Where are you getting 913?

From what I can see, it's 694.
North Dakota · 18
California · 475
Montana · 21
New Jersey · 126
New Mexico · 34
South Dakota · 20

Am I missing something?

The mean estimate of the number of ALL North American tribes was around 8 million (8.5 if you consider the small amount in Canada). Want to know the population of LA? If you guess around 4 million, you are correct.

The population of the state of California is close to 40 million. About 1/3 to 1/2 of that number lives in what should be desert. Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico have about 20 million people, most of whom live in desert like conditions. You can't support that number of people in a desert region on existing resources.

As far as food waste and obesity, you are talking about a small handful of developed, affluent nations. The rest of the world is starving. Even if we magically moved that food waste daily to people in need around the world, we would still have people who didn't get enough. We are at our limit on supplying food for the population, as it continues to grow, even the food waste issue will need to be solved if we plan to keep people just in those first world nations fed.

Trawling today is different. It used to be about doing as little work as you needed to for the most return. Now it is about getting your quota before the season ends, because we are desperately trying to keep the marine population sustainable. Even so, we are running out of some types of fish. Wild catch salmon is going to be gone in a few years, it will mostly be farm raised, which will also impact the environment. Cod is harder to come by as well because it is being over fished.

I have to admit, I don't know where you are going with the nuclear issue and weapons. The amount of nuclear waste from decommissioned weapons is minimal. The amount from power, medical, and research is far greater. All three are fueled by a need to either provide power to a large population, keeping people alive, or researching future power/medical uses.

Am I relieved when friends or family members die? No, but those people are already here. They are already factored into the system, so to speak. What we need to do to fix our current looming nightmare is to prevent or persuade people to stop having kids. Population is not a data-in only situation, it's data-out also. People die, if you don't replace them then there are more resources available. My wife and I chose not to have kids, not because we wouldn't love them, but because it was the responsible thing to do. As @newtboy mentioned, we won't necessarily fix all the issues by reducing population growth, but it would be a huge help. It might also give us time to work out other solutions, because we are looking down the barrel of a loaded gun.

Um...no
The Jews that invaded Palestine were illegitimate because they were illegal immigrants invading what was essentially a British 'colony'.
That has nothing to do with the fact that the USA didn't take as many as we might have. Those are two separate wrongs.
Palestine was not invaded because it was 'safer'..it was invaded because they wanted to own it. If it was about safety, they would have illegally immigrated to the multiple neighboring countries, not one single place all the way across Europe....kind of like the Syrian refugees are doing. If the Syrians all went to Belgium, installed their own laws and government supplanting the local Belgians', made the Belgians non-citizens, took their lands and properties, pushed them into one small corner ghetto, then complained about how bad the Belgians are...we would laugh at their faces as we blasted the shit out of them...why did we support Jews doing the EXACT same thing without a gun forcing (edit: most of) them out of their homes like the Syrians had?
Palestine did NOT have a SIZEABLE Jewish population, it was close to 5% before the invasion. It also wasn't closer by far than any other country in Europe. It only made perfect sense because their religious leaders told them to go there and 'take back their ancestral homeland'.

I never said those in the 40's were not that desperate, nor did I ever suggest we 'change history'. You need a reading comprehension refresher. I said those illegally invading in the 30's had little to flee (unless you are saying they had a time machine and KNEW what was coming). I also say those in the 40's after the war and all those coming after that had NOTHING to flee.

The difference being that the Arabs had been there for centuries, living peacefully with a small Jewish population as part of their 'country', yes, peacefully. It wasn't until the Brits ignored their own immigration laws and allowed the Jews to invade by the thousands that conflict broke out. Today, non Jews are not full citizens in the land that the Palestinians lived on for eons, and what's left of the native Palestinians are held in a concentration camp.

If things being bad where you live is a legitimate reason to take another country, all of Africa should be taking Europe today, along with much of Asia. In fact, we may as well forget countries if that's the metric, all countries treat some group poorly.

