Slashdot Mirror

The problem with rare earths, why China took the lead, is not having the resource, it is the pollution generated trying to extract the resource. Reason why not so popular in the US http://tucson.com/business/loc... from the article "The most hazardous refineries are those that crack the tight chemical bonds that tie rare earths found in mineral ores to a variety of hazardous materials, notably radioactive thorium.". So either tons of pollution in Africa, or much more stable and safe resources in isolated locations in Australia. Japan a fish loving nation is going to pollute it's waters to extreme levels to gain rare earths, hmm, decisions, decisions.

The problem with rare earths is not having them, it is extracting them that is often extremely problematic.

I doubt Republicans consider engineering, math, biology, English and such as bad.

Sadly, there's plenty that do. I'm currently living in Texas, and I can take you to meet several of them right now. Here's a Republican elected official over in Arizona.

http://tucson.com/news/local/e...

“It got hijacked by Washington, by the federal government,” said Melvin, a candidate for governor, and “as a conservative Reagan Republican I’m suspect about the U.S. Department of Education in general, but also any standards that are coming out of that department.”

Melvin’s comments led Sen. David Bradley, D-Tucson, to ask him whether he’s actually read the Common Core standards, which have been adopted by 45 states.

“I’ve been exposed to them,” Melvin responded.

Pressed by Bradley for specifics, Melvin said he understands “some of the reading material is borderline pornographic.” And he said the program uses “fuzzy math,” substituting letters for numbers in some examples.

We are finding more. http://tucson.com/news/local/e...

Yeah, go figure, nobody came forward to complain that they were intimidated

I invite you to imagine, David Duke and friends standing in front of a polling place somewhere, pointing a weapon at non-White would-be voters and telling them: "You are about to be ruled by a White man." This is precisely, what happened in Philadelphia.

Ah, but such speculation would invite far too many problems without an actual voter complaining. Criminal convictions are rarely pursued simply on imagination.

Take here. Nobody did anything.

Why not?

Of course, I've had weird encounters at polling places myself. One time, a guy came up to me for some reason, and I still can't figure it out, but was somehow wondering why I didn't have my ID or voter card out. Given that I had yet to go inside the building, I'm still baffled to why I was even approach. I don't know how he acted towards anybody else though. Still, I can imagine somebody being bothered by it. I suppose I should have done something like called the police, but I didn't bother.

False. Says Wikipedia:

In April 2009 Bartle Bull, a former civil rights lawyer who was serving as a poll watcher at the polling station where the incident occurred, submitted an affidavit at the Department of Justice's request supporting the lawsuit, stating that he considered it to have been the most severe instance of voter intimidation he had ever encountered

I'm afraid you aren't paying close attention, your example is a poll watcher, offering his opinion, not a voter saying "I was too intimidated to vote" which is what would make a successful criminal complaint.

He just made statements regarding his opinion. But again, the question of such speculation is a perilous path to walk, and well known to be circumscribed in legal courts. You didn't even quote him saying "And I saw somebody walk away" but he'd never be allowed to testify to his opinion in court, as that'd be grossly prejudicial.

The Justice Department has won their case already — and then asked the court to dismiss the default judgment in their favor.

Yes, eventually they refused to pursue a default. Because apparently for some reason, nobody responded to the DOJ. That meant that the DOJ had a problem since a court would be extremely leery as they had not won their case in a contested fashion. I can't even believe an attorney in a criminal case would try to do that. It's one thing if you don't show up to a bounced check claim, but a case like this?

Nope. Bad policy there. It'd just be appealed, and I can't imagine an appellate court not rejecting it. Hell, do you want the government winning legal cases against you in that fashion? I know I don't.

Whatever the problem was, it was not the difficulty of actual prosecution.

Maybe the problem was that elements in the DOJ wanted to make a prosecution out of nothing due to their own partisan biases, and they eventually got stopped, but remained bitter about it. Prosecutors can run rampant, you know?

Meanwhile, others examples of actual voter suppression do exist

Ah, and here we go redefining terms — as if asking for a proof of eligibility is "suppressive". Nice try, but fail...

You mean the documented and recognized practice of refusing to register people unless they comply with onerous requirements is not suppression in your book?

Even after a judge saw it in a court of law? With the opposing side given a chance to present evidence?

This sort of response raises my eyebrows. You freak out ov

Average high temp for a Tucson summer is 99 degrees, so no, 114 is not a cold day. In fact, there's only 7 days on record where it's ever reached that high.

"Melvin’s comments led Sen. David Bradley, D-Tucson, to ask him whether he’s actually read the Common Core standards, which have been adopted by 45 states.

“I’ve been exposed to them,” Melvin responded.

Pressed by Bradley for specifics, Melvin said he understands “some of the reading material is borderline pornographic.” And he said the program uses “fuzzy math,” substituting letters for numbers in some examples".

http://tucson.com/news/local/e...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Amendment 4 - PROBABLE CAUSE The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.