Slashdot Mirror

Excerpt:
Too much of what has been reported in the U.S. media in these last, fraught weeks has echoed fulminations of the creditors that distort reality. Syriza has been painted as a party of the extreme left, with Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras’s government depicted as irresponsible and irreverent. This scorn comes from troika functionaries committed to enforcing utterly ruinous policies and whose behavior towards a democratically elected government has been insulting in the extreme.
--- end excerpt ---

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

                mark "libertarianoids - you're entitled to your opinions, you are *not* entitled to your facts"

So the US just got a little more breathing room since the famous 47% is now only 43%?

Yeah, those darn scientists, just making up stuff to grow rich and fat on our hard-earned tax dollars: http://www.washingtonpost.com/....

How dare they draw conclusions from numerous studies covering hundreds of thousands of people: http://www.scientificamerican.... .

there are also those screaming "racist" at everything even when it isnt and it seems to have been this way for the past 10 years now here.

I can't imagine why anyone would see racism in today's USA.

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/3...

http://www.reuters.com/article...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/...

https://www.breitbartunmasked....

I think the fundamental difference here (so to speak) is that ISIS is not a fundamentalist uprising.

The leadership of ISIS is dominated by military officers who served under secular dictator Saddam Hussein (source). So, unless all these people just had a religious awakening (not entirely impossible), the leadership of ISIS is simply trying to grab a lot of land and power for themselves. And they found that a Sunni Islamic fundamentalist agenda would aid in their recruitment. Especially in Iraq, where the Shia dominate government and Sunnis are being persecuted.

Sure. And you are an outlier:

http://www.statisticbrain.com/...

15 miles one way, 30 miles round trip is the 70th percentile. That's well within the range of a Leaf not to mention a Volt.

And there are some extreme outliers out there, but that shouldn't set either perceptions or policy:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

sPh

So your experience with those 4 fortune 150s hasn't shown it, which doesn't rule out the tens of thousands of others. Sarcasm not intended: it's good there's at least 4 who honour such. That said, consider the following ad campaign Microsoft themselves ran:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/04/23/this-terrifying-microsoft-ad-suggests-youre-not-working-hard-enough-in-the-bathroom/

As someone who has worked for two separate fortune 500 companies (one being Microsoft) and several smaller companies (including start-ups) over the past 20 years, my experience matches what aussersterne said; it's to the point where I have to border being unprofessional by stating up front on my CV/resume that I require a proper work-life balance with semi-flexible work hours, and that offering me a larger salary or giving me raises doesn't increase my overall happiness or decrease stress levels (i.e. I will turn down a bonus/raise/whatever if it means less "expectations" of me at the company). Surprisingly, the past 2 companies I've worked for in the past 5 years, both start-ups, have respected that.

That's just my experience as one person, anecdotally anyway...

I don't have to think you're wrong. It's still well-documented that there is still a stigma. There are plenty of studies on this. To quote an article here:

A 2010 study in the American Journal of Psychiatry showed that Americans, between 1996 and 2006, developed a greater awareness of the neurobiological basis of mental illness and became more supportive of medical treatment. Despite that, the social stigma associated with mental illness is still significant— and in some instances, actually increased from 1996 to 2006, according to research led by Indiana University professor Bernice Pescosolido, director of the Indiana Consortium for Mental Health Services Research.

and

Those improvements in understanding mental illness, however, didn't help reduce the social stigma, researchers found. People were more likely to say they didn't want an alcoholic to marry into the family (up from 70 percent to 79 percent) or have someone with schizophrenia as a neighbor (up from 34 percent to 45 percent). Most in 2006 also said they were unwilling to work closely with someone who had schizophrenia (62 percent) or alcohol dependence (74 percent), and most thought people with either illness would likely be violent.

You sound like the typical white guy telling black people that racism doesn't exist.

