Slashdot Mirror

Do you really believe this? It seems that most of your comments are guided more by biased beliefs than facts, and whatever facts you do use are cherry-picked to suit your own, twisted narrative.

I'd ask you to look in the mirror. Have you read the Gospels? Have you read the Sermon on the Mount? Are you so willfully ignorant of the most astonishing point from the New Testament, that Christ allowed himself to be sacrificed?

The kind of ill-informed, misguided, extremist views you're espousing do real harm to a lot of people. Please stop it.

Take your own advice. You demonstrate a complete lack of fundamental knowledge regarding the main tenants of the Abrahamic religions, as well as a willful blindness as to how these religions are being played out in the real world.

Notice how you did not respond to any of my points picking apart your attempt at equating Christianity with Islam. Run the numbers. Go through the body counts. Look at how it's the Christians being persecuted in Muslim lands. Why are the Muslims seeking refuge in Christian lands? How many Christians would seek refuge in Muslim lands?

Are you interested in truth, or just politically correct, "all mainstream religions are equal", feel-good bullshit? Based on the scriptures, Mohamed was a conquering warlord. This is a basic fact. Based on the scriptures, Jesus spread his message through peace and did not resist when the powers came after him. This is a basic fact. To not acknowledge this is ignorance beyond all measure.

Are you willing to challenge your assumptions? Can you click a link and read, or are you just going to sit in your politically correct bubble? Islam has bloody borders:

" Nevertheless, there is a problem that goes back to the very beginnings of Muslim history: From the time that the first Muslims established themselves as the rulers of Medina, Islam was a political and increasingly a legal system as well as a faith. In Medina Muhammad continued to be a prophet, but he also became the head of a state and a military leader. With the exception of Southeast Asia (where Islam was spread by traders from the the subcontinent), what we now know as the Muslim world was established by conquest. It is no accident that in traditional Muslim thought the world is divided into two spheres--the realm of Islam (dar ul-Islam) and the realm of war (dar ul-harb). Put simply, it is assumed that the border between Islamic rule and the rest of the world marks a state of war, even if periods of armistice are possible. One should be cognizant of the important fact that there are Muslim thinkers today who are reformulating the nature of Islamic law (sharia) and of Islamic war (jihad) in a much more liberal manner. But one must also recognize that there is a weighty tradition to the contrary and that a large number of Muslims, possibly the majority, does not favor these reformulations."

[citation needed]

The only solar thermal power plant in CA is struggling because it's badly designed and is not cost-competitive. It also for quite some time was failing to deliver the required contracted amount of power. Fortunately, they fixed some stuff and it finally is in compliance as of this week: https://www.the-american-inter...

"... the drop occurred due to market forces, specifically the displacement of coal-fired power generation by cheap, plentiful natural gas provided by the shale boom. Fracking’s flourishing has made our dirtiest form of electricity production less economical, and because natural gas plants emits half as much carbon as their coal counterparts, this shift has also made our energy mix more climate friendly.

For the most part, this will continue to be the case under Trump, which is why the EIA is expecting energy-related emissions to fall this year."

By way of comparison, how’s Europe doing?

Despite your seemingly "reasonable" tone and content your post is a load of rubbish. Lets look in detail.

You mistakenly presume that there is any sort of government censorship of Republicans by "left-wing thugs" to begin with. This claim does not stand up to even the most basic form of scrutiny....

That is a straw man. He didn't write that it was government censorship, but rather "left-wing thugs" shutting down speech. That is true. Here are just two of many recent examples:

College Protestors Send Professor to the ER
Conspiring to stifle free speech is a crime: Glenn Reynolds

...not to mention the judicial which now leans conservative;

Really? The judiciary "leans conservative" so soon after 8 years of Obama appointments? Of the last 24 years Democrats have had 16 years of making appointments and 8 years of obstructing Republican appointments as best they could. Trump has made 1 (one) judicial appointment that was seated only a few weeks ago. If the judiciary "now leans conservative" how are Trump's travel ban executive orders being challenged in such unprecedented ways and on what are essentially frivolous grounds? You don't know what you are talking about.

so if we are to talk realistically about what you perceive to be an infringement of your right to call those who disagree with you "left-wing thugs," your own post is clear proof to the contrary.

