Slashdot Mirror

The Kellerman study was badly and tendentiously designed.

The worst flaw: that study only counted uses of a firearm that resulted in a dead body. If some guy kicked in the front door of a home, and the woman inside pointed a gun at him and he left, then Kellerman's study would not count that as a "use" of a firearm. Because most defensive uses of a firearm do not result in the weapon being fired, let alone anyone dying, this structurally stacked the deck against defensive gun uses.

That study also lumps in suicides with homicides. I have not seen any honest study that shows that a gun in the home causes an increase in the suicide rate.

The study started with people killed by firearms, which meant there was a 100% chance of a firearm being present, but then guessed whether there was a firearm in the home of a "matching" person. We have no way of knowing how many of the "guesses" were correct, and each case where they guessed wrong would lower their result. We literally cannot put error bars on the result.

Kellerman's own data showed much higher correlations: having an adult in the home who has a previous felony conviction for a violent crime is a much better predictor of the chance of violence.

There are plenty of articles on the flaws in the Kellerman study.

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kellerman-schaffer.html

http://guncite.com/gun-control-kellermann-3times.html

Professor Gary Kleck's research shows that firearms are used effectively for defensive purposes many times per year.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/defensive-gun-ownership-gary-kleck-response-115082

And I just posted links showing that the number of shootings (both accidental and intentional) has dramatically fallen at the same time that the number of firearms in the USA has dramatically risen. If the Kellerman study's conclusions were accurate, the number of shootings should have risen when the number of guns rose so much.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8501517&cid=51151345

It is a mistake to base any decisions on dishonest research.

I'm surprised that Sanders' team would access such a database at all.

According to Bernie Sanders — in their own words — these data are "the heart and soul of our campaign".

An eye-opening admission, I must say...

What's frightening is that you'd choose a crazy bigoted egomaniac over a fairly unremarkable Democrat who has become the devil incarnate to right-wingers somehow. I never understood the incredible amount of hate that US conservatives have for Hillary. Since she's a huge war-hawk by Dem standards, you'd think they might even find her more tolerable.

hillary was beloved by republicans back when. “I have a sense that she is one of the more competent members of the current administration and it would be interesting to speculate about how she might perform were she to be president,” -Dick Cheney http://dailycaller.com/2011/09... "Look, if we had a Clinton presidency, if we had Erskine Bowles as Chief of Staff of the White House or president of the United States, I think we would have fixed this fiscal mess by now. That's not the kind of presidency we're dealing with right now." - Paul Ryan http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bi... “Having started as a secretary and eventually become a chief-executive officer, I not only have great admiration and respect for Hillary Clinton and her candidacy and her leadership, but I also have great empathy, I must tell you, for what she went through,” -Carly Fiorina http://www.todayszaman.com/wor... “I happen to like Hillary Clinton; I think she’s done a good job for the ... secretary of state’s position, and I have high respect for her and think a great deal of her.” - Orrin Hatch http://www.politico.com/story/... “I think the international star is Secretary Clinton. She has done a really tremendous job.” John McCain http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2... "She's dedicated to her job, she loves her country, I think she is a good role model, one of the most effective Secretary of States, greatest ambassadors for the American people that I've known in my lifetime." -Lindsey Graham http://www.thestate.com/news/p... "I think she's done a fine job. The problem isn't Hilary Clinton, who's great," -Condoleeza Rice http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_...

Five year bill:
http://www.politico.com/story/...

At least they only got ripped off a few tens of millions of dollars with those fake scanners -- the USA got ripped off of $160M for body scanners that don't work

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

to pay for basic income, everyone has to earn less

I don't think that's accurate. Productivity since the 70s has doubled, but real-terms wages have been stagnant. In the last 3 decades, the top 0.1% of Americans have doubled their wealth. It's obvious that improved technology can maintain the same lifestyle for the same number of people but with the labour of fewer people - the maintenance of employment levels has mostly been due to the improvement of that basic lifestyle (smartphones, better medical technology, etc) providing jobs for displaced farm workers etc. The system we have encourages spending the extra productivity of technology and economic growth on an expanded lifestyle, but it could be diverted instead to providing a basic lifestyle without requiring extra labour.

I like the idea of everyone earning a set amount and then working for more, but then the system breaks down, because nobody wants to contribute back.

In the trials of Basic Income that have been done so far, the total amount of work drops about 4%, mostly accounted for by teenage students studying instead of working to support their family, and mothers looking after their kids. The local economy grows.

The truth is that the majority of people want to keep their own success

Is it entirely their own?

"forget all that rhetoric about how America is great because of people like you and me and Steve Jobs. You know the truth even if you won’t admit it: If any of us had been born in Somalia or the Congo, all we’d be is some guy standing barefoot next to a dirt road selling fruit"

- Nick Hanauer (self-described billionaire plutocrat)

The wealth that a few accumulate is based on the labour, and custom, of the many. It depends on a working society. If your society collapses because people can't afford to eat, then you're just a guy with a nice house fending off the starving hordes with a shotgun. And your delivery of fresh organic produce isn't coming this week.

