You left out the Z and the F.

The "PC" term for psychopaths is now "anti-social personality disorder."

Not exactly. While the DSM claims psychopathy is equivalent to antisocial personality disorder, the broader literature finds psychopathy to be a more specific concept.

Nonprofit status only means there are no shareholders that profit. Nonprofit status does not imply "nobody profits".

Corporate officers can't profit either. But employees -- especially top management -- can make out like bandits. Most don't, of course, but employees of a non-profit can make $1,000,000+ salaries quite legally.

But The Color Run is not a non-profit.

Starting a successful nonprofit is a hip new way to become rich

That would be difficult: you'd have to start the non-profit and then hand it over to co-conspirators who would become the trustees and hire you. And unless you're giving them a kickback (which I'm going to go out on a limb and assume is illegal), why would they?

TFA article does not use the term "popular resistance", but properly labels it "not-in-my-backyard" resistance. TFA notes that "Germanyâ(TM)s Energiewende, or energy transformation, has enjoyed widespread citizen support.".

Submitter and editors either do not know what "popular resistance" means, or deliberately spun this post.

eir eru að tala um rúnir en myndin er bara rispur á spýtu. Hvernig ýðir maður rispur á rúnir?

G+ is the best social media tool I have ever used. Easy to organize, easy to filter, easy to read specific people, and isn't full of crap.

Isn't full of crap because it's not full of content. And a social media platform run by a corporation whose business model is to spy on you to produce a profile that allows them you target ads to you all over the net...unwise to use. At least FB only is pitching you ads on its own site.

Congress has the authority to regulate certain aspects of interstate travel that relate to commerce.

Airlines by nature engage in interstate commerce. (Perhaps there are a handful of strictly intra-state carriers, but let's leave aside edge cases for now.) Congress can, under its deliberately broad Constitutional power to regulate commerce, regulate the fsck out of airlines.

You use a credit card at a cash machine and you are charged a cash advance interest rate immediately.

Not necessarily. It's a hack, but when I was in Japan I found the best way to get cash was to make an advance payment on my Discover card -- thus giving me a negative balance, -- and then take out a cash advance. No fees or interest and a good exchange rate.

For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.

Citation? The lowest number I've seen on defensive gun uses is 64,000 year. That's via a methodology expected to undercount, but even if we assume that it's an overcount and take *half* of it, then defensive gun use is likely to be more than three times as common as homicide via firearm.

Other estimates -- highly controversial ones, to be sure -- put the annual number of DGUs in the millions.

More importantly, those homicides by firearm are mostly being committed by people who already have criminal records. People who are legally barred from getting guns. But laws keep bad guys away from guns as well as drug laws keep junkies away from heroin; and keeping good citizens -- the sort who are unlikely to murder anyone but might come to someone's aid -- away from guns is not only a waste of resources and corrosive to liberty, it's counter-productive to crime prevention.

Firearms accidents are actually rare and you are far more likely to drown or die in a fire than be accidentally shot to death. Suicide is sad but the means are irrelevant, people manage to kill themselves quite well in Japan despite a lack of guns. And comparing DGU "in the home" with felonious shootings "in or around a home" -- a lovely bit of rhetorical misdirection and intellectual dishonesty.

Take your leftist anti gun rhetoric somewhere else.

Point of order: there's nothing "leftist" about anti-gun rhetoric. As the socialist writer George Orwell noted, "That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."

The men and women at NSA, CIA, and DOD are protecting you against monsters.

The U.S.'s brutal and stupid foreign policy, carried out by the NSA, CIA, DOD, et al., does at least as much -- possibly more -- to create monsters than protect us from them. It's a wonderful cycle for the military/industrial/security complex: the complex fscks over nation A, nation A gets angry and makes aggressive noise, the complex points at nation A and says, "See? See? Danger! Feed the complex so we can protect you!"

Of course kicking the hornet's nest and then telling people, "Hey, we need to go kick hornet's nests because look at how dangerous these hornets are!" is hardly an American invention. But we are the current masters of it for sure.

How stupid is it that we have regulations based on data that's isn't made available for independent verification?

Almost all of it is in fact available, so this is just more GOP BS.