This is more nonsense. He isn't complaining about being unable to "call those who disagree with you "left-wing thugs," he is complaining about the left-wing thugs (previously cited) who are using violence to shut down speakers invited by or speaking from a conservative or Republicans viewpoint.

But perhaps, like many of your ilk, you are too ignorant to understand the difference between someone who disagrees with the kind of ill-informed, uneducated, right-wing vitriol that you spew, and someone who actually imposes a legal order against your ability to speak out in this "marketplace of ideas" that you vaguely refer to.

You appear to be misinformed. Mobs wielding baseball bats and fire bombs are not "someone who actually imposes a legal order against your ability to speak out." As to the question of who is "spewing" vitriol, I suggest a comparison of your response and the post you relied to. You have things backwards.

As your political class has never historically had their actual constitutional freedoms curtailed by law, perhaps a more charitable observer would forgive you for such a spectacularly persistent inability to recognize whether the government is actually oppressing you.

Oh absolutely! Who could possibly notice the infringement of rights .. which never happen?
Police Can Seize And Sell Assets Even When The Owner Broke No Law
Top Ten Worst Abuses of Eminent Domain Spotlighted in New Report
Wichita State University: Student Government Denies Recognition to Libertarian Group Because It Defends Free Speech
Part of D.C. Gun Carry Law Struck Down in Federal Court

But perhaps, like many of your ilk, you are too ignorant to understand the difference between someo

Only real difference being that Jesus is not the son of god but just another prophet.

Bullshit. Jesus, as described in the gospels, was basically a hippie who preached virtue, love, and peace. Muhammad, as described in the Quran, hadith, and Sunna, was a conquering warlord.

Islam is as "compatible with the civilized world" as any ancient religion [..] You know... like all those flavors of Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism

Bullshit. Islam is uniquely violent, political, authoritarian, and expansionist. Not that you can't find some of the above in other religions, in particular the Old Testament, but Islam took it to a whole new level:

"Nevertheless, there is a problem that goes back to the very beginnings of Muslim history: From the time that the first Muslims established themselves as the rulers of Medina, Islam was a political and increasingly a legal system as well as a faith. In Medina Muhammad continued to be a prophet, but he also became the head of a state and a military leader. With the exception of Southeast Asia (where Islam was spread by traders from the the subcontinent), what we now know as the Muslim world was established by conquest. It is no accident that in traditional Muslim thought the world is divided into two spheres--the realm of Islam (dar ul-Islam) and the realm of war (dar ul-harb). Put simply, it is assumed that the border between Islamic rule and the rest of the world marks a state of war, even if periods of armistice are possible. One should be cognizant of the important fact that there are Muslim thinkers today who are reformulating the nature of Islamic law (sharia) and of Islamic war (jihad) in a much more liberal manner. But one must also recognize that there is a weighty tradition to the contrary and that a large number of Muslims, possibly the majority, does not favor these reformulations."

ISIS: Started in Iraq, after a US invasion created a power vacuum and allowed many groups against the US to flourish. Among them was an Al Qaeda affiliate, who are annoyed with the US's actions in Saudi Arabia during the first gulf war.

Doesn't change the fact that it's part of Islam's beating, black heart, following in the footsteps of their prophet Mohamed and seeking to reinstate an Islamic caliphate.

Iran: Political Islam was arguably created (as we know it), and definitely fostered, as a way of uniting people against the puppet installed by western interests.

Doesn't change the fact that it's part of Islam's beating, black heart, following in the footsteps of their prophet Mohamed and seeking to reinstate an Islamic caliphate.

