Slashdot Mirror

Obsession with "the NSA" aside, if a US law enforcement entity with a warrant makes a request to a US corporation, that US corporation complies. Because we're, you know, actually a nation of laws.

If a US agency (law enforcement or no) with no warrant makes a request to a US corporation, that US corporation (e.g. AT&T) complies. Because if that corporation (e.g. Qwest) resists, their principals end up on the wrong end of an investigation of the sort Cardinal Richelieu made famous ("If you give me six lines..."). Because we're not actually a nation of laws.
 

We are 5 voting percentage points from shoving religion into science classes nation-wide. The know-nothings and American Taliban (dominionists, christian reconstructionists, etc) are so bent upon bringing Gawd's Word and the law of Leviticus to the land that they have been trying, and succeeding, in getting into positions of power. It truly is frightening, and the next thing you know, Pi is going to equal 3 because that's what it says in the Bible.

The amount of people who believe in strict creationism is stunning. It is fully half of the US population, and another big chunk believe that God directly guides evolution if it exists at all. Anti-science is all the rage, because it makes people who don't actually know anything believe that their opinion is just as good as someone who holds a doctorate in physics.

http://news.yahoo.com/nearly-half-americans-believe-creationism-212000630.html

And these people are your neighbors, so they determine who is on the school boards and what textbooks get bought. Have we forgotten recent history? Have we forgotten the Dover PA school district?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

Have we forgotten this too?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/law-allows-creationism-to-be-taught-in-tenn-public-schools/2012/04/11/gIQAAjqxAT_story.html

A bill that allows Tennessee public school teachers to teach alternatives to mainstream scientific theories such as evolution will become law this month after the governor refused to sign or veto the measure, The Washington Postâ(TM)s Valerie Strauss reports.

Without good books, good curricula, and school boards that are not going to pander to the religious nutbags (or not be religious nutbags themselves as in Dover), the science education gets short shrift, which happens too often.

Yes, it is fucking abysmal, and don't let anyone tell you differently.

--
BMO

failing to take advantage of the brief period of Democratic control of Congress by getting his health care plan passed

It's not his fault; he's naive and inexperienced, and never should have been put up as a nominee

I have a somewhat different view of this. It seems that Obama actually got the health care that he wanted. Sure he paid lip-service to a public option for political reasons, but maybe you don't remember or didn't know that he negotiated away the public option in private meetings with the insurance companies early on [1] [2]. There's also the fact that Obama decided to personally scold Kucinich for trying to stick up for the public option. So I don't really buy the argument that Obama has good intentions but is just too powerless, inexperienced, good-natured, etc. to stand up to the Republicans.

Generally speaking, that's a reasonable position. The twist is that the US system is designed for consultation and compromise. So the Republicans want one thing, the Dems the other and they're suppose to split the difference.

What the Republicans have discovered is that compromises tend to make the President look good. So they've stopped compromising. Mitch McConnell has been pretty explicit about this: he will only sign off on a Dem proposal if it's something, "...I and my members would do anyway..." http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/01/mitch_mcconnell_the_most_hones.html Most Democratic systems work this way: members of the majority coalition support each other and the minority lodges objections. Therein lies accountability: if you don't like the coalition, throw them out.

The problem in the US is that the minority party can sabotage and obstruct and reap electoral benefits when the other side fails to get anything done. Indeed, economic sabotage becomes a viable strategy, which explains Republican resistance to stimulus packages and textbook economics: what's in it for them?

At any rate, if you truly believe what you say, you should vote for Romney, a Democratic House and a Republican Senate. That is, throw the bums out in the legislature *and* the executive. Frankly, I find this nuts: I only support pro-Science parties which for the past 10+ years excludes the GOP. Too bad our winner-take-all voting system blocks the emergence of more choices: a European style conservative party would earn my consideration.

The Washington Post is also quoting "current and former U.S. officials", speaking on condition of anonymity, as saying so.

The AC who replied before you linked to it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/flame-cyberweapon-written-using-gamer-code-report-says/2012/05/31/gJQAkIB83U_story.html

Mea culpa, I missed the "Fox reported" in it, but still.