Basic Income isn't about redistributing wealth evenly ; it's about making sure that no-one starves, and yes, it's also about making sure that the businesses of today have customers tomorrow. The Citigroup Plutonomy Report aside, not everyone can make a living making gold-plated iPhones and giant yachts.

The Republican Party needs younger voters more than the Democratic Party does, as conservative voters are dying off at a faster rate than liberal voters.

By combining presidential election exit polls with mortality rates per age group from the U.S. Census Bureau, I calculated that, of the 61 million who voted for Mitt Romney in 2012, about 2.75 million will be dead by the 2016 election. President Barack Obama's voters, of course, will have died too — about 2.3 million of the 66 million who voted for the president won't make it to 2016 either. That leaves a big gap in between, a difference of roughly 453,000 in favor of the Democrats.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/the-gop-is-dying-off-literally-118035

"HP Is Now Two Companies. How Did It Get Here?"

Two words: Carly Fiorina.

I know people throw around the term psychopath in connection with CEO character a lot but in this case, she absolutely ticks off the boxes, including :

PATHOLOGICAL LYING

Carly Fiorina Makes a Lot of Stuff Up About Everything

http://www.motherjones.com/pol...

CONNING AND MANIPULATIVENESS

"..the thing that comes through clearest is this almost, if we werenâ(TM)t on TV, Iâ(TM)d say almost psychopathic denial of reality. As you saw, even the creators of that hoax Planned Parenthood video, that even they say that this is not the footage that she says it isâ¦when she was national finance chairman for McCain, she was jousting with him, what his positions are on contraceptives, trying to contradict him in real time. It was very bizarre.

Or saying that he is not equipped to be the CEO of a corporation, but he could be the commander in chief while sheâ(TM)s helping to run his campaign, and then denying she said it when it was on tapes everywhere.

This is like, she stomps her feet and demands that black is white, hot is cold, and rich is poor and wins are losses.â

âoeâ¦Many great leaders failed. but their resilience came from exoneration or contrition. She just stomps her feet and demands redemption. You have to earn redemption.â

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/is-...

LACK OF REMORSE OR GUILT

Wallace: âoeWhat about the 30,000 American jobs that you laid off?â

Fiorina: âoeYou know, every family and every business in California knows what it means to go through tough times. And every family is cutting back, and every business is laying off right now. I donâ(TM)t say that with delight. I say that with sorrow. But yes, it is true that jobs are being taken out of California. By the way, China fights harder for our jobs than we do.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/is-...

SHALLOW AFFECT / CALLOUSNESS / LACK OF EMPATHY

As CEO of Hewlett-Packard, Carly Fiorina laid off 18,000 workers. When reflecting on her tenure, she admitted she wished she had "done them all faster."
Fiorina Fired At Least 18,000 HP Employees

POOR BEHAVIORAL CONTROLS / IMPULSIVITY

According to those who work with her, she has a barely stifled impulsivity towards make deeply personal and alienating remarks to others, and for no real reason :

She once ridiculed the music interests and appearance of a dissenting board member Walter Hewitt, son of HPâ(TM)s co-founderâ"as well as the allegedly dowdy look of rival Senate candidate Barbara Boxer.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazi...

a trait she *barely* has under control as evidenced by this live mic "accident" .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

IRRESPONSIBILITY

"....She makes irresponsible decisions. At HP, Fiorina abruptly pivoted from a strategy of chasing IT services to a splashier, but less sound strategy of ramping up in device manufacturing.

While her predecessor, revered HP CEO Lew Platt, traveled coach in commercial planes, she demanded the company buy her a Gulfstream IV. More recently, her service on the Taiwan Semiconductor board indicates continued irresponsibility. Financial disclosures at the time Fiorina left the board in 2009 show that she attended just 17 percent of the companyâ(TM)s board meetings."

There is an alternative outlet for that battery crankiness. Target that crankiness at government. Why is the government not doing more to drive battery research, solar panel research and wind turbine research.

The political environment - at least in America, simply isn't conducive to that.

When Solyndra went belly up, the far right went nuts about it.

Mind you, this isn't specifically about Republican versus Democrat, just that one of those groups really really really hates subsidies - except for their own. Here is an example so perfect, it's hard to imagine:

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

http://www.washingtonexaminer.... TL;DR version. While ubsidies to sugar producers continued, and the crop insurance program also expanded. They voted for that,

Food stamps? sorry, that's bad. Removed.

I'd even make some arguments against some aspects of the food stamp program.

But subsidies for sugar growers? And why should my taxpayer dollars go to some millionaire farmer so he never takes a loss (note, some members of the group that voted for that pulled more than 7 million dollars from their vote.

If they're not this guy: http://www.politico.com/magazi...

If they're not that guy, fuck 'em. If the system is making them hyper-privileged and it's wrecking their relationships and making it impossible to live as a human being, it's on THEM to change the system because the system is there to serve them.

They're guilty for a reason. They don't need therapy, they need reform and rehab, and they are the ones in a position to change things.

