Slashdot Mirror

God bless you, Washington Post.

They actually went to the trouble of including a damn chart, which shows just how weak the correlation actually is.

God bless you, Washington Post.

They actually went to the trouble of including a damn chart, which shows just how weak the correlation actually is.

Here it is in black and white from the uber-conservative Washington Post itself. Even though they tried to spin the headline in favor of Bush, even the ideologues there were forced to admit the truth, plainly stated:

"a statewide tally favored Gore by 60 to 171 votes."

Boom. Done. Gore got the most votes. The only way to say otherwise is to not count all the votes, which is the only standard that any court ever should have considered. Of course you have to count all the votes, not just some of them, no matter what the candidates want! Of course! Obviously! A statewide tally favored Gore, the elected President. The rest is just part of the sordid corrupt history of the State of Florida and the USA.

Until there is a Libertarian candidate, who is remotely viable, picking Republicans is what Libertarians ought to be doing. Because Republicans are far less wrong on economy. And economic freedom is required for prosperity...

The opposite is literally true. I don't personally vote economic issues (there's nothing wrong with doing so), but if I were to, voting Republican would not be an optimal choice.

On contrast, if an ultra-Conservative "RethugliKKKan" wins elections and, horrors, manages to outlaw abortions... Guess what? I'll still be able to afford my daughter's trip to Canada, should she ever want the procedure.

You seem to primarily vote your wallet, and you also have a liberal position on at least one social issue, or, at least, you're not crazy about the Republican platform position on that issue (please correct me if I read you wrong). Again, nothing wrong with that, but holding a Republican preference with what you've shared of your political views seems... decidedly strange. I'd honestly be interested in how you arrived at the preference you have.

...the deterioration of our economy...

What deterioration? Now, I'll be the first to admit that we're not exactly seeing Clinton-era growth, but we are seeing steady, albeit slow, improvement. Again, literally the opposite of deterioration.

First of all, there's no (official) 'Christian' angle in 12-step programs. The higher power is nothing more than a technique for letting go of trying to control things yourself.

I refer you to steps 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 all of which explicitly invoke a diety of some kind. Claims that the twelve steps do not involve religion hard to swallow and frankly a bit disingenuous. It's pretty hard to buy the claim that those steps collectively are somehow independent of christian teachings. Those steps collectively are little different in function from confession in the christian tradition. Furthermore the founders of the twelve step programs themselves come from a christian tradition.

If 12 step programs clearly worked I would have little problem with that fact. If some prayer genuinely helps someone get their life together and stop drinking, who am I to judge? Anything that helps without harming others is fine with me. The problem is that it is not at all clear if they are actually effective. Some evidence points towards them being helpful for some people, much indicates that they provide little benefit and in occasional cases might have actually proved harmful. It's hard to study their effectiveness because the nature of twelve step programs tends to be secretive and there are other problems such as lack of a control group. The evidence supporting AA as an effective treatment is scientifically quite weak. Most evidence seems to show that at best it has a success rate barely better than those who do not take the program. I have a problem with the notion of prescribing religion as a treatment regimen in light of the fact that there is no compelling evidence that it actually has the desired outcome.

"What you're not seeing is people actually abusing these programs."

Nope, no abuse to be found.

The link above details how the NSA fed information to the DEA, and if and when there was a court trial resulting from that information, the DEA manufactured a source for the information so that they never had to admit that they got it from the NSA. The DEA called the process of disguising sources "parallel construction". To quote Reuters from the article:

Some defense lawyers and former prosecutors said that using “parallel construction” may be legal to establish probable cause for an arrest. But they said employing the practice as a means of disguising how an investigation began may violate pretrial discovery rules by burying evidence that could prove useful to criminal defendants.

This is an abuse of the legal system, pure and simple. When you're hiding information from the defense, and potentially the judge and prosecution, you've broken the trial system.

We are seeing abuse, Mr. President.

Well, it was reported by The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, CNN, CBS, and others (ABC, Fox News, NPR, etc.).

As far as I can tell, all the major US news companies reported on the closings.

Congress clearly considers Snowden to be a whistleblower, or they wouldn't be voting on proposals to restrict the activity of the NSA http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/07/24/plan-to-defund-nsa-phone-collection-program-has-broad-support-sponsor-says/ Yet Obama continues to label Snowden's actions as espionage. He knows this bullshit, because apparently he's taken down from the internet his promise to protect whistleblowers http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/26/obama-whistleblower-website_n_3658815.html Good thing we have the Way Back Machine, then, isn't it? http://web.archive.org/web/20090227184741/http://change.gov/agenda/ethics_agenda/

Way to weave yourself a very convenient straw-man to make an argument. The majority of the tax burden will be carried by the middle class, as always, regardless of what your politicians might tell you. At minimum, everyone will be paying approximately 2% of their income to finance this. This is all cobbled together by reducing tax credits, increasing taxes on medical items, penalties, reductions in itemized deductions, limits to health savings accounts, and more.

What facts did you actually give? None, besides the fact that the US spends more in terms on GDP than others. The problem with that statement is that a large portion of expenditures comes from the most expensive types of care, which the US is and has been for a long time in the pole position for.