When I first heard Angry Birds linked to it was on The Register well before the MSM even had it on radar. This was on Tuesday. Here's the URL: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/29/flame_cyberweapon_analysis/

Note that their subtitle on it is: "But it shares same scripting tech as Angry Birds"

As linked in another of the comments, the lua and gaming link was done by MSNBC as well. http://redtape.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/30/11962850-was-flame-virus-written-by-cyberwarriors-or-gamers?lite

None of that is really suprising. Its an area where most of the general populace don't have a lot of existing knowledge or experience to link it to. Angry Birds is very well known and kind of a seeming irony to be written in the same language.

My point is largely that with all of the things Fox can be criticized for, this is pretty small beer.

It gets even worse. If this is indeed to be proven bullshit the loons around the world will still repeat it as if it was truth. The number of web pages repeating the fallacy completely dominate the page with the retraction. Hence it becomes a 'truth' that 'everyone knows' and modifies people's behaviour (eg. the loony fringe).

Here is a case study to prove my point. After years of sustained rocket attacks from Gaza on Southern Israel the Israelis launched Operation Cast Lead to stop the menace. The Israeli Army went in and stopped the attacks (for a while). The Palestinians shrieked that the Israelis had hit a school with artillery (ignoring the fact that their own fighters had targeted civilian infrastructure for *years* with the deliberate aim of killing Israeli civilians; and the Palestinians placed military installations in civilians areas so if hit they could claim propaganda victories). The UN repeated this claim. Then this claim was placed in Richard Goldstone's report claiming that the Israelis had committed war crimes. However, it turned out that this was all bunk (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/richard-goldstone-continues-his-recantation/2011/11/01/gIQApEKecM_blog.html and references therein). There were three real instances where Israeli soldiers broke their military law and these were investigated, prosecuted and dealt with (stealing an ATM bank card; using a boy to check for bombs; and I can't recall the third instance). Little mention was made of the Palestinian war crimes (since the Gaza locals went, "Huh?" when pressed for information) - that is: aiming rockets at Israeli civilians; locating military installations amongst civilian housing; storing rockets in schools etc.

My point here is the following: Richard Goldstone's report contained lies (he was played by the Hamas propaganda organs) that Goldstone himself has subsequently recanted as false. Reasonable people who only know about the lies form opinions that the Israelis are bad and war criminals based on this information. The reality is that the Palestinians were conducting the war crimes and the Israelis took great pains to fight as ethically as they could (investigating and prosecuting their own soldiers), but this information is not known my most ordinary folks. If ordinary and reasonable people knew this then they wouldn't condemn Israel on this count (settlements, I think we can all agree, are bad - but that is another matter).

This is what makes putting out sensationalist lies so dangerous and why this guy 'reporting' hearsay to promote his book is so bad.

There was even talk that the Democrats would use a trick called "Deem and Pass" to simply "Deem" the bill passed WITHOUT taking a vote on it. Yep, that's right; The Democrats, not the Republicans wanted to suspend the democratic process and simply force through a bill they wanted because people opposed it.

"Deem and Pass" does not mean that the bill is passed without taking a vote. It means that the house votes on both what debate is allowed on a bill and on the bill at the same time. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/explaining_deem_and_pass.html Two votes are generally taken on each bill, the first as to how much debate is allowed and the second on the bill itself. So every bill must be voted on by the house to pass. How does that suspend the democratic process?

Your anecdotal story about instrumental music is supported by the study referenced here about multitasking and music with or without lyrics. In short, the processing part of your brain can only process ONE thing at a time. When your brain hears words, the processing part of the brain take over to interpret those words, breaking your concentration on whatever other task you're trying to do. If you're listening to classical music with no vocals/words, however, it doesn't interfere with your brain's processing of the other job you are doing.

So, instrumental classical music is fine. Classical opera, OTOH, is bad for multitasking (and may also tempt you to take out your eardrums with that staple remover...)

It may be an act of God if you get osteoporosis.