It's morally wrong to give 'em therapy and soothe their little feelings without addressing the larger problem. They're unhappy because they are BAD PEOPLE.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/ar...

As Secretary of State, she would be considered an Original Classification Authority. This means that she would be trained in recognizing what should be classified information, and what should be protected.

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

According to that article, the number of classified emails is in the range of 400. Some of those messages should have been obvious that they were classified, especially for someone who is supposed to be the one determining the classification of information (an Original Classification Authority's job).

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the...
http://www.archives.gov/about/...

Saying that she didn't send or receive any emails marked as classified is a lie of omission. She should have known that certain things should have been classified, so even without the markings (which is likely to land someone in Federal prison), she should be able to identify classified information and handle it properly, including reporting the release of classified information onto her home email server.

There are records of every "official" email to and from her in the State Department servers. They have all been reviewed. Not a single one was found out of place. Not a single one was found to not be on the "released" emails Hillary disclosed. Not a single one contained classified documents. Not a single problem was found, and every single one was scoured.

That's not true. They recently found some she didn't turn over and numerous instances of classified information were on the server. Some information is classified because of where it comes from, including a lot of satellite imagery, and that was also found there.

http://www.politifact.com/trut...

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

Rand Paul's position on marriage is to get government out of marriage and allow everyone equal access to make legal contracts. http://www.politico.com/story/...

A three-legged cat could out-fox Carly Fiorina.

http://www.politico.com/magazi...

The Obama administration claimed that "the Iraqis wouldn't allow forces to stay without immunity." That is the story that made it through the news, but later investigation revealed it wasn't the case. At one point, the Iraqi administration and the US administration were discussing how to keep the military there. The Iraqis offered one solution, "If you get rid of immunity, the representatives will approve it immediately." The US administration grabbed that phrase, and warped it to mean, "if we don't get rid of immunity, they won't approve it." Twisting their words. Lying. Getting what they wanted in the first place.

Exactly. That was the Iraqis' opening "bargaining chip" as it were. They were trying to haggle for a better deal from the US, but the Obama administration was looking for any excuse to cut-n-run, so they used it. More "fantasy based" foreign policy... http://www.politico.com/magazi...

With all the storms, droughts, forest fires, and heat waves out there, it shouldn't be hard for you to find one that has been made noticeably worse by AGW.

It certainly seems bloggers claim AGW has caused every notable hurricane or firestorm. Later, if scientists have time, they come in to set the record straight. For example, with Hurricane Irene a few years back, plenty of people were saying it was caused by AGW. But no scientists are making that claim.

(PS: my favorite quote from that article is Limbaugh claiming tropical storms can't hit Canada).

people up who disagree

Except that is not the case of "disagree" but of "let me hate and harass in peace" and "my imaginary friend gave me right to hatemonger".

And when one invokes "imaginary friend" rules... well, one sets oneself up for a LOT more than just bankruptcy.
Like being offered as a human sacrifice to someone else's imaginary friend.
And then we call that person who kidnaps people and cuts their hearts out as a sacrifice to the their imaginary friend not a premeditating murderer - but a MENTALLY INSANE person.
Adults with "imaginary friends" are mentally insane. Children too, probably.
So, that "people who disagree" is closer to "mentally insane people who just want to spread hatred and harassment towards people for whom their psychosis tells them that they are 'fair game'"

As for "harassing them into bankruptcy"...
Besides the fact that Melissa and Aaron's imaginary friend would dictate exactly that had they been running a bank and not a bakery - they were breaking a law. Deliberately and purposefully.
On account of "imaginary friend is our get out of jail free ticket".
Which if it were true would make 9/11 a perfectly fine way of expressing one's beliefs in imaginary creatures and rules.

But besides THAT... You are full of shit.
http://www.politico.com/story/...
They made out like gangbusters (more like just regular gangsters) from donations from people who apparently think that they, the people, should pay for products of other people's insane decisions.
From each according to their ability to give, for Melissa and Aaron according to their need to pay for their hate-license.
Because they, too share the same ideology of who to hate.

And they weren't nothing "into bankruptcy" - they chose to lock up their shop, rather than comply to "cakes - not hate" order.
http://aclu-co.org/court-cases...

The Commission's order affirmed previous determinations that Masterpieceâ(TM)s refusal to sell Mullins and Craig a wedding cake constituted discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in violation of Colorado law. The Commission also ordered Masterpiece Cakeshop to change its company policies, provide "comprehensive staff training" regarding public accommodations discrimination, and provide quarterly reports for the next two years regarding steps it has taken to come into compliance and whether it has turned away any prospective customers.

Better donations than rejecting discrimination, no cake for those we hate!

She fired someone else in part because of having an insecure mail server.

Sorry troll, but the OP is right. The republicans are already on the warpath:

http://takingnote.blogs.nytime...
http://www.politico.com/story/...
http://www.sanduskyregister.co...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/oh...

that the general population starts to starve results in the leaders and top 1% getting their heads cut off. Never underestimate the power of an entire population with nothing to lose. Some of the rich people realize this, others don't...[emph. added]

http://www.politico.com/magazi...

