Slashdot Mirror

In most jurisdictions, the law says you have a right to defend yourself with reasonable force.

Correct.

You don't have a right to kill your attacker.

Oversimplified. You never have a right to attack someone with intent to kill, but you sometimes have the right to use potentially lethal force to stop an attacker. The legal standard, as summarized by Massad Ayoob, goes something like this: You may only use potentially lethal force to prevent an immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent. ("Grave bodily harm" has a specific legal meaning, look it up.) This standard is pretty much universal across the USA, and not only covers firearm use but also knife use, use of a baton against someone's head, or any other potentially lethal force.

If a guy you have never seen before is running at you with a knife yelling "I'll kill you!!", you are legal to shoot him if you have no other way to prevent him from killing you. If he falls down after you shoot him, and you walk up to him and shoot him a few times in the head, now you just committed murder. If you just taunted the guy a bunch or otherwise provoked the situation, it is murkier and you might be in big trouble.

TL;DR There are all sorts of laws and precedents covering the use of force in self-defense; you don't seem to be aware of them. Yet you seem to feel free in commenting on them.

Here is a nice, short summary that won't take you long to read: http://www.useofforce.us/3aojp/

Of course, the NRA is trying to change those laws.

What, the NRA is trying to make murder legal? I'd like a citation, please.

I presume you have no such citation, and are just assuming the worst about an organization you don't understand or know much about. I'm an NRA "Life Member" and I get emails all the time from the NRA. I think I would know if the NRA were trying to get murder legalized, or even if the NRA were trying to get a substantial change to the way self-defense works. So far they seem to be busy enough just pushing back against unConstitutional infringements to gun-owners' rights.

By the way, the NRA also offers gun safety classes, including classes for small children (the "Eddie Eagle" classes). The classes for children teach one message: If you see a gun: Stop! Don't touch! Leave the area! Tell an adult! The lessons repeat this mantra many times to make it sink in. You will note the complete lack of pro-gun propaganda there; it's pure safety. (I mention the gun safety classes because some people think the NRA is nothing but political advocacy. I literally once had someone tell me "I'd have much more respect for the NRA if they did something helpful like teach safety classes." Um... they have been teaching gun safety classes for decades.)

If you go around with a concealed handgun, confronting other people, and somebody fights back, you don't have a right to kill him.

Correct as written. If you cause a confrontation, and you wind up in legitimate fear for your life, and you use lethal force to save your life... you will be in serious legal hot water for provoking the situation. And the NRA is fine with that, and so am I.

Try it and you'll wind up like Zimmerman.

Zimmerman's story is that Martin confronted him, and then attacked him. Martin: "You got a problem?" Zimmerman: "No." Martin: "Now you do." Zimmerman also claims that Martin was slamming his head into the sidewalk, and that Martin said "You're going to die tonight."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trayvon-martin-started-confrontation-zimmerman-lawyer-says/2012/03/26/gIQAIlr0cS_story.html

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/zimm_he_said_die_CRLY0byLFjnhr

Not having to import oil from middle eastern countries would be a worthy goal.

That is happening all by itself. And if you live in Europe, there is a good chance you are burning gasoline/diesel that was imported from the US.

Nader Sues Debate Commission

And all he got was a hollow apology.

When I see the debates, I see two very wealthy narcissist Harvard Law graduates who have absolutely no interest in representing the American people and they don't have to because the people play along with this Democrat vs. Republican pseudo conflict. And those of us who vote third party are condescended to and told "we're throwing our vote away."

I'm tired of the argument and I don't bother anymore. But my attitude is, "Fuck you, It's my vote to throw away."

When you force my son to take subjects which which he doesn’t connect, you are not allowing them that same time to take a public speaking course, which he could be really good at, or music, or political science, or creative writing, or HTML coding for websites.

Point for point (in bold):

• I learned public speaking through my decision to be involved in Key Club (extracurricular community service) and took that to the state level without any classes on it.
• I was in concert band, marching band (assistant drum major), and orchestra for four years of high school, and I took AP Chemistry in 10th grade. Music and Science are not an either-or proposition. If your school is making kids choose between the two (which I doubt), they're doing it wrong.
• I was terrible at AP Chem. I used to get back tests with "you should drop this class" noted at the top. But the AP Chem teacher was also very interested in politics, which I learned outside of the class periods. I'd spent my lunch periods when he was on hall-monitor duty talking about politics articles we'd both read in The New York Times that morning, and he planted the seed that got me interested in political journalism. For two years after that class, I still met up with him between classes and after school, bouncing ideas off of him and effectively sharpening my tools.
• I developed creative writing on my own, largely by reading The New York Times seven days a week and writing parodies of events in the newspaper and at my school, getting people to look at situations from a different perspective. I failed at it sometimes, but I didn't need a grade or a class to know when I failed at it.
• I taught myself HTML by taking apart other people's code on real Web sites and making small changes to see what happened. Within a couple years I had knowledge of HTML you wouldn't find in any book that gave me a huge advantage over people who took a class on it. In my sophomore year of college, I was teaching a 300 level class on online journalism because my 30,000-student university didn't have anyone more qualified to teach it.

All of the above, taken as a whole, resulted in an internship and a salaried job working at the very publication that is hosting TFA (ironically, I was reading Slashdot back then, but hadn't set up an account, and now Taco's working where I was). I used to run the business and technology sections, and later developed HTML for the site that loaded faster than code by the "certified experts" they hired to "improve" my code. Then I left for a job in Silicon Valley, making HTML do things the engineering staff said weren't possible because they hadn't read them in a book.

The point is that kids need a variety of experiences... especially the ones they will fail at. The failures open you up to other things which you pursue in your spare time. And if this guy's kid actually does have ADHD as TFA claims, the biggest problem he has is figuring out how to fill all his spare time. People I've known who have ADHD are constantly trying to squeeze as many activities as they can into every waking moment of their day... and at least one of them taught herself to develop Web sites and sits up late at night coding when her ADHD won't let her sleep.

