Nobody gives fuck number one about "the poor." We deliberately burn literal mountains of food because Al Gore. We apply huge multipliers to the cost of everything — housing, vehicles, energy and on and on — to assuage the endless anxieties of the comfortable. We don't hesitate to freeze our poor elderly to death on behalf of these anxieties. No one will be swayed by arguments with this basis.
Not sure I can argue with you... We literally burn millions of bushels of corn in our cars every year as "renewable" "Green" fuel as one example. Which is pretty darned stupid given the huge impact that farming all that corn has on the environment and the fuel needed to till, plant, harvest, transport, ferment and distill all that corn into motor fuel. We also pay billions of dollars in government subsidies and tax incentives to all the people involved to make it reasonably cost effective and pushing up the cost of corn.... All to the determent to the poor people who depend on cheap corn to stay alive...
Nice in theory, but I can tell you haven't driven I70 between Salina KS and Denver. There is a whole lot of wheat growing on that route... Or I80 across Iowa where you will find a bunch of corn growing in the summer and smell a lot of pigs and chickens year round. We have HUGE monocultures in our farming operations and it's part of what makes that trip to the grocery store possible because we have efficient, large scale, farming processes to create the cheap and abundant supply of food.
This "local food production" thing is stupidly inefficient if you take it too far. You don't grow corn in a arid climate or Iceberg lettuce in North Dakota in the winter time. Apples don't grow in Florida, nor do oranges grow in Michigan. Sure, IF you can reasonably grow stuff locally, by all means do so, but let's not get nuts about this.
Also, Zaire folks are affected by the PRICE of food which is driven by global production as well as local growers (including their own gardens). What they are eating may be locally sourced, but what they cannot grow themselves they have to buy, and those costs are tied to the global food market in many ways. These people are on the edge of subsistence now and easily can starve if local conditions cause crop failures and the price of trucked in food is too high for them to afford. So sure, some may be just fine, but others may just be dead...
. . . and one that we might be able to solve by better managing our watersheds. It would be expensive, but peanuts compared so some of the issues that get all the press, and would probably have more side benefits. Unfortunately, no one has found a way to use this issue to push their unrelated political agenda, so you don't hear much about it.
Expensive = Starvation for the poor...
Just so it's clear, making food more expensive to produce does little to you and me but increase the grocery budget, but in some parts of the world even modest increases in food costs is catastrophic to the poor and helpless who WILL starve because they cannot afford to pay...
Also, just because WE decide to do this, doesn't mean the problem goes away because there is zero chance that the starving farmers outside this country will willingly do this too.
Fair enough then... The end product is legal according to the courts, which *should* be fair enough according to the law.
So, may I assume that you are now going to argue that the LAW isn't fair in this case? If so, my response basically is.... You need to start wining elections, using the rules as they are, and get the laws changed to ones that you find are more fair.
You see, THIS is how our system of government, the representative republic thing designed by the founders, is supposed to work. If you don't LIKE the laws being imposed on you, get your representatives to change the law. All this boo-hoo-ing needs to stop and you need to get about changing the laws because it's the right thing to do, not because it's the partisan thing to complain about. I'll leave it to you to decide if your complaints are partisan or not...
I'm going to side step your partisan comments and skip to my point..
Apart from the ability of the typical voter to understand how they are secured, electronic systems CAN be more secure than paper ballots. It may be hard to explain completely to your average voter, but an electronic system can easily beat a paper system in accuracy, privacy and security if properly implemented and administered.
Really, It is the security protocols which are the issue here, not the means of collecting and counting votes. Saying that one method of collecting and counting votes is more secure cannot be done, unless one also considers the security protocols and safeguards of the whole process. Further, properly implemented and secured, it seems to me that Electronic records are a lot more secure, faster and more accurate than a paper system ever could be. This is a fact, regardless of how well the average voter understands how it's actually accomplished.
Who understands how their smart phone actually works, from the touch screen though to the various radios? Only a select few. Yet we all use them and depend on them....
I'm saying that both electronic systems and paper systems require physical security and safeguards such as tamper evident stickers, physical security protocols and the like. So just going to paper isn't going to help solve the issues many think electronic systems have.
