3 things, I may have mixed them a bit.

1 - past experience specifically with muslim migrants (some may have been refugees) in Europe - overall not great, mostly they consider our social system and political correctness as signs of weakness. They consider themselves superior, the first generation may be grateful for a better life than back home but the second and third generations feel superior to non-muslims (especially jews and atheists, but also christians) and entitled to benefits while hating the secular state. Will the current and future waves accomodate better? This has nothing to do with our imperative to help those in need, it is a practical problem. Also not racist - although I do admit racism and xenophobia are a major problem in many parts of Europe and trouble me very much in my own country. More so than the Vietnamese or Ukrainians or people from the Balkans "these people" organize in clans and tribes and will try to impose their view of the world on us, who organise in tiny families and on facebook. Albanian thugs are well organised but they dont hold the view that everyone else should be an Albanian thug too.

2 - current wave of migrants and refugees - lets assume we are talking only about real Syrians boarding boats in Turkey trying to reach Greek islands and not people from all over north africa trying to reach Italy or anyone else trying to reach the EU (possibly pretending to be Syrian). So we have this exemplary Syrian family which has run away from a war to Turkey. They are safe there, only they have to either stay for a couple of years in a refugee camp before they can try to find work or they have to survive in a grey economy sort of like Mexicans in the USA. They know that if they dont apply for asylum in Turkey and manage to set foot on EU soil they can ask for asylum there and be treated better than in Turkey. So these boat people are actually not running from war to asylum but rather from one asylum to another. They make sure not to stop in Greece or Croatia or Austria or Hungary but head for Germany or Sweden. Mostly I believe they have no idea of political geography but they have mobile phones and friends who have already made the journey and know how to milk the local system. So for purposes of compassion they are refugees and totally need our help but from a clinically economic (yes, materialistic) point of view they are very much migrants. Migrants we feel obliged to help because they are sort of refugees too.

3 - the mass and speed of the exodus means we are stretched to accomodate them and they will later start to passionately hate us because Europe will not be the heaven they expected it to be.
A few thousand refugees every year are no big deal even for a small EU state. Hundreds of thousands will be very difficult to take care of in the entire union. Inviting more is just irresponsible.

The good news is that the real Syrian refugees who make it to Europe will probably be the more resourceful, better educated part of the current wave of incoming people and will be able to take care of themselves fairly quickly by my estimate. Also they are mostly variants of Shia - the less orthodox branch of muslims. I am worried more about future waves than the current one.

Maybe we have messed up a bit but we need to learn from our mistakes, and even Germany is now guarding its borders. It would be better if we were able to guard the Shengen perimeter.
Then if we wanted to save more refugees we could send trains or planes to pick them up in Turkey or Jemen. You know, set up an EU consulate there so they could directly apply for asylum in the EU country of their picking. But we have to make a conscious decision first - how many people from the desolate and failing parts of the world do we want to save over a given time period so that we dont fail ourselves. Are we failing? Ask the jewish families who used to live in Malmo until recently.

German media reports that the USAF's budget plan for Q3/15 includes funds for the integration of the B61-12 nuclear bomb into German Tornado fighter-bombers.

How Germany can lobby for an abolition of nuclear weapons while our government allows the US to modernise its nuclear arsenal on German soil is beyond me, to be quite honest. Especially since an overwhelming majority of our parliament voted in favour of a resolution to pressure the US to remove its nukes from Germany territory five years ago.

tree ring and soil data

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/californias-drought-worst-1-200-years-researchers-say-n262621

I'd be more worried about the guys who kill 1,600 people and aren't emotionally traumatized... The fact he's ridiculed by his former pilot mates is disturbing, that they can so distance themselves from killing is scary... of course we have a nation full of people who claim to be pro-life on one hand, yet fully support the preemptive killing of people who haven't done anything to us yet, and indeed may have never participated in any direct or indirect attacks on US soil, let alone against US citizens abroad. It's one thing to target and kill people who were involved in 9/11 or other attacks against US facilities, but preemptively killing people we suspect may become involved is creating a far bigger problem than it solves. This is why we need people like Bernie Sanders rather than any of the other candidates on either side of the aisle, all of whom (besides perhaps Rand Paul, who's fairly heartless towards America's working poor as the rest of his party) will continue the Bush doctrine of shoot and kill first, ask questions later, and never have any regret...