These busy-body FBI agents working on taxpayer dollars sure saved the country by keeping an eye on Bradbury. All those "subversive" books critical of comprehensive state surveillance and censorship could have had had a hugely negative effect on freedom and democracy (har). I wonder how many other people they've wasted their time and our money following around?

The biggest irony is what little clues there are about Bradbury's politics seem to lean to the libertarian side of things if not well to the right in later years, although I'm sure the details aren't as simple as that, and his views seemed to have evolved over time, like most people's do. Maybe in the 1950s it was more to the "left" side of things. Regardless, he was forever a critic of large, invasive governments and a big supporter of democracy and keeping people informed (e.g., libraries). How the FBI got red-pinko-subversive out of it is bizarre. It's pretty clear he was anti-authoritarian and wanted government to change. Maybe that's what frightened them, and by surveiling him they eventually proved Bradbury's point. It was (is?) out of control.

Besides the waste, I think these documents show that despite their investigation the FBI were pretty incompetent at understanding Bradbury's motivations.

At least Google didn't get hacked. http://www.politico.com/story/...

Only if they were official records.

If she can legally use her own server (which is debatable, but was also a practice of the previous administration, so it's very unlikely the people who had gwb43.com addresses or Colin Powell's private email address would prosecute that), then she can have private messages sent to that server, and she has no obligation to tell the government whether Bill is sending her naughty emails while he's doing speeches in Dubai. That's not an official record and her political opponents have absolutely no right to it.

Where it gets trickier are things like her donors giving her advice. They're probably her friends, and a friend telling the Secretary of State precisely what to do about Bibi is pretty much par for the course and I doubt Congress has the authority to force a Secretary to record all those conversations for the record; but she also owes those guys favors.

But she's a lawyer, so she probably has a very convincing case lined up explaining her reasoning for deleting those emails, and (as I mentioned) it would not suit the GOP at all to actually have her prosecuted for deleting 50k emails, because that would involve admitting their entire Bush White House should also prosecuted for deleting 22 million, and Colin Powell too. The GOP will bitch too high heaven because it helps them politically, and do nothing because that would hurt them.

Actually it's the New York Times fucking up.

The word "criminal" doesn't appear anywhere in the actual paperwork, and the DoJ says it has nothing to do with Hillary's actions. To quote politico quoting the Times:

The paper initially reported that two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation "into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account she used as secretary of state."

That clause, which cast Clinton as the target of the potential criminal probe, was later changed: the inspectors general now were asking for an inquiry "into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state."

It seems like the Inspectors General are interested in why some of Hillary's emails were marked unclassified, and turned over to the public, by the State Department. While this is an investigation of a fuck-up, it is a) technically not criminal, and b) is not an investigation of Hillary Clinton.

Which means the most interesting thing about this story to me is why they screwed it up so badly. Nothing in their story turned out to be true, and they shoulda known it. Was it anti-Clinton propaganda that failed to work? Is it an pro-Clinton attempt to discredit future investigations into her email server? A pro-Clinton attempt to convince Bernie fans she's actually not the candidate of Wall Street? Was it an attempt at click-bait? Or did somebody just totally fuck up that reading comprehension thing and think he had a great exclusive when what he really had was fantasy?

I suspect the latter. But speculating about all other iterations is so much more fun.

The change makes it look worse, not better. The changes were solicited Hillary's campaign, themselves. http://www.politico.com/blogs/...

One of the reporters of the story, Michael Schmidt, explained early Friday that the Clinton campaign had complained about the story to the Times.

“It was a response to complaints we received from the Clinton camp that we thought were reasonable, and we made them,” Schmidt said.

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean tech execs aren't trying to use their money and "massive distribution channels" for political messages in support of their efforts. :-)

One of the more positive things that has happened recently is that they got starved for victims so they started attacking their own political camps. They were basically doing purity tests. Once everyone is a liberal how do they justify their existence? well... they then ask "how liberal are you"... and they just start goal posting moving to make sure they have enough people to be outraged with at any given time.

So anyway, they were doing that and eventually they hit a segment of their own political contingent that fought back. And now they're a little baffled because a lot of the wind has gone out of their sails. They're getting attacked from all sides now and they're losing credibility rapidly.

Its funny because they're such dogmatic robots that they don't really understand what happened.

We'll see... they'll either be suppressed to the general good of society or they'll osterize most of their political base which will lead to a structural schism in the faction which will weaken them collectively.

Hit. Nail. Head. I wish I had mod points today. What's happening with liberalism today is a case study in self destruction. All we need to do is sit back and watch it play out.

Like those ideological purity tests...if we started measuring conservatives on the basis of how conservative are you, it would surely mark the beginning of the end. Liberal purity tests have pushed their kind so far to the extreme, they're now attacking themselves. And their tactic of keeping one constituency or another outraged at any given time has totally backfired.

I don't really blame liberals for being baffled. They've spent so much time in an echo chamber, they've lost touch. When reality finally slaps them in the face, it is only natural for them to try to figure out what happened. The question is, do they have the capability to make the necessary changes in order to correct their course?

