Slashdot Mirror

Yeah tell that to a business that after market consolidation is suddenly down to one supplier versus two. https://washingtonmonthly.com/...

Learn about how business works before commenting.

There is also a "coup" taking place in Wisconsin.

Wisconsin Republicans Are Threatening a Legislative Coup

'This Is a Coup': Protests Engulf Wisconsin Capitol as Outgoing Scott Walker and GOP Move to Cripple Democratic Power

Assorted Zaniness and Silliness, Plus Oh Yeah, the GOP Attempts a Coup in Wisconsin

A coup in Madison? Let them hear you

Jordan Peterson did not demand that at all.

No, he didn't demand it. He did something much worse: he excused it. He tried to create an intellectual and moral framework where such a demand is something natural instead of sociopathic. Fortunately, he lacks the intellectual firepower to do either and just made a fool of himself.,

"Recently, a young man named Alek Minassian drove through Toronto trying to kill people with his van. Ten were killed, and he has been charged with first-degree murder for their deaths, and with attempted murder for 16 people who were injured. Mr. Minassian declared himself to be part of a misogynist group whose members call themselves incels. The term is short for “involuntary celibates,” though the group has evolved into a male supremacist movement made up of people — some celibate, some not — who believe that women should be treated as sexual objects with few rights. Some believe in forced “sexual redistribution,” in which a governing body would intervene in women’s lives to force them into sexual relationships.

Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, Mr. Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married.

“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.""

https://washingtonmonthly.com/...

Um, no. All demographics support zoning. Liberals say wishy washy things about preserving the fabric of their communities. Conservatives talk about protecting their real estate investments and keeping out crime. Both talk about maintaining good schools. In the end they all support zoning about equally. Cities in Texas have just as much zoning as cities in California.

The other factors you mentioned have a minimal effect on housing prices. Most of them only affect a small part of the housing market (i.e. rent control). The remainder have negligible affect on housing prices, except for high taxes which might increase prices by 10-20%. Put together they don't come close to explaining why housing prices are hundreds of percent higher in the biggest cities. Only zoning explains that.

Every time an individual volunteers to help out – for instance by offering to host a fundraising party for the president – he or she will be asked to log onto the re-election website with their Facebook credentials. That in turn will engage Facebook Connect, the digital interface that shares a user’s personal information with a third party.

Notice that this was an invitation that came directly from the Obama campaign, which the volunteer could either chose to accept or reject. From there, the information went into a central database.

...

In other words, the Obama campaign used Facebook as a community organizing tool, which is pretty much the opposite of stealing data in order to engage in psychological warfare.

See this article: No, Obama Didn’t Employ the Same Strategies as Cambridge Analytica.
https://washingtonmonthly.com/...

Because the person who ran the Obama campaign says that what they did was different and OK.

Right.

See this article: No, Obama Didn’t Employ the Same Strategies as Cambridge Analytica.
https://washingtonmonthly.com/...

No, Obama Didn’t Employ the Same Strategies as Cambridge Analytica

Paul Preston and Tom Reed are two cranks who have been at this game since the early 90s. If you go to their "movement's" website you will find that their various "regional committees" are almost completely made up of Paul Preston and Tom Reed. Their previous efforts consisted entirely of raising money.

The funny part of this story is that Russian bots were pushing the story on Twitter and Facebook that this "New California" officially seceded from the rest of the state. Scamsters selling swag quickly got in on the fun:

https://twitter.com/GrantJKidn...

State secession has long been a favorite trope of the Russian bots. I'm sure you remember this story about how they pushed for Texas to secede. Turns out their Facebook page was run by the "Internet Research Agency" run out of St Petersburg, Russia.

https://extranewsfeed.com/how-...

https://washingtonmonthly.com/...

No collusion...

http://www.businessinsider.com...

"Opulent campuses" is a tricky one to quantify objectively. There's a lot of cherrypicking data. "A SCHOOL IN BOSTON HAS AN INDOOR HEATED POOL, OMFG." doesn't say shit about all those other places tuition is raising that don't.

Administrator cancer is more documented.

You left out though funding cuts. Boomers took their cheap education then decided fuck the greedy next generations. More than a little projection there. "These selfish millennial assholes don't deserve indoor pools! I want my taxes to be $20 lower instead!

http://washingtonmonthly.com/m...
Maybe this will open your eyes. American's really arent that great.
Protectionism turned out OK when America forced the Japanese to increase the value of their currency, so the Americans could compete. I guess the productivity fairy was having a day off...

