact checkers have confirmed that Fox is wrong and the foreclosure did take place. You can even see the court case yourself:
https://pro.polkcountyclerk.ne...
Search for: "CIT BANK, N.A. vs. LOFTON OSSIE".

Score: Politico: 1, Faux News: 0.

That said, I'm not really a fan of Politico atm. They just posted a totally garbage anti-Semitic article claiming that Trump is linked to Putin because Putin met with a Chabad Rabbi who had once met a rabbi who did a bris that Ivanka Trump went to and thus there is some Jewish conspiracy linking the two men... The way the article is written is a total conspiracy theory. That would be a much better example of fake news. I'm not a fan of Trump, but you don't need to come up with anti-Semitic conspiracy theories to link Trump and Putin.

2) As others pointed out in this thread, it was actually Nancy Sinatra who seemed to change her tune and claim the negative Trump comment she had tweeted earlier was a "joke." Although to be fair, it might have been meant as a joke but there was no way for CNN to know that. I wouldn't call that fake news.

3) If you read the article, there doesn't seem to be anything fake about it. They even mention that it was probably part of the plan to shift to a different site.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

http://www.snopes.com/white-ho...

What you are leaving out is that it has been several months and Trump still doesn't have anything up on whitehouse.gov about these issues from what I can tell. How is the New York times article "fake news"?

4) As someone else pointed out, they reported on people who objected to the content of the speech not that he gave one there. Here is the article you are claiming is fake news. What exactly is fake? Did the people who Washington Post said objected to the speech not really object?

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

5) It sounds like Spicer is lying (nothing new), not CBS. Although CBS seems to be a little misleading as there were some CIA staff who seemed to support Trump, but the facts about Trump bringing people to cheer him on seem to be correct.

http://www.snopes.com/2017/01/...

Newsweek de

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

He's not being arrested for "hacking the election" he's being arrested because of other crimes:

* https://krebsonsecurity.com/20...
* https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

Seriously, how is this any better than working at your kitchen table?

If you're single, maybe slightly more chance of getting laid?

...a longhaired freelance astrophysicist, said that he had met two girlfriends (now exes), and his current roommate, via power-strip negotiations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12...

Senate is to provide any advice and consent they deem for Presidential appointments. Refusing to provide consent is completely legal and ethical. Or do you also condemn Schumer et al. for running the filibuster against Gorsuch?

Nope, they voted, and that makes all the difference.

I'd have respected the GOP if they'd done it through the process of the Senate enough to call a vote. They did not.

I'm not sure how to go about checking this -- it's been years since I've had a regular print copy of any paper, and Times isn't local to me. Having said that, when you search the online site for that article, the search results specifies that there was a print headline for the story: https://query.nytimes.com/sear... If I find a copy of the Times later this week, I'll take a look. But your assertion still makes no sense... if they were as biased as you claim, why would they carry the story in their online reporting?

Google is a company, not a person. They support whoever's in charge, although their employees may be quite liberal overall.

The leadership is quite liberal, and their leadership creates a quite liberal culture at the company. Establishing relationships with Republicans when they are in power does not change this nor contradict this.

Like I said, the employees and leadership might be liberal in their personal beliefs, but it dilutes them being partisan. For example, although they currently support net neutrality, I'd bet my ass they're going to be the first in line if it gets repealed. A partisan group, like for example a lobbying company or whatever, wouldn't switch sides just because the government did - whereas I have no doubts Google will get into bed with the Republicans where it benefits them. I don't see how it's especially hypocritical, all companies are hypocritical. I'm astounded by how many people seem to think they have any purpose beyond enriching and serving themselves, because quite frankly, they don't. Not that that's even always a bad thing, but it is what it is.

Google is a company, not a person. They support whoever's in charge, although their employees may be quite liberal overall.

The leadership is quite liberal, and their leadership creates a quite liberal culture at the company. Establishing relationships with Republicans when they are in power does not change this nor contradict this.

I wasn't making a statement about whether majorities like them, I was making a statement about whether their beliefs actually align with the beliefs of the American people, and I don't believe they do.

