... how bout the fact that he couldn't solve that - but has a B.S., two masters degrees, PhD credits, and "oversee[s] an organization with 22,000 employees and a $3 billion operations and capital budget, and am able to make sense of complex data related to those responsibilities".

I simply can't reconcile the above with his inability to solve any of the 60 math questions.

I'm thinking his degrees are utterly worthless and I'll further speculate that the organization he oversees with $3B budget is being grossly mismanaged.

he United States' "War on Drugs" is the root cause of all that violence in Mexico.

Funny - I thought the root cause of all violence in Mexico were Mexicans shooting and killing one another...

You must have a different definition of "free for all". I think you really meant "free for the student, paid for by everyone else"

The experiment was over 15 years ago so I'm not sure but I seem to recall they both looked rather pinkish-violet. Honestly - I don't know when I am seeing UV if at all... I would say though that the purple section of a rainbow looks thicker, and terminates with a pinkish-whitish-violet color that just sort of fades. I've always assumed that's what everyone sees regardless of where their sensitivity ends,... maybe I'm wrong.

I see UV too,... at least technically and I don't believe it is that uncommon. In a college quantum physics lab we were looking at the emission spectrum of Hydrogen and the instructor was guiding us through various emission lines. He asked if we could see the purple line and then asked who could see the *other* purple line. I was the only one who could. He said he always asks that because every class there are one or two students (out of about 20) who could see just enough into the UV spectrum to see it. I don't recall which line it was but assume it was the Balmer n=6 line at 397nm.

I can't say this has been particularly more useful to me although I do think I see rainbows as 'wider' than most people with a much thicker "purple" band than others seem to see. Totally subjective and something I can't substantiate but I think I am more sensitive to sunlight as well.

Next years spending increases. I really, really, REALLY wish the media didn't go long with the spin that is included with baseline budgeting. Here is, as of my quick glance before posting, a description of the atrocity known as baseline budgeting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseline_(budgeting) [wikipedia.org]

In short, next years budget will be bigger than this years budget. In 2011, we spent about 3.8 Trillion (3,800,000,000,000) (We'll ignore the fact we went most of 2011 without a budget) and had a deficit for the year of about 1.6 trillion (1,600,000,000,000). The 2 trillion (2,000,000,000,000) of "cuts" are against the baseline over the next 10 years. So, they are "Planning" to not spend another 20 billion (20,000,000,000) over the next 10 years. The 20 billion of this years budget is a huge, gauging, painfull %0.005.

        Also, the cuts cannot be guaranteed because, we still don't have the budget for 2012 completed, that isn't even going to be done till after the election with this deal. Also, no congress can pass a law that the next congress can't change, which makes promises for 5 years from now next to meaningless.

In short, nothing didn't survive the budget deal. The rate of growth of the government from this year, compared to next year was reduced.

Next years spending increases. I really, really, REALLY wish the media didn't go long with the spin that is included with baseline budgeting. Here is, as of my quick glance before posting, a description of the atrocity known as baseline budgeting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseline_(budgeting)

In short, next years budget will be bigger than this years budget. In 2011, we spent about 3.8 Trillion (3,800,000,000,000) (We'll ignore the fact we went most of 2011 without a budget) and had a deficit for the year of about 1.6 trillion (1,600,000,000,000). The 2 trillion (2,000,000,000,000) of "cuts" are against the baseline over the next 10 years. So, they are "Planning" to not spend another 20 billion (20,000,000,000) over the next 10 years. The 20 billion of this years budget is a huge, gauging, painfull %0.005.

    Also, the cuts cannot be guaranteed because, we still don't have the budget for 2012 completed, that isn't even going to be done till after the election with this deal. Also, no congress can pass a law that the next congress can't change, which makes promises for 5 years from now next to meaningless.

In short, nothing didn't survive the budget deal. The rate of growth of the government from this year, compared to next year was reduced.

XP does support IPv6 network. The only issue is DNS lookups are IPv4.

XP isn't dead because of the change over.

Did you miss the part where this year's expenditures run at about $3,700,000,000,000. Which works out to about $10,000,000,000 per day right now?

This year, SS and Medicare are 1,700,000,000,000 dollars, which is a third of the budget. This number only grows as our demographics shift to become older in the coming years.

The military has a lot of cutting to be done, but it really only consumes about 600,000,000,000 dollars of the budget. Really, the total cost of the two wars is only about 1,200,000,000,000 dollars at current tally and it looks like we're just starting more and not getting out of the ones we are in.

Are you noticing the entire cost of invading two countries was less than the cost of two of our social programs? Even better 55,000,000,000 dollars of the Defense budget is actually VA/Healthcare benefits.

We have lots of cuts to make, lots of little things the government does that needs to be cut. The Tax system needs to be fixed AND we need to fix our budgets. The two big spending programs SS and Medicare are projected to be something like 2xGPD in the best senario.

Uhm, probably because he is...... The point is it's an unsustainable sum of money we've been running on annually for the past 10 years.

We can finance the short falls now, but eventually we won't be able to sell out debt anymore or the dollar will just be totally worthless because we turned the printing presses to full.

Fixing taxes alone isn't the solution, things need to be cut and they need to be cut now, not 10 years from now. It's not even advocating for the abolishment of SS and Medicare its making cuts and adjustments now so they aren't gone in 10 years.

Today, however taxes need to be fixed and deep cuts need to be made for say...10 years from now.

I've been linking this quite a bit, but I'm pretty sure you just don't have a grasp how much spending we're doing and how fixing taxes alone cannot possibly be the answer.

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2011/03/feed-your-family-on-10-billion-a-day.html

I said federal income tax, since we're talking about federal issues.

The lower half has an absurdly high tax rate when you include FICA, State and Municipal taxes. FICA/SS/Medi* also need to be fixed, and as a percentege of income, effect the lower 75% more than than upper.

The fight is just becoming, "FUCK THE RICH", rather than the Tax system is broken, the spending system is broken and they need to be fixed for everyone.

And the lower 25% pay hardly any overall taxes and the lower 50% pay 0 or negative federal income taxes.

The lower 15% are paid not to work, and the middle make enough in wages or handouts to survive having to pay for the generational debt passed to them.

The system is broken on both ends and is pressing on the middle. It needs to be fixed. I don't think you realize how much money is being taken in a year.

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2011/03/feed-your-family-on-10-billion-a-day.html kind of puts it into perspective.

You obviously don't car about the children.