Then pro-life scientists are abusing scientific terminology to justify their philosophy.

Yeah, and everyone know that broken down oil was completely harmless.

Whatever components that plastic is breaking down into it likely contains a lot of molecules that aren't found in nature. When those molecules enter an organism there's no telling what the hell they're going to do.

I don't understand this fantasy that some people cling to that we can dump endless streams of random crap into the environment and mother nature will just magically take care of it with no consequence. People would sure as hell notice if you started dumping garbage into a lake and screwing up a beach where people swim once a week, why do you think the things that actually live in the polluted water won't be affected?

Don't be too hard on Hume.

I heard about a guy who went through multiple marriages and divorces, did multiple stints in prison, and eventually got some political offices.

I'm naturally talking about Nelson Mandela.

Even if the facts are true and presented impartially the selection of which facts to present or emphasize can give an inaccurate total picture.

I don't know enough about libel law or the guy in question to know if the case is legit, but you seem to have already formed an opinion of him as a scam artist based on the Wikipedia article which may not be a reliable source.

I'm really curious if this guy is a legitimate businessman with a valid suit or some shady character trying to whitewash his reputation.

*goes to check his bio on Wikipedia*

Whoa! That guy looks pretty shady! The lawsuit must be a scam!!

I'm not sure if it will smoke since according to the article the stuff won't actually "burn"'

There, it will be heated in a low-oxygen atmosphere. This will cause its chemical bonds to break (without the material actually burning), releasing their carbon and hydrogen content to form what's known as syngas. This will in turn be cleaned up and converted into chemical products and biofuels – such as methanol and ethanol.

Either way if the emitted chemicals are what you're looking for you're not just going to dump them out a smokestack.

The province is conservative but Edmonton is fairly liberal (as are most cities). I actually took a tour of the waste treatment plant a few years ago and it was pretty impressive (and smelly). Back then they were talking about grinding up the non-recyclable/compostable bits and using them for asphalt filling as a way to get over 90% non-landfilled, I'm not sure if this is any of the same material they're talking about here, I don't think I'd want my highways degrading.

On the contrary although this plant is new they've been doing stuff like this for years, and it makes economic sense.

The problem with garbage is you have to put it somewhere. Landfills fill up quickly and use up otherwise useful land, and the further you ship it the more expensive and polluting it is to transport. The waste reclamation centre drastically reduces the amount you need to dispose of.

Eco-stations claim a lot of the electronic waste, the company that gets the material actually turns a profit on breaking them down.

Compostables get turned into topsoil, traditional recyclables get pulled out and turned into economically useful items, etc.

If your city thinks shipping wealth away burying it with all the resulting externalities is a better alternative then they can keep with their current setup. I prefer the Edmontonian model.

We also treat our sewage rather than dumping in raw into the ocean like some coastal cities.

Great news if you want to live in the holocene.

Not so good of news if you think a significant environmental change in the middle of a mass extinction is a bad idea.

So what is the appropriate role for Obama in this? It seems odd that he would be expected to act as a passive administrator when he was elected with a policy based mandate to a much greater degree than congress.

I propose a new bill.

Doesn't Infringe the First Amendment Copyright Act: Whereby the government will only grant copyright to works of art that endorse the ruling party.

Still think it's not a free speech issue?

Until I hit this paragraph I actually thought you were actually going in a completely different direction.

The thing you're missing is words have context.

If I call a good friend moron it's a term of endearment, we both understand I'm not actually calling him dumb, if I call a stranger moron I'm potentially starting a fight.

Alec Baldwin calling someone a cocksucking fag as an insult is homophobic. Buddy Cole using fag is not homophobic. We call fag homophobic because it's most commonly used in a homophobic context, but that's not always true.

The context of the Redskins is the term was denigrating when it was chosen as the name, the team was notably against black integration, Native American discrimination is still rampant, and the name and logo conjure a stereotype of a native warrior. Not everyone will find it racist but some obviously will. Would the Washington Poles be racist? Probably not. Would the Washington Jews? Maybe. Would the Washington Bankers with a Jewish mascot? Definitely.

It's deserving of an investigation but it's too early to jump to conclusions.

How widespread were these poor data retention practices? Is this something that affected only Lerner and the other investigated officials, or is it part of a wider problem in the IRS of managing email records.

There's no evidence that Obama has actually done anything. Even assuming Lois Lerner is guilty she was in that position since '06 and there's no evidence it went above her.

Surely you can see the difference between a president caught on tape in a criminal conspiracy and an IRS manager whom may not be guilty of anything more than incompetence.

I think that's an important point. The hybrids aren't peaking because people aren't interested in fuel efficient vehicles. They're peaking because there's so many fuel efficient vehicles available.

Fine.

Develop an ideology that demonizes every government employee and agency except for the military.

Now motivated by said ideology and a desire to fight corruption introduce a massive number of regulations that make it impossible to do things efficiently.

Finally head said agencies with political appointees instead of the best available candidates with applicable experience.

Now reap your reward. A bloated ineffective inefficient government, and a government that regularly fails to properly implement basic things like proper record keeping because there's so many regs it's hard to fail at only the unimportant ones.

No government organization is flawless, heck, no organization period is flawless. But there's a reason that the US more than others manages to be really bad at it.