If you don't have the faith, God will punish you. Osteoporosis and snake bites, it's all the same.

Here is living example:
 

Serpent-handling pastor profiled earlier in Washington Post dies from rattlesnake bite

Mack Wolford, a flamboyant Pentecostal pastor from West Virginia whose serpent-handling talents were profiled last November in The Washington Post Magazine , hoped the outdoor service he had planned for Sunday at an isolated state park would be a “homecoming like the old days,” full of folks speaking in tongues, handling snakes and having a “great time.”

He and other adherents cited Mark 16:17-18 as the reason for their practice: “And these signs will follow those who believe: in My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

“Praise the Lord and pass the rattlesnakes, brother” he wrote on May 23

Darwin Award!

So, those who don't test for osteoporosis, will they also get Darwin Award nominations?

Not in my trailer park.

I just listened to Philip Zimbardo's TED talk... he doesn't appear to have any data to speak of. Early on he buzzes through some measures where guys are doing worse than girls, but doesn't discuss absolute numbers-- then he jumps to implying that all guys are fucked (because they're not getting fucked).

He also, needless to say, doesn't have any proof that it's all the internet's fault, and not, say pollution by hormone-like chemicals, or-- a theory I've seen pushed persuasively-- the economy, stupid (roughly: guys don't bother to "grow up" because there's no where to grow to).

How do fast talking con-artists like this get to do TED talks?

(Note: Nick Hanauer, an early Amazon investor, had a TED talk censored for being a little too, shall-we say, "reality based".)

Exactly. Clinton never said they hacked anything. One news agency ran with the hacking story, and over 12 hours ago they already were reporting that it was "buying advertisements". Not that reality, facts, or truth should ever be used in these situations. Even the Washington Post has changed their story http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-hacks-web-sites-of-al-qaeda-affiliate-in-yemen/2012/05/23/gJQAGnOxlU_story.html but don't let that stop anybody.

That's why Obama is almost losing primaries against convicted felons. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/whats-the-matter-with-kentucky/2012/05/23/gJQAMF5hkU_blog.html

The MPAA is totally out of control. What we need is some Congressman, Senator, or other 'man of the People' to run the shop and keep them honest. "On March 1, 2011, the Motion Picture Association of America announced that Senator Chris Dodd will head that organization." --- Well %@#$!

Dodd threatens to cutoff donations to Obama campaign
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/19/exclusive-hollywood-lobbyist-threatens-to-cut-off-obama-2012-money-over-anti

MPAA at Cannes
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/arts-post/post/christopher-dodd-extends-mpaas-reach-at-cannes/2012/05/21/gIQANSDJgU_blog.html

"Mr. Ravi was not charged with causing Mr. Clementi’s death, but the suicide hung heavily over the trial" So that means he still gets away with invasion of privacy. I suppose he should go work for Google, Apple, Facebook, etc.Hell, make that ANY company that has access to personal information!

HERE HERE

HERE HERE

I'm sure you're wrong:

The Justice Department on Thursday filed a civil suit against defense contractor Kellogg Brown & Root Inc., alleging that the firm provided false statements in charging the government for the unauthorized use of private security guards in Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/01/AR2010040103737.html

Hijacking the thread here. The Twitter ban has been lifted.

“Pakistan’s telecommunications regulators shut down Twitter for about eight hours Sunday because the social networking site would not remove content the government found objectionable to Muslims, but the nation’s prime minister stepped in to reverse the ban, officials said.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/pakistan-blocks-then-restores-twitter-access/2012/05/20/gIQAPqBPdU_story.html

1. Bill Gates, age 39. 2. Larry Page, age 34. 3. Sergey Brin, age 33. 4. Steve Jobs, 36. 5. Larry Ellison, 23, 33, 39, 59 (currently divorced).

Who puts Saverin's house out when it is burning out of control?
>> That would be the local fire department. That is usually funded by local government with sales taxes and property taxes.