No, don't overthink it. It's not some deep complicated reaction to artificial gender\comedy\social issues you read about in blogs, it's just stale humor to me. I'm sure many find her deadpan delivery of facial cream-pie queef soiled panty jokes to be ground-breaking. If Eisenhower was in the White House I'm sure I would think so too but it's been done a billion times.

If you don't laugh at the "why did the chicken cross the road" joke does that make you an animal rights activist?

Again, I can't seem to pull up the full text of your article through google scholar. Even your summary though states an additional warming contribution of 0.3C by 2100. Sorry, but I don't class that as catastrophic. What's more, simply doing a google scholar search for articles on "permafrost methane climate" and taking the first four full articles give the following, with absolutely zero effort taken to pluck out ones that support my particular claim:

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/4/045016/fulltext/
According to our results, by mid-21st century the annual net flux of methane from Russian permafrost regions may increase by 6–8 Mt, depending on climatic scenario. If other sinks and sources of methane remain unchanged, this may increase the overall content of methane in the atmosphere by approximately 100 Mt, or 0.04 ppm, and lead to 0.012 °C global temperature rise.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010RG000326/full
It's a more sweeping assessment so it doesn't have a nice short quotable for our particular point. It's most concise point is in Figure 7 which I'm not sure how to link into here as an image. You can check for yourself though that even the highest error margins on methane releases touch natural emissions till long, long after 2100, matching the IPCC millenial timescale statement I cited earlier.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018680/full
A detailed study of one mire show that the permafrost and vegetation changes have been associated with increases in landscape scale CH4 emissions in the range of 22–66% over the period 1970 to 2000.

http://www.pnas.org/content/108/36/14769.full
We attempted to incorporate in this study some of the latest mechanistic understanding about the mechanisms controlling soil CO2 respiration and wetland CH4 emissions, but uncertainties remain large, due to incomplete understanding of biogeochemical and physical processes and our ability to encapsulate them in large-scale models. In particular, small-scale hydrological effects (36) and interactions between warming and hydrological processes are only crudely represented in the current generation of terrestrial biosphere models. Fundamental processes such as thermokarst erosion (37) or the effects of drying on peatland CO2 emissions (e.g., ref. 38) are lacking here, causing uncertainty on future high-latitude carbon-climate feedbacks. In addition, large uncertainty arises from our ability to model wetland dynamics or the microbial processes that govern CH4 emissions, and in particular how the complicated dynamics of permafrost thaw would affect these processes.

The control of changes in the carbon balance of terrestrial regions by production vs. decomposition has been explored by a number of authors, with differing estimates of whether vegetation or soil changes have the largest overall effect on carbon storage changes (39–41). These results demonstrate that with the inclusion of two well-observed mechanisms: the relative inhibition of respiration by soil freezing (42) and the vertical motion in Arctic soils that buries old but labile carbon in deeper permafrost horizons, which can be remobilized by warming (3), the high-latitude terrestrial carbon response to warming can tip from near equilibrium to a sustained source of CO2 by the mid-21st century. We repeat that uncertainties on these estimates of CO2 and CH4 balance are large, due to the complexity of high-latitude ecosystems vs. the simplified process treatment used here.

And I was able to find the full PDF for your own original sink on the subject:
here
We conclude that the ice-free area of
northeastGreenland acts as a net sink of atmosphericmethane,
and suggest that this sink will probably be enhanced under
future warmer climatic conditions.