So no, they didn't start in a vacuum - they were both formed as responses to US foreign policy.

Now go on and repeat your excuses for all the other places around the world where Islam is seeking or has gained authoritarian rule. The common factor is Islam.

That you wouldn't even mention that shows you either don't know about Islam, or are intellectually dishonest enough to consciously ignore it. Pick one.

*snort* Learn some history and study the basic tenants of Islam, and then look at the world around you. There's a reason Islam is the most violent, authoritarian, and expansionist mainstream religion in the world today. Islam has bloody borders:

"Nevertheless, there is a problem that goes back to the very beginnings of Muslim history: From the time that the first Muslims established themselves as the rulers of Medina, Islam was a political and increasingly a legal system as well as a faith. In Medina Muhammad continued to be a prophet, but he also became the head of a state and a military leader. With the exception of Southeast Asia (where Islam was spread by traders from the the subcontinent), what we now know as the Muslim world was established by conquest. It is no accident that in traditional Muslim thought the world is divided into two spheres--the realm of Islam (dar ul-Islam) and the realm of war (dar ul-harb). Put simply, it is assumed that the border between Islamic rule and the rest of the world marks a state of war, even if periods of armistice are possible. One should be cognizant of the important fact that there are Muslim thinkers today who are reformulating the nature of Islamic law (sharia) and of Islamic war (jihad) in a much more liberal manner. But one must also recognize that there is a weighty tradition to the contrary and that a large number of Muslims, possibly the majority, does not favor these reformulations."

Islam does not imply Sharia, hence it is just a religion and not a political ideology.

At the core of Islam is a beating, black heart. You think ISIS and Islamic rule in countries like Iran happens in a vacuum? It's there at the roots.

Lern to know your enemy, if you think you have one!

Indeed, here's two links for you to start you on your way:

Dr. Bill Warner - Why Are People Afraid

Islam has bloody borders:

"Nevertheless, there is a problem that goes back to the very beginnings of Muslim history: From the time that the first Muslims established themselves as the rulers of Medina, Islam was a political and increasingly a legal system as well as a faith. In Medina Muhammad continued to be a prophet, but he also became the head of a state and a military leader. With the exception of Southeast Asia (where Islam was spread by traders from the the subcontinent), what we now know as the Muslim world was established by conquest. It is no accident that in traditional Muslim thought the world is divided into two spheres--the realm of Islam (dar ul-Islam) and the realm of war (dar ul-harb). Put simply, it is assumed that the border between Islamic rule and the rest of the world marks a state of war, even if periods of armistice are possible. One should be cognizant of the important fact that there are Muslim thinkers today who are reformulating the nature of Islamic law (sharia) and of Islamic war (jihad) in a much more liberal manner. But one must also recognize that there is a weighty tradition to the contrary and that a large number of Muslims, possibly the majority, does not favor these reformulations."

I think it's pretty obvious at this point that religion is a sickness. I don't claim to think that some religions are necessarily more harmful than others, all of them encourage an us vs. them mentality which is detrimental to everyone.

That's the head in the sand approach to religion. The fact is that Jesus was a hippie that preached peace, love, and virtue, while Mohammad was a conquering warlord. And while there's some horrific shit in the Old Testament, and Christianity had some dark periods, Judaism and Christianity today have mellowed out. Islam, on the other hand, has never shed it's violent and authoritarian roots.

The problem is non-stop violence in the middle east, not whatever religion those people follow.