All right. You hardly speak for Americans, and in fact you don't align with my beliefs, but I understand setting the stage.

Nevertheless, if you do want to talk about polls, look at the page: in 2016, 37% say the court is "too liberal", vs 20% saying that it is "too conservative", and SCOTUS approval ratings have dropped sharply under Obama.

Yeah, and the problem with this is that it's not at all accurate. We have one of the most conservative courts in decades, and with Gorsuch on there, it now swerves even harder to the right. The thing about most people is that (surprisingly) they have absolutely no idea how the government actually works. There are 5 conservative judges and four liberal ones; that means that for every "liberal" decision, there has to be at least one conservative judge who agrees. Furthermore, Obama's name functions a bit like Republican-repellent; case in point, Obamacare. When he was in office, it was remarkably unpopular, and yet now, somehow, it's rocketed up in ratings. What magical things about it changed? Nothing, merely that people who were previously content to bitch about their government provided healthcare never realized that it was only possible through Obamacare. Lastly, I think it's worth a point that Congress and Trump are two of the most unpopular political entities of our time, and both are considered Republican (and conservative). If Americans really wanted a more conservative government, why would approval rates for their senators and representatives be so low? Why would many conservative stances, such as on repealing Obamacare and scaling back the EPA, be so unpopular? I don't think conservatives are what America wants at all.

If you check the news stories from last year and this year, you'll also see that people widely perceive SCOTUS nominations as a reason why people are might be/are/have been voting for Trump.

It's a strong reason why REPUBLICANS voted for Trump, who have an advantage because low population states allow them to punch above their weight, and they still couldn't even win a majority. Are Democrats not people anymore???

And you need to realize that polls tend to be biased in favor of the left because conservatives, libertarians, and/or independents rather hang up than voice a negative opinion to an anonymous stranger that has their personal information.

This is uncited. Until you can provide some evidence to back this up, I am not really inclined to believe that they wouldn't positively answer a poll in favor of their candidate.

People don't get fired, attacked, or beaten up for approving of Obama or progressive causes, but they do get fired, attacked and beaten up for supporting Trump or opposing affirmative action or opposing gay marriage. Keeping quiet in RL about conservative, libertarian, or independent viewpoints is pretty much ingrained now in many people.

That is absolutely not true. There are cases where violence occurs on both sides, but only one side has a president who says "knock the crap out of him" when he sees a protester of the other party, only one hide hung up dolls of the opposing candidate and set them on fire, only one side promised to gather up their weapons and Allahu Akbar the capital if their candidate didn't win, and only one side refuses to say anything bad about domestic terrorism or other forms of violence directed at American citizens. And if you really think Republicans won't attack you, go outside, proclaim yourself a progressive liberal democrat, and watch what happens.

Google is a company, not a person. They support whoever's in charge, although their employees may be quite liberal overall.

The NYT is a morning paper; The Guardian published this story at 6pm GMT, after the Times finished its main run.
And a few hours later... here's the NYTimes story:
US Regulators Accuse Google of Underpaying Female Workers
https://www.nytimes.com/aponli...
So... you're wrong.

To show that this is not new, look back at the first reporting of the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case by NBC. Who was caught editing audio to make George appear to be racist instead of answering a dispatcher's question, they lightened his photos to make him appear to be white instead of Hispanic, and instead of displaying current pictures of Trayvon Martin pulled pictures of him as an elementary school kid instead of a 17 year old 6'1" young man who enjoyed MMA.

Oh my, you can go back further than that. Like with OJ Simpson, and at least you'll have an older example. Or even further.

Besides, Zimmerman? He is a racist. There's a reason he lost his suit. Seriously, that idiot could have avoided being a killer of another human being if all he'd done was gone to the pharmacy instead.

Cherry picking and editing are common tactics for media propagandists in the US. If you were fooled, shame on you.

You forgot law enforcement. And other forms of Planting evidence and corruption.

I'm sure you meant nothing by the oversight.

Plenty of lawsuits have been won against these media outlets for various civil reasons. Off the top of my head, ABC and CNN have both had to issue public apologies and retractions in the last month and a half for doing this, or would have faced even more civil suits.

