Slashdot Mirror

Obamacare was written by members of the Democratic party with assistance from the progressive think tank, the Center for American Progress.

Center For American Progress President Shares Part In Obamacare: "I Helped Write The Bill"

The Heritage Foundation did at one point have a plan for a vaguely similar idea, but it differed significantly in important details, and they eventually concluded it was the wrong path to take. You can find details here: ObamaCare's Heritage

If it had been single payer it wouldn't have passed. It barely had enough support as it was. The rewrites tended to be sweeteners to try to lure in more votes. The rewrites didn't fundamentally change the nature of the bill, the writing of which involved progressive think tanks.

Center For American Progress President Shares Part In Obamacare: "I Helped Write The Bill"

With the bill they passed, Democrats may have ended affordable, quality healthcare.

PRUDEN: Obamacare called ‘The fiasco for the ages’

Obamacare is a Republican idea. That's the reason that it's a byzantine maze of profiteering middlemen: Republicans love their corporate welfare.

Liberals originally wanted single-payer system like that found in most civilized countries.

I'm sorry, but I can't let you abuse history like that. The Affordable Care Act was written by Democrats and passed by Democrats, with little if any input from Republicans. It was Progressives that had input, not Republicans:

Center For American Progress President Shares Part In Obamacare: "I Helped Write The Bill"

The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was passed with only 1 Republican vote from the sources I see. 1 Republican in the House, and 0 in the Senate voted for it. The Democrats wrote it, the Democrats passed it, a Democrat President signed it, the Democrats own it from start to finish.. You can't legitimately blame this on Republicans in any way. It's time to grow up and own up.

Even if you want to associate the Republicans or conservatives with having shared the idea for it in some way in the past, there is an issue:

ObamaCare's Heritage

In that 11th Circuit appeal, which is almost certainly headed to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department cited Heritage as an authority in support of its position. Heritage responded with an amicus brief explaining that its view had changed:

If citations to policy papers were subject to the same rules as legal citations, then the Heritage position quoted by the Department of Justice would have a red flag indicating it had been reversed. . . . Heritage has stopped supporting any insurance mandate.

Heritage policy experts never supported an unqualified mandate like that in the PPACA [ObamaCare]. Their prior support for a qualified mandate was limited to catastrophic coverage (true insurance that is precisely what the PPACA forbids), coupled with tax relief for all families and other reforms that are conspicuously absent from the PPACA. Since then, a growing body of research has provided a strong basis to conclude that any government insurance mandate is not only unnecessary, but is a bad policy option. Moreover, Heritage's legal scholars have been consistent in explaining that the type of mandate in the PPACA is unconstitutional.

The Democrats still own it completely, much to their growing discomfort.

PRUDEN: Obamacare called ‘The fiasco for the ages’

And Clapper actually spoke the truth, as it is understood things.

WHAT!?!?! LOL!!! They must be paying you a lot for "coding" if it prompts you to defend their actions with this kind of BS. Clapper has admitted to lying, about the best he has done is claim that he used the least untruthful statement he could come up with. Those of us not lawyers or politicians call that "lying."

You HAVE to be kidding me. You do not think that AQ or taliban is a threat to America? You do not think that 9/11 occurred? And the fact that the Chinese, Iranian, North Koreans, and even Russians (quasi issue here) are spying on us with a full court press is not an issue? Seriously? If you think that they are not a threat, then you have an issue with your logic. Or should I be asking, what nation you are from?

Al Queida? Really? There are plenty of "threats" to national security. As I said, protecting from those threats must not compromise the rule of law, and the rights of American citizens. This level of domestic spying does just that. And since it's not even effective enough to prevent things like the Boston Marathon bombing, there is no reason to violate people's rights for it. In fact, there is no justification for violating the Constitutional restrictions on the Federal government's authority, even for the claimed purpose of "protecting the American people."

And you claim that the constitution has been violated, yet, you provide ZERO proof of it. All you have is a bunch of accusations, with no proof.

Apparently, you haven't read it. There is ample evidence that the Fourth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Amendment, and the Enumerated Powers in Article 1 have all been violated.

The Fourth Amendment obliges the government to demonstrate probable cause before conducting invasive surveillance. The government has made a mockery of that protection by relying on select Supreme Court cases, decided before the era of the public Internet and cellphones, to argue that citizens have no expectation of privacy in either phone metadata or in e-mails or other private electronic messages that it stores with third parties. This hairsplitting is inimical to privacy and contrary to what at least five justices ruled just last year in a case called United States v. Jones. One of the most conservative justices on the Court, Samuel A. Alito Jr., wrote that where even public information about individuals is monitored over the long term, at some point, government crosses a line and must comply with the protections of the Fourth Amendment. That principle is, if anything, even more true for Americans’ sensitive nonpublic information like phone metadata and social networking activity.

BTW, I asked how YOU would safeguard this, and yet, you come up with NOTHING? Why not?

