I disagree to an extent. Yes, there is some mooching going on, but the free tutors are actually learning more by teaching the subject than they ever would by passively listening (or less). If someone can teach it, then they have it down pat.
And something less useful is having a class full of kids who don't get it but the teacher can't get to them one-on-one to help out.
Agreed. While educations are important for society as a whole, the base key to the individual's success is developing (or just having) a needed skill. Anyone who says that having a degree is the key to an individual's success is either misinformed or trying to sell you something. (Admittedly, this assumes that the individuals live in an educated society - which provides more opportunities for individuals to use their skills, but the individual skill is still key to success - and ultimately their survival.)
Eventually, as we no longer have a need for physically powerful men to protect their female counterparts from like, bears and shit, sexual dimorphism might even be bred out of the species (though it might take thousands of years).
This will only come to pass when men no longer need to protect their women from other men - as a mate and as a protector.
Ironic, isn't it? By adding more action, the movie became less riveting.
Good point (The Matrix: Reloaded immediately comes to mind as the posterchild movie in this regard).
Also, it is a little odd to see some people complain about too long of a runtime when most of the complaints about the original LOTR movies was that too much was cut out of the story (Tom Bombadil, Scouring of the Shire, etc.).
So true (with caveats, like you said). I served on a grand jury for four months, and in the hundreds of cases we reviewed over that time, a large majority of the cases (I'd say about 2/3rds of them) were built on incriminating things the accused had said, usually right after the crime was committed. On my friend, he absolutely should've lawyered up when the cops arrived and gotten some legal advice before agreeing to talk, but I can't fault him too much because he wasn't exactly thinking straight at the time.
..is the indicator that the gun has a round in the chamber. And that should only be done if the simplicity (and thus reliability) of gun design can be maintained. You don't want a gun to fail because of a safety measure when you want to use it properly.
The smart grips are especially dumb:
* Annoying: While out shooting new guns... Friend: "Hey - Can I try that one out? That's awesome..." Owner: "Sorry - smart grip.."
* Tin foil hat: If you start putting smart tech in guns, how do you avoid the inevitable tracking that would be put into them by the government or others interested in "safety"? Could guns be disabled remotely?
Thanks, but no thanks... Training and safety are the smartest "smart" technologies you can invest in a gun.
I can tell you that you don't point a loaded gun at people EVER,
Whether the gun is loaded or not doesn't matter at all. Just pointing a gun - loaded or not - at someone is considered "assault with a deadly weapon". It's a felony that can put the gun wielder in jail for a year or two (or more, depending on the circumstances), if convicted.
Supporting anecdote: An old friend of mine caught his wife cheating with someone at his house, freaked out, went to get his gun, and pulled a gun on him - ordering him to get out of their house. He left (quickly), and the police showed up in short order. The net result: the friend did 2 years in jail - and the cheating wife and lover walked away.
Moral(s) of the story:
* NEVER, EVER just brandish or wave a gun at someone. If you pull a gun out, you absolutely, positively must pull the trigger.
* When you do use it, you'd better kill your assailant/target to avoid civil lawsuits (Sidenote: Here in Arizona, a proposition just passed last month that takes away the right to sue if the plaintiff was in the act of committing a felony when they were harmed.)
This only applies to Arizona, but we have a state law that was passed here in 2007 that specifically bans HOAs from saying a word about installing solar energy devices on roofs. That includes solar panels, solar tubes (for indoor lighting), solar fans, etc. (Note: They can reasonably stipulate WHERE you can place them as long as their rules don't interfere with or reasonably impede their operation, but that's about it.)
This kind of state law (fit for each state's unique circumstances, if necessary) would be a good idea for other states as well.
Why? In many cases it's just because they're cool - right up until the owner lose interest and/or can't control or afford them anymore. They can't kill their "pet", so they do the cowardly thing and release them into the wild. "Be free, my pet!"... Idiots.
Example: Earlier this year a friend of mine near our home found 3-4 turtles in an irrigation ditch that had been abandoned. They were about the size of a man's palm each, but they didn't look like any other turtle he'd seen before. He took some pictures and researched them online until he discovered that they were from another warm climate and would eventually grow up to be feet in diameter and hundreds of pounds (if in the right warm, wet environment.)
Of course the odds of these growing up to their max size in Arizona were low, but the fact that someone would just toss them out in the wild shows that people are just flat out lazy and/or ignorant of the damage exotic species can do to an ecosystem.