All of the above seem to fairly well corroborate my earlier citation to the IPCC's own summary of the current knowledge on permafrost and northern methane impact on future warming:
However modelling studies and expert judgment indicate that CH4 and CO2 emissions will increase under Arctic warming, and that they will provide a positive climate feedback. Over centuries, this feedback will be moderate: of a magnitude similar to other climate–terrestrial ecosystem feedbacks
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter06_FINAL.pdf
From FAQ 6.1

If you want to more simply claim that there exist studies, with noted high uncertainties, that under the worst case emission scenarios that show a possible significant release of methan prior to 2100 and possible catatrophic releases after, then I agree. If you want to claim that the consensus is we are facing catastrophe in our lifetime, as your first post claimed, then I most point to the overwhelming scientific evidence linked above that simply does not agree, once again chosen at random and with no effort to cherry pick only results that match what I want. I must note I lack surprise though as the IPCC had already been claiming the same of the literature and existing evidence.

@newtboy

#1 and #2, fine, if you won't go there to read it's now pasted in full for you:
Arctic tundra soils serve as potentially important but poorly understood sinks of atmospheric methane (CH4), a powerful greenhouse gas1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Numerical simulations project a net increase in methane consumption in soils in high northern latitudes as a consequence of warming in the past few decades3, 6. Advances have been made in quantifying hotspots of methane emissions in Arctic wetlands7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, but the drivers, magnitude, timing and location of methane consumption rates in High Arctic ecosystems are unclear. Here, we present measurements of rates of methane consumption in different vegetation types within the Zackenberg Valley in northeast Greenland over a full growing season. Field measurements show methane uptake in all non-water-saturated landforms studied, with seasonal averages of − 8.3 ± 3.7 μmol CH4 m−2 h−1 in dry tundra and − 3.1 ± 1.6 μmol CH4 m−2 h−1 in moist tundra. The fluxes were sensitive to temperature, with methane uptake increasing with increasing temperatures. We extrapolate our measurements and published measurements from wetlands with the help of remote-sensing land-cover classification using nine Landsat scenes. We conclude that the ice-free area of northeast Greenland acts as a net sink of atmospheric methane, and suggest that this sink will probably be enhanced under future warmer climatic conditions.

#3, regardless of if it make's sense to you, and regardless of if it means a 10C warming by 2100, the IPCC scientists collaborative summary says it anyways. If you want to claim otherwise it's you opposing the science to make things seem worse than they are, not me.

#4, To tell them those things would sound like this. The IPCC current best estimates from climate models project 2100 to be 1.5C warmer than 2000. This has already resulted in 2000 being 0.8C warmer than 1900. Summer arctic sea ice extent has retreating significantly is the biggest current impact. By 2100 it is deemed extremely unlikely that the Greenland and Antarctic iccesheets will have meaningfully reduced and there is medium confidence that the warming will actually expand Antarctic ice cover owing to increased precipitation from the region. That's the results and expectations to be passed on from the 5th report from an international collaboration of scientists. Whether that fits your world view or not doesn't matter to the scientific evidence those views are founded on and supported by.

You said the ocean's may be unfishable in 20 years, and the best support you came up with was a news article quote claiming that by 2040 most of the Arctic would be too acidic for Shell forming fish. Cherry picked by the news article that also earlier noted that was dependent on CO2 concentrations exceeding 1000ppm in 2100, and even that some forms of plankton under study actually faired better in higher acidity in some case. In a news article that also noted that the uneven distribution of acidity makes predicting the effects very challenging. If news articles count as evidence I then want to claim we'll have working fusion power to convert to in 5 years time from Lockheed Martin. I'll agree with your news post on one count, the world they talk about, where CO2 emissions continue accelerating year on year, even by 2100, is bad. It's also a bit hard to fathom with electric cars just around the corner, and if not solar and wind, fusion sometime before then too, that we'll still be using anywhere near today's emissions let alone still accelerating our use.

by 2025 it's estimated that 2/3 of people worldwide will live in a water shortage.
And you link to a blog, and a blog that provides exactly zero references to any scientific sources for the claim. Better yet, even the blog does NOT claim that the access to water will be limited because of climate change, the blog even mentions multiple times how other forms of pollution are destroying huge amounts of fresh water(again with zero attributions).

