It's funny how my cable Internet service went from $80 for ~10-15 megabit when it was a monopoly to $45 for 300 megabit within 2 weeks of AT&T laying fiber behind my house.

Though they still try to get me to rent a cable modem from them, because the 'substandard' modem I own wouldn't handle the speed, when it's rated for ~400 Mbps

I live in a state that passed Voter ID. Since the law passed, local Democratic Party workers no longer come to my house asking to speak to several other voters registered to my address who definitely don't live at my address. So yes, there is fraud, and yes voter ID has prevented fraud.

The state will issue an ID for free for the purposes of voting so there is no financial barrier to voting.

You say voter suppression, sensible people say fraud prevention.

But in saying it this way, you're attempting to imply you can provide evidence. And I am simply pointing out that there is no reason to even consider that this is a possibility. Don't tell me you will do it later, because that's irrelevant. It's no different than saying nothing at all, or even saying "I have no evidence" or "I cannot provide evidence." They are all exactly equivalent in the end, except that the other methods do not have the implication that you might actually provide the evidence, despite you not giving us a reason to believe that, so it smacks of dishonesty.

Just say nothing at all, unless you have something to contribute. You'll be better off.

I make no claims about what is not hard for others. I do assert that most people do not do it, regardless of how hard it is.

Yawn. I am uninterested of your characterizations. Either actually make an argument against what I wrote, or do not. So far, you have not.

You are not, in any way, arguing against what I wrote.

Of course they can. So? Again: this, in no way whatsoever, implies that the media is not to blame. It just means that we have the power to ignore their bad behavior. But it's still their bad behavior. They are still to blame for it. Obviously.

Until you provide evidence, I won't believe it exists.

(See how this works?)

I meant -- obviously -- there is no journalistic or democratic reason to do it. Everything has a reason.

So you have no examples, then. Good to know.

I get that, but the main point is that there's no reason to report it in the first place, because there is no evidence ... regardless of how much you think it might be in line with his character to do it.

I don't know of any broadly reported unsourced attacks on Hillary Clinton. Can you give an example? The main attacks I know of on her were based on hacked documents that the DNC and others admitted were genuine; on a report by the FBI that no one called into question on the facts (though admittedly we couldn't verify some of those facts, such as that the information Clinton mishandled was actually classified); and so on.

Yes.

Not for me, no. I am one of the very few who actively dismisses any unsourced report.

Of course, it is our responsibility to ignore unsourced reports. But that doesn't mean the media isn't responsible for incessantly giving those unsourced reports to us ... obviously.

Did you not read my comment? I already answered this question: because it's the media that has trained us to believe assertions without evidence.

Even if you think it is in his character, unless there's SOME evidence it happened, then it's irresponsible to treat it as though it's possibly true.

The media regularly gives us stories without evidence, without substantiation, and asks us to believe those stories. Then -- I'm shocked! -- people end up believing stories without evidence or substantiation.

Only when we stop paying attention to source-less claims will we solve the problem of "fake news."

It is significantly more a matter of convenience than baby size. The entire OB industry is based around convenience, painlessness and reducing the amount of time medical staff need to actually work on you. They want to clear the bed for the next patient as quickly as possible. Another significant part of the problem is medical care professionals (at least in the U.S.) treat childbirth like a pathology rather than a life event. Both the doctors and the patients treat this like something that should be scheduled, painless, and regimented when the process is unpredictable and defies easy scheduling.

My wife had both of our children at home under the care of a midwife. The birth was painful and messy, but our children are healthy. Contrary to what you see on medical shows, movies and TV, most of the events of birth take a significant amount of time... it's not 5 minutes between "my water broke" and "baby is born" unless you have to fit a birth inside a 22-minute show.

Cost-wise, the home birth cost much more out of pocket, but was actually significantly cheaper overall - somewhere between 15 and 30% of the cost of a hospital birth. Of course, these costs are hidden when you have insurance, but be assured that somebody pays that extra 70-85%.