Also, a man who was shot in an apartment earlier this year in Phoenix had a young alligator in there as a pet. (Yes, it's illegal to possess one as a pet here in Arizona).
People even import the really dangerous critters into the US - black mambas, etc. Does everyone want to be like some Hollywood-style drug lord with something to intimidate people?
Personally I think this is an ingenious use of technology.
I totally agree. In the end, however, my paranoia is your naivete. People in positions power tend to maximize that power (or profit) over time. It's simply "good business" or "strong governance". If they could turn at system like this into information to use against you (or to legally take money out of your pockets), they will.
Here in Arizona there are technology company lobbyists working all the time to increase the surveillance on us, marketing it as a safety/improvement measure but always with the ultimate goal of increasing their company's bottom lines (I'm talking to you, Redflex and ATS). If they had that kind of tech at their disposal, they'd turn it into the most profitable system that they could, and their shareholders would be angry with them if they didn't.
Of course no government or private entity would ever start tracking speeds of drivers and start sending owners of the phones speeding violations if they're deemed to be speeding, right?
One person you've never heard of, but should be thanked for exposing this issue, is Shawn Dow of Arizona.
I second this. He has single-handedly made a bigger difference in educating people about photo radar than most anti-camera people would ever dream of doing.
I can't cite the study, but an experiment was done with yellow light timers, so people could see how long they had. The unexpected side effect was that knowing exactly how long they had to get through was a BAD thing. People used that knowledge to SPEED UP and take chances they wouldn't take without the yellow timer.
I will say, however, that the green light countdown timers are much better, IMO. There's no point racing up to an intersection if you know it's going to turn yellow before you could possibly get there, and it's nice to know how long to have to get your butt across the intersection on foot.
That's assuming that the drivers actually use the roundabouts correctly. Here in AZ, I've seen drivers regularly go the wrong way - either to avoid going all the way around or simply because they don't know which way to go (especially when roundabouts are put in intersections that were never designed for them).
A better solution is just lengthen yellow lights a second or two. That has repeatedly been proven to reduce accidents at intersections - FAR MORE than any red light camera system has ever done. (The problem: longer yellow lights don't bring in revenue.)
What honest excuse do you have for running a red light?
When cities like Paradise Valley, AZ intentionally shorten yellow lights at red light camera intersections, solely to increase the number of citations and increase revenue. This video was picked up by the local news stations and it was reported on widely, and as a result Paradise Valley officials quickly and quietly (within 24 hours) restored the yellow light time to a longer duration (4+ seconds). The city ultimately refunded all paid citations (and threw out the rest) over a six week period that this was going on during May and June of 2009. I don't remember the exact number, but it was upwards of six digits in fines collected...
This is a common argument, but the numbers don't play this argument out. The number of fatalities and/or major injuries either stays the same or goes down without the cameras in the intersections.
The ONLY argument from this T-bone point of view is that it cuts down on T-bone accidents which saves several thousand in total costs (medical, etc.) per accident, which is true and sounds great... Until you realize that the savings are reaped by the insurance companies. (It's just another reason that insurance companies lobby for traffic camera technology.) We get the cameras and increase in accidents (minor or not - all those deductibles add up for the average Joe), and insurance companies save money.
Arizona and the Phoenix metro area has seen it all when it comes to photo radar technology. The statewide speed camera program on highways. The red light cameras coming and going. The multiple holdout cities that won't give up their photo radar tech (Phoenix, Mesa, Paradise Valley, Chandler, Superior, etc.,) despite overwhelming evidence that they're a wash (or worse) when it comes to safety AND revenue. (Finding a city councilman who regretted signing draconian camera contract that were supposed to bring in revenue but ended up costing them money in court costs, unpaid tickets, and minimum monthly usage fees - all because they were duped by slick camera company salesmen, selling "safety and easy money"). We're even the home to ATS (a huge camera tech company), and we have Austrailia-based Redflex here in force as well. We've had their lobbyists single-handedly keep photo radar from EVER coming to a statewide vote. We've had the cities intentionally shorten yellow times and break their own laws (Paradise Valley). We've had commission-paid, lying photo radar ticket servers causing all kinds of trouble. We've had people pretty much ignore tickets and throw them in the trash, undermining law enforcement efforts. We've had court systems backlogged with photo radar cases... We've even had one photo radar van driver murdered in cold blood by a "patriot". (And the photo radar company (Redflex) keep from the public just how much information it had about the murder simply to hide how much it was recording in public and around the van for political/PR reasons.)
