This is very simple, and it's unfortunate that you're getting confused. You're wrong in implying that this solely a matter of politicians "acting" outraged, and you're wrong in implying that they wouldn't have anything to justifiably be mad about.. This is a matter of the public being justifiably outraged.
What anyone can do about it is a concern of your own construction.
You also talk about other countries' concerns in a manner, frankly, that makes you sound like an unlikeable prick.
How about when Britain and France cowtowed to the US in denying Bolivia's president a place to land, and then justified it with worries that Snowden was on board?
You're terribly careless at this, get the fuck out of here.
Here is how you described the government in this scenario: the angry father yelling at the kid because he thought..
Even in this tenuous link, you portray the government in its spying as a potentially just actor. They're your words, so don't blame me-blame yourself, or god.
The trust of the public has been abused. Your "daddy knows best" undertones are bullshit, and everyone can tell. If it were moral, it wouldn't need to be private. If it were logical, these snowden threads wouldn't have to be full of paid shills like cold fjord and jeremiah cornelius.
Any time there is outrage in another country about NSA spying, goons here come out of the woodwork to say "those politicians are all talk!".. as if the politicians were the ones upset. No, it's the people of those countries who were wronged, and they are angry. Who cares about the fuxking politicians? That's a distraction.
so I could see why they'd be wary of us. Also, their spying does not reach into our internet traffic--but the reverse certainly isn't true. This sort of information is always absent from Cold Fjord's servile presentation of his overlords, wherein the US government is always the victim, acting only in retaliation to the unjust actions of other countries. Time to get a new account or just post anonymously, cold fjord.
LOL at this other comment of yours--
"According to studies done at Chernobyl. After a couple of years, new births rapidly stop being part of the cancer riddle group. It doesn't even take decades, just a few years."
Plastics without fossil fuels is also quite forseeable in the near future:
http://www.themoldingblog.com/2013/06/12/ibm-is-close-to-breakthrough-use-of-bioplastics-in-computer-servers/
Also, "they would already be popular"? Really? Do you have any idea what goes into something being "popular"? Advertizing, buddy. Watch the docu Who Killed the Electric car for an example of how automakers can manipulate peoples' desires with advertizing, pressuring them towards vehicles that're more costly to maintain (internal combustion engines), and away from more economic choices that the government may force them to offer.
You also forgot to mention petroleum subsidies, which artificially lowers the market price of oil. All in all, your "theory" is very short-sighted.
Core infrastructure is destroyed, and the west will be loathe to spend money on actually rebuilding it. Gender inequaity is worse than it was under Saddam.
As to the remark that they are "killing each other"--you realize no research was done beforehand into the sort of sectarian violence swapping the lead political religious sect would bring? You think that once peoples' livelihoods are destroyed, once they are threatened with starvation, any infighting afterwards is simple THEIR fault? See your home destroyed and then face starvation yourself--then see how you see how much you long to destroy yourself and your fellow man. This is akin to a white man watching slaves fighting and insisting their anger is merely towards each other.
You shouldn't post nonsense about Iraq when it's clear you've spent the last decade in a beltway media bubble (as has the fool you responded to).
Huge myth. Gas prices have to do with the number of refineries and their processing rates rather than how much oil we are drilling. Your entire argument's nonsense. We could open ANWR and still not see a dip in pricing. Blame crony capitalism before supply and demand.
How about a congressional inquiry into why BP continued spraying Corexit after the EPA told them to stop?
If there were pelicans who'd touched corexit (let alone the toxic mix that results from corexit and oil combined), they'd probably be dead right now, so spare me the bullshit.
Several waves of deregulation came about under the Bush administration. Drilling here in the US is more unbound than in europe, where features like a "dead man's switch" (google it) are actually required. The problem here was not regulation, it was pure malfeasance and a will to cover up the damage done no matter the cost.. the cost being the several hundred million dollar PR campaign BP ran afterwards to clean up its image.
The way you present this information makes it seem like BP and the obama administration are in any opposition. To the contrary, this administration sheltered BP's excesses, even parroting BP's bogus initial spill estimates to the media.
..is to BP, which couldn't as easily hide the amount of oil spilled--the only thing by which it is liable. To anyone who actually lives around the area, the spraying of the neurotoxic carcinogen corexit is quite harmful.
"Isn't it a good thing this study is done now?"
