You can't rewrite history just because it fuddles your premise a little.
Yes, so please stop trying to do so by suggesting that in the 1970s there was some sort of scientific consensus predicting near-term global cooling.
As others have pointed out, Cosmos and other scientific programing was repeating the claim.
I was unaware that Cosmos was a peer-reviewed publication.
But let's look at what Sagan's excellent work of popular science had to say on the subject anyway. I don't have the video series to check, but I do have the book. Page 103 of the 1980 hardback edition says:
"The principal energy sources of our present industrial civilization are the so-called fossil fuels. We burn wood and oil, coal and natural gas, and, in the process, release waste gases, principally CO2, into the air. Consequently, the carbon dioxide content of the Earth's atmosphere is increasing dramatically. The possibility of a runaway greenhouse effect suggests that we have to be careful: Even a one- or two-degree rise in the global temperature can have catastrophic consequences...We do not understand the long-term effects of our course of action.
"But we have also been perturbing the climate in the opposite sense. For hundreds of thousands of years human beings have been burning and cutting down forests...As a consequence, the amount of sunlight that is absorbed by the ground has been declining...
"We are perturbing our poor planet in serious and contradictory ways. Is there any danger of driving the environment of the Earth toward the planetary Hell of Venus or the global ice age of Mars? The simple answer is that nobody knows. The study of the global climate, the comparison of the Earth with other worlds, are subjects in their earliest stages of development." [emphais added - tms]
And that was pretty much the consensus of 1970s climate science: we don't know.
Ten years later, when we had more data, Sagan did some updates of the series for a re-release. Here's what he had to say then:
"The world scientific community has begun to sound the alarm about the grave dangers posed by depleting the protective ozone shield and by greenhouse warming, and again we're taking some mitigating steps, but again those steps are too small and too slow. The discovery that such a thing as nuclear winter was really possible evolved out of the studies of Martian dust storms. The surface of Mars, fried by ultraviolet light, is also a reminder of why it's important to keep our ozone layer intact. The runaway greenhouse effect on Venus is a valuable reminder that we must take the increasing greenhouse effect on Earth seriously."
It isn't like someone in the news all the sudden though Hmmm another ice age and all the other news outlets pick up on it.
In terms of the popular media's attention to this idea, yes, that is pretty much what happened. Scientists said "we don't know, our best guess is that it might possibly get hot, but we also have some hints that it might get cold"; media said "Cold? It might get cold!? That's fits in great with our stories about this crazy winter we're having around here!"
Global warming isn't about doing something and seeing the reaction or consequences. It more akin to walking up on someone who is asleep and making an assumption that someone KO'd them.
Not at all: in this metaphor, we saw them get hit. That is, we saw the CO2 go into the atmosphere, we saw the levels rise, we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes warming, and we saw warming occur that is not accounted for by other factors.
Due to some harsh winters - at least on the East Coast of the U.S. - the possibility of a cooling trend captured the public imagination in the 1970s, and made a splash in the popular press. However, this was never the scientific consensus. Between 1965 to 1979, 42 papers predicted a warming trend; 7 predicted cooling.
Of course, only a few decades ago doctors were advising patients to take up cigarette smoking; the fact that today's best scientific knowledge is different than that of several decades ago is no argument that we had better knowledge then!
We know from past evidence that the Earth naturally experiences "global warming" to melt ice ages and cools back down again.
We know from past experience that human beings naturally experience unconsciousness in a daily cycle. That doesn't means that if you knock somebody on the head and they are KO'd, that their sleep cycle is responsible.
How about the recent stories which prove that glaciers in the north have been *growing*?
A handful of glaciers are indeed growing. The vast majority are shrinking, and they are shrinking much more than the handful of anomalous ones are growing.
A handful of unusual data points in a complex system does not prove a trend. It's as if you were to argue, "Scientists *say* that cigarette smoking will damage your health. But I know one guy who smoked and lived to a ripe old age. Therefore, these `scientific' findings are clearly the result of some politically-motivated anti-tobacco conspiracy."