We've seen just about everything you can imagine... So - No matter how frustrated you may be about "crazy drivers" (whomever that is), you don't want photo radar in your neighborhood. It's never the solution you hoped it would be, and the side effects aren't worth the alleged "cure"...
Type of voting: Paper. Voted w/black pens on large, cardstock ballot (scantron style). Electronic reader scanned the ballot. Smooth process, knowledgeable volunteers.
Research Time: President - WAY too much time. Watched all three presidential debates and a couple of the GOP primary debates...
Research Time: Other issues - Yesterday I spent an hour researching the propositions on the ballot before deciding on them. Earlier this month I skimmed the paper booklet's campaign statements on my district and chose candidates for local offices (sheriff, state legislators, other commissioners, judges, etc.).
NOTE: No Black Panthers stalking my polling place with clubs.
From (south) Gilbert, AZ. Give yourself a little time.
It was surprisingly heavy around 830AM local time. There were 2 lines out the door; 25-30 mins to get ballot in hand. Conservative district; Mostly GOP candidates at the state level on the ballot. Only president, US senate (Flake v. Cordona) and a couple of propositions (sales tax, "top two" general election vs. 2 party system) really mattered.
(This doesn't apply across the Phx metro area. A coworker said that their voting place in north Phoenix (generally a more moderate area) had only a minute or so of a wait time (no long lines).
The Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review sets performance standards for the judges appointed through the merit selection process, decides whether or not a judge meets those standards, and reports its findings to you, the voters when a judge is up for retention.
The Commission collects information on how judges perform by distributing written surveys and holding public hearings for people who have first-hand knowledge of the job performance of judges appearing on the 2012 general election ballot. More than 57,000 surveys on Arizona judges were distributed in 2011. The Commission also accepts written comments at any time about the performance of judges.
The survey responses are compiled by an independent data center and the results are given to the Commission. Its members review all the information on each judge and vote whether the judge MEETS or DOES NOT MEET judicial performance standards. When the Commission votes, the judges' names are encoded so that members do not know which judge they are voting on until all the votes are counted.
It came in pretty handy. Perhaps other states have similar web sites?
Your points are good ones. "Don't Panic." Use your brain. And before emergencies strike, follow the scout motto: Be Prepared. Don't count on anyone from "the government" showing up to bail you out in the short-term.
The real question, though, is whether pay phones are something that should be a public service (vs. a market-supported service). Should we pay for pay phones as a "just in case" backup plan for those who may need it because they weren't prepared or couldn't help but panic?
I couldn't say for sure, but (looking in from the outside) it seemed like most people probably could've survived without the pay phones. The pay phones were ultimately just an indispensable luxury - "Mom - I'm ok.", etc. In 2014, when the contracts are up on the phones in NYC, don't be surprised if people have mostly forgotten this event and the phones still go away...
No, no... That was Putin calling, making sure that Barack was serious about that whole, "we'll talk after the election when I have more flexibility" banter earlier this year.
Yes, this isn't the USSR anymore - it is just Russia. However, Obama is being naive about the whole thing.
A nuclear armed country that 1) constantly opposes the USA in the UN on Syria and Iran (that brutally put down protests), 2) used to be public enemy #1 for half a century and fought the USA in a bitter cold war, and 3) is again being run by a former head of the KGB refusing to give up power couldn't possibly be a threat to the USA, right?
Romney has ZERO desire to set up an "American Taliban". What a load of crap.
Also, how has Romney a "lot more publicly religious"? He practically buried his religious affiliation and has refused to talk about it for years until the Obama campaign started daily painting him earlier this year as an uncaring, "let them eat cake" aristocrat. He had to show that he had experience working with everyday people and helping them, and that meant explaining that he'd served in his church as a "pastor" (i.e. bishop and stake president, in Mormon parlance).
That's a "lot more" publicly religious? Get real... Obama has made Romney's character an issue, not Romney.
More importantly: People need to beware of people spouting the whole "christian bullshit" attitude and inflammatory "American Taliban" comments. IMO, there IS a danger of an "American Taliban" being set up in public view, based on a "religion of irreligion". It would be a groupthink that would destroy the 1st Amendment and forces an atheistic view on everyone.
Extremists from your view wouldn't be shooting women for adultery like the Taliban murderers in Afghanistan... They'd be shooting people for differing religious beliefs in Georgia or Massachusetts, and governments wouldn't seriously try to stop it from happening.
