Thoreau and MLK went to jail, their incarceration simply became a demonstration of the manifest immorality of the law.
And you're saying that's a good thing. The Indians who were fighting the American settlers who were taking their land should have surrendered and gotten hung. The French resistance fighters should have surrendered to the Nazis and gotten shot.
If you had actually gone to jail over something, I might believe you.
In the 70s, over 3/4 of the people in the world lived under dictatorships and today, only 40 years later, 90% of the people live in democracies. Who do you think had the greatest role to play in bringing about that enormous change for the better? Russians, or the Chinese, or the Europeans, where in the 70s one half of the countries were Communist dictatorships and even in the West at least three countries (Spain, Portugal and Greece) were Fascist dictatorships? How did it happen? Just naturally, for the first time in the history of the world, countries all over the world decided to become democracies?
Are you saying that the US covert agencies did it by overthrowing those dicatorships?
Unfortunately they overthrew a few democratically elected governments too, and gave us dictatorships in their place. Much more in the Western hemisphere, eg Haiti, Argentina, Chile. The Reagan era was difficult for a lot of people.
You have the convert's enthusiasm. Those of us who were born in the US and had to grow up suffering with its flaws see it differently. For example up until about 1968 black people were still being killed for trying to vote in the South, and they're still not doing that well. If you were black, you'd be a lot better off in the Communist bloc in the 1970s. Your children would certainly get a better education.
We've had a fight between the rich oligarchs in this country who run everything, and the working people who are trying to have a democracy instead. Unfortunately the oligarchs seem to be winning, as Paul Krugman documents. There's as much inequality and lack of social mobility in the US as in Brazil. This will still be a wealthy, powerful country for a while, but the Hunt brothers and their crowd run it, and they may well decide to destroy it. How many Iraq wars are they going to come up with?
Germany was also the greatest major country in the world, in the 1920s and 1930s. We still use their industrial techniques and medical discoveries. So these things can fall aparat fast.
Under Murdoch, Tilting Rightward at The Journal By DAVID CARR Published: December 13, 2009
The pro-business, antigovernment shift in the news pages has broken into plain view in the last year. On Aug. 12, a fairly straight down the middle front page article on President Obama’s management style ended up with the provocative headline, “A President as Micromanager: How Much Detail Is Enough?” The original article included a contrast between President Jimmy Carter’s tendency to go deep in the weeds of every issue with President George W. Bush’s predilection for minimal involvement, according to someone who saw the draft. By the time the article ran, it included only the swipe at Mr. Carter.
In April 1974 a Portuguese cowboy from Rhode Island named Victor DeCosta won a federal court judgment in his second suit against CBS for trademark infringement, a decision supporting his claim that he had created both the Paladin character and some concepts seen in the series.[18] His cowboy image notably included the nickname "Paladin," a mustache, an all-black outfit including flat-top black hat, chess knight on the business card, and the motto "Have Gun – Will Travel". In their previous appeal, the defendants claimed it was "'coincidence' run riot," "more bizarre than most television serial installments."[19][20] During subsequent litigation, the "court found no basis for liability for common law service mark infringement or unfair competition and accordingly reversed.". After that, DeCosta applied for registration of his mark, and in 1975 the Patent and Trademark Office granted his application. Meanwhile CBS granted the syndicated broadcasting of the series throughout the United States to Viacom. DeCosta sued Viacom for trademark infringement, and after an appeal, in 1991 he was awarded $3.5 million.[21][22] The award was eventually denied in 1993,[23] and after the death of Victor DeCosta (1993) the litigation was continued by David DeCosta.[24]
Sounds like a totally appropriate use of taxpayer money.
After the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, mothers on welfare were required to go to work. A lot of mothers preferred to stay home with their kids, but they couldn't do that any more. The work programs usually paid less than they had been getting in the old welfare programs, and most mothers left the program to find free-market work, which didn't give them enough to survive, according to Kathryn Eden, who actually followed the women and looked at their household budgets.
