The top comment, the core of the issue: modern education shifted a lot toward social engineering of the kids (and through them attempt at the same toward families) instead of teaching. Common Core is just a crown jewel of this process.
 March 23, 2015 at 4:37pm
One important correction for all those who claim that vote cheating is not significant or frequent, the argument initial Judge also used stating only one example over years: insidious nature of voter fraud is in the fact that without voter-ID, it is almost undetectable. There is no mechanism in place to catch it. Examples are rare because it is so efficient to do fraud that way without voter-ID that no one is ever caught.
Another item usually omitted in these discussions: fraud voting is the worst example of voter disenfranchisement because your honest vote is negated by a false vote.
March 15, 2015 at 10:31pm
As a scientist, I’ll try:
-Weather is happening on a scale of days to many decades. We know weather patterns spanning 5,7,dozen,40,60 year long cycles…
-Climate is long term average,spanning hundreds and thousands of years.
-Fair rule of thumb based on those definitions-any changes within 100 years can be safely attributed to weather patterns. Note that all these records pan just over 100 years of precise systematic measurements.
-Now to the real science of global warming:
1) Which data should you believe?-Well understood and not arbitrary manipulated, studied by many institutions and able to be re-examined. That would be ice core data (Arctic, Antarctic, Greenland, glaciers,…). Data used by NOAA for Gore’s “hockey stick” included such arbitrary items as tree rings and had (published!) 400% human chosen “fudge factor”/error.
2) According to that data Earth is indeed warming for last 200+ years. From what level? From “Little Ice Age”, the coldest period in last 12000 years. Where are we now by that record?-Still below 12000 year average, just about in 10% coldest years of that period.
3) Is CO2 or any other factor causing this warming via greenhouse effect? No, 1985-1999 NASA/MIT ERBS satellite study showed each year,while warming proportion of energy returned to space to incoming one rose. Opposite of any greenhouse effect by definition.
4)What is causing it?2011 CERN “Cloud Experiment”-dominant impact on Earth temp’ is proportion of incoming higher energy particles
 January 27, 2015 at 12:51pm
So, in the free society of free people in free market economy those people would not get or adopt a child which they can’t support. Right is to have a child as you find fit. Right is not that society helps you support it, child support is duty and responsibility of the parents.
Also, proper statement is “does not have MANDATORY paid paternal leave”. In free society of free people and free market it is your own duty to negotiate with the potential employer your own contract and benefits. There is nothing in the law to prevent paid leave if you fight for it and get it. That is the difference between fascist totalitarian society where Government has power to mandate how we live our lives and free society where free individual controls his life and work.
Finally, this bill is not “for everyone”. Just for the “higher class” of unproductive bureaucrats, who are apparently more equal than The People.
 January 27, 2015 at 12:39pm
Data alone can be deceptive. We need details. Where the most of this activity have occurred, for example? Good personal example – we lived in the area destroyed by Sandy storm. 2/3 of houses were demolished in wide area. Majority of devastated properties were sold as land (including ours). Peak offering of new houses built on ruins happened mid-to-late last year, just in time to affect results mentioned above… On paper that would look like a boom of new construction and demand. In practice it is just long suppressed recovery of the region from the physical damage, not economic boom and related new construction.
 January 26, 2015 at 2:12pm
It is indeed a shot at Germans because of the “little thing” called mutual economic destruction Glenn explored some time ago. Question is: who will be “more dead” from Greek default – Greece, Germany or EU?
There Greek Socialists made a fundamental mistake. The first victim will be Greece. Even if they do not pay a cent of 175% GDP debt, they can’t sustain even austerity level Government spending. Never mind return to the “good old days”. There is no money and if they default, no one will be eager to give them some. They probably think that they can steal from the rich… Situation there is worse than here – stealing 100% from the rich (and killing economy along) would not get them past the first year of spending…. Hence rampant poverty and unrest are inevitable, new elections,… and who is waiting in the third place to take over in the chaos? – Golden Dawn fascists.
EU is the next likely victim, even if they kick Greece out domino effect of large Greek debt can’t be absorbed. 50-50 chance that some other cog (Spain?) will fail and that EU certainly couldn’t take.
Germany will be affected for certain but their economic state, fundamentals and scope mean that at worst it would be a severe recession.