Safeguard what? America? That's up to the Americans, not secret spy networks. You know what it really takes to prevent another 9/11? Do it once. That's it. As soon as word got out on 9/11 of planes being flown into buildings, the fourth plane could not be used the same way. The so-called "shoe bomber" was stopped by citizens on the plane. Same thing for the underwear bomber. Secret spying and TSA didn't do anything to stop that, the People did. You should trust them, not the liars, thieves, and elitist bullies in the Federal government.

Alberto Gonzales

Why reach back half a decade where there is so much wrongdoing to dwell on today?

The exact phrase I used was: "would be genocidal Iranian regime"

Evidence?

UN chief denounces Iran to its face over calls to destroy Israel
Iran Steps Up Threats to Rub Out Israel

At present they lack the means, such as working nuclear weapons, not the desire. I have to say that I find it astonishing that this might somehow be news to you. It is a fairly widely held goal in the region.

The Jews Were Brought to Palestine for the Great Massacre
Hamas video: Killing Jews is 'worship that draws us close to Allah'
Judgment Day - When the Muslims Kill the Jews

After all, the book by you-know-who is disgustingly popular in certain circles among kindred spirits.

Cut-rate 'Mein Kampf' sells well in Turkey, spurring concerns
Mein Kampf in pride of place on bookshop shelves
Their Kampf - Hitler’s book in Arab hands

Unrelated, but since I have your attention - I expect these topics percolate at the back of your mind:

Jenin: Palestinian Myth Machine
Goldstone: Fighting the Lies Harder Than Fighting the War

It may have worked for you for a long time but the world is slowly awakening to just how evil the behaviour of Israel is.

Given your views, you should probably hope that the world isn't awakening to evil behavior, otherwise the there some unexpected drubbings that are going to be handed out.

Palestinians Celebrate after Brutal Murder of Fogel Family
The Jews Were Brought to Palestine for the Great Massacre
Palestinian Myth Machine
Fighting the Lies Harder Than Fighting the War
Goldstone: You Cannon Undo a Slander
The European Left and Its Trouble With Jews
Why the al-Dura Blood Libel Still Matters

Yes, much of the world joins to condemn Israel, often based on lies, but either passes in silence over true horrors of the genuine mass murdering regimes in the Middle East, or actually defends the real butchers.

Hama 1982 – The Syrian massacre you never heard about
Commentary: Remembering Iraq's mass graves

What happened to Iraq's 'human shields'?

If Israel was only as evil as Iraq or Syria, the Paelstinians would have disappeared into mass graves long ago. That clearly hasn't happened.

This is the sad fate in store for companies that are relatively cheap to buy compared to how much debt they can still take on.

Some vulture capital firm will swoop in, borrow a bunch of money to take them over, then force the poor company to pay them back for the takeover costs, plus every other last cent the victim is now capable of borrowing. They make millions (sometimes) billions without risking a cent once the takeover is complete.

Everybody wins. Well, except perhaps for the banks and their investors when the companies go backrupt. And the workers who thought they were dedicating their toil to making products people wanted, not creating temporary paper value for rich folks to come in and loot.

This is why they call themselves "job craters". They don't spell it that way in print of course, but we all know what they mean when they say it.

I like Victor Davis Hanson's take:

Sadly we know the Obama boilerplate speech by heart, and so the inaugural address was by now unfortunately straw-man psychodrama. Five years ago, the well-delivered script caused fainting, now it should earn mostly yawns: Fault the well off; invest more borrowed money in more federal programs that have no demonstrable record of success; blame the bad news on others; ignore the $1 trillion-plus annual borrowing; threaten to use more executive orders; demonize the opposition; take bad news abroad and declare it good, and fluff everything up with the hope-and-change cadences that address the trivial and avoid the fundamental.

He wrote that about the inaugural address, but frankly it also applies to the State of the Union, and pretty much every other public utterance by this President.

47 million on food stamps

Immagrant kidney transplant

You don't have to lose your job to get the free money, I didn't. Just find what company the fed is pumping money into, buy its stock and sell when it gets higher. Works like a champ every time. Warning... Don't buy companies Obama puts money in, those are scams to give government money to his buddies, but the Fed Reserve is what you want. I'm able to make about $2k a month doing this now, its completely immoral and unethical, but if the government is going to take my money in the future to pay for their spending today I'll take advantage of it. However, the poor who can't do what I do are who gets really screwed by this.

The United States will recall a million pounds of ground beef if a half dozen people are killed by tained meat, and you can't figure out they just might, might, want to prevent this from happening again? I'll meet the moderators that gave you that +5 half way - you do have a rare insight, but I wouldn't give it a +1.

BTW - is the tainted meat recall about control too?

Apparently Chris Matthews gets to decide what is racist. For example, he declared that refering to "Chicago" is racist.

Any actual statistics to back that up? Or are you just spinning what you think reality should be into "fact". Because when people actually try and measure it, it turns out they do, and you're wrong: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/12/who_gives_to_charity.html

If they can't beat Obama in this economy, with his results, they really need to stare at their navels and figure out why people hate them so much.

