Easy way to neutralize them - just have them watch online pr0n for a while.

How many people would buy the "Kate" model just so they can say "Kate, make me a sammich"?

No, cancer doesn't seem to be likely as a result of this. From the article:

its between that, and another loaded term "cultural marxist" used by fascists to describe everyone who doesn't hold traditional social values. The term "Social Justice Warrior" is used almost exclusively by fascists and conservatives to describe everyone who believes in activism in lines that go against their values. Its a perojative that uses a stereotype of the worst of feminism and socialism to paint a negative picture of both to avoid any real intellectual discussion.

They will do no such thing. The last thing they want is for the U.S. to reverse position on intellectual property and drive a worldwide shortening of copyright and broadening of fair use.

that shouldn't scare you off from "feminism" in general. Just mainstream feminists are fucking tools, and often more or less tools of PR and marketing.

The larger crime is the amount of time they spent raking some nerds over the coals, and completely missed the handful of domestic assault cases in the news involving NFL players and the rape case against Bill Cosby, and subsequent rape apologism. Roman Polanski(movie producer who admitted to raping a 13 year old girl, and fled the country), is now trying to get back in, and I've heard so called "feminists" apologize for all of the above.

But no, one nerd says something remotely misogynist, and its a "war on women".

Modern feminism is nothing more than Public Relations, Media Department, to keep consumers consumers, and attack anyone who questions the status quo.

however it applies only to "left wing" blowhards, and not their equally obnoxious fascist and libertarian blow hards. Its a sly use of weasel words to discredit multiple spectrum of ideaologies based on a few blowhards. It also implies that all social justice sought by "the left" is the same.

gross stereotype. For every "lazy leftist" in some PAC/Activist org/media group, there is a "conservative" in think tanks, lobbying agency, etc...

socialist movements were mainly formed by people working in factories and coal mines.

you are being whole decietful on ideaology.

So I guess those stories of going to a football game and seeing a hockey match break out are true :-)

You might be thinking of something different, reverting the cells to stem cells. These are the telomeres, which are the tail end of the DNA strand that gets chopped a little every time the cell splits. After many splits, there's none left and the cell dies.

There are already ways to extend the telomeres, that is something telomerase accomplishes, but this is a new procedure.

Where is Blinky the 3-eyed fish when you need him?

Just because we've gotten lucky so far (if you discount TMI and Chernobyl and Fukushima) doesn't mean we shouldn't do better. The better the standards, the more acceptable it becomes. This is the political reality of nuclear power, and you can scream FUD all you won't it won't change that reality.

On a side note, I never believed the NAFTA hype. I read the actual Free Trade agreement and it stunk. I brought a copy of it to Ottawa and spent a week trying to explain why it was bad. I couldn't find a single politician who had read it, but they were all so certain that it was a good thing. Ignorance really is bliss, I guess, even when it's willful ignorance.

Absolutely not. The one thing we don't need is yet more bureaucrats and politicians.

Just bring back tariffs on imports from countries that compete unfairly by not having decent regulation. See my reply here. It worked before. It can work again. But you're right - looking at the stats since NAFTA, it was never raveled in the first place. And of course, it's kind of ironic that the country with the least open economy (China) is going to pass the US soon.

The problem is I tried that solution a few decades ago. Much disaster ensued. Funny thing was, I was looking at transitioning back then, and if they had gotten wind of that ... it would have been far worse. I later saw how they treated someone else. Really messed them up.

The studies are kind of flawed (to say the least) when looked at through the lens of reality. Look at the US. NAFTA was signed in 1994, so that's a good place to start, Since then, major parts of the economy hollowed out, and China is poised to pass the US as the #1 world economy. China, of course, has more trade restrictions. So imposing trade restrictions seems to have worked quite well for them.

In 1994, the United States' national debt was $4.692 trillion. It's expected to be $18.713 trillion this year. In 1994, the US trade deficit was $151 billion. Last year, it was $661 billion. So in 20 years, the deficit has ballooned by almost 4x the total amount for the previous 200 years.

Worse is that in 1994, US imports only exceeded that year's exports by 30%. Today, it's 50%. It's quite simply getting worse no matter how you look at it. And then we can also point to the decline of the middle class, not because they've benefited, but because they've joined the ranks of the poor.

So, how's that free trade working for you again?