The only alternatives to SpaceX are NASA's AtlasV and the Russian offerings. That's well known.

What's less known is that a major component — the RD-180 engine — of AtlasV is supplied by Russia as well. Russia is threatening to stop delivering it, but the US ought to stop buying it in the first place — and cut off billions of dollars for Putin.

If the SpaceX fails, the US may be forced to appease Russia — such as by forgiving the armed invasion and recognizing the annexation of Crimea.

A Russian agent, who'd successfully sabotage SpaceX, would certainly be richly rewarded back at home.

They might go to a shitty underfunded public school.

The very concept of "public school" is fairly recent. Not only did Aristotle grow up without one, neither Benjamin Franklin nor Thomas Jefferson attended one either. Thomas Edison was homeschooled.

They might get harassed by the police on a regular basis, charged with a felony in a situation where a white kid would get a slap on the wrist, and have their lives effectively ruined by a criminal record.

Even if true, how is this different from what Jews suffered in Europe for centuries?

Why are the supposedly "racist cops" (many of them Black, BTW) today only targeting African Americans? If they really were White Supremacists, wouldn't the statistics for Asian Americans be just as gloomy? Immigrant Blacks are doing much better than the native-born ones too.

A theory contradicting observable facts is wrong. Your explanation is thus without merit. Whether or not there really is "institutional racism" or whatever in America, it simply does not explain the woeful underperformance of African Americans.

It's definitely not as bad for black people as it was 50 years ago, or even 25 years ago

Actually, you are wrong again — it is worse than 50 years ago. Despite — or, more likely, because of — decades of various policies advocated by your kind, the Blacks' satisfaction is lower today, than it was in 1964. Although, yeah, it may be better than 20 years ago...

(Note, that I'm not putting forth my own theories here. I'm just obliterating yours.)

But if the ongoing program of destroying their lives is successful

What ongoing program? Please, cite evidence such as:

• Laws aimed at destroying Black lives
• Organizations — governmental and private — dedicated to the purpose (with proof, of course)

You make a vile accusation — prove it.

the constitution is not sacred

It is not "sacred" because it was not handed down to us by a Deity. It is sacred in that every four years the incoming President repeats the same solemn oath to defend it.

Whatever "sacred" means to you, it is the law of the land. But it can be amended. For example, when we still believed in limited government, one that could not just order people around willy-nilly for The Greater Good, the prohibition of alcohol was done as a constitutional amendment (the 18th — less than 100 years ago!).

However, only a few decades later the same same government banned marijuana with a simple law — without obtaining the national consent by ratification of an amendment. The 10th Amendment was thus nullified.

a brilliant collection of people, but they weren't prophets

Well, they were. For example, the prediction of the growth of Statism was scary:

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild, and government to gain ground.

— Thomas Jefferson

and the point about it concentrating in large cities — especially accurate:

When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe.

— Thomas Jefferson

you do know where the Internet came from, don't you?

Yes, it came out of a military research project. I also know, where electricity, telegraph, telephone, radio, TV and rail-roads came from. We didn't need the benevolent guidance of government's omniscient bureaucrats for any of those, we didn't need it for the Internet.

In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of.

— Confucius

the First Amendment refers to government regulation of speech [...] This is not a legal issue, it's a moral issue.

Yes, which is why I haven't accused anybody of violating the Amendment, you moron. I only said, it is offensive to those, who value it.

It's morally wrong to empower a social media lynch mob without performing

My point, it is wrong to so empower the "lynch mob" even after a "reasonable inquiry into the facts" — even if the said inquiry fully confirms the allegations.

You are not Hammurabi, and you do not get to choose who lives and who dies.

But I do get to approve of some deaths and disapprove of others.

Madison was wrong.

Well, he was "only" the guy, who was writing down the items, as they were discussed during the convention. Surely, he had some insights. Maybe, you — in the 21st century — know more about the intent of those ancient legislators, but you aren't sharing... You just flatly say "wrong" — like a good little tyrant you secretly wish to be... Sigh, as they say, Statists gonna state.

Other founding fathers such as Hamilton understood the General Welfare provision very broadly.

Some citations would be useful here... As well as arguments for why we should be taking Hamilton's opinion over that of Madison and Jefferson.