Prove it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prove it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's insane to think Iran would open up its military facilities for inspection. No country has ever willingly done that except those that have surrendered unconditionally after defeat in war (such as Imperial Japan). It would essentially mean Iran gives up its right to exist as an independent sovereign nation. . . .

. . . Those insisting that Iran open up its military sites are insisting on something they know Iran won't do so as to derail the deal. Their intentions are not sincere.

Do tell.

U.S. Missile Base Braces for Soviet Inspectors
SOVIET INF MONITORS COMPLETE FIRST U.S. INSPECTIONS

Have a great day Comrade.

I will not defend the Republicans; there is enough scum to paint both parties in this and other matters.

I linked this in other posts but not here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

I didn't just cite one source, half wit.

I cited a lot of things. And mostly recently I cited a peer reviewed paper.

Choke on it.

Did you say check on it? OK! Here's a complete list (as of this writing) of your citations in this thread in chronological order:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvfAtIJbatg (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://www.populartechnology.n... (Site is a one man operation that doesn't identify the operator or his alleged "staff". Attempts to debunk Cook paper by cherry-picking results from a nebulous survey.)
http://www.nature.com/news/pub... (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/... (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://articles.mercola.com/si... (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://arstechnica.com/science... (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://www.the-scientist.com/?... (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04... (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja... (opinion piece written by a lawyer (who doesn't appear to have ever practiced law) who claims to be a "trained scientist". The article relies exclusively on research done by unnamed "investigative journalists" at populartechnology.com - a blog that by all appearances is operated by a single unidentified individual.)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201... (first mention of a legitimate source rebutting the Cook paper)
http://link.springer.com/artic... (legitimate source debunking Cook)

So what have we got here...looks like a bunch of citations that have nothing to do with the Cook paper, one citation from a clearly bogus website, One citation written by a hack lawyer relying exclusively on the aforementioned bogus website, one citation from a pop-sci website alluding to an authoritative source, and (finally) a citation pointing to a legitimate source. And guess what? I've recognized your final source's potential legitimacy multiple times. You should probably take that as a win and call it a day.

In any event, don't you think you could've saved yourself a lot of time, effort, aggravation and ridicule if you'd have just kept your mouth shut until you actually come across a legitimate source? Instead, your process (if you can call it that) of supporting your arguments is to link to sources that you haven't subjected to any scrutiny whatsoever. It's a textbook example of a lack of critical thinking skills.

As to your claim that there is only one peer reviewed paper refuting your peer reviewed paper...

You're making things up again. I made no such claim. And for the last time, Cook's paper isn't MY paper. The only time I addressed it's validity I expressed skepticism of it's conclusions. Since you're having trouble remembering, here, let me help you:

"To be honest, I

I have to preface all this by saying that I personally identify with the much-maligned "progressive thought". I do believe in social justice in general, and I do believe that specific issues, such as discrimination against females, non-whites, non-heterosexuals and other minorities is very real and a problem that we have to deal with. At the same time - and precisely because of that! - I have to speak out; because it is my side and my cause, and I am responsible for the evil that people who share (or claim to share) it with me perpetrate in its name. I'm well aware that there are even more numerous equivalents on the other side of the fence, but they are well-documented and well-accepted among those whose opinion matters to me, and so I am not going to touch on that.

Now to the matter at hand. When I started digging into the recent slew of high-profile social justice activism cases, one thing stood out. It's not so much the quickness to act that is the problem in and of itself, as it is the readiness to do so based on conformance to stereotypes that the person has. Remember the Virginia university rape case? Pretty much every feminist and progressive outlet has published a scathing attack on the purported rapist - spending very little time on the fact that the only evidence to date is the testimony of the self-identified victim, but instead focusing on how this horrible event, which is obviously true (because, well, frat boys gonna rape, duh - "everybody knows", "common sense" ...), is a testament to how horrible things are in general.

