Slashdot Mirror

The government has shown they are perfectly happy seizing any asset they can get their grubby hands on. You don't even need to have been charged with a crime with forfeiture laws getting hundreds of millions of dollars. They'd take your cash and fedcoin. http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/?hpid=z3

I am not sure if we will get some personal answers out of this guy, I guess he will just forware every single question into one of these websites that claim to know everything. Serioudly, though, what do you think of Elon Musk's fear of A.I., and when do you think that Wolfram Alpha will become self aware?

loss of intelligence

Uh, no...

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

impairment of driving

No again...

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US...

Yes.

This happened at the beginning of Gamergate: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/09/23/4chan-users-threatening-to-expose-supposed-emma-watson-private-photos-after-she-gives-feminist-speech/

Yet, while Gamergate was being aggressively removed from 4chan, permanently banning users in droves for just posting into one of the threads (often even expressing disagreement), this was allowed to continue with not even a warning from a mod.

Why don't you come up with plenty of examples of this allegedly common fraud?

No, I think the shoe is on the other foot, here.

There are plenty of examples, year in and year out, of people being caught (and even arrested and convicted) of doing things like stuffing voter registration roles with fake names. In some jurisdictions, dead voters are surprisingly active. There's no trouble at all coming up with examples of fraud, but there's lots of trouble coming up with examples of "young people being disenfranchised," unless you mean things like "making it difficult for them to vote absentee from their home district and also from their college town."

Who is being disenfranchised when they're not allowed to do both? What's the objection? People bother trying to combat those tactics because there are examples of activist groups deliberately recruiting college students to participate in exactly such double-voting and vote-trading schemes.

I don't know, 31 incidents from 2000 through 2014 doesn't sound like "plenty of examples, year in and year out"

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

And, the voter ID laws being passed do not actually address the types of voter fraud that occasionally takes place.

The above article references 3000 voters being turned away in four states due to the tighter voter id laws enacted there. What fraction of those were fraudlent in the sense that they would not have been legal if proper ID was present?

Are the costs of disenfranchising voters a small price to pay in order to not actually stop any fraud?

So, taking the shoe off the other foot - do you now have some evidence to present of this allegedely common fraud?

Partisan word count?

Fox is the organisation who decided to post this video.

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

Fox made the decision, other news agencies refuse to post that shit, social media picks it up of course because anyone can grab everything and throw it online. Fox buys video rights, fox posts on their page, counts the clicks based on the obvious controversy, reaps reward. Yay, partisan criticism? Right.

Also Judge Richard Goldstone has apologized for the poor quality of that report, for how much he was fooled.

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

I met a member of the Goldstone commission after Goldstone published that article. He said that Goldstone may have changed his mind, but Goldstone was speaking for himself, not the commission. And Goldstone never disclosed the evidence that changed his mind.

The Israeli government refused to cooperate with the Goldstone commission. Goldstone said in that article that if the Israeli government had cooperated, his conclusions would have been different.

The main difference would have been the conclusion that the Israelis were deliberately targeting civilians as a matter of government policy. Goldstone said that he was now convinced that, while individual soldiers were deliberately targeting civilians, they were not doing so as a result of government policy.

To give you an idea of what they're talking about, here's one of the best-documented cases:

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

773. At about 12.50 p.m., Khalid Abd Rabbo, his wife Kawthar, their three daughters, Souad (aged 9), Samar (aged 5) and Amal (aged 3), and his mother, Hajja Souad Abd Rabbo, stepped out of the house, all of them carrying white flags. Less than 10 metres from the door was a tank, turned towards their house. Two soldiers were sitting on top of it having a snack (one was eating chips, the other chocolate, according to one of the witnesses). The family stood still, waiting for orders from the soldiers as to what they should do, but none was given. Without warning, a third soldier emerged from inside the tank and started shooting at the three girls and then also at their grandmother. Several bullets hit Souad in the chest, Amal in the stomach and Samar in the back. Hajja Souad was hit in the lower back and in the left arm.