Every flight ive been on in canada in the last 4 years has checked ID right when you board the plane. I suppose it could be different in amerika but that would strike me as kind of stupid
Don't some of our TV programming and films make it over the border? After seeing those, are you surprised to see U.S. government and industry collaborating on something that's kind of stupid?
They check ID against your boarding pass at security. They don't (at least here in the U.S.) check either against the "no-fly" list, at least for domestic flights. (IIRC I did have to zip my passport over a reader on flights to Japan, and I'm presuming that it checked me against the list.)
You buy a ticket with a fake name, say "Omar K. Ravenhurst", and stolen a credit card number. The ticketing system finds no "Omar K. Ravenhurst" on the no-fly list, so lets the transaction through,
With a little PDF manipulation, you print out a boarding pass for "Omar K. Ravenhurst", and one for your real name, "John Smith".
You show the "John Smith" ID and boarding pass at security, then the "Omar K. Ravenhurst" boarding pass at the gate. You're allowed on the plane. and the party starts.
Or heck, you show the "Omar K. Ravenhurst" pass at security, and claim to have forgotten your ID. They let you through, just like they let through the author of TFA. You're allowed on the plane. Hilarity ensues.
Or you do what many 19-year-olds do every day and get a fake ID and match it up with your stolen card number. It's not like terrorists can't counterfeit ID cards, or get "genuine" ones from the DMV with fake birth certificates or by bribing an employee. (And "REAL ID" bullshit won't much change that.)
Or you do what many of the actual 9/11 terrorists did and use your actual goddamn ID, because the odds are damn good that you're not on the list anyway since this is your first suicide hijacking...
Upon following a river to the sea, ancient man may have thought, "Look! The blue blood of the Mother Earth flows in, but nothing comes out! There is no way to escape the giant hole in our world!"
Well boy howdy, that would have been one unobservant ancient man to not notice driftwood, shells, crabs, and seaweed that gets washed up on the beach.
the reality is that Socialism leads to a strong central government
Certainly Marxism does; even though Marx pictured the eventual abolition of the state, he didn't understand that once workers form an almighty government, they're not workers anymore but dictators. Bad on Marx for that one. But Marxism is not all of socialism.
Hmm. Whose money? Who created it? Do you have a printing press in your basement?
All governments tax. When we use the state's marbles as counters in the game, it's hard to see we have much right to complain when the state demands some of those marbles back.
Capitalism (at least, capitalism as we know it) requires a strong government to create money; charter corporations; issue and enforce land and resource deeds, copyrights, and patents; and all the other infrastructure that makes possible the concentration of wealth. You want to talk about a smaller government, let's talk about removing or restricting those powers.
Plus corporations benefit from a strong, central, socialist government
For-profit corporations owned by capitalist stockholders can benefit from a strong, central government that works on behalf of capitalists. That's what we've had at least since the 1950s rise of the "military industrial complex".
They would not benefit from a socialist government.
The problem here is that you - like many Americans - are operating under an incorrect definition of socialism. Since the Red Scares of the early 1900s, it's been just about impossible to have a reasonable discussion of socialism in the U.S., until it's reached the point that a large number of people think socialism, communism, and Stalinism are the same thing, and that the only possible alternative to being fucked over by capitalist robber-barons is to be fucked over by a Stalinist state.
Socialism is orthogonal to the size and strength of government. Socialism means an economic system based on the exchange of labor and the democratic control of capital by those who do the work. It contrasts with capitalism, an economic system based on the control of capital by a state-backed minority class of "owners".
Both can be found in free-market and in command economy forms, and both can co-exist with authoritarian or with libertarian policies on social issues. For examples of free-market socialism, consult your local libertarian socialist, a.k.a. anarchist; for command economy capitalism, review the U.S. during WWII.
If control of capital is concentrated into the hands of a few, you've got capitalism; if it's spread out democratically, you've got socialism. Slapping a few regulations on a capitalist system does not make it socialist, any more than installing a speed governor on a northbound train makes it head south.
I don't blame him for the onset, I blame him for its continuation.
