Not seeing how anyone could disagree with your opinion is a good sign that you should take a better look at both sides of the argument yourself before trying to judge or influence others.

If banning abortion (or limiting access to the blue states on the coasts) would guarantee the safe delivery of each fetus to an enthusiastic mother or foster home, I expect that more people would support this intrusion of government authority into private decisions. Anyone who was alive before Roe (or has cracked a book) knows that this isn't the case. Banning abortions doesn't prevent them. It sends desperate women into the hands of back alley surgeons, coat hangers, and household chemicals. It condemns many of them to painful deaths.

You may argue that they deserve it. You may argue that public policy should be decided on principle and not on actual outcomes. You may argue that the potential lives of unconscious pre-humans outweigh the lives of adult females. Some of these arguments can be compelling. However if any of them were infallible, someone much more eloquent and intelligent than you would have won over your opposition already.

>> ^Sagemind:

... But totally sanitary as the Whiskey kills any germs or viruses present!


Off-topic:

Viruses can live through alcohol. The simpler they are, as they're "dead" anyway, the easier it becomes for them to not be targeted by alcohol. Some have protective protein or other type of layers on their outer layer (or shell, whatever). Those are the ones that die; like influenza (I'm unsure if it kills ALL types of influenza), HIV, and I think Herpes simplex. However, other viruses like Herpes A (correct me if I screwed that up anybody, this is by rote memory) don't die. Viruses are just "lines of code" were as bacteria has structure, relies on it's environment and is just as susceptible to it's own "diseases" that come in the form of proteins, enzymes, or molecules (like alcohol). Alcohol can pass the outer layer of the cell walls and screw things up, plus it can cause water to get absorbed (I'm not sure if it would "pop" the bacteria, I think it just destroys the cell's integrity).

For all we know there ARE bacteria out there that can survive, but they'd have to be specifically setup in a way that the intrusion of the alcohol doesn't disrupt cell functions. For all we know they could evolve a surface that has a function that deals with alcohol. Of course, some have to survive in the first place or by random evolution hit the jackpot pertaining to alcohol; their structure is their major limitation in protection (one cell and dirt simple) . I also love how silver does it's thing to bacteria. Yes this is semi-off topic, but I live for science. *monocle smile* (do we have an emoticon, yet?)

I'm more scared of prions.
(of Mad Cow disease fame; really scary scenarios are possible if we get a full-on human version)

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Are you advocating the violent overthrow of an existing government unilaterally? How do you support rebels, and which ones do you support? What if they don't want your support, Iraq sure didn't, Iran doesn't. Before we start blowing up another country, it would be good to have the answers to some of those questions.
>> ^kceaton1:
Yeah, I hate Mubarak, but who the hell knows what will fill up the vacuum. If it went south we'd almost have to get involved at some level.
(...it's starting to go south via the pro-Mubarak protesters somebody shipped in... One day there were little to none to be found; then overnight they show up--ready [and wanting] to fight.)
I'd call ^conspiracy (screw you sifty bot) on any news that has the "pro-Mubarak" protesters...

edit - One thing I whole heartedly agree with is what Cenk said at the end of his piece. If we really are ANY kind of power THAT TRULY believes in our republic and our democracy WE HAVE TO ACT. Otherwise, we look pro-Mubarak. The fact that I've seen so many of these protesters wearing Obama T-shirts and using his name, in a comparison of us electing him in force and they wanting Mubarak out. So much so that they viewed Obama's election an uprising in the U.S. (which is not comparable in anyway to their plight). I fail to see how our decision has yet to be made by our commander in chief!



Sorry, I didn't clarify what I meant by getting involved. I think we should promote any push for democratic or a republic reform regime. The reason I said we "may" need to get involved is because of our spending that gave them their army.

The army seems to be the most level-headed (as well as anti-Mubarak protesters. A good example for them is that they combined together to protect their museum from harm. To me that says this protest is VERY different from anything we've seen in our lifetimes except when Russia feel apart with much the same thing happening with the military.

As I said, I've got no idea what will fill the vacuum, but if we get involved we may may. This includes politics, U.N. support, or other non-intrusive military based action. Which is a far different strategy than what we used in Iraq and elsewhere.

Before labor was regulated in this country, self governing business men enslaved other self governed men. How is this an improvement?

As banking regulations were removed over the past few decades, self governing bankers defrauded millions of Americans. How is this an improvement?

Self governance is subject to all of the evils of any other style of government, but is impotent to do anything about it.

>> ^blankfist:

Democracy is dangerous. But selecting an oligarchy from the brightest minds is easily as dangerous. There's no good government system. Not a one.
Self-governance to me seems obvious as the least intrusive.

Democracy is dangerous. But selecting an oligarchy from the brightest minds is easily as dangerous. There's no good government system. Not a one.

Self-governance to me seems obvious as the least intrusive.

Oh, I'd upvote, but there is this absurdly intrusive ad for perfume or something covering up half of that side of the screen.

>> ^Tymbrwulf:

This is an idea I can get behind!