Here's the IPCC best estimates for 2100 impacts regionally:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter14_FINAL.pdf

You'll find it's a largely mixed bag if you can be bothered to read what the actual scientists are predicting. Just bare in mind they regularly note that climate models still have a lot of challenges with accurate regional estimates. I guess your blogger isn't hindered by such problems though. If you don't want to bother I'll summarize for you and note they observe a mixed bag of increased precipitation in some regions, notably monsoons generally increasing, and other areas lowering, but it's all no higher than at medium confidences. But hey, why should uncertainty about 2100 prevent us from panicking today about more than half the world losing their drinking water in 10 years. I'll make you a deal, in ten years we can come back to this thread and see whether or not climate change has cause 2/3 of the world to lose their drinking water already or not. I'm pretty confident on this one.

Northern India/Southern China is nearly 100% dependent on glacial melt water, glaciers that have lost 50% in the last decade
Lost 50% since 2005? That'd be scary, oh wait, you heard that from the same blog you say? I've got a hunch maybe they aren't being straight with you...
Here are a pair of links I found in google scholar to scientific articles on the Himalaya's glaciers:
http://cires1.colorado.edu/~braup/himalaya/Science13Nov2009.pdf
I you can't be bothered to read:
Claims reported in the popular press that Siachin has shrunk as much as 50% are simply wrong, says Riana, whose report notes that the glacier has "not shown any remarkable retreat in the last 50 years" Which looks likely that your blogger found a popular press piece about that single glacier and then went off as though it were fact, and across the entire mountain range .

http://indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/glaciers%20and%20climate.pdf
Here's another article noting that since 1962 Himalayan glacier reduction is actually about 21%.

If you go back and read the IPCC links I gave earlier you can also find many of the regional rivers and glaciers in India/East China are very dependent on monsoons and will persist as long as monsoons do. Which the IPCC additionally notes are expected to, on the whole, actually increase through 2100 warming.

I've stated before up thread that things are warming and we are the major contribution, but merely differed from your position be also observing the best evidence science has for predictions isn't catastrophic. That is compounded by high uncertainties, notably that TOA energy levels are still not able to be predicted well. The good news there is the latest IPCC estimated temps exceed the observed trends of both temperature and TOA imbalance, so there's reason for optimism. That's obviously not license for recklessly carrying on our merry way, as I've noted a couple times already about roads away from emissions that we are going to adopt one way or another long before 2100.

@newtboy,

How about great big citation needed. Your making a lot of assertions and about zero references to back anything, your just one step shy of claiming because I say so as your proof.

The rotting material creates exponentially more methane than any mechanism could trap.
Citation required.

your study quote did not say that "they've identified regions up north where the soil absorbs more methane the warmer it gets
The abstract is only a paragraph and the charliem gave the link up thread, just go and read it already, they did numerical estimates AFTER going in and directly measuring the actual affects. And I must additionally add, it's not MY link but was instead the ONLY claimed evidence in thread of your catastrophic methane release.

Let me start us off, the IPCC once again summarizes your problem as follows:
However modelling studies and expert judgment indicate that CH4 and CO2 emissions will increase under Arctic warming, and that they will provide a positive climate feedback. Over centuries, this feedback will be moderate: of a magnitude similar to other climate–terrestrial ecosystem feedbacks
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter06_FINAL.pdf
From FAQ 6.1

There are caveats prior to the above quote about unknowns and uncertainty and the possibility the affects will be less or more, but the consensus is, don't panic. Like I said.

As for bringing that person from 1915 in today, you don't get to tell them the environment will be destroyed 100 years from 2015 in the year 2100 as a result. You have to prove that first, which you have merely asserted, not proven. On the other hand, my evidence was bringing our visitor from the past showing them the year 2015, and the consequences of rising global temperatures by 0.8C since his time in 1915. Then I say we ask him if abandoning coal power, airplanes, satellites, and cars to prevent that warming is a better alternate future he should go back and sell the people of 1915 on. I'm thinking that's gonna be a hard sell. I'm additionally pointing out that the IPCC projections for the next 100 years is 1.5C warmer than today, so we'll be going up by 1.5 instead of the 0.8 our visitor from the past had to choose. The trick is, I don't see how you can claim that panic should be the natural and clear response. You need a lot more evidence, which as stated above you've failed to provide, and more over what you've posited is contrary to the science as presented by researchers like those at the IPCC.

