@newtboy
I think the people of Kiribati would disagree that it's not time to panic!
If you'd read my post I didn't claim the people of Kiribati weren't in a position to panic. I actually went further in agreeing with you, to the point that they should have been panicked a hundred years ago in 1914 already. The distinction being that what ever the climate does wasn't going to save them. 200 hundred years of cooling and sea level decline from 1914 would still have them on an island a few feet on average above sea level and still a disaster waiting to happen.

California alone, which produces over 1/4 of America's food,
Here we do have a difference of fact. I don't know what measure you've imagined up, but the cattle in texas alone are more than double the food produced in California. The corn and other crops in any number of prairie states to the same. You can't just invent numbers. Yields across crops have been increasing steadily year on year in North America for decades.

The violence is often CAUSED by the lack of food, making the 'men with guns' have a reason to steal and control food sources. If food were plentiful, it would be impossible for them to do so.
I'm sorry, read more history, you are just wrong on this. 10 guys with guns against 10 farmers with food and the farmers lose every time. The guys with guns eat for the year. The farmers maybe even are able to beg or slave for scraps that year. The next year maybe only 5 farmers bother to grow anything, and next harvest there are 15 guys with guns. Look at the Russian revolution and that's exactly the road that led to Stalin's mass starvations and lack of food. It's actually why I am a Canadian as my grandfather's family left their farm in Russia with the clothes on his back after the his neighbours farm was razed to the ground enough times.

The thugs SELL that food, so it doesn't just disappear
Food doesn't create itself as noted above. The cycle is less and less food as the thugs destroy all incentive to bother trying to grow something.

adopting new tech, even quick adoption, absolutely CAN be an economic boon
I agree. I hadn't realized that adoption of new tech was that simple. I was under the impression one also had to take the time to, you know, invent it. The existing technology for replacing oil and coal cost effectively doesn't exist yet. Electric cars and nuclear power are the closest thing. The market will adopt electric cars without us doing a thing. Switching from coal to nuclear though, even if universally agreed and adopted yesterday, would still take decades for a conversion. Those decades are enough that even if we got to zero emissions by then(~2050), the sea level and temperature at 2100 aren't going to look much if any different(by IPCC best estimates).
So I repeat, if you want meaningful emission reductions, you have no other option but restricting consumption across the globe. That hasn't been accomplished in the past without setting of wars, so I keep my vote as cure is worse than disease.

The 78% glacial mass loss was worst case if CO2 emissions are still accelerating in 2100. The mountains with the glaciers will still be bulking each winter and running off each summer, just to a 78% smaller size in the depth of summer. As in, absolutely not 78% less run off. And they are not 'my' numbers as you wish to refer, but the IPCC's numbers. Your effort to somehow leave question to their veracity is the very campaign of 'doubt' in the science the video is talking about.

At what point will 'white privilege' be considered over? How many years / decades / centuries must pass? How many affirmative action programs / laws must be enacted to consider all races/ women on equal footing?
When sentencing certain individuals in our Canadian courts here, judges here are required to take their ancestry into consideration.
Here in Canada, there's also a big move afoot for governments to apologize for historical injustices -- Japanese, Chinese, Sikhs, natives, Jews, etc.
My problem is that we are looking at history through a modern lens which is crazy. How far back are we going to go? 50 years? 100 years? A millennia? Should Christians today should apologize for the Crusades?
PS. Before somebody accuses me of a hidden agenda, I have no axe to grind. I am part native but don't make a big deal of it. I certainly don't look at a white guy and think, "Hey that guy owes ME something because of what his great-great-great-grandfather did."
I think Bill is right... at some point people have to stop leaning on laws and affirmative action movements as a crutch/excuse and get on with working things out for themselves.

Oh my...my uncle just told me that Glen Campbell used to work with my dad for my grandfathers company before he went to Hollywood! Wow. Learn something new every day.

It's probably not as economical and convenient as white phosphorous.

My father was a physicist, and he told me a story (mind you, a great deal of his stories were apocryphal and he died before they could be sorted out--which is why I feel justified in claiming my great grandmother was Irish royalty and my great grandfather was an armless gypsy horse acrobat... but I digress). Anyways, he claimed that for a time in Spain there was a company marketing cigarette lighters that used white phosphorous so that you could merely flip the lid open, exposing a small amount to the air igniting it, and very suavely light a ladies cigarette for her. Unfortunately, sometimes the seals would fail while in a man's trouser pocket, which is where the slang "willy peter" comes from.