That sounds totally crazy to a majority of people in the USA in 2012, but we've had that level of intolerance in our country before (Salem witch trials, KKK, etc.). Germany successfully did it to millions of Jews in a modern country and time, less than 75 years ago. If people were propagandized long enough with such inflammatory crap, they'd turn that intolerance into something unthinkable. Why would we be immune to ignorance, prejudice, and fear walking hand in hand?
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree to an extent. Yes, there is some mooching going on, but the free tutors are actually learning more by teaching the subject than they ever would by passively listening (or less). If someone can teach it, then they have it down pat.
And something less useful is having a class full of kids who don't get it but the teacher can't get to them one-on-one to help out.
Agreed. While educations are important for society as a whole, the base key to the individual's success is developing (or just having) a needed skill. Anyone who says that having a degree is the key to an individual's success is either misinformed or trying to sell you something. (Admittedly, this assumes that the individuals live in an educated society - which provides more opportunities for individuals to use their skills, but the individual skill is still key to success - and ultimately their survival.)
Eventually, as we no longer have a need for physically powerful men to protect their female counterparts from like, bears and shit, sexual dimorphism might even be bred out of the species (though it might take thousands of years).
This will only come to pass when men no longer need to protect their women from other men - as a mate and as a protector.
Ironic, isn't it? By adding more action, the movie became less riveting.
Good point (The Matrix: Reloaded immediately comes to mind as the posterchild movie in this regard).
Also, it is a little odd to see some people complain about too long of a runtime when most of the complaints about the original LOTR movies was that too much was cut out of the story (Tom Bombadil, Scouring of the Shire, etc.).
It's doing fine in some parts of the country.
NEVER TALK TO COPS
So true (with caveats, like you said). I served on a grand jury for four months, and in the hundreds of cases we reviewed over that time, a large majority of the cases (I'd say about 2/3rds of them) were built on incriminating things the accused had said, usually right after the crime was committed. On my friend, he absolutely should've lawyered up when the cops arrived and gotten some legal advice before agreeing to talk, but I can't fault him too much because he wasn't exactly thinking straight at the time.
..is the indicator that the gun has a round in the chamber. And that should only be done if the simplicity (and thus reliability) of gun design can be maintained. You don't want a gun to fail because of a safety measure when you want to use it properly.
The smart grips are especially dumb:
* Annoying: While out shooting new guns... Friend: "Hey - Can I try that one out? That's awesome..." Owner: "Sorry - smart grip.."
* Tin foil hat: If you start putting smart tech in guns, how do you avoid the inevitable tracking that would be put into them by the government or others interested in "safety"? Could guns be disabled remotely?
Thanks, but no thanks... Training and safety are the smartest "smart" technologies you can invest in a gun.
I can tell you that you don't point a loaded gun at people EVER,
Whether the gun is loaded or not doesn't matter at all. Just pointing a gun - loaded or not - at someone is considered "assault with a deadly weapon". It's a felony that can put the gun wielder in jail for a year or two (or more, depending on the circumstances), if convicted.
Supporting anecdote: An old friend of mine caught his wife cheating with someone at his house, freaked out, went to get his gun, and pulled a gun on him - ordering him to get out of their house. He left (quickly), and the police showed up in short order. The net result: the friend did 2 years in jail - and the cheating wife and lover walked away.
Moral(s) of the story:
This only applies to Arizona, but we have a state law that was passed here in 2007 that specifically bans HOAs from saying a word about installing solar energy devices on roofs. That includes solar panels, solar tubes (for indoor lighting), solar fans, etc. (Note: They can reasonably stipulate WHERE you can place them as long as their rules don't interfere with or reasonably impede their operation, but that's about it.)
This kind of state law (fit for each state's unique circumstances, if necessary) would be a good idea for other states as well.
Why? In many cases it's just because they're cool - right up until the owner lose interest and/or can't control or afford them anymore. They can't kill their "pet", so they do the cowardly thing and release them into the wild. "Be free, my pet!"... Idiots.
Example: Earlier this year a friend of mine near our home found 3-4 turtles in an irrigation ditch that had been abandoned. They were about the size of a man's palm each, but they didn't look like any other turtle he'd seen before. He took some pictures and researched them online until he discovered that they were from another warm climate and would eventually grow up to be feet in diameter and hundreds of pounds (if in the right warm, wet environment.)
Of course the odds of these growing up to their max size in Arizona were low, but the fact that someone would just toss them out in the wild shows that people are just flat out lazy and/or ignorant of the damage exotic species can do to an ecosystem.