Point is, you can't do that based on the assertion that other depressions were "typically over in two years or less". At 23 years, the Long Depression is a counterexample to this assertion - and the wik also notes the Depression of 1807 (7 years), the Panics of 1819 (5 years), 1837 (6 years), 1857 (3 years), 1873 (6 years), and 1893 (3 years), and the Post WWI recession (3 years). In fact, it lists only one recession/depression of less than two years prior to 1930, the Panic of 1907. So I don't know where you're getting your assertion from.
If the Great Depression was a phenomenon of the same order as the Long Depression, it could have lasted for over two decades without intervention.
Looking at this graph of employment, it sure looks like the New Deal was having a positive impact, and had just about pulled employment back to pre-Depression levels when there came the sudden drop of the Recession of 1937.
That recession was caused by a premature start in ramping down New Deal programs. So if you want to argue that FDR prolonged the depression by weakening the New Deal, there might be an argument there, but I get the impression that's not the gist of the argument you'd like to make.
Only if the network was designed by a complete idiot, or someone who just doesn't care about security.
How do you intend to design a network to prevent this? Security (if any) on such a network comes at the application level, not at the transport level. Barring link encryptors - which are quite rare - if you have an Ethernet and your applications use unencrypted connections, anyone with physical access to the cable can see the packets going to and from every host on that segment.
Ethernet networks are rarely secured. Fortunately, the applications that use those networks are more often secured.
We had bubbles and depressions before FDR, but the government had very little power to interfere in the recovery process, and they were typically over in two years or less.
The "Long Depression" was from 1873 to 1896, starting with the collapse of the Vienna Stock Exchange in Europe, and the debts from the Civil War plus the Credit Mobilier scandal in the U.S., and possibly rooted in socioeconomic and political changes wrought by the "Second" Industrial revolution. It demonstrates that there exists a deeper, more fundamental sort of downturn than the sort of readjustment that lasts for a year or two.
If we date the "Great Depression" from October 1929, then by the time FDR started his first term in March of 1933 , we already had a depression that had gone on for almost three and a half years, which would suggest that it was more than a simple business cycle re-adjustment. You can't blame FDR for that.
Re:Taking pictures of the sun?
on
The Quietest Sun
·
· Score: 2, Informative
no it won't protect your eyes.
Welder's glass of the right type will indeed protect your eyes, as will a few other types of filters. This site has good information.
The Sun is not the face of God. It is very bright and can damage your eyes, but sufficient filtering will reduce the brightness and allow direct viewing.
When we had an annular eclipse in, IIRC, 1994, I stacked a whole bunch of sunglasses together and took a quick look, with no damage.
Ethernet networks are rarely unsecure. You cant just plug into the port and get instant access to all the servers, etc.
You can plug into an Ethernet LAN, set yourself into promiscuous mode, and see all the data - such as passwords - that goes back and forth along the network. An Ethernet network is not secure.
So who cares if the wireless network is exposed or not. Your only giving out free internet access at best.
You're giving out every bit of information that goes over your network.
If they are able to melt steel, why not then melt salt and use the big bucket of molten salt to drive a steam turbine that generates electricity?
Because it's hard to transport and store molten salt, and because we don't have a lot of existing technology that's reliant on a supply of molten salt.
Sayeth TFA, "Carbon Sciences process uses inexpensive, renewable biomolecules to catalyze certain chemical reactions required to transform CO2 into basic hydrocarbon building blocks."
Software, not being radio, is private and NONE of the government's long-nosed business.
Software is not radio, and the FCC is the inappropriate body here. However, the issue here is not "software", it is "data collected by software"; as soon as a website is used in interstate commerce, it is indeed "the [federal] government's long-nosed business". This would probably fall under the FTC's domain, not the FCC's.
He is neither a lawful representative of the people of Alaska nor an Alaskan citizen.
Does Alaskan law restrict access to public records to the "public" constituted by residents of Alaska? I believe it would be unusual if it did, but I suppose it's possible.
"Breathed's new child's book, Pete & Pickles, features Pete, a lonely pig who vacuums his wife's grave." Yeah, I'm gonna run right out and buy that for my toddler. Granted, he says it's not directly mentioned in the text, it's just there in the pictures in case you want to point it out to your kids, but still.