The following article describes the legal rise of arbitration eliminating class action suits.

Washington Monthly, June/July/August 2014
"Thrown Out of Court: How corporations became people you can't sue." by Lina Khan
http://www.washingtonmonthly.c...

Interestingly, a recent post at Washington Monthly reported that we have "Sharia" law in the U.S., as some companies require that arbitration be through religious mediators. (In the cases mentioned, Christian and Scientology arbitrators.)

http://www.washingtonmonthly.c...

The following article describes the legal rise of arbitration eliminating class action suits.

Washington Monthly, June/July/August 2014
"Thrown Out of Court: How corporations became people you can't sue." by Lina Khan
http://www.washingtonmonthly.c...

Interestingly, a recent post at Washington Monthly reported that we have "Sharia" law in the U.S., as some companies require that arbitration be through religious mediators. (In the cases mentioned, Christian and Scientology arbitrators.)

http://www.washingtonmonthly.c...

Oh, everyone with a modicum of perspicacity knew the thing was a boondoggle from the start.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.c...

That text offended the delicate sensibilities of the Space Nutter crowd, but now that the Shuttle, along with other Space Age fantasies, is safely in a museum, we can read the text and go "yup".

It works even without government :)
http://www.washingtonmonthly.c...

http://www.washingtonmonthly.c...

"A better question may be, why do "federally-guaranteed loans" need to exist in the first place..." Exactly. If the question is "Why is higher education so expensive," that is the answer.

Universities are at this point, are now citadels of management people:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.c...

http://reclaimuc.blogspot.com/...

Lotsa highly paid MBA types, and their staff.

Research - once upon a time, a lot of research was done at the corporate level. Most has been shifted to Universities now. And even though it brings in research dollars, infrastructure for it has to be built, and government research money is focused on the work at hand, not building the infrastructure.

The education system has been groomed for years that the only acceptable path is the 4 year Bachelor's, perhaps followed by a Masters degree. Any other form of education is considered woefully deficient.

So today, parents look at a college education as grades 13 through 16.

Demand is extremely high.

So why the crisis now?

We're at a wobbly sort of point, where while the demand is still there, but the educational supply cost has outpaced the ability of many if not most people's resources to repay. You graduate with the equivalent of a small mortgage, going for an entry level job in your field (and woe onto you if you are in another field beside engineering) making little, and the University is already badgering you for donations. That is a hellava mess.

The cost of a college education is almost at the point of not being worth it.

The federal loan system is in the mix of problems, but is merely following the lead of University trends, established during WW2 and continued to the present day. The overly managed structure is a more recent phenomenon, as managers in my experience always find that more managers are needed.

I do doubt that the research aspect of present day higher education will ever go away. As for the fact that there are more managers and their support staff now than educators, might be something that can be worked on.

That's a little more than a Fox News soundbite, but despite it all, the federal loan program is more reacting to than creating the problem.

UC San Francisco's Sam Hawgood, who started in July, is the highest-paid UC chancellor, at $750,000 . In hoping to erase disparities, regents noted that Gene Block, who came to UCLA in 2007, is paid $428,480, which is below what Gillman will be paid at a smaller campus. (In addition to salaries, chancellors receive housing or housing allowances.)

Absolutely ridiculous.

Administrators ate my tuition

Here's an interactive chart with a state by state breakdown. Why the obscene jump in administration, especially over the last 20 years? Far greater than the educators, you know the ones actually doing something, many educators are adjunct instructors (pardon the source), in a nutshell so they're working cheaper and they comprise the super majority of instructors.

braindead republicans, ruining the country

Your bias is showing. Both parties are fully bought and paid for and further corporate special interests. Democrats were in control for many years and furthered ghastly policies began by the previous administration. Apathy and partisan politics is ruining this country. Control by splitting into hostile groups, it's not new and it's effective, you're doing them proud! The Millennials will make up a larger voting block than the Boomers this year.

Not so much in practice ... I live in Oregon, where ballots are mailed out, to be returned by hand or by mail. The results have been good: higher voter participation and a low rate of problematic (fraud, coercion) behavior. One data point, (or several million, depending on how you look at it) ...