And then, when it turned out that not only there isn't anything else, but even said testimony has gaping consistency holes and outright falsehoods - did anyone apologize? Well, the website that broke the original story had the decency to, but I was surprised at the number of other places that doubled down on their take instead by basically claiming that it's all just lies (Jezebel is basically still doing that), or that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the victim should be believed by default - even if there are inconsistencies in her story.

What really raised my hairs, though, was when they acknowledged that the story is false, but nevertheless demanded that the accused should be treated as guilty based on nothing but accusation alone as a generic rule, and that the self-identified victim should give extreme benefit of the doubt, and cannot even be questioned (because that is traumatic etc). Because, you see, actual rapes happen, and therefore if you don't support harsh measures, you support actual rapists - even if you are complaining about an actual false rape accusation. In other words, it's better for one innocent to suffer than for ten guilty persons escape.

I wish this was something that could be ambiguously interpreted or misunderstood by me, but no: the title of the piece that summed up that argument is literally No matter what Jackie said, we should generally believe rape claims". And it contains gems such as, "We should believe, as a matter of default, what an accuser says. Ultimately, the costs of wrongly disbelieving a survivor far outweigh the costs of calling someone a rapist. Even if Jackie fabricated her account, U-Va. should have taken her word for it during the period while they endeavored to prove or disprove the accusation". Go ahead, read it in its entirety, it's well worth it.

That particular article just left me speechless, for obvious reasons - I am a liberal, among other things, and this was anything but. But then I started digging into it, and have found out that this sort of stuff is not actually new, it's just that it's the first time it was broadcast so prominently to the general audience, and subscribed by so many. Yet if you start digging into the subculture - go visit the blogs where adherents cluster and discuss things in an environment where the

It means that these 3 did not look at, nor care, about intentions.

What were the intentions of the drafters?

As Pear recounts, there was language in the HELP bill clearly authorizing subsidies in federal exchanges[after 4 years, see below], but no such language in the Finance Committee bill.

Not only did the HELP bill hold off subsidies for up to four years in states that refused to create their own exchanges, it also barred subsidies in states that failed to enact other desired reforms

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

P Basically, this is a clear victory for 'the intent of the law', as opposed to the 'strict meaning of the law' legal theory

I have to disagree because the intent of the law in both versions, finance and health committee, was to punish the States by withholding subsidies and *that* is what was kept in the statute if only by not authorizing them:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Withholding subsidies was only a mistake in hindsight because so many states refused to create exchanges and that should have been up to Congress to fix and not the judiciary.

And the legislative intent was to deny subsidies to individuals where a State did not establish an exchange as a way to force the States to establish exchanges and the statute as passed was written to do that. It was not a bug; it was a feature however misguided.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

And the writers also clearly wanted to punish states which did not establish exchanges by withholding subsidies:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

And yet it happened:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja...

Also this notion that peer review catches all frauds is laughable:
http://www.nature.com/news/pub...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

http://articles.mercola.com/si...

http://arstechnica.com/science...

http://www.the-scientist.com/?...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04...

As to your point about reading the abstracts. That's not enough. You need to actually have the study itself vetted. And peer review does not do that.

These studies are getting busted all the time for making things up or using really sloppy methodology that could be "interpreted" to mean anything... often transparently the author had a conclusion they wanted before even starting the study.

That isn't real science. That's what creationists do. You have to do your study with an open mind and accept whatever the study might say. No forming your theory before the data comes in and no shaping the data to fit your theory. It is FINE to have a hypothesis before you start the study. But it can't go beyond that until you've actually got the data in... and then you base the theory on the data... you do not shape the data to equal your hypothesis.

And that is frequently what is going on.