The point is that Pete is sad. According to TFA, he meets Pickles , "a circus elephant with an extraordinary lust for life" who "uses her wild imagination to upend Pete's quiet life". According to Breathed, the idea is that that imagination "can be used in a way that's almost therapeutic".
If you don't think that's an appropriate message for kids, I pity yours.
For the most vicious abuser in America, that one can come up with, is McCarthy.
Most vicious abuser in America? Given the history of genocide against the Native nations, slavery of Africans, and segregation against their descendants, I doubt McCarthy makes the top five.
Here's some real contenders:
FDR sent over 100,000 to concentration camps
Jackson sent 15,000 Choctaws on to the Trail of Tears
Nixon sent the IRS after his enemies, a list that grew to over 30,000 names.
Roger B. Taney gave us the Dred Scott decision, affecting thousands
Under the Taft court, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.. wrote the Buck v. Bell decision, legitimizing a practice of compulsory sterilization so wonderful that it gave inspiration to the Nazis, you've got to give that at least an honorable mention
Of course, this is just a list of the U.S. government abusing people here at home - add in American foreign policy, which has been reliably brutal and stupid for generations, and the list grows quite long.
And that's being seriously equated to millions, who lost their lives in Soviet Russia?.. A joke indeed.
Who's equating them? The poster to whom you're replying didn't mention McCarthy at all.
A kid who tortures kittens is not a mass murderer, and shouldn't be equated with one. But he's still a scumbag, and if left unchecked may well develop into a serial killer.
McCarthy wasn't a Stalin or a Hitler - partly, perhaps, because our system of checks and balances worked and prevented him from becoming one. He was still a scumbag. Same with Bush, same with Erlich.
Oh wait...we're all supposed to subscribe to the same political viewepoint here on freedom, liberty, and civil rights. Sorry. I was thinking for myself for a moment.
The viewpoint we're all "supposed" to agree upon as "good Americans", is that we all have the right to hold and express different views, but not the right to force our view upon others.
Believing that people should be arrested for being "disloyal" goes beyond that, and advocates the use of force against those you disagree with.
As a "good American", I believe you have the right to hold such a view and to advocate it, and I will defend that right.
However, I also believe that if that is what you truly believe, you are not a "good American", and might even be described as "full of shit".
In other words, one is a "good American" if and only if one doesn't think others should be forced into being "good Americans".
Thinking for yourself is all well and good. If you actually advocate the use of force against people determined by the government to be "disloyal", I'd have to say you haven't started thinking at all yet.
While Bush started the stupid list, Maryland state Government is Democratic to core
This occurred under the administration of Republican Robert Erlich, and was authorized by Erhlich's appointed state police superintendent Thomas E. Hutchins. Not that our Maryland Democrats don't have shit to answer for, but this one was a GOP play all the way.
and borders socialism
Ha! If Maryland border on an economic system based on the exchange of labor, instead of the control of capital by an owning class, I've somehow missed it for 38 years. (Here's a hint for you: regulated capitalism is not socialism.)
Why would you want to keep a guy who is either a racist loon, or is incompetent to run a zine, and whose idea of "liberty" is to have state governments control women's bodies?
So the Obama campaign will be publishing all of Joe and Barrak's e-mail in the next few days then.
All e-mail sent by them in the course of their Senate business should be going through their official accounts, which should mostly (minus classified info, etc.) be available under FOIA or other laws.
All e-mail sent by Palin in the course of her state business should also have been going through official accounts. It hasn't been.
The Big Rule of a democratic society is Equality Before the Law. Same rules for everyone.
So I get to make laws like Obama and Biden? And I get to command a state's administrative apparatus and police forces - and even a state National Guard - like Palin? Sweet! There's gonna be some changes...
Palin's, Obama's, even W's personal e-mail is their own business. The issue here is their work e-mail. They work for the citizens and the citizens have the right, under the law, to examine their work.
So if Palin's e-mail must all be public record, then the same goes for Biden and Obama, and Kennedy, and everyone else.
For all elected officials in the course of their duties. yep, you betcha.
And you.
Not until I get elected, or take a job in government.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, so please stop trying to do so by suggesting that in the 1970s there was some sort of scientific consensus predicting near-term global cooling.
I was unaware that Cosmos was a peer-reviewed publication.