That's a very firm categorical statement but in fact there are valid medical reasons why a parent might consider circumcizing their newborn.The following is from MedicineNet.co:

"Boys who are not circumcised as newborns may later have circumcision for the treatment of phimosis, paraphimosis, or balanoposthitis. When done after the newborn period, circumcision is considerably more complicated."

My grandfather, father, and my son were all circumcised in their teens because of balanoposthitis. Why it seems to run in the family I don't know, maybe it's just random, but my father swore that no son of his would go through what he went through. Accordingly myself and three brothers were all cut and for myself I can say that my sex life has not suffered as a result. However, when my son was born we decided there was no good reason for circumcision. As it turned out we were wrong.

As for circumcision for any reason other than valid medical considerations, Ya, you're probably right.

I am guessing that I was one of the first pastors, if not the first, in my community not in opposition to gay marriage. I don't say this with any sense of accomplishment of having wrestled through some sort of epic moral struggle, because I never have opposed gay marriage as sanctioned by the State. I don't believe there is any Constitutional basis for opposing it. . I also see no issue with a business serving the gay community. By default, our family business has happily done so for decades. One of my favorite mottoes is, 'live and let live.' I am confident that people around me, including those gays that call me 'friend' know this about me already. Although I am a part of the Christian community where I live, not one of my gay friends has exited our relationship due to that, nor have I ever been considered a homophobe. My views on marriage are exactly that: conclusions I have come to with the resources at my command. And whether or not I disagree with you, I believe that I have no right whatsoever to impose my view of marriage on anyone. In the same breath, after considering my own failings, I have no right to judge how someone else chooses to live their life. I have concluded that whatever path they choose was never between me and them, but between them and God anyway.

The solutions to this common struggle today (the question of religious conscience living side by side with gender liberty) cannot be solved by enacting more law. Americans are, as always, legislating the soupe du jour. The trouble is, in a society where that kind of 'might makes right,' the pendulum can and does swing the other way to deleterious effect. I think that our common issue can be solved by a simple but powerful idea: a stronger community. Like it or not, we are in this together and only together can overcome the vitriol on either side.

I remember an incident many years ago when my Muslim ex-Uncle showed up at my grandparent's house for dinner. On the menu: pork. In one of the most despicable acts of imposition that I can remember happening in our family, my Grandfather decided that serving pork that day would give him some kind of twisted self satisfaction; a victory, of sorts. He decided that he would attempt to get our Uncle to violate his religious conscience and, if that not be possible, at the very least, offend my Uncle as much as possible within his power. I don't think anyone would argue that it wasn't within my Grandfather's rights to serve whatever meal he wanted in his own home. But was it morally right? If he had loved my Uncle, he would have put aside his own rights and made a way to foster community. That is what living together is about.

In the same vein, I don't believe any one of my gay friends would ever ask me to perform their wedding. Even given that right legally, they wouldn't ask because they love me and they would not attempt to get me to violate both my conscience and my own understanding of marriage. While we agree to disagree, we remain friends out of love. Love is what binds. The law divides. The law is a foreigner to community, the enemy of community, when it says, 'we can live together only when you do as I want you to do in order to satisfy me or my sense of offense for another." While laws are necessary in society, they are superfluous when love will do. But we don't want to work that hard. So we make rules. We call people names. We stereotype. We divide, condescend, and foment bitterness toward our neighbors, gay and straight alike.

I had a friend confess to me once, "My whole family is racist. I was racist. But I'm not racist any more." That didn't happen because of legislation. It happened because he got to know some black people and found out that he had some love in his heart for them. Wouldn't you have liked to have been there when he shook a black man's hand for the first time in his life? Yeah, me too.

Just once, I'd like to see someone brew some iced tea, walk across the street to that gay neighbor or that Christian neighbor and sit down and find some commonality. I read above (can't remember who wrote it) that the Bible's morality is trumped by today's morality. I say that the epitome of morality exists in the words of Jesus when he says, "Love your enemies." That, to me, is the fulfillment of what it means to be human.

In related thoughts, I think the Church needs to tell the State, 'Goodbye. We are not going to act as your agent any longer in arena of legal marriage. We will not sign your documents. You have the legal authority over marriage in our society but the Church has the spiritual authority as the Church sees fit." That leaves room for some congregations to perform gay weddings and others to not as they see fit. It leaves room for live and let live. It leaves room for love.

In most modern countries, having kids is the relatively easy part. Being a responsible parent, on the other hand....

But then again, overcoming the challenges (sleep deprivation included) are part of what make being a parent so rewarding. At least in my case, having kids made me a stronger and better person--I learned to be more patient and more compassionate, and I learned how to push beyond my supposed limits (I used to think I couldn't survive without 8 hours a night of sleep--HAH!).