A mystery? No.

I believe that Obama naively did not expect the Republicans to dedicate themselves to stopping him from getting reelected.

Yes, I'm sure that was his first and enduring thought on the matter.

Also, I don't think anyone expected the Republicans to declare war on reality.

That should be, "war on reality, as reported." That is the key, as reported. The BBC leadership admits it as a bias problem, but there can't be a problem in the United States?

As Margaret Thatcher noted, "The facts of life are conservative."
It is the reporting that is liberal.

Pew: Public Perception of Media Bias Hits Historic High

In Pew's biennial news survey, out today, the public revealed an alarming opinion that the media just can't be trusted to tell a story straight. . . . Said Pew, "The overall ratings for the performance of the news media are quite negative: Fully 66% say news stories often are inaccurate, 77 % think that news organizations tend to favor one side, and 80% say news organizations are often influenced by powerful people and organizations. The percentage saying that news stories are often inaccurate has risen 13 points since 2007, with much of the increase coming among Democrats and independents."

Media bias worse than money in politics

Rasmussen Reports Tuesday revealed poll results that 47 percent of likely voters feel that "media bias is a bigger problem in politics today than big campaign contributions." Fewer, 42 percent, say money is more evil.

Worse for the media, 51 percent believe that "most reporters will try to help the president," while just 9 percent will go to bat for Republican Mitt Romney. The polling is just the latest to slam media bias, with most still viewing the TV, internet and print reporters on the left's payroll.

The following has been known for some time now, from more than one study.

Journalists dole out cash to politicians (quietly)

Msnbc.com identified 143 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 16 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.

The Vast Left-Wing Media Conspiracy

When I'm talking to people from outside Washington, one question inevitably comes up: Why is the media so liberal? The question often reflects a suspicion that members of the press get together and decide on a story line that favors liberals and Democrats and denigrates conservatives and Republicans.

My response has usually been to say, yes, there's liberal bias in the media, but there's no conspiracy. The liberal tilt is an accident of nature. The media disproportionately attracts people from a liberal arts background who tend, quite innocently, to be politically liberal. If they came from West Point or engineering school, this wouldn't be the case.

Now, after learning I'd been targeted for a smear attack by a member of an online clique of liberal journalists, I'm inclined to amend my response. Not to say there's a media conspiracy, but at least to note that hundreds of journalists have

RCP has MI within the margin of error on most polls. Nate Silver has admitted his own bias towards Obama, so I'm not inclined to take him seriously.

I'm gonna have to go with Scott Adams on this one. The best summary of Romney's plan is: "You know I'm a brilliant and experienced turnaround guy. I know how to do this sort of thing. And if I give details now it just paints a target on my back. So chill."

http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/interesting_day/

Also, I am bemused that the man who ran on a platform "hope and change", the man who straight-up said "I serve as a blank screen" upon which people could project their hopes, the man who hasn't proposed to do anything different in the next four years yet he says things will somehow stop getting worse and get better... that this man is trying to nail Romney as not being specific enough about his plans?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/12/obama_scores_as_an_exotic_who.html

On the other hand, the official Obama budget plan is that the USA borrows over a trillion dollars every year for the foreseeable future, but interest rates won't go up much or otherwise be a problem. The official numbers from the OMB are that Medicare just runs out of money in 2024, yet the Obama administration has done nothing to change this; instead, Obama jacked over $700 billion out of Medicare. His fans say that this plundering only "makes Medicare stronger" and that Medicare having less money to pay out doesn't hurt Medicare recipients in any way... that is pure fantasy.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/05/medicare-and-social-security-will-run-out-sooner-than-thought/

Well, it doesn't really matter. Romney is about to win; look at the polls. We will find out whether the Romney recovery plan is worth a +5 Funny moderation or not.

Romney can't be a good choice. He is promising a 5 trillion dollar tax cut as well as deep cuts to fundamental social programs that will not solve any problems, but kick the can down the road.

Please stop regurgitating campaign bullshit as fact. The Washington Post is calling bullshit on this one. Hell, even Stephanie Cutter admits it's not true.

Because beating Obama is EASY for Ron Paul, that's the crazy part.

Probably not (that's not to say it couldn't happen, but it's not "easy")

That model is far too simple. It only uses the economy and it only works since 1980. All the model says is "in bad economic times, people tend to vote out presidents." So, yeah, that model alone predicts a Romney landslide. However, in some bad economic times people tend to keep presidents, FDR for example, which is why they have to limit the poll to 1980. The polls alone show that that model is not currently a good fit for the current situation.

