Bush stopped golfing shortly after 9/11, because he didn't want to appear... well, as Obama does now. Perhaps you mean Clinton?

Take away poverty and provide jobs and you don't just reduce crime,

The link between poverty and crime has not been statistically validated. It's oft talked about as if it were a fact, but it's never been actually proven, and attempts to do so leave plenty of open questions.

Well, sometimes your aunt offers you a free cat, and you're like, hey, why not, it's free! and it's still a kitten and it's cute and your girlfriend/later wife loves it. Then the cat runs around maniacally and you're like hey, that cat needs a friend. So you get another cat! It's a feral little barn kitten that came with fleas and ear mites, but it was 'free' too, and it does it's job of making the first cat behave better. So you keep feeding it.
Then your sister in law says, hey, I've got this stray dog I can't keep because of my MS. But I love it and I want her to go to a good home. So then you get a dog, too, because you like your sister in law and don't mind dogs.
So, there you are, two cats and a dog later. And they're good friends and good pets, and no internet crank is going to make you see the error of your ways, because the pets are furry and happy to see you.
What was I saying? Oh, yeah, Merry Christmas!

...But turned away because not only was the machine expensive, but the hack was another $100. I highly recommend the Litter Robot (~$370). I've had one for a few years, and it works off of standard kitchen trash bags. I have two cats and I tend to it once every 7-10 days- I refill the litter and swap out the bags, and maybe do a thorough cleaning twice a year. No BS consumables.
Another model, Litter Maid (~$120), uses custom plastic trays. It's cheaper, but it doesn't work as well as the Litter Robot. After a few months you'll find yourself tending to it every other day. The cost of the plastic trays added up over the course of a year, but it's a non-DRM receptacle, so you can hack a cheaper 'solution' at home with a small amount of craftiness. If you do go with Litter Maid, go for the cheaper one- it actually works better than the 'Elite' model.
But really, go for the Litter Robot. I've had mine for two or three years and I love it.

It's too bad the creator had to ruin it by opening his mouth. Any 'Art' that makes it's statement with a bunch of words next to it generally isn't art. It's glued together junk that's not aesthetically appealing. This guy actually made something neat and arguably pretty, then made sure we all knew his talents started with, and ended with, this sort of work.

First, pointing a finger and screeching 'DENIER' seems a lot like pointing the finger and screeching 'HERETIC', lending credence to the whole environmentalism-as-a-substitute-religion theory.
Beyond that, these scientists might find more traction for their beliefs if they could get away from the folks who are peddling 'solutions' for AGW. You know, the activists who want to make energy so expensive that poor people will have to live in dark, cold homes, and gasoline so expensive that they have to stay in those cold, dark homes.
I imagine, however, that any activist or scientist advocating the use of 'denier/(heritic)' has substituted Gaia for God, and would be very happy to burn their opponents at the stake.
As for me, I'm not qualified to analyze the science. Instead, I'll consider the matter when the people who say it's a problem act like it's a problem. Until their personal conduct matches their words- buying carbon credits ('indulgences') doesn't count- then it's just a continuation of prior climate panics.

Occam's Razor. It's pretty clear to the rest of us that a hero-worshiping despotic regime like North Korea might lash out against a company- or movie theaters- making a comedy about killing their national hero/despot.

That leads to my question- are you posting from Pyongyang?

I don't really give a hoot about Sony getting hacked. What I do care about is Americans being threatened for lawful activity by agents of a foreign government. (That is, 9/11 style attacks for screening The Interview.) That threat made what was Sony's problem into a national issue that our government ought to deal with. Unfortunately I don't see much chance of the D.C. set showing any spine or defending any principles.

Yes, people really are stupid. Give them something to be angry about, and they'll vote against their own interests.

It's rather presumptive of you, and every other Democrat, to pretend to know people's interests better than they do. It's part of the unmistakable arrogance that comes from the left, and was perfectly displayed by Gruber. You and your fellow leftists are cut from the same cloth as every other human, but you whip each other up with flattery on how kind, intelligent and compassionate you are for simply being on the left. Whether ruin or prosperity follows your policy actions isn't terribly important. You had the best intentions, you see, and the books can always be cooked after the fact to hide any negative news that doesn't fit the narrative.

(I'm not studied up enough on the topic at hand- 'enhanced interrogation'- to condemn it or defend it.)

I realize this is a distracting thing to say, and I don't support torture, and it appears we've used it, and it's a crime that no one in power will unfortunately ever be held accountable to. My intent was more to say that I haven't RTFA or summary report; and I was responding only to the position of 'let's just ignore them because they're so terrible at killing us.'

If not terrorists, how about Barbarians who must be kept at bay? The people who think we need to empathize with barbarians are often under the following mistaken impressions:

1) Westerners are the only real evil in the world today.

2) Westerners are the only people who act; who have agency. All other people do not have their own plans, thoughts and ideals- they merely react to what westerners do. They are automatons we can control through correct choices.

I prefer to discourage people from attacking my countrymen, and simultaneously limit their capabilities to do so. That often means killing the people who are trying to kill us, until they get the idea that trying to kill us is a bad idea. Their incompetence in killing us does not erase the trespass. People who get into accidents have their insurance rates go up. People who try to kill us get killed. Actions have consequences.

If your neighbor was trying to kill you, repeatedly, would you tolerate it? Would you find the milk in your cereal curdled one day from poison, push it away, then look out your window and say 'Ah, nice try Mohammed! Maybe next time!.' I mean, you might notice that next crude tripwire before you set off the IED in your hedges.

You wouldn't tolerate it. You'd have him thrown in jail at the first try. Back to the national scale, if the people trying to kill us are in countries that will have them thrown in jail, great. If not, well, now we're back to the concept of war between distinct states or peoples. The fact that one side is weak and incompetent does not mean they get to keep trying without reprisal.

What you seem to advocate- ignoring attacks by barbarians as just another risk in modern society- is in it's own special moral vacuum. I'm having a hard time fathoming how such a dereliction could seem morally superior to you, and I can only guess your education has been a steady diet of 'Western civilization is the worst thing that ever happened to the world.' That sort of 'critical theory' rubbish has been all the rage in higher education for decades.

(I'm not studied up enough on the topic at hand- 'enhanced interrogation'- to condemn it or defend it.)

someone has to bear the public's wrath.

Has anyone actually borne the public's wrath over Rotherham scandal? I'm not sure anyone has even resign over it. No, just more tepid 'investigations of failures in processes.'

The problem with Rotherham wasn't that it went 'Undetected for years.' It was detected and ignored, by people who didn't want to seem racist for arresting sexually deviant immigrants. Either that, or they were on the take.

No, Rotherham represents an abject failure of people in society to act in order to protect the young. There's no slouching away the travesty by implying that sort of mass, long ignored child abuse in common elsewhere in the world. England is a country where people know better than to tolerate this, and once had the moral fortitude to do something about it.

1. Shoreham.

2. When building a power plant will involve hundreds of millions of dollars in lawyers fees to keep your sort at bay, that tends to increase cost over-runs. Which your sort then uses as a further argument against nuclear power. (Yes, there are plenty of non-lawyer related cost overruns.)

Who is listening to environmentalists these days? There's still a mass of laws and regulations they use to gum up the works constantly, but folks are starting to realize most environmentalists don't care so much about the environment as much as they hate their fellow man and his enjoyment of modern life.

Of course, you folks have your own tinpot dictator in the White House, who is a law unto himself and will probably service his ideological base with economy-crushing diktats.