The IDF refused to let an ambulance bring them to the hospital, so they walked. Amal and Souad died. Samar had a spinal injury and was left paraplegic for life. As far as any human rights organization or journalist could find out, the Israeli government never investigated this event or prosecuted the soldier responsible. For example, nobody from the Israeli government talked to the Palestinian eyewitnesses, so they can't know first-hand what happened.

Goldstone was writing in 2011 that he was confident that the Israeli government would investigate these charges. As of 2015, they have not done so, so it seems his confidence was misplaced. What are they waiting for -- the messiah?

The UN chose Goldstone to head the commission because he had unimpeachable Zionist credentials, in Israel and South Africa. He was Jewish and had family in Israel. The UN wanted to head off in advance any criticism that the commission would be anti-Israel.

In contrast, the human rights groups, such as Amnesty International, staff their investigating commissions with people who are not living in the country they are investigating, out of fear that they would be subject to pressure.

That fear was justified in Goldstone's case. He was subject to immense abuse from the Israel-first community. They attempted to prevent him from attending his grandson's Bar Mitzvah.

Alan Dershowitz said that it was acceptable under Jewish law for any Jew to kill Goldstone. Dershowitz said that Goldstone was a moser, which means someone who informs on his fellow Jews, like the informers who turned other Jews in to the Nazis. Under Jewish law, it's acceptable to kill a moser. Coming from Dershowitz, one could reasonably worry, since several of his clients were murderers, including the member of the Jewish Defense League who firebombed Sol Hurok'

Also Judge Richard Goldstone has apologized for the poor quality of that report, for how much he was fooled.

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

From 2013 Cops Are Creating Totally Bogus Facebook Profiles Just So They Can Arrest People where they also point out that this is against FB's TOS

Tangential to this in 2014 Justice Dept. will review practice of creating fake Facebook profiles (Which talks about Federal LE, most famously brought to light by the DEA creating the fake FB profile in the woman's name in order to nab suspects.

Feds pay $134,000 to settle DEA agent's fake Facebook case

Moreover, every time researchers examine the political outlooks of vaccine deniers through representative surveys, it seems that they fail to find a significant leftwing bent. Consider two major studies on this from the last two years:

* In a 2013 paper in PLOS One, Stephan Lewandowsky and two colleagues studied what makes people reject vaccines, and got a complicated result. Namely, they found that while political conservatism made people somewhat more pro-vaccine, having a free market ideology led in the opposite direction — towards having more vaccine skepticism.

“Opposition to vaccinations involved a balance between two opposing forces, namely a negative association with free-market endorsement and a compensatory positive association with conservatism,” wrote the authors. “The different polarity of those associations is consonant with the notion that libertarians object to the government intrusion arising from mandatory vaccination programs, whereas people low on conservatism — who, by implication, are liberal or progressive — may oppose immunization because they distrust pharmaceutical companies.”

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

So people who would jump to the conclusion of "liberals" because of the geography involved probably are ignoring the *other* major demographic in those areas.

The main takeaway from the article is that denial of medical care is starting to spread beyond the usual ultraconservative religions and groups like the John Birch Society.

"Gov't Vaccination Agenda" LOL

Since it is apparently too onerous for you to search higher in the thread:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

FTFA:

Respondents formed more negative assessments of the risk and benefits of childhood vaccines as they became more conservative and identified more strongly with the Republican Party.

I think your problem might be that you think that liberals have a monopoly on shopping at Whole Foods and driving Priuses. My grandparents are the most anti-Democrat people I know, and they are Prius-driving health nuts that eat mostly vegetarian. There is an enormous population of conservative, anti-chemical evangelical church moms that are all about "natural remedies" and would be happy to ban dihydrogen monoxide based on the name alone.

Don't let me get in the way of your black and white partisan worldview, though.

It's certainly true at one bank I use, which even now allows short, all-alphabetical, all lower-case passwords.