US citizens may long for the less expensive medicines you can get in Canada, but Canadians still cross the border in droves to get the high quality specialized that they are unable to get in their own country.

Basic care needs an update, but mostly on the side of organization, which the government makes extremely complex and difficult to do. The amount of money that is wasted is just tremendous.

Even the Washington Post aggrees: 750 billion on unnecessary healthcare - WashPo

Here you go dickwad. Enjoy the fucking the black man is giving you with his big negro dick.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/05/sopa-died-in-2012-but-obama-administration-wants-to-revive-part-of-it/

Copenhagen's city center was shut for a few hours today because of one of them fancy road-powered electric vehicles being treated as a potential bomb. This one seems to have been built in a garage by a Swedish mad scientist, though.

It seems that you disagree not only with what I said, but with the staff of the Washington Post. See the WP's own article. They don't look happy.

You said, "Bezos lacks an understanding of how the world works? ... his company has operations in over 80 countries, is at the leading edge of the cloud computing revolution, has created several different markets for goods and services that never previously existed, has a logistics system that spans the planet, and generates more profit than the tax revenue of most countries."

Everything in that is Amazon's core business, very different from running a news organization. Whoever runs Amazon seems to be doing quite well. But Jeff Bezos is, more and more, distracting himself. Did you know that Bezos has a spaceflight company? Quoting: "Blue Origin ... has dealt with some difficulties in recent years -- the company hasn't yet put a ship in orbit and suffered a serious setback after a prototype spacecraft crashed in August of 2011."

Another quote from the article: " In the past two years, the Post's uncertain future has led to an exodus of many of its top writers." The Washington Post is doing very badly with its present management, and that management is rapidly becoming worse.

Quoting that article again: "Last week, the Washington Post Company reported an operating loss of $49.3 million in the first six months of 2013, compared to a $33.2 million loss for the same period a year earlier..."

And... Jeff Bezos won't be running the Washington Post. Quoting Jeff Bezos: ' "I won't be leading The Washington Post day-to-day. I am happily living in 'the other Washington' where I have a day job that I love. Besides that, the Post already has an excellent leadership team that knows much more about the news business than I do, and I'm extremely grateful to them for agreeing to stay on." '

Jeff Bezos says the Washington Post "already has an excellent leadership team..." That team is losing HUGE amounts of money.

Continuing, Jeff Bezos says: "... that knows much more about the news business than I do."

That was my point.

You have disagreed not only with me, but with Jeff Bezos himself.

I'm here for the obligatory stirring of the septic tank of communalism, complete with jugs filled with petrol, used tyres and copious quantities of ammonium perchlorate powder (next best thing to cremation by nuke). Oh, I forgot wood chipper...

Xenophobia is not an exclusive malady of the "gamut of peoples holding power over world affairs from the middle of the last millennium". Get ready to blow your solid copper bar busses with THIS! I am an individual that self-trains and works with his hands and what is left of my mind. I work for a very small computer repair operation that has recently lost its largest corporate customer to someone who shall remain unnamed in said corporate customer who is looking to bring in his own people. Some call it a "business decision". I say that the taint of unlawful discriminatory bias leaps into existence and rises to the level of legitimate judicial attention clothed in corporate garb.

Present jurisprudence has rendered whites into individuals absolute that must exist and compete as discrete units without any help from any other entity human or otherwise while non-whites are permitted to exist and compete as collectives in whatever form their culture supports. There is no Good-Old-Boy-Network. If there were such a thing, would I be in this predicament and writing this? FSCK NO!

Is it well understood that religion is the essence of culture and culture is the dress of religion. Ergo, caste (race) is the essence of Desi and Desi is the dress of caste (race). They steal opportunity and they are shielded from registering with Selective Service? They pick the fruit of the Tree of Liberty while my kind have no choice but to spill their blood to feed it?

Remember, it was some time during the Reagan Administration that the South Asian community lobbied to have their status changed from Caucasian to Asian. The eternal irony was that decades beforehand, they fought to be regarded as White and were finally granted that status. That is called gaming the system with identity politics. Any non-white individual who becomes successful to the point of engaging the so-called "American Dream" should be regarded as White because they no longer need government as a crutch. Their achievement should "atomize" each one of them.

Xenophobia is not a privilege for the protected class alone.

Who is "they"? Maybe the CIA checked into him and found him full of stuff. Everybody wants to be in the spotlight

David H. Petraeus and the CIA as he testified to congress about. He also said the Libyan security forces agreed with that assessment. Watch the CNN clip posted here.

http://freebeacon.com/petraeus-knew-almost-immediately-terrorists-responsible-for-benghazi-attack/

Any? Not true. Yes, it was under-manned; that has been acknowledged as a mistake. Incidentally, GOP forced a cut in overseas security recently before that as part of their Austerity Tour. They should accept some of the blame.

Any what? What do you think is not true about that statement? I see you are going the route where you blame republicans as if that makes everything else perfectly fine when 4 Americans are dead and 1 who was injured is still hospitalized 10 months later. Does your mind think oh, the republicans are involved so these deaths are justified now or something? Well, here are the facts about those cuts and why you are wrong. And this is not a democrat republican thing, it's a we failed to protect our personnel thing and we need to ensure it doesn't happen ever again thing.