Who paves the roads and repairs the bridges that Saverin's luxury cars utilize every day?
> Again local roads are paid for with sales taxes and property taxes. Many states have a fuel tax and there is also federal fuel taxes. The Federal govt. does the Highway stuff (mostly)

Who delivers the mail that Saverin relies on for his business and home operations?
>>USPS is going vastly underwater and saddled with pension debt. This has mainly happened due to the internet and unions. Should Saverin subsidize that operation? I bet Facebook uses a lot of FexEx and UPS. They are private operations.

Who manages the pipes and treatment of the shit that Saverin dumps down his toilets every day?
>>Again local taxes

Who patrols the streets that Saverin lives and works on, protecting him from crime?
>Again local taxes

Who watches and protects the nation of America when terrorists and other countries seek to destroy Saverin's way of life, property, and business interests?

>>That is all levels of government, local, state and federal.

So how much is fair in your mind that he should pay to Feds for all of the stuff above? How much should he pay for National Public Radio if he doesn't listen? How much should he pay for Senate Junkets: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senators-chinese-junket-is-shrouded-in-secrecy/2011/04/19/AFhndp7D_story.html?

Thank you for trying to educate me. You are still totally wrong, but I do appreciate being tipped to the subtlety of the story. Having dug into it, the best I can determine is that the GE tax is "small" -- that's the last word from GE, having realized how bad an idea it was for them to announce that they paid billions less than zero. Since GE refuses to be more specific, I think it is fair to assume that "small" is within rounding distance of zero. Since I paid more than zero, I stand by my assertion that I paid more than GE, but if you want me to be 100% literal about it, then I didn't pay more than GE by billions of dollars.

Forbes says billions in tax benefits in 2009
http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/01/ge-exxon-walmart-business-washington-corporate-taxes.html

Business Insider say GE is "full of crap"
http://www.businessinsider.com/ge-taxes-2010

CNN Money reports $0 in taxes
http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/16/news/companies/ge_7000_tax_returns/

Washington Post, deep down on the second page, reports a "small" tax liability, but GE won't specify; note that "zero" is the smallest number of all
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/the-truth-about-ges-tax-bill/2011/04/05/AFZm0L9C_story_1.html

'Speaking at the J.P Morgan Technology Media and Telecom conference today,

At least the picked the most ironic place to announce their plans to lose two billion dollars the honest way - by screwing their customers into cancellations.

pot>kettle=You're all black

A common fallacy.

Barbara Stanwyck: "We're both rotten!"

Fred MacMurray: "Yeah - only you're a little more rotten."

http://truth-out.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=3079:goodbye-to-all-that-reflections-of-a-gop-operative-who-left-the-cult

The important thing about that story is that the WSJ has a documented history of objectivity and impartiality in its news pages. That's why everybody in power used to read them.

Murdoch and his editors changed several stories to favor the conservative side. That kind of favoritism is unprecedented in the WSJ.

The Republicans are different. They're tearing the country apart. News Corp. played a big destructive role.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/04/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.html

He's just focusing on the state conventions instead of the popular votes, which is a completely healthy and viable strategy.

For instance, he lost the Nevada Primary: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/04/nevada-caucus-results-2012_n_1254069.html

Only to win almost all the actual delegates later on: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/ron-paul-wins-majority-of-nevada-delegates/2012/05/06/gIQA1An15T_blog.html

This is not a campaign in decline, just one that's only spending money where it counts, instead of wasting it on beauty contests.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/with-romney-all-but-the-nominee-ron-paul-snags-delegate-majority-at-maines-gop-convention/2012/05/06/gIQAjJS05T_story.html There are several stories very similar to this, if you care to read them. I'm no Ron Paul supporter, but he is working the delegate strategy, not the Popular vote money strategy, which is very savvy.

Study? In college? WTF were you smoking back then?

But on a more serious note, prepping for a test is one thing, being taught only the test, in lieu of critical thinking, is huge waste of potential, assuming one has potential:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/revealed-school-board-member-who-took-standardized-test/2011/12/06/gIQAbIcxZO_blog.html

to cynically assume the worst. You'll come up just a little short of reality but you won't be very surprised.