That isn't really the point. The point is: Do they allow more complex passwords? If so, then take advantage of that. If not, then there's a problem. Do you want to legislate / mandate more complex passwords? This is 'Murrica son, where even the Measles vaccine is optional. Why should banking security be mandatory. Let the "free market" decide. [ Now even I can't tell if I'm being serious or sarcastic - sigh. ]

As a side note on the issue of regulatory reform, Senator Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) says restaurant employees shouldn’t be required to wash their hands:

“As a matter of fact I think this is one where I think I can illustrate the point,” he recalled telling her. “I don’t have any problem with Starbucks if they choose to opt out of this policy as long as they post a sign that says we don’t require our employees to wash their hands after leaving the restroom. The market will take care of that. It’s one example.” (Is requiring a sign not a regulation?)

So, as Jon Stewart pointed out, the Senator is in favor of *not* requiring the sign "Employees must wash their hands..." as long as establishments post a sign saying, "Employees do not have to wash their hands..." -- and by the time the "free market takes care of it" we're all suffering from Cholera ...

Shortly after takeoff, one of the plane’s pilots sent a frantic message: “Mayday, Mayday, engine flameout.” A flameout is engine failure — when the fuel supply to the engine is interrupted or there is faulty combustion, Reuters reported.

Doesn't look like a selfie is the cause of the crash. (Washington Post)

...it is a paradox that has put regulators in an untenable position.

Maybe not entirely. Here's a recent article about fake supplements: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Regulation, apparently, has its part to play.

Also, Michelle Bachman did in fact claim that the HPV vaccine would make kids autistic.

Heck, just create your own Board to issue Certificates of Authenticity - just like Rand Paul tried to do for ophthalmology (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/... )

The idea behind a vaccine is not to just protect the individual who gets it, but to protect the population at large. Those who choose not to get vaccinated are threatening other people's lives—the lives of those who may not even know they are being threatened.

Measles? http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/measles/faqs-dis-vac-risks.htm

We are starting to see just the beginnings of the results of this anti-vaccination movement:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/05/29/u-s-measles-outbreak-sets-record-for-post-elimination-era
http://news.health.com/2015/01/28/u-s-measles-outbreak-now-numbers-87-cases/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/whooping-cough-outbreak-reaches-epidemic-level-in-california/
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/24/health/ohio-mumps/index.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/24/nhl-mumps-vaccines_n_6375744.html

I think the most sickening part of it all is that most anti-vax parents have gotten their immunisations when they were a child, yet refuse to let their own children get them. It's sad that it will take at least another 5-10+ years, and many more outbreaks, before the anti-vaxers will even start to get swayed. We may likely see pre-immunisation-era numbers of infections before then though, especially with the world being as small as it is today compared to yesteryear.

And it you think I'm shitting you, please cite the last Democrat-submitted budget.

You mean like last year?

You can even read the budget and scroll and see the numbers and changes on that page. I'm pretty sure he did so for years prior to 2014 as well.

Obama has had budgets; the Republicans (and truthfully congress as a whole) have argued that budget, fillibustered it, not allowed it to pass, and have been surviving on continuing resolutions for years. But that isn't Obama's fault that our congressmen can't behave like adults and compromise.

Maybe we should also take aim at the plummeting sales of Barbie dolls, and encourage more boys to buy them.

Well, colleges and the healthcare industry, since you're asking. :)

Good examples both! Although their hold on the respective markets aren't quite as monopolistic, their pay-structures is just as divorced from the immediate consumers of their services as that of public schools.

If today we upped school-loans to $1 million per year, the colleges would've upped their fees up to $1 million by September. And they would've found reasons...

Likewise, if insurers today agreed to pay twice more for a particular procedure, the price of it would've doubled overnight.

At least the schools don't cause too many deaths

Not sure, what you mean by "causing deaths", but schools definitely are places, where children are in high danger of sexual predators (far more so than churches, for example).

and the first 12 years are free

If it were free, I would've not have been talking about quadrupling of the costs, would we have?

To put us back on topic, at least, you can switch your doctor or transfer to a different college. Public school? You are stuck with it...

Actually, they really have outlawed and/or regulated it in several states, because it encourages "anti social" behavior.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
http://www.nydailynews.com/new...