By allowing people to vote without having to be "right here, right now", turns out a lot of people vote, and in my case more thoughtfully, dedicating a evening or two to mulling and researching issues and candidates as I mark the ballot. And it worked; pot is now totally legal here :-)

Don't forget it is the NSA who approves what type of encryption are legal for citizens to own.

There is no illegal encryption — not in the US. You can use anything you can get your hands on.

Now, getting your hands on something, the NSA can't break, may be difficult — because they have sabotaged efforts to develop strong crypto. But not because it is illegal.

That said, the existing freely available software — including OpenSSL — can be used properly to defeat would-be spooks. We know this — and the observation is confirmed by occasional stories on how the government leans on companies to reveal the private keys. If they could break the encryption itself, they wouldn't be demanding keys...

"It verified quite effectively that a reusable, rapid-turnaround heavy launch vehicle is a delusional fantasy:"

It verified something that was pretty much known before it flew for the first time.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.c...

But mention "space" and otherwise sane and rational adults become gibbering mental wrecks. Space Derangement Syndrome is real, and it's caused by NASA propaganda.

I think you're onto something, but paid interns are the ones who actually get jobs. Turns out those students convinced to work for free don't fair much better than students that get no internship. What's ironic is that unpaid interns are actually paying [tuition] to get college credits while working a job without compensation. Crazy. Here's the first source I could find.

Not necessarily a plot, just another trick in the bag.

Non-Academic Administrators include people like me. I'm a librarian.

Yes, I know what the phrase means, and I didn't mean to imply anything bad about all administrative (or "non-academic") positions -- AT ALL. I'm all for libraries and librarians. Apparently, if this blog is to be believed, the issue at this particular school is that there's also a significant amount of jobs going to friends of existing administrators going on in administrative hiring. I have no idea whether these claims are true, but the implication of the blog is that unnecessary jobs are being "created" and sometimes unqualified people are getting them.

This is NOT an indictment of all administrative staff at all institutions, let alone those who provide important services to students.

On the other hand, the reality of budgets at many schools is that administrative costs are rising at alarming rates (along with costs for new buildings and facilities, etc.), while academic budgets are static or going down, with more and more adjunct faculty hired at levels below minimum wage just to cover basic teaching needs.

These are general trends, and this blog seems to claim that one university has some particularly problematic stuff going on. Again, I have no idea how true it is, but that's the subject of this thread.

That "Non-Academic" phrase gets thrown around a lot and frequently includes people like guidance counselors who DO have an impact on student success.

Yep. That's great. SOME "non-academic" growth is certainly necessary at many universities to provide various kinds of student services, whether that's a career counselor or just an extra person at the registrar's office to facilitate student access to records.

The issue is the rate of growth relative to academic areas, making these administrative costs a significant driver of increasing tuition rates, as discussed in many news stories in the past few years. In many cases, these "administrative" staff have increased anywhere from 5 to 10 TIMES the rate at which faculty and academic staff have increased.

I'm all for providing student services, but if all of these guidance counselors and librarians, etc. are necessary for student success, what had colleges been doing before these giant increases in administrative hiring in the past decade? How could they possibly have functioned before with so few administrators?

I'm not at all saying that administration is somehow "bad" -- it's just that the growth seems disproportionate to other areas, and I'm certainly not the only person to have commented on that trend in the past few years.

Non-Academic Administrators include people like me. I'm a librarian.

Yes, I know what the phrase means, and I didn't mean to imply anything bad about all administrative (or "non-academic") positions -- AT ALL. I'm all for libraries and librarians. Apparently, if this blog is to be believed, the issue at this particular school is that there's also a significant amount of jobs going to friends of existing administrators going on in administrative hiring. I have no idea whether these claims are true, but the implication of the blog is that unnecessary jobs are being "created" and sometimes unqualified people are getting them.

This is NOT an indictment of all administrative staff at all institutions, let alone those who provide important services to students.

On the other hand, the reality of budgets at many schools is that administrative costs are rising at alarming rates (along with costs for new buildings and facilities, etc.), while academic budgets are static or going down, with more and more adjunct faculty hired at levels below minimum wage just to cover basic teaching needs.

These are general trends, and this blog seems to claim that one university has some particularly problematic stuff going on. Again, I have no idea how true it is, but that's the subject of this thread.

That "Non-Academic" phrase gets thrown around a lot and frequently includes people like guidance counselors who DO have an impact on student success.