What happens to their kids? Are they supposed to run around unsupervised on the streets? For my own safety, I'd rather have them in government-funded programs. That's a good use of taxpayer money. It's cheaper than putting them all in jail.
Science 7 February 1975: Vol. 187 no. 4175 pp. 398-404 DOI: 10.1126/science.187.4175.398 Sex Bias in Graduate Admissions: Data from Berkeley
P. J. Bickel1,
E. A. Hammel1,
J. W. O'Connell1
Abstract
Examination of aggregate data on graduate admissions to the University of California, Berkeley, for fall 1973 shows a clear but misleading pattern of bias against female applicants. Examination of the disaggregated data reveals few decision-making units that show statistically significant departures from expected frequencies of female admissions, and about as many units appear to favor women as to favor men. If the data are properly pooled, taking into account the autonomy of departmental decision making, thus correcting for the tendency of women to apply to graduate departments that are more difficult for applicants of either sex to enter, there is a small but statistically significant bias in favor of women. The graduate departments that are easier to enter tend to be those that require more mathematics in the undergraduate preparatory curriculum. The bias in the aggregated data stems not from any pattern of discrimination on the part of admissions committees, which seem quite fair on the whole, but apparently from prior screening at earlier levels of the educational system. Women are shunted by their socialization and education toward fields of graduate study that are generally more crowded, less productive of completed degrees, and less well funded, and that frequently offer poorer professional employment prospects.
In many British families in at least the last couple of hundred years, the upper classes farmed out their kids to governesses or boarding schools. So it's not necessarily funded by the taxpayer.
There was a study in Science of sex discrimination in Berkeley, in which researchers found that the graduate departments overall discriminated against admitting women. Then they refined the study to find out which specific departments were discriminating more -- and none of them were.
It turned out to be a now-classic example of Simpson's paradox in statistics. The engineering departments had specific requirements, engineering graduates knew whether they met those requirements, only a few students met them, and if they applied, they got in. The English departments had lots of students who met their requirements, only a few slots, and most of the English graduates who applied were rejected. There were far more women in English than engineering. So Berkeley graduate school didn't discriminate against women.
So clearly, they need to hire a professional photographer to ensure it all comes out well exposed to prevent this waste of assets of biology.
A lot of papers have a small photo of the researcher. I've noticed a trend for women scientists, especially younger women, to use increasingly more flirtatious photos.
I'm not complaining. It makes it easier to get through the literature. What more could you ask for -- a beautiful protein model and a beautiful woman.
I first noticed this when I looked up a paper by a noted influenza researcher. She was a lot younger than I expected. Her picture showed quite a bit of cleavage. Let's just say she was advertising her inclusive fitness.
I think there's a paper in it. Do women investigators who show more cleavage get cited more? There was a similar study of women who showed cleavage in their photos in an online dating site.
I can legally manufacture my own firearms in the US. So can most of you. I can make them, own them, and use them.
That may be the federal law. A city or state can legislate restrictions on the manufacture and ownership of firearms.
You're not allowed to carry handguns in New York City without a permit. A lot of gun owners get arrested in New York City every year because they don't understand that.
I feel sorry for them because they didn't understand the law and usually got arrested when they disclosed their guns, but if you're going to carry a weapon around with you that can kill people, deliberately or (more often) accidentally, it's your responsibility to know the law.
One of the non-obvious things they discovered was that it was dangerous to use a cell phone even if you don't take your eyes off the road.
When drivers approached an intersection, they would normally check for pedestrians with their eyes. when they approached an intersection listening to a digital device, they didn't check for pedestrians.
That wasn't obvious. Many people maintained that it would be safe to use digital devices if you didn't take your eyes off the road. For example, many legislatures passed laws that made it legal to use a hands-off phone with earpieces. Many automobile manufacturers made cars with hands-off digital devices that you can operate without taking your eyes off the road. But this research shows that even when you keep your eyes on the road, you still make more mistakes when you're operating a digital device.