Also, a man who was shot in an apartment earlier this year in Phoenix had a young alligator in there as a pet. (Yes, it's illegal to possess one as a pet here in Arizona).
People even import the really dangerous critters into the US - black mambas, etc. Does everyone want to be like some Hollywood-style drug lord with something to intimidate people?
Personally I think this is an ingenious use of technology.
I totally agree. In the end, however, my paranoia is your naivete. People in positions power tend to maximize that power (or profit) over time. It's simply "good business" or "strong governance". If they could turn at system like this into information to use against you (or to legally take money out of your pockets), they will.
Here in Arizona there are technology company lobbyists working all the time to increase the surveillance on us, marketing it as a safety/improvement measure but always with the ultimate goal of increasing their company's bottom lines (I'm talking to you, Redflex and ATS). If they had that kind of tech at their disposal, they'd turn it into the most profitable system that they could, and their shareholders would be angry with them if they didn't.
Of course no government or private entity would ever start tracking speeds of drivers and start sending owners of the phones speeding violations if they're deemed to be speeding, right?
One person you've never heard of, but should be thanked for exposing this issue, is Shawn Dow of Arizona.
I second this. He has single-handedly made a bigger difference in educating people about photo radar than most anti-camera people would ever dream of doing.
I can't cite the study, but an experiment was done with yellow light timers, so people could see how long they had. The unexpected side effect was that knowing exactly how long they had to get through was a BAD thing. People used that knowledge to SPEED UP and take chances they wouldn't take without the yellow timer.
I will say, however, that the green light countdown timers are much better, IMO. There's no point racing up to an intersection if you know it's going to turn yellow before you could possibly get there, and it's nice to know how long to have to get your butt across the intersection on foot.
That's assuming that the drivers actually use the roundabouts correctly. Here in AZ, I've seen drivers regularly go the wrong way - either to avoid going all the way around or simply because they don't know which way to go (especially when roundabouts are put in intersections that were never designed for them).
A better solution is just lengthen yellow lights a second or two. That has repeatedly been proven to reduce accidents at intersections - FAR MORE than any red light camera system has ever done. (The problem: longer yellow lights don't bring in revenue.)
What honest excuse do you have for running a red light?
When cities like Paradise Valley, AZ intentionally shorten yellow lights at red light camera intersections, solely to increase the number of citations and increase revenue. This video was picked up by the local news stations and it was reported on widely, and as a result Paradise Valley officials quickly and quietly (within 24 hours) restored the yellow light time to a longer duration (4+ seconds). The city ultimately refunded all paid citations (and threw out the rest) over a six week period that this was going on during May and June of 2009. I don't remember the exact number, but it was upwards of six digits in fines collected...
This is a common argument, but the numbers don't play this argument out. The number of fatalities and/or major injuries either stays the same or goes down without the cameras in the intersections.
The ONLY argument from this T-bone point of view is that it cuts down on T-bone accidents which saves several thousand in total costs (medical, etc.) per accident, which is true and sounds great... Until you realize that the savings are reaped by the insurance companies. (It's just another reason that insurance companies lobby for traffic camera technology.) We get the cameras and increase in accidents (minor or not - all those deductibles add up for the average Joe), and insurance companies save money.
Arizona and the Phoenix metro area has seen it all when it comes to photo radar technology. The statewide speed camera program on highways. The red light cameras coming and going. The multiple holdout cities that won't give up their photo radar tech (Phoenix, Mesa, Paradise Valley, Chandler, Superior, etc.,) despite overwhelming evidence that they're a wash (or worse) when it comes to safety AND revenue. (Finding a city councilman who regretted signing draconian camera contract that were supposed to bring in revenue but ended up costing them money in court costs, unpaid tickets, and minimum monthly usage fees - all because they were duped by slick camera company salesmen, selling "safety and easy money"). We're even the home to ATS (a huge camera tech company), and we have Austrailia-based Redflex here in force as well. We've had their lobbyists single-handedly keep photo radar from EVER coming to a statewide vote. We've had the cities intentionally shorten yellow times and break their own laws (Paradise Valley). We've had commission-paid, lying photo radar ticket servers causing all kinds of trouble. We've had people pretty much ignore tickets and throw them in the trash, undermining law enforcement efforts. We've had court systems backlogged with photo radar cases... We've even had one photo radar van driver murdered in cold blood by a "patriot". (And the photo radar company (Redflex) keep from the public just how much information it had about the murder simply to hide how much it was recording in public and around the van for political/PR reasons.)