The cut were to proposed increases, not the budget. The administration is charged with dividing the money up and how it is spent on each embassy. Somewhere in the administration, someone failed to acknowledge that we needed more security in a recently war torn area that just had 2 other terrorist attacks and known elements of al qeada were operating within the area on the anniversary of 9/11, three days after being warned by the host country of problems coming our way. Right now, we have closed embassies across the world because half of that information is present. How much extra money does it take to close an embassy for a few days while the threats can be assessed? Why couldn't resources from stable countries be moved to the unstable Benghazi to provide security? Why wasn't the military on standby ready to evacuate the people? Why didn't we work with the Libyan government to get their security forces in place to help with anything that might happen in the lead up to this. All that could be done without massive increased in the budget (the so called republican cuts)

Blaming this on the republicans not increasing the budgets and calling that cuts is an outright lie designed to deflect the focus where it doesn't belong. You may be clueless because of the politician's language when they spout the lie, or you may know full well that it is a lie and decided to repeat it, it doesn't matter that it's a lie and a red herring.

CIA asked to not publish connections to terrorists because they didn't want to tip their hand. It would have been best in my opinion to stay mum and simply say, "We are investigating various leads, and don't wish to give details at the moment to avoid spoiling the leads."

Someone is filling you full of bullcrap or you are confusing the Yemen terror plots with Benghazi. According to Petraeus' testimony to congress, he put together talking points concerning the events including the links to terrorism which was cleared by the intelligence portions of the agencies and all the sudden he sees Susan Rice in TV rambling about a movie on youtube.

BTW, here is the link to the Yemen terrorist and an analysis of them wanting to hold on the information. It appears the conclusion wasn't to strengthen actions against the terrorist, it was so the white house could break the news.

Everybody has a tipping point. I think for US it's going to be the Big Brother issues.

I'm from Turkey and for us the tipping point was a park.

For years, we had been suffering the same politics of fear that I see in US. The government was practically putting anyone (particularly people speaking against them) under surveillance, making journalists wait in custody for years before even having their trials, suing people in a corrupt justice system just for speaking their minds using something equivalent of the Patriot Act. The freedom of speech was no where to be seen.

During all this time, what stopped people from acting was the feeling of being alone and powerless. And that's what happens when all the media is corrupt and distorting and hiding what's really going on. But people were no fools. Thanks to the internet, there were ways of knowing what's really been going on and people have been getting the news.

So one day, police attacked hundreds of people who were having a sit-in for saving a park and the trees in it with. Anger overwhelmed fear and in a few hours millions were on the street, protesting. I had seen nothing like this. People coming out of Yoga classes were throwing tear gas grenades back to the police. Mothers were preparing solutions to use against the effect of pepper spray. Nobody was afraid of being against the police anymore. The whole story is really interesting, from using google maps to track and distribute police movements to a whole series of sub-culture graffiti on the walls of Istanbul. If you want to learn more, visit this, this and this link.

This lasted for two weeks. For the first five days there was *nothing* on TV or newspapers about this. This was an eye opener for the people who have seen what wasn't being reported. It was what they needed for reverse-engineering the mass-media and bypassing it with social media.

Now everything is calmer, at least in appearance. But the change that people have gone through is an irreversible process. And I think it is, or will be, of a much important consequence than over-throwing an oppressive government. Because the problem doesn't reside within a single government. It's this whole inhumane, ecologically unmaintainable, unjust system and it is all around the world. We all need to open our eyes and do something about it.

Prehaps funding those nearer to home might be a good start http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/in-rural-tennessee-a-new-way-to-help-hungry-children-a-bus-turned-bread-truck/2013/07/06/c93c5eec-e292-11e2-aef3-339619eab080_story.html as after all $3.47 in taxpayer money and 750 calories can make a difrence to some.

They may be protesting, but don't be fooled into thinking they were going to move the billion dollar facility because of a $3 million tax. Utah should keep the tax money.

Don't kid yourself into thinking that it isn't possible. When the US made various plans for closing military bases in the past, it was almost an omen of doom for new construction to start. It's almost as if the right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing. In some ways that hasn't changed.

A brand-new U.S. military headquarters in Afghanistan. And nobody to use it.

The windowless, two-story structure, which is larger than a football field, was completed this year at a cost of $34 million. But the military has no plans to ever use it. Commanders in the area, who insisted three years ago that they did not need the building, now are in the process of withdrawing forces and see no reason to move into the new facility. For many senior officers, the unused headquarters has come to symbolize the staggering cost of Pentagon mismanagement: As American troops pack up to return home, U.S.-funded contractors are placing the finishing touches on projects that are no longer required or pulling the plug after investing millions of dollars. In Kandahar province, the U.S. military recently completed a $45 million facility to repair armored vehicles and other complex pieces of equipment. The space is now being used as a staging ground to sort through equipment that is being shipped out of the country. In northern Afghanistan, the State Department last year abandoned plans to occupy a large building it had intended to use as a consulate. After spending more than $80 million and signing a 10-year lease, officials determined the facility was too vulnerable to attacks.