The invaders gained more land than they had at the outset (they had NONE at the outset, they lived in what had been British ruled Palestine, and was now reverting to Palestinian rule...) but the Jews wanted their own Jewish country and stole it from the people who had never had an army, using American weapons purchased mainly with American money (or given to them for free) while the Palestinians were barely supported by their neighbors, who had never been their allies. It was not "civil war' it was an invasion. Those fighting came from elsewhere to steal the land, it was not just the native Jews fighting, it was mostly invading Jews.

Yes, of course they refused. If Mexico took Texas, then the UN said "OK, it's yours, just don't take New Mexico", yet the Mexicans were already settling in New Mexico with their army protecting the settlements, I really don't think the US would accept the UN plan either. It was ridiculous and a plan based on stealing from Peter to pay Paul back for somethin Ringo stole. WTF?!?

Yes, that counts as 'stealing land' using overwhelming force, then fighting over it, then stealing MORE land, then subjugating and dehumanizing the locals, then stealing MORE land, and more land, and more land, and whining and crying that they're the victims.

The alliance of Arab nations that fought them was much SMALLER militarily, you know this.
When a 'smaller' invading force uses it's international contacts to become a violent racist bully, uses it's overwhelming force to steal land for decades, pushing the locals into the sea or concentration camps, kills tens of thousands and imprisons millions in horrendous conditions for decades and claims they want peace, yes, they need to return all the land they gained with their evil behavior or expect the leftovers of their genocide to strike back until one side is wiped out.

They were not a nation when they did this. They were an invading horde of Europeans trying to create a religious nation on someone else's land.

I can never understand why anyone thought taking Palestine from the Palestinians because Jews were oppressed in Europe made any sense at all. Why was a new country not carved out of Germany? It makes no sense.
I'm disgusted that my government is Zionist. Land thieves should not be supported, especially when they're conquering religious zealots.
I often wonder how people would react if the Zionists had created their country in Texas, expelled the Texans, then expanded into New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Louisiana 'to create a buffer zone' that they then move into, and were supported by the international community?

Beats me.

Even out in the field, we had something to the tune of 38°C. Doesn't bother me much, but three days of this in a row is quite taxing on the elderly. This ain't New Mexico, there is no a/c to crank up.

While I find it entertaining and hilarious, this is simply horrible strawmanning. The US has one of the simplest systems of inclusion of any major nation. He either is not understanding, or he's simply being a demagogue about it.

It's really, really simple.

Want full rights? Then join permanently. Become a state. It's literally the exact same thing that Tennessee, Ohio, Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi, Illinois, Alabama, Missouri, Arkansas, Michigan, Florida, Iowa, Wisconsin, California, Minnesota, Oregon, Kansas, Nevada, Nebraska, Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Washington, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, Alaska, and Hawaii did.

Guam, the Marianas, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands have the EXACT SAME OPTIONS as those states listed above had when those states were territories.

Samoa is different because they don't meet the minimum population requirement (60K) to be bumped up to qualify for statehood.

They're pretty close tho.

But yeah... it has nothing to do with race or bigotry or anything like that. If John Oliver can't understand that simple system, then how does he explain the different rights of citizens in the British Overseas Territories vs the British Crown Dependencies, or how Wales and Scotland are sort of countries and sort of not countries.

I'm assuming he can understand the wonky UK system, and if that's so, he should easily understand the simple US system (want full rights, vote to join permanently).

Just last year, there was a movement in Guam to call for a vote of statehood. Basically a glorified (but meaningful) petition. They didn't get the required % of people wanting to vote, so, in essence, Guam doesn't even care enough to vote for statehood.

They have every right that every other territory has had in terms of what category they fall under.

Basically, just look at states as permanent (and thusly more rights as well as more responsibilities) and territories as temporary until they decide what they want to be. Or territories can stay in limbo forever.

Guam, PR, and the rest can go the route of Hawaii (okay, that was naked imperialism but whatever) or the route of Cuba and the Philippines... or just stay how they are.

ET found in New Mexico has been added as a related post - related requested by oritteropo.