There is also prevalent misinterpretation that all Google wants is to sell you more ads… One just needs to look at what they are doing and see that ad-business is just a convenient temporary crutch to accumulate capital and information, not primary Google business plan.
There is one and only one business plan that fits data collection Google performs and in it us, “the customers” are “the merchandise”. Internet ad business is fickle and relatively low-profit. However, direct sales of “us” to businesses so that they can milk the most out of us is very, very profitable. I bet that within 5 years Google won’t be in ad business any more. However, if you like car brand X and go to any and all dealers of brand X – you’ll be surprised how all of them offer similar, well above MSRP price “just for you”. That is the crux of Google-lie: help provided TO you MUST be lesser than Google profit FROM you and that must be just a part of profit some corporation X gets FROM you while paying off Google. Elementary economics. You lose.
 January 5, 2015 at 9:35pm
Mr Beck was on correct path, but there is (unfortunately) more. It is not only about increasing complexity and customization… it is about the deeper and more important concept of ownership. If you the owner can’t completely control the device you purchased – are you the owner? What did you pay for? Increasing complexity is being used to hide slight of hand taking away our rights of ownership. As all things Progressive it came with the lie that “it’s for your good” and “we know better” (Apple anyone?). Now it is creeping along as “it is safer”,…
Fine, you can make greatly complex and customizable car (or anything). However, it is the time to fight for rights of controlling it. You want to collect data from my device – no “opt out”, you must ask the owner for permission. You want to make upkeep complex-no locking me down, you must provide open and acessable instructions and devices for me to do upkeep how and where I the owner want… Than and only than this future is positive. Otherwise it is “open jail” future.
Excellent observation. I'm guessing the future of the auto industry is all leases. This takes away the ownership issue altogether. Only government approved company owned vehicles will be allowed on public streets for safety reasons.
Glenn is dead wrong on his assertion that we can no longer fix our cars. Maybe he can't. The engines are the same, the peripheries have changed but it actually makes it easier.
Now I don't have to change parts to recalibrate he speedometer or alter shift points in the transmission or alter the timing curve or change fuel ratios. It's all done by reprograming the computer. It now only takes a few minutes and doesn't require taking anything apart.
 December 29, 2014 at 8:47pm
Joking aside, what I think is (hopefully temporarily) lost in the science and underlined by examples like this, is a sense of wonder and curiosity. In my opinion science emerged from that aspect of the humanity, our innate sense to see that something is odd, unusual, peculiar,… and need to poke and examine it. Unfortunately in the science of team work, strict (zero tolerance) rules, plans and “over-plans”,… there is no place left to examine peculiar if not already prescribed and political-science correct.
I am not saying that this peculiar object must be anything but natural formation. However, if many brains on sight of it say “unusual!”, it is certainty that upon closer and detailed examination we will learn something important, if not of aliens on Mars than of physical and chemical processes that have produced it. Sadly, exactly because it is peculiar, production line scientists will not touch it with a ten foot pole …
(Disclaimer, I am by profession Physicist… be it unemployed at the moment)
 November 7, 2014 at 11:27am
But, as usual Progressives spin the issue. Christianity by every single word of it IS for love and tolerance. Unlike some other religions, built in Christian teaching is to love others as yourself and not to judge others. Judgment is left for afterlife and God. Article also makes that mistake “..church teaching about homosexuality or “treatment of gay and lesbian people.”…” NOT THE SAME. Christianity teaches absolutely same treatment of gay, lesbian, tax collectors, pious man, thieves, leaders,… same love for all humans. Separate issue is the sin. Christianity fundamental doctrine places the sin of homosexuality at the same level as the sin murder. In the most unambiguous way. Again, crucial note – sin is something God is judging in afterlife, not humans in this life. Christianity also admits fundamental flaws of humanity. Sin is seen as inevitable but ATTITUDE toward it is what makes difference. Recognition of your own sin and attitude toward it (ex. “Pride Parade” vs. genuine repentance of some murderers for what they have done) is the difference Christianity teaches. Because without genuine recognition of the sin and active attempt against (your own!) sin moral structure of the society fails as a whole.