Islam has bloody borders that go beyond the Middle East:

"Nevertheless, there is a problem that goes back to the very beginnings of Muslim history: From the time that the first Muslims established themselves as the rulers of Medina, Islam was a political and increasingly a legal system as well as a faith. In Medina Muhammad continued to be a prophet, but he also became the head of a state and a military leader. With the exception of Southeast Asia (where Islam was spread by traders from the the subcontinent), what we now know as the Muslim world was established by conquest. It is no accident that in traditional Muslim thought the world is divided into two spheres--the realm of Islam (dar ul-Islam) and the realm of war (dar ul-harb). Put simply, it is assumed that the border between Islamic rule and the rest of the world marks a state of war, even if periods of armistice are possible. One should be cognizant of the important fact that there are Muslim thinkers today who are reformulating the nature of Islamic law (sharia) and of Islamic war (jihad) in a much more liberal manner. But one must also recognize that there is a weighty tradition to the contrary and that a large number of Muslims, possibly the majority, does not favor these reformulations."

It would also be a good idea to realize that Trump is doing exactly what ISIS wants.

ISIS has also had goals to infiltrate the West with immigration flows. I don't give a fuck about this "doing exactly what ISIS wants" argument. What's dumb is to import a hateful ideology incompatible with Western values.

When you force a Muslim, or a member of any other religion, to choose between their religion and anything else you're creating a clear path for them to choose violent resistance because they feel justified or "righteous" in doing so.

So you're advocating for violence to impose Sharia law?

This is how we defeat ourselves - we ban members of an entire religion, forcing them to pick a side in what they now see as a war against them

No, nobody is "forced to pick a side". If we wanted to bomb Muslims into the stone age we could. There's a difference between a sane immigration policy and "war against Islam". But if you think not allowing a hateful, foreign ideology into your country justifies violence against your country it is you who are playing into the hands of ISIS.

Anyone who doubts Trump's long-standing connections w sketchy Russia\FSU types should read this: http://www.the-american-intere...

If you look at the situation honestly, it's obvious that's there's an endemic problem with violence and authoritarianism within Islam that no other religion comes close to today. Islam has bloody borders:

"Nevertheless, there is a problem that goes back to the very beginnings of Muslim history: From the time that the first Muslims established themselves as the rulers of Medina, Islam was a political and increasingly a legal system as well as a faith. In Medina Muhammad continued to be a prophet, but he also became the head of a state and a military leader. With the exception of Southeast Asia (where Islam was spread by traders from the the subcontinent), what we now know as the Muslim world was established by conquest. It is no accident that in traditional Muslim thought the world is divided into two spheres--the realm of Islam (dar ul-Islam) and the realm of war (dar ul-harb). Put simply, it is assumed that the border between Islamic rule and the rest of the world marks a state of war, even if periods of armistice are possible. One should be cognizant of the important fact that there are Muslim thinkers today who are reformulating the nature of Islamic law (sharia) and of Islamic war (jihad) in a much more liberal manner. But one must also recognize that there is a weighty tradition to the contrary and that a large number of Muslims, possibly the majority, does not favor these reformulations."

The thing about Christianity is that it has the shitty, barbaric God first (The Old Testament), followed by the loving God second (The New Testament). That's why you had to go to the Old Testament to get the barbaric bits. In the New Testament, Jesus says to be virtuous, to love one another, and to not resist evil. He's a hippie (without the free love).

With Islam, it's reversed. There's a peaceful, no compulsion in religion period, followed a war-mongering, tyrannical period under which Islam spreads. Contradictions in instruction are resolved by giving the latter period priority.

"Dr. Bill Warner - Why Are People Afraid"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

"Islam has bloody borders."
http://www.the-american-intere...

"Nevertheless, there is a problem that goes back to the very beginnings of Muslim history: From the time that the first Muslims established themselves as the rulers of Medina, Islam was a political and increasingly a legal system as well as a faith. In Medina Muhammad continued to be a prophet, but he also became the head of a state and a military leader. With the exception of Southeast Asia (where Islam was spread by traders from the the subcontinent), what we now know as the Muslim world was established by conquest. It is no accident that in traditional Muslim thought the world is divided into two spheres--the realm of Islam (dar ul-Islam) and the realm of war (dar ul-harb). Put simply, it is assumed that the border between Islamic rule and the rest of the world marks a state of war, even if periods of armistice are possible. One should be cognizant of the important fact that there are Muslim thinkers today who are reformulating the nature of Islamic law (sharia) and of Islamic war (jihad) in a much more liberal manner. But one must also recognize that there is a weighty tradition to the contrary and that a large number of Muslims, possibly the majority, does not favor these reformulations."