Hands free technologies are not less distracting; in some cases, they're the worst. The cell phone lobby is desperately trying to focus on "hands free" stuff to sidetrack the issue.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012900053.html

http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/12/autos/aaa-voice-to-text/index.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/even-hands-free-you-shouldnt-talk-or-text-while-driving/2013/07/29/4d7214ec-f3d0-11e2-aa2e-4088616498b4_story.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/opinion/hands-free-distractions.html?_r=0 ...and on and on, if you just google things like "hands free driving distracting"

Having your hands on the wheel simply increases your control of the car. It does not do ANYTHING about your brain being more preoccupied with the conversation or task.

Your job in your car is to DRIVE. Not to eat, not to put on makeup or comb your hair, not to text, not to read, not to talk to someone who isn't in the car. You're piloting 2-3 tons of metal that can and do injure, maim, and kill. People driving cars kill 30,000+ a year in the US alone. Take the responsibility seriously and stop faffing about trying to carry on your life in your car. If you need to get things done while traveling, RIDE THE BUS.

Hands free technologies are not less distracting; in some cases, they're the worst. The cell phone lobby is desperately trying to focus on "hands free" stuff to sidetrack the issue.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012900053.html

http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/12/autos/aaa-voice-to-text/index.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/even-hands-free-you-shouldnt-talk-or-text-while-driving/2013/07/29/4d7214ec-f3d0-11e2-aa2e-4088616498b4_story.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/opinion/hands-free-distractions.html?_r=0 ...and on and on, if you just google things like "hands free driving distracting"

Having your hands on the wheel simply increases your control of the car. It does not do ANYTHING about your brain being more preoccupied with the conversation or task.

Your job in your car is to DRIVE. Not to eat, not to put on makeup or comb your hair, not to text, not to read, not to talk to someone who isn't in the car. You're piloting 2-3 tons of metal that can and do injure, maim, and kill. People driving cars kill 30,000+ a year in the US alone. Take the responsibility seriously and stop faffing about trying to carry on your life in your car. If you need to get things done while traveling, RIDE THE BUS.

Why can't the CIA shoot him?

Because everyone would see right through that, and it would cause a major international incident. Discrediting is so much more effective, and much less risky. When the head of the IMF starts challenging the primacy of the U.S. dollar for example, you don't assassinate him. Way too messy and risky. Instead, you arrange for something a little more subtle, but just as effective.

There are lots of people who did a logical analysis in the library (Karl Marx was one), but it turned out that things worked out differently in real life.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/06/will-obamacare-lead-to-millions-more-part-time-workers-companies-are-still-deciding/

We haven’t seen many employers move forward with such a change. A recent survey from the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis found that 4 percent of companies it surveyed had moved to a larger, part-time workforce in response to the Affordable Care Act.

If part-time workers offer an easy way to dodge an expensive mandate, why haven’t more employers jumped on board? I asked Christopher Ryan, a vice president of strategic services at ADP, to help explain. He spends a lot of time talking to companies about this issue and says it mostly boils down to a trade-off between having a skilled workforce and reducing benefit costs.

“If you’re operating a large restaurant in Manhattan on Valentine’s Day, you’re probably wanting to have a highly-trained, highly-skilled wait staff,” he says. “And it’s a question of, do you want your restaurant manager thinking about benefit costs, and who needs to be sent home at 8 p.m. [so they don't go over their 30-hour week], or do you want to think about providing consumers with a great experience?”

Obamacare will only affect employers with under 50 employees who are not offering health insurance to their employees right now. Right now, those businesses are freeloading off the government, because when their employees or their families get sick, they go to an emergency room, and the public hospitals pay for them.

Most profitable businesses do offer health insurance to their employees. So if those inefficient businesses have to stay under 50 employees to avoid paying enough to afford health care, good riddence to bad jobs. They'll be replaced by more efficient businesses that can afford to pay for health care for their employees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Employer_mandate_and_part-time_working_hours

This is not to defend Obamacare. A single payer system would have been much better, but the people who contribute to Democratic and Republican campaigns didn't want it. We didn't have a president who would resist them.

I'm sure your son is a bright kid and I hope that during his college education he will learn to look at reality as well as theory.

Breaking down the verdict by charge, plea and ruling: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/manning-verdict/

First of all - werd. To just about all of this.

Secondly I want to add that it's not as if there is some other definitive source that the government can use to determine the appropriate reimbursement rate for procedures. Hospitals have something called a "chargemaster list," but the prices on those lists vary wildly from hospital to hospital. And most hospitals, when quizzed as to why the prices seem so out of whack, argue that it doesn't matter because consumers "rarely" ever pay those prices.

Steven Brill had an amazing article on this subject in Time magazine, but it's now behind a paywall. You can find it here: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2136864,00.html.

And the Washington Post has a brief discussion of the article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/23/steven-brills-26000-word-health-care-story-in-one-sentence/

They have actually been very ufront with what they are doing. They spy on anyone, as long as there's a 51 probablity that he/she is not an american. (source)

This is what the relevant part of the PRISM code actually looks like:

boolean OK_to_spy(individual *TARGET) {
    if( US_POPULATION < 0.51 * DATABASE_SIZE)
        return TRUE;
    else
        error("Database is too small.");
}

When the PAEA was passed in late 2006, it was at right about the peak in total mail volume (which of course they didn't know at the time) and the recession was still 2 years off. Everyone (Democrats, Republicans, and the postal service and unions) thought the prefunding was easily affordable, so it passed with bipartisan support. For example see this from the NALC (the main letter carrier's union) giving it high praise. (Although after things went sour, they started insinuating that it had been shoved down their throats, and pretty much everyone believes that by now.) Prior to 2006 there was no prefunding requirement at all, so it was just bad timing - it would have been fine if done 5 or 10 years earlier.