But let's look at what Sagan's excellent work of popular science had to say on the subject anyway. I don't have the video series to check, but I do have the book. Page 103 of the 1980 hardback edition says:
And that was pretty much the consensus of 1970s climate science: we don't know.
Ten years later, when we had more data, Sagan did some updates of the series for a re-release. Here's what he had to say then:
In terms of the popular media's attention to this idea, yes, that is pretty much what happened. Scientists said "we don't know, our best guess is that it might possibly get hot, but we also have some hints that it might get cold"; media said "Cold? It might get cold!? That's fits in great with our stories about this crazy winter we're having around here!"
Not at all: in this metaphor, we saw them get hit. That is, we saw the CO2 go into the atmosphere, we saw the levels rise, we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes warming, and we saw warming occur that is not accounted for by other factors.
No, in fact, they were not.
Due to some harsh winters - at least on the East Coast of the U.S. - the possibility of a cooling trend captured the public imagination in the 1970s, and made a splash in the popular press. However, this was never the scientific consensus. Between 1965 to 1979, 42 papers predicted a warming trend; 7 predicted cooling.
Of course, only a few decades ago doctors were advising patients to take up cigarette smoking; the fact that today's best scientific knowledge is different than that of several decades ago is no argument that we had better knowledge then!
We know from past experience that human beings naturally experience unconsciousness in a daily cycle. That doesn't means that if you knock somebody on the head and they are KO'd, that their sleep cycle is responsible.
A handful of glaciers are indeed growing. The vast majority are shrinking, and they are shrinking much more than the handful of anomalous ones are growing.
A handful of unusual data points in a complex system does not prove a trend. It's as if you were to argue, "Scientists *say* that cigarette smoking will damage your health. But I know one guy who smoked and lived to a ripe old age. Therefore, these `scientific' findings are clearly the result of some politically-motivated anti-tobacco conspiracy."
Don't some of our TV programming and films make it over the border? After seeing those, are you surprised to see U.S. government and industry collaborating on something that's kind of stupid?
They check ID against your boarding pass at security. They don't (at least here in the U.S.) check either against the "no-fly" list, at least for domestic flights. (IIRC I did have to zip my passport over a reader on flights to Japan, and I'm presuming that it checked me against the list.)
You buy a ticket with a fake name, say "Omar K. Ravenhurst", and stolen a credit card number. The ticketing system finds no "Omar K. Ravenhurst" on the no-fly list, so lets the transaction through,
With a little PDF manipulation, you print out a boarding pass for "Omar K. Ravenhurst", and one for your real name, "John Smith".
You show the "John Smith" ID and boarding pass at security, then the "Omar K. Ravenhurst" boarding pass at the gate. You're allowed on the plane. and the party starts.
Or heck, you show the "Omar K. Ravenhurst" pass at security, and claim to have forgotten your ID. They let you through, just like they let through the author of TFA. You're allowed on the plane. Hilarity ensues.
Or you do what many 19-year-olds do every day and get a fake ID and match it up with your stolen card number. It's not like terrorists can't counterfeit ID cards, or get "genuine" ones from the DMV with fake birth certificates or by bribing an employee. (And "REAL ID" bullshit won't much change that.)
Or you do what many of the actual 9/11 terrorists did and use your actual goddamn ID, because the odds are damn good that you're not on the list anyway since this is your first suicide hijacking...
Well boy howdy, that would have been one unobservant ancient man to not notice driftwood, shells, crabs, and seaweed that gets washed up on the beach.
Seen any driftwood coming out of black holes?
Certainly Marxism does; even though Marx pictured the eventual abolition of the state, he didn't understand that once workers form an almighty government, they're not workers anymore but dictators. Bad on Marx for that one. But Marxism is not all of socialism.
A historical example of libertarian socialism in action can be found during the Spanish Civil War.
Hmm. Whose money? Who created it? Do you have a printing press in your basement?
All governments tax. When we use the state's marbles as counters in the game, it's hard to see we have much right to complain when the state demands some of those marbles back.