The point is not that American meddling is unique, but that it is STUPID and COUNTERPRODUCTIVE.
By speaking out on behalf of the protesters, we are helping the government paint them as unpatriotic stooges working for the benefit of Iran's enemies.
We really need to learn when to just STFU.
We are involved, even when we don't want to be, lack of action is an action too. Isolationist policies don't work because they are impossible due to our shear size and power. We ARE involved by our shear presence in the world.
What's stupid and counterproductive is not realizing that we are the world's sole remaining super power and taking or not taking overt action has consequences regardless of our intent. We don't have the option of not being involved...
I also said that the END product was fair district maps, not that there wasn't any partisan steps along the way in some states.
Also, the Wisconsin district maps are CURRENTLY before the Supreme Court which has issued a preliminary ruling to STAY the appeals court ruling. I'd say that the Jury is still out on that case, because it IS, and even if you don't get the decision you want from the Supremes, that doesn't mean the process didn't result in fair district maps. In fact, the Supreme Court pretty much defines for the lower courts what "fair" means when the lower courts get it wrong so your argument that Wisconsin district maps are unfair will become moot should the Supreme Court say they are fair.
Fine, but you DO realize that this opens up the tradition of "stuffing the ballot box" to just obtaining official ballots (or counterfeiting some), marking them as you see fit and then inserting them into the process before things are counted. If you are really enterprising, you can just substitute a couple thousand votes at a time, inserting your desired ballots for the actual ones.... Cheating CAN still happen w/o physical security.
There is ALWAYS a physical security issue with voting. You have to protect the electronic equipment just like paper ballot materials. Only electronic ballots can be secured though cryptographic means, which makes substitutions of ballots nearly impossible and really easy to detect. Nothing is cheat proof here, the question is what makes it harder to do w/o being detected? I'm thinking that electronic systems win that contest hands down. The PROBLEM is that it's hard to explain to the average voter how it works and why it's secure.
You do realize that we are in this mess because of there is some invented legal requirement for "equal representation" of minority groups. If you just draw the maps based on population and the shortest possible district boundaries, I'm guessing that a whole bunch of democrats will be up in arms and fighting the resulting maps in court.
Err... So you have an issue with BOTH the process used to draw maps AND the courts who decide if they are fair?
I think you are the one with the issues here.. But I get that you need *something* to blame for losing elections that doesn't involve self analysis and introspection into why the message isn't effective.
First, redistricting maps ARE fair because they can and are challenged in court. I'm not saying the process is perfect, only that the resulting maps ARE as fair as the courts force them to be. Ultimately this means that even in a state where the drawing process is suspect, both parties can challenge unfair maps in court and get them changed. I'm saying the end result is fair district maps.... If you don't think so, it's an issue to take up in the specific state.
Second, Citizens Untied found that Non-profits and other companies are afforded the same rights as persons as outlined in the bill of rights. Given that companies and non-profits are OWNED by people, this makes sense to me. You can try and argue, but legally by a Supreme Court ruling, you are legally wrong. So your choice here is to win elections so you can replace the judges on the court who don't agree with your view. Sorry you don't like how the field is striped, but that's the law at this point. Complaining about it doesn't help you.
IN summary, I think your side uses these two issues as excuses, but neither of them are reasons. Seems to me that when you look at the national popular vote and the makeup of the house, it's not that far off considering. Also, the last national campaign had democrats receiving and spending multiple times the amount of money of their opponents, so Citizens United didn't seem to harm your fundraising advantage at all. You don't want to believe that it's your policy and positions that are losing elections for you, so you have to invent other reasons. The above are just two.
Ugh... Can we please stop modding obvious what-about-ism posts up? What the last guy did is irrelevant, both to the point being made by TFA and to the behaviour of the current administration.
My post was about *more* than what the "last guy" did or didn't do. I'm pointing out the fact that foreign relations is the purview of the president and has been since our founding. Complaining about what the current administration does or doesn't get involved in is pretty much pointless as is isolationism as a policy. Like it or not, we are involved one way or another.
