champu

Linked from within that article... I would argue that proper avenues have existed for a long time, but if it takes widening of them to make people aware of them or to make people use them then so be it.

If they arrested him uninjured having not fired their weapons in an embassy, missing him, and having their rounds go off to who knows where then I'd agree with you. Maby they just fired a warning shot? On the other hand, considering the fact that the guards are US marines, they most likely arent trained to give warning shots. Firing a warning shot in a public setting such as this strikes me as a pretty bad idea. I wasn't there though and the article doesn't really set the scene very completely, so who knows. If a guy comes into an embassy wielding a knife and an axe, however, I'm not sure how far a warning shot would go to improve the situation... "Arrrrrrrgh! Eat Axe! Arrrrrrrrgh!" "That was a warning." "Oh, you've called my bluff, good sir. I figured the firearms you're carrying were for show... I'm terribly sorry."

These guys could have great careers as police officers. LOL. Only in the US it is better to have someone arrested injured rather than uninjured. In other countries we would consider these guards as pros. If they arrested him uninjured having not fired their weapons in an embassy, missing him, and having their rounds go off to who knows where then I'd agree with you.

I just wanted an excuse to write, "suicide toasters."

I think we should ban "speeding cars" which I will define as any vehicle with a greater than 2.0 L displacement engine, a gas pedal that travels more than 2 inches, or that has more than 4 forward gears. Next, we need to get rid of “suicide toasters” which are any toasters that have a power cord length of greater than 1 ft, or that don’t have their own built in GFCI. I also think we should ban “thieving gloves” which are any gloves that prevent the wearer’s fingerprints from being transferred to objects they touch. Finally I’d like to do something about “loitering shoes” which are all these new shoe designs coming out with special features allowing you to more comfortably stand in one place for long periods of time.

Looks suspiciously like the "Two wrongs make a right" fallacy. No, it's a reduction to absurdity which is not a logical fallacy. His argument is not attempting to justify the outcome of the first tragedy.

Yep, No more spending. Pisses you off doesn't it? The current gridlock doesn't actually prevent the government from spending. They pass continuing resolutions instead which spends the money just the same but without the benefit of improved direction or setting of priorities to achieve the reductions everyone is after. Sequestration would be an equally stupid way to approach fiscal policy except it ends up being even worse when you consider how much redlining from congress is going to go on if federal agencies are made to try and implement the cuts. I'm reminded of the demotivator poster, "Government: If you think the problems we create are bad, just wait until you see our solutions." The republicans did the same thing in the mid nineties, leading to government shutdowns and guess what happened then... Clinton got re-elected and when things finally did get sorted out, he came out way ahead politically. Boehner and the rest of the republicans need to look really carefully at what happened there.

The people I've known who flew katanas before they should have all broke their femurs and/or pelvises and the people I've known who flew crossfires before they should have broke tib/fibs, back, and or neck. ...strange but true...

Figured I'd gather these two posts together because they do a pretty good job of summing things up. People argue here about the finer points of government scope a lot, but the concept of funding things and how we might go about doing that 'ought to be an easier landscape in which to find agreement. Anything you have the government do is going to have to piggy-back on the economy, and so distributing the burden in such a way as to have the least impact on economic activity (regardless of how much you do or take in to fund it) is going to be best for long-term sustainability. There's an important feedback loop there too; the government helps provide an environment where sustained economic activity is possible, and the government pays for itself by tapping off that activity. Your comment about the inheritance tax not being an economic burden is an extension of a point I've brought up several times in this forum. It doesn't burden the economy because dying isn't an economic activity in the first place. The government doesn't actually do anything to promote it and so taxing it is inherently unsustainable. Similar activities which shouldn't be, and aren't, taxed are, "moving money from one of your bank accounts to another one of your bank accounts" or "Wednesdays."