If you let your kids eat whatever they want three meals a day before they, they'd probably die of scurvy before they were able to figure out what they really liked and what they really need. If you let them throw out whatever classes they "don't connect with," you're doing the same thing to their brains.

When you force my son to take subjects which which he doesn’t connect, you are not allowing them that same time to take a public speaking course, which he could be really good at, or music, or political science, or creative writing, or HTML coding for websites.

Point for point (in bold):

• I learned public speaking through my decision to be involved in Key Club (extracurricular community service) and took that to the state level without any classes on it.
• I was in concert band, marching band (assistant drum major), and orchestra for four years of high school, and I took AP Chemistry in 10th grade. Music and Science are not an either-or proposition. If your school is making kids choose between the two (which I doubt), they're doing it wrong.
• I was terrible at AP Chem. I used to get back tests with "you should drop this class" noted at the top. But the AP Chem teacher was also very interested in politics, which I learned outside of the class periods. I'd spent my lunch periods when he was on hall-monitor duty talking about politics articles we'd both read in The New York Times that morning, and he planted the seed that got me interested in political journalism. For two years after that class, I still met up with him between classes and after school, bouncing ideas off of him and effectively sharpening my tools.
• I developed creative writing on my own, largely by reading The New York Times seven days a week and writing parodies of events in the newspaper and at my school, getting people to look at situations from a different perspective. I failed at it sometimes, but I didn't need a grade or a class to know when I failed at it.
• I taught myself HTML by taking apart other people's code on real Web sites and making small changes to see what happened. Within a couple years I had knowledge of HTML you wouldn't find in any book that gave me a huge advantage over people who took a class on it. In my sophomore year of college, I was teaching a 300 level class on online journalism because my 30,000-student university didn't have anyone more qualified to teach it.

All of the above, taken as a whole, resulted in an internship and a salaried job working at the very publication that is hosting TFA (ironically, I was reading Slashdot back then, but hadn't set up an account, and now Taco's working where I was). I used to run the business and technology sections, and later developed HTML for the site that loaded faster than code by the "certified experts" they hired to "improve" my code. Then I left for a job in Silicon Valley, making HTML do things the engineering staff said weren't possible because they hadn't read them in a book.

The point is that kids need a variety of experiences... especially the ones they will fail at. The failures open you up to other things which you pursue in your spare time. And if this guy's kid actually does have ADHD as TFA claims, the biggest problem he has is figuring out how to fill all his spare time. People I've known who have ADHD are constantly trying to squeeze as many activities as they can into every waking moment of their day... and at least one of them taught herself to develop Web sites and sits up late at night coding when her ADHD won't let her sleep.

If you let your kids eat whatever they want three meals a day before they, they'd probably die of scurvy before they were able to figure out what they really liked and what they really need. If you let them throw out whatever classes they "don't connect with," you're doing the same thing to their brains.

Well, at least in France: French president pushing homework ban as part of ed reforms...

Greek debt: Bailout concessions not nearly Spartan enough

Under the bailout, Greeks must now work until they are 67 years old. Up until now, they have been able to retire with pensions at -- take a guess -- 65? Nope. 62? Lower. 57? Keep going! 53? Bingo!

The key words here are "personal God". No, he didn't believe in a God that worried himself over the daily comings and goings of the human race, or one that listened to prayers; however, he did believe in some sort of metaphysical creator, and resented it when atheists misrepresented or misunderstood his position.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2007/04/einstein_and_the_mind_of_god.html
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_Einstein_believe_in_God

You have hardly presented a water-tight case.

The Dems certainly filibustered -- at about half the rate of the GOP. (During George W's presidency.) So your point (5) is plain wrong.

The nuclear option is hanging over the senate like a dark cloud. It highlights that tradition is more important than rules per se. Obviously the Dems believe in the institution of the senate as is. If the GOP continues on this path, then we may just go there. And it would be a good thing. Most other democracies don't have the filibuster nonsense. So that's point (2).

Reconciliation /was/ used for the affordable care act. You should find this interesting. That answer point (3).

As for (4) -- well conservatives have their own media-world, which is very much four-legs good, two legs bad. In this world, the GOP can obstruct, and them blame the other side for not compromising. And conservative media cheerleads. (Not reports -- cheerleads.) It will cost them in the long run. And the president has gone to the US public and questioned the obsession with tax breaks for the wealthy.

Point (1) is interesting. Should Obama not have had a platform to run on? Romney-Ryan don't have anything specific, but claim that congress/senate will just bork it anyway, which is true. But then, how do we know where they stand? I support candidates have detailed platforms. (That they actually stand by.)

So what I have said is not false at all.

How about the full quote?

"“The impulse towards intolerance and violence may initially be focused on the West, but over time it cannot be contained. The same impulses toward extremism are used to justify war between Sunni and Shia, between tribes and clans. It leads not to strength and prosperity but to chaos. In less than two years, we have seen largely peaceful protests bring more change to Muslim-majority countries than a decade of violence. And extremists understand this. Because they have nothing to offer to improve the lives of people, violence is their only way to stay relevant. They don’t build; they only destroy. [...] The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.”

Ended Don't Ask Don't Tell.

Yeah. About that:

The Obama administration objected Thursday to immediately ending the military's ban on openly gay service members, saying that an injunction to stop the "don't ask, don't tell" policy might harm military readiness in a time of war.

In a filing with a federal court in California, the Justice Department said that a judge who struck down the policy as unconstitutional should not enforce that ruling with a military-wide injunction banning the discharge of gay service members.

Kudos to him for coming around to the side of decency and eventually signing the DADT Repeal Act of 2010, albeit after ordering his Justice Department to fight it tooth and nail.

Maybe I'm just young, but most of my adult life has been under Bush, and now Obama. Bush seemed to mostly screw things up. Obama seems to mostly push things in a better direction.

Like Gitmo still being open. Like ordering the assassination of American citizens. Like fighting against the end of indefinite detention of unconvicted, untried suspects. Like the drones circling over the Middle East. This is the "better direction" you see America moving toward?