Now if you want to discuss WHY one should or shouldn't do something... That's a totally different kettle of fish..
I live in Texas... Our redistricting process is by an "independent commission" made up of people from both parties and have had their maps challenged in court. So In MY current state, we don't have an issue. The process worked here.
The drawing of district maps is a STATE issue, so I can only claim first hand knowledge for the three states I lived in KS, MO and TX. All three of those don't have issues with unfair district maps. Kansas had their maps challenged in the courts, and where redrawn as a result in 2012. Texas had their maps challenged and upheld by the courts. Seems the process works just fine. Which states do you have an issue with? I dare say that redistricting happens on a pretty non-partisan basis in the majority of states, but I'm open to discuss any specific state you wish.
If you think that Iran will willingly let this unrestricted social media thing happen, you are sadly mistaken. Those in control in Iran are not interested in open debate or listening to protestor's complaints.
I suppose you can ask nicely, but if you know the answer is going to be no, why bother?
Like the previous administration didn't meddle in overseas affairs too... They may have had a different perspective on when it was appropriate and in the USA's interest, but they meddled a LOT in various things going on overseas. It's pretty much been the case since the USA came into existence in the 1700's where we got involved in various conflicts that didn't directly involve us.
There is nothing really wrong with electronic voting systems that wasn't wrong with the old mechanical ones, punch cards or even the old paper ballots.
Well, the punch cards were always a terrible idea and remain so. And you're right that there is no perfectly secure method. That said, there are two things that make the electronic systems worse: they're easier to subvert (more points of potential failure), and if subverted, it's easier to make it unnoticeable and/or impossible to prove tampering.
Like I said. that's just FUD.
It may be more difficult to EXPLAIN to those who don't understand the technology, but properly engineered electronic voting systems can be MUCH more secure, reliable, auditable and accurate than mechanical or paper options.
Even paper ballots are highly subject to tampering... How? If you know what one looks like, it's easy to create a bunch of them that are indistinguishable from real ones. You can "Stuff the ballot box" with any number of votes you like.
ALL systems suffer from the same issues of physical security. Electronic systems, mechanical systems, paper ballots all have the same kinds of problems where the vote counts can be messed with if you have the necessary physical access. The only difference is that it's a bit difficult to explain to the average voter how an electronic voting system is secured and why it is more secure than a physical ballot based system.
now end Gerrymandering and repeal Citizen's United with a few well targeted laws and maybe we can talk about America being a Democracy.
LOL... First how do you propose we end Gerrymandering? Usually the district maps are drawn by bi-partisan groups and are routinely tested in the courts to make sure they are fair. What kind of rules do you think we need here that we don't already have?
Citizen's United seems like a good decision that upheld the 1st amendment to me. I don't think you can restrict companies and non-profits from making political donations or doing political activities w/o restricting free speech in the process. Maybe we can just require that funding of political activity can proceed with out any limits as long as the source of funding is 100% disclosed and must be 100% from USA sources? Seems to me that the issue isn't the amount of money, but that people may not be aware of the source of the funding. Full timely disclosure of who's donating what to whom would fix that.
Electronic voting systems guarantee that it's impossible to actually trust the results of elections.
Actually.. It's the FUD being spread by those who are interested in bashing public confidence in how our republic works that makes it impossible to trust the results of an election.
Some do it to sell new voting machines...
Some do it to discredit their political rivals...
Some do it to foment discontent with the current rule of law..
There is nothing really wrong with electronic voting systems that wasn't wrong with the old mechanical ones, punch cards or even the old paper ballots.
Japanese have been eating shark fin just fine for thousands of years.
Far too often "food safety" is just "I don't remember what we did before refrigeration was invented"
I remember from History class that folks died from eating bad food or illnesses which where carried in food. We've come a long way.
Refrigeration isn't all that necessary, but other means of preserving food can be inconvenient or involve large quantities of salt, sugar, or processing to keep it safe to eat.