If Islamist ideology were inherent in Islam, the devout Muslims I've known would have supported it, and they didn't. That follows from the definition of "inherent". Love of liberty is one of the general principles of the founding of the United States (if you were a free male landowner, anyway), but it isn't inherent to the United States.

By the same logic I could argue that because there are Muslims who don't act religiously, that religion isn't "inherent" in Islam. It's a bullshit argument and playing word games. I'm talking about the basis for Islam, its history, and its practice in the world today. All you do is keep repeating a version of "Not all Muslims" while refusing to look beyond that.

Drop back a few centuries and you'll find that Christianity had been militant, expansionist, and authoritarian for the vast majority of its history, but those traits are not inherent in Christianity.

And this is where it's helpful to actually look at the basis of the religion. Jesus, as described in the gospels, was basically a hippie who preached virtue, love, and peace. Muhammad, as described in the Quran, hadith, and Sunna, was a conquering warlord.

If you actually looked at the sources I gave you, you could stop arguing from ignorance and trying to equate Islam with Buddhism and Christianity. It's ridiculous.

Here, let me make it easier:

"Generally speaking, conflicts become more violent if they are legitimated in religious terms. No religious tradition, even the most pacific one (think Buddhism), is immune against serving this kind of legitimation. All the same, superimposing a religious world map over a similar map delineating violent conflicts, the borders of Islam stand out. And mostly Muslims are the initiators of the violence (though Christians may have tried hard to provoke them).

This is not to deny that most Muslims in the contemporary world desire to live in peace with their neighbors of other faith, nor to deny that there have been Muslim states that presided over such peaceful relations for long periods of time (for example, intermittently under the caliphate of Cordoba in Spain, in Moghul India and in the Ottoman empire). Nevertheless, there is a problem that goes back to the very beginnings of Muslim history: From the time that the first Muslims established themselves as the rulers of Medina, Islam was a political and increasingly a legal system as well as a faith. In Medina Muhammad continued to be a prophet, but he also became the head of a state and a military leader. With the exception of Southeast Asia (where Islam was spread by traders from the the subcontinent), what we now know as the Muslim world was established by conquest. It is no accident that in traditional Muslim thought the world is divided into two spheres--the realm of Islam (dar ul-Islam) and the realm of war (dar ul-harb). Put simply, it is assumed that the border between Islamic rule and the rest of the world marks a state of war, even if periods of armistice are possible. One should be cognizant of the important fact that there are Muslim thinkers today who are reformulating the nature of Islamic law (sharia) and of Islamic war (jihad) in a much more liberal manner. But one must also recognize that there is a weighty tradition to the contrary and that a large number of Muslims, possibly the majority, does not favor these reformulations."

Islam is a religion.

It's also a political ideology that seeks to impose its values on others.

but the Muslims I've known are quite reasonable and hardly ever go on jihaidic shooting sprees

Sure, there are plenty of moderate Muslims. But even then a large number of them do not share Western values.

Most Muslims, like most Christians and most Buddhists, want to live their own reasonably peaceful lives.

Islam at its core is an expansionist and violent religion, unlike Buddhism, and unlike the actual gospels of Christianity (even if there was a period of authoritarian theocracy). That's why Islam has bloody borders.

They may provide political support for things I find despicable, but that's not a serious problem, given the numbers that are fleeing to the West.

Given all the problems caused by just a tiny percentage, why do you think it's a good idea to increase it? Islam is a fundamental threat to the West.

I wonder how the USA would rate if as many people were still using well water? Not the city water is much better. How much of that is polluted again?
http://www.the-american-intere...
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2...