Note: I'm explicitly not supporting Romney, either. As Douglas Adams might say, they're both the wrong lizards. And given that Romney pretty much invented Obamacare, frankly, I can't really tell them apart.

As I said before, people who don't want to be exposed to APK malware can just leave Android Debug Bridge and Unknown sources turned off.

Or were you referring to malware distributed through Google Play Store? Google has pulled malware as it was discovered, as has Apple with the secret tethering apps and the "Find and Call" app that sent one's contacts to a spammer's server without first displaying a privacy policy. And like Apple, Google has tools to discover much malware automatically. Does Apple's App Store even display the parts of the device that an app will have access to?

First problem: Clinton didn't lie. Starr wanted to use a definition of "sexual relations" so broad that anyone passing through a crowded bus or subway would have "sexual relations" with half a dozen people. Clinton's team complained, so the judge tightened the definition of "sexual relations" to "penis in vagina". Which rules out blowjobs. Which not only means that Clinton did not lie according to the courts definition, if he had said "yes", that would have been a lie. Bitch as much as you want, but at the end of the day, according to the rules of the court, Clinton did not lie when he denied having "sexual relations" with Lewinsky. Deal with it.

Sigh.. Clinton lied and the court in question actually called him out on it. He was fined for contempt over it. The definition involved was the definition used in the court and defined by the court. Your definition, Your friends definition, or anyone else's definition or opinion about how broad it is or isn't is irrelevant because he was specifically told this term means this, did you X this.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/contempt041399.htm

I seriously do not understand why people still get this wrong and continue to this day to knee jerk in with crap that is completely false.

Second problem: even if it it was a lie, it's not perjury if it's not relevant. Whether or not Clinton had a consensual affair is irrelevant to the question of if he harassed Paula Jones. Which means the law you cite was also batshit irrelevant.

What you think of the law is irrelevant to a law being in existence. If you think government can ignore laws because you do not agree with them, you are no different then the people who think the government can break the law and search your phone records or home or listen to your phone calls and search your email because they think it is proper. You are verifyable wrong on your pretext to this statement, perhaps you should reevaluate it then actually think before posting again.

Third problem: it became painfully clear just how much you wingers really care about lying when Bush came around. Taking credit for HMO legislation that he actually vetoed as governor? You didn't care. Lying about WMD's? You didn't care. Lying about wiretapping? You didn't care. Lying about torture? You didn't care. You're like the mirror image of the Obamabots. And if you're going to try to weasel your way out by saying that it was a lie under oath (except it wasn't, see above), you also didn't care when Bushies like Gonzalez, Libby, or Alito swore the the whole truth only to lie through their teeth.

If you think this is about us verses them or you verses someone else, you are arguing the wrong argument. I said in another post that I didn't want to initially reply to the inference of Clinton because it brings out idiots and I believe its true here. Now LISTEN carefully, I do not care who is in office, if the government does not follow the law, it is wrong. If the politician does not follow the law, it is wrong. If a politician cannot even be honest in court, it is wrong. I do not care if it is Bush, Clinton, Obama, Reagan, or George Washington, it is wrong. So take your partisan but hurt "but they said something bad about Clinton" rant and shove it somewhere more appropriate. You might also want to refine it a bit to reflect the true reality of history too.

The Republicans didn't investigate or impeach Clinton because they had probable cause that crimes were committed. They investigated him because they wanted any excuse to remove him from office, and when they couldn't find one after re-investigating Vince Foster and Whitewater for the 12th time, they settled on a manufactured perjury charge.

I never said a thing about the impeachment. Who cares, Clint

The fact is taxes have to go up for the middle class if he is going to be revenue neutral. So, either he is lying about being revenue neutral, or lying about not raising taxes on the middle class. Can't have it both ways.

I think we can all agree that Romney is lying. That was his debate strategy, after all, to lie about his positions. He knows that his pro-CEO position is untenable if the public knew about it. Also, he's not a smart person anyways, if he was, he'd be worth far more than $250 million and into the billions that his capital management peers are worth, or he's lying about his assets. see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mitt-romney-is-worth-250-million-why-so-little/2012/10/05/64128882-0c20-11e2-a310-2363842b7057_story.html

And, you do need to raise taxes in the middle of a recession to grow an economy. The GDP is the sum of all spending, and it/the economy only grows when everybody spends more.

If people do not spend more (for whatever reason, maybe they fear for their future and want to save, or maybe they're now turned off by products produced by sellers, such as Samsung Galaxy's or real estate) then it is up to government to increase that total spending, in a way that causes money to flow through the economy. Normally that's done by lowering interest rates, but they can't possibly go any lower, and now government has to directly spend - take money from the public, spend it.

Economically, the government is just another person, that's really really rich. This person can cause the economy to jumpstart, by influencing the economy's spending habits directly, instead of indirectly through interest rate reduction.

The worst thing you can do in a recession is NOT SPEND. This is why conservatives are fucking clueless at growing an economy, because they like to do the exact opposite of what you need to do.

Additionally, conservatives are horrible at influencing others to spend money. When was the last time a conservative made you WANT to buy something? Liberals do it all the time - and they magically produce value out of nothing. Entertainment, fashion, higher-education, and the arts are industries that actually cause people to WANT to spend money, and produce value from nothing, because liberals have the power to produce value intellectually that conservatives do not.

Conservatives can never produce value intellectually - they're conservatives after all, and are incapable of pushing the state-of-the-art in intellectual fields. They're always stuck with industries that are based on NEED, such as real-estate, energy, etc, and can only produce value from physical resources.

==================
What bothers me is that he only paid $13k taxes in a year for the recent past years. I bet if you go back further, he paid no taxes.

Furthermore, I bet his secretary pays more taxes than he has paid.

Problem is, the U.S. is getting out of the rare gas business:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/11/AR2010101104496.html

So one can't even convincingly joke about it.

Nope. Working as a corporate raider for Bain Capital was sufficient.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/bain-capital-mitt-romney-outsourcing-china-global-tech

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2012/07/12/how-mitt-romney-invested-millions-in-outsourcing/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/romneys-bain-capital-invested-in-companies-that-moved-jobs-overseas/2012/06/21/gJQAsD9ptV_story.html

Regardless of your findings...which if done soundly with regard to the science of numbers...you'd get roasted over a public open fire and branded a racist.