Same, I can just see myself cooing over the dog that is seeing I am a terrorist, "Who's a good boy, who's keeping us safe from terrwowists!" Dogs would have to be the smartest, most effective AND least intrusive idea that I can ever consider, it is even less intrusive than a metal detector! Why didn't they do this instead? O right, because there is no company that controls the dog population lobbing the government...gotcha.

>> ^chicchorea:

With all due respect, hijackings are not the primary threat as the means to accomplish such deeds have been handily remedied by fairly simply and minimally intrusive procedures and technology.
Things that go boom....

I totally agree that the focus should be on bombs; however globally there are more hijackings and attempted hijackings than plane bombings and attempted plane bombings.

I can only find ten successful plane bombings; none of which took off in America; and four of which were found to be perpetrated by Islamists (3 of them from Libya), including the Lockerbie bombing. In four of those incidents the bomb was in the cabin; the rest were in the cargo.

Interestingly, while checking that, I did find support for my assertion that unsolved plots and acts are usually attributed to Islamists, while solved ones usually aren't.

The Russian airplane bombings in 2004 were originally attributed to an Islamic group; but then additional terrorist attacks took place shortly afterwards and it turned out the perpetrators were actually Chechen.

With all due respect, hijackings are not the primary threat as the means to accomplish such deeds have been handily remedied by fairly simply and minimally intrusive procedures and technology.

Things that go boom....
>> ^L0cky:

>> ^quantumushroom:
You all know who we REALLY need to profile: primarily swarthy Middle Eastern men ages 18 - 40 and behind them Middle Eastern women wearing any kind of "cloak". Unfortunately, the acolytes of political correctness don't give a sh!t if their cowardice is lethal.
I challenge that as an assumption, one that is generally held by most people (even liberals). So I actually decided to do some research; imagine that!
Before I started I'd say my opinion was that I was sceptical about any useful correlation between terrorism and race or citizenship but if any strong correlation could be found then it may be possible to convince me that it becomes a question of weighing the security benefits against the offence caused to individuals.
It's also my opinion (and still is) that the mainstream media continues to portray correlation between terrorism in the US and UK and Islamists through consistent inference, without ever stating it as fact; and therefore not requiring validation or providing opportunity to be directly contested.
I looked at the list of notable aircraft hijackings on wikipedia and followed them up via the references and/or additional searching. My conclusion is that if any profiling is used in America then it would be most useful to target middle aged white American men; and any Americans citizens with flying experience.
Here are names of people who did board a plane at a US airport and then subsequently hijacked the aircraft:
John J Divivo
D. B. Cooper (pseudonym)
Billy Gene Hurst Jr
Garret Trapnell
Melvin C. Cale, Louis Cale, Henry D. Jackson, Jr.
Clay Thomas
Aubern Calloway
There was a spate of hijackings by both Americans and Cubans in the 60's and 70's; mostly for political reasons that was mostly quelled by a Cuban-American agreement; and there was a notable incident of a hijacking by Croatian separatists in '76. Other than that, hijackings were overwhelmingly committed by white and black Americans.
Doing a more general search I couldn't actually find any hijacking of aircraft by middle eastern or Muslim passengers who boarded a plane at a US airport, apart from 9/11.
The most recent hijacking prior to 9/11 was Aubern Calloway; a black American and former pilot for FedEx who had a personal beef with his employees.
I also continued reading about non air related terrorism in the US and UK and found that the vast majority of incidents are domestic and carried out by non Muslim, non middle eastern men. I also noticed that whenever the individual perpetrators of an incident are unknown, then it will generally be attributed to an Islamic organisation; but when the perpetrators are found they are almost always non Muslim. This remains true in recent times, as well as in past history.
You can make a pretty decent start with this list of terrorist incidents; however it must be pointed out that it's generally difficult to define what is and what is not an act of terrorism; and as the issue is about security then I think what we're really interested in is any destructive and harmful incident.
To be honest I was quite surprised by the extent to which there is a lack of correlation; as well as the extreme rarity of terrorist incidents when compared to the media representation that we get of them.
If you ever find yourself wondering if anyone around you is a terrorist then the only people you can really discount are women and children. I'd therefore offer that it would be much more useful and give you a much happier day if you just stopped wondering altogether.
Hey, maybe D. B. Cooper was secretly a Muslim.

I still remember when discussing (well before the new body scanners, years ago) with someone about the TSA and the checks they do. He seemed to be OK with whatever they did and was of the standard "well if you are doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about" crowd. I had asked him "Well what if they started doing (insert unlikely scenario here) would you be ok with that then?" and he did not seem to really think that would happen. He just eventually would call me paranoid, although I think he probably imagined as secretly being a terroist. Or something. With the past week of news about the TSA now I do not feel so bad looking back.

The biggest trouble is that the TSA is always knee-jerk reaction to whatever threat that occurs rather than looking forward. They will always forever be playing catchup rather than implementing procedures that work. Shoe bomber? Have everyone x-ray their shoes... afterward. Underwear guy? Full body scans... afterward. What's next?