You're waxing about how great it is we can assess what happened after the fact of a disaster, when BP couldn't even learn from the Ixtoc spill 30 years ago? That time, all the same techniques were employed with similar failures. When another spill happens, they'll flounder similarly because the point's to make money on the short term, not to worry about disasters when they arise--disasters only affect those poor nobodies on the cost and their rinky-dink fishing boats. Why should a multinational like BP care, when BP's iniquities are so sheltered by the government that the coast guard would keep away journalists from the spill, threatening several tens of thousand in fines and years in jail for any who'd come close to a cleanup site?
Funny that BP's PR teams also tried to claim dispersant just soap--why is there incentive for you to repeat their nonsense?
In reality Corexit and oil make a muck that falls to the ocean floor--a layer of toxic muck and dead marine life several feet thick in some places. There is NOTHING to indicate Corexit allows bacteria to "do their job properly". If you're not being paid to write this garbage, you should be, I'm sure some of that several hundred mil BP spent on PR cleanup rather than actual cleanup afterwards is still up for grabs!
The Obama administration's folly (other than being helpful to BP in almost every way, including having government officials spout their bogus numbers on a whim), disallowing regulations present in much of europe (see "dead man's switch") that were removed under the Bush administration, and not doing anything to punish BP after it disobeyed the EPA and continued to spray Corexit despite being told to stop.
Easy for you to say using millions of gallons of a neurotoxic carcinogen was the "next-least-bad" choice when you don't live in the area. People in the area are getting sick; marine life is hatching deformed.
The toxic sludge created by corexit+oil is deadlier than either of them on their own, so please spare me this "next-least-bad" nonsense. The "obvious problem" is that we're allowing deepwater drilling when energy companies don't have any reason to give a damn when things go wrong; the government will be glad to help in PR cleanup, and they're not even obligated to pay back any claimants. There was a laptop with 10,000+ claimants' info on it that was magically "lost". Where's the government lawsuit on behalf of the people, if the government's here to help? In actuality, it's here to stand and watch while you and I get fucked.
At the time of the spill, there were 3000+ rigs in the gulf. Only about 30 of those were deepwater. No, "natural seepage" will not cause millions of gallons of gas to drift out into the ocean every year, nor will "natural seeepage" destroy the oceanfloor habitat and leave a layer of toxic oil/dispersant sludge mixed with dead marine life several feet thick as this spill has done. Is someone paying you to post this?
"A lot more careful" in the future? They certainly weren't much more careful than the Ixtoc spill 30 years ago, where a set of maneuvers eerily similar to those attempted to plug the BP spill were employed (and all failed similarly).
If BP didn't want lawsuits, it shouldn't have dumped millions of gallons of a neurotoxic carcinogen to cover its own liability (amount of oil spilled). Or maybe it shouldn't have put 10,000+ claimants' data on a single laptop only to magically "lose" it.
If corporations are people, BP is a fucking psychopath with dead girls in its basement.
And you could really argue they "had a say" if they weren't educated (oftentimes thanks to conservative abstinence-only no-contraceptive education policies, like the federal policies Bush Jr. and co. backed) and thought simply pulling out was a proper contraceptive?
Yeah. Actually, you could. As long as you give kids accurate information about what causes pregnancy, you gave them the tools to not get pregnant...So yeah, if you were told, "Keep it in your pants, and you won't get pregnant", and you decided not to keep it in your pants, that's the choice you made, and you have to live with the consequences. So yeah, if you were told, "Keep it in your pants, and you won't get pregnant", and you decided not to keep it in your pants,
And that "keep it in your pants" philosophy of sex education is why abstinence-only education is a statistical failure; many states outright rejected it during Bush Jr.'s time despicte having to turn down federal funding in the process. "Accurate information" about what rcauses pregnancy entails exactly what one has to do to not get pregnant, and these education policies do not provide that information. HAll those kids who were told to "just keep it in their pants" are going to fuck anyway, especially in urban centers full of poor people, because the urges of puberty effortlessly surmounts abstinence education. Tell people not to fuck and they'll do it anyway. Pretending they'll keep to themselves when told is an absolute denial of human nature, and the statistics are there to prove it.
that's the choice you made, and you have to live with the consequences.
"live with the consequences"? According to who, God? Whose god? And what gives society the right to mandate this for any woman (especially when women are underrepresented in the political world)? Moralizing about punishment and proper consequences puts the cart before the horse.
And then, if the thing's not aborted, the kid's going to be born to parents that didn't want it. And that's fair to the kid? You could argue never having been born is more fair if the resultant person's completely unwanted.