...sadly, these politicians refuse to look at the studies that show poverty is the leading factor and instead want to channel public school funds to companies that donate to their campaigns.

You wrote "company" when you should have written "union," as in "teachers union."

Fourteen of America’s 25 Biggest Campaign Donors Are Unions

You do know that teachers unions have been fighting tooth and nail against charter schools, school choice, and other measures that have been helpful in raising student achievement?

Blue Civil War: Knives Drawn in Education Fight

You do realise that one of the reasons why charter schools do better then public schools because they kick out the under-performers and only accept those with higher grades? Those who are kicked out or not accepted by the charter school then go back into the public school system where they pull down the average of the public schools in comparison to the charter schools...

...sadly, these politicians refuse to look at the studies that show poverty is the leading factor and instead want to channel public school funds to companies that donate to their campaigns.

You wrote "company" when you should have written "union," as in "teachers union."

Fourteen of America’s 25 Biggest Campaign Donors Are Unions

You do know that teachers unions have been fighting tooth and nail against charter schools, school choice, and other measures that have been helpful in raising student achievement?

Blue Civil War: Knives Drawn in Education Fight

http://www.the-american-intere...

Just because something is unprofitable does not mean that it should not be built.

Yes, in most cases, that's exactly what it means. If it's unprofitable, it will have to be subsidized. The perfect example for the subject at hand is Amtrak. The "overall economic benefits" are miniscule compared to the billions in subsidies Amtrak has blown through. Here's just one of many examples of how it's mismanaged:
http://www.the-american-intere...

Why was Amtrak created in the first place? Purely as a pander to two very special interest groups:
1) Politically-connected railworker unions, and
2) Those who wrung their hands about "it's a crying shame what's happened to our railroads... do something to bring back the good old days!" (Not comprehending that there are reasons travelers voted with their dollars and actions such that passenger rail service became unprofitable.)

Please don't double down on the huge mistake that was Amtrak.

Yep... And — for a car analogy — if I'm driving, I want to be able to drive on any road with any speed by car can go, and park wherever I see fit. No matter, who built the road or attends to the parking lot.

legitimate ISP does, as opposed to a censored ISP like sometimes exists in the USA and often exists overseas.

Legislating service is a losing proposition. The service provider will get around the legislation (have we not seen it just recently, when telcos were forced to allow other DSL-providers access to their copper-wires?), but the costs for you and the barrier to entry for a would-be competitor will both be higher.

The government's role is to help competition appear — by reducing the red-tape around laying down wires and fiber — not by trying to force the incumbent monopoly to play nice(r).

Great, you want to judge both sides impartially by international law, let's judge them by international law.

If you want to go that way you should be prepared for the possibility that international law won't be on your side. (Which I'm not sure you are.)

Are the Settlements Illegal?

Eshkol went ahead to create the settlement anyway, and therefore set the conditions which began the Movement for Greater Israel and Israel's settlement enterprise.

"Movement for Greater Israel"? They kind of shot that to hell when they returned Sinai to Egypt, didn't they? (How much land was that compared to the territory of Israel proper?)

2. Killing non-combatants

From the Goldstone Report:

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/...

The "Goldsone Report"?

Goldstone: You Cannot Undo a Slander

Richard Goldstone, the formerly respected South African jurist who disgraced himself by lending his name to a sinister and libelous U.N. report condemning Israel for war crimes, has now issued a very public retraction. “If I had known then what I know now,” he wrote in the Washington Post, “the Goldstone Report would have been a different document.” New information has persuaded him, he said, “that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy” by Israel. ......

For the better part of four years, Israel suffered more than 10,000 missile attacks against its civilians from Gaza. When it finally used military force to stop the attacks, Israel, in the words of British colonel Richard Kemp, former commander of British forces in Afghanistan, “did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare. Israel did so while facing an enemy that deliberately positioned its military capability behind the human shield of the civilian population.”

