As an aside, the last time this was brought up it was in the late 30's.

"Aside from President Franklin Roosevelt’s ill-fated threat in 1937 to add new Justices who sympathized with his policies to the Supreme Court, the number of Justices on the Court has remained stable.

Roosevelt was particularly upset by the Court’s 1935 decision in Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States. The unanimous decision invalidated a key part of the National Industrial Recovery Act, one of the projects passed during FDR's 100-day program in 1933. President Roosevelt did not mince words a week later when he talked to the press. “You see the implications of the decision. That is why I say it is one of the most important decisions ever rendered in this country,” Roosevelt told reporters on May 31, 1935. “We have been relegated to the horse-and-buggy definition of interstate commerce.”

As Roosevelt started his second term, he used one of his fireside chats in March 1937 to make his case to the American people for adding more Justices to the Supreme Court who agreed with him. “This plan of mine is not attacking of the court; it seeks to restore the court to its rightful and historic place in our system of constitutional government and to have it resume its high task of building anew on the Constitution ‘a system of living law.’ The court itself can best undo what the court has done,” Roosevelt said.

The legislation struggled to gain traction and it was opposed not only by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes but also by Justice Louis Brandeis and members of Roosevelt’s Democratic Party."

I was taught a similar technique with an added step (but rarely use it)

Once you have the garlic minced, sprinkle some salt on it then use the french knife on an angle and crush the salt into the garlic.

Apparently it helps to draw out the juices faster.

Pebbles does not mince words.

I disagree, because PR rule #1 for politicians / elected officials is:
Suck up to your constituents and tell them exactly what they want to hear.

I'd wager that most Aussies are quite pleased that he didn't fold like a cheap suit and grant a PR-friendly exception to Depp just because he's "some famous cunt". The Aussies I know don't beat around the bush or mince words, which is something that I personally find very refreshing.

Actually, the proof that something did not end up in the hands of the Chinese, the Russians, or myself for that matter, is quite difficult, given that evidence of absence is impossible to obtain. However, the absence of evidence to the claim that they have gained access to information through Snowden himself is reason enough for me.

You want proof that nothing was transfered to them? Might as well try to prove the non-existance of the famous tea pot in orbit.

So the basic argument boils down to motivation as well as credibility of claims.

His motivation to keep access to his material restricted to the selected group of journalists is apparent from his own interviews. They are supposed to be the check on the government, they lack the information to fullfil the role, they need access to correct (what he perceived to be) a wrong, namely a grave breach of your consitution on a previously unheard of scale.
Providing access to Russia or China would instantly negate all hope of ever not drawing the short straw in this mess, as the US is the only country on the planet who can provide him with amnesty and therefore safety.

So why would he do it? For a shot at asylum? You know as well as I do that (permanent) asylum in China/Russia is worthless if the US is after you. Europe could guarantee one's safety, but given the lack of sovereignty vis-a-vis the US, it would not be an option.

That leaves credibility of claims. And that's where my first reason comes into play, the one you put down as "naive". His opponents, those in positions of power, be it inside government or the press, have a track record of being... let's not mince words here, lying sacks of shit. James Clapper's act of perjury on front of Congress is just the most prominent manifestation of it. The entire bunch lied their asses off during the preparation of the invasion of Iraq, they lied their asses off during the revelations triggered by Chelsea Manning and they lied their asses off about the total und unrelenting surveillance of American citizens in violation of their constitutional rights.

If you think supervision of the NSA by the Select Committee on Intelligence is actually working, I suggest you take a look at statements by Senator Wyden. The NSA even plays them for fools. Hell, Bruce Schneier was recently approached by members of Congress to explain to them what the NSA was doing, because the NSA refused to. Great oversight, works like a charm. By the way, it's the same fucking deal with GCHQ and the BND.

So yes, the fella who "stole" data is actually a trustworthy figure, because a) his claims were true and b) his actions pulled off the veil that covered the fact that 320 million Americans had their private data stolen and were sold out by agencies of their own government in conjunction with private intelligence contractors.

