You don't understand our new post-captialist economy. In post-capitalism, entrenched special interest have a right to make money and the basic purpose of government is to enact laws that insure profit. That is the law of the land manifest in the DCMA. So, for example, Kurig is using DRM to eliminate competition on refills for their machines.

Post-capitalism also conveniently eliminates pesky constitutional guarantees enforcing the rule of law. Contractual language can now eliminate search warrants and right of privacy when Stingray cellphone technology is used for mass surveillance. Both government and private enterprise benefit in post-capitalism.

Broadband providers have just as much right as any other business to run an entrenched monopolistic enterprise and make vast amounts of money. I fully expect that the current court system will correct the loopholes that threaten their guaranteed profitability, and give them the same protection under the law that other corrupt special interests enjoy in our post-capitalist system.

Why is this so hard to understand? It's obviously the American Way.

Once it's gone, it's gone.

Just wondering.

This is similar to what happened in geology when plate tectonics became accepted. There were a cadre of crusty (pun intended) old professors who just flat out rejected the idea that the surface of the earth could move like that. They stuck to their guns, and some of them spent their final years in academia trying to refute tectonic theory. I heard about this when I was a rockhound as a kid and went to amateur geology events.

I don't know if at that time anyone accused those adopting the new theory as being personally corrupt, but doubt it. Those were different times. However, when this guy starts calling the APS corrupt he's clearly gone into the weeds.

In reality there is corruption in the climate change debate, and it's all on the side of the fossil fuel advocates. They have a lot of money at stake, and they spend a relatively large amount defending their wealth. The poster boys for this are the Koch brothers, although they are not alone.

There's a position in the economics department of Kansas University funded by the Kochs. It's filled by a person who's previous job was as a lobbyist for the Koch organization. Among other things he lobbied against wind power subsidies, which is really blatant give the vast tax write-offs that fossil fuel companies get.

Additionally, another Koch funded economist at George Mason University has come out in favor of less democracy. Dr. Garett Jones published a paper titled “10% Less Democracy: How Less Voting Could Mean Better Governance" This is a step beyond the Republican program to keep the "wrong" kind of people from voting. It's starting to look like the Kochs are getting tired of the peasants grumbling, and are considering reducing their right to petition grievances before the king.

Where's your proof that "meta-analyses are shit.". Do we just take your word for it? Nice scientific method there.

First of all Wikipedia isn't "public information". Glad to clarify that for you. That nit must have been really bothering you.

So what line item in the NYPD budget covers lying to the public? When the description of an unarmed suspect is changed to armed that is not exactly a minor detail. In this universe it's called lying.

It's a crime to lie to the police. Do it and you could go to jail. Do you think that the NYPD is leading by example when someone at headquarters propagates lies on the internet?

If someone has the time to falsify a Wikipedia entry while they are at work does that mean that they are not busy enough? Why didn't they do it from home? Any possibility that they were trying to conceal their identity? Is that the kind of behavior we want from police personal? What kind of transparency is that, exactly?

So if I set up a Wikipedia entry about you and said that you were caught cheating at college and were expelled and furthermore you were fired from work for theft, it would be no big deal because "That's the way Wikipedia is supposed to work." According to you lying is "not criminal", so it must be acceptable. If slander against a dead person shot by the NYDP is no big deal, then lying about you is inconsequential. You're still around to fix the problem, so no harm. It's not like you're dead or anything.

I am very dubious about how the FAA is dealing with this, but your suggestion is beyond stupid. You are advocating shutting down the mechanisms that make aviation possible. Do you think that shutting down national/international air traffic control is a good idea? Do you think that suspending oversight on aircraft maintenance will keep planes flying safely?

How stupid are you? Grow up. Your opinion is senseless. Do yourself, and everyone else here a favor and think before you post again. That is, if you can think.

If I had mod points I would mod you up.

This is exactly what happened in Japan at the Riken Institute. A lead researcher made claimed to make a fantastic breakthrough, but it was unreproducible. Clearly the pressure to be a winner overwhelmed good scientific practice.