And in 2012, Scalia argued the opposite with regard to subsidies and Roberts used part of that argument against Scalia in the current case:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Yep, the internal inconsistencies in at least Scalia are appalling.

at some point in your life, you want to get out of the propaganda bubble of lies you live under, and actually try to understand and appreciate actual truth and reality you open your ignorant mouth on

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

yes, i would suppose that if you are extremely rich, you have no waiting periods and the best care. are you extremely rich you dumb fuck? is that how you build a health system: good for the extremely rich only?

as to your lies on waiting periods:

http://theincidentaleconomist....

what happens is the lying media you listen to lies to you, and your dim ignorant mind latches onto it in spite of actual reality, like "death panels". abject morons like yourself rant and rant and rant about it, when the actual fucking truth of the matter is in complete opposite to what you lied to propaganda victims "think"

you are a hopelessly ignorant propaganda victim. you are dumb. you are useless. you loudly shriek lies spoonfed to you and you believe media outlets which exist for the expressed reason to shovel propaganda. you're like russians who believe the west or ukraine hurt them somehow and so invading a sovereign country makes sense: propagandized retards. that is what you are, you are a completely moronic propagandized stupid useless asshole. objectively so, not a baseless insult: you believe lies, unquestioningly, then you shout the lies out and believe it wholeheartedly. how would you objectively describe a piece of shit who believes lies and never tries to understand real facts and shrieks the lies constantly when anyone tries to talk reason to them?

why do you like being a lied to moron? that's a serious question. because that is exactly what you are

why do you listen to and believe "media" which exists to shovel lies in the small skulls of dimwits? again, a serious question. that's is genuinely what you are in this world. that is genuinely what you are

zero respect to you ignorant propagandized piece of shit. you are without any use on this topic

Don't be naive.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Not only that, Scalia argued the opposite in the previous case on the ACA. In 2012, Scalia argued the opposite with regard to subsidies and Roberts used part of that argument against Scalia in the current case:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Rule of Law vs. The End Justifies the Means

But there is no particularly deserving end in this case. Nothing to justify the means with... Torture, at least, was claimed to prevent some acts of terror and even capture bin Laden.

Welcome to Police State 2.0.

Contrary to the "not really" you began with, Statism is the problem:

"If your government is big enough to give you everything you want, it is big enough to take away everything you have."

— Thomas Jefferson

In other words, if you want Federal government to give you "free" public schools, you'll have to accept Department of Education Police — along with the (not-) SWAT teams.

here, moron:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

nobody can magically price something lower when the system is a natural monopoly. only single payer can keep the prices low

healthcare is not free market. free market rules do not apply. never did. never will

to believe so is simply the low wattage mental vomit of simpleton losers who don't understand how economics or the real world actually works, and substitute low iq wish fulfillment fantasizing

please educate yourself on a topic. *actual education* on economics. not fox news corporate propaganda authored by the health insurance companies who don't want to lose their parasitical rent seeking, and fanatically believed by complete retards who argue for their own bankruptcy and poor health

From the article post:

being surveilled by one of the country's closest allies

and then we have you:

before it fucks up their relationship with their oldest and closest ally who helped you wriggle out from under the iron heel of British tyranny and whose soldiers shed their blood to secure the independence of the USA as a nation at the battle of Yorktown?

LMAO.. you're so naive it's damned near enduring, except it's not. Next time try something from the last 100 years.

Okay, how about the fact that they can't make up their mind on NATO.

They've got Frenchelon! Yay! I'm sure the U.S. is a major target...

Then there's this little nugget. What was that, froggy? What was that about the US stirring up shit in Iraq 03? Well, YOU went it alone and managed to get the fucking Russkies (and by extension the USSR) riled up a bit: "Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev (1894-1971) railed against the invasion and threatened to rain down nuclear missiles on Western Europe if the Israeli-French-British force did not withdraw."

I always find it increasingly rich when either the French (or the Brits for that matter) get indignant.

I could go on all afternoon.. French government monitoring US business interests (as we do with them).. illegal subsidies to their aerospace firms.. supplying weapons to entities with whom might have a beef (the Brits sure did love taking a couple of those Exocent missiles in the ass, now didn't they! countermeasures were a day late and a franc short, just ask the sailors on the Sheffield)..

