People mention the Kochs because they do a lot more than just donate money. They organize an extensive network of donations, as well as do real political activism. For instance, they payed for buses in order to bring more people to tea party rallies. They also do interviews with the news quite often and speak very candidly about their political views.

In short, they are basically the "poster child" of rich people attempting to influence politics. You'd think they have no other hobbies.

Not every solution has to be at a Federal level. Local politics (for example, campaign locally to bring in Google Fiber) can be much more rewarding.

I too was riding miles away from home when I was 8-10 years old. Why would you not allow your children to do this now (are you just referring to Los Angeles, or anywhere)? Crime rates are the lowest they have been in a long time.

I feel like the media is largely responsible for making the world seem scarier than it actually is. People are always comparing now to the 1950's... "back then, I didn't even lock my doors". Well guess what? You probably could leave your doors unlocked in 2015 and be just as safe (depending on the neighborhood, etc...).

Well, that is why expert witness credibility is huge. All the prosecution needs is an FBI agent to take the stand and say something like "While party A and party B were attempting to hide their communications, we were able to monitor those communications with a high degree of confidence, and we 'overheard' them say x,y,z to each other." No knowledge of TOR required.

If the defense then calls in a witness who says something like "I do not believe it is possible for the FBI to have 'cracked' TOR", all the FBI agent has to say is their tech is a secret, and then the jury is just deciding who to believe based on who they find the most trustworthy.

In a lot of ways, it is probably way more important to have a kick-butt defense attorney that can gather tons of high ranking (charismatic) experts to speak on your behalf, then it would be useful to have tech jurors.

It really is not strange at all. The more educated people are, the more likely they are to be more liberal. The more you know, the more you question. That doesn't work well with religious extremism. For a concrete example: it would be very difficult to convince a STEM degree holder that the Earth is 6,000 years old.

Well, you typically can't go a random 2 year then expect those two years to fulfill any 4 year school's first two years. You need attend a community college that partners with the 4 year school you want to attend later.

I agree that presidents have very little to do with gas prices, the course of wars, intelligence operations, etc... the world economy and the massive military industrial complex pretty much has its way with any president.

But look up the job numbers again. They are actually really good, no matter how you measure them. I don't think any particular set of policies helped or hurt helped much, I think it got better on its own, but the numbers are good.

Legacy of his Presidency, and what political chances he leaves behind for his party.

I think it is more interesting to jump ahead X-hundred years and assume strong'ish AI, self-repairing robots can perform 100% of all hands-on service jobs. And I'm not talking just about waiter/janitor. Most of health care is basically following diagnostic formulas and trying X, then Y, then Z until the patient reports improved health.

Nano-bots can convert any atom to any other atom using self-generated (fusion) or solar energy. Dirt becomes gold for free for anyone.

The only thing of real value are raw materials of any form, to feed the nano-bots. So who produces anything of value to purchase land/dirt? Do we end up with a "nobility" that own all the land, and no one else has any way to become a land owner generation after generation?

I suppose some subjective things will always have value, like philosophy, art/music and artisanal food/wine. "Sing your way to home ownership!".

I don't think we've reached the 'singularity' or other pivotal event that would translate into a major shift in economics. Nothing will change the basic supply/demand equations until some part of the equations involved are truly free or infinite.

Any gains in efficiency and production just go to higher profits for owners. Why would anyone volunteer to pay someone the same for 20 hours of work, that they were previously making working 40 hours, just because some new tool came out that makes the worker twice as productive? The worker will only get payed based on the demand for his product. The boss would never just give him/her more just because they became more productive, unless there is a corresponding increase in demand for that product.

Think free energy / free work provided by self-replicating nano-bots (snap your fingers and a complete house is built in one week out of dirt by tiny robots who can transform any atom to another, etc..). Strong'ish AI machines handle most hands-on service industries, like cleaning, waiting, basic health care, etc..

At that point in time, the only thing of value will be raw material and truly subjective pleasures like artisanal food/wine, art/music.

Now that would be a shift that would fundamentally break supply/demand.

Yeah, we could. However a sales tax alone is a very regressive form of taxation. Our society (USA) explicitly does not want regressive taxation.

Companies don't hire unless there is first a demand for a product or service (or the potential to create a new market). In that sense, companies never create jobs. Customers create jobs.

"What I don't like is when the government becomes an engine for wealth redistribution"

If a government providing fire service free to poor person B by taxing rich person A is wealth redistribution, then I would argue that wealth distribution is an unavoidable part of any functioning society. The question that left/right always debate, is the level of redistribution. How much is too much? I haven't heard any serious politician say that zero redistribution is a viable option, have you?

Was that Rushton and Jensen's work in 2005 or are you referring to another researcher? I can't seem to find anyone else claiming a significant IQ difference when all factors are controlled for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Philippe_Rushton#Unfavorable - Sure seems like a lot of people people are highly critical of his science.

I don't have time to read the entire thing. But my first thought was this: "I bet the studies didn't control for economic or social issues..."

Sure enough, I found this in the paper:

http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

The average black person has lower income, less opportunities, trapped in poverty cycles, etc... Of course if you don't control for those factors you'll see testing differences.

Is there a study that strictly controlled for factors like family wealth and educational opportunities?