The error was in getting caught, despite it being obvious.

I suspect that if you dig in, CBS will eventually claim that this is all intended to further engage the audience, give a familiar context, and generally improve the viewing experience. apparently reality is a challenging environment for CBS, but this is not news to me. 60 Minutes in particular has long been challenged by reality, and doesn't show any signs of abating.

All of which above goes for most of the mainstream media. It's entertainment. We love it. Pretending to be informative is alright, so long as we know when the role changes.

Touchscreens didn't become ubiquitous. Metro Fail.

Film at 11.

Recycling old stories is brilliant. Converted comics even better. Why take a chance on an unproven story our concept? Hollywood is all about making money first, making points second. But ideology also sells, and hollywood, by definition, is compelled to present ideology. They tell stories.

So, are we redefining autism as encompassing those other conditions etc, or did we mistake autism for all that other stuff?

Btw, most school systems in the U.S. spend 30-40% of their budget on 'special needs' students. Including boys that cannot settle down and learn.

That sounds heartless.

What causes are included in that statistic? Food poisoning ? Fires? Knife wounds? And how often do people cook at home vs be exposed to communicable diseases, since the population is largely immunized?

BTW, I am in favor of imunization. I'm not in favor of denying unimmunized children healthcare because their parents did not have them immunized.

Care delayed is care denied. You can't arbitrarily decide the priority for care unless you want to take control of people's lives.

That is the weakest spot in single-payer. Defending the needy, protecting the weak, equal access for all is the right easy.

And putting children at the end of the line because of the bad choices of their parents is almost the worst possible choice. Children are innocent of their parents' decisions.

I don't want YOU in charge of this.

I was exposed to chickenpox. This got me shingles later in life.

And there was no vaccine for that when I was young. Who do I sue?

So how does your refusal to vaccinate for children put other vaccinated children at risk?

The confusion is deliberately caused

*ding*

Hey, AC... How does me not vaccinating my child put your vaccinated child at risk?

As I wrote: All legislation is someone's morality.

You seem to believe the State has both authority and responsibility to evaluate your practices raising your children, and should exercise its power to either compel you to raise them a certain way, or when take them from you if they disprove of your practices.

It is important, I think, to consider these policy decisions from a key vantage point - would your opinion change if the State were dominated and controlled by political forces that you did not agree with? More importantly, if you believe that these policies should be enforced because you agree with the political forces that propose them, do you believe that any opposition needs to be silenced, permanently, lest they overturn your choices?

My point isn't that you seem to want a State that is not constitutional in our nation, but that you wish to do unto others that which you probably do not wish done to you.

And for that reason, you should both not do it, and seek to prevent the State from doing it at all.

I'm equally interested in cloning its last meal.

" that doesn't mean Hollywood is just part of the intelligence apparatus."

You are literally correct, AC. THAT doesn't demonstrate that Hollywood is part of the intelligence apparatus. You would need more evidence, found by looking elsewhere.