Look, De Gaulle himself said it: "France has no friends, only interests".. and he's correct. The one 'friend' we *might* have had (the UK) is likely reassessing their 'special relationship' status, because in almost every case sans one they get fucked at our behest. (That *one* time was when we supposedly allowed them to task our latest and greatest spy sats during the Falklands so they could gather information; it is highly unlikely that any other nation on the planet could make that request and be granted that kind of access).

The French (and the EU) are trading partners with the U.S., really, and not a lot else. The UN has no teeth, NATO, well, get back to me when they hold up their end on manpower and weaponry across the pond. We're the one putting the Raptors and a tank brigade in Poland to reassure them Vlad won't make a move.. what are the other NATO members FROM THAT FUCKING CONTINENT DOING AGAIN?

This has nothing to do with Mark Facetard, it has everything to do with self promotion in an election year. "Oh lookie over here! Don't look at those 30,000 violations of federal law, receiving money from foreign governments while working for the American people? No, lookie here!"

I wish these 10,000 girls all the luck in the world.

Just to concur, I also work at Google and the security is pretty incredible. They baked it into the RPC system (predating but similar to the publicly-available gRPC) so you don't even have to think about it - it just happens automatically and still doesn't get in the way (which is a remarkable achievement). I work pretty closely with one of the teams responsible for most of the user traffic, and they did some pretty heroic stuff to secure their part (which was some huge percentage of "all of it") in like a week.

Internally the sentiment in response to seeing our golden geese on the NSA slides was pretty much outrage and "explod[ing] in profanity" just about covers it. I think the higher ups were pretty outraged and frankly felt betrayed by their country, as Google's always cooperated with lawful, reasonable, and limited-in-scope requests, so to have them breaking in to dark fiber is pretty treacherous. I know I felt betrayed. (Some sense of the outrage can be seen in David Drummond's statement)

Google's actually pretty admirable from the inside. I wish we could publish more of what we do to protect user data, as without knowing it it's easy to be cynical. This video is worth watching, as far as legal requests go.

If we continue to follow your thesis that money chases power - has there been a massive increase (3x-5x increase ) in government involvement in the economy since Citizens United? http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Citizens United is a very new and has significantly changed the calculus of political elections for the worse. It almost seems that your evaluating that outcome as a positive development.

It seems that you're taking it for granted that Citizens United ruling, that money is speech is reasonable and changed little. If money Money may chase the power to provide more money, we don't have to allow this to happen. Money isn't speech.

Why? nobody complains when the TSA requires you to give fingerprints that are kept with the FBI for 75 years just to go through lines faster. Why should this matter?

You said socialism failed and I gave you an example of where it had been an amazing success.

No, you haven't. Your examples aren't valid — you didn't identify comparable countries with and without Socialism nor demonstrated, how Capitalism causes people to die from whooping cough.

The Socialism's grotesque failure is obvious, when such examples are identified and, indeed, compared:

• South Korea vs. the North;
• West Germany vs. the East;
• Soviet Socialist Republic of Estonia vs. Finland

In all three examples above, the formerly identical peoples — with the same ethnicity, culture, religion, wealth — lived for several decades under Capitalism and Socialism. The results are screamingly obvious...

Do you think, Linux would've been written, had Finland become the 16th part of the USSR in 1939, when Stalin invaded the little Baltic countries? Would you ever even have heard of Nokia or Samsung, had your dear Socialism prevailed?

Socialism — a.k.a. "Communism-lite" — is the most murderous school of thought known to humanity so far. Even Hitler's peculiarly bloody strand of Fascism (a different side of the same Collectivist coin) is but a distant second. And what did the survivors get? Much lower standard of living and absence of human rights.