Why are we letting the government regulate stupid shit like this? So are the kids supposed to stay inside and play video games instead? Bumps, bruises, getting teased, and learning to deal with losing/competition are life lessons.

What is 'liberal' about this proposal?

Naturally the conservative bend on slashdot wants to leave people to assume that this money would be handed out to inner city drug-dealing / pimping high school dropouts to encourage them to have 12 more kids. The reality that slashdot couldn't be bothered to share is that the money would go to infrastructure. Whie conservatives like to claim that "the incoming tide raises all ships" and other such bullshit, infrastructure is a government responsibility in the rest of the industrialized world. We need to get our infrastructure up to snuff to keep our country relevant in the modern era. The conservatives deny this, which makes it a liberal matter - just like climate change, health care, education, space exploration, scientific research, and diplomacy.

Believe it or not, the NFL is a non-profit!

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

I got your point just fine. You don't want the "wrong" sort of people to vote, which is inherently elitist. As Jenny McCarthy hasn't had to shop at a Wal-Mart for 20 years, that leaves the victims of elitism as the targets for your elitism.

The poor and uneducated wont be allowed to vote, which will help to ensure that they remain poor and uneducated, and thus unable to vote. It's a vicious cycle, which takes time to perfect.

All email, social media, banking and consumer purchases take place over SSL connections, and have for a long time. So the "party line" stuff is a non-starter.

So you use gmail, yahoo mail, hotmail, or corporate mail ? You don't think the providers don't or can't parse that ? It's not your mail it's theirs after all.

You don't think the credit card companies don't record and share information with the credit reporting agencies ?

Who. Who else has the budget AND the physical proximity to the bulk of the fiber (which runs through the US) to do a "full take" of what people do online.

Oh I don't know, maybe the people selling you your net access ?

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

So, now you have strong evidence that the people you talk to are not representative of America as a whole.

I would not put it that way. I'd say we have strong evidence that opinion polling can easily result in confusing or apparently contradictory results. The first sentence of the linked blog post has an air of mild surprise about it, and not surprisingly - when polled, 75% of Americans disagree that their government is trustworthy all or most of the time, yet they view most departments favourably? That makes little sense.

Something else doesn't make much sense. This result can easily be read as "people approve of what the NSA is doing". That must be what favourable means, right? Yet this very same polling agency has found a year ago that a majority of Americans oppose NSA practices. It's possible things have changed in the span of 2014, but other polls frequently return contradictory results too. This one by the Washington Post says, in the same set of questions, most people think monitoring all online activity to prevent terrorism isn't worth it, but monitoring all phone calls is. Why the difference?

At any rate, it's certainly true that the civil liberties wing of western societies has done a really appalling job of explaining to people why this sort of behaviour by governments is so risky, and Americans don't have recent local experience to fall back on. Unlike, say, people in former Soviet bloc countries, or Germans.

What can possibly go wrong?

What can possibly go wrong?

I heard Mickey Mouse is a corporate stooge.

Absolutely not.

"On May 22, 1886 .. Zenas F. Wilber, a former Washington patent examiner, swore in an affidavit that he'd been bribed by an attorney for Alexander Graham Bell to award Bell the patent for the telephone over a rival inventor, Elisha Gray, who'd filed a patent document on the same day as Bell in 1876." ref Bell's telephone sketch Elisha Gray's sketch of a telephone

You have to admit, both of thoes were pretty sketchy.

"On May 22, 1886 .. Zenas F. Wilber, a former Washington patent examiner, swore in an affidavit that he'd been bribed by an attorney for Alexander Graham Bell to award Bell the patent for the telephone over a rival inventor, Elisha Gray, who'd filed a patent document on the same day as Bell in 1876." ref

Bell's telephone sketch

Elisha Gray's sketch of a telephone

All medallions do is create taxi cartels, barriers to entry for others wishing to participate in the market, a complete lack of competition, and insane profits for the medallion owners (not the drivers). It is a system that just begs for abuse and it's disgusting that this type of situation is not only condoned, but advocated by our municipal governments. It is only because of the ride share apps that these dinosaurs are finally being wiped out by their own well-deserved asteroid. http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

I agree that the IRS should be able to do much more with the budget it has. It is far from efficient. On the other hand, we should probably be more careful with cutting spending on the IRS than most other government agencies. This is because cutting in the wrong areas will cost much more than you save. Cutting enforcement by $1 may cost $6 if Treasury Secretary Jack Lew is to be believed. I would also guess that a budget item for modernization efforts may be a similarly foolish place to look for cuts.