The Saudis have their human rights issues, to be sure, but they generally are not out threatening the world with nuclear destruction or violating UN anti-proliferation rules for WMDs... Nor are their citizens generally starving because their dictator leader refuses to play relatively nice with the rest of the world. And one BIG thing is the Saudis don't act under the pretense that a state of war exists between it and the USA. They are not threatening us with anything but possibly squeezing the world's oil supply...
Actually, I figure Venezuela and Cuba are more of a thorn in the US's side and carries more risk for US's interests than the Saudis...
Actually, I don't think Kim is insane. I think he's quite sane, but it all looks crazy to the outside observer because we don't understand what's going on inside the country and how the Kim's have held power for three generations now.
Where I don't think Kim is foolish enough to think he's going to win an open conflict, I don't think he can afford to let any of his countrymen think that he doesn't fully believe he can win. NK is a mash up of totalitarian dictatorship and religious worship cult with Kim at the top. He only stays in power because people believe he is powerful, should that facade ever show any cracks, the gig would be up for him and the coup would be quick and bloody.
So where I don't think he's stupid, I also believe him to be desperate. Desperation makes you more likely to make mistakes in judgment, to take chances you otherwise wouldn't. He's obviously not opposed to risking provocative actions and I don't have any idea where he'd stop. So far, the world hasn't done all that much even though NK has made multiple infiltrations of the south, attacked US military ships at sea and even shelled SK islands. I fear that all this might mislead Kim into pushing too far and this truing into a shooting war.
Once the shooting starts, who knows what Kim will do.... I can see him going out in a blaze of glory, launching a nuke on the US mainland.
If sanctions don't bring them to the point where they give up their nuclear weapons and missiles, eventually something is going to happen and the shooting will start....We seriously CAN NOT allow Kim to have an ICBM with a nuclear weapon, the risks re way to high.
Slashdot Mirror
Expensive = Starvation for the poor...
Nobody gives fuck number one about "the poor." We deliberately burn literal mountains of food because Al Gore. We apply huge multipliers to the cost of everything — housing, vehicles, energy and on and on — to assuage the endless anxieties of the comfortable. We don't hesitate to freeze our poor elderly to death on behalf of these anxieties. No one will be swayed by arguments with this basis.
Not sure I can argue with you... We literally burn millions of bushels of corn in our cars every year as "renewable" "Green" fuel as one example. Which is pretty darned stupid given the huge impact that farming all that corn has on the environment and the fuel needed to till, plant, harvest, transport, ferment and distill all that corn into motor fuel. We also pay billions of dollars in government subsidies and tax incentives to all the people involved to make it reasonably cost effective and pushing up the cost of corn.... All to the determent to the poor people who depend on cheap corn to stay alive...
Nice in theory, but I can tell you haven't driven I70 between Salina KS and Denver. There is a whole lot of wheat growing on that route... Or I80 across Iowa where you will find a bunch of corn growing in the summer and smell a lot of pigs and chickens year round. We have HUGE monocultures in our farming operations and it's part of what makes that trip to the grocery store possible because we have efficient, large scale, farming processes to create the cheap and abundant supply of food.
This "local food production" thing is stupidly inefficient if you take it too far. You don't grow corn in a arid climate or Iceberg lettuce in North Dakota in the winter time. Apples don't grow in Florida, nor do oranges grow in Michigan. Sure, IF you can reasonably grow stuff locally, by all means do so, but let's not get nuts about this.
Also, Zaire folks are affected by the PRICE of food which is driven by global production as well as local growers (including their own gardens). What they are eating may be locally sourced, but what they cannot grow themselves they have to buy, and those costs are tied to the global food market in many ways. These people are on the edge of subsistence now and easily can starve if local conditions cause crop failures and the price of trucked in food is too high for them to afford. So sure, some may be just fine, but others may just be dead...
. . . and one that we might be able to solve by better managing our watersheds. It would be expensive, but peanuts compared so some of the issues that get all the press, and would probably have more side benefits. Unfortunately, no one has found a way to use this issue to push their unrelated political agenda, so you don't hear much about it.
Expensive = Starvation for the poor...