The FDA had to crack down on Big Pharma, because they were not reporting negative results from clinical tests. If you can pick and choose so that only positive outcomes are used, then it's as bad as not doing any tests at all. The motive was greed, and the public be damned.

The phrase "Publish or Perish" sums up the pressure that results in this behavior. It's exactly the same as predatory capitalism; if you can make money, then nothing else matters, even killing people.

Thank god for the 40 years of improved dental health that resulted from those tooth decay vaccines.

So you're quoting an article from an unnamed newspaper that is certainly based on a press release from the sugar industry. Obviously a high quality source.

How long did the research last? Who did it? How much did it cost? The last one is the real kicker. What are the odds that the did just the minimal amount to pretend that they gave a crap?

Go watch some late night TV and look at all the products that are "clinically tested". I'm sure they are of the same high quality that went into looking for a tooth decay vaccine.

Why are you making excuses for corrupt big business that games the system? Are you in the pay of the Koch (pronounced cock) brothers? I've never been able to fathom why so many people jump to the defense of those who put corporate profit before the well being of the citizens. Scratch the surface and it's not about liberty, it's about greed. What's wrong with you?

Nice of you to point this out. I'm sure that they will be updated immediately to avoid using prohibited language.

Governor Scott appreciates your help.

You're absolutely right. We must immediately allocate significant funding to give flat earth advocates the opportunity to make their case, because there are two sides to every issue. We also need to consider phlogiston theory, orgone energy, and whether sacrificial animal entrails can divine the future. All theories must be considered equally valid without regard to other supporting evidence.

What's your point? Do you think that there are people who are immune to rising sea level? Gills maybe? Eh?

The Republican Party is the direct decedent of the White Citizen's Councils of the 1950s. Their agenda is the preservation of the status quo/Euro-centric political and economic power blocs in the US. That's why they hate Obama so much. He's the wrong kind of "uppity" person of color. Unlike Thomas, Condoleezza Rice, or Colon Powell, who overtly make themselves subservient to the existing power structure.

It's the same reason the House Republicans tried to shut down the DHS over the Obama administration's executive action on immigration. The only voting group of Spanish speaking people that they care about are anti-Castro right wing Cubans. They hate all the rest because of they're not white.

As for Right Wing "think tanks", the Project for the New American Century advocated deposing Saddam Hussein during the Clinton administration well before 9/11. Cheney, Bolton, Wolfowithz and Jeb Bush all publicly advocated this policy. Seems like that hasn't worded out so well, has it? Besides making ISIS possible, it also vastly expanded the influence of Iran. Real genius results on that side of the political spectrum.

The reason the GOP's behavior is "not conducive to their success" is that they are pursuing an overtly racist domestic agenda, their foreign policy is arguably the worst in the history of the US, and they severely mismanaged the US economy. (Remember the 2008 crash? Or have you ignored that too?)

"The libertarians advocate electing people who are more modest in those determination, who provide for actual needs of citizens, who don't provide mere wants as a mechanism to win favor and re-election."

Not only that, but libertarian leaders all have perfect pitch, play multiple musical instruments, speak multiple languages, can sing, dance, paint, juggle, know higher math, engineering (civil, electrical, chemical, computer), farming, veterinary science, medicine, surgery, and psychiatry. They're also perfect physical specimens, have movie star good looks, excel at all sports, know martial arts, ride horses, are expert with all kinds of guns, know how to build and use archaic weapons, and know military tactics and strategy. They are gourmet chefs. They never have bad breath, body odor, or fart.

In fact, their shit doesn't even stink. Perfect humans, just like you.

Yes, the banks, aka Wall Street, are corrupt. The people who run Wall Street, and the government regulators who pretend to , are personally corrupt, and always retire with vast personal fortunes.

But get your facts straight. The US government, and all other governments hate money laundering.

HSBC to pay $1.9 billion U.S. fine in money-laundering case

(Reuters) - HSBC Holdings Plc agreed to pay a record $1.92 billion in fines to U.S. authorities for allowing itself to be used to launder a river of drug money flowing out of Mexico and other banking lapses.