Somehow I doubt it. Liberals are so

One of the more positive things that has happened recently is that they got starved for victims so they started attacking their own political camps. They were basically doing purity tests. Once everyone is a liberal how do they justify their existence? well... they then ask "how liberal are you"... and they just start goal posting moving to make sure they have enough people to be outraged with at any given time.

So anyway, they were doing that and eventually they hit a segment of their own political contingent that fought back. And now they're a little baffled because a lot of the wind has gone out of their sails. They're getting attacked from all sides now and they're losing credibility rapidly.

Its funny because they're such dogmatic robots that they don't really understand what happened.

We'll see... they'll either be suppressed to the general good of society or they'll osterize most of their political base which will lead to a structural schism in the faction which will weaken them collectively.

Hit. Nail. Head. I wish I had mod points today. What's happening with liberalism today is a case study in self destruction. All we need to do is sit back and watch it play out.

Like those ideological purity tests...if we started measuring conservatives on the basis of how conservative are you, it would surely mark the beginning of the end. Liberal purity tests have pushed their kind so far to the extreme, they're now attacking themselves. And their tactic of keeping one constituency or another outraged at any given time has totally backfired.

I don't really blame liberals for being baffled. They've spent so much time in an echo chamber, they've lost touch. When reality finally slaps them in the face, it is only natural for them to try to figure out what happened. The question is, do they have the capability to make the necessary changes in order to correct their course?

Somehow I doubt it. Liberals are so

Rural economies cannot support the nice houses, cars, jobs, shopping malls, and priviledge they see, and they feel left behind.

These same people also feel very intimidated by things they don't understand, and they don't understand much.

Thank you very much for this example of condescension. The way you dismiss over half the country — without, as is usual your kind, any attempts at citations — is really telling. Telling about you... At least, your erzats-deity managed to get some compassion into his condescension — you lack even that.

Me? I would take a country pumpkin over your kind of snobbish "I know, what's better for everybody else" asshole any day of the week. And twice on Shabbat.

It's a symbol of the red state/blue state divide. That's why you're sticking up for it, after all.

Oh, yes, a Ukrainian immigrant living in New Jersey is sticking for Confederate flag, because "he is left behind in a rural State". I've seen people making worse guesses than you just made — with all the aplomb customary to the above-mentioned snobbish assholes — but they are very rare indeed.

But, at least, even you admit, the flag is not "about slavery". I suppose, that's progress.

Prove it.

Given the number of times they've been caught lying in the past — including very recent past — the burden of proof is on Iran — and its apologists. The same apologists, who have no problems protesting Iran's innocence, while at the same time arguing for their right to have nuclear weapons...

Oh, and TFA itself is proof — the argument, that Iran are doing it "for energy" is defeated by the simple Math presented here.

It is admirable, that you wish to apply the "innocent until proven guilty" principle even to foreign regimes, but it is also naïve. Even in the legal system and offender on probation has to continuously prove innocence...

But realize that the propaganda machine is using the WMD line to trance you into gearing up for war, just like they did for Iraq.

So, your argument for Iran's innocence is our attack on Iraq? I fail to see a connection... The above-enumerated lies are totally independent of whether or not I am unduly influenced by some ominous propagandists — whom you would not even cite.

Have you considered the possibility, that it just might be you, who are a propaganda-victim? A "deal" with Iran (and Cuba) is the only good legacy Obama can have: despite all the Statist interventions (like the "Cash for Clunkers" flop) the economy is contracting, the Ukraine-related sanctions against Russia should've been Georgia-related and tightened instead of abolished in 2010, Obamacare is increasingly unpopular.

Bringing "peace for our time" with the mullahs would be — he foolishly thinks — something he could point a finger at. The way Clinton can point to his — equally foolish deal with North Korea. This is why they push for the "deal" — the same inept morons, who tried to befriend Putin with a plastic button...

Me and Rush Limbaugh are both wondering, just how is the American flag any better? It, likewise, flew over slavery, the subsequent racism, and was (still is!) used in imperialist wars. It covered — still does at times — sexism and parochial bigotry.

Whatever you can say against the Confederate flag, can also be said about the American. Yeah, the latter may have been used for some good, but the sheer period of its usage (over 2 centuries and counting), makes it much worse than the former, whose country only existed for what, four years? Five?

Can it get any worse? Yes it can! A recent study has shown, that simply seeing the flag can cause a hitherto innocent victim to vote Republican! And even a single exposure can last for up to 8 months!

As soon as we are done with KKKonfederate rag, we must turn our energies onto the AmeriKKKan one.

In fact, why wait? Let's act NOW!! .

Maybe, those misunderstood ISIS warriors destroying the symbols of defunct states that practiced slave-ownership are onto something, huh? I for one have always doubted Pythagorean Theorem — what can a long-dead White slave-owner possibly know about any hypotenuse?

My suspicion is this news story is cover for the fact another leak occurred and compromised current operations.