You could argue that, but you probably shouldn't. Lots of people are raised (or not raised) by incompetent, unloving parents, and they do fine. If someone acts like a sociopathic asshole later in life, it's because of how they responded to the hand they were dealt.
"Doing fine" how so? Where abortion's arguably the most needed (poor inner-city people, oftentimes teenagers, who couldn't support a kid if they had one, and don't know much about what it takes to avoid conception because of bad education), those unwanted kids don't do just fine, at leasto insofar as they go on to make the same mistakes their parents did (having kids early and forgoing any chance at a career). The outlook is far from rosy for those unwated who enter into foster homes--"nearly half of foster children hae have a clinical level of [behavioral or emotional] problems: 47% of children ages 6 to 11, and 40% of children ages 12 to 14." If this is the case, how can you say their mental health later in life is entirely up to them, any more than you could say that of an abused child? On top of that, "almost one-third in foster homes live below the poverty line".
http://www.childtrends.org/files/FosterHomesRB.pdf
Don't tell me about how huge the adoption backlogs are--if abortion was made illegal, that backlog (if there even is one) would be obliterated within a year or two.
And that's a bad thing, is it? I'm not doubting there would be more
Anyone above the age of consent should know that one of the consequences of having sex could be pregnancy.... No one should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term when they didn't have a say in the sex act that led to the pregnancy.
And you could really argue they "had a say" if they weren't educated (oftentimes thanks to conservative abstinence-only no-contraceptive education policies, like the federal policies Bush Jr. and co. backed) and thought simply pulling out was a proper contraceptive?
And then, if the thing's not aborted, the kid's going to be born to parents that didn't want it. And that's fair to the kid? You could argue never having been born is more fair if the resultant person's completely unwanted. Don't tell me about how huge the adoption backlogs are--if abortion was made illegal, that backlog (if there even is one) would be obliterated within a year or two. Check the numbers yourself if you don't believe me. Then all those surplus kids will just go to foster homes--and those have a great reputation, don't they?
How is going to such lengths to allow someone to avoid the natural consequences of their actions even remotely okay?
"Going to such lengths"? And allowing an individual power over their own body is a great length to go to, instead of telling them they're just a baby generator and are locked into an undesirable life because of a previous bad decision? It's funny you'd mention this, because oftentimes opposition to abortion rights really comes down to opposing the capability of women to be promiscuous, with which there's nothing inherently wrong. Men have this right with no downside, but we have to prohibit women from having the same rights?
The fact that the Supreme Court, nearly 40 years ago, chose to cloud the issue with the concept of viability is irrelevant to that.
Abortion is the republican party's ultimate golden carrot on a stick. Each year they'll talk of repealing Roe v. Wade, but it's never going to happen. Even opposition to abortion dies as old voters die off and the new generation takes over.
There is nothing terrible about this decision, because this decision has nothing to do with net neutrality. It was a decision about whether a government agency has carte blanche to do whatever the hell it wants without any congressional oversight, much less voter oversight.
And since when is an agency regulating what it was meant to--not what consumers are allowed, but the level of service offered to the the consumer--government by executive order? Broad strokes to say the FCC would have "carte blanche", and even if they did in this regard, so what? It's not as if this would give the FCC some outlandish power to "regulate the internet" and force ISPs to filter certain information or somesuch. How could any consumer be harmed by such regulation when the targeted entities are corporations, not consumers? In a market as consolidated as the US, it's quite the opposite--the consumer's vulnerable without such regulation. I'd listen to the man who created the world wide web, Tim Berners-Lee, on the matter:
http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/144
We do NOT want government by executive order.
An executive order? I wish.. Obama spoke about net neutrality when he was running, but the issue was seemingly dropped from his roster of concerns.
I think the Intelligence Quota is an anthropocentric way to pin any amount of intellect.
Anyhow, this may coincide with another story about how genetically-same branches of human in Africa were separated for possibly over 100,000 years:
http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre60104l-us-antarctica-plane/
Slashdot Mirror
All the other AC trolls here aren't so thoughtful.
This is very simple, and it's unfortunate that you're getting confused. You're wrong in implying that this solely a matter of politicians "acting" outraged, and you're wrong in implying that they wouldn't have anything to justifiably be mad about.. This is a matter of the public being justifiably outraged. What anyone can do about it is a concern of your own construction.
Why would citizens be talking about granting political figures asylum when citizens don't have the power to grant asylum? Governments do, and many South American governments HAVE expressed the will to give him asylum.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/07/13/s-american-leaders-back-asylum-amid-snowden-row/
You also talk about other countries' concerns in a manner, frankly, that makes you sound like an unlikeable prick.