I expect that the first time somebody is seriously injured by a driver operating a digital device, they'll sue the car manufacturer for installing these devices even though they knew it would cause more accidents.
And I expect them to win. The law has always held manufacturers responsible for manufacturing products in an unsafe manner.
Juries tend to slam manufacturers with big judgments, when they hear that the manufacturer knew the product was unsafe, and sold it anyhow, and now someone in front of them has been predictably injured as a result.
There's a big difference between some guy on the Internet thinking something is obvious (after someone else points it out), and actually knowing something, and proving it, based on evidence.
One of the non-obvious things they proved was that it's just as dangerous to talk on the phone hands-off as it is to hold the phone in your hand. That's something a lot of people don't understand, because it's convenient for them not to understand it.
Do any of these studies explain why it's a problem that accident rates have been DECLINING since long before texting or chatting on a cell while driving became common?
Quite a large library of studies explain why accident rates have been declining, and it's not a problem.
First, Ralph Nader's Unsafe at Any Speed reviewed the auto safety literature and explained how people were dying in automobile accidents because the automobile industry perversely designed cars in a way that they knew would kill people unnecessarily.
Second, there was a product liability suit called Larson v. General Motors that established that auto manufacturers were responsible when they knowingly designed cars in a way that killed people when they could easily have designed them differently ("Yes, we knew that 1,000 of our customers died every year because their chests were impaled against the steering column, and it could have been redesigned to save their lives easily and cheaply, but we didn't do it because we didn't feel like it.")
If you want to review the auto safety literature, which is enormous, I would recommend that after Nader, you start with the Stapp Car Crash Conference Proceedings, and also the auto safety entries in The Engineering Index (or whatever they call it these days). I particularly recommend Nils Bohlin's 1967 Stapp paper on Volvo seat belts.
Engineering studies like these, combined with political action organized by guys like Ralph Nader, combined with product liability suits against recalcitrant and stupid American auto manufacturers, has reduced the automobile fatality rate per mile by at least half.
Now the same researchers, using the same scientific methods, have found out -- and proven -- that using digital devices while driving also raise the accident rate.
Sounds like you're the one who's drunk on the lawn.
Do a Google search for "George Zimmerman" to find out what happens to guys like you with John Wayne fantasies and no brains.
When you face the judge who's about to sentence you for manslaughter or worse, you're going to have tears streaming out of your eyes and you'll be pissing in your pants as you beg him not to send you away for 10 or 20 years, just like all the other blowhard gun nuts.
"You were safe and secure, weren't you?" Moreau asked Peairs during his appearance before the grand jury. "But you didn't call the police, did you?" "No sir." Peairs said. "Did you hear anyone trying to break in the front door?" "No sir." "Did you hear anyone trying to break in the carport door?" "No sir." "And you were standing right there at the door, weren't you - with a big gun?" Peairs nodded. "I know you're sorry you killed him. You are sorry, aren't you?" "Yes sir." "But you did kill him, didn't you?" "Yes sir."
Peairs testified in a flat, toneless drawl, breaking into tears several times. A police detective testified that Peairs had said to him, "Boy, I messed up; I made a mistake."
If there's a drunk guy on my lawn shooting random shots in the air I would get away from him and into a protected place while I call 911. That's a job for professionals, not amateurs.
What would you do? Get your gun and start shooting at him? Maybe that would cause him to start shooting back at you rather than in the air. Cops are trained to think out the consequences.
If he's shooting in the air, then he's not even threatening you. If you shot him, you would be charged with homicide in most states, because you wouldn't be acting in self-defense.
How does Sun Tzu suggest winning the hearts and minds of people whose devout faith tells them that anyone who doesn't believe the same way should be killed?