Considering the NSA is currently building the world's largest data warehouse / encryption system http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1 ... and that google saves everything, and knows who asked the questions.. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/20/AR2006012001799.html, you are well on your way to the NSA knowing what you were looking for, and devising ways to illegalize precrime and do away with the annoying unconstitutionality of prior restraint.

you are part of the problem. Although we are making progress

Um, do you realize that the post you replied to, from an actual tax accountant, is saying that Forbes's conclusion is correct (much higher tax rate than 9.8%: 24.2%) but that their reasoning about why the NYT made such an error is somewhat incorrect?

It seems the NYT didn't do their proper due diligence before publishing an inflammatory anti-Apple article.

Also, the "one thing" the Foxconn documentary "got wrong" was actually several utter fabrications. If a "documentary maker" lies and fabricates evidence, he SHOULD have his reputation dragged through the mud, and his documentaries ARE worthless. Daisey himself has said that the production "is theatre." http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/this-american-life-cites-fabrications-in-documentary-on-apple-suppliers/2012/03/16/gIQAsJ6sGS_story.html

In its own tax filings, Apple reported these tax rate figures paid in the last three years: “approximately 24.2%, 24.4% and 31.8% for 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively.”

My point is that the exploration of Earth was made by heroes willing to risk their lives and often without any hope of returning. My point is in the first people who sailed from Indonesia to Peru, or who crossed the Aleutian land bridge, or who struck out into the wilderness of northern Europe after being driven from Rome. Exploration and colonization is risky. We should be willing to take those risks if we want the rewards.

The best way to explore Mars with human beings is to make it a one-way trip. There would be plenty people willing to volunteer. It would be cheaper and reap lots of scientific rewards.

That's my point -- that human space travel is expensive only because we're thinking inside the box that says we have to return people safely. Start thinking outside that box and the universe looks like a mountain ready and waiting to be climbed.

You must be a republican, because you're attacking democrats with some weird out-of-left-field comparison to Stalin, claiming that the left-leaning among us want to silence expression, when it's the republicans who:

* want to suppress political expression in the form of one bogus voter ID law after another, running on a fraudulent specter of non-existent voter fraud (one source of many), or because "kids vote liberal" (source)
* want to suppress emotional expression by way of banning gay marriage for no discernable reason other than "gays make us uncomfortable" (and remember, these are the same guys who also don't like interracial marriage!) (source)
* want to suppress academic and scientific speech using bogus lawsuits AT THE GOVERNMENT LEVEL (source) just because they don't like the facts the science reveals
* fight repeatedly to curtail regulations on what chemicals big industries pump into the ground (source) or what they put in our food (three republicans eating pink slime to stick it to obama)


Oh, wait, it's because someone made a joke about punching an anti-science, anti-vaxxer in the face, that dems are teh eeevil! That same anti-science, anti-vaccine nonsense, by the way, which has led to many deaths.

Republicans...what will they think of next? Nothing! That's the joke..they don't really think.

That's not quite true.

The Republicans, particularly Newt Gingrich, started a deliberate strategy of attacking the other side for their political advantage. The Republicans would rather discredit government in general, if it makes the Democrats look bad, and encourages people to vote the Democrats out of office. If the Republicans can get voters to believe, "Both sides are worthless, vote them all out," then they've won.

Political scientists can quote Republican strategists like Gingrich saying exactly that in so many words.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/04/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.html
Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem.
By Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein, Published: April 27

P.S. a third party would be nice, but it's almost impossible in our political system. We haven't had a successful third party in over 100 years. If you vote for a third party candidate, your second-favorite candidate loses. In 2000, when people voted for Ralph Nader, they let George W. Bush win the election over Al Gore.

Here's what two political scientists have to say (my notes):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/04/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.html
Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem.
By Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein, Published: April 27

(When Rep. Allen West (R-FL) said that 78-81 Democrats in Congress are members of the Communist Party, no Republican leaders condemns him.

Washington politics and Congress haven't been this dysfunctional in 40 years. The problem is with the Republican party. "The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition." This is not "both sides do it." Moderate and center-right Republicans are extinct.

