It may be unscientific to come to that kind of conclusion based on an n=16 study.

However, what this study DOES show is that the existing paradigm of saturated fat == heart disease ought to be questioned and thoroughly re-examined. Frankly, if I had metabolic syndrome, I'd be experimenting on myself the moment I heard about this.

According to Dr. Paul, the bill didn't go far enough (I agree). It also extended the PATRIOT act. Are you really led around that easily, to think that helping to kill this bill somehow makes him an authoritarian stooge?

Failure to pass this bill means we'll get another chance. The pressure is on. Once they pass a bill, nobody is going to want to pass another one for a while, so the first one has to get it right. The ACA is an example of a bill that was slammed through, and got a lot of things wrong. Let's not do the same thing with limiting the NSA.

Also, Rand Paul does not claim to be a libertarian, and if you actually knew anything about libertarians you should have known that libertarians tend to give him a giant stink-eye.

...and become anarchists?

Well, there are a couple of reasons. For one, it tells criminals where the guns are. But that is pretty lightweight compared to the real problems with publicly listing concealed weapons permit holders. Think about these people;

Undercover officers

Detectives

Women hiding from stalkers

Prison guards

Cash carriers

The implications of revealing peoples' names and home addresses as weapons holders are actually quite profound, and most people don't really think it through. When it comes to firearms, you really need to think about every step very carefully. Gun rights are very sensitive -- as they should be -- and when you tinker with those rights, you will inevitably meddle with some of the most sensitive and/or fragile parts of our society.

You have quite a few presumptions in that. First, employers don't necessarily need to know if their dancers are licensed. Perhaps it is simply a small misdemeanor + fine with penalties limited to the dancer. In that case, employers don't need to know anything. I haven't looked it up, but there are plenty of reasons why an employer might not care.

Furthermore, the government need not provide any more information than "yes-licensed" or "not-licensed." There certainly does not need to be a directory of dancers, for sure, nor should there be (hello stalker heaven).

One of the major problems for strippers is stalkers. Men get attached, and sometimes it can be become a real problem. You can say that it goes with the territory, but it isn't a problem if the government isn't keeping a publicly-visible directory of dancers, and I say the problem lies there.

I disagree, emphatically. There are all kinds of government-owned information which should never be publicly visible. Individuals in witness protection programs, tattoo identification experts, certain expert witnesses, concealed weapons permit holders, gun ownership records in general, undercover officer identities, and so on.

Mind you, I consider myself to be an extremist libertarian bordering on anarchist, and I still think there is lots of information which (if it exists in the first place) should never be publicly revealed.

In the US, FOIA requests can be denied on the basis of privacy violations (exemption 6), and law enforcement information (which this qualifies, I think) can be denied if its release could endanger the life or physical safety of any individual. http://www.foia.gov/faq.html#exemptions

All of what you said is interesting and concerning, but brains are actually quite plastic. Patterns change. New patterns form. Old patterns fade. The shift from liberal to conservative with age is well-documented. A single encounter with psilocybin can create permanent personality changes.

Do we put them through a chimney, or invite them to have a cup of mushroom tea?

Or just marvel at the biological diversity that characterizes our brains, and treasure every twisted piece of it, because when cataclysms strike, diversity is the only way for a species to survive?

You are putting too much into the study. This study shows that there IS a biological basis for SOME political beliefs. This flies directly in the face of a great deal of currently-accepted knowledge, and is very important. This study shows that there is room for more research to explore all the questions you describe.

If you come away with more questions than answers, it's probably good research.

When the bodies rot in the streets, dogs eat them. Dogs are asymptomatic carriers. Think about that.

Do you have a source for this? Honest question, as my Google-fu is coming up blank apart from a FreeRepublic source.

You can easily see that some *is* using Tor, you just can't see where they are going or what they are doing. Well, unless you are a well-funded organization with the time, equipment, and money to set up lots of exit nodes.

It would certainly help if Dropbox didn't hire Condoleezza Rice. I ceased recommending Dropbox as a solution to anyone when they pulled that stunt, and have helped many people migrate away. Yes, I know every (most?) cloud services have an open-door policy for the NSA. Nevertheless, that was a slap in the face.

Seriously? You're going to hire Ms. Torture USA? Please. I'll vote with my wallet...elsewhere.

Certainly. But the moment it leads to war -- as the Capitalism vs. Communism rhetoric is intended -- then it must be abandoned if we are ever to escape this madness.

There is an "us" and there is a "them." But when you label "them" with an ideology and attack the ideology, that is bad.

Woah. Dude.

Centralized authority is an anathema to socialism. Also communism.

I'll grant you that every modern political effort has been by tyrants and their fools. That is not socialism, that is tyranny. Big difference.

Socialism + central government has the exact same result as capitalism + central government. Blood, inequality, corruption, violence, and eventually utter upheaval. The key thing to note is that the problem is central government, not socialism.

There are many examples of near-pure socialism in pastoral America. These communities are often characterized by conservatism and religion and would bristle at the thought of socialism. Yet when you look at how they live, it is socialism.

Key point: these instances of actual, functional socialism are characterized by a distinct lack of centralized authority.

Socialism, like liberalism, free-market capitalism, and libertarianism, is merely a another path to anarchy.

Am I a radical? Nuts? Sure. But that doesn't make it any less true.