Yep. That's great. SOME "non-academic" growth is certainly necessary at many universities to provide various kinds of student services, whether that's a career counselor or just an extra person at the registrar's office to facilitate student access to records.

The issue is the rate of growth relative to academic areas, making these administrative costs a significant driver of increasing tuition rates, as discussed in many news stories in the past few years. In many cases, these "administrative" staff have increased anywhere from 5 to 10 TIMES the rate at which faculty and academic staff have increased.

I'm all for providing student services, but if all of these guidance counselors and librarians, etc. are necessary for student success, what had colleges been doing before these giant increases in administrative hiring in the past decade? How could they possibly have functioned before with so few administrators?

I'm not at all saying that administration is somehow "bad" -- it's just that the growth seems disproportionate to other areas, and I'm certainly not the only person to have commented on that trend in the past few years.

That is exactly what happened, and that is exactly what the GOP is about. You can't compromise with a brick wall. Read Lofgren's book... it should be an eye-opener for you that a senior GOP policy analyst with top-secret clearance, who worked on the hill for over 20 years quit in disgust. Of course, he's a "liberal" now. But he'll tell you, in his own words, the GOP became an apocalyptic cult.

Evidently you have never driven on the 101 in California, High speed and earthquakes is a California tradition.

Link Added.

I'm pretty sure you've driven on it :)

The no compromise mentality is what makes someone a Hitler.

Congress has compromised plenty with Obama, and he has been a hugely active president:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/march_april_2012/features/obamas_top_50_accomplishments035755.php

You brought up Hitler, not me. Obama is, of course, no Hitler; Obama is a well-meaning progressive president who overpromises and overspends too much. But your comparison is food for thought, because Hitler, too, asked for powers to fix the economy, help the jobless, and improve security, and parliament granted them to him "for the good of the country".

Bryn Mawr have been very generous with us. It's worth a shot.

My daughter wants to go to med school and maybe transition to public health later in her career. I'm not worried about her employment prospects. Bryn Mawr also does very well with students who intend to go for a Ph.D in the sciences. A few months back the Washington Monthly published a set of college ratings that use different criteria than USA Today does. Bryn Mawr turns out to be their top-ranked liberal arts college because of things like the generosity of its aid packages, the percentage of students going on for doctorates, and other measures like community service. I thought it might have scored in the top twenty or thirty schools, but I never expected to find it at the top of the list. Washington Monthly reported an average "net price" for Bryn Mawr of $19,316 after financial aid is factored in.

I also have a niece at McGill. Tuition for foreigners is a lot more than that $2,200 figure, but much less than tuition at an American private institution. The drawback is that foreign students don't receive financial aid. So it could be more expensive than an American school with an aid package, or less depending on what is offered.

Yeah, I'm surprised by the number of people falling for this bullshit.

Health care reform -- Republican idea, fucked over single payer advocates.
Stimulus Act -- No better than Bush.
Wall Street Reform -- Which failed to reinstate Glass Steagal, and besides fraud is already illegal and he hasn't bothered to prosecute any bank CEO.
Ended the War in Iraq -- On the date set by Bush.
Began Drawdown of War in Afghanistan -- Do or do not, there is no try.
Killed Bin Laden -- Symbolic victory at best.
Turned around US Auto Industry -- I'll give them that. Good job Obama. Cash for Clunkers was still a boondoggle though.
Recapitalized banks -- Without ensuring that those banks would turn around and lend the funds.
Repealed Don't Ask Don't Tell -- A Civil Rights win, sure, but one that affects a percent of a percent of the population.
Toppled Muamar Gaddafi -- while violating the War Power's Act.

I could keep going. But I think I've hit the major accomplishements so far. Obama is pretty much Bush III, but he throws us liberals crumbs like repealing DADT. I'm not satisfied with crumbs, and neither should you be.

The main stream democrats will not use this information because it is not from legal means

Oh, you mean the same way no one used Joe the Plumber's tax returns in 2008? And remember, this was just some guy who dared to as Obama a question, not the Republican Presidential nominee. They'll use them in a Chicago minute.

Or like how no one in the media would use Jack Ryan's sealed divorce records when the Ombama for Senate campaign illegally leaked them in 2004?

