What most well meaning (particularly on the Left) people are missing in the geo-political image of the modern World is that with so densely populated and so connected globe, well meaning and good moral base is not enough. Aggressive minorities (and I do not say this in USA terminology but in a sense of globally small but yet very present groups, not necessarily defined by race or nationality) have learned that they can wage passive wars of conquest using judo-like moves exploiting the goodness and morality of the big and strong. Some recent USA examples are “anchor babies” and Syrian refugees (with IS published instructional how to infiltrate refugees to gain access to the West readily available on the Web…). However, the trend is global.
Due to my cultural background I am aware of couple decades old novel predicting exactly such World, based on the “history repeating”. Check if you wish “Dictionary of Khazars…” (at Amazon http://www.amazon.com/Dictionary-Khazars-Lexicon-Novel-Words/dp/0679724613/ref=sr_1_1/185-3087699-3373654?ie=UTF8&qid=1447769499&sr=8-1&keywords=dictionary+of+khazars ) maybe for a deeper understanding.
Anyway, to survive these new passive wars we must understand the enemy, understand how he wants to abuse our good morals and hearts and stand firm to the proper principles, not their abused version. Good practical example-how to help homeless but not feed his addiction, even solve it.
 November 10, 2015 at 1:02pm
Just, this is not a conduct that is not reaching an offense status… this is Constitutionally protected conduct, inalienable RIGHT. On a public land and in the public institution, hence Govt and those who run said public institution for the Govt are expressly forbidden to limit this right and if they do so – they themselves commit a real, felonious crime of violation of a Constitutional civil right.
If this was a private University it will have right on its own property to enforce such rules and/or use police for it if police was willing. But even than, if such conduct (expression of a fundamental right) happened outside its boundaries any action by University would again be a civil rights violation. You can’t create consequences to free speech in public. Never. Ever.
 October 6, 2015 at 9:13pm
Sen Cruz missed excellent chance to rebut “97%” claim, probably, as most politicians, not aware of the actual source of that claim and the actual weakness of it. Please, please if you have any contact with any of these politicians (and Sen Cruz in particular) forward this actual scientific publication and its “emperor has no clothes” on “97%” quote repeated endlessly by AGW proponents: Link to IOP Science, Environmental Research Letters publication http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=C6FB97011AFBBFDBF5D1063C3BC25B9D.c1
Title:Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, by J.Cook et al.
Quote from the abstract related to 97%, this is THE SOURCE article for that claim:
“We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”
Translated: when just 32.6% support something, change metrics to something else (essentially eliminate 66.7% of true scientists who based on evidence, properly can’t support either opinion, because evidence is weak). Anyone repeating this false claim that 97% published climate scientists support AGW MUST be confronted with the truth in this research, without the spin: ONLY 32.6% support alarmist claim. Only. Not even a third. Never mind 97%.
And, yes, I myself am a Scientist with a very good understanding of this issue.
Thank you for bringing this up again, as this 97% lie is the entire foundation of the AGW scam artists position. This need to be propagated over and over.
I heard Obama say one time recently that "97% of PARTICIPATING scientists agree with Global Warming" I laughed because I wondered participated in what? Government funded studies. Of course they would agree. It's how they make their money. And in reality they could say 100% agree because if anyone steps outside the box and does not fully agree and questions anything they are smeared and ridiculed beyond belief until they drop out of whatever it was they were participating in..
That was my take on it anyway and nooooo I aint a scientist in any way shape or form. lol More power to you.
DUSANMAL, great info, thanks for the link.
The follow up question is who is funding the 32.6%? Follow the money, always follow the money.
Good stuff mate, TY!
dusanmal, what are your thoughts on the sun causing a cooling cycle?
There were actually two separate 97% claims, and both have been refuted because the methodologies chosen were wildly flawed.
And here is an article making the same point
The 32.6% that expressed no opinion on AGW were the studies that ignored the anthropogenic question altogether because it wasn’t the focus of that particular study. It’s not like scientists conducted 11,944 studies all studying the one question of “Is Climate Change caused by Anthropogenic Factors?” and 32.6% said “No opinion”. They just didn’t have any reason to comment at all. Of the ones that DID comment on it, 97.1% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW, and 0.3% were unsure. That’s certainly a consensus on the relevant issue.
I’m not defending the Sierra Club's inability to articulate this. I think it’s pretty embarrassing that he couldn’t summon even this basic retort to Senator Cruz’s questions.
 August 31, 2015 at 8:49pm
And here is why both you and her are in the wrong,… it is PUBLIC University. Private University would have exactly the rights she and you imply. And here is in her own words the perversion:
“This is a public space, but within our confines we are allowed to choose what can be here, and we do that through a process of applying to be in the public space” – by the very definition of a public space, there is no and can’t be any process of applying to just be there. There is a right to control commercial activity, solicitation, sales,… By the very definition what students were doing was not that. If they were selling Constitutions – yes, she’d be correct. Just expressing themselves, free speech, there is by that very Constitution no right given to the Government or anyone else to obstruct, control, license,… free speech in a public space. None. If we had country of Laws, DOJ should have her already in custody on the serious charge of denying civil rights to these students.