I voted Yes on 38 and no on 30, because after reading through them voting yes on both didn't make any sense. 38 wasn't even close though, it got shot down 72%/28%. Also worth noting: the two bond sale/property tax increase measures for school infrastructure in my area both passed while the sales tax increase for roads and such looks like it will fail (it's close, and they're apparently still counting mail-ins.) This kind of thing shouldn't be unexpected though as in LA county it only takes a 55% vote to increase property taxes to fund a project whereas it takes a 2/3 vote to raise sales tax to fund a project.

There's a well-known saying that goes, "you can't give nine women one month to make a baby." There's a lesser-considered flipside to that, however, where you can't give half a women 18 months to make a baby either. He's not suggesting that military spending not be chopped along with other non-military expenditures, he's saying don't cut budgets for military accounts across the board. You can always try to trim everything, sure, but you're not going to achieve 30/40/50% reductions like that. You have to decide whole things you don't want anymore and just get rid of them completely. Everyone doesn't "feel the pain" when you ask the same of everyone but only give them half of what they need to get their job done, you just end up getting nothing done effectively.

Over the next couple hours, a good resource to keep an eye on the ballot measures in California http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/maps/ballot-measures/all-props/

Unlike the article I posted (that attacked no canidate)? Ok, yes But is it very clear the pants on fire topics (some of them anyway) are subjective and therfore bullshit Politifact, and the reference to it in this times article, are great examples of how even something like fact-checking, that you'd think would be straight-forward, can go awry in the media. Politifact's write-ups are usually quite thorough, and they bring forward a lot of good information that people should read... but then they apply their arbitrary rating system to it, and bury that information behind an animated gif that most don't look beyond. I would adjust most of the ratings on that page regarding both candiates towards the middle, if only so that way you'd have to read the whole write-up to make your own call.

You aren't, by any chance, one of the folks who scoffed at the deployment of the Carl Vinson to Haiti in 2010 are you?

There are more than just "perks" or "contractual conveniences" that are conveyed to married couples, and are thus denied to gay couples. I've pointed out my problem with this argument previously (Mar 2011)^

I'm officially coining the phrase CIA, and sometimes 'Y' /edited to add: not that I'm inclined to agree with Ron's stance thus far...

I disagree. There are some things where there is philosophical disagreement. I think what she was saying is that there's no demilitarized zone nor unexplored territory. The ideological viewpoints of the two parties have become collectively exhaustive and mutually exclusive. Oh, and "raising taxes" is not the kind of binary ideological issue you are describing with your other examples. Norquist can draft all the pledges he wants but the taxes are already there: ideology over.

Stefania Also, John LeBlanc Also, Adrian Nichols

I suspect most will only cry foul if it flips against their guy. Pretty much this. Many folks in the dominant party of non-swing states will find reasons to complain about why going with the popular vote is unfair, inferior, etc.

Watched that this morning, one of my favorites so far this season.

Occupy Wall Street is a Rorschach protest.

I have nothing I'm interested in hiding, if that's the point of the question. But, as mentioned, being willing to admit I'm an atheist makes me unelectable though.

From a business sense, I agree, I don't see it as a fad, and I'm sure you'll see more and more content produced to go with the hardware push that has been going on. The problem I have with 3D is that, unlike the 480 to 720 to 1080 to 4k transitions, it is a different medium, not just a different format. A lot of folks seem to be thinking of it as simply a different format. It's hard to argue that something didn't need to be shot at a higher resolution or that the extra resolution doesn't add to or detracts from the experience, but you can easily make the argument for 3D. Some people have integrated 3D into the experience quite well but I predict that most uses of it, as more and more content is produced, will not fair so well. Kinda like the consumer trend where people shoot video of things where a photo would have served the situation better. But, the industry is what it is, and the next time I buy a TV because I want one that's lighter or bigger or something it will more than likely necessarily be a 3D television. I just hope I'll be able to turn the 3D off for the next decade or so while content providers learn when to say, "no."

Hmm... Or the problem could resolve itself on its own... Thanks for the references in any event.

...oh, facebook integration...