The latter is by design — once the Glorious Collective is deemed to trump the lowly, selfish, and cantankerous Individual (for the Greater Good), all sorts of things become possible — from taxing one's work to console another's idleness (such as. Welfare programs), to arbitrary business regulations (such as monopoly "licenses" for various services — just to bring us back on-topic), to others deciding one's maximum acceptable age, to the outright killing fields for the non-conforming. It is only a matter of degree.

Rich people don't commit crime, rob someone of $15 nonviolent only threatening violence without a weapon do 5 - 10 years, rob a few people of 15 million never see the inside of a cell.

Ever hear of a guy named Bernie Madhoff? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... , Jeff Levitt - http://www.washingtonpost.com/... , could go on and on and on. They get caught and do time. Often on the order of your $15 robbery guy 5-15 years.

Bernie will probably never see the outside again. That is as it should be. If he does, he'll almost certainly be dispatched quickly.

If you do steal, skip the country. Go someplace that doesn't have extradition. Beware that this could only be temporary and sometimes the US Government has worked out deals to get people. Bounty hunters have sometimes kidnapped people as well. Depends on who you screw.

There are some guys that have stolen, though they did it in a legitimate business transaction. Somehow those guys seem to get away with it. Company assets, pension funds, etc.

Then you move into high power criminals. We call them politicians. They can suck you dry fast and smile the entire time they're doing it. Especially the guy in power right now. He's sucking us dry good and people don't even realize it. Don't even care how high the debt is.

Yep it is.... Former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger managed to pull out some classified documents obtained from the National Archives..... http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

It's one thing to misrepresent a trademark. The folks at Dow Chemical Company go nuts when people call something Styrofoam that isn't actually made out of said substance. But here, something was simply compared to Imax in a simile, "a figure of speech involving the comparison of one thing with another thing of a different kind, used to make a description more emphatic or vivid" (Google). Absolutely no misrepresentation. Completely proper use.

the principle you're looking for is "keeping poor people poor and in their place".
its about punishing the poor.... for being poor
it's about punishing parents and starving kids.
there is also very much a racial element to this.
and of course there's the fact that the predominant users of drugs aren't the poor to start with.

"States already do a good job of ensuring no one gets a 'free ride.' We don't need another one--especially one that stigmatizes"
http://time.com/3117361/welfar...

"The rush to humiliate the poor"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

"The Myth of Welfare and Drug Use"
http://www.thedailybeast.com/a...
http://www.slate.com/articles/...

America should be about 2nd chances. And 3rds. and 4ths. And 5ths. Indeed, that's the idea behind the mythological American Dream, that anyone can make it here. But people who support this punishment of the poor seem to believe that people should be expected to accomplish a home run on the first swing, and be punished if they fail to do so. They tell people to "work harder", "try harder", "pick themselves up", while simultaneously doing everything they can to impede their ability to do so.

So no. It's not about responsibility. And it's not even about principles. It's a lie to say that it is.

There has been a major push to get basically every security camera in downtown DC networked into the government systems. It's sold as a why-wouldn't-you-want-this measure, and IIRC almost everyone has signed on.

You're a bit late in your assessment of this, and also a bit incorrect...but unfortunately, not in a way that makes it any less bad.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

There's already a remarkable network of such cameras; what's left now is that more and more government agencies (because they are run separately, and have different needs and goals) are asking to drink from the data fountain they provide. There's no singular push on behalf of "the government systems," there are multiple efforts, each with their own intentions, on behalf of each specific agency that wants the data. And major cities (like New York) that have similar networks of city-run cameras are all getting the same requests, since there's nothing really special about one city or another that exempts it from the aims of such agencies.

This 1,000 times over. Follow the money and you'll find the real reason why there's so much manufactured outrage against Uber and other rideshare companies.

Maybe, but there's a lot less gunning down of civilians by the police in Europe compared to the U.S. (I don't know whether that's down to less racism or less guns or some other socio-political difference).