How about when Britain and France cowtowed to the US in denying Bolivia's president a place to land, and then justified it with worries that Snowden was on board?
You're terribly careless at this, get the fuck out of here.
"no one ever said daddy knows best"
Here is how you described the government in this scenario: the angry father yelling at the kid because he thought..
Even in this tenuous link, you portray the government in its spying as a potentially just actor. They're your words, so don't blame me-blame yourself, or god.
The trust of the public has been abused. Your "daddy knows best" undertones are bullshit, and everyone can tell. If it were moral, it wouldn't need to be private. If it were logical, these snowden threads wouldn't have to be full of paid shills like cold fjord and jeremiah cornelius.
Any time there is outrage in another country about NSA spying, goons here come out of the woodwork to say "those politicians are all talk!".. as if the politicians were the ones upset. No, it's the people of those countries who were wronged, and they are angry. Who cares about the fuxking politicians? That's a distraction.
so I could see why they'd be wary of us. Also, their spying does not reach into our internet traffic--but the reverse certainly isn't true. This sort of information is always absent from Cold Fjord's servile presentation of his overlords, wherein the US government is always the victim, acting only in retaliation to the unjust actions of other countries. Time to get a new account or just post anonymously, cold fjord.
LOL at this other comment of yours--
"According to studies done at Chernobyl. After a couple of years, new births rapidly stop being part of the cancer riddle group. It doesn't even take decades, just a few years."
Man, is somebody paying you? Kill yourself.
Within a century (easily) we will be able to live mostly off of renewables for the purpose of transportation and energy. Any given time you google "Solar breakthrough", there will be a couple advancements within the last month that enables greater efficiency--
http://cleantechnica.com/2013/06/11/new-class-of-solar-cell-reaches-new-efficiency-breakthrough/
Hell, it could even be a paint-- http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/15/caution-wet-solar-power-new-affordable-solar-paint-research/
Plastics without fossil fuels is also quite forseeable in the near future: http://www.themoldingblog.com/2013/06/12/ibm-is-close-to-breakthrough-use-of-bioplastics-in-computer-servers/
Also, "they would already be popular"? Really? Do you have any idea what goes into something being "popular"? Advertizing, buddy. Watch the docu Who Killed the Electric car for an example of how automakers can manipulate peoples' desires with advertizing, pressuring them towards vehicles that're more costly to maintain (internal combustion engines), and away from more economic choices that the government may force them to offer.
You also forgot to mention petroleum subsidies, which artificially lowers the market price of oil. All in all, your "theory" is very short-sighted.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Iraq is less free than ever. The jailing of dissidents and journalists continues just as it did under Saddam.
http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/01/22/iraq-intensifying-crackdown-free-speech-protests
You realize their university system is destroyed?
http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/02/04/0414251/the-destruction-of-iraqs-once-great-universities
Core infrastructure is destroyed, and the west will be loathe to spend money on actually rebuilding it. Gender inequaity is worse than it was under Saddam.
As to the remark that they are "killing each other"--you realize no research was done beforehand into the sort of sectarian violence swapping the lead political religious sect would bring? You think that once peoples' livelihoods are destroyed, once they are threatened with starvation, any infighting afterwards is simple THEIR fault? See your home destroyed and then face starvation yourself--then see how you see how much you long to destroy yourself and your fellow man. This is akin to a white man watching slaves fighting and insisting their anger is merely towards each other.
You shouldn't post nonsense about Iraq when it's clear you've spent the last decade in a beltway media bubble (as has the fool you responded to).
Fox News is not. I know from this whether or not to take you seriously.
Huge myth. Gas prices have to do with the number of refineries and their processing rates rather than how much oil we are drilling. Your entire argument's nonsense. We could open ANWR and still not see a dip in pricing. Blame crony capitalism before supply and demand.
How about a congressional inquiry into why BP continued spraying Corexit after the EPA told them to stop? If there were pelicans who'd touched corexit (let alone the toxic mix that results from corexit and oil combined), they'd probably be dead right now, so spare me the bullshit.
Several waves of deregulation came about under the Bush administration. Drilling here in the US is more unbound than in europe, where features like a "dead man's switch" (google it) are actually required. The problem here was not regulation, it was pure malfeasance and a will to cover up the damage done no matter the cost.. the cost being the several hundred million dollar PR campaign BP ran afterwards to clean up its image. The way you present this information makes it seem like BP and the obama administration are in any opposition. To the contrary, this administration sheltered BP's excesses, even parroting BP's bogus initial spill estimates to the media.