The US intelligence agencies would have to assume that after Snowden, their undercover operatives were compromised. Any serious spy agency would not trust a renegade spy hiding in Russia and a bunch of foreign journalists to hold onto state secrets indefinitely. Even if they believed that Snowden was well intentioned, every spy agency in the world will be trying to get a copy of Snowden's database. As such, the assumption would have to be that the database was (or will soon be) compromised.

The only reason to worry about current operations is that another leak occurred. I'm thinking that the OPM leak might be worse than reported, or alternatively, yet another leak has happened.

I've bought and sold at Gun shows. The ATF usually sets up a booth there and police are present providing security at the doors. FFL's have to log in and out every firearm received and sold/transferred with a to and from. If the to isn't an FFL they have to have a matching 4473 form, and the ATF audits them. People have and do go to jail for innocent paperwork errors. If there is anything intentional suspected then their business gets shut down until the investigation is over. Personal buys and sells are not wink/wink because there is likely as not undercover agents there as well. The 60 minutes documentary had the journalists actually committing several felonies and were(cough*David Gregory*cough) not prosecuted because of who they are.


The real reason for the whole gun show loophole propaganda is to get people who don't know about the laws and realities to push to make it illegal for private individuals to buy, sell, gift, and inherit guns to each other without going through a federal licensee/dealer. This raises the prices of guns by at least $100 per sale, and creates a de-facto gun registry so that later they can tell you like Dianne Feinstein wanted to "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

He's within 10 points of Hillary in Wisconsin.

I'm sorry. Iraq was relatively stable in 2009. The reason it's so fucked up now is directly due to Obama's fantasy foreign policy. The same goes for Yemen, Libya, Egypt, etc. The "Arab Spring" was Jimmy Carter's fuckup with Iran multiplied. I agree about letting them destroy themselves...blockade the entire area, let no one out but let any nut who wants in have at it. http://www.politico.com/magazi...

his stance is simple, and consistent. "is it constitutional?"

The problem is that he thinks HE is the one who gets to decide what is constitutional, no matter that the constitution grants that power to the Supreme Court:

"Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so" [reference]
-Rand Paul

The Second Amendment clearly (to anyone who understands how English was used at the time) forbids the Federal Government from interfering, in any way, with obtaining and carrying weapons. (infringe ~ "even meddle with the fringes of")

Your interpretation is quaint, and incorrect, at least it didn't mean that until 2008, Columbia v. Heller

there is not a single word about an individual right to a gun for self-defense in the notes from the Constitutional Convention

Nor in the Constitution!

The public's understanding of the 2nd Amendment started to be distorted by the NRA early in the last century. The NRA has been filling the minds of gun owners with an interpretation that was never intended by the Founders for some time, so no one can blame you for your incorrect interpretation when a propaganda machine like the NRA has been bombarding you with selective truths and out-right lies.

Four times between 1876 and 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule that the Second Amendment protected individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia.

That includes gun trafficing, because stopping gun sales makes it harder to exercise the right.

Wow... THAT is OUT THERE. Of course, you are completely mistaken, and this bold statement of yours is wildly, dangerously inaccurate. Gun regulation is legal, and necessary.

No, of course FDR didn't cause the Depression (just extended it).

He was a commie in the 30s and early 40s, despite the fact he never sent anyone to the Gulag (kinda the defining aspect of Communism in the 30s and early 40s)

If you want to be pedantic about what is and what isn't Communism, you could at least break out the Manifesto because I can think of a lot of ideological nitpicks that you could put in advance of "did not establish a gulag"

Why would I do that?

Communism is a living political movement. It is defined, not by the words on a page, but what actual human beings who believe in the movement think the words mean. In FDR's era that was being a Vanguard party and frequent purges of opponents of the Revolution. If you were speaking about an Italian from 1970 it would be completely different.

Using it the way you're using it is like claiming Dubya actually wanted to murder the entire House of Windsor out of revenge for the Famine, or that he was identical to Saddam because all use the label "Republican."

Even if you were using word on a page, the fact that he didn't foment a bloody Revolution, ushering in a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, is enough to prove that anyone who claims he was Communist in that sense is more then a little deranged.

the business community fought him tooth and nail the whole way ... but he enriched his friends in business, etc.

Yeah, go read about the National Recovery Administration. Essentially they suspended antitrust law if you adopted a certain minimum wage. Clarence Darrow (of Scopes Monkey Trial fame) briefly headed up the National Recovery Review Board, a body which issued a few nice reports on how effectively this crushed smaller businesses, and was then promptly dissolved. You could try reading one or two. (Of course the Supreme Court found the act establishing the administration unconstitutional, leading to the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, an utterly transparent attempt to pack the Supreme Court.) The Montgomery Ward incident, incidentally, was much much later, in 1944, during the war.

You know what Communists do when the Court rules against them? Shoot the court. That's kind of the defining aspect of Communism. Capitalism is inherently unfair, the system is stacked against us, therefore we must have a Revolution to destroy the system. There's no pacifism in the Manifesto.