I lived around the corner from a major IRS processing facility in Fresno, California for many years. I can assure you that the neighborhood and the entire metropolitan area around it look nothing like these 5 counties (I've been to Fairfax County and Arlington County).

seizure in the usa is already way out of control

the recent federal review of asset seizure laws is welcome, but weak:

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

worrying about banks seizing funds is the least of your problems

I've heard claims that one in four women will be raped at some point in their lives, and have yet to hear any sort of data-based rebuttal.

Really? You heard such an extraordinary claim, but apparently made zero effort to look into its validity?

Here you go. And here. And here.

Essentially, that inflated number is based on questionable surveys which often fail to distinguish between a regrettable drunken hookup and rape, and is not just about rape but about behavior ranging from grabbing a woman's butt on up through attempted rape and actual rape. (Yes, grabbing someone's butt is bad. It's assault. It's unacceptable. It is not, however, rape.)

Is rape much more common than most people think? Yes. The data is murky but I would be surprised if the lifetime victimization rate for women was less than 5%, 1 in 20. Is it 25%, "eeny-meeny-miney-RAPE!" common? No.

And a teacher sending a student sexy messages over the internet is certainly a breach of professional conduct...but it's not rape.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites...

The word cut doesn't mean what you think it does.

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

Would you like to try for more name calling ? Maybe you can shout Bushhitler a few thousand times, or just go around yelling winger winger, or something equally persuasive.

We are not yet in a single-payer system, which means the market remains in the driver's seat.

No. For the same reason the market isn't in the driver's seat when I mandate lightbulbs with technologically unreachable efficiency levels or coal scrubbers that jack the cost of energy by 20-30%. Don't claim a free market where a free market does not exist. It's like me tying one of your arms behind your back, bashing your knees, then handing you a sword and having you defend yourself against a trained swordsmen -- fate is entirely in your hands, right? Until the consumers of healthcare (aka the people getting the care) can see transparent prices PRIOR to the actual care given and can competitively bargain shop for doctors/hospitals/procedures, there is no market. Ask yourself how this kind of thing can happen and you'll very quickly understand why it's not a market: http://www.washingtonpost.com/... Note that in a free market, the consumers would flock to the cheaper option, with the "invisible hand" forcing the higher prices down through basic supply/demand. It doesn't happen in reality because healthcare is a shell game between a bunch of "price negotiators".

The market's treatment of pre-existing conditions is a known black mark against those that argue that free market forces will fix everything.

Again, no. You're conflating health insurance and healthcare, which are two entirely different things that this country insanely links. The _insurance companies_ are the ones who abuse pre-existing conditions. And that can be readily handled with legislation. You don't see life insurance companies dropping people when they get sick or old, do you? There's a reason it doesn't happen: because it's fraud.

Free market sees the uninsured being denied access to emergency rooms

EMTALA guarantees everyone access to emergency rooms. No one is denied.

You're going to need to explain the FU bit about cost controllers. It forced an administrative/medical care ratio on insurance companies. That means that insurance companies can't pile on administrative costs forever.

You seem to think that administrative costs are the primary drivers of rising healthcare costs. I suggest further research. And that clause is also irrelevant as it could just as easily exacerbate costs by having insurance companies push for useless tests to drive up the ratio.

It also increased the minimum requirements of insurance so that what "insruance" is isn't $25 a month feel-good, get-sick-and-die policy.

