Yes, that is my position.
You are correct, there is way more illegal prostitution in Nevada than legal prostitution, there are only 2 legal brothels that I know of. That leaves a huge black market which fosters crime and abuse. There is 0% slavery in the legal brothels, they make plenty of money without slaves and they don't want to lose their license to print money. If there were enough legal brothels, there would be far less illegal prostitution, an far fewer prostitutes being taken advantage of. It will likely never reach 0%.
I can't speak to the article you quoted/link, I don't have a WSJ account and so can't read the article. I would bet that the truth is that it has curbed (but not completely ended) human trafficking by brothels. (there are many kinds of trafficking, and legal brothels would only serve to make one of them less profitable and/or too dangerous, so the fact that it "failed to stem human trafficking" is meaningless and fallacious.)
Ending a prohibition does not eradicate the huge black market that prohibition created, but it can shrink it to a manageable size. If they legalized brothels in the Netherlands but don't do any regulation, they'll never remove the black market/sex slave trade. If that's what they've done (and I don't know) they may as well have just stopped prosecuting any prostitution. The end game is the same, and simple 'no prosecution' is way cheaper than changing laws.

You're argument seems to be if it's legal then there is little incentive to do it illegally. But just think of your example...The Bunny Ranch. I'd bet there is far more illegal prostitution going on in Nevada then legal prostitution.

"AMSTERDAM — This city's famed red-light district looks much as it has for years, with bikini-clad women behind plate-glass windows fluffing their hair or beckoning to passersby, colorful beds visible in the background as an unspoken invitation.

But things could soon change for the sex-for-hire industry following a recognition in the freewheeling Netherlands that its decision in 2000 to legalize brothels has failed to stem human trafficking."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324049504578543370643627376.html

According to a recent WSJ article on political spending by Unions (estimated to be about $700 million in 2011), 92% went to the Democratic party. Regardless of the type of work I want to do, I should be free to work for an employer without the constraint of mandatory membership in an organization. If you WANT to join a Union, then fine, more power to you. You shouldn't HAVE to join. Explain why I should HAVE to join.

@Sagemind Ryan is the shooter's older brother, who was misidentified by police early on.

The shooter was 20 year old Adam Lanza. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323297104578179271453737596.html

Mr. Nugent,
I expect you on the slab or in the pokey by the end of the week.

So Murdoch is now doing Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous? The WSJ has truly come down in the world, hasn't it?

GOP voter fraud in Florida

"Mr. Dinerstein said that about 100 registration forms were affected there. Some had apparently forged signatures and other incorrect information, such as incorrect addresses, GOP officials said."

So we have 100,000 known incidents (in Florida alone) of attempted voter fraud performed by a professional firm hired by the GOP.

And then we have 1 DNC volunteer in Texas...

Yeah, that's a fair comparison.

That's where you're wrong, Eric Winston. I only watch football for the injuries (aka, I don't watch it, I watch webclips), just like I only watch hockey matches for the fights; just like I only watch car races for the crashes. It's, arguably, human nature to be in awe of a horrific spectacle, and it's the same with being swept up in what the crowd is feeling.

But, let's call a spade a spade here. Football was born as a sport where people were injured or died as a result of playing the game. It was only after Roosevelt intervened that the sport changed into what one of my students lost his short term memory to.

Ever crouch down and ram your head at something with the full force of your body?
Why are injuries like this surprising?
Why does he act like he's not participating/supporting a sport that systematically abuses players for a profit?
Why the outrage over cheering an injury but the support of the system that throws people into situations that make injuries like this likely?

I don't see where we disagree... Maybe I wasn't clear; the opinion pages and editorials in the NYTimes are left-leaning, just as the opinion pieces and editorials on MSNBC are left-leaning. The news on MSNBC and NYTimes are NOT left-leaning, just as the news (typically) is not presented as right-leaning on Fox News.

People don't blog about or tweet about Fox News or MSNBC when they are just presenting the news, they share Rachel Maddow digging into someone, or Bill O'Reilly yelling about something. These aren't the news, just as the opinion pages of the NYT or the WSJ are not the news.


---------
In reply to this comment by Yogi:
>> ^bamdrew:

This is MSNBC. MSNBC is the New York Times of networks... informative, accurate, and often very well presented, but with a left-wing opinion page. They don't pretend otherwise, unlike 'fair and balanced' Fox News. If you want the middle ground watch PBS or CNN (or BBC in the UK or ABC in Australia); the only bias on these networks is the unavoidable bias of choosing which stories to showcase (about international policy, about the environment, etc. can appear 'biased' but cover a topic of journalistic interest).
>> ^My_design:
Boy these guys are clearly routing for Obama ...



The New York Times is definitely not Left Wing. For instance they report WITH GUSTO the atrocities of others but not of the United States. The New York Times only appears Left because it reports some things that the US does wrong around the world, where as other papers around the planet report much much more. We are insulated from these things so things appear Left when they are actually very much Right and in support of the State.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Cool stuff. I'm still pro nuke.
In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
I don't know if you had the ability or desire to post some new nuclear stuff Bill Gates is sponsoring. It isn't a technology I am betting on myself, but investing into safe nuclear is.

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2012/03/23/economics-bi
ll-gates-on-the-future-of-nuclear-power/

I don't know if you had the ability or desire to post some new nuclear stuff Bill Gates is sponsoring. It isn't a technology I am betting on myself, but investing into safe nuclear is.