That sounds like the war propaganda handbook list of accusations against the enemy, No. 4. Their devout faith tells them that anyone who doesn't believe the same way should be killed. That's what the Protestants said about the Catholics, the French about the Germans, the Germans about the French, what we said about the Japanese, the Russians, and all our enemies. Now we're up to the Arabs.
And pray tell me how you know that their devout faith tells them that anyone who doesn't believe the same way should be killed? Did you hear that when you visited your local mosque? Did you read it in the Koran? Or did you get it from the propaganda tanks like MEMRI and CAMERA?
Who use tax payer money to fund junkets to Anaheim (Disneyland) (IRS)
I've been to a lot of corporate conferences. When I saw that story about the IRS, my first thought was that they were emulating private corporations. Which I think is bad idea.
I once went to a conference of managed care insurance companies at the Helmsley Hilton, with more luxury and fine wines than I needed. I was thinking of how my insurance premium was going to pay for this conference.
Take a look at the schedule of events for the same facilities the IRS used. I can predict they're all private corporations.
That's right. When you buy a yacht and throw parties on it, you put a lot of your wealth into the hands of needy shipwrights, carpenters, electricians, caterers, escorts, liquor stores, dress shops, etc.
Oh and what else was it that I always saw at rich peoples' parties -- that's right, cocaine dealers.
Slashdot Mirror
Am I correct in recalling that the Venezuelan people elect their president by majority vote?
Thoreau and MLK went to jail, their incarceration simply became a demonstration of the manifest immorality of the law.
And you're saying that's a good thing. The Indians who were fighting the American settlers who were taking their land should have surrendered and gotten hung. The French resistance fighters should have surrendered to the Nazis and gotten shot.
If you had actually gone to jail over something, I might believe you.
In the 70s, over 3/4 of the people in the world lived under dictatorships and today, only 40 years later, 90% of the people live in democracies. Who do you think had the greatest role to play in bringing about that enormous change for the better? Russians, or the Chinese, or the Europeans, where in the 70s one half of the countries were Communist dictatorships and even in the West at least three countries (Spain, Portugal and Greece) were Fascist dictatorships? How did it happen? Just naturally, for the first time in the history of the world, countries all over the world decided to become democracies?
Are you saying that the US covert agencies did it by overthrowing those dicatorships?
Unfortunately they overthrew a few democratically elected governments too, and gave us dictatorships in their place. Much more in the Western hemisphere, eg Haiti, Argentina, Chile. The Reagan era was difficult for a lot of people.
You have the convert's enthusiasm. Those of us who were born in the US and had to grow up suffering with its flaws see it differently. For example up until about 1968 black people were still being killed for trying to vote in the South, and they're still not doing that well. If you were black, you'd be a lot better off in the Communist bloc in the 1970s. Your children would certainly get a better education.
We've had a fight between the rich oligarchs in this country who run everything, and the working people who are trying to have a democracy instead. Unfortunately the oligarchs seem to be winning, as Paul Krugman documents. There's as much inequality and lack of social mobility in the US as in Brazil. This will still be a wealthy, powerful country for a while, but the Hunt brothers and their crowd run it, and they may well decide to destroy it. How many Iraq wars are they going to come up with?
Germany was also the greatest major country in the world, in the 1920s and 1930s. We still use their industrial techniques and medical discoveries. So these things can fall aparat fast.
Too bad. Pravda used to be a pretty good newspaper under Gorbachev.
Now it sounds like the Wall Street Journal under Murdoch.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/business/media/14carr.html
Under Murdoch, Tilting Rightward at The Journal
By DAVID CARR
Published: December 13, 2009
The pro-business, antigovernment shift in the news pages has broken into plain view in the last year. On Aug. 12, a fairly straight down the middle front page article on President Obama’s management style ended up with the provocative headline, “A President as Micromanager: How Much Detail Is Enough?” The original article included a contrast between President Jimmy Carter’s tendency to go deep in the weeds of every issue with President George W. Bush’s predilection for minimal involvement, according to someone who saw the draft. By the time the article ran, it included only the swipe at Mr. Carter.