You think this is a cost control??? It's in fact the exact opposite. And that red herring of "insurance that isn't real insurance" is bullshit. Tons of people with perfectly valid non-garbage HDHP HSAs (myself included) had their costs skyrocket when all sorts of minimum standards they didn't want or require (ever) were forced into their plan (such as childless families and/or men in general paying for maternity care in their insurance costs)

We don't necessarily need more doctors (just allow nurses to practice within the scope of their training, that's one of several quick fixes) or more hospitals. Just because you cannot see or understand the difference doesn't mean the difference isn't there.

You are the one who doesn't understand the difference. And this should be dead obvious to you considering the fact costs (including premiums) are still rising even against the backdrop of this bill. Total healthcare costs haven't changed and the only reason health insurance _looks_ cheaper for poor people is because it's subsidized by the more wealthy who are now paying much more (both out of pocket and in premium hi

While no one has ever suggested that science is subject to voting, it is naive to claim that opinion does not guide publication. If I wanted to argue data that showed the speed of light in vacuum was much different from the current estimate, my evidence has to be much better than if I were simply confirming a widely held number. AND, it is perfectly reasonable for a political body to declare that pi is 3.1416 for all calculations used in contracts and surveying. Not so reasonable is to hold that planning commissions cannot use the best science when planning for long terms (which they do, by their nature). See North Carolina's actions, which blocked use of the science.

But, in my opinion the best hedge we have is banks and insurance companies. As long as they are permitted to do the math, we will be safe (unless they are prevented from using their best estimates by social engineering in the "democratic" body politic). For example, in New Orleans I bet rational assessment of long term risk would hurt the poor the most, making for irrational attempts to legislate away risk by blocking its use in assessing mortgages, etc. Think of the whole real estate bubble and the good intentions but bad ideas that made home ownership a right, not to be denied just because the owner could not afford it.

Perhaps your google skills are better than mine. I keep finding articles like these:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12...

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

The quotes in those articles support the scenario above. Am I missing something?

If you give a speech to a group of people, and find out later that a portion of the audience were also members of an unpopular group, then acknowledging that you gave the speech, and accepting that you should have looked into the group a little closer, is not the same thing as admitting to being on center stage in a white hood yourself.

Do you get that distinction?

I haven't been following this in detail, and I personally don't give a shit if this guy was a card carrying Klansman or just some dude that didn't bother vetting a group that wanted to hear his speech on a topic that he was passionate about. What I do care about is people making unsubstantiated claims, and so far I haven't been able to find anything else.

So, if you have something more, please let me know, and I'll shut up. Otherwise, perhaps you should ask yourself why you are so willing to make this leap of faith.

Human health is a complex topic with many interwoven factors that interact with each other. In general, many people who catch many "diseases" don't show significant symptoms because their immune system deals with it and limits the scope of the spread. I was not easily able to find that information about measles from a few minutes of trying though. It seems a bit controversial... Maybe you know if off-hand?
"Risk Analysis for Measles Reintroduction After Global Certification of Eradication"
http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/...
"Convention holds that asymptomatic measles infections are rare, but there is a significant body of published evidence of acute measles infection among people who are exposed to measles virus but who do not develop classic symptoms [3-5]."

When you boost your immune system, you make it more likely the spread will be contained. Even for measles, the degree of symptoms you show and how long they last is in general probably going to reflect your health state (and also genetics though), as suggested in a link a bit further below to a study from CDC researchers. Humans are exposed to all sorts of potentially problematical viruses and bacteria every day -- doctors especially. A healthy immune system shrugs most of them off (with some dangerous exceptions, especially like Ebola).

A study specific to measles and nutrition, from India:
"Interaction between nutrition and measles"
http://link.springer.com/artic...
"Much has been written about the synergestic interaction and infection in turn adversely affects the nutritional status. Although this relationship is well documented with respect to bacterial infections, it is not clear whether nutrition can influence the incidence or course of viral diseases. Measles is one of the most common viral infections that occur during childhood. The interactions between measles and nutritional status acquire considerable importance in situations where as a result of inadequate food intake, chronic malnutrition is widespread among children."