We've seen just about everything you can imagine... So - No matter how frustrated you may be about "crazy drivers" (whomever that is), you don't want photo radar in your neighborhood. It's never the solution you hoped it would be, and the side effects aren't worth the alleged "cure"...
How sad. I've been reading a lot of his books for the first time recently and some of them are really good. What a way to lose a great author.
Type of voting: Paper. Voted w/black pens on large, cardstock ballot (scantron style). Electronic reader scanned the ballot. Smooth process, knowledgeable volunteers.
Research Time: President - WAY too much time. Watched all three presidential debates and a couple of the GOP primary debates...
Research Time: Other issues - Yesterday I spent an hour researching the propositions on the ballot before deciding on them. Earlier this month I skimmed the paper booklet's campaign statements on my district and chose candidates for local offices (sheriff, state legislators, other commissioners, judges, etc.).
NOTE: No Black Panthers stalking my polling place with clubs.
From (south) Gilbert, AZ. Give yourself a little time.
It was surprisingly heavy around 830AM local time. There were 2 lines out the door; 25-30 mins to get ballot in hand. Conservative district; Mostly GOP candidates at the state level on the ballot. Only president, US senate (Flake v. Cordona) and a couple of propositions (sales tax, "top two" general election vs. 2 party system) really mattered.
(This doesn't apply across the Phx metro area. A coworker said that their voting place in north Phoenix (generally a more moderate area) had only a minute or so of a wait time (no long lines).
I came across this site while doing research as well.
From the site:
It came in pretty handy. Perhaps other states have similar web sites?
Your points are good ones. "Don't Panic." Use your brain. And before emergencies strike, follow the scout motto: Be Prepared. Don't count on anyone from "the government" showing up to bail you out in the short-term.
The real question, though, is whether pay phones are something that should be a public service (vs. a market-supported service). Should we pay for pay phones as a "just in case" backup plan for those who may need it because they weren't prepared or couldn't help but panic?
I couldn't say for sure, but (looking in from the outside) it seemed like most people probably could've survived without the pay phones. The pay phones were ultimately just an indispensable luxury - "Mom - I'm ok.", etc. In 2014, when the contracts are up on the phones in NYC, don't be surprised if people have mostly forgotten this event and the phones still go away...
They're capitalists, with all the dirty trappings and failings of western businessmen, only without the whole problem of human rights.
Someone probably needs to remind these people that artificially manipulating prices like this can get burned badly in the end.
No, no... That was Putin calling, making sure that Barack was serious about that whole, "we'll talk after the election when I have more flexibility" banter earlier this year.
Yes, this isn't the USSR anymore - it is just Russia. However, Obama is being naive about the whole thing.
A nuclear armed country that 1) constantly opposes the USA in the UN on Syria and Iran (that brutally put down protests), 2) used to be public enemy #1 for half a century and fought the USA in a bitter cold war, and 3) is again being run by a former head of the KGB refusing to give up power couldn't possibly be a threat to the USA, right?
Romney has ZERO desire to set up an "American Taliban". What a load of crap.
Also, how has Romney a "lot more publicly religious"? He practically buried his religious affiliation and has refused to talk about it for years until the Obama campaign started daily painting him earlier this year as an uncaring, "let them eat cake" aristocrat. He had to show that he had experience working with everyday people and helping them, and that meant explaining that he'd served in his church as a "pastor" (i.e. bishop and stake president, in Mormon parlance).
That's a "lot more" publicly religious? Get real... Obama has made Romney's character an issue, not Romney.
More importantly: People need to beware of people spouting the whole "christian bullshit" attitude and inflammatory "American Taliban" comments. IMO, there IS a danger of an "American Taliban" being set up in public view, based on a "religion of irreligion". It would be a groupthink that would destroy the 1st Amendment and forces an atheistic view on everyone.
Extremists from your view wouldn't be shooting women for adultery like the Taliban murderers in Afghanistan... They'd be shooting people for differing religious beliefs in Georgia or Massachusetts, and governments wouldn't seriously try to stop it from happening.
That sounds totally crazy to a majority of people in the USA in 2012, but we've had that level of intolerance in our country before (Salem witch trials, KKK, etc.). Germany successfully did it to millions of Jews in a modern country and time, less than 75 years ago. If people were propagandized long enough with such inflammatory crap, they'd turn that intolerance into something unthinkable. Why would we be immune to ignorance, prejudice, and fear walking hand in hand?