Alas. Those wall calendars were fantastic.

Best wishes in whatever comes next and thanks for the freaky art.

Per the CDC, black hetero females in the US have just about 4 times the new HIV infection rate than white hetero females: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ataglance.html

More CDC statistics here: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/

Certainly this is a worthwhile course of investigation by the Norwegians, but the relatively high black female HIV prevalence in the US could indicate factors specific to race and not merely location.

It's the universities and teachers who choose what books the students must use. They could:

1) Boycott this publisher.
2) Act indifferently.
3) Enthusiastically join with this publisher.

Follow the money. I'm guessing it will be 2) or 3) above, depending on the deal the publisher strikes with the university.

It's 18 minutes, well worth a viewing.

Everything you wanted to know about money in politics is located at Open Secrets: http://www.opensecrets.org/resources/learn/

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." -- 2nd Amendment

I imagine back in 1791, when the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution, and the country was mostly rural, and the army was mustered from the citizenry, this made perfect sense.

Today, we have standing armies. People are trained to shoot while in the military. You're not relying on people training themselves, or bringing their own weapons. Heck, the average person has a very hard and expensive time getting an automatic weapon, the type used in the military.

However, I think the Supreme Court reads this correctly. The 2nd Amendment says WHY the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Granted, the WHY is not relevant to the situation today, but that's what the 2nd Amendment does pretty clearly say.

Comcast aired a radio commercial in DC Metro this morning saying that the Comcast-TWC merger would guarantee "net neutrality", higher speeds and more Internet for everyone. This tells me most people think that 1) Net neutrality is a good thing and 2) They have no idea what it really means.

Plus, there's a another front on the net neutrality battle - some companies are claiming that net neutrality allows freeloading - using capacity without paying for it. But what's the reality? That everyone pays for usage - my company's fleet of 10 cars pays the same roadway toll per car as another company with a fleet of 10 cars. BUT - the toll road operator has the right to let the other company's cars into the fast lane and shunt my company and the individual to the slow lane if they so desire.

Is that right or wrong? I have not been able to find a clear citation to answer that question. Citations, anyone?

SFW observation on the difficulty with Google Plus.

We keep voting for these politicians - BUT - the politicians who make it through the primary process are the only ones we are allowed to vote for, and they are already beholden to those special interests which facilitate their victory. 3rd parties are aggressively suppressed.

Very interesting TED talk by Lawrence Lessig on the issue: "There is a corruption at the heart of American politics, caused by the dependence of Congressional candidates on funding from the tiniest percentage of citizens. That's the argument at the core of this blistering talk by legal scholar Lawrence Lessig."

There are many countries in the world where a de facto "Supreme Council" determines which candidates are allowed to stand at election. They are sham democracies. We are falling into that model more and more.

From the Wikipedia:

"Regulatory capture is a form of political corruption that occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or special concerns of interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. Regulatory capture is a form of government failure; it creates an opening for firms to behave in ways injurious to the public (e.g., producing negative externalities). The agencies are called "captured agencies".

See also: "Exaggerated threat":
1) "If we don't invade Iraq, they're going to bake the yellow cakes and explode a nuke in New York City."
2) "If we don't bail out the financial sector, we're going to have a depression."
3) "If we don't allow companies to favor content, the US technology sector will grind to a halt."

Here's a good graphic showing the FCC heads revolving door.

Obama nominated Thomas Wheeler as head of FCC in 2013: "Wheeler is currently the managing director at Core Capital Partners, a venture-capital firm based in Washington, D.C.. He has also been a top lobbyist for the wireless and cable industries. From 1979 to 1984, he served as president of the National Cable Television Association and before that he was CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association." -- http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2013/10/29/tom-wheeler-confirmed-fcc-chairman/3309333/

It's an interesting term to Google (video 4:20): http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2012/04/germanys-mittelstand

Also, these companies have a long term focus and eschew debt, something which is anathema to the US corporate culture.

List of the most dangerous cities in the US for 2013. Detroit is 3rd, right after Flint, Michigan.

FYI, Mr. Backer's background:

"Does Backer know what he's talking about? Besides being the lead attorney for Shaun McCutcheon, over the last three election cycles he has overseen a proliferation of new PACs and helped organize what may be the largest-ever joint fundraising committee, in terms of the number of participants. " -- ibid

From an article on a new shell organization, the JFC, enabled by a recent Supreme Court decision, McCutcheon vs. FEC:

"Backer added that the biggest reason he thinks super JFCs won't take off is that, while they may be an efficient way to extract money from a single donor, from the donor's perspective, they are impersonal and don't offer any advantages -- an assertion that has many skeptics.

"For the donors, they really prefer to cut the vast number of checks," he said. "For them, it's not about giving money, it's about building a relationship. You're not going to get any face time, they're not going to hear your story." Individual donors want to feel gratitude from the candidate -- legal, "completely non-corrupting gratitude," Backer hastened to note." -- OpenSecrets.org