Uh, if I did your study in the US and released my numbers, the newspaper headline would be "Study Finds Blacks Poorer than Whites". I don't think I'd get raked over any coals for that.

You start getting into hot water when you talk about causes. Your study would just demonstrate an easily visible fact, and doesn't prove or really even suggest anything about anything relating to causation. If you want to say that the cause of this is somehow genetic, you're going to have to do a hell of a lot of work to convince people, and yes, you're probably going to be branded a racist. Part of this is political correctness, sure, but a lot more of it is the fact that most previous efforts towards establishing an evolutionary explanation for poverty were little more than pseudo-scientific hackwork. The history of the field is very, very unpleasant, and that naturally makes most of us think unpleasant thoughts about current practitioners.

The other major issue is that you want me to look at the "genetic profiles" of people in various government programs and also "adjust for % of each race in the the nation". But the problem is that a race isn't a genetic profile. To use the obvious US example, we call African-Americans a "race", while studies have shown that Africa has more genetic diversity than any other continent. So you'd expect that the genetic makeup of a group of people descended from Africans would be more heterogeneous than that of a group of people without any (or many) African ancestors. (This of course ignores that most Africans dragged to the Americas came from a relatively small section of the continent, but it also ignores the fact that most African-Americans have a little bit of everything in their ancestry. It should roughly even it out.) The point is that it'd be really hard to explain the socioeconomic fate of an extremely genetically diverse "race" on the base of genetics, unless you could find a few very specific sets of genes causing economic backwardness or something. I mean, maybe they exist, maybe they're out there. Good luck. But it's really, really doubtful.

If you look at the investment career of the plutocratic candidate Romney you can see how far this transformation has already gone. A lot of his $250 Billion (or more) was acquired (i.e. stolen) from Bane investors. The deals were always structured so that Bain insiders would come out ahead, no matter what the outcome: win, loose or draw.

What is called capitalism in the West is close to the way the Mafia used to work after WWII. You joint a crew associated with an insider and you get a license to steal. You pay for the privilege of stealing by kicking money to the bosses. In the current setup the insiders support outfits like the American Enterprise Institute and the Chamber of Commerce which influence government to legalize theft.

A current example: Wallmart is in huge scandal right now with bribery in Mexico.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2012/04/26/walmarts-mexican-bribery-scandal-will-sink-it-like-the-icerberg-sank-the-titanic/

It came to light that after paying the bribes WalMart’s leadership team did about everything it could to cover them up. Including spending millions on lobbying efforts to hopefully change the laws before anyone was caught, and possibly prosecuted. The goal was to keep the stores open, and open more. If that meant a little bribing went on, then it was best to not let people know. And instead of saying what WalMart did was wrong, change the rules so it doesn’t look like it was wrong.

The US Chamber of Commerce was the vehicle for their attempt to change the law to make bribery legal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/wal-mart-took-part-in-lobbying-campaign-to-amend-anti-bribery-law/2012/04/24/gIQAyZcdfT_story.html

The push to revisit how federal authorities enforce the statute has been centered at a little-known but well-funded arm of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce where a top executive of Wal-Mart has sat on the board of directors for nearly a decade.

The effort has intensified in the past two years, drawing on the backing of several large companies and trade groups such as the Retail Industry Leaders Association, where one of Wal-Mart’s top executives serves as a director. It also has involved high-powered lobbyists, including former attorney general Michael B. Mukasey.

There is no evidence that suggests Wal-Mart participated in the Chamber’s efforts because of its problems in Mexico. (Emphasis added.)

If you believe that last line you also should believe in the tooth fairy.

Romney can't be a good choice. He is promising a 5 trillion dollar tax cut as well as deep cuts to fundamental social programs that will not solve any problems, but kick the can down the road.

Please stop regurgitating campaign bullshit as fact. The Washington Post is calling bullshit on this one. Hell, even Stephanie Cutter admits it's not true.

The fact is taxes have to go up for the middle class if he is going to be revenue neutral. So, either he is lying about being revenue neutral, or lying about not raising taxes on the middle class. Can't have it both ways.

I think we can all agree that Romney is lying. That was his debate strategy, after all, to lie about his positions. He knows that his pro-CEO position is untenable if the public knew about it. Also, he's not a smart person anyways, if he was, he'd be worth far more than $250 million and into the billions that his capital management peers are worth, or he's lying about his assets. see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mitt-romney-is-worth-250-million-why-so-little/2012/10/05/64128882-0c20-11e2-a310-2363842b7057_story.html

And, you do need to raise taxes in the middle of a recession to grow an economy. The GDP is the sum of all spending, and it/the economy only grows when everybody spends more.

If people do not spend more (for whatever reason, maybe they fear for their future and want to save, or maybe they're now turned off by products produced by sellers, such as Samsung Galaxy's or real estate) then it is up to government to increase that total spending, in a way that causes money to flow through the economy. Normally that's done by lowering interest rates, but they can't possibly go any lower, and now government has to directly spend - take money from the public, spend it.

Economically, the government is just another person, that's really really rich. This person can cause the economy to jumpstart, by influencing the economy's spending habits directly, instead of indirectly through interest rate reduction.

The worst thing you can do in a recession is NOT SPEND. This is why conservatives are fucking clueless at growing an economy, because they like to do the exact opposite of what you need to do.

Additionally, conservatives are horrible at influencing others to spend money. When was the last time a conservative made you WANT to buy something? Liberals do it all the time - and they magically produce value out of nothing. Entertainment, fashion, higher-education, and the arts are industries that actually cause people to WANT to spend money, and produce value from nothing, because liberals have the power to produce value intellectually that conservatives do not.

Conservatives can never produce value intellectually - they're conservatives after all, and are incapable of pushing the state-of-the-art in intellectual fields. They're always stuck with industries that are based on NEED, such as real-estate, energy, etc, and can only produce value from physical resources.