Mexico's Sinaloa cartel and Colombia's Norte del Valle cartel between them laundered $881 million through HSBC and a Mexican unit, the U.S. Justice Department said on Tuesday.

In a deferred prosecution agreement with the Justice Department, the bank acknowledged it failed to maintain an effective program against money laundering and failed to conduct basic due diligence on some of its account holders.

Under the agreement, which was reported by Reuters last week, the bank agreed to take steps to fix the problems, forfeit $1.256 billion, and retain a compliance monitor. The bank also agreed to pay $665 million in civil penalties to regulators including to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Reserve, and the Treasury Department.

Money laundering is required by drug cartels and terrorist organizations, which are both pursued relentlessly by governments, It's illegal corruption.

You are confusing this with legal corruption. Legal corruption is the normal order of events where the rich and powerful are allowed to do things that would be wrong if you did them, along with getting free money from the government that comes out of your pocket. You are a source of wealth for the rich, and the government is the middle man.

An example of inequality under the law is Mitt Romney's 401K. He has somewhere between $21 million and $101 million in a tax free IRA account. Most people have around $42,000 in their IRA according to the article. Until recently you were limited to around $6000 a year contribution account, and it was just increased to $16,500. So, ignoring appreciation in your IRA account, and using the $16,500 amount, it would take you around 60 years to get $1 million.

When this came out his lawyers said it was all legal and he paid all the necessary taxes. I believe that. You, however, have a fixed amount of money that you can save on taxes retirement; it's not based on your income in any way. He lives by one set of rules, you live by a completely different set of rules. Legal corruption.

As for free money from the government, what do you think the TARP bailout was about?

The Senate Congressional Oversight Panel created to oversee the TARP concluded on January 9, 2009: "In particular, the Panel sees no evidence that the U.S. Treasury has used TARP funds to support the housing market by avoiding preventable foreclosures". The panel also concluded that "Although half the money has not yet been received by the banks, hundreds of billions of dollars have been injected into the marketplace with no demonstrable effects on lending."

Government officials overseeing the bailout have acknowledged difficulties in tracking the money and in measuring the bailout's effectiveness.

During 2008, companies that received $295 billion in bailout money had spent $114 million on lobbying and campaign contributions. Banks that received bailout money had compensated their top executives nearly $1.6 billion in 2007, including salaries, cash bonuses, stock options, and benefits including personal use of company jets and chauffeurs, home security, country club memberships, and professional money management. The Obama administration has promised to set a $500,000 cap on executive pay at companies that receive bailout money, directing banks to tie risk taken to workers' reward by paying anything further in deferred stock. Graef Crystal, a former compensation consultant and author of "The Crystal Report on Executive Compensation," claimed that the limits on executive pay were "a joke" and that "they're just allowing companies to defer compensation."

Since TARP, the Fed has had zero interest rates. That is free money for Wall Street. A senile poodle with diabetes could make money with zero interest loans. This zero prime interest rate, along with quantitative easing, are deliberately inflationary. They do things like drive up the stock market and devalue currency. They also make the rich richer at the expense of everyone else.

According to CNBC's Robert Frank, a Bank of England report shows that its quantitative easing policies had benefited mainly the wealthy, and that 40% of those gains went to the richest 5% of British households. Dhaval Joshi of BCA Research wrote that "QE cash ends up overwhelmingly in profits, thereby exacerbating already extreme income inequality and the consequent social tensions that arise from it". Anthony Randazzo of the Reason Foundation wrote that QE "is fundamentally a regressive redistribution program that has been boosting wealth for those already engaged in the financial sector or those who already own homes, but passing little along to the rest of the economy. It is a primary driver of income inequality".

In May 2013, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas President Richard Fisher said that cheap money has made rich people richer, but has not done quite as much for working Americans.

So money laundering is chump change. The real robbery is that our economic system steals from the poor to give to the rich. Any questions?