Most statistics of this election predict an Obama win. If the race would be held today this is what it would look like and if you look back, the math has been relatively stable. For Romney to win he'd have to pick up Florida, Ohio, Virginia and then another state besides that. Obama has had a fairly good if small lead in most Ohio polling and has been slightly ahead in Florida and Virginia. Also, your model has Romney losing Pennsylvania, which I think is pretty much not going to happen. The FiveThirtyEight model linked to gives Obama a 78.1% chance of winning currently and on Intrade Obama futures have given a roughly 60% chance. I think these are much more realistic models than your totally-base-the-election-on-one-thing model.

Every year since 1980 means the model has worked 8 times. In statistics 8 is a pretty lousy sample size.

That model is far too simple. It only uses the economy and it only works since 1980. All the model says is "in bad economic times, people tend to vote out presidents." So, yeah, that model alone predicts a Romney landslide. However, in some bad economic times people tend to keep presidents, FDR for example, which is why they have to limit the poll to 1980. The polls alone show that that model is not currently a good fit for the current situation.

Most statistics of this election predict an Obama win. If the race would be held today this is what it would look like and if you look back, the math has been relatively stable. For Romney to win he'd have to pick up Florida, Ohio, Virginia and then another state besides that. Obama has had a fairly good if small lead in most Ohio polling and has been slightly ahead in Florida and Virginia. Also, your model has Romney losing Pennsylvania, which I think is pretty much not going to happen. The FiveThirtyEight model linked to gives Obama a 78.1% chance of winning currently and on Intrade Obama futures have given a roughly 60% chance. I think these are much more realistic models than your totally-base-the-election-on-one-thing model.

Every year since 1980 means the model has worked 8 times. In statistics 8 is a pretty lousy sample size.

That model is far too simple. It only uses the economy and it only works since 1980. All the model says is "in bad economic times, people tend to vote out presidents." So, yeah, that model alone predicts a Romney landslide. However, in some bad economic times people tend to keep presidents, FDR for example, which is why they have to limit the poll to 1980. The polls alone show that that model is not currently a good fit for the current situation.

Most statistics of this election predict an Obama win. If the race would be held today this is what it would look like and if you look back, the math has been relatively stable. For Romney to win he'd have to pick up Florida, Ohio, Virginia and then another state besides that. Obama has had a fairly good if small lead in most Ohio polling and has been slightly ahead in Florida and Virginia. Also, your model has Romney losing Pennsylvania, which I think is pretty much not going to happen. The FiveThirtyEight model linked to gives Obama a 78.1% chance of winning currently and on Intrade Obama futures have given a roughly 60% chance. I think these are much more realistic models than your totally-base-the-election-on-one-thing model.

Every year since 1980 means the model has worked 8 times. In statistics 8 is a pretty lousy sample size.

That model is far too simple. It only uses the economy and it only works since 1980. All the model says is "in bad economic times, people tend to vote out presidents." So, yeah, that model alone predicts a Romney landslide. However, in some bad economic times people tend to keep presidents, FDR for example, which is why they have to limit the poll to 1980. The polls alone show that that model is not currently a good fit for the current situation.

Most statistics of this election predict an Obama win. If the race would be held today this is what it would look like and if you look back, the math has been relatively stable. For Romney to win he'd have to pick up Florida, Ohio, Virginia and then another state besides that. Obama has had a fairly good if small lead in most Ohio polling and has been slightly ahead in Florida and Virginia. Also, your model has Romney losing Pennsylvania, which I think is pretty much not going to happen. The FiveThirtyEight model linked to gives Obama a 78.1% chance of winning currently and on Intrade Obama futures have given a roughly 60% chance. I think these are much more realistic models than your totally-base-the-election-on-one-thing model.

Every year since 1980 means the model has worked 8 times. In statistics 8 is a pretty lousy sample size.

That model is far too simple. It only uses the economy and it only works since 1980. All the model says is "in bad economic times, people tend to vote out presidents." So, yeah, that model alone predicts a Romney landslide. However, in some bad economic times people tend to keep presidents, FDR for example, which is why they have to limit the poll to 1980. The polls alone show that that model is not currently a good fit for the current situation.

Most statistics of this election predict an Obama win. If the race would be held today this is what it would look like and if you look back, the math has been relatively stable. For Romney to win he'd have to pick up Florida, Ohio, Virginia and then another state besides that. Obama has had a fairly good if small lead in most Ohio polling and has been slightly ahead in Florida and Virginia. Also, your model has Romney losing Pennsylvania, which I think is pretty much not going to happen. The FiveThirtyEight model linked to gives Obama a 78.1% chance of winning currently and on Intrade Obama futures have given a roughly 60% chance. I think these are much more realistic models than your totally-base-the-election-on-one-thing model.

Every year since 1980 means the model has worked 8 times. In statistics 8 is a pretty lousy sample size.

It is nothing wrong to criticize anyone, including criticizing the GOP, but I do find it very strange that this so-called "Space Frontier Foundation" criticizes the GOP for "hackneyed praise for NASA" while in the meantime, where were they - and I mean, that "Space Frontier Foundation" when Obama wanted to turn NASA into a "Muslim Training Camp to outer-space " ?