All of this was not just knowable when Goldstone signed on as front man for the U.N. lynch mob, it was known. The Goldstone Report was intended, and has since been employed, to stigmatize any Israeli self-defense as a war crime.

Tell me again why college in the US costs sooooo much?

Colleges need to adapt so that university education doesn't become too expensive for all.

. In his book on administrative bloat, The Fall Of The Faculty, Johns Hopkins professor Benjamin Ginsberg reports that although student-faculty ratios fell slightly between 1975 and 2005, from 16-to-1 to 15-to-1, the student-to-administrator ratio fell from 84-to-1 to 68-to-1, and the student-to-professional-staff ratio fell from 50-to-1 to 21-to-1. Ginsberg concludes: "Apparently, when colleges and universities had more money to spend, they chose not to spend it on expanding their instructional resources, i.e. faculty. They chose, instead, to enhance their administrative and staff resources."

And when they had less money to spend, they did the same thing.

Administrator Hiring Drove 28% Boom in Higher-Ed Work Force, Report Says

University Administrative Glut Worse Than We Thought

Over the last 25 years the number of administrative employees at U.S. colleges and universities more than doubled, according to a joint study by the New England Center of Investigative Reporting and the American Institutes for Research. The ratio of nonacademic positions to faculty positions doubled at both public and private institutions. Overall, the industry has added an average of 87 administrative positions per day, a rate has scarcely slowed since the economic downturn, despite tuition increases. Even more surprising, academic institutions have added more administrative employees despite part-time faculty taking on more teaching duties than full-time professors.

Not to mention that we're already running down our aquifers...

Which doesn't matter much because there are huge reserves of water under the ocean.

Not to mention the amount of water we are talking about is really tiny when compared to the amount used even by a small city.

I think you may be misunderstanding what "less educated, less well off people" means. A certain level of context comes into play there when we're talking about most of the rest of the world versus the Western countries. For the purposes of that comment, "less educated" would refer to individuals who've had little (less than 5 years) to no formal, useful education (centers for extremist religious indoctrination where no math, science, or arts are taught don't count). When you have someone who lacks the benefits of formal education, they have very little knowledge of themselves or the world around them and are vastly easier to manipulate.

When I say "less well off", I'm referring to people living in poverty. Not the US "I-can-barely-afford-my-apartment-and-2000-calorie-a-day-diet-for-me-and-my-three-kids" poverty, but rather the "I-have-no-money-and-live-in-a-shoddy-handmade-structure-and-three-of-my-kids-have-starved-to-death" poverty. US military members aren't poor and they at least complete high school. While not rich and not all walking around with doctorate degrees, they're vastly better off and better educated than the masses of people being recruited to die for Islamic extremists. we're talking this http://0.tqn.com/d/usmilitary/1/0/4/V/4/housing.jpg versus this http://cache1.asset-cache.net/gc/81518477-palestinian-refugees-live-in-a-shantytown-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=GkZZ8bf5zL1ZiijUmxa7QUZstEgSEzISlVU9i%2Bk2NM7I4BN20ZTyd4sqKm4demhVCrzgOzt9RaiIcVVEh90eoFKxaxDWC0%2BLBeZUYpfF0vk%3D and this http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/files/2013/06/Classroom.jpg versus this http://micconference.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/madrasa.jpg. Let's be honest about the differences.

As for my stance sickening you, I find it odd that you feel the need to call out self-defense as sickening, but apparently feel no such need to call out the brainwashing of uneducated, poor masses of people to die in futile attempts to advance the agendas of sick and twisted cowards by convincing them to murder as many innocent civilians as possible in the name of a god who wants to reward them for doing so. Perhaps you should reconsider what's actually sickening.

It makes perfect sense that Chinese groups are attacking the military of the Philippines since China is paving the way for aggression. China is trying to claim sovereignty over islands claimed by many of its neighbors. The age old quest by China to establish its hegemony continues.

