"Seem to" is not "you said...". It appears you revere him because you attempt to handwave away his documented history. Like claiming he was not political leadership in the senate so apparently his racism/homophobia isn't relevant.

Except it isn't irrelevant. If Scalise has a "KKK affiliation" because he appeared at some event sponsored by some KKK member, then Obama has the same affiliation. If you want to nitpick that Byrd didn't sponsor his own funeral, then you can pick from any number of high ranking political leaders who spoke favorably about Byrd at other times.

I quoted to you sections of the Wikipedia article about Byrd that I previously linked to. Those sections show that Byrd was, indeed, a party leader in the senate, including both majority and minority whip and even President Pro-Tem. Saying he wasn't a leader is simply ignorant; ignoring the facts when they are presented in front of your face is malice.

Without the baggage. That means without the negative things attached to him. Like RACISM. Sheesh. Don't you know what it means to "have baggage"?

I'm doing nothing to water down David Dukes, and your claim is laughable. I'm pointing out to you what "without the baggage" means in English.

Well, he got elected once.

A former one-term Republican Louisiana State Representative, ... He served in the House from 1989 until 1992.

Wikipedia. You ought to look things up before you post.

Yes, and that includes racism. Most folks would call a history of racist actions "baggage", but apparently not you. You seek to paint a politician you hate with a brush that he doesn't deserve.

Good for you. Since those policies prevent your support, they'd be called "baggage", now wouldn't they. The only mud you can sling at Scalise is that he wasn't explicit enough in saying what baggage he meant when he said "without the baggage", and since you want him to keep carrying some baggage you can use against him, you'll ignore that it isn't his. Unless, of course, you can provide some list of glaringly racist activities that justify it. No, all that can be produced is that "he spoke about economics at a convention". That's the same kind of "guilt by association" that Obama would deserve for honoring Robert Byrd, so either you accept that Obama is a racist KKK sycophant or you are a hypocrite.

And Scalise is not David Duke.

Yes, I'd say so. But Scalise didn't say "David Duke without the KKK", he allegedly said "without the baggage." I know it's hard to imagine, but that "racist" baggage is part of the baggage.

Yes, he means he's a politician without the baggage of KKK or a racist history.

Yes, I am, because Byrd and Obama are a perfect comparison to this awful racist KKK guy named Scalise. Unless you want to call Obama a racist with KKK affiliations because Obama spoke at Byrd's funeral (and even complimented Byrd), then saying that Scalise is a racist KKK sympathizer because he spoke in front of some convention where he was invited is just ridiculous.

Bigotry much? "You types"?

The fact he died doesn't change what he was.

Please review the biography of the man you seem to revere. Here:

Byrd served in the Senate Democratic leadership. He succeeded George Smathers as secretary of the Senate Democratic Conference from 1967 to 1971. He unseated Ted Kennedy in 1971 to become majority whip, or the second highest-ranking Democrat, until 1977. ... From 1977 to 1989 Byrd was the leader of the Senate Democrats, serving as majority leader from 1977 to 1981 and 1987 to 1989, and as minority leader from 1981 to 1987. ... After becoming chair of the Appropriations Committee in 1989, ... As the longest-serving Democratic senator, Byrd served as President pro tempore four times when his party was in the majority ...

Saying that Byrd wasn't a party leader is a patent lie.

"Without the baggage." I know you want to paint this guy with some hate issues, but you need to do better than this. Given the love heaped upon a true racist/bigot/homophobe, you'll need to explain a bit better why someone who gave a speech about economics at a convention is such a bad guy.

And some of that "baggage" that he doesn't have includes ... wait for it ... I know it's hard to comprehend ... an affiliation with the KKK.

Unless you want to call Obama a KKK affiliate because he spoke at Robert Byrd's funeral and said nice things about him. You know, Byrd, the guy who not only had a KKK affiliation, he organized his town's KKK chapter and was elected it's leader. And who talked about "white niggers" as recently as 2001. And who opposed gay rights and gay marriage.

Scalise has no more KKK affiliation than Obama does. It's a non-story, and now there's a non-story that is most likely an attempt by a blogger who realizes his story isn't worth much to stay in the public eye. He's trying to extend his fifteen minutes of fame from a blog article that merited none to start with.

Why should silence be a goal? Being able to hear an approaching vehicle is not just a safety issue for blind people, it is an issue for anyone who is trying to cross a road and can't see approaching cars.

It isn't important to distinguish between multiple oncoming cars. What's important is that "there's a car coming", not that "the first car in the line is a Prius, the second one is a Volvo, the third is ...".

One person's "pollution" is another persons "ambient sounds". The sound of a properly muffled car engine is hardly "pollution". You're confusing the concept "I don't like hearing..." with "it is pollution".

And it is the responsibility of the person trying to cross the street not to step out in front of an oncoming car. Even were your job done perfectly, they'd still have to do theirs because the laws of physics say that I can step out in front of you much faster than you can stop.

Ahhh, ok. Blind people should just sit quietly at home listening to the radio and not dare wander about the streets where they might become a hindrance to you. They can't "watch" anything, so they shouldn't be anywhere that "watching" is required.