Capitalism (at least, capitalism as we know it) requires a strong government to create money; charter corporations; issue and enforce land and resource deeds, copyrights, and patents; and all the other infrastructure that makes possible the concentration of wealth. You want to talk about a smaller government, let's talk about removing or restricting those powers.
For-profit corporations owned by capitalist stockholders can benefit from a strong, central government that works on behalf of capitalists. That's what we've had at least since the 1950s rise of the "military industrial complex".
They would not benefit from a socialist government.
The problem here is that you - like many Americans - are operating under an incorrect definition of socialism. Since the Red Scares of the early 1900s, it's been just about impossible to have a reasonable discussion of socialism in the U.S., until it's reached the point that a large number of people think socialism, communism, and Stalinism are the same thing, and that the only possible alternative to being fucked over by capitalist robber-barons is to be fucked over by a Stalinist state.
Socialism is orthogonal to the size and strength of government. Socialism means an economic system based on the exchange of labor and the democratic control of capital by those who do the work. It contrasts with capitalism, an economic system based on the control of capital by a state-backed minority class of "owners".
Both can be found in free-market and in command economy forms, and both can co-exist with authoritarian or with libertarian policies on social issues. For examples of free-market socialism, consult your local libertarian socialist, a.k.a. anarchist; for command economy capitalism, review the U.S. during WWII.
If control of capital is concentrated into the hands of a few, you've got capitalism; if it's spread out democratically, you've got socialism. Slapping a few regulations on a capitalist system does not make it socialist, any more than installing a speed governor on a northbound train makes it head south.
Assuming you're refering to the WPA, read the page. It states, "Note that these figures do not include farm or WPA employment."
Of course, it's also a debatable proposition whether building national infrastructure is "unproductive".
Point is, you can't do that based on the assertion that other depressions were "typically over in two years or less". At 23 years, the Long Depression is a counterexample to this assertion - and the wik also notes the Depression of 1807 (7 years), the Panics of 1819 (5 years), 1837 (6 years), 1857 (3 years), 1873 (6 years), and 1893 (3 years), and the Post WWI recession (3 years). In fact, it lists only one recession/depression of less than two years prior to 1930, the Panic of 1907. So I don't know where you're getting your assertion from.
If the Great Depression was a phenomenon of the same order as the Long Depression, it could have lasted for over two decades without intervention.
Looking at this graph of employment, it sure looks like the New Deal was having a positive impact, and had just about pulled employment back to pre-Depression levels when there came the sudden drop of the Recession of 1937.
That recession was caused by a premature start in ramping down New Deal programs. So if you want to argue that FDR prolonged the depression by weakening the New Deal, there might be an argument there, but I get the impression that's not the gist of the argument you'd like to make.
How do you intend to design a network to prevent this? Security (if any) on such a network comes at the application level, not at the transport level. Barring link encryptors - which are quite rare - if you have an Ethernet and your applications use unencrypted connections, anyone with physical access to the cable can see the packets going to and from every host on that segment.
Ethernet networks are rarely secured. Fortunately, the applications that use those networks are more often secured.
The "Long Depression" was from 1873 to 1896, starting with the collapse of the Vienna Stock Exchange in Europe, and the debts from the Civil War plus the Credit Mobilier scandal in the U.S., and possibly rooted in socioeconomic and political changes wrought by the "Second" Industrial revolution. It demonstrates that there exists a deeper, more fundamental sort of downturn than the sort of readjustment that lasts for a year or two.
If we date the "Great Depression" from October 1929, then by the time FDR started his first term in March of 1933 , we already had a depression that had gone on for almost three and a half years, which would suggest that it was more than a simple business cycle re-adjustment. You can't blame FDR for that.
Welder's glass of the right type will indeed protect your eyes, as will a few other types of filters. This site has good information.
The Sun is not the face of God. It is very bright and can damage your eyes, but sufficient filtering will reduce the brightness and allow direct viewing.
When we had an annular eclipse in, IIRC, 1994, I stacked a whole bunch of sunglasses together and took a quick look, with no damage.
You can plug into an Ethernet LAN, set yourself into promiscuous mode, and see all the data - such as passwords - that goes back and forth along the network. An Ethernet network is not secure.
You're giving out every bit of information that goes over your network.