It isn't due to less racism for certain. It is due to less racial diversity at the local level. Someone forgets about a multi-million person racial/ethnic purge that occurred in Europe 70-80 years ago. Between the people killed and the ones who fled, the racial diversity in all of continental Europe was swept away. Researchers in Havard released a map a few years ago showing the racial diversity of different nations. It can be found on the following link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/05/16/a-revealing-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-ethnically-diverse-countries/

Do you often subscribe to or come up with conspiracy theories? This is on the same level as a conspiracy theory. There is no reason to arrest Assange, what he did could have been legally done in the US. If the US wanted Assange, it would be far easier to convince the UK, one of the US's closest allies to arrest him. Why go through all this trouble with Sweden, a country which doesn't particularly like the US?

Beyond some blowhard politicians, no one in the US is calling for his arrest. Just as no one is calling for Greenwald's arrest. He didn't break any laws, if you don't work with classified material legally, you have no reason to not publish it. Are we going to be arresting the Washington Post for publishing classified information next?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

The trouble is, those same Republicans have derailed national cyber security regulations since Obama has been in office. It's all been channeled through the US Chamber of Commerce.

Comprehensive cybersecurity regulatory reform failed for the second time this year in the U.S. Senate, increasing the prospects that the White House will implement some of the bill’s provisions through an executive order.

The Cybersecurity Act of 2012 failed to get the 60 votes needed under Senate rules to bring the bill up for passage Nov. 14, 2012, most likely dashing any chance that cybersecurity policy would be addressed in the lame-duck session.

“Whatever we do for this bill is not enough for the Chamber of Commerce,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said on the floor immediately after the failed cloture vote. “Cybersecurity is dead for this Congress,” he added. Republicans blocked the same measure in August 2012, saying it would lead to more government regulation of business.

So that was pretty much the end of it. The Obama administration declared some executive orders, but that clearly did not have much impact. Up until this latest incident the Party of Ignorance (R) got what they wanted: keep you hands off my bidness.

So no one should be very surprised that this happened. There is no bright line between big government and big business when it comes to matters like cybersecurity. Particularly with the amount of outsourcing going on. Don't forget that the OPM breach was not simply in a government network, but at security contractor USIS.

A background investigation firm with OPM, DHS, and other federal agency contracts notified the government that it identified an unlawful breach of its network. In a statement posted on the website today, USIS noted that it was working with the government to determine the ‘nature and extent’ of the attack. They acknowledged that it appeared to be a state-sponsored attack.

The firm is already under fire for allegations of contractor misconduct. The Justice Department sued the company earlier this year for poor oversight of security clearance investigations, and a White House panel investigated bonuses received by USIS executives.

The DHS/OPM/whatever are doing everything they can to cover up what really happened, so the trail to the contractors has been rather effectively hidden. They primarily want to keep evidence of their vast incompetency out of the public eye. That is taking precedence over remedial action to address the breach. This is why they are leaving the roughly 4 million government employees at risk just hanging in the breeze. If they were to do the responsible thing and help the victims it would reveal how extensively they failed.

Remember, horribly incompetent government security contractors are the new normal: Blackwater in Iraq, the TSA meatheads who infest airports, and now this. No one should be surprised. And they should be even less surprised when no one is held accountable and nothing changes.

Well of course the business community is entitled. They're the ones paying for the politicians.

When's the last time you ponied up a billion dollars for the elections?

... if the US actually had an indictment sufficient for extradition ...

An indictment is soooo necessary to engage in extrajudicial detention or execution. /sarc

Just ask Italy exactly how much the US cares about Italian criminal law, in particular, kidnapping. Twenty some CIA employees were convicted of kidnapping -- of course they ran prior to their trial date. http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

The cops don't come out into the rural parts of the country, and throw concussion grenades into cribs, killing little babies. They only do that in the cities

You really have no clue what the fuck you're talking about. It sounds like you're referring to the recent incident in Georgia, but somehow assumed it was in Atlanta instead of rural north Georgia where it actually occurred. This article about it even has a depressingly-long list of instances where police used grenades like that, including instances in places like Wyoming and Montana.