Again for you: “The university has the right to set rules and regulations about the distribution of materials, so this isn’t an issue.”-PRIVATE University, anywhere on their property yes. Public University, on public spaces- NO. My insight?-I work for a public University…
You are misunderstanding the idea of a public university...it is not a university that is open to the public (that would be a public park)...it is a college or university that is at least partially funded through public funds...quite often public universities are more open to the public than private universities, but it still has security and procedural protocols that individuals, whether student or not, have to go through...
There is an assumption of protection in a publicly used space by established institutions. Therefore, permits are available upon petition but not necessarily granted.
 August 12, 2015 at 5:01pm
You may be misunderstanding what the poll measured: performance at the debate alone. Compared with other polling about the same issue, Glenn’s poll is quite in agreement. Only significant outliers are Rand Paul, Jindal and Walker. Other polls place their performance well below Glenn’s and that likely represents Glenn audience vs general audience skew (people here tend to like particularly Paul and Walker).
General polls show Cruz and Fiorina significantly ahead in debate performance, followed by Carson, than the close cluster of 10 others performing similarly and last four in sync with Glenn’s poll significantly down.
Again, this is not “who would you vote for” poll (Trump is still significant leader there) but “who performed best at this particular debate”.
 May 15, 2015 at 5:34pm
It is even not about the standards but about focus of learning. Common Core actually obstructs teachers from teaching abilities, teaching how-to, even teaching facts. Best example of it is quite bizarre drop in availability of computer programming classes in our high schools during the last decade when exactly opposite would have been expected due to the development and impact of that technology. But, that would be teaching “how-to” and that’s a big no-no for Common Core. One should teach “understanding” (typically at the completely wrong age level capability of the student), support creativity by avoiding “this-is-correct-this-is-wrong” education, everything is “correct”,… Maybe good education for some arts but nothing else.
Common core is the same as Least Common Denominator, dumb everyone down to their level of Idiocracy.
April 18, 2015 at 2:51pm
One thing that even this article does not mention is even more crucial: free market forces, which you can fight at your own peril just as forces of gravity, establish relations between prices of goods, services, labor,… These relations, though changeable on short term from various influences (including mandates) will always, inevitably re-establish themselves. There is a fixed relation between the minimum-wage type of job price (salary) and the price of many essential goods, let’s symbolize those by the price of a pound of bread. Value of minimum wage job per hour=X times price of pound of bread. Any artificial, mandated, even voluntary shift in the hourly minimum wage will propagate in finite time to the price of general goods. If we double minimum wage,… price of bread (or anything else) will also, inevitably double. Purchasing power of those on minimum wage will inevitably remain the same. Just, now , we’ll devalue our own currency by “forced inflation”…
One must understand these inevitable consequences even before starting deeper analysis as in this article, which is valuable but secondary. The most important bit is that you can’t cheat the forces of free market no matter how hard you try. Socialism/Communism results proved that.
I'm pretty sure you don't really want a free market in housing.
If you want to know what this looks like, feel free to research the Robber Barons of the Industrial Revolution. Keep in mind that you wouldn't be one of the wealthy.
Beyond that, one must also understand and analyze the fact that America has a consumer driven economy and that businesses close without consumers having disposable income to spend. 4,700 wealthy people do not make up the purchasing bulk of this economy. Millions of working Americans do. And people like you are completely fine with giving all of your money to rich people in hopes that they'll pee on you someday.
Take everything you just said, and explain how it relates to the fact that not only did the cotton industry survive the abolition of slavery, but the price of cotton actually DROPPED after cotton plantation slaves were freed.
Child labor was banned, and yet textiles and coal are cheaper than when kids were producing those goods for less pay than adults. Amazing!
 March 30, 2015 at 6:37pm
One must be very, very, very careful to distinguish Conservatives vs. “Conservatives”. Rubio belongs to the second based on actual actions he did in Congress. He retreated back to the conservative words after immense rating drop that followed his actions. I trust actions alone. Rubio is Bush-lite. Establishment Trojan horse. Conservative on words, Progressive in his heart.
Hence, remove Rubio from the Conservative listing and add him where he belongs-with Bush and Christie. As confirmation – see where establishment money is going: Bush and Rubio. One of them will survive to fight one of the true conservatives. I am not as pessimistic as you for conservative field, person emerging from there will be the one showing ability to unite all aspects of Conservative block AND bring them to vote. Chances are good that by Florida primaries such candidate will crystalize and that other conservatives will support him. Chances are that Bush and Rubio will fight in Florida for survival of the establishment one.
 March 29, 2015 at 12:19pm
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.