By the way, the correct prefunding figure is actually 50 years (see this and this which debunk the oft-repeated false value of 75 years).

Not sure I agree with sam_vilain's claim that it's "worth reading" (seems more like a string of poorly-reasoned ad-hominem to me), but here you go:

Following his request for asylum in Russia, it's become pretty clear that Edward Snowden is officially the most naïveperson in the room.

Not only is he surrounded by members of Russia's Foreign Security Service (FSB) — the successor to the KGB — but he's loudly trumpeting the moral superiority of the Putin government, one of the most repressive, cutthroat regimes in modern history.

David Francis' Fiscal Times write-updigs into Snowden for his "mind boggling naiveté":

He is asking for asylum in a country that continues to openly squash dissent, often using violent tactics. Putin runs the country with an iron fist, has jailed people who oppose him, and has chased others out of the country. Opponents have been known to meet early deaths, often under suspicious circumstances.

Francis notes theuntimely,often gruesomedeathsof several political opponents to Putin over the years.

Snowden's statements about Russia's sterling Human Rights image come within days of the imprisonment of high-profile political opposition leader Alexei Navalny,on what some call trumped-up embezzlement charges.

Snowden himself acknowledged his potential for naivetyto Bart Gellman of the Washington Post: “Perhaps I am naïve, but I believe that at this point in history, the greatest danger to our freedom and way of life comes from the reasonable fear of omniscient State powers kept in check by nothing more than policy documents.”

To make matters worse, the person seemingly speaking for Snowden now —Russian attorney Anatoly Kucherena — also happens to be the head of public relations for the FSB.

Freelance reporter and intelligence expert Joshua Foust writes:"The involvement of known FSB operatives at his asylum acceptance ... suggests this was a textbook intelligence operation, andnota brave plea for asylum from political persecution."

"The Russians are very good at what they do," wrote Foust, referring to their simultaneous control of the "principal" — Snowden — and the public message.

Putin — a former lieutenantcolonelin the KGB — drew laughs from Finland students when he said regarding Snowden, "If you want to stay, please, but you have to stop your political activities. We have a certain relationship with the U.S., and we don’t want you with your political activities damaging our relationship with the U.S."

The Russian president just as deftly shifted the blame to the U.S., a foreseeable consequence of the State Department's decision to revoke Snowden's passport.

It seems in all of this, Snowden is not the super-intelligent super spy he makes himself out to be, but just an analyst who is in over his head.

Looking at his statement that he could be "petting a phoenix, in a palace" in China, indicates that he expected to be gree

Not sure I agree with sam_vilain's claim that it's "worth reading" (seems more like a string of poorly-reasoned ad-hominem to me), but here you go:

Following his request for asylum in Russia, it's become pretty clear that Edward Snowden is officially the most naïveperson in the room.

Not only is he surrounded by members of Russia's Foreign Security Service (FSB) — the successor to the KGB — but he's loudly trumpeting the moral superiority of the Putin government, one of the most repressive, cutthroat regimes in modern history.

David Francis' Fiscal Times write-updigs into Snowden for his "mind boggling naiveté":

He is asking for asylum in a country that continues to openly squash dissent, often using violent tactics. Putin runs the country with an iron fist, has jailed people who oppose him, and has chased others out of the country. Opponents have been known to meet early deaths, often under suspicious circumstances.

Francis notes theuntimely,often gruesomedeathsof several political opponents to Putin over the years.

Snowden's statements about Russia's sterling Human Rights image come within days of the imprisonment of high-profile political opposition leader Alexei Navalny,on what some call trumped-up embezzlement charges.

Snowden himself acknowledged his potential for naivetyto Bart Gellman of the Washington Post: “Perhaps I am naïve, but I believe that at this point in history, the greatest danger to our freedom and way of life comes from the reasonable fear of omniscient State powers kept in check by nothing more than policy documents.”

To make matters worse, the person seemingly speaking for Snowden now —Russian attorney Anatoly Kucherena — also happens to be the head of public relations for the FSB.

Freelance reporter and intelligence expert Joshua Foust writes:"The involvement of known FSB operatives at his asylum acceptance ... suggests this was a textbook intelligence operation, andnota brave plea for asylum from political persecution."

"The Russians are very good at what they do," wrote Foust, referring to their simultaneous control of the "principal" — Snowden — and the public message.

Putin — a former lieutenantcolonelin the KGB — drew laughs from Finland students when he said regarding Snowden, "If you want to stay, please, but you have to stop your political activities. We have a certain relationship with the U.S., and we don’t want you with your political activities damaging our relationship with the U.S."

The Russian president just as deftly shifted the blame to the U.S., a foreseeable consequence of the State Department's decision to revoke Snowden's passport.

It seems in all of this, Snowden is not the super-intelligent super spy he makes himself out to be, but just an analyst who is in over his head.