Just so it's clear, making food more expensive to produce does little to you and me but increase the grocery budget, but in some parts of the world even modest increases in food costs is catastrophic to the poor and helpless who WILL starve because they cannot afford to pay...
Also, just because WE decide to do this, doesn't mean the problem goes away because there is zero chance that the starving farmers outside this country will willingly do this too.
Fair enough then... The end product is legal according to the courts, which *should* be fair enough according to the law.
So, may I assume that you are now going to argue that the LAW isn't fair in this case? If so, my response basically is.... You need to start wining elections, using the rules as they are, and get the laws changed to ones that you find are more fair.
You see, THIS is how our system of government, the representative republic thing designed by the founders, is supposed to work. If you don't LIKE the laws being imposed on you, get your representatives to change the law. All this boo-hoo-ing needs to stop and you need to get about changing the laws because it's the right thing to do, not because it's the partisan thing to complain about. I'll leave it to you to decide if your complaints are partisan or not...
I'm going to side step your partisan comments and skip to my point..
Apart from the ability of the typical voter to understand how they are secured, electronic systems CAN be more secure than paper ballots. It may be hard to explain completely to your average voter, but an electronic system can easily beat a paper system in accuracy, privacy and security if properly implemented and administered.
Really, It is the security protocols which are the issue here, not the means of collecting and counting votes. Saying that one method of collecting and counting votes is more secure cannot be done, unless one also considers the security protocols and safeguards of the whole process. Further, properly implemented and secured, it seems to me that Electronic records are a lot more secure, faster and more accurate than a paper system ever could be. This is a fact, regardless of how well the average voter understands how it's actually accomplished.
Who understands how their smart phone actually works, from the touch screen though to the various radios? Only a select few. Yet we all use them and depend on them....
You don't seem to understand my point...
I'm saying that both electronic systems and paper systems require physical security and safeguards such as tamper evident stickers, physical security protocols and the like. So just going to paper isn't going to help solve the issues many think electronic systems have.
The point is not that American meddling is unique, but that it is STUPID and COUNTERPRODUCTIVE.
By speaking out on behalf of the protesters, we are helping the government paint them as unpatriotic stooges working for the benefit of Iran's enemies.
We really need to learn when to just STFU.
We are involved, even when we don't want to be, lack of action is an action too. Isolationist policies don't work because they are impossible due to our shear size and power. We ARE involved by our shear presence in the world.
What's stupid and counterproductive is not realizing that we are the world's sole remaining super power and taking or not taking overt action has consequences regardless of our intent. We don't have the option of not being involved...
I also said that the END product was fair district maps, not that there wasn't any partisan steps along the way in some states.
Also, the Wisconsin district maps are CURRENTLY before the Supreme Court which has issued a preliminary ruling to STAY the appeals court ruling. I'd say that the Jury is still out on that case, because it IS, and even if you don't get the decision you want from the Supremes, that doesn't mean the process didn't result in fair district maps. In fact, the Supreme Court pretty much defines for the lower courts what "fair" means when the lower courts get it wrong so your argument that Wisconsin district maps are unfair will become moot should the Supreme Court say they are fair.
Fine, but you DO realize that this opens up the tradition of "stuffing the ballot box" to just obtaining official ballots (or counterfeiting some), marking them as you see fit and then inserting them into the process before things are counted. If you are really enterprising, you can just substitute a couple thousand votes at a time, inserting your desired ballots for the actual ones.... Cheating CAN still happen w/o physical security.
There is ALWAYS a physical security issue with voting. You have to protect the electronic equipment just like paper ballot materials. Only electronic ballots can be secured though cryptographic means, which makes substitutions of ballots nearly impossible and really easy to detect. Nothing is cheat proof here, the question is what makes it harder to do w/o being detected? I'm thinking that electronic systems win that contest hands down. The PROBLEM is that it's hard to explain to the average voter how it works and why it's secure.
Yea, I don't think that's going to fly.. .
You do realize that we are in this mess because of there is some invented legal requirement for "equal representation" of minority groups. If you just draw the maps based on population and the shortest possible district boundaries, I'm guessing that a whole bunch of democrats will be up in arms and fighting the resulting maps in court.