Maybe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Have_Gun_%E2%80%93_Will_Travel#Victor_De_Costa:_a_previous_Paladin
Victor De Costa: a previous Paladin
In April 1974 a Portuguese cowboy from Rhode Island named Victor DeCosta won a federal court judgment in his second suit against CBS for trademark infringement, a decision supporting his claim that he had created both the Paladin character and some concepts seen in the series.[18] His cowboy image notably included the nickname "Paladin," a mustache, an all-black outfit including flat-top black hat, chess knight on the business card, and the motto "Have Gun – Will Travel". In their previous appeal, the defendants claimed it was "'coincidence' run riot," "more bizarre than most television serial installments."[19][20] During subsequent litigation, the "court found no basis for liability for common law service mark infringement or unfair competition and accordingly reversed.". After that, DeCosta applied for registration of his mark, and in 1975 the Patent and Trademark Office granted his application. Meanwhile CBS granted the syndicated broadcasting of the series throughout the United States to Viacom. DeCosta sued Viacom for trademark infringement, and after an appeal, in 1991 he was awarded $3.5 million.[21][22] The award was eventually denied in 1993,[23] and after the death of Victor DeCosta (1993) the litigation was continued by David DeCosta.[24]
Sounds like a totally appropriate use of taxpayer money.
After the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, mothers on welfare were required to go to work. A lot of mothers preferred to stay home with their kids, but they couldn't do that any more. The work programs usually paid less than they had been getting in the old welfare programs, and most mothers left the program to find free-market work, which didn't give them enough to survive, according to Kathryn Eden, who actually followed the women and looked at their household budgets.
What happens to their kids? Are they supposed to run around unsupervised on the streets? For my own safety, I'd rather have them in government-funded programs. That's a good use of taxpayer money. It's cheaper than putting them all in jail.
No, you got it exactly backwards. Read the article.
http://www.unc.edu/~nielsen/soci708/cdocs/Berkeley_admissions_bias.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/187/4175/398.abstract
Science 7 February 1975:
Vol. 187 no. 4175 pp. 398-404
DOI: 10.1126/science.187.4175.398
Sex Bias in Graduate Admissions: Data from Berkeley
P. J. Bickel1,
E. A. Hammel1,
J. W. O'Connell1
Abstract
Examination of aggregate data on graduate admissions to the University of California, Berkeley, for fall 1973 shows a clear but misleading pattern of bias against female applicants. Examination of the disaggregated data reveals few decision-making units that show statistically significant departures from expected frequencies of female admissions, and about as many units appear to favor women as to favor men. If the data are properly pooled, taking into account the autonomy of departmental decision making, thus correcting for the tendency of women to apply to graduate departments that are more difficult for applicants of either sex to enter, there is a small but statistically significant bias in favor of women. The graduate departments that are easier to enter tend to be those that require more mathematics in the undergraduate preparatory curriculum. The bias in the aggregated data stems not from any pattern of discrimination on the part of admissions committees, which seem quite fair on the whole, but apparently from prior screening at earlier levels of the educational system. Women are shunted by their socialization and education toward fields of graduate study that are generally more crowded, less productive of completed degrees, and less well funded, and that frequently offer poorer professional employment prospects.
In many British families in at least the last couple of hundred years, the upper classes farmed out their kids to governesses or boarding schools. So it's not necessarily funded by the taxpayer.
Your anti-tax sensitivity may be set too low.
There was a study in Science of sex discrimination in Berkeley, in which researchers found that the graduate departments overall discriminated against admitting women. Then they refined the study to find out which specific departments were discriminating more -- and none of them were.
It turned out to be a now-classic example of Simpson's paradox in statistics. The engineering departments had specific requirements, engineering graduates knew whether they met those requirements, only a few students met them, and if they applied, they got in. The English departments had lots of students who met their requirements, only a few slots, and most of the English graduates who applied were rejected. There were far more women in English than engineering. So Berkeley graduate school didn't discriminate against women.