If you do not know what I mean ... Obama instructed NASA's administrator Charles Bolden to turn NASA into a sort of "training camp for Muslims" via a Muslim Outreach Program in order "to ind a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/07/07/nasas_muslim_outreach_106214.html

How come we never heard from the so-called "Space Frontier Foundation" when Obama wanted to turn NASA into a zoo ?
 

The moderation on slashdot ban be really disheartening. "Conservatives hate the homeless...They hate poor people (especially black ones)...". I suggest you take a look at some statistics on chartitable contributions between Republicans and Democtrats. You can start here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

Yet if current polls are to be believed, it only takes a 48% approval rating to get re-elected President of the US: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

The problem is you assume we Americans were fine with firing up the war machine. Most of us were not. If you haven't noticed, the government is doing all kinds of shit that the majority of people don't want. See the approval rating of Congress: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html

I thought they were spending all their time now making Muslims feel better about themselves.

Except for this.

I'm just going to leave this here

But thanks for that picture in the link!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_paul_vs_obama-1750.html

. . . But what stood out most for me was extensive evidence of the hijacking of the "peer review" process to enforce global warming dogma. Peer review is the practice of subjecting scientific papers to review by other scientists with relevant expertise before they can be published in professional journals. The idea is to weed out research with obvious flaws or weak arguments, but there is a clear danger that such a process will simply reinforce groupthink. If it is corrupted, peer review can be a mechanism for an entrenched establishment to exclude legitimate challenges by simply refusing to give critics a hearing.

And that is precisely what we find.

In response to an article challenging global warming that was published in the journal Climate Research, CRU head Phil Jones complains that the journal needs to "rid themselves of this troublesome editor"-hopefully not through the same means used by Henry II's knights. Michael Mann replies:

I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.

Note the circular logic employed here. Skepticism about global warming is wrong because it is not supported by scientific articles in "legitimate peer-reviewed journals." But if a journal actually publishes such an article, then it is by definition not "legitimate."

You can also see from these e-mails the scientists' panic at any dissent appearing in the scientific literature. When another article by a skeptic was published in Geophysical Research Letters, Michael Mann complains, "It's one thing to lose Climate Research. We can't afford to lose GRL." Another CRU scientist, Tom Wigley, suggests that they target another troublesome editor: "If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted." That's exactly what they did, and a later e-mail boasts that "The GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/new editorial leadership there."

Not content to block out all dissent from scientific journals, the CRU scientists also conspired to secure friendly reviewers who could be counted on to rubber-stamp their own work. Phil Jones suggests such a list to Kevin Trenberth, with the assurance that "All of them know the sorts of things to say...without any prompting."

So it's no surprise when another e-mail refers to an attempt to keep inconvenient scientific findings out of a UN report: "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow-even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" Think of all of this the next time you hear someone invoke the authority of peer review-or of the UN's IPCC reports-as backing for claims about global warming. -- ClimateGate: The Fix is In

As I write this, the moderation on the parent post should probably be understood as people helping to build "consensus" on global warming by suppressing any contrary views. That is just the way things are done in regard to disputes about AGW.

Once consensus is declared, no dissent is acceptable.

True global warming "believers" don't believe, they looked at the available evidence and weighed the opinions of experts and came to a conclusion based on facts and consensus.

I'm afraid your wrong on a number of counts.

First, most global warming believers probably hold that belief because that is what teacher said, or that is what they read in the paper, or on the web, and not through an independent review of data, papers, and reports. Although scientists and engineers may find the hard data more approachable, I expect that most of them are still at a casual level of familiarity with the material, not truly informed, let alone expert.

Second, there is something approaching consensus among scientists that the earth has gotten warmer in some measure. That doesn't mean that the data is not without disputes and controversies, including but not limited to data normalization techniques, sources, and transparency.

Third, it is trivially proven that there is no genuine consensus among scientists that the warming is caused by humanity, or what to do about it. There is at best a preponderance of opinion among scientists that it is caused by humanity. It isn't necessarily clear how strongly those views are held.

Now, this is before we consider the troubling revelations of Climategate.

ClimateGate: The Fix is In
Peer Pressure
Peer-Review Thuggery
Scientists Behaving Badly
Without candour, we can't trust climate science
Leaked Emails Raise Questions About NYT’s ClimateGate Coverage

Climategate 2.0

Last week, 5,000 files of private email correspondence among several of the world's top climate scientists were anonymously leaked onto the Internet. Like the first "climategate" leak of 2009, the latest release shows top scientists in the field fudging data, conspiring to bully and silence opponents, and displaying far less certainty about the reliability of anthropogenic global warming theory in private than they ever admit in public.

Climategate 2.0: Fresh trove of embarrassing emails

Analysis There was always an element of tragedy in the first “Climategate” emails, as scientists were under pressure to tell a story that the physical evidence couldn’t support – and that the scientists were reluctant to acknowledge in public. The new email archive, already dubbed “Climategate 2.0”, is much larger than the first, and provides an abundance of context for those earlier changes.

