You need to be careful with specific examples. They're often representative of a larger issue, that's certainly true.

You simply can't jump to a conclusion based on an individual example, or even a collection of samples.

Occam's Razor suggests that, based on this example, they are simply incompetent. How exactly do you intend to refute that conclusion and instead suggest a vast conspiracy designed to attack the guy in charge?

Heck, they could even simply believe that by inciting anger at 'the Man', they increase the viewership and thus their profits - no malice intended toward anyone in particular, just the seat the guy is in.

Regardless, don't make a correct statement, then back it up with your personal bias / strawman argument, then wave it off as irrelevant. You're using their tactics to propagate your bias, and undermine your prime statement, which is that Fox News couldn't put a factual story together even if they were paid to.

(And there is my bias - I certainly don't believe that current media holds any love of the truth, just money).

So is the North Pole, Al.

As far as the 'irregardless' goes, let me say this:

Just because a dictionary concedes that some people will use a word despite a lack of coherent meaning, and include it as a "non-standard" word, does not mean that it is truly a word in the language. Language is meant to convey information, and unless you're trying to convey the fact you're an idiot, you should probably choose where you use that. Here, as an AC is probably an excellent suggestion.

Again this falls back to the wiki argument. Just because you can find information posted on the Internet doesn't mean that information is correct, and certainly doesn't mean you should use it just because Google showed it to you.

Who was the idiot that thought that this was a news story?

They've been putting magnets in toys since they found magnets. Cool stuff is interesting, and interesting things are usually toys until there's a decent application for them.

Also, parents have been over-reacting to reality ever since reality existed. Reality can be dangerous, and dangerous things are usually worth over-reacting about until there's enough research to make it useful to people.

Rule 34 wins again!

Lemmie go find some brain bleach.

I want to play the games rated Soylent Green!

I realize I'm in the minority here, but I guarantee you I know half a dozen auto mechanics that have been, and will always be able to get appointments with their US Senator. Admittedly, I live in Alaska, and Ralph Seekins was a senator here. He also owns the Ford dealership in town.

Nitpicking aside, if you *can't* get an appointment with your Senator, you have a problem. Try it - go down to their office and request an appointment. Their whole job is to speak on your behalf. Of course, you could try emailing them as well - you'll probably get a canned response (heck, even showing up in person you'll likely get a canned response, but you could always ask for the basis of that response). Seriously, just because it's canned doesn't mean it's artificial -- it's likely just an often-answered question.

To some extent it was - up until the courts decided that corporations have the same rights (at least one specifically, and others implied by induction) that people do. Now laws are in the best interests of the biggest bank accounts.

The problem I see with attitudes like this, is the retaliatory theme. Yes, there is a huge problem. Firing everybody, packing up your bags, and running home (to mommy?) isn't going to solve problems. Hell, you're even firing the people who you're turning to to save you from riots. I'll bet they won't be too enthusiastic about that option.

This also ignores the reality that those government workers are also a "PRODUCTIVE part of the population". They pay their bills, buy things, and go to work just like everyone else. In fact, they have probably even recognized the FUD, and do what is in their power to change that. Unfortunately for us (as Americans), those workers probably don't have much power in their situation, considering the American voters tend to vote in whichever direction has the prettiest slogan.

I'd argue the solution isn't to destroy the government, it should be to take part in your government at a community, state, or federal level and help to change things. The true power of the American society has always been to recognize bad shit happening, to get together despite our differences, and find a solution that helps everyone.

This retaliatory theme that's been bandied about got us into messes like the Great Depression, the Civil War, both World Wars, etc. It's our strength in community that got us out.

Hey, they couldn't find terrorists on airplanes, they seem perfectly competent to not find terrorists on the roads too!

What are they going to do, arrest themselves too? Perhaps they can only arrest the "wrongdoing" black people. Or even better, the people with cellphones (that have cameras).

I agree with you. To add a point to that though, consider the case where you get a robocall. How about you hang up immediately? Most plans are in the neighborhood of 10 cents a minute (as a guess), and charge on a minute cost. What are you out - 10 cents?

Shucks. Most calls I make are in the 5-60 minute range anyhow. A dozen robocalls won't significantly impact my ability to use my cell.

And the simple solution to this: don't identify yourself to anyone unless you've obtained the purpose of their call. Seriously, why give out information that they may not already have?

It's not being courteous, it's being naive - at least in todays' society.

I think I'll have to do one of the following whenever I get a robocall:

a) Get the email addresses of each GOP to email my disapproval
b) More effective (if costly) solution - have a thousand "You have lost my vote due to your robocall system" postcards printed, and mail one out each time.

Sure, sounds overwhelming, but how else am I going to voice my disapproval? I somehow highly doubt that the voters they represent are dying to be robocalled.

Actually, as a resident of Alaska, he *does* say what portion of the state he's in. He's in Rural Alaska which to non-Alaskans would translate to "I don't live in Fairbanks, Anchorage, or Juneau". He should really contact the University of Alaska Fairbanks and talk to their Sustainability office. They have some excellent packages that are right up his alley.