What else...

Ah, yeah. "Sloppy" and "stupid". Again, if he was sloppy and stupid, what does that say about the internal control structure of the intelligence industry? They didn't notice shit, they still claim to be unaware of what precisely he took with him. Great security, fellas.

"He could have allowed the press to do it's job without disclosing a much of what has been released."

He disclosed nothing. He is not an experienced journalist and therefore, by his own admission, not qualified to make the call what to publish and how. That's why he handed it over to Barton Gellman at the WaPo, Glenn Greenwald at the Guardian and Laura Poitras, who worked closely with Der Spiegel.

If Spiegel, WaPo and Guardian are not reputable institutions of journalism, none are. So he did precisely what you claim he should have done: he allowed the press to do its bloody job and released fuck all himself.

As for the cheap shot at not being an American: seventy years ago, your folks liberated us from the plague of fascism, brought us freedom. Am I supposed to just sit here and watch my brothers and sisters in the US become the subjects of total surveillance, the kind my country suffered from during two dictatorships in the last century?

Ironically, that would be un-American, at least the way I understand it.

And there's nothing gleeful about my concerns. I am deeply furious about this shit and even more so about the apathy of people all around the world. You think I want Americans to suffer from the same shit we went through as a petty form of payback?

Fuck that. It's the intelligence industry that I'm gunning for. Your nationality doesn't mean squat, some intelligence agency has its crosshairs on you wherever you live. It just happens to be an American citizen who had the balls to provide us with the info to finally try and protect citizens in all countries from the overreaching abuse by the intelligence industry.

In fact, I'd rather worry about our own massive problems within Europe (rise of fascism in Greece, 60% youth unemployment, unelected governments, etc). So can we please just dismantle all these spy agencies and get on with our lives?

Sorry if this is incoherent, but it's late and I'm even more pissed off than usual.

it's more of a mince than a walk per se

Any faggot that did what Rock did here is just a plain dick ,with a couple of mince ⚽⚽'s

Real men don't use garlic presses, choppers, or (winces) pre-peeled cloves or minced (pre-chewed) bits in jars. Any man who does is the catcher on an all-hermaphrodite baseball team.

We have another "official" contestant, pumkinandstorm has stepped-up the odds with this simple framework for a spattering of tasty dishes!!




Chinese Pork Tenderloin

Ingredients
2 pork tenderloins (1 -1/2lb or 750g)

Marinade
2 tbsp light soy sauce
2 tbsp hoisin sauce
1 tbsp sherry
1 tbsp black bean sauce
1-1/2 tsp minced gingerroot
1-1/2 tsp packed brown sugar
1 clove garlic
1/2 tsp sesame oil
Pinch five-spice powder

Directions
1. Trim any fat from tenderloins. Place in shallow glass.
2. Marinade: Whisk together soy sauce, hoisin sauce, sherry, black bean sauce, gingerroot, sugar, garlic, sesame oil and five-spice powder.
3. Pour marinade over tenderloins, turning to coat. Cover and refrigerate for 24 - 48 hours, turning occasionally. Let stand for 30 minutes at room temperature before cooking.
4. Place tenderloins on rack in roasting pan, reserving marinade; Bake, basting generously four times in 375F oven for 30 to 35 minutes or until meat thermometer inserted at 20 - degree angle registers 160 F and meat still has hint of pink.
5. Remove to cutting board and tent with foil. Let stand for 10 minutes.
6. Using sharp knife, slice pork diagonally into thin slice

Challenge Accepted!

I used a potato ricer today to mash some taters. Of course I am no heathen and would never use GARLIC POWDER where fresh cloves of minced and crushed garlic would do much more nicely.

So many ways to mince up the map in the US to accommodate everyone. Hell, the west coast is already hemp-friendly and lush, freaks can live in Washorefornia.

Assholes, criminals, politicians-types can have Illinois,Wisconsin, Ohio, Iowa, Missouri, Michigan, Minnesota, and they can all live without guns, drugs, or a fucking clue.