I think I did misrepresent the situation. There really are 44 people working in that office, but they are not all dedicated strictly to diversity. Looking more carefully at the job descriptions, that number is more like 8. The majority are apparently involved in "community engagement."

Anyway, it's still true that administrative overhead is rising more quickly than costs that are more obviously and directly related to educating students. See, for example these two articles that I quickly found, which both say that while the hiring of instructors and professors has kept basically apace with the growing number of students, the number of administrators and support staff has grown considerably faster.

I read another article a while back that I wish I'd saved. i think it was in the Chronicle of Higher Education. It was about this topic, and it referred to a study that some economists had done in which they formulated a quantitative law of bureaucracy growth. IIRC, the gist was that in most organizations, bureaucrats have very little incentive to organize and coordinate things in their purview to run more cheaply and efficiently because that would imply that they could get by on a smaller budget and with a smaller staff, which reduces their prestige. So, staffs and budgets tend to increase over time, apparently in a fairly predictable way.

Hey, I'm corny and socially awkward, too! Where the hell is my venture capital firm?

Seriously, I think Mitt's unpopular because he's one heck of a flip-flopper who says quite a lot of mendacious things, not because of the way he looks or acts.

At least that's true for liberals. I suspect that, with conservative voters, he's probably unpopular because he's just not conservative enough.

"Best yet, it would make it nearly impossible for the MSM to ignore the blackout/SOPA/PIPA. Then watch as they tiptoe around the elephant in the living room: why they haven't been covering SOPA/PIPA up until this point."

Hey everyone, between the post above and the slightly typo'ed article below, they just told us how to really beat these bills.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2012_01/putting_sopa_on_a_shelf034765.php

Key quote:

"The legislation ran into an even more significant problem yesterday when the White House announced its opposition to the bills. ...
Until now, the Obama administration had not taken a position on the issue. ...
Though the administration did not issue a formal veto threat, the White Houseâ(TM)s opposition signaled the end of these bills, at least in their current form."

So (sorta) forget your fifth-grade teacher's advice to write to congress. (Mods, that's rhetoric, not literal.) Though the exact timing is a little fuzzy, here's how it really worked:

1. Mainstream Media ignores the issue, because the bill is in its favor.
2. Grassroots movement to excite the Big Players.
3. Big Players excite the general public.
4. Listen to what the President is *not saying*.
5. Tell the *President* (via staff etc) that *he or his party* will not get re-elected if he signs the bill!
6. President issues veto threat. MainStream Media *has to report on the President* (usually!)
7. Bill dies because it's a dare that it would require an Over-ride.

Not really:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2012_01/putting_sopa_on_a_shelf034765.php

Try: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2012_01/putting_sopa_on_a_shelf034765.php

research fellow at the Independent Institut

Oooh, they're independent because they say so ... I'm sorry, but what about them makes me believe that?

Is it that they get funding from Exxon? How about Philip Morris? How about the fact that they're well known shills for Microsoft?

I'm sorry, but you keep citing groups who are either shills for your beliefs, or the people who espouse them ... so I accuse you of circular logic and sleight of hand. These guys get together into a little self congratulatory circle jerk to put out papers that espouse their point of view, and then use them as sources for when they're later espousing their point of view.

The fact that you're citing a vitriol filled, libertarian biased think tank who sees the world through the lens they wish to see it doesn't make any of what you're citing as facts.

In fact, if you're going to continue to rely on a biased organization who exists to provide position papers to support its sponsors ... well, then you have so thoroughly drunk the kool aid as to have become someone who believes in the dogma, and has left rational thought behind him.

Sorry man, but the "Independent Institute" is a political tool of a conservative agenda. As such, I simply won't take anything they put forth as fact, but propaganda.

"... tenured professors in plush offices..."

You speak of professors but leave out college administrators (corporate-like professional management).
Question 1: Are there more professors or administrators in U.S. colleges today?
Question 2: Was the answer to #1 the same in 1975?
Question 3: Whose salaries have increased significantly in recent decades?
Question 4: Has faculty control of colleges increased or decreased in recent decades?