Granted there is no perfect solution. Regressing on the security back to the 60s would yield an incident (hijacking, bombing, etc) where everyone will just panic and demand more intrusive scans than before. Israeli level interrigations and questioning (they do high security through profiling/body language/etc rather than relying on machinery) while being skilled is impractical in the US. Throwing out the fact you would need to show up to the airport hours early it would simply cost too much for a country our size.

What gets under my skin from sheer stupidity though, is why are the pilots being subject to this? They just have to push the stick forward to be a terrorist. Going through those scanners day in and day out (when even TSA agents themselves have worried about its radiation from the outside) cannot be a good thing for them. Damn right they should be protesting this crap.

Personally? I'm really torn. If someone does The Dark Knight or uses a buttplug bomb I can only forsee flying in the US becoming The Fifth Element where everyone is simply knocked out for the duration of the flight. As much as this country puts up with I would have a really hard time believing that the average citizen would put up with downright cavity searches before getting on a plane.

Then again... I am probably sounding naive. This security theatre bullshit has got to stop either way. I'm genuinely more afraid of the TSA goons than the remote chance of someone blowing the plane to smitherines. Fuck, mechanical failure or some other fault is likely much more of a threat than terrorism.

</rant> The reason I sound pissed off is that if I want to fly I have to go through the redneck rivera TSA that is part of MCO here in Florida. I knew they were lying about the stored images from the start but what is batshit stupid is they installed the scanners there just the past week and already the images are being leaked out. Pardon the expression but Jesus Holy Titty Fucking Christ.

(Reference: http://gizmodo.com/5690749/ This is what I read earlier today, and what just makes my blood boil. Then again when the local news website posted the story about the guy who is in hot water over refusing the scan and patdown facing fines... most of the commenters were of the "Flying is a privilege not a right" or "YOU HAVE TO DO THIS TO FLY BECUASE OF 9/11 GOD BLESS THEIR SOULS" bullshit. I guess in Florida its ok to shred the 4th amendment as long as it you are a believer.)

Fuck this. I'm cancelling my damn trip next year. I'll fucking drive.

I disagree with portions of this but I still up-voted because there is a decent mix of good/bad info. Bottom line, everything needs scrutiny.

I say if the government wants intrusion then the people of this country should demand 100% transparency. Outlawing filming what police are doing, for example, is probably one of the most egregious offenses against accountability.

We'll see. Conway is gonna let it drop, sorta, largely because there are substantive things wrong with Paul's policies, and would rather drive the focus back towards that, now that the press-bait of Aqua Buddha has done its job.

In reply to this comment by AmandaF:
Buddha is being brought up again and again. Paul is nevertheless facing the disappointment of his university-days prank. The NoZe brotherhood was a group of students Rand Paul was a part of at Baylor. The group was founded to trigger aggravation for the administration. The disputed reports of the NoZe Brotherhood cover an array of intrusions. One of the many stories is that they kidnapped a female and asked her to "worship the Aqua Buddha". This is a little embarrassing for Paul, I wonder if there is enough personal loans in this world to sweep this under the rug.

Buddha is being brought up again and again. Paul is nevertheless facing the disappointment of his university-days prank. The NoZe brotherhood was a group of students Rand Paul was a part of at Baylor. The group was founded to trigger aggravation for the administration. The disputed reports of the NoZe Brotherhood cover an array of intrusions. One of the many stories is that they kidnapped a female and asked her to "worship the Aqua Buddha". This is a little embarrassing for Paul, I wonder if there is enough personal loans in this world to sweep this under the rug.

I don't understand the people who are amazed at qm's stand on this issue. He (or she; I don't know) has always stated his Libertarian stance, therefore he has always been against the intrusion of government into our private lives (e.g. Gay marriage and the Drug Wars).

That is where he and I agree; when you get to the absolutely craziness of the Libertarian stance on taxes, and cutting Social Security and Medicare, is where we part ways.

We have discussed this ad nauseum, yet I still feel miscategorized. I believe in free markets, yes, but that's not to mean my flavor of liberty is free market liberty. It sounds to me like you're trying to shoehorn my politics into a nice neat label so you can pick apart a particular aspect of it: particularly the free market approach to business.

Liberty to me is the freedom for people to voluntarily engage in activities and consensual agreements without coercion. That's pretty much it. My only caveat, which I agree is a modification of pure freedom, is that your exercise of liberty cannot aggress against other people. That makes it subjective, I agree. It's subjective because it adds an arbitrary parameter to an otherwise pure ideology.

But your idea of democratic liberty, if that's what you believe, would seem to be a very focused and extremely arbitrary freedom to be democratic. But, subjectively speaking of course, that would mean you use the apparatus of government as force to influence others violently. Your system of 'liberty' is not freedom at all, because you only have the freedom to democratically vote, but if you disagree with the majority then you have no freedom to go against their will, which is coercion and morally wrong.

It was because of majority rule, or democratic liberty if that's what you want to call it, that the US has experienced intrusive acts of aggression against minorities, the working class, the poor, women, etc. It was this monolithic process of growing government that created the corporation as it stands today. It was this process that is systematically squeezing the small business entrepreneur into nonexistence and shrinking the middle class.