This started first with Newt Gingrich, whose strategy was to convice voters that Congress was so corrupt that anyone would be better than the incumbents. As speaker, Gingrich wanted to compromise with Clinton but couldn't.

Second, Grover Norquist founded Americans for Tax Reform in 1985, and his Taxpayer Protection Pledge, which binds signers never to support a tax increase, including closing loopholes, has been signed by 238/242 House and 41/47 Senate Republicans, followed by other litmus-test pledges.

This makes compromise impossible. The filibuster has become routine. Senate Republicans have blocked every nominee. This has produced complete gridlock and America's first credit downgrade. Republicans were forced to vote against bills they co-sponsored. Mike Lofgren wrote an anguished diatribe.

Journalists should report this, not "a balanced treatment of an unbalanced phenomenon.")

not going to be any disputes between parties?

- straw man.

There will be no crime?

- straw man.

There will be no external threats?

- straw man.

There will be no restrictions on who or how many can come on board?

- obviously you didn't understand what was written - you pay to get onboard.

There will be no heath or safety rules?

- who gives a rats ass?

Do you know what would have happened if any of this nonsense was present during the days Amercan settlers took off to go West?

Taxes, health inspections, licenses, regulations?

USA would never have become anything if gov't in its current form was present then. It would have been catastrophically impossible to do.

Seems to me if you have any of those (and many more) problems

- it's nonsense, those are not problem, they are only problems in your head. What you call problems are freedoms and opportunity.

Face it, this is not some escape from some supposedly oppressive government, it is a tax dodge and immigration scam.

1. It IS to escape the oppressive governments, otherwise most people wouldn't have came to USA either.

2. There is absolutely NOTHING WRONG with not wanting to pay taxes, especially the taxes that exist today, absolutely insane taxes - income taxes, taxes on work. Regulations, all that nonsense.

3. Immigration scam? Be happy if anybody ever wilfully sets foot onto US soil again for the purposes of working there. There are now more 'illegal migrants' leaving USA to go back to Mexico than to come to US.

Maybe not, but $2 Trillion in war spending, plus $2 Trillion in unfunded Bush tax cuts (Funny the republicans didn't think it necessary to pay for the extension of their tax cuts) does make a sizable dent in our national deficit. Here's an interesting article on exactly this topic. Go look at historic trends of deficit spending and it's surprising that republicans are responsible for some of the largest rises in debt.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/ezra-klein-doing-the-math-on-obamas-deficits/2012/01/31/gIQAnRs7fQ_story.html

Deficits:
FY 2007: $161 billion (R Congress R Whitehouse)
FY 2011: $1,300 billion (D Congress D Whitehouse)

It should also be noted that the US took in MORE money after the Bush tax cuts than before. This is because the economy boomed and the unemployment rate was under 5% much of the time. You actually get a bigger piece when you take a smaller piece from a large pie than when you take a larger piece from a smaller one.

Modded (Score -1, Fact)

Check out this quote from Oracle (via Washington Post):

... Every major commercial enterprise — except Google — has a license for Java ....

Wait, what?

Maybe not, but $2 Trillion in war spending, plus $2 Trillion in unfunded Bush tax cuts (Funny the republicans didn't think it necessary to pay for the extension of their tax cuts) does make a sizable dent in our national deficit. Here's an interesting article on exactly this topic. Go look at historic trends of deficit spending and it's surprising that republicans are responsible for some of the largest rises in debt.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/ezra-klein-doing-the-math-on-obamas-deficits/2012/01/31/gIQAnRs7fQ_story.html

Deficits:
FY 2007: $161 billion (R Congress R Whitehouse)
FY 2011: $1,300 billion (D Congress D Whitehouse)

It should also be noted that the US took in MORE money after the Bush tax cuts than before. This is because the economy boomed and the unemployment rate was under 5% much of the time. You actually get a bigger piece when you take a smaller piece from a large pie than when you take a larger piece from a smaller one.