Looking at his statement that he could be "petting a phoenix, in a palace" in China, indicates that he expected to be gree

Does the name COINTELPRO mean anything to you? Decades ago the government used illegal surveillance to attempt to quash the civil rights movement. What assurances do we have that they won't do this again? Why should we believe they have good intentions at all when they cannot comply with the 4th amendment?

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/national_world/2013/07/07/tea-party-only-one-of-irs-targets.html
http://www.hannity.com/article/irs-targets-political-candidates/17710
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/irs-targets-conservative-groups/

Seems they already started.

And as far as his lawyer, your claims are ridiculous. In his case he needed to hire a lawyer with connections. In Russia than means that he would likely have contacts with the FSB. If he hired someone unconnected, he would be fucked.

Snowden claimed he wanted asylum, even if only temporary. Asylum in Russia is under the control of the Russian Federal Migration Service, not the FSB/KGB. So why is he talking to the head of public relations for the FSB/KGB intelligence service? Why is the KGB speaking on his behalf?

The Federal Migration Service

The competence of the FMS includes the implementation of legislation regarding refugees, granting political asylum to foreign citizens and persons without citizenship. (According to Russian law, the forms of protection granted are: refugee status; temporary asylum, and political asylum. Political asylum is granted by a personal Decree of the President of Russia).

--------

But that does not mean that Snowden is giving information to the FSB.

The FSB/KGB has already received information that originated from Snowden, the same as anyone else that reads the newspapers and visits the Guardian web site. That information was Top Secret. Now he is in regular direct contact with the head of public relations for the FSB/KGB when he claims to want asylum that should be going through another government agency. Why? You can't deny that he still has much highly secret information that he hasn't revealed. Glen Greenwald describes it as a "worst nightmare" if it were revealed. Trust the man that has violated so many trusts already? Trust the man that has lied so much?

That poll is bullshit. If a third of people don't know who he was, then the number was larger when the propaganda campaign started. All that this poll shows is that most people are ignorant and influenced by propaganda.

There is more than one poll showing essentially the same thing.

Most think NSA is violating privacy rights but want Snowden charged with a crime
WSJ/NBC Poll: Most Americans View Snowden Negatively
Attitudes Shift Against Snowden; Fewer than Half Say NSA Unjustified

As to the rest of your nonsense.... Snowden chose his actions and picked his associations, not me. It's not my fault he stole an enormous amount of highly damaging top secret information, it is his fault. I didn't force him to work with the head FSB/KGB public affairs instead of the Federal Migration Service to get asylum, he chose that. Not acknowledging that fact is dangerously naïve. My views don't change anything he did. You are just trying to divert from that fact, trying to confuse people.

Your views are far outside the mainstream. You applaud a man that damages American security, for what purpose I can only guess. Your views are from the fringe.

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

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

when was the last time a major newspaper or network broke a political scandal that wasn't sex.

Do you actually read newspapers, or do you just bitch about them?

Where are they when voter suppression is a fact of life in most of the Southern United states?

Why would I give a rats ass about the Zimmerman trial if I wasn't in that community?

Do you even listen to yourself?

Mr. Pegoraro barely gets a word in here and there.

Agreed. Let's have a do-over.

How about an "Ask Rob Pegoraro About Traditional News Decline" story where people submit questions, moderators bring the cream to the top and Rob selects the ones he feels he can best answer? He'd be totally in his element because he did almost exactly that in The Post's Live Online discussions (where readers would submit tech questions and he would select the ones he wanted to answer). He wasn't at DigitalInk/WPNI when they started the transition to digital (for that you'd want to talk to Don Brazeal), but he was there in The Post newsroom when they brought it back in-house and got to see the effects of staffing cuts as the newspaper responded to declining circulation and ad revenue.

It does not take much sunlight for enough Vitamin D to be created. IIRC over here, 3-5 minutes of non-direct sunlight is enough to produce enough VitaminD.

If you are in the US, chences are that you'll have much more sun than we do.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/08/germany-has-five-times-as-much-solar-power-as-the-u-s-despite-alaska-levels-of-sun/

Hint: If it is not dark outside, you're having sunlight. It's not only scorching sun that counts as sunlight.

Wishing something wasn't true doesn't change reality.

The wars in Korea and Indochina were extremely deadly. While estimates of Korean War deaths are mainly guesswork, the three-year conflict is widely believed to have taken 3 million lives, about half of them civilians. The sizable civilian toll was partly due to the fact that the country's population is among the world's densest and the war's front lines were often moving.

The war in Vietnam and the spillover conflicts in Laos and Cambodia were even more lethal. These numbers are also hard to pin down, although by several scholarly estimates, Vietnamese military and civilian deaths ranged from 1.5 million to 3.8 million, with the U.S.-led campaign in Cambodia resulting in 600,000 to 800,000 deaths, and Laotian war mortality estimated at about 1 million.

Despite the fact that contemporary weapons are vastly more precise, Iraq war casualties, which are also hard to quantify, have reached several hundred thousand. In mid-2006, two household surveys -- the most scientific means of calculating -- found 400,000 to 650,000 deaths, and there has been a lot of killing since then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions

If you like, I can provide you with direction so you can count the number of dead in the wars we have helped arrange and finance. A good example is the Iran-Iraq War of 1980, which was directed by the US to punish Iran for overthrowing our puppet government, as well as our proxy war with Russia in the same timespan.