It may be unfishable in 15-20 years at current acidification rates.
citation needed.

by 2025 it's estimated that 2/3 of people worldwide will live in a water shortage.
citation needed, and you need to tie it to human CO2 and not human guns and violence creating the misery.

Northern India/Southern China is nearly 100% dependent on glacial melt water, glaciers that have lost 50% in the last decade
citation needed

The downvote was not for your opinion, it was for your dangerously mistaken estimations and conclusions...
, says you. If you don't use any evidence to refute me it's still called your opinion...

Perhaps in some minor 'unknown' areas for unknown reasons that could be true, but overall it's far from true. The rotting material creates exponentially more methane than any mechanism could trap. You and they don't even mention the mechanism that traps methane at all, the methane being released is from bacteria eating thawed organic material.

EDIT: Actually, your study quote did not say that "they've identified regions up north where the soil absorbs more methane the warmer it gets"...it said "numerical simulations predict" they exist, "but the drivers, magnitude, timing and location of methane consumption rates in High Arctic ecosystems are unclear." This means places where methane capture outpaces release, or happens at all, have not been found-'location unclear'.

OK, you did say 'if we magically remove all the CO2 we've ever produced' (ignoring methane and other greenhouse gasses) in your second post. I missed the 'magic removal' part. My mistake, but that makes it a silly argument since we can't do magic. If we could, there would be no problem....and if I crapped diamonds I would be rich.

Well, in the context of talking to a person from 1912, if you explained to them that the 'progress' (by which I guess you mean population explosion and technical advancements) of the last century comes at the cost of the environment, nature, and may destroy the planet over the next century (at least for human survival), I would bet anyone with an IQ of 90+ will say 'selling (or even gambling) our permanent future for temporary industrial progress is a terrible idea, no thanks'.

Well, you must see that some of that great 'food production' is actually corn and grain for livestock, bio fuels, palm oils, etc., not human food stuffs. In order to make that 'food', forests are destroyed, removing entire eco systems that provided 'bush taco' (natural foods) which wasn't included in the equations about overall food production. Food HARVESTS of natural foods have declined rapidly worldwide, just look at the ocean. It may be unfishable in 15-20 years at current acidification rates. Kill the base of the food web, and the web falls apart. It's a rare place today that can support a human population without industrial agriculture and food importation, both of which have failed to solve starvation issues to date.

You can only be ignoring that data about it being catastrophic. I referenced it earlier. Just to mention ONE way, by 2025 it's estimated that 2/3 of people worldwide will live in a water shortage. In most cases, there's absolutely no way to fix this. For instance, Northern India/Southern China is nearly 100% dependent on glacial melt water, glaciers that have lost 50% in the last decade, and that rate is expected to continue to accelerate. With no water, industrial agriculture fails instantly, and people die in 3 days or so. There's NO solution for this disaster, not a plan, not an idea, nothing. There are already immigration problems worldwide, how to solve that when the immigration increases exponentially everywhere?

The downvote was not for your opinion, it was for your dangerously mistaken estimations and conclusions, and insistence that, contrary to all human history and all scientific evidence, this time humans will find and implement a working solution to the problem in time (already too late IMO) that's not worse than the problem was, and so we should not be bothered by the coming massive shortages and upheaval that comes with them, because somehow in that upheaval we'll find and implement massive global solutions to currently insurmountable issues. We can't even slow down the rate of increase in CO2 emissions, it's unbelievable to think we'll turn that to a negative number in 20-30 years even if the tech is invented (which still leaves us in Mad Max times at best, IMO), much more so to think we could erase 100 years of emissions in that time. EDIT:...and I find that kind of dangerous unrealistic suggestion insulting.

@newtboy,
as the ice on land disappears, it exposes permafrost that, as it melts, also emits methane.