Oh, you should learn about Fox.. So bad, the White House had to apologize to a foreign country for believing Fox News. Editing video since 1984.

You know, a company that hired a PR firm to slut shame people critical of one of their hosts. Looks like that is getting out.

So are you happy yet?

To show that this is not new, look back at the first reporting of the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case by NBC. Who was caught editing audio to make George appear to be racist instead of answering a dispatcher's question, they lightened his photos to make him appear to be white instead of Hispanic, and instead of displaying current pictures of Trayvon Martin pulled pictures of him as an elementary school kid instead of a 17 year old 6'1" young man who enjoyed MMA.

Oh my, you can go back further than that. Like with OJ Simpson, and at least you'll have an older example. Or even further.

Besides, Zimmerman? He is a racist. There's a reason he lost his suit. Seriously, that idiot could have avoided being a killer of another human being if all he'd done was gone to the pharmacy instead.

Cherry picking and editing are common tactics for media propagandists in the US. If you were fooled, shame on you.

You forgot law enforcement. And other forms of Planting evidence and corruption.

I'm sure you meant nothing by the oversight.

Plenty of lawsuits have been won against these media outlets for various civil reasons. Off the top of my head, ABC and CNN have both had to issue public apologies and retractions in the last month and a half for doing this, or would have faced even more civil suits.

Oh, you should learn about Fox.. So bad, the White House had to apologize to a foreign country for believing Fox News. Editing video since 1984.

You know, a company that hired a PR firm to slut shame people critical of one of their hosts. Looks like that is getting out.

So are you happy yet?

Obama didn't need to leave. Iraqis (and the US military, for that matter) assumed the US would stay longer, and wanted it. Obama cut and ran.

In June, diplomats and Iraqi officials said that Mr. Obama had told Mr. Maliki that he was prepared to leave up to 10,000 soldiers to continue training and equipping the Iraqi security forces. Mr. Maliki agreed, but said he needed time to line up political allies.........

According to two people briefed on the matter, one inside the administration and one outside, the arguments of two White House officials, Thomas E. Donilon, the national security adviser, and his deputy, Denis McDonough, prevailed over those of the military.

In other news this morning:

98,000 jobs were added last month. Economists had been anticipating a gain of about 180,000.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

Yeah, how are they so cheap?

Oh right:
http://www.news.com.au/finance...
http://viewfromthewing.boardin...
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news...

People Everywhere - That's PRECISELY the PROBLEM. I dunno exactly when it happened, but general public civility and manners has long since disappeared from the populace.

Citation needed. The best quantifiable proxy for "general public civility" I can think of would be violent crime. Anyone not drinking fox-news koolaid should know, violent crime is way down.

Making up some idiotic mythical past when everything was much better, on the other hand, seems to be at an all time high.

I'd offer two non-mutually exclusive alternative explanations. 1: You're less impressed with the big screen because your smaller screen is a lot better than it was in the past. 2: You're older and grumpier.

People have always been annoying at movie theaters. Possibly more annoying since they evidently were more likely to attack you. You just notice it more now and don't have any numbers to disprove your opinion.

Deaths due to automobile use are not the metric you want to use. By one report, there were 124 deaths and 275 injuries due to the GM ignition switch problem alone. So far, there are credible reports that no deaths are attributed to the Fukushima accidents. though that is a tough example given the Japanese government and Tepco's previous failure to be entirely forthcoming. Chernobyl is an entirely different matter, But still pales compared to GM ignition switch deaths.

It's not a fair comparison, of course, since automobiles are prolific. Even lesser known issues, like GM airbags, cause unnecessary deaths. And there are other automobile design defects that have claimed lives.

Airliner safety is probably similarly not a favorable comparison to nuclear safety. And of course military submarine reactor accidents aren't unknown.

The purpose of H1-B visas is to fill positions that companies can not fill with American workers, regardless of price. Greed CEOs, of course, promptly abused the system to use it to pull down wages and increase unemployment for US workers, such as when Disney forced US workers to train their lower cost H1-B replacements (nytimes link).