Right now people are dying in Syria where the CIA is arming Gulf Arab Mujahideen -- mostly affiliated with Al Qaeda -- to fight a losing battle against the Assad regime in our continuing proxy war against Iran. The US backed side is losing badly, and I suspect that's why the United States and the EU are scrambling to come up with a final settlement on the Palestinian matter. If Hezbollah defeats the American backed forced in Syria, and we end up with a few hundred thousand militants with not much to do right next door to Israel, the situation could deteriorate almost instantly.

PV is a hippie pipe dream.

Uh huh. Germany, on a good day, can get 50% of its power from PV right now. That's like the entire state of California, or the entire state of Texas with enough left over to power all of Montana, Delaware, Rhode Island, and South Dakota, combined.

Installed and operating, today.

It's reality, not a pipe dream.

Europe has been discussing for decades that the Sahara Desert has enough sunlight to power Europe. The Arizona/NM desert is part of the US, why hasn't that happened yet?

Even Alaska gets more sun than Germany. Map: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/08/germany-has-five-times-as-much-solar-power-as-the-u-s-despite-alaska-levels-of-sun/

Politicians leading mobs

Eric Holder didn't get that memo.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/07/17/justice-dept-seeks-public-feedback-on-zimmerman-case/?tid=pm_politics_pop

I said the constitution grants a "well regulated militia" the right to bear arms, which is factual.

You're missing the point. The Constitution says one thing, but the wording is sufficiently vague that it can be -- and has been -- open to interpretation. The Supreme Court is responsible for interpreting how it applies to common situations (yes, that's an oversimplification, but I'm not going to be bothered to explain it in greater detail; you should know already). The issue of "does the 2nd Amendment apply to groups or individuals" has percolated in Constitutional law circles for probably half a century. Quite recently, a case came before the Supreme Court where this question had to be settled, and settled it was: the Court ruled the 2nd Amendment does indeed apply to individuals, not just a "well regulated militia." It is now settled case law, known as "precedent" and will shape future court decisions unless overturned by some other case (very rare) or by a Constitutional Amendment (even rarer). Here's the first article I could find about the court decision: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062802134.html

Check out IKE (Integrated Kinetic Energy). It is a valuable metric for quantifying potential for storm surge. Sandy was freakishly high on this scale.

This article
Superstorm Sandy packed more total energy than Hurricane Katrina at landfall
does a good job explaining.

Long story short, discount Saffir-Simpson categories and look at IKE when you want to discuss surge.

For those who think I'm wrong and that these should be mandatory, why don't you go lobby the government (at any level from local to federal) and have some of these technologies mandated for LEO fire arms use. Report back with your results.

A remote kill switch on firearms used by rogue law enforcement or rogue military types would be interesting:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/12/rogue-cop-manhunt-ends-in-shootout.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/fort-hood.html

...but just as impossible to implement as an actual "smart gun" that was 100% effective.

Maybe they could make a "smart gun" that couldn't fire on unarmed target instead?

NBC actually cut Zimmerman's 911 call to make it seem like he was making racist remarks - I am fully expecting ZImmerman to sue NBC, and settle for something in 7 figures.

He tried to back in December, but it was stayed pending the outcome of the criminal trial. And, now that the verdict is in, he will resume the suit.

After how NBC (and the media at large) handled this whole thing, I hope they get drug through the dirt over this. Guilty or not, they twisted and convoluted the whole scenario--as you mentioned--all in the name of ratings. The media doesn't care about news or reporting anymore (did they ever?), it's all about ad sales and ratings. Their general fear-mongering and giving opinion as fact is a part of the problem with discussing political issues in America, IMO. Damn them all to hell.

"The NSA" would not "rather" do anything, because "the NSA" doesn't make up missions for itself

The purpose of NSA (and any other government dept.) is to perpetuate itself. So if some politicians want NSA to "catch terrists", they will "catch terrists". Their real existence does not matter.

Back in the days of KGB, politicians in Soviet Union were always telling them to "catch spies". It did not matter that there were no spies to catch. But the KGB did catch spies in their internal security division. You know, local informants saying that their estranged neighbor or whatever was a spy, etc. etc. But numbers are numbers.

Another case would be Florida police force and war on drugs. They catch the "little guys" (users). They they make a deal with the little guys that if they snitch on dealers, and others, they will get reduced sentences. Since users and other small timers don't really know anyone except other drug addicts, they end up just snitching on other users. The police get more arrests. They look good. The little guys go in jail for a long time. Rehabilitation - none.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21939453

So, as long as NSA provides names to the list(s), they remain relevant. They remain the "doers" and the money keeps flowing. Hell, they even got the late Sen. Kennedy on the list and that was OK.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17073-2004Aug19.html

The police use this excuse every time they kill somebody and there's no obvious justification. Here in northern virginia cops can shoot at anyone and there's never going to be a charge.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/13/AR2006121302310.html
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2010-01-27/news/36860362_1_police-officer-fellow-officer-three-officers

The police use this excuse every time they kill somebody and there's no obvious justification. Here in northern virginia cops can shoot at anyone and there's never going to be a charge.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/13/AR2006121302310.html
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2010-01-27/news/36860362_1_police-officer-fellow-officer-three-officers

On topic: The path of least regret would have been single payer system, but we somehow ended up with a Republican profit-utopia called "Obamacare".