Hence I do not see pending problem. As young people learn along their lives the true meaning of Christianity, beyond Progressive loud lies about it, Christianity will persevere, same as it came through Dark Ages and lax attitude of those times about murder and such…
 September 25, 2014 at 7:48pm
Article and claims are quite deceptive. I am professionally in computer security business. From my expert knowledge, obstacles Apple and Google place before Government are minimal. First to Apple who just recently fundamentally changed some (just some!) of their policies. They still hold encryption keys for your communications and messaging, even communication they claim to be “encrypted”. Any “encrypted” messages exchanged using Apple products are completely transparent to Apple (if they want to see) and, hence, to the Government if they ask for those. Data on the devices is encrypted ONLY if you shut them down. Apple has complete capability to unlock your powered-on device if Government seize it while powered on and provide all the content of it. Furthermore, Apple has complete capability to remotely install whatever they wish (proprietary software and services all Apple devices contain) without your knowledge, say on warrant from the Government and read all your data while you use it and see it… Minor annoyance. Only if you turn off your device and Government seize it – they can’t read it (nor Apple can).
Most of this applies to Google as well. Worse, Google misrepresents their communication services as “encrypted” while they are anything but. With Google you are protected against hack-kiddies, not Government or Google. All what Government needs to do (and they did) is intercept communications between Google services, which is proven possible even w/o Google knowledge.
[-12] September 24, 2014 at 4:01pm
Relevant for criminal proceedings against Stewart, not relevant for the moral aspect of the case. A moral person in Stewart’s place would cancel racing for at least that calendar year. I would expect nothing less from any other (moral) person who by accident kills someone else on his/her job (and this includes military or police who accidentally kill someone their job was not to kill). You simply can’t kill someone and proceed as if you twisted an ankle. Amplified by his celebrity position and the fact that his job is just a sport (yes, just a sport – no productive benefit to society from “keeping on”).
Kevin Ward killed himself, why should Tony give up a year of his career? What does that solve? Who does that make feel better? you?
"You simply can't kill someone and proceed as if you twisted an ankle."
Funny, Ted Kennedy did and it didn't seem to bother anyone.
When it pays the bills that may not be an option. If someone dies through you because of their own stupidity you shouldn't give it a moment's thought. It's irrational to do otherwise. Those emotions exist to prevent you from intentionally harming someone, they do not exist to impair your happiness or to deter you from functioning normally. If you intentionally killed someone who wasn't harming anyone, you should feel bad, and you should be in jail at the least. But other than that, it's just human irrationality at it's finest, and shows just how pathetically sheltered society has become.
And how do you support yourself and your family for the rest of the year? Or do you think that everybody has a years’ worth of money in the bank. Do you think that the employer would leave the job open for you to report back to?
Dusanmal! I'll be sure to boo him for you on Sunday!
I beg to differ with you. As a person who was driving along minding their own business when their windshield exploded from a person hitting it...I can tell you that you are WRONG. I understand what it is like to have everyone treat you horribly when you actually KNOW you were doing nothing wrong. It was night, foggy and I was going slowly. The second person told the people at the hospital "I told her a car was coming, to get out of the road". Of course that second person was married to a lawyer...sued me but lost because of the FACTS not the "moral" issues. I did not stop driving. Was I sorry she died...of course. She somehow walked in front of my car IN the road from the dark side of the road...wearing dark clothing. It was a terrible ACCIDENT. I feel for Tony...been there done that. dusanmal...I hope you never have to go through something like this...you might feel differently.
And you think it takes morals to tell the many, many people who depend on you driving for their income that you just don't feel like driving or that you think your feelings matter more than putting food in children's stomachs? No, it takes no morals to do that. It takes morals to think more of others around you than yourself and what others may think if you. Now vanity, THAT it would take.
 September 4, 2014 at 2:55pm
Author of the article and, apparently, Apple do not understand basic use and wear of smart phone screens and related physics. Particularly not the purpose of screen protectors.
Screen protectors are extremely cheap, highly functional, trivially replaceable surfaces between your expensive device and abrasive and dirt conditions, inevitable in our lives. Abrasion and dirt do not care about expensive material. Dirty conditions first – imagine spilling anything from sap to super glue or epoxy on your expensive phone: with screen protector, you peel it off and in 30 sec and 50 cents you have perfect use conditions again. Abrasion is an odd thing – if you are willing to sacrifice enough softer material you WILL scratch harder one, our typical pocket content is perfect scratch-lab.