More from charliem's article's abstract:
Arctic tundra soils serve as potentially important but poorly understood sinks of atmospheric methane (CH4), a powerful greenhouse gas1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Numerical simulations project a net increase in methane consumption in soils in high northern latitudes as a consequence of warming in the past few decades3, 6. Advances have been made in quantifying hotspots of methane emissions in Arctic wetlands7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, but the drivers, magnitude, timing and location of methane consumption rates in High Arctic ecosystems are unclear.

The article he linked IS saying that they've identified regions up north where the soil absorbs more methane the warmer it gets. They note this is a relatively unknown area as opposed to northern regions that emit methane. Charliem just didn't read the reference he pulled out at is it is counter evidence to his and your own statements.

As for your point:
As for your misunderstanding of CO2, removing all CO2 production tomorrow
I never said anything about that, I said:
if we could magically remove all the CO2 we've added to the atmosphere
As in I was talking about not merely ending our emissions, but also sequestering and pulling out of the atmosphere all the CO2 lingering there from us over the last century as well. That's pushing CO2 concentrations back down from nearly 400 to under 300. Re-read my statements in the correct context and they'll make more sense.
As for people "thriving", that's just ridiculous. There's been a food shortage world wide for quite some time now.
Again, context matters doesn't it? I'm describing how a person from 1915 would not look at our world today and wish they could go back to their time, end all CO2 emissions and avoid the catastrophic consequences we're suffering in 2015. If you want to talk about food distribution, your right and we've had problems with it forever. If you want to talk food production though, it's never been higher, if you go look at global agriculture output it's a steady increasing line as surely as the instrumental temperature record.

For the record, I absolutely state that the evidence throughout the entire instrumental record is a warming planet since records began in 1900. I absolutely state that the evidence is irrefutable that CO2 contributes to warming. I absolutely state the the evidence is irrefutable that we are raising global CO2 concentrations with our actions. Where I diverge from those like you is I do NOT see the scientific evidence declaring the results are catastrophic. It's simply not there to be found, in many cases it is in fact contrary to the limited evidence we DO have on it as well.

@bobknight33
here is what i don't get about you or lantern:
1.you state that you are a conservative with a "tea party" flavor to your politics,
YET...
you consistently defend the power of the state to authorize our ever-increasing militarized police force to engage in violence and brutality which often leads to the death of a citizen,often with impunity (such as this case).

this is neither conservative nor tea party,it is fascist.

2.many of your arguments point to obeying a lawful order,be polite and respectful and much of the brutality and violence would end.on this point i totally agree,
BUT....
you totally ignore how "equal under law" has been perverted to only serve the elite and those who can "pay for justice" and how the system of "justice" has been corrupted to target minorities and the economically insolvent (poor) and feed them into the largest prison system on the planet.

they are commodifying the poor,blacks,latinos in the name of profit,all for the same elitist fucknozzles who perpetrated fraud,theft and outright lies,walking away with trillions of our money and not a single indictment.(check that,ONE indictment of a low level banker..whoopdy-shit).

yet i see you consistently BLAME the poor,black and latino.

this is not conservative nor tea party....it is racist.

3.many of your posts deal with a corrupt government.how it is bloated and inefficient.you decry the 'welfare/nanny state" and the horrible misappropriation of funds.

this is a typical,and necessary argument.that is the way of political dialogue and while i am not debating here the finer points nor the validity of your position,i am,however,saying the discussion is a necessary one to engage in.

however,

you,almost without fail,disregard and will actually DEFEND:police brutality and military action on foreign soil.yet BOTH of these institutions are exclusively government controlled,operated and executed.(which is why many of lanterns posts make me laugh).

this is not conservative nor tea party ......... it is the epitome of cognitive dissonance.

my point is:
your arguments and positions are not philosophically harmonious.
they are in direct opposition.your posted philosophies are a direct contradiction to what you espouse.

here is an example of late:
@newtboy tends to post cops behaving badly videos.
you will chime in,almost always,siding with the cop (in one fashion or another).
newtboy will make an argument about exercising your rights.the rights as a citizen in a situation with a representative of the state..
AND YOU WILL ARGUE WITH HIM.

in that instance..newtboy is more a tea party conservative than you are bob.

think about that for a moment bob....
newt is MORE of a patriot and constitutionalist than YOU are.
maybe you are just being a contrarian?
maybe just a bit of trolling?

but...in the end,your arguments make no sense due to their contradictory nature.
you can't be for a smaller,more accountable government and then look the other way when that very same government is over-stepping it's lawful directives.