1. Realize safety is one goal among many and that we have to deal with tradeoffs. Over the past 30 years it's been "the engineer giveth and the safety inspector taketh away" as overblown concerns about collision readiness have turned into absurd safety regulations and a curb weight arms race.

2. Raise the gas tax to reflect the real costs of driving- the tremendous spending on road construction and maintenance, the externalities associated with road congestion and pollution, etc. Everyone who's willing to be honest about the impact of different policies, from Greg Mankiw (former chairman of the CEA and an adviser to Romney) to Steven Chu (Obama's energy secretary), knows that this is the only realistic way forward.

Higher gas taxes would be much much less distortionary and harmful to the economy than simply mandating higher fuel standards. The gas tax is also a better way to raise revenue than most other taxes; a revenue-neutral bill raising the gas tax while lowering the taxes on labor and productivity (payroll, corporate, income, etc) would be a huge boon to the economy.

Of course, I don't expect either of these two things to happen, since political bickering and accusations ("you want to see more Americans dying on the highways! you want to put the pain on us every time we go to the pump!") will probably trump any kind of attempt to bring our policies back in contact with reality.

The answer to speech you don't like or that offends you is more speech, not 6th-century jurisprudence by the sword.

Obama agrees with you. From the same speech: "the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech"

And in context:

"We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them. I know there are some who ask why don't we just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws. Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.

Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. As president of our country, and commander in chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so.

(APPLAUSE)

Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views -- even views that we profoundly disagree with. We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened.

We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities. We do so because, given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech -- the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

I know that not all countries in this body share this particular understanding of the protection of free speech. We recognize that. But in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete.

The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: There is no speech that justifies mindless violence."

Quick, Steve died so nobody's looking...let's do a Bain Capital on this bitch and rape its corpse! Bonuses and golden parachutes for all executives!

And they're saying that the iPhone 5 is going to singlehandedly rescue the American economy! PfffffHAW!

-- Ethanol-fueled

http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2012/03/30/epa-to-range-resources-drill-away/

http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/state&id=5980352

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-epa20dec20,0,1603760.story?coll=la-home-center

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24276709/

http://articles.philly.com/2008-12-07/news/24992895_1_climate-change-climate-change-deputy-administrator-jason-burnett

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55268-2005Mar21.html

The EPA is run by the administration of the moment. Reagan had James Watt as Secretary of the Interior, for chrissakes. Right now, the EPA likes solar because Obama likes solar. Under Bush, the EPA loved nothing more than oil companies, as demonstrated by the reality based links given above.

Now go on back to your Tea Party, meme-bot, and let the grown-ups talk.

Are they sure that alcohol is banned in Iran? It seems like a lot of the stuff must be consumed, given the nature of some of the plans...

Afghan/Pakistani opium.. Courtesy NATO

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/romneys-bain-capital-invested-in-companies-that-moved-jobs-overseas/2012/06/21/gJQAsD9ptV_story.html

So? Bain Capital invests in companies that employ people overseas. Lots of companies do that. Do you invest in Apple? How about Intel or AMD? Do you own an HTC phone, or a smart phone at all? Even the US Government has invests in companies that close down US plants to open them up overseas. Obama "invested" in GM. GM has closed down plants in the US to open new ones in Mexico and other places overseas. Do you think that Obama "prefers to ship jobs off overseas than to invest in America."? It's the same thing, isn't it? Well, except that Obama is using American tax dollars to do it against our will. Bain used freely invested money from investors.

Then, of course, there was that $2 billion loan to Brazil to drill off of their shores rather than our own. Isn't that preferring to ship jobs overseas rather than investing in jobs here in America?

The difference is that when Bain did it, it was because opening jobs overseas was the only way to save a company. When Obama did it, it was for.... Actually, I have no idea why Obama would invest in Brazilian oil and not Gulf of Mexico oil. Of course, like I said, Obama shipped jobs overseas with YOUR money against your will. Romney did not.

But the point is that you said "their own candidate for president prefers to ship jobs off overseas than to invest in America", which is something you can't back up because it's not true. You WANT to believe it so bad that you are actively silencing the the logic portion of your brain that is screaming, "why would Romney WANT to give American jobs to overseas workers? That doesn't make sense". It's sad when you have to lie to yourself to keep justify your beliefs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/romneys-bain-capital-invested-in-companies-that-moved-jobs-overseas/2012/06/21/gJQAsD9ptV_story.html

I'm pretty sure that putting limits on the interstate commerce clause is exactly what Chief Justice did in the recent affordable care act case.

read up on it. in the furor over "omg he betrayed conservatives everywhere he's a villain! lynch him!" hysteria, the true legacy of his phrasing of the majority decision was pretty much overlooked.

Yes, some people will deny reality if if reflects badly on Obama, even after the truth is known and the administration is backpeddeling:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/spy-chief-defends-obama-administrations-accounts-of-benghazi-attack-cites-shifting-intelligence/2012/09/28/b16cc996-09a3-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_story.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/attack-on-us-consulate-in-libya-determined-to-be-terrorism-tied-to-al-qaeda/2012/09/27/8a298f98-08d8-11e2-a10c-fa5a255a9258_story.html

Slowly the intelligence community is coming around to admit that they were caught completely flat footed, and admitting what the Libyan President Mohammed Magarief said is really the truth.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/26/14105135-libyan-president-to-nbc-anti-islam-film-had-nothing-to-do-with-us-consulate-attack?lite

In an exclusive interview with NBC News' Ann Curry, President Mohamed Magarief discounted claims that the attack was in response to a movie produced in California and available on YouTube. He noted that the assault happened on Sept. 11 and that the video had been available for months before that.

"Reaction should have been, if it was genuine, should have been six months earlier. So it was postponed until the 11th of September," he said. "They chose this date, 11th of September to carry a certain message."