But, if he was really so good, why are you proposing we "cherry-pick" Hamilton's ideas — instead of also electing the top executive ("national governor") for life — and have him appoint state governors?

I, for one, dread the thought of how this country would've looked, had that sort of tyranny prevailed — Russia, where the presudent's tenure is de-facto life-long and where he is appointing local governments even de-jure, is a very close example, actually.

Moreover, I suspect, you would've hated it too — had you even known about the man, whose opinion on "General Welfare" you advocate. You are wrong — the interpretation of "General Welfare" pushed by the Statists opens up a whole to drive a freight-train through. This was, of course, obvious for centuries. For example, that same Madison said later (1794):

The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects...If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers but an indefinite one..."

Indeed, whether it is to ban speech, confiscate guns, perform warrantless searches, seize funds and property without trials, eavesdrop on citizens' communications — the government would simply need to claim, those are done "for General Welfare". It would be a dreadfully depressing country to live in... Oh, wait...

He was punished for the *action* of expressing them.

Punished for speech, you mean? Oh, that's so much better!

There's a difference.

There is not. Until we have develop a way to reliably discern thoughts that have not been expressed, the very concept of thoughtcrime is either simply not possible, or must, necessarily, cover expressing the "criminal" thoughts in addition to merely holding them.

I suppose I agree, but in the article itself, it does explain why it's difficult to get an accurate figure.

The difficulty of obtaining accurate figures is no excuse for making shit up. Though, of course, as the Climate Science's lead is showing, the practice is increasingly acceptable...

Words have meanings — some times, they even have consequences. The title says:

79% of Airbnb Listings In Barcelona Are Illegal

The write-up says:

79% could be illegal

The former is a statement of fact and a serious allegation. The latter is just as non-committal and devoid of information as the (in)famous promise of Geico's advertising.

Which is it?

do not apply for a permit, fail to pay insurance and tourist tax, and ignore Catalonian law that forbids short-term rentals of rooms in private homes

Phew... Malum prohibitum crimes: it is only wrong because it is illegal. Screw you, Statists, get back to enforcing the malum in se — you know, the kind of thing, that is illegal because it is wrong.

Was he punished? Yes.

Was the punishment for anything other than his alleged holding an offensive opinion? Yes.

Ergo, he was punished for a thoughtcrime.

That the punishment is light is irrelevant, and the distinction between merely having an opinion and stating it is without difference.

Rather than the low road reponse taken in previous shootings, their's was exemplary in that they clearly identified themselves as better people.

Maybe, that's because none of the earlier dead have, actually, been innocent. Michael Brown in particular deserved to die (even if Eric Garner didn't).

Or, maybe, because these are a church-going folk — you know, the stupid, illogical, bigoted and parochial believers in a sky-god...

I don't know — but you are right in that their tolerance is sincere, and not a result of some "grass-roots" organisation making emphasis on tolerance one of the bullet points on a strategy memo. To be discarded and replaced with the opposite, when the situation changes.

Start by getting the government out of philanthropy and other benevolence. They suck at it, but insist on spending tax-dollars on it anyway.

But be careful — if you find something, that seems useful, the government may decide to impose it on everyone (at gun-point, which is how government does everything.)

Of course, the Statists would lament:

It's bad news when the government is in such disarray that it needs a money from a billionaire to keep providing services to the country's neediest

but don't fall for it. First of all, such statements are self-contradicting — because it is exactly the money from billionaires, that the government spends on "the country's neediest" even when it is not shut down. Top 20% of the earners pay 84% of the income tax today... But, when a philanthropist chooses to spend his money this way, it is noble and legal, whereas for the government it is a patently unconstitutional thing to do:

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

— James Madison

Yes, boys and girls, "helping the needy" is just as illegal for the state to do as is eavesdropping on your communications or searching your house without a warrant...

Whether the reaction is "too quick" or not is the wrong question to ask. It is wrong to prosecute thoughtcrimes at all. Whether or not he is "sexist", he is still a brilliant scientist and a credit to whatever stations he was fired from.

Such prosecutions are not only unfair — and offensive to everyone, who values the First Amendment — they are also ineffective and counter-productive: people will not change their minds this way, they'll just learn to keep their mouths shut.

And, of course, it also exposes the preachers of tolerance and crusaders against bigotry as intolerant bigots. Some silver lining, I suppose...