Did not the supreme court recently declare this program was unconstitutional anyway? I can't understand how they could possibly extend a program that's unconstitutional. That doesn't make sense.

Of course, they try to not admit that this program has been useless. They have ignored that it's not stopped any of the terrorist acts on our soil or elsewhere, not even contributing in a meaningful way towards stopping any. NOT ONCE. It's astonishing that all but one senator is claiming the opposite, when their own independent investigations proved it repeatedly. It's also astonishing that they have completely ignored the findings of the supreme court that declared it unconstitutional. I guess the whole 'swear to uphold the constitution' part of their oath comes with an unspoken caveat 'unless I don't want to, it's inconvenient, or I get paid not to'.

I'm not normally a fan of Paul, but I think he got this one right. I hope the spin machine (now on overdrive from both parties. Impressive, he actually brought the two parties together!) doesn't convince people that he's the one that's got it wrong (him, along with the supreme court) and all the other senators are really working to try to keep us safe and free, all evidence to the contrary not withstanding.

EDIT: Also, the USA Freedom act, the proposed replacement, still has all the data kept, just kept by the private companies involved. Personally, I don't trust private companies to keep my information private. Not only is there the likelihood they'll be hacked, there's also the likelihood they'll SELL that information eventually, no matter what their 'privacy policy' or 'terms of service' say. Often, when companies are dissolved, that customer information is sold as an asset, even when the company is contractually bound to keep it private and NOT sell it. Once the company is dissolved, there's no one to sue over them not keeping their obligation. This happens all the time now. I certainly don't want my calls, to who and when I made them, all purchases, and my location to be sold to the highest bidder(s), I don't know about you.

But what if the society norm is 'Don't be black'?
See, your country has a history of racism, stating very clearly the belief that people who aren't white are de facto Untermenschen. You know, like my country did with jews until we got ripped a new one and the world pressed our face into the awful, awful shit we did, like a dog who soiled his masters living room rug. Except that you guys never got that kind of treatment. To this day there's a large part of the white population in the US that actually celebrates the side that lost your civil war on slavery. They still fly those pro slavery flags and have their memorials for their 'heroes'. Seen from the perspective of a guy who made class trips to Buchenwald, that's really weird.
The norms of your society have changed somewhat but certainly not enough to make black and white equal in your country. Maybe there aren't laws to punish people for pigmentation anymore but the system is still rigged to their disadvantage. Centuries of targeted, intentional disadvanteges aren't wiped out by 50 years of not saying 'nigger' all the time anymore.

And what exactly are those privileges? Not getting shot in back by a cop you're running away from? Is that a privilege?

Straight from the Guardian's current article on the most recent shipwreck in the Med:

The deaths are likely to renew calls from campaigners for Europe to reinstate full-scale search-and-rescue operations in the Mediterranean. Last October, the EU opted not to replace the Italian-run Operation Mare Nostrum, which saved about 100,000 lives last year, amid fears that it was encouraging smugglers and migrants to organise more trips to Europe.

What they forgot to mention: Italy would have continued Mare Nostrum if the rest of this bloody EU had bothered to pitch in with a few bucks. The total bill was €114 million per year. Petty cash, by any measure.

The replacement, Frontex's Operation Triton, doesn't even have a mandate to save shipwrecked folks, just to keep them away from EU soil.

European values worthy of yet another Nobel Peace Price, I'd say...

True for many simple domestic species, but exotic gardening of foreign trees until they reach the point where they are bearing fruit takes a lot of knowledge on top of sourcing the seeds. How much water? What's the pollination process? Soil chemistry? Fertilization and nutrients? Diseases and pests to manage?

There are a lot of failed gardens out there.