So, as long as I have decently hard screen and (as I have now) 6-pack of excellent and resilient by themselves screen protectors that take less than a minute to apply for 3$,… why do I care about expensive screen materials that are hard to replace and vulnerable to a range of normal living and working conditions…?
 August 19, 2014 at 3:51pm
Summarizing my 8 notes above: Rep Ryan has obvious Progressive streak, is unwilling to give away power of the Government and sees power of the Government “properly used” as solution. No, thanks. Would not vote for him even against Hillary (won’t vote for her either) because we must learn, even by a hard lesson of more Left dictate and destruction that Government-driven “solutions” are what have driven us to this decline.
 August 19, 2014 at 3:47pm
8) This is just Progressivism in lamb’s clothing. Awful. The one and only way out of poverty is stoking fire of USA economy to the maximum. Stop taking money from productive economy and redistributing it for any “war on…” . Just loosen load of Government on the economy and it will pull out of poverty all who want to be pulled out, easily, trivially.
I will vote for “Read my lips, NO NEW GOVERNMENTAL PROGRAMS!”
August 19, 2014 at 3:44pm
7) Fair ideas but still unwilling to lead and do hard things for the nation: “hire one worker for every three retirees” – WHY WAIT FOR RETIREMENTS?! Fire 2/3 of bureaucracy across the board. DoD included. Promise 2/3 less federal bureaucrats within first year of Presidency with no Department treated with kds gloves.
Another item he does not mention at all is placing our military personnel first, as Constitution in a way grants (top and the most clear duty of the Government), defense is people who do it. We must give every past and present military member highest priority and rights above any civilian Government worker, including Congressional representatives and Secretaries .
August 19, 2014 at 3:36pm
6) Sweet words, but under 1-5 above, suspicious who and how and why sets “the rules”… “We need to transition towards a rules-based monetary system anchored in certainty and predictability.”
August 19, 2014 at 3:34pm
5) Absolutely disastrous viewpoint, failing to understand what drives illegal immigration: “then we need to give those who are here illegally a chance to get right with the law” – is NOT acceptable. Because I can tell you as a legal immigrant and a scientist – this guarantees positive feedback to future illegals. If any are legalized, pressure on the border will inevitably raise and protection costs would spiral out of control. Impossible to guard the border against increased pressure due to such thinking.
From the same legal immigrant and scientist viewpoint – what is the only working alternative: pressure from inside and outside on illegals to remove themselves. Make their lives unsustainable. From inside, unfortunately that means inside unfortunately that means Fed’ oversight at who is allowed to work here (and serious class A felony for any Corporate owner who knowingly hire illegal, mandatory minimum sentences; mandatory felony for illegal work too with seizure of all assets and fine twice as high as expected amount earned); from outside – I can tell you that there are large numbers of morally strong immigrants from my poor country of origin (and no doubt from any other one too) who despite availability of illegal immigration to them would not do it from their own moral fiber. They are patiently waiting in USA embassies all over the World. For any job they are really needed, let more in legally. There will be no workforce shortage.
August 19, 2014 at 3:24pm
4) Half way there “give Congress greater oversight over the regulatory process and reestablish its primacy as the nation’s lawmaker. essentially the act says that if there is a federal rule that would cost the economy more than $100 million a year, then the House and Senate must look at it and approve it before that rule can go into effect.””. Great. But regulatory agencies meddle in way that are not easily measurable in dollars. That too must be addressed. Sadly, no mention of cutting executive agencies powers (such as bypassing Court system; imposing monetary and confiscatory fines; guilty until proven innocent,…). Nor or about reducing number, size and scope of current system. Next candidate must promise us removal of all executive agencies that are not strictly approved by the Constitution itself, not interpretations of it. Approved by the most conservative view of the letter of the Constitution. All unqualified agencies must be folded into state rights and their own equivalents, without Federal meddling. That is a must. Without it, Congressional approval still means that under a vicious administration people can suffer. That must not be theoretically possible.
August 19, 2014 at 3:18pm
3) “Capitalism and cronyism are not compatible, and it’s time the Republicans made it much clearer to voters that we are the party that stands for a competitive economy suitable for growth.” – A++ if he really means it. But, he was not mentioning ban on incentives, rebates, refunds,… in (2), suspicious because of it. No means really No.