“I can’t overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their story,” a civil servant wrote to Phil Jones in 2009. “They want the story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made to look foolish.”

Having elevated global warming to the most dramatic, urgent and over-riding issue of the day, bureaucrats, NGOs, politicians and funding agencies demanded that the scientists must keep the whole bandwagon rolling. I

In a situation in which he wins the election, that itself would be a manifestation of a political mandate, which many in Congress would bow to, the notorious go-with-the-crowd type that they are.

For example, after the election of Reagan (also deemed a wild extremist), he had a Democratic Congress to work with, but he still got his programs through because a majority of legislators saw which way the wind was blowing.

Same as how GW Bush got his stuff approved (including 2 wars, Patriot Act, and more).

He is polling a few points behind the President, and has been for a while in a lot of polls.

It wasn't even the military that first noticed the paint job.
And the landing gear was always hidden by drapery.
If it landed intact why hide it?

You must remember this is Iran. Although in English, the word drone is neuter, I believe that in Farsi, the word for drone is feminine, so the drone is considered female. As such it must be properly draped so as to be modest. Also, the old paint job done by the American manufacturers, in the eyes of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, made the drone look like a whore. And as far as the widely rumored Revolutionary Guards rubber tire fetish.... let's not go there. The Revolutionary Guards did what they could so that they would not have to stone the drone, although they were apparently forced to flog it.

In truth, the drone probably broke into pieces due to not executing a controlled landing on a runway. The Iranians pieced it back together and repainted it. The drapes were probably to hide further damage or missing pieces.

The only thing crazier than my joke (not the mention dangerous) is the actual government of Iran.

From 2010: Iran Threatens To 'Freeze' Europe for Backing Sanctions*

The warning was issued as European leaders prepared to debate sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program.

"Iran sits on 50 percent of the world’s energy, and if it wants, Europe will spend the winter in the cold," Salami told Iranian troops in the city of Kerman. His speech was published by the Iranian Fars news agency.

Iran is in possession of roughly 16 percent of the world’s natural gas and is the fourth-largest exporter of crude oil. In addition, Iran borders the Strait of Hormuz (Persian Gulf), through which much of the world’s oil supply passes.

Salami also mentioned Iran’s missiles. The country has recently tested long-range missiles, and announced just weeks ago that it had launched a satellite-capable rocket.

"Our missiles are now able to target any spot which the conspirators are in," he said.

Western powers have been discussing the possibility of sanctions on Iran in the United Nations security council. Israel has lobbied for tough sanctions, while Russia and China continue to oppose harsh measures. The UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) plans to discuss Iran’s nuclear program next week.

* A couple of years ago this story was available from more news outlets - I guess it just isn't popular to remember it.

We don't disagree, but I think you're wrong on a couple points.

Security at B-G is multi-layered, and places a lot of emphasis on the human factor.

1) There is a spot check of vehicles at the perimeter (vs. being waved through at LAX - I go to LAX several times a year and have never had or seen a car stopped)
2) Plain clothed security will strike up conversations in the terminal (i.e. not in the normal security line) with people they deem suspicious.
3) All passangers are interviewed, at least for a bit. There is an interview before check-in, and possible questioning at the security check point after checking. Identification and boarding passes are check both at the security checkpoint and at the gate, where additional questioning may (but probably rarely) occur. Perhaps you are correct that most last less than 5 minutes, but that is 5 minutes longer than any interview I've had in the States. People you arouse suspicion are held for more interviews.
4) All baggage is x-rayed/scanned, then put in a pressure chamber to trigger altitude sensitive explosives (they might x-ray/scan some percentage of bags in the US, but they don't have pressure chambers that I'm aware of).
5) Incoming passengers from most Arab countries can be questioned as well.
6) Israeli security racially and ethnically profiles. In the US they don't admit to doing this, and given the reports of grandma's getting strip searched, they probably don't.

To describe the security at B-G as not intense compared to most major American airports is not very accurate.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/01/06/psychology_not_just_technology_for_airport_security_99795.html
http://securitysolutions.com/news/security_exposing_hostile_intent/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Gurion_International_Airport#Security_procedures
http://www.israelsituation.com/2010/11/security-at-ben-gurion-airport/

Actually recent polls show the GOP is close to Obama http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html. Not to say a few more months of bickering won't sink the GOP ship entirely. Also other polls show that over 50% of Americans support legalizing pot, and a recent GOP debate had Ron Paul bring up legalizing heroin which got cheers from the South Carolina crowd taking the moderator by surprise. I doubt the issue has the legs to go anywhere right now but I wouldn't be totally shocked if things change in the future.

How do you explain the fact that the largest increase came under George W Bush when much of the time there was an all-Republican administration?

Newt Gingrich was asked about this very thing. His response?