So clearly, they need to hire a professional photographer to ensure it all comes out well exposed to prevent this waste of assets of biology.
A lot of papers have a small photo of the researcher. I've noticed a trend for women scientists, especially younger women, to use increasingly more flirtatious photos.
I'm not complaining. It makes it easier to get through the literature. What more could you ask for -- a beautiful protein model and a beautiful woman.
I first noticed this when I looked up a paper by a noted influenza researcher. She was a lot younger than I expected. Her picture showed quite a bit of cleavage. Let's just say she was advertising her inclusive fitness.
I think there's a paper in it. Do women investigators who show more cleavage get cited more? There was a similar study of women who showed cleavage in their photos in an online dating site.
Right. It was obvious. But there is also a lot of cluelessness around.
That's why we have the scientific method. We set up an experiment to give us data to tell us who's right.
That's federal law. State and city law can be more restrictive.
I can legally manufacture my own firearms in the US. So can most of you. I can make them, own them, and use them.
That may be the federal law. A city or state can legislate restrictions on the manufacture and ownership of firearms.
You're not allowed to carry handguns in New York City without a permit. A lot of gun owners get arrested in New York City every year because they don't understand that.
I feel sorry for them because they didn't understand the law and usually got arrested when they disclosed their guns, but if you're going to carry a weapon around with you that can kill people, deliberately or (more often) accidentally, it's your responsibility to know the law.
One of the non-obvious things they discovered was that it was dangerous to use a cell phone even if you don't take your eyes off the road.
When drivers approached an intersection, they would normally check for pedestrians with their eyes. when they approached an intersection listening to a digital device, they didn't check for pedestrians.
That wasn't obvious. Many people maintained that it would be safe to use digital devices if you didn't take your eyes off the road. For example, many legislatures passed laws that made it legal to use a hands-off phone with earpieces. Many automobile manufacturers made cars with hands-off digital devices that you can operate without taking your eyes off the road. But this research shows that even when you keep your eyes on the road, you still make more mistakes when you're operating a digital device.
I expect that the first time somebody is seriously injured by a driver operating a digital device, they'll sue the car manufacturer for installing these devices even though they knew it would cause more accidents.
And I expect them to win. The law has always held manufacturers responsible for manufacturing products in an unsafe manner.
Juries tend to slam manufacturers with big judgments, when they hear that the manufacturer knew the product was unsafe, and sold it anyhow, and now someone in front of them has been predictably injured as a result.
There's a big difference between some guy on the Internet thinking something is obvious (after someone else points it out), and actually knowing something, and proving it, based on evidence.
One of the non-obvious things they proved was that it's just as dangerous to talk on the phone hands-off as it is to hold the phone in your hand. That's something a lot of people don't understand, because it's convenient for them not to understand it.
Do any of these studies explain why it's a problem that accident rates have been DECLINING since long before texting or chatting on a cell while driving became common?
Quite a large library of studies explain why accident rates have been declining, and it's not a problem.
First, Ralph Nader's Unsafe at Any Speed reviewed the auto safety literature and explained how people were dying in automobile accidents because the automobile industry perversely designed cars in a way that they knew would kill people unnecessarily.
Second, there was a product liability suit called Larson v. General Motors that established that auto manufacturers were responsible when they knowingly designed cars in a way that killed people when they could easily have designed them differently ("Yes, we knew that 1,000 of our customers died every year because their chests were impaled against the steering column, and it could have been redesigned to save their lives easily and cheaply, but we didn't do it because we didn't feel like it.")
If you want to review the auto safety literature, which is enormous, I would recommend that after Nader, you start with the Stapp Car Crash Conference Proceedings, and also the auto safety entries in The Engineering Index (or whatever they call it these days). I particularly recommend Nils Bohlin's 1967 Stapp paper on Volvo seat belts.