Read here: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/septemberoctober_2011/features/administrators_ate_my_tuition031641.php

Note: That report was from 2002, and things have gotten much worse since then. Here's a more current story from the last week: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/10/26/4008283/college-prices-up-again-as-states.html

Another major factor is that -- even though faculty and facilities costs have not appreciably gone up -- the number and cost of non-teaching administrators have dramatically bloated (as part of the corporate-management takeover of universities in the last few decades). Today there are more administrators than teachers in colleges, which was not the case in the past. Article on that in the last month: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/septemberoctober_2011/features/administrators_ate_my_tuition031641.php

You, sir, are being willfully ignorant. Let me enlighten you:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_06/those_who_wont_take_yes_for_an030606.php

The Dems are the problem only inasmuch as they're spineless wimps who don't know how to negotiate.

Because for some stupid reason Texas controls what's in science textbooks for the rest of the US.

Look at this chart.

That chart shows that Barack Obama saved the economy from the Republican engineered disaster.

Actually, that chart shows that Obama and Democrat policies caused the labor market to recover much more slowly than the economy did. The Great Recession ended in June, 2009. That was only a few months after President Obama took office. To claim that any Obama policy ended the Great Recession is silly. If you disagree, please tell me what Obama did between 1/20/09 and 5/31/09 to end the Great Recession.

A decade of Republican policies brought us an economic disaster. Barack Obama brought us back to growth and put us on the path for prosparity.

Please name the specific policies that caused an economic disaster, and those that put us on the "path to prosperity". Don't give me generalities, I want specific policies and bills. My background is in Economics, so please do no hesitate to get into the specific details.

We may wish it was faster, but every competent software developer already has a job, and the economy is only getting better. Err.. it was until the Republican party decided to shut down the government for the second time in as many decades.

Actually, the Republican-controlled House passed a continuing resolution to keep the government open that contained only previously-agreed-upon terms. President Obama has threatened a veto, and Reid (D-NV) won't even bring it up in the Senate. Tell me again who is shutting down the government?

Look at this chart.

That chart shows that Barack Obama saved the economy from the Republican engineered disaster.

A decade of Republican policies brought us an economic disaster. Barack Obama brought us back to growth and put us on the path for prosparity.

We may wish it was faster, but every competent software developer already has a job, and the economy is only getting better. Err.. it was until the Republican party decided to shut down the government for the second time in as many decades.

The people who complain that our recovery isn't fast enough advocate the policies (of insane deregulation) that brought us the economic disaster in the first place. And now of course they are doing their best to kill the recovery before it reaches the rest of the country.

Just like they want to kill health care reform before it saves to many lives.

If you have links to actual quotes from actual Republicans calling for Obama's impeachment, I'd love to hear them, actually. Please hook me up with the link.

If you're really too lazy to use google, here you go: I'm only going to give this about 30 seconds though, so it's not going to be as comprehensive as it could be.

Here are calls for impeachment from a sitting Arizona congressman and a former Speaker of the House and current Republican candidate for president.

More.

So, one google search and the first two stories net me Trent Franks, the sitting congressman from Arizona's 2nd district and member of the Judiciary Committee and Armed Services Committee and Newt Gingrich, the disgraced former Speaker of the House, serial adulterer and currently running for the Republican nomination for president. Both stories are less than a month old, in case you're wondering if I'm picking something from a few years ago, like your links.

Now if you'll excuse me, I've got more important things to do than providing you instruction, like finishing the first act of Dragons Age 2.

If you have links to actual quotes from actual Republicans calling for Obama's impeachment, I'd love to hear them, actually. Please hook me up with the link.

If you're really too lazy to use google, here you go: I'm only going to give this about 30 seconds though, so it's not going to be as comprehensive as it could be.

Here are calls for impeachment from a sitting Arizona congressman and a former Speaker of the House and current Republican candidate for president.

More.

So, one google search and the first two stories net me Trent Franks, the sitting congressman from Arizona's 2nd district and member of the Judiciary Committee and Armed Services Committee and Newt Gingrich, the disgraced former Speaker of the House, serial adulterer and currently running for the Republican nomination for president. Both stories are less than a month old, in case you're wondering if I'm picking something from a few years ago, like your links.

Now if you'll excuse me, I've got more important things to do than providing you instruction, like finishing the first act of Dragons Age 2.

Considering the simultaneous growth of the stock market, increasing concentration of wealth and increasing poverty and unemployment, particularly the long-term unemployed since Day One of the Bush, Jr. administration, I'd be shocked if a front or two hadn't opened against small IT outfits, in this ongoing class war initiated by the over-privileged directors of global corporations.