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2012/03/23/economics-bill-gates-on-the-future-of-nuclear-power/

>> ^residue:

@bcglorf would you trust someone with a doctorate in geology?
Here are some data:
Air:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.php
Ocean:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7296/fig_tab/nature09043
_F1.html
(From: Lyman, J.M., Good, S.A., Gouretski, V.V., Ishii, M., Johnson, G.C., Palmer, M.D.,
Smith, D.M., and Willis, J.K., Robust warming of the global upper ocean: Nature,
v. 465, p. 334-337.)
The only real thing debated (or that should be debated) is why it's warming up. we've got 2 basic reasons: it's because of human interaction or it's because of natural processes (hey the earth has been WAY warmer than it is now several times - http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm)
In reference to your statement about the relative contributions of water vapor and CO2, there are 2 things you need to realize. First of all, the residence time of water vapor in the atmosphere is 9 days, the residence time of CO2 among other greenhouse gases can be as much as 100 years with other greenhouse gases (aerosols for example) much longer. Most aerosols were outlawed in the late 70s but graphs of their concentration in the atmosphere show no relative decrease since the cessation of their use. The second point here is that water vapor's place in the atmosphere is natural, greenhouse gas emission is not. Water vapor contributes to the amount of greenhouse effect that we need to survive on the planet (if we didn't have the greenhouse effect at all, earth could not sustain life - too cold). Humans contribute to greenhouse effect by adding in greenhouse gases and warming the planet. To specify the relative contributions of each and say "well water vapor is the biggest culprit! We only release tiny amounts of CO2 relative to water vapor, so it's really not our fault!" is irresponsible.
You might, however, find this interesting:
http://onlin
e.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970204257504577150812451167538-lMyQjAxMTAyMDIwNDEyNDQyWj.html?mod=wsj_share_email
Definitely a different take on the issue at large, but again, the argument here isn't whether or not global warming is happening (it is) but rather what it all means.


Well, you and I seem largely agreed. I commented multiple times that the warming is not in question, but rather why and more importantly what it means to us.

The challenge with accurately modelling the contribution of H2O has nothing to do with our own emissions of H2O. For all reasonable purposes we can, again as you seem to agree, ignore the meager contribution humans make to it. H2O is as you say largely short lived in the atmosphere, but it still makes up the overwhelming majority of the greenhouse effect, despite residing in the atmosphere for a fraction of the time of gases like CO2. Obviously that means that H2O replenishes itself into the atmosphere as rapidly as it dissipates. We know that this rate is driven by temperature. What we don't understand well is how that should play out in our models, or more importantly how it plays out in reality. Just how much confidence can we place on future projections of CO2 changes when we aren't even sure which sign to attribute the feedback effect of water vapor?

@bcglorf would you trust someone with a doctorate in geology?

Here are some data:

Air:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.php
Ocean:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7296/fig_tab/nature09043_F1.html
(From: Lyman, J.M., Good, S.A., Gouretski, V.V., Ishii, M., Johnson, G.C., Palmer, M.D.,
Smith, D.M., and Willis, J.K., Robust warming of the global upper ocean: Nature,
v. 465, p. 334-337.)

The only real thing debated (or that should be debated) is why it's warming up. we've got 2 basic reasons: it's because of human interaction or it's because of natural processes (hey the earth has been WAY warmer than it is now several times - http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm)

In reference to your statement about the relative contributions of water vapor and CO2, there are 2 things you need to realize. First of all, the residence time of water vapor in the atmosphere is 9 days, the residence time of CO2 among other greenhouse gases can be as much as 100 years with other greenhouse gases (aerosols for example) much longer. Most aerosols were outlawed in the late 70s but graphs of their concentration in the atmosphere show no relative decrease since the cessation of their use. The second point here is that water vapor's place in the atmosphere is natural, greenhouse gas emission is not. Water vapor contributes to the amount of greenhouse effect that we need to survive on the planet (if we didn't have the greenhouse effect at all, earth could not sustain life - too cold). Humans contribute to greenhouse effect by adding in greenhouse gases and warming the planet. To specify the relative contributions of each and say "well water vapor is the biggest culprit! We only release tiny amounts of CO2 relative to water vapor, so it's really not our fault!" is irresponsible.

You might, however, find this interesting:
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970204257504577150812451167538-lMyQjAxMTAyMDIwNDEyNDQyWj.html?mod=wsj_share_email

Definitely a different take on the issue at large, but again, the argument here isn't whether or not global warming is happening (it is) but rather what it all means.

QM, Olifant seems to have a problem with black people in general. I love his wit, but after seeing one sambo-ish caricature too many, decided to stop viewing his cartoons. His lampooning of Ms. Rice is par for the course in his depictions of black people across the political spectrum.>> ^quantumushroom:

Anyone looking at the history of the Democratic Party could reasonably assume it was trying to destroy Blacks. From the klan days to the "War on Poverty's" futile government attempts to act as surrogate parent (annihilating the Black family unit) to today's modern celebration of victimhood and the soft bigotry of lowered expectations and standards.
Plus the libmedia (aka everyone but FOX and the WSJ) gives a free pass to stupid/racist things liberals say, particularly about Black conservatives.
All that aside, this sift is just weak. Liberalsift wouldn't stand for a similar collage of out-of-context remarks by liberals and so, downvote.

Anyone looking at the history of the Democratic Party could reasonably assume it was trying to destroy Blacks. From the klan days to the "War on Poverty's" futile government attempts to act as surrogate parent (annihilating the Black family unit) to today's modern celebration of victimhood and the soft bigotry of lowered expectations and standards.

Plus the libmedia (aka everyone but FOX and the WSJ) gives a free pass to stupid/racist things liberals say, particularly about Black conservatives.

All that aside, this sift is just weak. Liberalsift wouldn't stand for a similar collage of out-of-context remarks by liberals and so, downvote.