Maybe not, but $2 Trillion in war spending, plus $2 Trillion in unfunded Bush tax cuts (Funny the republicans didn't think it necessary to pay for the extension of their tax cuts) does make a sizable dent in our national deficit. Here's an interesting article on exactly this topic. Go look at historic trends of deficit spending and it's surprising that republicans are responsible for some of the largest rises in debt.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/ezra-klein-doing-the-math-on-obamas-deficits/2012/01/31/gIQAnRs7fQ_story.html

My problem comes when people don't think they should "work their way out of" poverty, but that the government should do it for them, not by helping them to get better work or creating an environment where business thrives so jobs are created (not a liberal strong point), but by simply giving them the money to support a better lifestyle.

Slight problem with that Randian storyline - even if it were true - giving poor people money to support a better lifestyle is not only a more moral system than the "up from your own bootstraps" nonsense, but it makes for vastly better economics than cutting taxes on the rich.

Working stiffs can't take lengthy unpaid internships to get a job in their field after college. They better hope that they find one though before their student loans become a weight around their neck. If George Bush was George Johnson, he'd be lucky to be the assistant manager of a Burger King, if he wasn't in prison for cocaine possession. Not handed business after business no matter how many he drove into the ground, much less the presidency. Or have beautiful women sent to your hotel room to have sex with you because your last name is Bush.

Social spending isn't about "hand outs". It's about basic human decency and equality of opportunity.

Of course, smugly, Obama is yet again just a ditto-head on this sanction issue (this despite his Tony Rezko's inspired Syrian "reset" policy)

http://www.examiner.com/article/clinton-calls-syrian-tyrant-a-reformer-despite-assad-s-bloody-record
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/world/middleeast/04syria.html
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obama-levies-tech-sanctions-syria-120642375.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/obama-tightens-penalties-on-iran-and-syria-for-trying-to-evade-get-around-us-sanctions/2012/05/01/gIQAz2ZNuT_story.html

(and we'll see how this last one plays out)
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/02/24/exclusive_state_department_quietly_warning_region_on_syrian_wmds

Fiber is what the countries with the (presently) fastest residential user internet infrastructure in the world are using.

Singapore is presently rolling out it's nation wide fiber network and somewhere close to 70% of the households have been fiber connected. 95% of the households islandwide are scheduled/projected to be connected by the end of 2012.

I recently had fiber installed in my home, though 1000Mbps is an option at $319 per month, I opted to go for 100Mbps for $47 per month.

Seems silly to spend money on bandwidth for your home if your provider will not give you even Broadband level bandwidth to begin with. Such would be my decision point when considering Fiber runs to my server rack in my home versus Cat5/Cat6.

You must be one of the lucky few that live in one of less than 30 United States cities/communities that offer Fiber To The Home (FTTH)...I am envious and planning to fix my envy by relocating to/near one of them in the future specifically for Synchronous FTTH, basically you get the same bandwidth upstream as downstream, nothing throttled either upstream or downstream. (FIOS does not qualify, however is better than cable, as long as you resign yourself to living with the scarcity myth and perpetual increases in prices over time for your family. Heck given the throttling/restricting of upstream bandwidth specifically, DSL is better than cable...for the price of one Cable Internet connection you could afford 2 DSL connections, preferably through two different providers.)

If you do not live in one of the communities on that map, how much did it cost you to run your Fiber? How did you get your local Telco to agree, as this is extremely rare and most will not? In fact they spend billions every year to prevent people living in many states (http://www.muninetworks.org/communitymap) 19 US States at last count from even getting FTTH, effectively preventing competition.

I understand costs of a single FTTH run between $1,500.00 and $3,000.00 from your home to the Telco Switching station. The cities that split the cost of the FTTH over the last mile to their townspeople's home see an increase in economic activity, jobs, businesses relocating and springing up for the FTTH infrastructure. Of course this adds $5,000 to the value of the home should you sale it one day, better than most home improvement projects as it actually adds value to the home, assuming you can get it (http://www.muninetworks.org/communitymap) many cannot.