The cops are goddamn thugs that are out of control, and encouraging private gun ownership is (part of) the answer, but the idea that rural cops suck any less than urban ones is laughable.

speaking of bombs, imma drop some knowledge bombs on you.

Still no legal authorization for the war against ISIS.

teal deer, Obama keeps ramping up troops and operations but still hasn't locked in an authorization, and he is paying the price politically. It's like moving into a place before signing the lease.

Listening to Fox news is like reading those Inquirer magazines, they have just enough truth in them so that the magazine doesn't get sued for outright slander.

That being said..

Obama has been ramping up troops because Congress is willing to do whatever it takes to defy the president, even if it means violating the law, running the economy into the ground, wasting taxpayer dollars voting on laws that have already been passed .. again and again and again and again.. and making a precedent where the President is not able to do his job. The Republicans think that they are going to get Jeb Bush in the white house because "TERRORISM!" and it just isn't going to happen because we all remember all to well the decade of "Down the drain" that was due to "Dubyah" taking advantage of Jeb not counting all those hanging chads. How quickly people forget that the Republicans are criminals, liars and oh.. the 3rd in line to the presidency during the Clinton Whitewater, lynch mob, oh wait.. we can't get him on the whitewater thing.. Oh lets change the trial to "President got a blowjob so impeach him!" that hypocrite.. all the while had been diddling high school students for decades.. So fuck you and your self righteous conservative bullshit. there is no mixture only Evil and democrat. We live in a democracy so it is pretty clear we have a class of retards in the government that are trying to pull the wool over America's eyes.

speaking of bombs, imma drop some knowledge bombs on you.

Still no legal authorization for the war against ISIS.

teal deer, Obama keeps ramping up troops and operations but still hasn't locked in an authorization, and he is paying the price politically. It's like moving into a place before signing the lease.

Very good at restating the NSA party line. They have no idea what he took or did not take and the figure you site is their guess at the maximum.

Further - TFA is talking about MI6. NSA has nothing to do with MI6 agents or assets and its pretty unlikely that any NSA documents are going to reference operational assets of another agency (ie, CIA) let alone a foreign one.

You may not have noticed that UK is having a marginally interesting "debate" on just how far up their ass they want to let their government spooks look. I'm just shocked that a story like this would be planted in one of the less reputable press outlets at the same time.

If any assets or agents have been exposed, far more likely it is due to their own incompetence. If an Italian prosecutor can figure it all out then so can the Russian and Chinese counterintel officers who do that type of thing for a living.

Both the CIA and MI6 have become increasingly ameteurish since the end of the cold war. Snowden is just a convenient foil.

It's more likely that "Chinese hack of federal personnel files included security-clearance database" was responsible for the recall.

Snowden didn't post any files on the net.. He met his contacts in person in Hong Kong and hand delivered them (USB?) to Greenwald(reporter) and Poitras(film maker) in person. He claimed that he did not take any of NSA files on his laptops with him to Russia./P

This would still be cheaper than paying Boeing to do the launches.

Boeing has to charge more, to fund all their political donations, and jobs for ex-bureaucrats. But the sleaze pays off. That is how they got the contract for the KC-X contract over a better and cheaper bid from Northrup-EADS. The USAF picked the better bid, but congress forced them to give the contract to Boeing.

If SpaceX wants to compete in this market, they need to use a lot more grease.

I Googled "Garry Trudeau PEN comments" and this is the first fucking result :

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/comic-riffs/wp/2015/04/14/doonesburys-garry-trudeau-on-free-speech-responsible-satire-and-charlie-hebdo/

Try harder next time.

I would like to point out that belief in creationism isn't part of modern Catholicism at least:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

so trying to conflate religion and creationism is kind of disrespectful to the majority of Christianity that does not approve of creationism.