..is to BP, which couldn't as easily hide the amount of oil spilled--the only thing by which it is liable. To anyone who actually lives around the area, the spraying of the neurotoxic carcinogen corexit is quite harmful. "Isn't it a good thing this study is done now?" You're waxing about how great it is we can assess what happened after the fact of a disaster, when BP couldn't even learn from the Ixtoc spill 30 years ago? That time, all the same techniques were employed with similar failures. When another spill happens, they'll flounder similarly because the point's to make money on the short term, not to worry about disasters when they arise--disasters only affect those poor nobodies on the cost and their rinky-dink fishing boats. Why should a multinational like BP care, when BP's iniquities are so sheltered by the government that the coast guard would keep away journalists from the spill, threatening several tens of thousand in fines and years in jail for any who'd come close to a cleanup site?
Funny that BP's PR teams also tried to claim dispersant just soap--why is there incentive for you to repeat their nonsense? In reality Corexit and oil make a muck that falls to the ocean floor--a layer of toxic muck and dead marine life several feet thick in some places. There is NOTHING to indicate Corexit allows bacteria to "do their job properly". If you're not being paid to write this garbage, you should be, I'm sure some of that several hundred mil BP spent on PR cleanup rather than actual cleanup afterwards is still up for grabs!
The Obama administration's folly (other than being helpful to BP in almost every way, including having government officials spout their bogus numbers on a whim), disallowing regulations present in much of europe (see "dead man's switch") that were removed under the Bush administration, and not doing anything to punish BP after it disobeyed the EPA and continued to spray Corexit despite being told to stop. Easy for you to say using millions of gallons of a neurotoxic carcinogen was the "next-least-bad" choice when you don't live in the area. People in the area are getting sick; marine life is hatching deformed. The toxic sludge created by corexit+oil is deadlier than either of them on their own, so please spare me this "next-least-bad" nonsense. The "obvious problem" is that we're allowing deepwater drilling when energy companies don't have any reason to give a damn when things go wrong; the government will be glad to help in PR cleanup, and they're not even obligated to pay back any claimants. There was a laptop with 10,000+ claimants' info on it that was magically "lost". Where's the government lawsuit on behalf of the people, if the government's here to help? In actuality, it's here to stand and watch while you and I get fucked.
At the time of the spill, there were 3000+ rigs in the gulf. Only about 30 of those were deepwater. No, "natural seepage" will not cause millions of gallons of gas to drift out into the ocean every year, nor will "natural seeepage" destroy the oceanfloor habitat and leave a layer of toxic oil/dispersant sludge mixed with dead marine life several feet thick as this spill has done. Is someone paying you to post this?
"A lot more careful" in the future? They certainly weren't much more careful than the Ixtoc spill 30 years ago, where a set of maneuvers eerily similar to those attempted to plug the BP spill were employed (and all failed similarly). If BP didn't want lawsuits, it shouldn't have dumped millions of gallons of a neurotoxic carcinogen to cover its own liability (amount of oil spilled). Or maybe it shouldn't have put 10,000+ claimants' data on a single laptop only to magically "lose" it. If corporations are people, BP is a fucking psychopath with dead girls in its basement.
And you could really argue they "had a say" if they weren't educated (oftentimes thanks to conservative abstinence-only no-contraceptive education policies, like the federal policies Bush Jr. and co. backed) and thought simply pulling out was a proper contraceptive?
Yeah. Actually, you could. As long as you give kids accurate information about what causes pregnancy, you gave them the tools to not get pregnant...So yeah, if you were told, "Keep it in your pants, and you won't get pregnant", and you decided not to keep it in your pants, that's the choice you made, and you have to live with the consequences. So yeah, if you were told, "Keep it in your pants, and you won't get pregnant", and you decided not to keep it in your pants,
And that "keep it in your pants" philosophy of sex education is why abstinence-only education is a statistical failure; many states outright rejected it during Bush Jr.'s time despicte having to turn down federal funding in the process. "Accurate information" about what rcauses pregnancy entails exactly what one has to do to not get pregnant, and these education policies do not provide that information. HAll those kids who were told to "just keep it in their pants" are going to fuck anyway, especially in urban centers full of poor people, because the urges of puberty effortlessly surmounts abstinence education. Tell people not to fuck and they'll do it anyway. Pretending they'll keep to themselves when told is an absolute denial of human nature, and the statistics are there to prove it.
that's the choice you made, and you have to live with the consequences.