Except that the "conservatives" are holding the Chinese up as the way we should go with their low taxes and pro-capitalistic policies. (Gawd I wish I was making that up.... )

You insist the poor are being penalized. A state id costs something like $15 and is good for something like 8 years here. There are multiple DMV locations around town, near bus routes. I can't imagine there is a location here in Omaha that doesn't have a DMV within 10 miles.

Well, that's nice in Omaha, but not everyone lives there, do they?

Here in Georgia, we have no goddamn buses, and here you can't register at the DMV, and here the Republicans try, continually, to require people to have a license or government ID to vote.

So poor people would have to get a ride 30+ miles to the DMV for an ID, and then get a ride to the courthouse to register, and then get a ride to the vote.

Originally, people had to pay $15 for an ID, but that law was struck down as a poll tax, so now they have to provide free IDs.

* You prefer a system where people can get a non-provisional ballot with no ID an without registering to vote.

Yes, because it let's more eligible people vote, you fascist.

* You prefer that people be able to register same-day, even if that means more less-informed voters dilluting the effects of people who planned to vote in advance.

Yes, because it let's more eligible people vote, you fascist.

* You believe no one has attempted to vote fraudently in 30 years despite record examples that it does occur.

The only examples you've cited are some sort of voter registration screw up. There is no actual fraud consisting of people voting when they shouldn't. A case argued before the supreme court managed to find one instance of impersonation to vote in recent history.

* You said one side is obessed with conspiracy theories while the other hasn't, when both parties in reality has committed and accused the other side of voter fraud.

No, the Democrats point out actual voter suppression when it happens. (As do the Republicans.)

The Republicans also claim problems that don't exist so they can enact laws making it harder for the poor to vote.

* You prefer hyperbole and flames over reasonable discourse.

Whereas you think somehow being 'uniformed', aka, not able to spend any time and money on voting, means you shouldn't be able to vote.

I'd much rather had a nation of me then a nation full of people who think they're in charge of what citizens can vote.

* You're a hypocrite accusing others of being conspiracy theorist while assigning far-fetched conspiracy motives to others.

Really? I live in a state that implemented a poll tax in 2005. The court said so.

I don't think I need to invent conspiracy theories about keeping the poor from voting.

So far in 2010, the oil and gas industries have contributed $12.8 million to all candidates, with 71% of that money going to Republicans. During the 2008 election cycle, 77% of the industry's $35.6 million in contributions went to Republicans, and in the 2008 presidential contest, Republican candidate Sen. John McCain received more than twice as much money from the oil and gas industries as Obama: McCain collected $2.4 million; Obama, $898,000.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_05/023945.php

Sure, you can single out Exxon and Obama in 2008, because that's the exception to the rule you're pretending doesn't exist.

Well, then, if you expect your opponent to pull something like that, bring in a statistician, qualify him as an expert witness and let him rip the assertion to shreds.

That doesn't always work so well. Read about John Puckett sometime...

Rather than try to sort out the disparities between its numbers and database findings, the FBI has fought to keep this information under wraps. After Barlow subpoenaed the Arizona database searches, the agency sent the state's Department of Public Safety a cease-and-desist letter. Eventually, the Arizona attorney general obtained a court order to block Barlow's distribution of the findings. In other instances, the FBI has threatened to revoke access to the bureau's master DNA database if states make the contents of their systems available to defense teams or academics. Agency officials argue they have done so because granting access would violate the privacy of the offenders (although researchers generally request anonymous DNA profiles with no names attached) and tie up the FBI's computers, impeding investigations. These justifications baffle researchers.

Source: DNA's Dirty Little Secret

"The Afghani war was legitimate as an attack on US soil was planned and coordinated from there"

Except the attack was planned and funded by Islamic radicals in Saudi Arabia, where Bin Laden and most of the hijackers came from. And Bin Laden was one of the CIAs best assets in Afghinstan, while he was fighting the Russians. And the US was planning to `liberate' mid-east Oil long before 9/11.

"I wrote an award-winning online essay that asserted Saddam Hussein sealed his fate when he announced in September 2000 that Iraq was no longer going to accept dollars for oil being sold under the UN's Oil-for-Food program, and decided to switch to the euro as Iraq's oil export currency"

"The country's natural resources include .. potentially significant petroleum and natural gas reserves in the North

the Core and the Gap

Oil, Conflict and the Future of Global Energy Supplies