If you do not live in one of the less than 30 communities that have FTTH you should get a DD-WRT, Tomato or OpenWRT firmware supported router and see your actual bandwidth in real time, as over 90% of Cable Internet providers are throttled to less than Broadband speeds (FCC definition is 768Kbps) except when the customer runs the lying speed test. I see well below 300K/100K the majority of time, often bandwidth is throttled to less than 101K/30K, which is just pathetic and sad as of 2012. One thing is for sure, by any measure/definition, its NOT BROADBAND.

Fiber is what the countries with the (presently) fastest residential user internet infrastructure in the world are using.

When Japan got 100Mb/100Mb FTTH back in the year 2000, they determined it cost them approx .50 cents per Gbps to deliver the service. Thus when 1000Mb/1000Mb (1 Gbps) was rolled out a few years later, the price for consumers actually went down, not up.

If Americans started throwing/voting politicians out of offi

Before the accident 27% of Japan's energy came from nuclear power. Even if everyone could 15% (which is impossible because many big users are already conserving due to costs) that still leaved 12% unaccounted for. Sure green power can make up for some of that in the long term but in the short term it means increased import and burning of fossil fuels. A 54% increase in fossil fuel base electricity production in one year is significant.

It's an old practice of not just killing your political enemies, but their family too.

Let me shed some light on this guy. Regardless of what you think of his politics on a national level, he is a terrible senator for KY. He goes on these crazy crusades without spending any time on....oh....I don't know....his electorate? We have been having some financial problems in the state lately, but instead of addressing those and helping his fellow Kentuckians, he is out campaigning for his daddy. Anyway, if you guys love him so much (talking to you, Texas and California), you can have him. We don't need another Tea Bagger who supports Sarah Palin's "ideals".

Also, for you tin foil hatters, he was a member of the same college secret society as George W. Bush and Kenneth Star. Apparently they were all good buddies back in Texas. He's a Texan all the way through, and carpet-bagged here to be a U.S. Senator.

Remove the TSA? Um, thanks Mr. Paul, but what about our state debt???

O'rly?

Well, got news for you, no-knock warrants are horseshit. Don't want to get bit? Don't execute them. You took the job!

Here ya go skippy! Check this out. Or, think you're "above" the law? Then read this.

I've truly never understood what the problem is with just waiting till folks leave the house and then grabbing them. There are many fatalities on both sides due to the militarization of the police.

Of course, having been in the military I'm fluent with weapons that make mincemeat out of body armor so I'm not too worried. What you need is an AR-15 chambered in 6.8mm SPC just to be sure.

The long term effect of repeated blows to the head is IMHO the biggest issue facing contact sports, especially (American/Canadian) football and ice hockey. Based on the growing body of research it appears that the the sports are inherently unsafe as they are currently played. Football is the number 1 spectator sport in America, so you can bet the NFL does not want to change too much, and yet they are now being sued by former players who have suffered concussions during their career. How can the sport be changed to protect the players? Helmet technology will likely continue to improve, but enough to protect from brain damage with repeated hits? Does the NFL become the NTFL (National Touch Football League)? Do we still have linemen block to protect the quarterback, or do pass rushers count to four-Mississippi before rushing?

Hockey does not seem to be as plagued as football, and eliminating fighting would prevent a lot of injuries as the basic game does not lead to as much trauma to the head as football. Possibly the biggest question for all sports is what the future may hold if parents keep their children off the playing fields. That's something that will be gradual but I expect that the pool of available talent will start to dwindle as the smarter and more talented athletes choose safer career paths (baseball, investment banking?) and only the desperate take chances with their future sanity and health.

Our guys have been asleep at the wheel for the last 10 years. I'm pretty sure at this point that most of the U.S. Justices don't even know there *is* a 4th Amendment, much less what it says.

Actually, to the surprise of quite a few observers (myself included), the Supreme Court just unanimously ruled that law enforcement agencies can't simply slap a GPS tracker on your car without a warrant. The majority's ruling was actually relatively limited, but was based on 4th Amendment grounds. Alito and several of the liberals actually pushed for an even broader decision. God knows the SC tends to favor the government in too many cases, but this was about as clear a victory for protection against unreasonable search and seizure as we've seen in a long time.