I'm really not sure about this idea but if their pensions could be raided like my social security currently is, I might be in.

While I'm not qualified to comment on the legitimacy or not of attacks on Romney, I must point out that search phrase has some inherent bias.

And I wouldn't defer to the IRS as some absolute arbiter. These are the folks who decided to spend time investigating neighborhood groups applying for 501c4 status while declining requests to investigate juggernauts like Crossroads GPS, Priorities USA and Americans for Prosperity. Again, I'm not accusing or absolving Romney but the IRS seems to prefer path of least resistance.

The political affiliation of who makes the argument doesn't really matter. GGGP's argument isn't really the same as Washington Monument Syndrome anyway.

If you cut past the hyperbole, it seems to say: politicians are more willing to enact broad cuts to 'social services' and other non-"defense" spending than to take the time to carefully evalute the effectiveness of all program spending and trim the (lobbyist-protected) fat. The joint strike fighter comes to mind though I'm sure some better examples could be found.

This would be a superb priority #1. If competition was restored to congressional races, candidates would be forced to actually engage those with opposing views and the partisan chasm would stop expanding--maybe even begin narrowing.

Careful, I heard RMS sleeps with a katana. No, seriously.

I think the interwebz is kind of like radio, at least in a few ways. You could operate a paywalled website (XM, Sirius) but you won't have much market share. Or you could operate a neutral, informative, original website (NPR, BBC) but only weirdos will visit. Or you could broadcast whatever "popular" cruft the people are clamoring for (any station playing Miley Cirus) and be wildly successful but selling advertising time/space.

We all seem to agree this article highlights the same issue we've had with virtually all technological advances: increased efficiency putting people out of a job. I fail to see how the micropayments idea would work at all; it would just be interpreted (probably rightly so) as holding back "progress."

Ugh, forgot /. strips carets. That last sentence wasn't very clear. Here:

Oops premature submit. I meant to mention I wholly support the idea of labeling not because I believe GMOs are evil or the make me "feel bad" but because of those other, demonstrated harms I mentioned:

* Unfair patent litigation against farmers who crops were contaminated
* Inevitable dilution of adjacent non-GMO crops
* Acceleration of pesticide resistance

Since the jury is, at least in my opinion, still out on the ultimate safety of these crops I don't bother claiming food safety as a primary reason for my supporting labels. It's not like adding that information would cause the economy to collapse; 60+ nations already require labeling.

And though it's not related, I'd also support additional labeling for things like potassium, phosphorous, etc when there's a valid reason. Yes, even if it's only important for some minority of the population. It could even be compromised like, 'consumers can assume 0.5% of constituent X but higher levels must be on the label'.

If you're going for precision, shouldn't it be

Depending on the food, those additional proteins could end up in your bloodstream, right? Now is that bad? Maybe, maybe not. Not all industry-funded studies have held up to scrutiny either but you're right insofar as the broad consensus is that GMOs are generally safe. The longer that consensus exists, the more convinced I'll be but until we have a couple generations experience, I guess I'll be the "paranoid" one.

I'm a little surprised you didn't hear about the multimillion dollar campaigns against Prop 37 (CA) and Initiative 522 (WA) last year. The Grocery Manufacturers Association was willing to "spend anything" and it resulted in a new record: the most money ever raised to defeat an initiative in Washington state. After a little scuffle, the top donors were revealed to be Grocery Manufacturers Association, Monsanto Company, DuPont Pioneer, Dow AgroSciences LLC, and Bayer CropScience.

You didn't actually provide an argument. You made a broad observation (yes, drugs should elicit an effect) followed by a questionable assertion (aren't GMO crops supposedly distinguishably healthier?), then an unfounded claim (far easier task...). Citing 'self-evidence' isn't very convincing. [I mean would you have difficulty tracking down supportive papers? ;) ]

'yet' was an allusion to potential but not-immediately-apparent, chronic or cumulative effects. I would bring up DDT/Agent Orange/... but those are very extreme examples and most definitely would/will feed trolls. More likely, if detrimental effects do appear, they won't be lethal, just suboptimal. Meanwhile, waiting won't do me any harm.

What we currently have is an absence of evidence, not evidence of absence.

No, that's a signal I've realized this isn't an argument. This is troll feeding. My bad.

The Beavis and Butthead version is better.

MOD PARENT UP PLEASE!

Bah! A true alarmist doesn't wait for events...

I was just as underwhelmed as you when I heard "coldest temperatures since... 1995!"

That said, last summer was particularly hot:

* Historical Heat Wave Expanding Across the West (June 2013)
* Death Valley Heat Breaks All-Time US June Record
* Heat Wave July 2013
* What’s Behind the Heat Wave

And in December, we did see dramatic weather extremes:

Tornadoes in December?

Just two weeks later, it's a cold snap: Chicago already broke it's record low -- more to follow.

I make absolutely no apologies for the inconsistency of TV personalities.

But the general idea with a changing climate affecting storm systems has to do with the ability for air to hold water:

* Warm air holds more moisture.
* A warmer atmosphere is moister generally.
* Storm systems feed off the latent heat of water vapor (which is released by precipitation).
* Extra heat in the ocean & atmosphere nourishes storms.
* Also, if the air holds more moisture, more precipitation can form.
* Finally, higher sea levels cause higher storm surges.

The theory with most consensus regarding the current 'polar vortex cold front' is: a decreasing temperature difference between the equator and polar regions weakens the polar jet stream, which allows the vortex to "wander" farther south than it previously would have. The vortex isn't always circular and right now, the midwest is actually colder than Alaska.

So while the cold front isn't directly related to stronger storm systems, atmospheric scientists reasonably hypothesize they are both influenced by our changing climate.

Disclaimer: I'm currently an instrumentation technician for an atmospheric research group at a large public university. I don't publish but I do collect and reduce data.