Because it's hard to transport and store molten salt, and because we don't have a lot of existing technology that's reliant on a supply of molten salt.
Sayeth TFA, "Carbon Sciences process uses inexpensive, renewable biomolecules to catalyze certain chemical reactions required to transform CO2 into basic hydrocarbon building blocks."
Biomolecules like chlorophyll, perhaps?
Software is not radio, and the FCC is the inappropriate body here. However, the issue here is not "software", it is "data collected by software"; as soon as a website is used in interstate commerce, it is indeed "the [federal] government's long-nosed business". This would probably fall under the FTC's domain, not the FCC's.
It doesn't, but how do you know that if you don't read it?
(Unless you want to take the tack that click-wrap software "licenses" are a bunch of B.S. and by their very nature are not binding. Which is fine.)
Does Alaskan law restrict access to public records to the "public" constituted by residents of Alaska? I believe it would be unusual if it did, but I suppose it's possible.
He wasn't killed off. We are the descendants of Cro-Magnon man. He tended to be more robust and bigger-brained, but was otherwise anatomically a modern human. Perhaps you're thinking of Neanderthals?
Bad idea to get your paleontology from cheesy sci-fi. "Cromags" were Homo sapiens.
The point is that Pete is sad. According to TFA, he meets Pickles , "a circus elephant with an extraordinary lust for life" who "uses her wild imagination to upend Pete's quiet life". According to Breathed, the idea is that that imagination "can be used in a way that's almost therapeutic".
If you don't think that's an appropriate message for kids, I pity yours.
Most vicious abuser in America? Given the history of genocide against the Native nations, slavery of Africans, and segregation against their descendants, I doubt McCarthy makes the top five.
Here's some real contenders:
Of course, this is just a list of the U.S. government abusing people here at home - add in American foreign policy, which has been reliably brutal and stupid for generations, and the list grows quite long.
Who's equating them? The poster to whom you're replying didn't mention McCarthy at all.
A kid who tortures kittens is not a mass murderer, and shouldn't be equated with one. But he's still a scumbag, and if left unchecked may well develop into a serial killer.
McCarthy wasn't a Stalin or a Hitler - partly, perhaps, because our system of checks and balances worked and prevented him from becoming one. He was still a scumbag. Same with Bush, same with Erlich.
The viewpoint we're all "supposed" to agree upon as "good Americans", is that we all have the right to hold and express different views, but not the right to force our view upon others.
Believing that people should be arrested for being "disloyal" goes beyond that, and advocates the use of force against those you disagree with.
As a "good American", I believe you have the right to hold such a view and to advocate it, and I will defend that right.
However, I also believe that if that is what you truly believe, you are not a "good American", and might even be described as "full of shit".
In other words, one is a "good American" if and only if one doesn't think others should be forced into being "good Americans".
Thinking for yourself is all well and good. If you actually advocate the use of force against people determined by the government to be "disloyal", I'd have to say you haven't started thinking at all yet.
This occurred under the administration of Republican Robert Erlich, and was authorized by Erhlich's appointed state police superintendent Thomas E. Hutchins. Not that our Maryland Democrats don't have shit to answer for, but this one was a GOP play all the way.
Ha! If Maryland border on an economic system based on the exchange of labor, instead of the control of capital by an owning class, I've somehow missed it for 38 years. (Here's a hint for you: regulated capitalism is not socialism.)
Why would you want to keep a guy who is either a racist loon, or is incompetent to run a zine, and whose idea of "liberty" is to have state governments control women's bodies?
All e-mail sent by them in the course of their Senate business should be going through their official accounts, which should mostly (minus classified info, etc.) be available under FOIA or other laws.
All e-mail sent by Palin in the course of her state business should also have been going through official accounts. It hasn't been.
So I get to make laws like Obama and Biden? And I get to command a state's administrative apparatus and police forces - and even a state National Guard - like Palin? Sweet! There's gonna be some changes...
Palin's, Obama's, even W's personal e-mail is their own business. The issue here is their work e-mail. They work for the citizens and the citizens have the right, under the law, to examine their work.
For all elected officials in the course of their duties. yep, you betcha.
Not until I get elected, or take a job in government.