Infinity Imaginary mod points to you sir.

Infinity irony points to you, fellow poster.

It is often claimed that Obamacare is a Republican creation by way of the Heritage Foundation. In fact the Heritage plan was substantially different, and they figured out quite some time ago that plan was not a good idea, and they disowned it.

In fact, Obamacare was written by Democrats in Congress with help from a progressive think tank.

Center For American Progress President Shares Part In Obamacare: "I Helped Write The Bill"

Obamacare was passed in Congress on a straight party line vote.

House passes health-care reform bill without Republican votes

Obamacare was signed into law by President Obama.

So how is a law written by Democrats assisted by progressive think tanks, passed solely by Democrats, and signed into law by a Democrat President a "Republican" plan?

PRUDEN: Obamacare called ‘The fiasco for the ages’
Democrats' New Argument: It's A Good Thing That Obamacare Doubles Individual Health Insurance Premiums
Analysis: Obamacare to cost $2.6 trillion over first full decade

President Barack Obama promised his health-care law would cost approximately $900 billion over ten years when he first proposed it. Since then, the price tag has continued to climb. Total spending under the Affordable Care Act will reach $2.6 trillion over its first full decade, according to a Senate Budget Committee analysis, which was based on Congressional Budget Office estimates and growth rates.

It is said that success has many fathers but failure is an orphan. Trying to leave the Obamacare baby in a basket on the Republican's doorstep won't work. The bastard stepchild of Obamacare belongs to the Democrats.

And then there's this:

“He got a lot,” the official continued, but it was not even close to the lion’s share of what the NSA is engaged in. Still, the official said, harm to the efforts “is a concern.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsas-snowden-case-review-focuses-on-possible-access-to-china-espionage-files-officials-say/2013/07/11/9ba0f004-e9a1-11e2-8f22-de4bd2a2bd39_story.html ...not even close to to the lion's share... and this from an NSA official.

Since everyone like that one, here's another for you:

New evidence released by the Washington Post confirms that the NSA is tapping major fiberoptic cables as well as has direct access to the internal servers of Google, Apple, etc... despite their claim to the contrary. It seems that room 641A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A is not just a conspiracy theory after all...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-nsa-slide-you-havent-seen/2013/07/10/32801426-e8e6-11e2-aa9f-c03a72e2d342_story.html

But... reading the paper I smelled a preconceived agenda. The paper was sponsored by Americans for Generational Equity an ostensibly bipartisan group concerned with the fact that the "Pig in the Python" is getting closer to the snake's cloaca. And the group worries that said meal is (or soon will) be providing less nourishment than it takes to digest it. Read: The Boomers are greying and will suck the life out of the country before they become python excrement. Think of the children.

A look at the group's composition reveals a majority of Republican notables with a sprinkle of moderate Democrats. The FCC is a bipartisan body and fairly judicious by nature IMHO. I have to wonder what is really going on here. There are hundreds of more fruitful places to look fo WF&A. As for real waste? Check out the US military.

. . . we're still number one in obesity, right?

Uhh, no...

With any luck the next President will be from the sensible party and officially postpone implementation of Obamacare indefinitely.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Thomas Jefferson was an American revolutionary. While you seem very keen on spilling the blood of patriots and tyrants, you aren't really addressing the real issue. In fact, as far as I recall you just completely ignore or try to assume it away every time it comes up. The problem involves this lot, and their brethren:

At Least 4,000 Suspected of Terrorism-Related Activity in Britain, MI5 Director Says
Muslim Gangs Enforce Sharia Law in London

They have been actively plotting attacks, and used other means as well, to try to force their way of life on ordinary Britons. There have been many arrests and convictions in the UK as a result. A sample:

Bomb plot: Life sentence for Irfan Naseer, ringleader of Birmingham men planning wave of UK suicide attacks
London terror bomb plot: the four terrorists
7/7 London Attacks

Some of those cretins are quite willing to spill not just the blood of patriots and tyrants, but the blood of innocents as well. This has been amply demonstrated in Russia, Afghanistan, and other places.

Russia school siege toll tops 350
Acid attacks, poison: What Afghan girls risk by going to school

Although you may think it wrong, the surveillance by GCHQ is a meaningful part of the security services efforts to protect ordinary Britons. You don't offer anything to replace it.

Waving your hands and saying no system is perfect isn't helpful. Polemics against the monarchy in a story on the UK are misplaced, and overthrowing the monarchy does nothing to protect Britons. What would you do to replace the surveillance to keep British subjects from harm? If your answer is something along the lines of, "Don't cause offense to the rest of the world. Pull back into a shell." then you have just demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the problem. The ideology of the extremists is an aggressive one; they mean to take over the world even if it takes 1,000 years. So we come to the question again: what would you do to prevent British schools and football stadiums from being drenched in blood, besides advocating the overthrow of the monarchy, which is in no way helpful at all?