Up next on the news US Congress votes that pollution from cars is not a man made phenomenon, but part of a natural cycle..

Cash for clunkers wasn't about pollution. It was about bailing out auto companies. Both initially by the government subsidizing the purchase and later by removing late model vehicles from the used car market causing used cars to increase in price to a point where new cars were seen as an attractive option.

Ironically, the upper middle class would have purchased new vehicles anyway, but the lower middle class and the poor were priced out of the "good" used car market and had to stick with what they had or replace it with somebody else's clunker.

Cash for clunkers is a prime example of unintended consequences of a government program when quick fixes are implemented without looking at the long term effect.

Actually, capitalism is blind to age, it is about supply and demand. On the other hand the actual managers involved in the decisions have their own bias and prejudice. Capitalism may cause many problems, but ageism isn't one of them.

If you can afford tuition of $28,750/yr for elementary school, then you don't need a charity to subsidize the cost for you. This is nothing more than the 1% helping the other 1%. The promise of trickle down is merely a teaser for the other 99%.

Condemning 1.6B Muslims, because they can't reign in a some violent Muslims seems a bit extreme. In the US, it is innocent until proven guilty. Go after the extremists, no problem, but leave the innocent alone.

Nobody said that Muslims should get special treatment, but then again, it sounds like that is what you are proposing. We don't single out all Christians because Timothy McVey was one or the Westboro Baptist Church are. So, why should we single out all Muslims because of the actions of a few? If if there were a million Muslims who were extremists, that is .06% of the estimated total Muslim population in the world.

As for other religious groups shooting or killing others because of religious mockery, one only has to go back a few decades to Ireland or Croatia to see exactly that. As for atheists doing so, one only has to look at China and the former Soviet Union.

Should we condemn all Chinese because of the actions of small percentage? No, of course not. So, why should we condemn all Muslims for the actions of a small percentage? It seems like doing so is the very different treatment you are complaining about.

There are something like 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. Many in countries that that value free speech. Maybe what you meant to say was that terrorist groups like ISIS or Al Qeda are incompatible with a society based on free speech. Of course that ignores the PM who wants to ban the Quran, so maybe society is not really based on free speech but acceptable speech, instead. Of course, then who is to decide what is acceptable or not?

However, it is no more accurate to use ISIS as the definition of Islam than it is to use Quakers as the definition of Christianity.

As for poking them to show who loves freedom and who does not, that sounds more like bullying versus exercising freedom.

I was taught that a wounded animal is more dangerous than one that is not. There are people who are greatly offended (wounded) by the mockery of their strongly held beliefs. Why keep poking them with a stick and acting surprised when they strike back?

Of course, even poked, that doesn't make their reaction acceptable (shootings), but then again, shooting somebody for their shoes or purse or wallet or color of their skin or what they believe in, etc. is hardly acceptable, either. Those acts of violence occur all the time and at a far greater statistical rate than over the this. It's just that the media doesn't fixate on them.

Just like not all cops are bad because some are, neither are all . Banning the Quran, as the PM wants to do is not the answer. A book is not the cause of this problem. If people in his country or here are being induced to do violence because of it, then something else is wrong and unless you figure out what that is, you can't solve the problem.

If you want peace, work for justice.

Instead of trying to predict riots, wouldn't it be better to prevent them in the first place? Putting effort into righting the injustices that cause the riot would be the best thing for everybody.

Pope John XXIII said "If you want peace, work for justice." Seems to be some wisdom there.

Well, the creationist is making his decision of what to do about climate change out of ignorance. The other is consciously putting financial gain over the common good.

Let's use logic.

Assume that climate change is a natural phenomenon. If we choose do ignore it then there is no harm. If we choose not to ignore it, it can have negative impact on the economy and the accumulation of wealth.

Now, assume that climate change is because of human activity. If we do nothing, then there are catastrophic consequences. If we so something, we can mitigate those consequences at a cost to the economy and the accumulation of wealth.

So, if as you say, the science is not accurate enough to say one way or another, then we can't really look at the cost of guessing right, but instead, must look at the cost of guessing wrong.

If we guess wrong, we can hurt the economy and the accumulation of wealth or we can have catastrophic changes in the planet's environment, which will ultimately also disrupt the economy and the accumulation of wealth.

As such, if science can't determine the cause, is it not most prudent and logical to take steps to prevent catastrophic changes to the environment even if that means unnecessarily disrupting the economy? After all, the economy will recover, even if we guess wrong, but the life on this planet, may very well not.

The difference is that creationists deny science because of their faith. These guys deny science because of greed.

The difference, depending on how one looks at it is around 4%. Of course, a sea cucumber is about 10%. That is because most of the DNA is involved with things like cell division, and processing cellular functions, etc. Now, if you look at just the portion of DNA that makes an ape an ape and a human a human, the difference is far larger.

The DNA argument is a bit like saying that visible light and ultraviolet light are basically almost the same thing, just different wavelengths of electromagnetic spectrum. That would be true. On the otherhand, you might want to think twice about standing under a UV-C bulb versus a standard incandescent.

Well, if these chimps are persons under the law, then I assume they are here on an H1-B visa and are reporting and paying their taxes based on the housing and food allowance they receive at their employer's place of business. If not, they should be locked up for tax evasion. Likewise, the university in question, I am sure, is paying the employer's share of FICA/Medicare and has verified their I-9 status.

As silly as all of that sounds, if one is a person under the law, then one must comply with all of the laws.

No, he is being accused of being in position of releasing state secrets by countries the UK has extradition treaties with. However, neither that or the rape allegations are what make him a fugitive. The fact that he skipped bail is what makes him a fugitive. The other charges, espionage, rape, etc., still need to be proven in a court of law. The bail skipping is a matter of record and does not.