Yes, some people will deny reality if if reflects badly on Obama, even after the truth is known and the administration is backpeddeling:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/spy-chief-defends-obama-administrations-accounts-of-benghazi-attack-cites-shifting-intelligence/2012/09/28/b16cc996-09a3-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_story.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/attack-on-us-consulate-in-libya-determined-to-be-terrorism-tied-to-al-qaeda/2012/09/27/8a298f98-08d8-11e2-a10c-fa5a255a9258_story.html

Slowly the intelligence community is coming around to admit that they were caught completely flat footed, and admitting what the Libyan President Mohammed Magarief said is really the truth.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/26/14105135-libyan-president-to-nbc-anti-islam-film-had-nothing-to-do-with-us-consulate-attack?lite

In an exclusive interview with NBC News' Ann Curry, President Mohamed Magarief discounted claims that the attack was in response to a movie produced in California and available on YouTube. He noted that the assault happened on Sept. 11 and that the video had been available for months before that.

"Reaction should have been, if it was genuine, should have been six months earlier. So it was postponed until the 11th of September," he said. "They chose this date, 11th of September to carry a certain message."

First of all, there are most assuredly less government employees now than at any point during the Bush Presidency. Citation Here.

So, obviously that additional spending isn't going into an increase in the number of employees.

Second, government employees have not gotten a raise in several years, courtesy Obama, so you don't need to rattle your spear on that front either.

That extra spending is likely going to contracts and subsidies - no politician will touch those because cutting is all well and good "as long as it's not cutting spending in my state". The only Presidential candidate who looked like he was going to do something about that didn't win the Republican primary.

And as far as vilifying government pay raises: let's use judges as an example. You effectively need to be a lawyer to become a judge. If you don't at least *approach* competitive wages, who will we get as judges? People who couldn't hack it as lawyers, people who want the power for their agenda / axe to grind, and people who intend to supplement the paycheck with bribes. So yes, government employees *should* get raises, lest you want the weakest members of our society in the positions to affect real change.

my gut feels that he'd use the power wisely

Then your gut is a fucking jackboot-licking idiot. He has already ordered the murder of a child.

Get this through your tiny little mind: power is DANGEROUS, just like plutonium. If you let anyone accumulate too much of it, Bad Things Happen.

You mean as opposed to Henry Kissinger who also won a Nobel Peace Prize, while managing Nixon's assassination of Chilean President Salvador Allende, because he wasn't going to have a Socialist in the western hemisphere, even if the socialist was elected democratically. In its place we installed the Junta, who murdered, excuse me, disappeared over 3,000 people. Under the Freedom of Information Act, Whitehouse tapes now available clearly present Nixon and Kissinger discussing Chilean Assassination and CIA incompetence.

Just goes to show you what a Nobel Peace prize is worth.

Christopher Hitchens wrote a great book about the war crimes of Kissinger. This man is sub-scum level: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Kissinger/CaseAgainst1_Hitchens.html

You mean as opposed to Henry Kissinger who also won a Nobel Peace Prize, while managing Nixon's assassination of Chilean President Salvador Allende, because he wasn't going to have a Socialist in the western hemisphere, even if the socialist was elected democratically. In its place we installed the Junta, who murdered, excuse me, disappeared over 3,000 people. Under the Freedom of Information Act, Whitehouse tapes now available clearly present Nixon and Kissinger discussing Chilean Assassination and CIA incompetence.

Just goes to show you what a Nobel Peace prize is worth.

For instance, these two:

Abcnews.com

wash.post

Granted, both are blogs, but if it were a fiction, how could both blog entries comment on official political rhetoric?

Is there an agreement with the government of Somalia? Where it's so congested that a drone nearly crashed into a large passenger plane?

What made the plant here vulnerable is, in part, a 2007 energy conservation measure passed by Congress that set standards essentially banning ordinary incandescents by 2014. The law will force millions of American households to switch to more efficient bulbs.

The resulting savings in energy and greenhouse-gas emissions are expected to be immense. But the move also had unintended consequences.

Rather than setting off a boom in the U.S. manufacture of replacement lights, the leading replacement lights are compact fluorescents, or CFLs, which are made almost entirely overseas, mostly in China.

Consisting of glass tubes twisted into a spiral, they require more hand labor, which is cheaper there. So though they were first developed by American engineers in the 1970s, none of the major brands make CFLs in the United States.

Whether the loss of this factory is a cost worth paying for increased energy efficiency is a different question, but the regulations did shut down a plant.

Do you really think that parents that take their kids to the ER for a fever and/or ear infection are going to suddenly stop taking their kids to the ER and go to their regular doctor?

Well yeah, they'll have insurance. These people aren't hopeless morons, and they love their children and what whats best for them. Indigent homeless are trickier, but you see a lot of working homeless families lining up around the block to get their non-emergent medical needs addressed. Under a

In some states that can be Robamacare and in others it can be insurance and tort reform. Tort reform would save the system more money then any of the current proposals.

You forgot to call the President "hopey changey," or make a reference to the "democrat party." Minus two points.

Tort reform is a bit of a red herring. Orrin Hatch's Tort Reform proposals in '09 would have saved about $54 billion, which isn't chump change, but it would only reduce total national health spending by 0.5%. So we could claim that money on the table, but the limitations in Hatch's proposal specifically were extremely low, to the extent that they reduced pain and suffering awards to a slap on the wrist and would probably cause incidents of malpractice to increase.

State-by-state solutions are doomed in the US because of regulatory arbitrage. Employers and tax units in states with expensive programs can simply move their paper addresses to states with lower tax liability. Insurance companies can shop around for states that offer them the most favorable regulation (the ones with the least customer protections), and employers can play states off each other to obtain favorable tax treatment. States simply can't design their own programs when the employers within it can simply evade the costs of the system by filing paperwork, while enjoying all the benefits of the system by dumping their employees into the state public program. A state-by-state healthcare system in the US would end up looking a lot like the consumer credit card system in the US, which is to say, we'd all have whatever rights the North Dakota and Delaware legislature had agreed to, because they were the highest bidder for the health insurance company's business.

"States' Rights" has been keeping 60's-style state capitalism alive for decades, by giving employers a huge stick with which they can extract free services from a state government, guised under the threat of "killing jobs." An employer simply threatens to move unless they can stay tax-free, dumping the costs of roads, schools, police, and health care on everyone else.