You can accuse somebody who uses a legal procedure to try to pack the Court of being a Social Democrat and a hardass, but accusing them of being Communist is just not sensible. It's ad hominem for ad hominem's sake, it exposes you as intellectually bankrupt, and worst of all it's fukcing boring.

I mean you're using fucking ad hominem. At least be creative about you juvenile leaf-brained smeller of other people's farts.

but then it was never sold as a way to reduce overall costs.

Hahahhahahahahahahhaha... let's see what Google can say on the topic in the next 15 seconds... Key White House allies are dramatically shifting their attempts to defend health care legislation, abandoning claims that it will reduce costs and the deficit and instead stressing a promise to "improve it." -- Politico, 8/9/2010. (I'm sure I could find more coverage in the event that you don't think Politico's worth the paper it's printed on.)

Reread your source. Scratch that, read your source.

It says nothing about what the White House said the plan would do. It it so far removed from the White House that it's impossible to describe in a single clause. A Think Tank supporting the White House was urging people to stop saying "it will cut costs." To those actually involved in the movement cut costs is a well-known shorthand to say "reduce cost grow

No, of course FDR didn't cause the Depression (just extended it).

He was a commie in the 30s and early 40s, despite the fact he never sent anyone to the Gulag (kinda the defining aspect of Communism in the 30s and early 40s)

If you want to be pedantic about what is and what isn't Communism, you could at least break out the Manifesto because I can think of a lot of ideological nitpicks that you could put in advance of "did not establish a gulag".

the business community fought him tooth and nail the whole way ... but he enriched his friends in business, etc.

Yeah, go read about the National Recovery Administration. Essentially they suspended antitrust law if you adopted a certain minimum wage. Clarence Darrow (of Scopes Monkey Trial fame) briefly headed up the National Recovery Review Board, a body which issued a few nice reports on how effectively this crushed smaller businesses, and was then promptly dissolved. You could try reading one or two. (Of course the Supreme Court found the act establishing the administration unconstitutional, leading to the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, an utterly transparent attempt to pack the Supreme Court.) The Montgomery Ward incident, incidentally, was much much later, in 1944, during the war.

but then it was never sold as a way to reduce overall costs.

Hahahhahahahahahahhaha... let's see what Google can say on the topic in the next 15 seconds... Key White House allies are dramatically shifting their attempts to defend health care legislation, abandoning claims that it will reduce costs and the deficit and instead stressing a promise to "improve it." -- Politico, 8/9/2010. (I'm sure I could find more coverage in the event that you don't think Politico's worth the paper it's printed on.)

http://www.politico.com/blogs/...

If I wanted to read something about politics, I would read at the Politico. At least the nut jobs there know how to properly insult each other without pretending to have read the article.

In 2011, the Iraqi PM made the same offer. Even he acknowledged it was pointless, since the Iraqi parliament had to agree to it, and they were unwilling to do so.

That is not true.

Yes, it is true; see No, Obama Didn’t Lose Iraq where Mr. Kahl, "the senior Pentagon official responsible for Iraq policy during the first three years of the Obama administration" said,

Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, told U.S. negotiators that he was willing to sign an executive memorandum of understanding that included these legal protections. But for any agreement to be binding under the Iraqi constitution, it had to be approved by the Iraqi parliament. This was the judgment of every senior administration lawyer and Maliki’s own legal adviser...

Which is basically what I said in my next sentence. "Working out the internal politics" included al Maliki working out a deal with Parliament, working out a framework to present the deal to the Iraqi public, etc.

You continued with

The Iraqis needed time to work out the internal politics of immunity but the US pushed them for a public position before they were ready so the public position was no immunity. Had to US given them the time they wanted the answer may have been quite different, as it always was in the past once the US sweetened the deal.

That's simply wishful thinking on your part. You want it to be true so that you can blame the Obama administration.

No, al Maliki said he needed this time. Numerous foreign policy experts have criticized the Obama admin for forcing Iraq to take a public position on immunity before the internal Iraqi negotiations and planning had taken place. The experts considered this one of the Obama admins major blunders.

Its actually quite simple. Going forward the new guy won't be saddled with someone else's deal, the new guy will go forward with his own deal.

Gah! The "new guy" was saddled with the agreement! That's the whole point.

No. The actual point is that there is an agreement on the departure of the invasion and occupational forces. For diplomatic and political reasons that era needed a fixed and unambiguous end. This agreement, for the era of occupation, largely covered a timeframe on the earlier President's watch and only briefly stretched into the next President's watch.

Also for diplomatic and political reasons a separate deal was required with a fully sovereign and independent Iraq for future US forces that would participate in anti-terror, training, support, liaison, etc. The time frame for this era of cooperation was entirely on the next President's watch so both the US and Iraqi government agreed that this future President should negotiate the deal.

In 2011, the Iraqi PM made the same offer. Even he acknowledged it was pointless, since the Iraqi parliament had to agree to it, and they were unwilling to do so.

That is not true.