Err... So you have an issue with BOTH the process used to draw maps AND the courts who decide if they are fair?
I think you are the one with the issues here.. But I get that you need *something* to blame for losing elections that doesn't involve self analysis and introspection into why the message isn't effective.
Two points
First, redistricting maps ARE fair because they can and are challenged in court. I'm not saying the process is perfect, only that the resulting maps ARE as fair as the courts force them to be. Ultimately this means that even in a state where the drawing process is suspect, both parties can challenge unfair maps in court and get them changed. I'm saying the end result is fair district maps.... If you don't think so, it's an issue to take up in the specific state.
Second, Citizens Untied found that Non-profits and other companies are afforded the same rights as persons as outlined in the bill of rights. Given that companies and non-profits are OWNED by people, this makes sense to me. You can try and argue, but legally by a Supreme Court ruling, you are legally wrong. So your choice here is to win elections so you can replace the judges on the court who don't agree with your view. Sorry you don't like how the field is striped, but that's the law at this point. Complaining about it doesn't help you.
IN summary, I think your side uses these two issues as excuses, but neither of them are reasons. Seems to me that when you look at the national popular vote and the makeup of the house, it's not that far off considering. Also, the last national campaign had democrats receiving and spending multiple times the amount of money of their opponents, so Citizens United didn't seem to harm your fundraising advantage at all. You don't want to believe that it's your policy and positions that are losing elections for you, so you have to invent other reasons. The above are just two.
Ugh... Can we please stop modding obvious what-about-ism posts up? What the last guy did is irrelevant, both to the point being made by TFA and to the behaviour of the current administration.
My post was about *more* than what the "last guy" did or didn't do. I'm pointing out the fact that foreign relations is the purview of the president and has been since our founding. Complaining about what the current administration does or doesn't get involved in is pretty much pointless as is isolationism as a policy. Like it or not, we are involved one way or another.
Now if you want to discuss WHY one should or shouldn't do something... That's a totally different kettle of fish..
I live in Texas... Our redistricting process is by an "independent commission" made up of people from both parties and have had their maps challenged in court. So In MY current state, we don't have an issue. The process worked here.
The drawing of district maps is a STATE issue, so I can only claim first hand knowledge for the three states I lived in KS, MO and TX. All three of those don't have issues with unfair district maps. Kansas had their maps challenged in the courts, and where redrawn as a result in 2012. Texas had their maps challenged and upheld by the courts. Seems the process works just fine. Which states do you have an issue with? I dare say that redistricting happens on a pretty non-partisan basis in the majority of states, but I'm open to discuss any specific state you wish.
I doubt they can afford it now...
Somehow I'm guessing a billion dollars won't be anywhere near the eventual settlement on this.. ;)
If you think that Iran will willingly let this unrestricted social media thing happen, you are sadly mistaken. Those in control in Iran are not interested in open debate or listening to protestor's complaints.
I suppose you can ask nicely, but if you know the answer is going to be no, why bother?
Like the previous administration didn't meddle in overseas affairs too... They may have had a different perspective on when it was appropriate and in the USA's interest, but they meddled a LOT in various things going on overseas. It's pretty much been the case since the USA came into existence in the 1700's where we got involved in various conflicts that didn't directly involve us.
There is nothing really wrong with electronic voting systems that wasn't wrong with the old mechanical ones, punch cards or even the old paper ballots.
Well, the punch cards were always a terrible idea and remain so. And you're right that there is no perfectly secure method. That said, there are two things that make the electronic systems worse: they're easier to subvert (more points of potential failure), and if subverted, it's easier to make it unnoticeable and/or impossible to prove tampering.
Like I said. that's just FUD.
It may be more difficult to EXPLAIN to those who don't understand the technology, but properly engineered electronic voting systems can be MUCH more secure, reliable, auditable and accurate than mechanical or paper options.
Even paper ballots are highly subject to tampering... How? If you know what one looks like, it's easy to create a bunch of them that are indistinguishable from real ones. You can "Stuff the ballot box" with any number of votes you like.
