Why is Iowa so important? Why are the people of Iowa more important to the primary process than the people of say Texas, or New York?
 March 18, 2015 at 12:05pm
It is a shame that Walker decided to force her to resign instead of supporting her. She is right. It seems that only people in Iowa and the establishment want to keep the primaries they way they are. Iowa is irrelevant and politicians shouldn’t have to go kiss the rings of the elite in Iowa to win their not so important backing. Why not have the presidential primary 90 or 120 days before the general election in every state?
March 13, 2015 at 4:28pm
No. The order of things should be grab the weapon, fire shot into skull, call 911 to report dead body in your doorway
 March 12, 2015 at 4:00pm
The driver and the person who made the call to let him go should be fired.
Billis: Wouldn't you love to be the fly on the wall inside the Oval Office when Obama has a little meeting with his new appointee running the dog and pony show?
 March 11, 2015 at 1:57pm
I get that. But, these tests have nothing to do with students. They are being used by the government to decide what schools get money, and teachers are being evaluated based on their results. This leads to problems because schools are no longer teaching kids important things, they are teaching them how to pass these stupid tests. Instead of teaching kids usefull skills and cultivating their innate desire to learn, they are forced to focus on test taking. That serves nobody and results in kids graduating woefully underprepared for both college and the real world.
 March 10, 2015 at 2:41pm
Instead of evaluating teachers on test scores lets base their evaluations on what students know and retain the next year. Obviously, this shouldn’t be done based on 1 year, but over multiple years. Look for patterns. If students from the same teacher continue to lag behind their peers in the next grade, maybe that teacher isn’t doing a good job educating students. I think that is a much more accurate look at how a teacher is doing than some stupid tests.
 February 5, 2015 at 1:55pm
Nope. Why should they? They have no competition. Their monopoly is protected by lawmakers, at all levels of government.
February 4, 2015 at 12:44pm
Ah. The free market at work. More people watch TV shows with sex and violence than wholesome TV shows. That means that shows with violence and sex will get made.
 January 30, 2015 at 3:46pm
Liza, there is no evidence to support the idea that vaccines and autism are in any way, shape, or form related.
 January 30, 2015 at 3:42pm
If you want to be be against vaccines fine. But stop claiming it is because they cause autism, or have ‘dangerous’ chemicals in them. That is ignorance and is the problem. When you spread lies like that you make the problem worse.
 January 30, 2015 at 12:33pm
The public is confident that vaccines are safe and effective. Unfortunately, a growing minority of people who are either too stupid, or ignorant to look at real facts, are making things bad. I agree, parents should have that choice, but they should be making that decision based on actual facts and studies, not Jenny McCarthy and a paper that was withdrawn because it was riddled with problems.
 January 30, 2015 at 12:26pm
My problem with the anti-vaxxers isn’t that they are choosing not to vaccinate their children, it is that many are doing it because they are morons. They rely on false science, and idiotic celebrities to make a very serious decision. If you want to make that choice, fine, but at least do it based on actual facts and real proof, not some infographic you saw on Facebook, or some soundbyte from Jenny McCarthy. If you truly are against vaccinations for any reason, whether religious, or political, that’s fine. But stop spreading lies and junk science to promote your belief.
Who says we aren't. I don't think vaccines by themselves cause autism. (There may be something that triggers a reaction in someone otherwise susceptible, but those risk factors have not been adequately identified.)
I object to vaccines because I object to medical interventions for healthy people.
I get it, vaccines did a world of good, like how the practically eradicated scarlet fever... oh, right, scarlet fever pretty much disappeared without an effective vaccine ever being developed for it. Also, let us ignore that disease rates were plummeting precipitously in Europe well before vaccine use was prevalent there.
Vaccines have risks and no matter how small that risk is, you have zero right to insist that my children be exposed to a risk for the benefit of your children. That's statist/collectivist crap.
Sure, measles is a pain because it is easily transmitted, but it is also very treatable. If we quarantine and treat those who do get sick, we'll be just fine.
So, they can be against the vaccinations for any reasons, just as long as you approve of what reasons they are against them? Makes total sense. *eyeroll*
 January 15, 2015 at 10:48am
That’s fine. But, that doesn’t mean that your religious view of marriage should be forced on every single person in the country. Nobody is saying you have to accept it, or like it. But that doesn’t mean that people should be denied the legal benefits of marriage because you don’t believe it is moral.
 January 6, 2015 at 4:49pm
The government has no business in forcing anybody to undergo medical treatments against their will, especially when the medical treatment has severe side effects. The government should not the power to force parents to submit their child to medical treatment either. Yes, that means people might die, but that is freedom. Freedom to make choices, and live or die with those choices.
 December 29, 2014 at 12:16pm
It’s nice that he apologized and all, but a real man and a real leader would have postponed his golf game until after their wedding. I’m sure he could have found other things to do with his time than play another round of golf.
Oh ok. I get a little carried away when it comes to pervs who get off on harassing and scaring women. Can we at least give him the old snip, snip so he doesn't produce offspring?
 November 18, 2014 at 3:48pm
That’s how women should handle street harassment too. We don’t need to have a national conversation about gender roles and all that liberal pc garbage. If a woman feels she is being harassed by somebody on the street, then fight back. Oh wait, I forgot, most forms of protection are outlawed(mace(in NYC at least), firearms, a punch to the face). If women started fighting back, the harassment by the scumbags would stop.
 November 18, 2014 at 12:46pm
It has everything to do with the case. Some states(such as California) require consent from both people when a recording is taking place. That is why when you are on hold for customer service, they inform you that the call may be monitored. If they did not, they would be breaking the law in those states. Other states(like Utah) only require consent of the person doing to the recording. While not great from a civil liberties perspective, it does allow people to secretly record conversations, which can be permissible in court.
Thanks, I totally misunderstood what the reporter was getting at. Utah is one-party state in more ways than one! Ha! I rescind my ignorant question and comment.
November 17, 2014 at 4:02pm
Who cares what COULD go wrong? Laws shouldn’t exist because something bad COULD happen. I know this isn’t the case in this country, because the government believes that everything that is potentially dangerous must be illegal and regulated. I believe that the crimes should have actual victims. What they were doing was dumb, and stupid. But until somebody is injured, or property is damaged, then no crime has occurred.
Who mentioned LAW? I didn’t. I was referring to the sheer stupidity of the whole story…shooting in the basement, hoping a ricochet doesn't kill ya, leaving the door open. Wound a tad bit tight there 820?
 November 14, 2014 at 5:57pm
That is what happens when we allow our safety to be defined and controlled by the government.