The problem areas in the American fiscal environment are pretty well known. I don't think anyone would seriously try to blame Muslims for them as it would be obvious nonsense.

FDR knew that the funding mechanism for Social Security had to change long term, and it has never been done. And please spare us from nonsense about wars and defense spending being the problem, because they aren't. Rapidly increasing social welfare spending mixed with soaring debts, and an economy that is frozen by government meddling (such as helped create the housing and mortgage meltdown) and unable to produce jobs, growth, and income, is what will push the United States over the edge, if anything.

Chart of the Week: Federal Spending on Defense vs. Entitlements

What Happened to the $2.6 Trillion Social Security Trust Fund?
Who doesn’t pay taxes, in eight charts
Public-Employee Unions Gone Wild,
The Path to Economic Disaster

And lets not forget the Euro crisis - if Europe collapses, it might very well drag down the US. Once again, it would be pretty clear what happened.

If there is a new "Hitler", he is very unlikely to come from conservative America.

Bad socialist habits coming to America: Obama's Creepy Cult of Personality

America's 'Fascist Moment'

. . . . contemporary liberalism descended from the ranks of 20th-century progressivism, and "shares intellectual roots with European fascism."

When Mr. Goldberg uses the term "liberal fascism," he is not offering a right-wing version of the left's smears. He knows it is a loaded term. What he is talking about is the historical idea of fascism: a corporatist and statist social structure that creates a deep reliance of its subjects on the government and engenders a sense of community and purpose. In American politics, this tendency toward statism has always been much more at home on the left than on the right.

It is impossible in a short review to do justice to the rich intellectual history of American liberalism that Mr. Goldberg offers to his readers. He has read widely and thoroughly, not only in the primary sources of fascism, but in the political and intellectual history written by the major historians of the subject.

Readers will learn that the very term "liberal fascism" came from the pen of H.G. Wells, the famed socialist author who delivered a speech at Oxford University in 1932 that included hosannas to both Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Germany. "I am asking," Wells told the students, "for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis." Democracy, he argued, had to be replaced with new forms of government that would save mankind, producing a "'Phoenix Rebirth' of liberalism" that would be called "Liberal Fascism." Like the activism, experimentation, and discipline that made the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany new dynamic societies, the West too could reach such a plateau by adopting the new soft fascism that suited it best.. . . .

Indeed, America, as Mr. Goldberg writes, certainly had a "Fascist moment." It was not, however, during the current presidency, but one that extended from progressivism through the New Deal. Mr. Goldberg traces the American roots of liberal fascism to the presidency of Woodrow Wilson, who saw i

It takes generations to remove hate from a culture, but it only takes a few years to generate it.

Assuming it ever really leaves. . .

The Full-Blown Return of Anti-Semitism in Europe
The New Anti-Semitism
Is Toulouse the Future of Europe?

If you dont think hate is being generated here in the USA by "news channel talk show hosts" or "radio talk show hosts", then you havent been paying attention.

The problem is bigger than you think.

You need an ID to do almost anything these days. I personally think that's wrong, but it's a reality.

The only things I can remember hauling my ID out for over the past year are (1) paying with credit cards (because I never bother to sign them; if the card is signed, retailers are not allowed to ask for ID), (2) when I got a speeding ticket (not an issue for those who don't drive), and (3) for companies to hold on to when they want some kind of temporary collateral for a rental (i.e. renting paintball equipment). Perhaps your lifestyle requires frequent use of ID, but there are plenty of ways to live that do not. Note also that many places that ask you for ID do it simply because it is the easiest route; if you don't have a government-issued photo ID, most of them will be happy to switch to an alternate method (for example, utility companies).

I have not met anyone who does not have an ID of any sort. I have known and been dirt poor, homeless, and destitute in my life. I still had an ID.

Your anecdotal evidence is irrelevant. Studies show that in Pennsylvania alone there is anywhere between 3/4 to 1.5 million voters without ID; even the people who support the voter ID laws and claim those studies are overestimating the issue claim it's at least 100,000 people. The fact that you don't know these people doesn't mean shit; they are voters with a constitutional right to vote whether you like it or not.

It is the only way to efficiently prevent the rampant voter fraud that is happening in certain important counties in this county that largely decide the fate of the entire nation.

What rampant voter fraud? There is no evidence of any kind of "rampant" in-person voter fraud. None. There is a handful of cases in any particular year. When the state of Pennsylvania got sued over their new voter ID laws, they acknowledged in-person voter fraud has never been a problem. So why is the law necessary again?

Bullshit.

That is a good tag for your post.

Given Stuxnet, several mysterious pipeline explosions, assassinations, explosions at munitions depots, etc. I consider attacking banking websites pretty tame in comparison.

Perhaps you could follow Taco to his new business. Let's all invade The Washington Post's tech section and turn it into the Slashdot that we used to know.

If you mean increased by 80% as slipping away.
http://www.bgr.com/2012/05/01/apple-samsung-idc-market-share/

No I mean the year on year drop worldwide from 18.8% to 16.9% and yes my link is to IDC figures. Perhaps you should be a less US centric...the internet has been around for sometime. FYI Androids Market share grew from 46.9 % to 68.1% in the same period.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/worldwide-market-share-for-smartphones-a-market-dominated-by-apple-and-android/2012/09/11/c3e683d2-fc38-11e1-98c6-ec0a0a93f8eb_story.html

Go ahead, keep regurgitating garbage you hear without basic fact checking first:

http://factcheck.org/2012/09/romney-gets-it-backward/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/sep/12/romney-says-us-embassy-statement-was-apology-was-i/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-romney-campaigns-repeated-errors-on-the-cairo-embassy-statement/2012/09/13/978a6be6-fdf0-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_blog.html#pagebreak

and just in case you suspect I'm a liberal (I am), lets run down some of the conservative roll call (as pulled from http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/09/13/even-as-experts-gop-figures-criticize-romneys-e/189862):

Bill O'Reilly: "I'm Not Sure [Romney] Is Correct On That. The Embassy Was Trying To Head Off The Violence" With Statement. During the September 12 edition of Fox News' O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly played video of Romney's remarks from his September 12 press conference and said, "I'm not sure the governor is correct on that. The embassy was trying to head off the violence" with their statement. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 9/12/12]

Former McCain Adviser: Pointing Out "That We Reject Vile Attacks On Muslims...Does Not Constitute Sympathy For The People Besieging Our Embassy As Gov. Romney Alleged." Longtime John McCain adviser Mark Salter responded to Romney's remarks on the embassy's statement on the website RealClearPolitics:
"
        [T]here is nothing wrong in principle with making clear to people, who have yet to embrace the categorical right to free speech, that Americans and their government deplore the deplorable, that we reject vile attacks on Muslims as vigorously as we reject vile anti-Semitic attacks.

