There were two sides to the CIA when it was formed; the I guys, and the spy guys. OSS was the spy guys, wasn't it? Weren't they doing things like overthrowing democracies to set up puppet governments?

Gore Vidal pointed out that the CIA was never really a legal organization; it was always a bit outside the law. They could do whatever they thought would be 'best' for the country. If that meant spying on US citizens, I'm sure they would have done it (and probably did do it) without a thought. Spying on citizens is certainly less onerous than experimenting on citizens using LSD, without the subject's knowledge or consent.

What the NSA is doing was instigated by Cheney and Bush after 9/11. They had astonishing resources and little oversight, so they ratcheted up. Why not? Bureaucracies exist to expand themselves. I'm disappointed that Obama and his gang didn't do any oversight when they came in. I guess they were too busy saving the economy and helping the poor to set themselves up as culpable if a terrorist attack happened.

I don't believe it for a second. The fact is that if you thought your group believed that the earth was flat, you would say it was flat, even if you knew it to be false. So, the media frenzy on this makes it more likely that people will SAY that they disbelieve evolution, because of their need to be part of the tribe.

Looks like the start of "War of the Worlds". Anybody notice any three legged aliens in the area?

My kindle is always connected using their 'whispernet', which is cell phone tech. They could, if they wanted to, use that to snoop on reading habits.

I really am not concerned about this. At this point, they can track me in the supermarket using my cell phone when it is in my pocket. Tracking how I read a book I've purchased isn't such a big deal compared to that. If Amazon isn't using its sales information to its advantage, it isn't doing its job for its shareholders.

The 'invisible hand' market based world would simply fire people who didn't directly contribute to the bottom line. This makes it possible (although not likely) for resources (that is YOU) to be used more efficiently in the economy. It is similar to the strategy that a farmer would use when pulling weeds and using them for mulch. You don't feel sorry for them, do you?

The government, on the other hand, has a constitutional mandate to 'promote the general welfare'. This means they are not allowed to allow people to starve to death, or be mulched.

So, the way it should work is that government should tax the shit out of folks like netflix to provide a safety net for the 90% of people they cast aside when they've lost their usefulness. This would have the added advantage that people could go and work someplace where they could contribute without having their kids starve when they lose their healthcare and end up in bankruptcy due to a preventable illness.

I mean, we have all had coworkers that have been shit at their jobs, knew they were shit, but were afraid to go someplace they could be useful. Some of us have actually been these people. The crappy safety net in the US prevented these people from leaving. That in itself is a net drain on the economy. People should either be employed in something they can do properly, or be put safely in front of a TV where they can't do any harm. We have enough resources in the economy for everybody to eat, have shelter, and have healthcare without doing 'make work'.

You mean non-falsifiable, I think...

The problem is that scientists are mostly trying to figure out what is happening, and present it in a logical way, and the deniers are mostly generating propaganda to further their personal financial interests. I find it hard to put these two groups into the same category.

The true stroke of genius by the 'Koch' guys was to somehow graft the denial of global warming onto political affiliation (using Al Gore's selfless position as a starting point). That way, blind belief becomes a badge of membership for conservatives.

The above got 5, insightful? Sheesh. I'm going to reddit. You guys are pathetic.

You can build them yourself

So, 3 out of 4 quoted in your washingtonexaminer article seem to include exchanges, and the fourth is widely considered nonsense.

Regarding bankruptcy numbers, are you seriously suggesting that medical costs are not contributory to a huge number of bankruptcies in the US every year?

Several issues.

1) The evidence is not clear, but it seems like the ACE is actually lowering the trajectory of medical costs. There is no other reason they are not rising like they were before. There are lots of experimental policy changes in the law that are designed to do this, and some of those may actually be working.

2) the high deductible plans are actually much better than nothing if you have a catastrophic health care problem, because they have yearly out of pocket caps that are reasonable. Instead of having a 'lifetime cap' (these are now illegal) so the insurance company only pays $100,000 for a $200,000 operation, and nothing else, leaving you bankrupt, these policies ensure that you only pay $6000/yr out of pocket, which means you are far more likely to be able to pay the bills and keep your family from poverty.

3) The money you pay for insurance doesn't go to the government, it still goes to the insurance companies. ACA regulates what the insurance companies can do, expands medicaid, and offers subsidies for people so they can afford the premiums. The website costs are a drop in the bucket of total health care spending.

I wanted single payer. I was angry when they passed this monstrosity without a public option. However, I understand that this is all that could be done. Given history, this is the only path possible. It will make things better for lots of people, some of which you probably know.

I agree with what you are saying. However, it actually, it IS in the interests of the young to buy in. People don't have to suspend their self interests to buy insurance.

There is a cost to risk these people aren't actually factoring in. If only 1 in 100 people have a catastrophic health care problem that takes all their savings and put them hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, the $100/month they pay is certainly worth avoiding that. If you believe in statistics (and not the rhetoric of Koch brother funded conservative groups) you will buy insurance even if you are young and healthy.

SIDENOTE: You will also invest in your retirement, because if you put 10% of your salary into a retirement account, you are far less likely to retire in poverty. When it is time to retire, you will take that money and buy an annuity, which will insure you against running out of money during retirement.

Insurance is your friend. It is a sharing of risk that benefits everybody.

Sadly, nobody does this, even people who think they are rational. Once an idea gets put into the category of 'defining truth', a belief that is more than just a belief, but insted a sort of badge of membership, then people will defend it to the death, regardless of how they personally feel about it. According to E. O. Wilson's recent book "The Social Conquest of Earth", this is probably a 'group evolution' adaptation for enabling groups of humans to have more coherence. According to him, groups with more internal coherence probably survived better than groups that did not...

So, Dawkins and Krauss were on a fools errand, unless their intent was to get laid by secularist groupies.

Incidentally, Dawkins and Wilson are in a sort of war over group evolution vs the 'selfish gene' theory, which Wilson seems to reject. Wilson's argument demolishes it in the abovementioned book, in my opinion, but I'm not a biologist.

13% of the federal budget is defense. 4.88% GDP predicted in 2014.

Money allocated to space research is 17 billion, like 0.1% GDP, so defense costs about 50x as much.

I got the numbers here

If only they weren't so soft and squishy!

Ambient radiation. Also, supernovae nearby, sterilizing planets again and again. Also, it would take DNA far longer than a few million years to form if it could survive radiation. Also, no galaxies earlier than 500 million years.

However, if it is true, then we are living in 'the big freeze' of that time period. I wonder what will be alive in our 'big freeze'?