Trump is doing the right thing here. The actual memo (PDF file) spells out the new policy: just because the position needs a computer programmer, we can automatically have an H1-B fill the position.

I am no supporter of Trump and voted for Hillary last November, but I am not blinded by partisan politics; he's doing the right thing here: Protecting hard working Americans.

How would you feel if I asked you if I could run Ubuntu on Windows 10? I could but why?

How would you feel if I asked you if I could order Indian food without flying to Delhi? I could but why?

How many people these days would dump Windows completely if not for That One Program? Improving emulation options - especially for games - should be a high priority until we can convince more companies to provide native linux versions of things.

Like every single industry since 1987 - all the revenue generated from efficiency is going strait to the top; this includes years since the recession:
Adjusted average income for the 1 percent without capital gains rose from $871,100 to $968,000 since the recession.
Yet everyone else fights for table scraps... https://www.nytimes.com/2015/0...
.

Salaries suck, because the US is still in a recession. With real unemployment well over 20%, comparable to economic powerhouses like Greece, Croatia and Botswana, it's no surprise that salaries are declining. Add in inflation, and they are declining even faster.

There is one overriding reason for the continuing recession: debt. Federal debt in the US is out of control - plus up to $200 trillion of unfunded obligations that everyone is carefully ignoring. If we also ignore those invisible (but inevitable) obligations, the US is still one of the top 20 most indebted nations.

Keynesian economics have been thoroughly debunked. Actually, there was never any evidence that they might be correct. But politicians love them, because they provide an excuse to buy votes by spending other people's money. All of this debt has been built up with promises that never would be fulfilled. But the politicians making those promises are now mostly millionaires, so that's ok.

What cannot go on forever will stop. Debt cannot be infinitely piled on, and countries like the US are reaching the limits of their ability to sell more debt. When this stops, the stopping is likely to be abrupt and unpleasant.

Somebody's doing the raping.

And cops are more likely to shoot whites than blacks.

Maybe you're the one with the confirmation bias? Just maybe? Could be? Kinda? Food for thought? Naw, naw you're just gonna keep spouting the same crap because it suits your goal, not because it's true.

The US State Department, under the leadership of Hillary Clinton, was tasked to review whether the proposed purchase of a CANADIAN mine that produces raw uranium violated any laws or rules against foreign ownership.

While boatloads of money was flowing to her husband and to the Clinton Foundation. Where is the Congressional investigation? The non-stop news stories? This happened while she was Secretary of State and had a deal with Obama not to pull this kind of shit. She was one election night away from the Presidency. Do you think the mainstream media would have been all over her Russian ties if she had gotten elected?

They'll talk about, say, chemtrails, and when I don't believe it, they respond with something like "oh you don't think the government would do something like that? don't be so naive". No, the issue here is not that I trust the government (or whoever) not to be malicious. I know very well that they (government and otherwise) are malicious all the time. If it came to light that this outlandish thing you claim they're doing was actually happening,

Well the US government basically did do that in the 50s and 60s. Now that doesn't mean that I believe the current conspiracy theories about chemtrails, the lizard people, FEMA camps, or the like but given past performance of the US government with things like Operation LAC, the internment of various groups of people, and other actions I don't believe that my government should be entirely trusted either.

Refs: NY Times, Wired, Boston Globe.

So even though our systems costs significantly more. We don't have better supply or better results.

I can see that side of the question, but in the end, if EPA can promulgate regulations without revealing the underlying data, we're accepting the argument, "Trust us, we're your government."

The issue is not about "Trust us, we're your government." strawman.
Raised by the clown crew of a government, with only 21 executive nominations confirmed (out of 553), multiple ongoing scandals, not the least of which is appointment of an anti-EPA loon as the head of the agency, who then promptly ignores science anyway.
Trust us, WE are your government indeed.

It's about little facts like exposing patient data, various privacy concerns, various patent laws and rules, copyright...
In order to "release to the public... data used to support new regulations to protect human health and the environment" EPA would literally have to either be given godlike power to expose anything and anyone, regardless of laws, regulations or any kind of legal or physical protection...
OR... much more likely, simply NOT create regulations anymore... regulations "to protect human health and the environment".