"live with the consequences"? According to who, God? Whose god? And what gives society the right to mandate this for any woman (especially when women are underrepresented in the political world)? Moralizing about punishment and proper consequences puts the cart before the horse.
And then, if the thing's not aborted, the kid's going to be born to parents that didn't want it. And that's fair to the kid? You could argue never having been born is more fair if the resultant person's completely unwanted.
You could argue that, but you probably shouldn't. Lots of people are raised (or not raised) by incompetent, unloving parents, and they do fine. If someone acts like a sociopathic asshole later in life, it's because of how they responded to the hand they were dealt.
"Doing fine" how so? Where abortion's arguably the most needed (poor inner-city people, oftentimes teenagers, who couldn't support a kid if they had one, and don't know much about what it takes to avoid conception because of bad education), those unwanted kids don't do just fine, at leasto insofar as they go on to make the same mistakes their parents did (having kids early and forgoing any chance at a career). The outlook is far from rosy for those unwated who enter into foster homes--"nearly half of foster children hae have a clinical level of [behavioral or emotional] problems: 47% of children ages 6 to 11, and 40% of children ages 12 to 14." If this is the case, how can you say their mental health later in life is entirely up to them, any more than you could say that of an abused child? On top of that, "almost one-third in foster homes live below the poverty line". http://www.childtrends.org/files/FosterHomesRB.pdf
Don't tell me about how huge the adoption backlogs are--if abortion was made illegal, that backlog (if there even is one) would be obliterated within a year or two.
And that's a bad thing, is it? I'm not doubting there would be more
Anyone above the age of consent should know that one of the consequences of having sex could be pregnancy.... No one should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term when they didn't have a say in the sex act that led to the pregnancy.
And you could really argue they "had a say" if they weren't educated (oftentimes thanks to conservative abstinence-only no-contraceptive education policies, like the federal policies Bush Jr. and co. backed) and thought simply pulling out was a proper contraceptive? And then, if the thing's not aborted, the kid's going to be born to parents that didn't want it. And that's fair to the kid? You could argue never having been born is more fair if the resultant person's completely unwanted. Don't tell me about how huge the adoption backlogs are--if abortion was made illegal, that backlog (if there even is one) would be obliterated within a year or two. Check the numbers yourself if you don't believe me. Then all those surplus kids will just go to foster homes--and those have a great reputation, don't they?
How is going to such lengths to allow someone to avoid the natural consequences of their actions even remotely okay?
"Going to such lengths"? And allowing an individual power over their own body is a great length to go to, instead of telling them they're just a baby generator and are locked into an undesirable life because of a previous bad decision? It's funny you'd mention this, because oftentimes opposition to abortion rights really comes down to opposing the capability of women to be promiscuous, with which there's nothing inherently wrong. Men have this right with no downside, but we have to prohibit women from having the same rights?
The fact that the Supreme Court, nearly 40 years ago, chose to cloud the issue with the concept of viability is irrelevant to that.
Abortion is the republican party's ultimate golden carrot on a stick. Each year they'll talk of repealing Roe v. Wade, but it's never going to happen. Even opposition to abortion dies as old voters die off and the new generation takes over.
There is nothing terrible about this decision, because this decision has nothing to do with net neutrality. It was a decision about whether a government agency has carte blanche to do whatever the hell it wants without any congressional oversight, much less voter oversight.
And since when is an agency regulating what it was meant to--not what consumers are allowed, but the level of service offered to the the consumer--government by executive order? Broad strokes to say the FCC would have "carte blanche", and even if they did in this regard, so what? It's not as if this would give the FCC some outlandish power to "regulate the internet" and force ISPs to filter certain information or somesuch. How could any consumer be harmed by such regulation when the targeted entities are corporations, not consumers? In a market as consolidated as the US, it's quite the opposite--the consumer's vulnerable without such regulation. I'd listen to the man who created the world wide web, Tim Berners-Lee, on the matter: http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/144
We do NOT want government by executive order.
An executive order? I wish.. Obama spoke about net neutrality when he was running, but the issue was seemingly dropped from his roster of concerns.
I think the Intelligence Quota is an anthropocentric way to pin any amount of intellect. Anyhow, this may coincide with another story about how genetically-same branches of human in Africa were separated for possibly over 100,000 years: http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre60104l-us-antarctica-plane/