And:
"Undernutrition as an underlying cause of child deaths associated with diarrhea, pneumonia, malaria, and measles"
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/cont...
"Results: The RR of mortality because of low weight-for-age was elevated for each cause of death and for all-cause mortality. Overall, 52.5% of all deaths in young children were attributable to undernutrition, varying from 44.8% for deaths because of measles to 60.7% for deaths because of diarrhea.
Conclusion: A significant proportion of deaths in young children worldwide is attributable to low weight-for-age, and efforts to reduce malnutrition should be a policy priority."

So if 50% of the death rate is from obvious malnutrition, could at least some of the rest be from more subtle dietary issues?

In the USA from 2010, just to show how the USA is in theory increasingly at risk of an epidemic from malnutrition among children:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
"According to a new report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 17.4 million American families - almost 15 percent of U.S. households - are now "food insecure," an almost 30 percent increase since 2006. This means that, during any given month, they will be out of money, out of food, and forced to miss meals or seek assistance to feed themselves. Even those who get three meals a day may be malnourished. Americans increasingly eat cheap, sugary foods whose production is underwritten by government subsidies for the corn and dairy industries. As the New York Times reported this month, the USDA loudly promotes better eating habits while quietly working with Domino's to develop a new line of pizzas with 40 percent more cheese. [There are healthy fats though, including from ch

Does your food contain DNA? Why aren't there mandatory warning labels for foods containing DNA?

They need to ban those nasty Amino Acids too!

Citation? Ask any of the residents of high lattitude and they'll explain that, in summer (or winter), they have daylight - real daylight - until they go to sleep, at which point they frequently use thick curtains to block the light.

Citation.
Citation.
Citation.
Citation.

IRS Admits targeting conservatives for tax scrutiny in 2012

"Dr Schnieider was warning of the dangers of global cooling" He wrote a paper speculating that the effects of aerosols would be greater than that of global warming. His was a minority view and he was wrong.

"By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people"
Firstly, Ehrlich is a biologist, not a climatologist. Secondly, he was talking about overpopulation, not climate change.

"Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000"
But that's a prediction about the future, not now. Global warming wasn't reverse by the year 2000 and Bangladesh in particular is going to face a lot of difficultly this century.

"Amid predictions that by 2010 the world will need to cope with as many as 50 million people escaping the effects of creeping environmental deterioration, ..." Firstly I have no idea what the actual numbers are escaping drought, famine etc, but I just checked http://www.unep.org/cpi/briefs... . Apparently the predictions were by Norman Myers and unep claims they were never their forecasts. His predictions also don't appear to be mainstream at all. He seemed to have this strange idea that _all_ people just leave a region when there are extreme weather events like droughts when they don't (even in cases of war etc).

"let's throw in our favorite leader of the global warming movement, Al Gore" Al Gore is a politician. A politician is only as reliable as the information he gets and has no particular expertise. "The polar ice caps have actually INCREASED since then, significantly" Nope http://earthobservatory.nasa.g... There is a lot of variability, but the trends are pretty apparent and the lowest extent was in 2012.

Here the Washington post have a visual of the same thing: http://www.washingtonpost.com/... . Again there is variability but the trends are pretty obvious. Nothing to justify saying it would be clear (as far as I can see) by 2013, but the trend is still there.

Edit: Same post but with the formatting fixed.

"Dr Schnieider was warning of the dangers of global cooling" He wrote a paper speculating that the effects of aerosols would be greater than that of global warming. His was a minority view and he was wrong. "By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people" Firstly, Ehrlich is a biologist, not a climatologist. Secondly, he was talking about overpopulation, not climate change. "Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000" But that's a prediction about the future, not now. Global warming wasn't reverse by the year 2000 and Bangladesh in particular is going to face a lot of difficultly this century. "Amid predictions that by 2010 the world will need to cope with as many as 50 million people escaping the effects of creeping environmental deterioration, ..." Firstly I have no idea what the actual numbers are escaping drought, famine etc, but I just checked http://www.unep.org/cpi/briefs... . Apparently the predictions were by Norman Myers and unep claims they were never their forecasts. His predictions also don't appear to be mainstream at all. He seemed to have this strange idea that _all_ people just leave a region when there are extreme weather events like droughts when they don't (even in cases of war etc). "let's throw in our favorite leader of the global warming movement, Al Gore" Al Gore is a politician. A politician is only as reliable as the information he gets and has no particular expertise. "The polar ice caps have actually INCREASED since then, significantly" Nope http://earthobservatory.nasa.g... There is a lot of variability, but the trends are pretty apparent and the lowest extent was in 2012. Here the Washington post have a visual of the same thing: http://www.washingtonpost.com/... . Again there is variability but the trends are pretty obvious. Nothing to justify saying it would be clear (as far as I can see) by 2013, but the trend is still there.

Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), the House majority whip, acknowledged Monday that he spoke at a gathering hosted by white-supremacist leaders while serving as a state representative in 2002

So he confirmed he spoke to a group, but didn't know they were founded by Duke and didn't know they were racist. Where is the lie?

you idiot.

they didn't falsely attack private citizens.
they weren't an attack tool of the DNC.
they ddnt lie to congress.

the entire IRS "scandal" was manufactured from whole cloth.

There seems to be a very large gap between your understanding of events and the facts. Here is a modest start for you.

IRS admits targeting conservatives for tax scrutiny in 2012 election

The IRS Scandal, Day 623

Ex-IRS official Lois Lerner reportedly pleaded with her supervisor not to deeply inquire about whether the IRS had unfairly targeted Tea Party and conservative groups for tax-exempt status just ahead of the 2012 presidential election, according to new emails obtained by a government watchdog group.

Joseph H. Grant, former Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division deputy director, was specifically asked by Lerner to refrain from visiting the tax agency's Cincinnati office and keep from asking specific questions related to any Congressional inquiries, according to emails obtained by Judicial Watch through a Freedom of Information Act Lawsuit.

Lerner wanted to work for Obama activist group

Lois Lerner talked about working for Obama’s group Organizing for Action while she had official oversight over it

I was wondering how long it would take before the slashdot conservative majority brought out that conspiracy conjecture again.

So, you're here to "correct the record" and explain why the IRS really didn't do it even though they admitted it? Clueless and hopeless.

The question isn't "did they do it," but how much are they covering up and how close does it get to the seats of Democratic party power?

IRS admits targeting conservatives for tax scrutiny in 2012 election

The IRS Scandal, Day 623

the most insidious vicious freedom destroying authoritarian government possible, would dose the populace with heroin, as the ultimate exertion of absolute control

there exists nothing that is capable of destroying free will better than hard drugs

bars in the mind, an interrupt switch in your very consciousness, is far greater control against your free will than any physical restraint possible

and look:

authoritarian control via hard drug:

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

the fascist origins:

http://www.tofugu.com/2012/04/...

war and imperialism achieved through hard drug:

http://www.victorianweb.org/hi...

you want to destroy freedom? meth, heroin, coke... nothing destroys freedom better

that some cotton candy heads might actually *choose* to destroy their freedom is only a testament to ignorance, stubborn deluded cluelessness, desperate pain without proper social help, and loopy rationalizations

there is no greater fight at preserving and extending freedom than the basic maintenance effort of civilization to minimize the drug trade

drugs destroy lives and freedom at a root far deeper than any social hierarchy or political ideology: chemistry over mind

Where does this bullshit originate? I guess the same place as the "global warming is a fraud" bullshit.
While DDT was banned for agricultural use, it was never banned for malaria control. One of the problems with DDT and most pesticides including antibiotics is that overuse gives the pests a chance to develop pesticide resistance, this is what finally killed DDT usage, it was so overused that mosquitoes became resistant. Currently it is being used by at least 12 countries (India and some S African countries as of 2008) for malaria control and the WHO is encouraging the use of it, though not overuse. http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Where ever you are getting your propaganda from you should stop using as they are spreading outright lies and if they can lie about something as easy to check as the 2001 Stockholm Convention on Pesticides how are they lying about harder to check things such as climate change?