I'm not quite sure how I feel about the fact that archaeologists are now digging up games from my youth...

*related=http://videosift.com/video/ET-found-in-New-Mexico

I thought the New Mexico anomaly was discovered to be due to the shifting sand dunes near there, or was that another area in the southwest?

The key difference that you are ignoring is that this photographer told the client the reason they refused them service was because of their sexual orientation. If the photographer told the client that they had different artistic views, that would be different, but they didn't. New Mexico's anti-discrimination law forbids for-profit businesses from turning down customers on the basis of sexual orientation. I believe that's a good law because I believe discrimination is bad.
I don't have hate in my heart "dude", it's indignation.

It's like I'm psychic...amazing what 90 seconds of searching can find:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/06/justice/new-mexico-search-lawsuit/

"Hildalgo County K-9 officer did inform me that he had dealt with Mr. Eckert on a previous case and stated that Mr. Eckert was known to insert drugs into his anal cavity and had been caught in Hidalgo County with drugs in his anal cavity," the affidavit said.

I am not a fan of the "War on Drugs"...

I'm also not a fan of sensationalist news stories and the people that perpetuate them.

I'm going to assume this is in New Mexico

Of course. That's what makes something nationally relevant. It doesn't even have to affect me. It just needs to impact more than some kid in New Mexico or something (I already don't remember). I'm just saying this isn't national news. There isn't some national epidemic of cops brutalizing 10 year olds.

Some stupid kid going missing in Florida isn't national news either but every time it happens it's all over the news. Public servants employed by the government (that is, employed by you and me) abusing their positions in any capacity is relevant news. And excessive force is clearly endemic to American police as the countless examples constantly surfacing in various newspapers and the internet have shown. If it isn't some kid or grandmother being tazed somewhere it's some unarmed citizen being shot and killed for no legitimate reason.

Of course. That's what makes something nationally relevant. It doesn't even have to affect me. It just needs to impact more than some kid in New Mexico or something (I already don't remember). I'm just saying this isn't national news. There isn't some national epidemic of cops brutalizing 10 year olds.

There could be an epidemic of police brutality, and certainly of racial profiling. A human interest piece covering systemic coverups, dirty departments, anything that involved actual digging could be considered actual national news. In fact, many have been run by the "corporate media" on things like stop-and-frisk, terrorist profiling, and even things like corporate prison labor. I, like most lefties, am interested in well researched stories of that sort. This isn't that. It's some regurgitated local sob story. Typically their fact checking is bullshit to boot.

In other words they amplify noise and partisan rhetoric rather than inform. The Economist or the Times they are not. It's usually fine that they do what they do, it's just that you shouldn't confuse it for something that it isn't, like news.

>> ^scheherazade:

That really speaks to the general state of selfish humanity.
If it isn't affecting me, then I don't care.
People not affected by the economic downturn, don't care about the recession.
People not affected by psycho police, don't care about police brutality.
Enough people are affected by the economy for there to be a lot that want to hear about it in the news.
Only some people are sacrificed to the police gods, so only some care to hear about that in the news.
(Although with 1% of our population in jail, and 1 in 30 in jail or on parole, 1 in 9 black males ages 20 to 34 in jail, it's not that small of an amount... and it's particularly sinister when these people are shoved into private jails that charge the public to hold the prisoners, and then charge the prisoners for their stay [as if it's a hotel], and use the prisoners for cheap labor that they sell to companies that don't want to hire people for livable wages, with solitary if you don't work for them. - on top of most people in jail being guilty of "crimes" that involved no one but themselves and have no harm.)
Ultimately, when it's you that's out of a job, the economy matters a lot.
And when it's you getting tazed, beat up, and charged with assault (oh the irony), then police brutality matters a lot.
The sentiment of "don't waste my time with your sob stories, we've got real problems (that affect me)", really goes all ways.
You could just as well read : "Who cares about your economy, when the government is taking my health and putting me away for no more than the entertainment/venting of a public employee".
-scheherazade

I heard a stripper dance to this in New Mexico. I thought she was cuter because of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-gA8eufG_0