A small part of it is under copyright protection or other NDA -- and that's dumb, and the cure is copyright reform that frees all publicly funded research, and a research funding process that doesn't rely on making researchers cover costs by selling their data. Copyright corrupts science. But Congress isn't doing that, and we can't make other countries do it.

As the University of East Anglias CRU explains,

Since the early 1980s, some NMSs, other organizations and individual scientists have given or sold us (see Hulme, 1994, for a summary of European data collection efforts) additional data for inclusion in the gridded datasets, often on the understanding that the data are only used for academic purposes with the full permission of the NMSs, organizations and scientists and the original station data are not passed onto third parties. Below we list the agreements that we still hold....Some date back at least 20 years. Additional agreements are unwritten and relate to partnerships we've made with scientists around the world and visitors to the CRU over this period. In some of the examples given, it can be clearly seen that our requests for data from NMSs have always stated that we would not make the data available to third parties....The inability of some agencies to release climate data held is not uncommon in climate science. The Dutch Met Service (KNMI) run the European Climate Assessment and Dataset (ECA&D, http://eca.knmi.nl/) project. They are able to use much data in their numerous analyses, but they cannot make all the original daily station temperature and precipitation series available because of restrictions imposed by some of the data providers...The problem is a generic issue and arises from the need of many NMSs to be or aim to be cost neutral (i.e. sell the data to recoup the costs of making observations and preparing the data).

We receive numerous requests for these station data...These data are not ours to provide without the full permission of the relevant NMSs, organizations and scientists.

And some of the data has been lost to bit rot, like a lot of computer data from decades ago. No surprise.

But the idea that there's some dark secret that a cabal of climate scientists are hiding is the usual denialist gibberish.

First off, you don't make the problem I brought up go away by changing the subject. The sexualization and dehumanization of women *remains* a problem whether you change the subject or not. Seconly, are you honestly trying to claim that men don't treat women as disposable objects? Really?

According to US crime statistics, 99% of sexual assault perpetrators are men. 91% of sexual assault victims are female. That is, to put it bluntly, even when a man is a victim, the perpetrator is still overwhelmingly likely to be a man. And if you want to fall back to the "guys aren't as likely to report being raped by a woman because it'd be embarrassing" canard, you really think that it would be any less embarrassing for them to report being raped by a guy, given the male taboo about anything homosexual?

The simple fact is, statitically, it's almost exclusively men who rape. Not 100% exclusively - given the vast number of rapes, even 1% is still a large number. But, statistically, the percentage of perpetrators that are women is very small.

And let's get out of the BS denial mode. The simple fact is that about 1 in 4 women will be raped in their lifespan, and polls of college-age men show that approximataely one in 10 have already raped, and of those, about a third are serial rapists. These numbers aren't appearing in a vaccuum; you need to stand up and deal with the elements in male culture that treat it as fine to treat women as objects, conquests, and makes sexual consent out as optional. I find it incredibly disturbing the percentage of men who don't even know what consent *is* or that they have to get it ("If she passes out she's fair game", "She's my girlfriend so it can't be rape", "She didn't physically fight me when I forced myself on her, she only *told me* not to", "If she didn't want it she wouldn't have dressed like that", etc).

These are your friends, your family members. Stop turning a blind eye to the problem, admit it exists, and if you see these sort of attitudes expressed, F*'in say something. Your silence or friendly laugh gets interpreted as agreement.

..because "corporate backing" rules out "liberal," right?

Yes, pretty much. "Liberal" is supposed to imply at least a bit of leftism, and leftism mean policies that benefit ordinary working people instead of the aristocrats who control capital. Anything that benefits well-to-do stockholders at the expense of working people is a right-wing policy.

Things like the ACA aka "Obamacare" is exactly what the NOT CONSERVATIVES do when they have an iron grip on Capital Hill.

The ACA is modeled on "RomneyCare" and the idea of exchanges was pushed by the Heritage Foundation for years -- as early as 1989, in fact. It's fundamentally a right-wing plan that continues to fatten the wallets of insurance company stockholders and executives, does little to restrain corporations so massive that their profits -- not revenue, but profits -- are larger than some state budgets, maintains the fiction that a market approach is appropriate for health care, and does fskc-all to reign in the medical industry's practice of grossly overcharging people.