Right now they can simply CITE data used in their science, like with any other scientific study.
Not release everything cited to public, or even be forced to replicate other people's science.
I'm all for replicable science but this is not about science.
It's about gagging the mouths and tying the hands of those who rely on science in order to "protect human health and the environment" by people who abhor science.

Who do you think should be punished?

I, actually, didn't say, somebody should be. What I said was, since no one was, there is nothing to hold the EPA in check...

The scientists? They were saying at the beginning of the War on Fat that the science was inconclusive.

Not according to Guardian:

Ancel Keys was brilliant, charismatic, and combative. A friendly colleague at the University of Minnesota described him as, “direct to the point of bluntness, critical to the point of skewering”; others were less charitable. He exuded conviction at a time when confidence was most welcome. The president, the physician and the scientist formed a reassuring chain of male authority, and the notion that fatty foods were unhealthy started to take hold with doctors, and the public. (Eisenhower himself cut saturated fats and cholesterol from his diet altogether, right up until his death, in 1969, from heart disease.)

But as I said, the problem wasn't with the scientists. It was the politicians pushing the agenda

Stipulating for a second, the scientists were innocent and it were all the politicians at fault at the FDA, how is the EPA different? That is, what did happen at the FDA, that does not and will not happen at the EPA?

It was the politicians pushing the agenda, and the sugar industry funding it

Wrong. First of all, your link describes (with the weaselese "may have" rather than firm "has") such efforts, which ended in 1967 — USDA's "dietary guidelines" denouncing fat were published only in 1980ies. And second, the "sugar industry", according to your link, didn't lobby the politicians — instead, they paid scientists. And it was hardly a massive bribe — the three scientists from Harvard were paid an equivalent of today's $50,000 to publish a paper, which the believed to be valid.

In other words, the smart assholes at NYTimes realized what massive egg is on the Big Government's face and wanted to create some smokescreen for it to shift the blame towards the Greedy KKKapitali$t$, but failed. Well, almost failed — you fell for it...

In the case of fat, there was heavy industry lobbying in favor of a position that scientists said was unsupported by current research

You aren't citing any sources and I call bullshit. Why would industry lobby — heavily! — for a major overhaul of its production lines? The "fat free" stuff is not any cheaper, the margins on it aren't specifically higher, while developing it requires work and brings about uncertainty. No. Once the demand was there, the industry responded to satisfy it — praise be to Capitalism — but it made no sense for anyone to lobby for it...

the suggestion that if the EPA isn't perfect, the solution is not to fix it but to abolish it. [...] a lot easier to destroy programs that benefit society

My argument is, the EPA does not "benefit society". If only for this reason — they can ban and banish anything they please willy-nilly... We already have toilets, that don't flush (even the EPA themselves admit such problems "in earlier models") and dishwashing machines, that do not wash dishes. In a rush for "renewable energy", we

The EPA has left harmful regulations in place for decades, which caused 1600 unnecessary deaths at Fukushima, and countless more by helping suppress the most effective source of clean energy. While renewables may capture the limelight, the leading source of new energy worldwide is coal, and it is growing far faster.

Present radiation regulations are based on bad science. The linear no threshold hypothesis is provably false today, and counter evidence already existed even at the time of its adoption. Since then, a growing body of evidence and scientific understanding show that low levels of radiation are harmless and potentially beneficial. Aside from providing a basis for fear-mongering, misinformed regulations also prevent promising research into the use of low level radiation for medical applications.

Scientists for Accurate Radiation Information have recently petitioned the EPA for scientific/risk-based radiation regulations. There are also other areas where the EPA adopts the ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) principle for regulation, which is fundamentally misguided. Such regulation carries an opportunity cost, and the extensive effort to eliminate infinitesimal perceived damage is wasted when it could achieve a much greater positive effect if applied to other more serious risks.

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.

What do you think of these stories?

Amazon: Worse than Wal-Mart: Amazon's sick brutality and secret history of ruthlessly intimidating workers (February 23, 2014)

Amazon: Inside Amazon: Wrestling Big Ideas in a Bruising Workplace (August 15, 2015) Quote: "The company is conducting an experiment in how far it can push white-collar workers..."