ALL systems suffer from the same issues of physical security. Electronic systems, mechanical systems, paper ballots all have the same kinds of problems where the vote counts can be messed with if you have the necessary physical access. The only difference is that it's a bit difficult to explain to the average voter how an electronic voting system is secured and why it is more secure than a physical ballot based system.
now end Gerrymandering and repeal Citizen's United with a few well targeted laws and maybe we can talk about America being a Democracy.
LOL... First how do you propose we end Gerrymandering? Usually the district maps are drawn by bi-partisan groups and are routinely tested in the courts to make sure they are fair. What kind of rules do you think we need here that we don't already have?
Citizen's United seems like a good decision that upheld the 1st amendment to me. I don't think you can restrict companies and non-profits from making political donations or doing political activities w/o restricting free speech in the process. Maybe we can just require that funding of political activity can proceed with out any limits as long as the source of funding is 100% disclosed and must be 100% from USA sources? Seems to me that the issue isn't the amount of money, but that people may not be aware of the source of the funding. Full timely disclosure of who's donating what to whom would fix that.
Electronic voting systems guarantee that it's impossible to actually trust the results of elections.
Actually.. It's the FUD being spread by those who are interested in bashing public confidence in how our republic works that makes it impossible to trust the results of an election.
Some do it to sell new voting machines...
Some do it to discredit their political rivals...
Some do it to foment discontent with the current rule of law..
There is nothing really wrong with electronic voting systems that wasn't wrong with the old mechanical ones, punch cards or even the old paper ballots.
Right... Scantron Bubble sheets for all ballots... That's going to be a good thing... (Sarcasm off)
Japanese have been eating shark fin just fine for thousands of years.
Far too often "food safety" is just "I don't remember what we did before refrigeration was invented"
I remember from History class that folks died from eating bad food or illnesses which where carried in food. We've come a long way.
Refrigeration isn't all that necessary, but other means of preserving food can be inconvenient or involve large quantities of salt, sugar, or processing to keep it safe to eat.
Washing up on the Atlantic Coast: Fresh frozen at the moment of death, delivered directly to your table!
I smell an opportunity!
All you need is a band saw and a total lack of ethics about food safety..... Oh, and a truck to pick up stuff with.
That smell isn't what you think...
The Saudis as bad as DPRK? Who's trolling here?
The Saudis have their human rights issues, to be sure, but they generally are not out threatening the world with nuclear destruction or violating UN anti-proliferation rules for WMDs... Nor are their citizens generally starving because their dictator leader refuses to play relatively nice with the rest of the world. And one BIG thing is the Saudis don't act under the pretense that a state of war exists between it and the USA. They are not threatening us with anything but possibly squeezing the world's oil supply...
Actually, I figure Venezuela and Cuba are more of a thorn in the US's side and carries more risk for US's interests than the Saudis...
Actually, I don't think Kim is insane. I think he's quite sane, but it all looks crazy to the outside observer because we don't understand what's going on inside the country and how the Kim's have held power for three generations now.
Where I don't think Kim is foolish enough to think he's going to win an open conflict, I don't think he can afford to let any of his countrymen think that he doesn't fully believe he can win. NK is a mash up of totalitarian dictatorship and religious worship cult with Kim at the top. He only stays in power because people believe he is powerful, should that facade ever show any cracks, the gig would be up for him and the coup would be quick and bloody.
So where I don't think he's stupid, I also believe him to be desperate. Desperation makes you more likely to make mistakes in judgment, to take chances you otherwise wouldn't. He's obviously not opposed to risking provocative actions and I don't have any idea where he'd stop. So far, the world hasn't done all that much even though NK has made multiple infiltrations of the south, attacked US military ships at sea and even shelled SK islands. I fear that all this might mislead Kim into pushing too far and this truing into a shooting war.
Once the shooting starts, who knows what Kim will do.... I can see him going out in a blaze of glory, launching a nuke on the US mainland.
If sanctions don't bring them to the point where they give up their nuclear weapons and missiles, eventually something is going to happen and the shooting will start....We seriously CAN NOT allow Kim to have an ICBM with a nuclear weapon, the risks re way to high.