        To do so does not constitute sympathy for the people besieging our embassy, as Gov. Romney alleged. Nor is at an apology for America, as some Obama critics have claimed. It's an expression of our decency. [RealClearPolitics, 9/12/12]
"

Noonan: Romney Isn't "Doing Himself Any Favors," "When Hot Things Happen, Cool Words -- Or No Words -- Is The Way To Go." Former Ronald Reagan speechwriter and Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan commented on Romney's remarks on Fox News, a Wall Street Journal blog reported:
"
        Peggy Noonan, a speechwriter for President Ronald Reagan who writes a column for The Wall Street Journal's opinion pages, said on Fox News that he had opened himself up to accusations that he was "trying to exploit things politically."

        "I belong to the old school of thinking in times of great drama and heightened crisis, and at times when something violent is happening to your people, I always think discretion is the better way to go," she said. "I don't feel that Mr. Romney has been doing himself any favors.... When hot things happen, cool words- or no words- is the way to go." [Washington Wire, The Wall Street Journal, 9/12/12]
" ... (it continues, but my point is made)...

- Toast

That's why I'm saying that they don't have a monopoly yet. However, worldwide, they're already almost at 70%, versus Apple's 17% (note that this is counting smartphones only, and therefore doesn't include iPads and iPhones - but the scope of the monopoly would likely be set in a similar way).

I'm tired of the way taglines from the Simpsons get abused. This is not a mob of ignorant Springfielders demanding that we set up a Bear Patrol. This is an attempt to do something about child abuse, That is, as you may have heard, a real problem.

Now, you may not care for the argument that depictions of a sexual act cause people to rush out and perform that sexual act. I myself think that it's not very credible. But a lot of people believe it's true. And it's not because they're stupid or hysterical. They simply interpret the evidence differently from you and me.

We desperately need to squash the idea that anybody who disagrees with you is an idiot who needs to be shouted down. It's distorting everything we do, from the way comments are moderated on Slashdot to the viability of pizza making. Oh yeah, and it's making political debate just a little incoherent.

We have to do away with the concept of good and evil. There is no good and evil. There may be smart and stupid or competent and incompetent but there is no good and evil.

No good and evil? Really?

This World uncovers the "gas chambers" of North Korea

Witnesses tell the BBC's This World (BBC TWO, 1 February 2004, 9.00pm) that North Korea is killing political prisoners in gas chambers.

The programme has also uncovered documentary evidence that North Korea is now testing new chemical weapons on women and children, the families of dissidents and political prisoners held in secret jails.

Kwon Hyuk (his new name) was the former military attaché at the North Korean embassy in Beijing and chief of management at North Korea's prison camp 22 (or "Management Centre" as they call them).

He says he has chosen to speak because he wants the world to know what is happening there and for the first time has decided to reveal on public record what he witnessed in Camp 22.

"Scientists observe the entire process from above, through the glass."

"I witnessed a whole family being tested on suffocating gas and dying in the gas chamber. The parents, son and a daughter.

"The parents were vomiting and dying, but till the very last moment they tried to save kids by doing mouth to mouth breathing.

"At the time I felt that they thoroughly deserved such a death. Because all of us were led to believe that all the bad things that were happening to North Korea was their fault; that we were poor, divided and not making progress as a country."

Asked about the children Kwon Hyuk says: "It would be a total lie for me to say I felt sympathetic about the children dying such a painful death.

"Under the society and the regime I was in at the time I only felt that they were the enemies. So I felt no sympathy or pity for them at all."

He tells the BBC's Olenka Frenkiel: "Before escorting them to the lab, we receive transfer letters containing details of the prisoners. We pass on such letters to the agents from the National Security Agency for a signature."

This World features a document recently smuggled out of North Korea stamped "Top Secret" and headed "Transfer Letter" that clearly explains that political prisoners are used for the purpose of human biological experimentation and for production of biological weapons.

The role of suggestion, of subliminal triggers, the role of desperation and poverty, the role of lack of intelligence, a lot of different things can convince a person that a criminal act is right and in some cases it is ethical for themselves based on their ethics to commit a criminal act but unethical by the conventional ethics of society.

Did liberals get it wrong on crime?

Aluminium plants produce a huge quantity of "red mud" which is red from iron oxide. A spill could well color the whole river red.
See e.g. here where the mud spilled through a broken dam in Hungary: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2010/10/05/GA2010100502818.html

84/310000000 does turn out to be pretty statistically irrelevant number.

Instead of using your 1.8 versus 2% figures (which I'm not sure where they came from), let's return to the article, which states: "A 2009 report in the American Journal of Public Health studied traffic fatalities in the U.S. from 1995 to 2005 and found that more than 12,500 deaths were attributable to increases in speed limits on all kinds of roads." You can divide 12,500 deaths by 10 years, getting 1250 deaths per year caused by higher speeds.

I want to say you can't divide 1250 people by the 310 million population (0.0004%) and get anything meaningful. Death rates are 0.8%/year in the US. Accidents account for 118,021 of 2,437,163, or about 5%, of those deaths. Making 1250 higher-speed deaths about 0.05% of all deaths. So even though I don't like it, I begrudgingly see your point. On the big list of things to improve, high-speed deaths are a small, even minuscule, concern.