Philippines Protests Renewed Chinese Pressure in South China Sea
China And The Biggest Territory Grab Since World War II
The Philippines and Japan want U.S. help in dealing with China’s aggression
Philippines upgrades military to end China "bullying" in S. China Sea
Japan Will Sell Ships To Philippines To Fight China’s “Bullying”

It makes perfect sense that Chinese groups are attacking the military of the Philippines since China is paving the way for aggression. China is trying to claim sovereignty over islands claimed by many of its neighbors. The age old quest by China to establish its hegemony continues.

Philippines Protests Renewed Chinese Pressure in South China Sea
China And The Biggest Territory Grab Since World War II
The Philippines and Japan want U.S. help in dealing with China’s aggression
Philippines upgrades military to end China "bullying" in S. China Sea
Japan Will Sell Ships To Philippines To Fight China’s “Bullying”

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/05/12/colleges-paying-the-price-for-expensive-facilities/

Airplane manufactures do it for their fly by wire systems so that the pilot always stays in control, even when the system would rather beg to differ on the matter.

If I recall correctly, this corresponds to somewhat of a philosophic difference between Airbus and Boeing. From what I read a few years ago, Airbus absolutely limits what the pilot can do - he/she can not make the plane do something the computer doesn't approve of. Boeing, assumes the pilot knows best, and allows the pilot to 'override' the system (do things with the controls that seem unwise to the computer). Boeing's POV is that the computer may be wrong, and/or the situation may not be one the computer is ready for.

I did a bit of Googling 'airbus and boeing philosophy' and found many interesting links. Boeing still insists on classic controls, which require the pilot to act like a pilot instead of automating everything (even though it's automated). And the autopilot automatically disengages as soon as the pilot takes the controls. Airbus philosophy is to automate everything to avoid human error - but slashdotters generally know that computers are only as smart as their programs, and are _never_ as adaptable as their programmers.

Your 401k account doesn't have guaranteed payouts though.

Looks like the terms of your PERS system were very generous back in the day - http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/11/18/oregon-catches-pension-bug/. I'm not sure how much Oregon can cut back on services but it's a huge amount of money which needs to be taken from somewhere else to shore up PERS. Like someone else mentioned in this post the only promises which politicians are keeping are the ones made to themselves.

Illinois is going to need all the help it can get:

Blue State Dems Turn on State, Local Workers
Why Isn’t Illinois A Bigger Story Than Greece?
The Chicago way
Businesses Exit California and Illinois; Tax and Destroy Policies of Governors Quinn and Brown

...like promising to feed people with tasty barbecued unicorn ribs.

Genetically engineered BBQ'd unicorn ribs sound like a cool idea!!!! but forget it about it happening in the US. May be Mexico or Singapore, just not in the US. The US just has too many environmentalists and too many conservative Christians.

Led, of course, by Salon's Andrew Leonard, for whom no amount of subsidy is ever enough, and no amount of state intervention can possibly suffice. The reality is far different, of course, and starts with the lousy energy density of solar; but we are dealing with a very heavily government-controlled "market" that is steadily eroding as subsidies decline. The myth of green jobs is something like promising to feed people with tasty barbecued unicorn ribs.

I'd be happy to listen to an actual argument, backed by facts and research. If it was actually published and peer-reviewed, that'd be great!

Sure.

Here's one specific one:

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html

And here's a whole list:

http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-reviewed-articles-skeptical-of-man.html

Please feel free to discredit their *arguments*, and restrain yourself from simply attacking their character because they disagree with you :) If you find a single one of those arguments to be unbiased and honest, you can thank me for opening up your worldview :)

Oh, and regarding my typo of "5 years" instead of "25 years", I must admit, I'm chagrined that I made the same type of mistake that the IPCC made :)

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/01/16/glaciergate-ipcc/