When he was asked once why he and his GOP comrades were chomping so much more federal pork than the Democrats ever did, he replied bluntly: "To the victors go the spoils."

Here and on other forums, I keep seeing people making the claim that Paul doesn't actually intend to cut things like NOAA. Well, NOAA takes up about 50% of the DOC's budget in non-census years. If he is just planning to shuffle NOAA around then the claim that he would eliminate the DOC is just a lie. If that is the case he may as well just change the department's name and say that means he eliminated it. As crazy as I think this budget plan is (crazy enough that I can no longer even consider supporting him), Paul is actually the one current notable politician that I trust not to do something so misleading.

Also, for anyone who thinks he just intends to shuffle the duties of things like NOAA, USGS, and NIST to other departments, they would do well to read Paul's interview with Wolf Blitzer from a few days ago: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/10/17/interview_with_presidential_candidate_ron_paul_111725.html

In the interview Blitzer mentions how many jobs would be eliminated in each of the departments he intends to cut, and Paul's response is simply "yes, but [those jobs] are nonproductive". There seems to be zero room in a blanket statement like that for him to take a more nuanced position where things like NOAA are worth saving.

You will care when interest rates rise for everyone from the local bonds building your schools to state bonds building roads and bridges because those levels of gov't are dependent on federal funds, that is taxes paid by state residents and laundered through the federal government and returned at varying ratios with strings attached. It may even effect the interest rate on your home mortgage if it's not fixed.

The ratings agencies have warned the feds for months. They wanted to see $4 trillion in cuts and only one plan offered that. It was the one called "Cut, Cap & Balance" and passed by the Republican-led House first with some Democrats joining in. The Democrat-controlled Senate voted immediately to table the bill. It never even got a debate.

The White House belittled the plan as "Duck, Dodge & Dismantle" when all the cuts talked about are reductions in automatic increases. Since the Budget Act of 1974, the federal government depends on "baseline budgeting" and today that means a guarantee that budgets will rise 7.5% over the prior year every year. We should be using "zero-based budgeting" where departments must justify every budget dollar.

We know from debt commissions and other studies, there are billions--maybe $100-200 billion according to the non-partisan GAO--in overlapping and duplicative spending but we have Democrats screaming nothing should be touched and anyone who wants spending reform is a "terrorist" (Vice Pres. Biden) or wants to "destroy" government (Minority Leader Pelosi). This is NOT helpful.

Republicans offered their long term reform ideas months ago in the form of the so-called "Ryan plan." Democrats offered criticism all year but no formal counter proposal. There was nothing in writing that could be "scored" by the CBO and Obama's budget received ZERO votes in the Senate. Senator Majority Leader Reid said it would be foolish for his congressional Democrats to offer a budget. That body hasn't passed a budget period in 829 days. Way to avoid responsibility and accountability!

Instead the president's party and its allies used the GOP proposal in divisive, misleading campaign ads. One even showed a doppelgänger of Congressman Ryan pushing an wheelchair-bound elderly woman over a cliff when the plan itself doesn't effect existing benefits for anyone 55 or older. Again, NOT helpful. (Hey, what happened to the "new tone" of "civility" after the Tuscan shooting?)

The president talks about "millionaires and billionaires" when the actual tax changes would effect, not those super rich alone, but persons making $200,000 or couples at $250,000. Small business people filing as S-corps or a cops and teachers in some high cost of living areas like NYC. Taxation needs fundamental reform not just higher rates on easy political targets who are also the most able to avoid taxation. Just as Ireland about Bono.

For anyone reading here who doesn't know and feels guilty a

In US politics only old people participate[1] since voting isn't mandatory and young people are stupid and lazy[2]. You have to remember that the soviet union collapsed in 1991 and a grand total of 2 years of voters have lived since then. 1 year if you count the last major election (2010). Even if you exclude youngsters you still only have 10 of about 60 years of voters who don't remember the soviet union being around. It's going to be a while before the average citizen didn't have their political paranoias formed after Communism stopped being a threat.

[1] http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/todays_median_age_voters_grew.html

[2] Sad but true.

Weiner seems totally unconcerned that someone was able to hack multiple private accounts of a US Congressman, doesn't want a federal investigation into such a crime even though he's on record as sa, and has already all but admitted it's his weiner in the photo.

What?!?!?! This guy can't rule out that it's a picture of his boner on the internet?

How many damned photoes of Weiner's raging weiner are available, anyway, so that he "can't rule out" that's HIS BONER?

There's got to be something WRONG with him to even get to THAT point.

AND he doesn't want the feds investigating even given that if any of his variable stories really are true how someone must have hacked multiple accounts of a sitting US Congressman?

AND his stories keep changing.

And you think it's a "frame set-up"?

Dude, I got this wonderful bridge between Brooklyn and Manhattan for sale - cheap. And some beee-yoo-teee-full swampland in Florida for sale - cheap, too.

You credulous fool.

I have come to the conclusion that there are some traditions and cultures that need to die out sooner rather than later

So you want Superman to swoop down and impose 'Truth, justice, and the American Way' it seems.