No doubt it can be a struggle at times. My grandfather used to have a T-shirt that read, "Insanity is heredity: you inherit it from your kids."

But it also has those intense moments like your daughter singing the ABC song all by herself for the first time, or always belly laughing at the fart sound you make with your palms, or telling you she loves right before she goes to sleep that make all of the hassle completely worthwhile.

For those like me who was kinda confused about what this was about:

(from YouTube)
In this video, two boys simplify the debate to a true value statement. They both received $10.00 from their grandfather. One bought an F-35, the other got 3 F-18's with everything needed to maintain it, and keep them flying.

This contentious debate in geopolitical circles is focused around joint strike fighter choices. Does a country procure the F-35 or the F-18 Super Hornet? The F-35 is an impressive new fighter, designed to meet the needs of all branches of the military. The challenge is in order to meet everyone's needs, you have to make compromises. For example, once loaded with weapons, the F-35 begins to lose it's stealth abilities. Is it really invisible to radar and how much foil area did they have to give up to maneuverability?

In the end we realize... it's really not that complicated.

*promote the grandfathers of metal

I'm cooking "everything but the squeal" as my grandfather would say.

Ooh-Rah Marine Aviation!

My grandfather was a crew chief in the Air Force for decades.
One of my favorite stories that he told was of the first time an AV-8A (original British Harrier, before US adopted them) landed at his base for a demonstration. He, along with everyone else on the flightline, watched in awe as it gently slowed to a halt mid-air, before decending to the runway. It apparently about gave them all a heart attack for fear of a stall.


*quality

Drama created for people stupid enough to believe that it's real.
Too many camera angles, too many obviously fake reactions and too many scenarios requiring more lawyers than even the Jackass jackasses can produce.

Plus, before they got to the beauty pageant I thought to myself "someone made an entire film starring the grandfather from Little Miss Sunshine!", and then they completely ripped off Little Miss Sunshine's finale. Wtf?

I bought a Russian SKS, a double barrel Mossberg 12 gauge shotgun and a glock 9mm at 2 gunshows locally few years back no questions asked.

but private sale between citizens are fine here. If I want to sell my neighbor my tv, my baseball bat, my RC Helicopter, my car, my gun collection, etc I have every right to sell whatever I wish that I own.

I can also barter for goods if I wish, If I no longer need the shotgun, but I'm out of a job and need food and I can use the gun to aquire a butchered pig/cow from local butcher I can do that as well.

course its simple in south east and everyone owns a gun, heck my 93 year old grandmother owns a .410 shotgun she keeps loaded by her bed. Course her husband, my grandfather, passed away before I was born, was a prison guard that walked inmates to "old sparky" in Florida long ago.

Not all bears are the same.

Preferably it's best to not interact with a black bear that's minding it's business so that dog is a little shit for running toward it and I can feel the frustration of it's owner. However if the black bear approaches you with agressive behavior, you actually want to make loud noises and look big. If they do attack (which is rare), fight back with everything you have. You do not play dead.

Grizzlies are a different story. You don't want to get loud and act bigger like you would with a black bear or mountain lion. I've been that close to a young griz when hiking with my grandfather but we just slowly backed up and went the opposite direction. The bear just kept on his path forward. Same thing happened many years before with my aunt and him only they encountered a mother with cubs. They did the same thing and nothing happened. Funny thing was it was in the same location.

"I do not plead in the court of contracts."
http://www.katu.com/news/local/166407116.html

My grandfather never paid U.S. Income tax-He served in the Army air corps as a mechanic and like many people, slipped through the cracks because he was always self-employed and may have never been issued a number-

All this to reference my personal experience with the IRS:
Haven't filed in over 10 years and when I did last, it was to get money back that they had owed me from having not filed for about 6 years.

You may go back 3 years to get monies the IRS owes you, but they may go back as many years as they want if you owe THEM money. I received a letter from the IRS about 6 years ago informing me that they did not have returns for me from the past 3 years (at that time I was a contract employee whose employer was reporting my income and handing me a 1099-

I ignored the letter, and haven't heard from them since-I only heard from them because I probably owe them money according to their delusional and inequitable calculations. Fuck em. They are all bark and no bite in this man's paradigm. Let the insects swarm, I'll simply Obiwan the robots once again.

I am proud to be able to claim that my grandfather never paid his taxes his entire life, while contributing to the health, well-being, and happiness of all who knew him or did business with him.

I take pride in knowing at least one man in my family, fucked the gangsters before they fucked him.