Amazon: Amazon Under Fire Over Alleged Worker Abuse in Germany/a (February 19, 2013)

It’s not possible to make a purchase with a credit card and then return what you bought for a cash refund, no store does this. If you've found one that will, that one is the exception. As for "cash back", at most grocery stores the merchant cannot provide a cash back option for EBT because the software controlling the transaction won't allow it. It can happen at smaller mom and pop stores if they were to charge the card for a supposed food item and then hand the recipient cash instead, but if merchants are caught doing so they face fines and possible imprisonment.

SNAP fraud is typically when someone lies about their income to qualify, trades their EBT credit for a cash value (see above), or just sells their card to another person. It does happen, but it's actually rare. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/19/us/food-stamp-fraud-in-the-underground-economy.html

Hard to believe, but poor people get hungry too.

Fortunately, the old testament is history and not the current doctrine of Christianity. Your also ignoring the fact that you would have a very hard time finding any Christians that believe it is their duty to conquer the world.

Really? Really? Really?
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08...

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Right subject, wrong article. Try this one:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02...

My prediction, many of the left who complain about Trump-Russia ties have actually taken BRIBES from Russia to set State Department policy.

Oh wait, that already happened and is known about. But since a Democrat was the traitor who took bribes to set foreign policy, its ok.
Now how does that compare to browsing porn?

No one will be convinced by this until the left starts holding their own accountable first.

In related news, Scotland's parliament has just "approved plans to request a referendum on independence that could take place just before Britain completes its withdrawal from the European Union". Ireland may not be far behind in making its own bid for independence. Would it still be "Great" Britain if it was just England and Wales?

The country called Ireland is independent. You are referring to Northern Ireland, which is a contituent part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

In related news, Scotland's parliament has just "approved plans to request a referendum on independence that could take place just before Britain completes its withdrawal from the European Union". Ireland may not be far behind in making its own bid for independence. Would it still be "Great" Britain if it was just England and Wales?

Let's not overreact, it's not a big deal, I mean how much information could this actually reveal? http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08...

Body bombs. Yes, there was news of a plot to have a Muslim women board a plane with explosives stored in her breast implants. Aside from the jokes of explosive tits, yeah, you can't stop someone from doing that. Once it DOES occur, you can kiss aviation goodbye!

Ummm, you know that islam-o-nuts have already put bombs in their ass, right?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06...

Because of that pesky first amendment, the actual government can't create Ministries of Truth to arbitrate reality like some European countries are trying to do (not to mention that the people everyone wants to censor currently control all branches of government). Luckily though, the wonders of unchecked free market capitalism have created an environment where the most notorious thoughcriminals rely on advertising revenue to survive financially, and two private companies with no legal responsibilities toward free speech and a track record of bowing to mob pressure and/or their own political agendas now have a near-monopoly on ad sales.

"With Republicans now in charge across the government, AT&T and Comcast are also poised to benefit from further deregulation. Since the presidential election, the companies have pushed the new Republican-led F.C.C., lawmakers and the White House to roll back net neutrality, the requirement that broadband providers give equal access to all content on the internet, saying the rules hamper their ability to invest in new networks and jobs."

Re "The fact that the CIA was installing spyware doesn't mean that the CIA was installing spyware on the property of US citizens."
"Files on Illegal Spying Show C.I.A. Skeletons From Cold War" (June 27, 2007)
"...new details about how the Central Intelligence Agency illegally spied on Americans decades ago, including trying to bug a Las Vegas hotel room for evidence of infidelity and tracking down an expert lock-picker for a Watergate conspirator."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06...
Operation CHAOS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
".. American domestic espionage project conducted by the Central Intelligence Agency from 1967 to 1974"
Thats why the US got its United States President's Commission on CIA Activities within the United States. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Inquiry by C.I.A. Affirms It Spied on Senate Panel (July 31, 2014)
".. officers penetrated a computer network used by the Senate Intelligence Committee in preparing its damning report on the C.I.A.’s detention and interrogation program."
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/0...