How isn't that you just manifesting a variant of American Exceptional-ism.

From Wikipedia article: United States defamation law

... some categories of false statements are so innately harmful that they are considered to be defamatory per se. In the common law tradition, damages for such false statements are presumed and do not have to be proven. "Statements are defamatory per se where they falsely impute to the plaintiff one or more of the following things":

        Allegations or imputations "injurious to another in their trade, business, or profession"
        Allegations or imputations "of loathsome disease" (historically leprosy and sexually transmitted disease, now also including mental illness)
        Allegations or imputations of "unchastity" (usually only in unmarried people and sometimes only in women)
        Allegations or imputations of criminal activity (sometimes only crimes of moral turpitude)

Reading between the lines of the news article - it appears that each women's name was listed with offensive or injurious comments that could be judged "defamatory per se" which would allow each plaintiff to proceed with legal action in civil court for damages, because Illinois does not have criminal law for defamatory acts.

The article seems to indicate that the charge of "disorderly conduct of a minor" was accepted in lieu of a full defamation damage civil law class action trial. This appears to be acceptable to the plaintiffs and to the legal custodians of the minor who allegedly perpetrated the offenses.

In the United States, the standard defense to a charge of defamation is to prove the truth in the contested statements. "Defamatory per se" weakens that defense since the simple act of alleging or imputing the reputation of a person in any of the four cases above is sufficient to be judged by a court as an act of defamation.

On these grounds, it becomes clear that Donald Trump has engaged in a campaign of defamation against the US Office of the President by imputing moral turpitude on the current office holder - Barack Obama. While this is not treated as a criminal act in New York State -- criminal defamation is on the books in New Hampshire, Kansas, North Carolina, Florida, Minnesota, Michigan, Colorado, and Virginia -- and both civil and criminal complaints are being considered for those states.

On the flip side, Donald Trump's employment contract with Mark Burnett Productions includes a standard "Morality Clause" that can trigger instant termination of employment if the employee is deemed to have committed a criminal act or a public act of moral turpitude. This protects the production of "Celebrity Apprentice" from civil actions for recovery of damages due to actions of a performer. Clearly, a public defamation campaign against the Office of the President counts at least as Moral Turpitude - and because "Celebrity Apprentice" is produced under a license granted by the BBC and Thames Talk TV - such a campaign would be considered a criminal action in United Kingdom courts.

There is currently a write-in campaign to the offices of NBC Universal and Mark Burnett Productions requesting that Trump's employment with "Celebrity Apprentice" be terminated for violating Trump's contractual Morality Clause. This campaign was initiated by MSNBC's own news commentator Lawrence O'Donnell. See his video clip from "The Last Word" (aired on MSNBC on April 27, 2011)

1) Reduce the tax rate dramatically. 10% would be good, less would be better.

If you were to just stick with #1, it would be a much better policy.

Right, so then why does GE, with a 0% tax rate, still cut 1/5th of its U.S. workforce in favor of offshore labor? Can't get a much better deal than that.

Political circles are full of ignorant idiots who are stuck on perception, and not on reality. If reality was the case, Harry Reid could not have ever won reelection, and should be facing immediate recall for saying one of the most stupid statements I think I've ever heard by a Senator; that the US doesn't have

SEN. HARRY REID: "Every country virtually in the world has GPS. Mongolia has it. We don't.

Politics is a weird and strange world that has little nor no basis in reality.

I suggest you learn how to read studies, and then do so.

I'll start reading their studies when they stop selectively excluding data in order to produce the results they want.

I'll start reading their studies when they stop cherry-picking a time range for the study in order to produce the results they want. (The time range stuff is at the beginning of part 1; other issues are examined in that 4-part video series as well.)

I'll start reading their studies when they stop trying to avoid publishing in peer-reviewed journals, when they stop trying to sabotage the careers of scientists who disagree with them (same link), when they stop ignoring the objections of other scientists, and so on and so forth.

In short, why should I trust the conclusions of these "scientists" when they repeatedly demonstrate that they're interested in "proving" pre-determined results, often in exchange for large grants, rather than actually finding the truth?

Harry Reid seems to think it's the duty the legislative branch to vote on riders. Feel free to listen to his near 2 minute speech on the matter. Personally, I think we should have a constitutional amendment banning all riders. Ya, dream on. This sucks.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/12/16/harry_reid_we_have_a_constitutional_duty_to_approve_earmarks.html

the election would have been in the bag for the Republicans had the bank failures not have happened in September.

Not really

Immelt is also on Obama's economic recovery committee, GE has been given $25 million in stimulus money and MSNBC hosts are openly shills for the administration (at least as much as people like Hannity were for the last one).

So GE gets millions of free money from the government, then turns around and spends millions on cars from the government. All at taxpayer expense.

Remember, the only way to look at the government is down. Following the money still works, even if the politicians are on "your side."