Yes, it is true; see No, Obama Didn’t Lose Iraq where Mr. Kahl, "the senior Pentagon official responsible for Iraq policy during the first three years of the Obama administration" said,

Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, told U.S. negotiators that he was willing to sign an executive memorandum of understanding that included these legal protections. But for any agreement to be binding under the Iraqi constitution, it had to be approved by the Iraqi parliament. This was the judgment of every senior administration lawyer and Maliki’s own legal adviser...

You continued with

The Iraqis needed time to work out the internal politics of immunity but the US pushed them for a public position before they were ready so the public position was no immunity. Had to US given them the time they wanted the answer may have been quite different, as it always was in the past once the US sweetened the deal.

That's simply wishful thinking on your part. You want it to be true so that you can blame the Obama administration.

You're saying, basically, the Bush administration was willing to negotiate a troop pullout that would happen during the following administration, but they were unwilling to negotiate an agreement to keep troops in Iraq during the following administration. You can't have it both ways, sorry.

Its actually quite simple. Going forward the new guy won't be saddled with someone else's deal, the new guy will go forward with his own deal.

Gah! The "new guy" was saddled with the agreement! That's the whole point. I can't believe you don't even understand that, which is actually the simplest part of the whole discussion. The Bush administration saddled the Obama administration with a binding agreement on troop levels in Iraq. The Obama administration tried to renegotiate that agreement but the Iraqi government refused to change it.

I'm sorry, but this last comment really proves that you simply have a belief and all the facts in the world won't change it. If you disagree, then you have to acknowledge that this claim is ridiculous. If the Bush administration didn't want to saddle the following administration with an agreement, then they shouldn't have made one that forced the troops to be withdrawn.

Right.. and people become Democrats once there are no jobs (a BA is the new HS diploma, fetch my coffee senior barista), and they become Democrats once their kids can't afford education and healthcare in unattainable.

It's happening, and there's nothing you can do about it. I've got a net worth in seven digit territory, and even I vote Dem because even with a mill or two stashed away, these days you can still find yourself easily fucked and depending on social safety nets. In addition, you disenfranchise everybody else long enough, and they're going to look at what YOU have.

This guy gets it.

As if there aren't people on both sides for and against it.

http://www.infoworld.com/artic...
http://time.com/3578255/conser...
http://www.theatlantic.com/tec...
http://www.politico.com/story/...

> The ones I've worked with have good senses of humor and, contrary to the opinions voiced here, have no desire to trample on anyone's rights.

Generally true--you've mostly got a lot of really good guys working intelligence. Most of the concern around massive surveillance--and part of the problem they really have a problem understanding it--is not what the guys in control of it now *do*, it's the *potential* for the wrong guy or guys to use it for evil.

Right now you have some *REALLY* sketchy stuff going on even with good guys in charge. Most notably, you've got a problem in that it's being used against criminals indirectly, which is a gross violation of the rights of a lot of criminals. Think parallel construction type projects. Wasn't there a big treasure trove of tax evasion data that mysteriously appeared a while back? Here we go: http://www.politico.com/mornin...

That *is* almost certainly our government or governments colluding to violate the rights of criminals, but the people doing it don't *care* because it's criminals.

I am a little upset about that because it's unconstitutional and because we overcriminalize generally, so almost everyone is breaking the law and they have something on everyone if they care to use it.

I am *much* more concerned with the potential for misuse not with the generally good guys dealing with it today, but by the bad guys who come in tomorrow, or the good-ish guys who get too tempted knowing how much easier it would be if they blackmail a senator or two based on knowledge of who they've slept with or what their daughter was up to on spring break. You're fundamentally dealing with power politics with an apparatus that could put a man like Frank Underwood in control of the country for decades, all without real transparency or accountability.

Most politicians don't have anywhere near that level of savvy--we are mostly saved by a combination of incompetence and a lot of really great guys in the intelligence community who would go a long way to prevent that kind of thing if they find out about it--but if we don't put incredibly good *processes* in place, engineered to prevent that kind of takeover, then it *will* happen if it has not already. Think what J. Edgar Hoover could have done with that information. Think what McCarthy did without it, and how much worse it could have been.

That's a lot to assume based on nothing and in fact contrary to plain language of the document.

But that's really a side issue. No law should be passed in secret, or the text sequestered in a special room where only a representative or senator can read it and can't take notes or copies or get expert guidance on unfamiliar topics -- the congresspeople can't even discuss what they remember reading.

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

The ONLY reason this is being done in secret, is because the special corporate interests it is designed to further know people would bitch about it if it was public. That's anti-democratic and the entire process surrounding this bill should be enough of a basis, on its own, to reject it out of hand.

Yes, that rule has been in place since 1990, but it's now being completely ignored by the SuperPACs due to Citizens United. In 2012, the Scott Walker campaign for governor of Wisconsin took in $2.6 million from SuperPACs.

Right now, you have all campaign finance laws being flouted because the SuperPACs smell blood in the water due to Citizens United and the 5-4 breakdown of the Supreme Court. Do you remember when the Supreme Court told Montana that they were not allowed to have any laws limiting campaign contributions from SuperPACs?

http://www.politico.com/news/s...