Engineering studies like these, combined with political action organized by guys like Ralph Nader, combined with product liability suits against recalcitrant and stupid American auto manufacturers, has reduced the automobile fatality rate per mile by at least half.
Now the same researchers, using the same scientific methods, have found out -- and proven -- that using digital devices while driving also raise the accident rate.
Sounds like you're the one who's drunk on the lawn.
Do a Google search for "George Zimmerman" to find out what happens to guys like you with John Wayne fantasies and no brains.
When you face the judge who's about to sentence you for manslaughter or worse, you're going to have tears streaming out of your eyes and you'll be pissing in your pants as you beg him not to send you away for 10 or 20 years, just like all the other blowhard gun nuts.
"You were safe and secure, weren't you?" Moreau asked Peairs during his appearance before the grand jury. "But you didn't call the police, did you?"
"No sir." Peairs said.
"Did you hear anyone trying to break in the front door?"
"No sir."
"Did you hear anyone trying to break in the carport door?"
"No sir."
"And you were standing right there at the door, weren't you - with a big gun?"
Peairs nodded.
"I know you're sorry you killed him. You are sorry, aren't you?"
"Yes sir."
"But you did kill him, didn't you?"
"Yes sir."
Peairs testified in a flat, toneless drawl, breaking into tears several times. A police detective testified that Peairs had said to him, "Boy, I messed up; I made a mistake."
If there's a drunk guy on my lawn shooting random shots in the air I would get away from him and into a protected place while I call 911. That's a job for professionals, not amateurs.
What would you do? Get your gun and start shooting at him? Maybe that would cause him to start shooting back at you rather than in the air. Cops are trained to think out the consequences.
If he's shooting in the air, then he's not even threatening you. If you shot him, you would be charged with homicide in most states, because you wouldn't be acting in self-defense.
You say freeloader, I say lucky ducky.
Ralph Nader. Jill Stein.
I'm not saying it's easy.
What I don't understand is why the Democrats haven't learned that if they tell the left to go fuck themselves, they can lose a tight election.
But until they learn that, we shouldn't give them a free vote.
How does Sun Tzu suggest winning the hearts and minds of people whose devout faith tells them that anyone who doesn't believe the same way should be killed?
That sounds like the war propaganda handbook list of accusations against the enemy, No. 4. Their devout faith tells them that anyone who doesn't believe the same way should be killed. That's what the Protestants said about the Catholics, the French about the Germans, the Germans about the French, what we said about the Japanese, the Russians, and all our enemies. Now we're up to the Arabs.
And pray tell me how you know that their devout faith tells them that anyone who doesn't believe the same way should be killed? Did you hear that when you visited your local mosque? Did you read it in the Koran? Or did you get it from the propaganda tanks like MEMRI and CAMERA?
Actually there is a great range of observance among the Amish, all the way from staying in the 19th century (not too many) to complete assimilation.
And it's not a Bible-following paradise. There were a lot of scandals about Amish being involved in incest and child sex abuse, for example.
Who use tax payer money to fund junkets to Anaheim (Disneyland) (IRS)
I've been to a lot of corporate conferences. When I saw that story about the IRS, my first thought was that they were emulating private corporations. Which I think is bad idea.
I once went to a conference of managed care insurance companies at the Helmsley Hilton, with more luxury and fine wines than I needed. I was thinking of how my insurance premium was going to pay for this conference.
Take a look at the schedule of events for the same facilities the IRS used. I can predict they're all private corporations.
That's right. When you buy a yacht and throw parties on it, you put a lot of your wealth into the hands of needy shipwrights, carpenters, electricians, caterers, escorts, liquor stores, dress shops, etc.
Oh and what else was it that I always saw at rich peoples' parties -- that's right, cocaine dealers.
When the federal government is unethical, you have no way of escaping from that.
I assume you don't vote.
And you don't believe in organizing with other people who feel as you do to change the political system.