Lesseeee, what new regime runs the east coast from Rhode Island to D.C. because no one south of the Carolinas wants anything to do with them northerners...

Folks from the E.U. can handle the idea..You can fit 5-11 tidy little nations within North America. Dial-in your way of life, restrict travel for assholes and douches between countries only(establish universal test for asshole/douche/shitbag, etc).

>> ^ipfreely:

Class size means nothing.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/class-size-around-the-wo
rld/
Read the article. Not saying it does not have any affect, it just means, blaming class size is bullshit. Japan and Korea have bigger class size, and they are both better performing educational system.
You know why American students are doing badly, it's combination of bad teacher, unions and parents. Unless you are ready to deal with those, changing class size isn't going to mean anything.
Let's not mince words here, there are good teacher and bad teacher. There are already shortage of teachers, so ho does smaller class size help? You're stretching already thin resources even thinner. How does that help anyone?
Lets deal with real problem. Change the system, not the class size.


That article you linked to is a little deceptive and I'll explain why. It's basically trying to find a correlation between class size and performance but it doesn't control for the myriad variables between national education systems like teacher training, cultural standards, the presence (or absence) of teacher aides or other adults in the classroom, etc. It's basically comparing apples and oranges.

On the other hand, the actual empirical research that has been done on the matter (i.e. taking two groups of students of similar academic levels and backgrounds and randomly assigning them to either small-size or large-size classrooms and then tracking the progress over time) has shown that the kids do better with the small class size even after controlling for other variables (see in particular Tennessee's STAR project: http://epa.sagepub.com/content/21/2/97.short)

The key word in the last sentence is better. In other words, it doesn't turn them all into geniuses; it helps them do better than they would have otherwise.

No one is saying smaller class sizes is a cure-all to education's problems. You're right, there are a lot of other problems besides classroom size and they need to be addressed. But one way to boost performance and help students do their best is to have smaller rather than larger classroom sizes.

Class size means nothing.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/class-size-around-the-world/

Read the article. Not saying it does not have any affect, it just means, blaming class size is bullshit. Japan and Korea have bigger class size, and they are both better performing educational system.

You know why American students are doing badly, it's combination of bad teacher, unions and parents. Unless you are ready to deal with those, changing class size isn't going to mean anything.

Let's not mince words here, there are good teacher and bad teacher. There are already shortage of teachers, so ho does smaller class size help? You're stretching already thin resources even thinner. How does that help anyone?

Lets deal with real problem. Change the system, not the class size.

Don't mince words Cenk. What do you really think of Republicans?

Why is there a problem with 3 people being married? I don't see the problem, if all three want to be married - either all three to all three, or one with two others. In the end, it's about people. If they want to, then go nuts.

Marriage is a stupid convention anyways, a mincing of words, a contract by any other name is still a contract. And that's all it is.
>> ^quantumushroom:

You misunderstand my point, as well an intent. I don't 'hate' gays and will go so far as to say it appears there is biological evidence for homosexuality (aka born this way).
I'm not even against gay marriage per se.
What I am saying is here is the side effect 'you' will create by supporting legalized gay marriage, and that is that 'you' then have no grounds for keeping polygamy illegal. You are "hating" and discriminating against polygamists and others supporting 'plural marriage', including, ironically, gay polygamists.
I've brought this up before and some sifters had the temerity to say they support both gay marriage AND polygamy, or don't care either way.
I'm sorry you feel that way @taranimator and @therealblankman. I think by now, after years, you understand I'm not here to merely piss in the punchbowl. I don't see how bringing up a very valid point about a serious legal and societal issue is 'hate'. As lovely as this video may be, it's still political propaganda, because everything is political. Everything. It was like this before we all got here and will be like that long after we're gone.
@therealblankman A better analogy would be me warning you there are possible turds in the garden before you go a-strolling. You're now more informed about the consequences.
If you think I'm wrong, so be it. Defend your position. Why gay marriage but not plural marriage? Because in your heart you "know" gays are sincere but 3 people can't be in love?