Should we also relegate paraplegics to the dust bin because they cannot obey the "walk" signal at a signalled crossing? They can only manage the "don't walk". And how dare they try using cross-walks in the first place. They aren't called cross-rolls, you know.

The "coaxial cable", or the "cable television connection".

What's particularly stupid is the claim that it took a "power tool" to cut this line. Cutting standard 75 ohm cable TV cables takes all the power of ... a knife. At worst, a pair of dikes. Now, maybe this guy was special and the cable company used hardline into his house, but even then a simple bolt cutter would make quick work of it.

Let's see if we can summarize this tempest over this awful event. A politician organized and led a chapter of the KKK. He sent a letter to senator saying:

I shall never fight in the armed forces with a negro by my side ... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.

He was interviewed in 2001 and said:

There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time, if you want to use that word.

His bigotry extended to gay rights, where he:

... strongly opposed Clinton's 1993 efforts to allow gays to serve in the military and supported efforts to limit gay marriage. In 1996, before the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act, he said, "The drive for same-sex marriage is, in effect, an effort to make a sneak attack on society by encoding this aberrant behavior in legal form before society itself has decided it should be legal. [...] Let us defend the oldest institution, the institution of marriage between male and female as set forth in the Holy Bible."

This Scalise guy is clearly ... oh, wait. He didn't do any of that. That's all stuff that the highly respected Senator Robert Byrd did.

So what did Scalise do that shows he has "KKK ties"? He was invited to and spoke at a conference that he didn't know was organized by someone involved with the KKK. He talked about economics. Afterwards, the KKK organizers blogged about all the useful information about slush funds he gave them, as if his intent was to teach the KKK about how to use slush funds for evil things.

Scalise no more has KKK ties than Barack Obama has KKK ties because Obama spoke at Byrd's funeral and said good things about him.

No, that's not how science works. There are too many changes in too many things over time for a historical earth to be the control. In many cases, changes in things we didn't measure at the time, and many of the things you list we couldn't have measured because we weren't here to do so. A "control" needs to be something where as little as possible is different except for the change being tested. Solar output, surface albedo, atmospheric gas composition (other than CO2), etc.

If you want to use "historical Earth" as "control Earth", then I'm sorry to say you need to accept responsibility for the current problem, since a difference between historical and now is YOU. This is the erroneous "science" you wind up with if you use poor controls in your experiments. Too many things are different.

This is the fallacy of assuming that small scale lab experiments scale up to global environmental systems. It is easy to design an experiment (with proper controls) in a fish tank. The Earth, however, has all kinds of large scale processes that regulate each other. This is why the first predictions weren't the current predictions and won't be the last predictions. We're still learning new things about the global system.

I'm sure you can. I used those examples because they are examples of "correct predictions" masquerading as proper science, not because you couldn't come shine the light of science on the hicks who held such beliefs.

And this is a statement that "we don't understand it well enough yet to disprove a theory with a thought experiment, thus the theory must be correct." Those fellows in the distant past who couldn't explain why the crops flourished when they did were quite happy to claim that human sacrifice was the reason. When it didn't work in any certain year, they could at least understand that things change over time so there could be a different reason the gods were displeased and the sacrifices were still necessary.

It also doesn't handle the problem of similar changes happening in the past (our "control Earth") without our being here to make those changes. It also assumes that "now" is the right way for things to be, when we know that it has been much different in the past. This is a common human frailty. I know of people who built some very expensive houses on a sand spit at a river mouth that developed early in the 20th century, who then demanded that the government solve the problem when the spit started to go away. "Today" is the right way, and if the Earth doesn't agree, we have to do something.

When you use that criterion, I infer that "skeptic" (for whichever topic is at question) is not how you define "reasonable person". I.e., an atheist ("god skeptic") would not be "any reasonable person" by definition, nor would "global warming skeptic". The question "what evidence would it take?" is the kind of question one asks only to skeptics. The believers already have sufficient evidence to justify their belief, in their opinion.

No, the result of science is the result. What is politically and economically unwelcome are the political and economic solutions that may or may not solve a problem that may or may not need a solution. Science provides a result, it is then up to the society to determine what to do about it.

E.g., "science" tells us that some drugs have bad side effects. Society says whether that drug should be approved for use.

This same statement applies to the question "what evidence would convince you that God exists?"

If the evidence is not humanly possible to gather, then the question is inherently religious, not scientific.

"Prediction" and "experiment" are not synonyms. Predicting something that comes true is not proof of the cause. It takes experiments to do that. Seers and psychics predict lots of things, some of which come true. Did they truly see the result in their magic crystal ball, or did they make guesses based on probabilities?

Or you work in the field and know that 1) small scale lab systems where true scientific experiments have been conducted don't map directly into global systems, and 2) there has yet to be a control Earth against which hypothesis can be tested.

I can prove that anything I want to pick can cure the common cold, as long as you don't make me compare my proposed cure against a control group. Eventually everyone gets over a cold, even if the magic cure I give them does absolutely nothing.

Over recorded history, all kinds of religions have arisen because people have made predictions like "if we sacrifice a virgin maiden on the alter, the gods will give us good crops". That maps all the way down into common superstitions from "break a mirror, seven years bad luck" to athletes who have to wear their lucky socks. Every one of those athletes has used the "scientific method" by saying "if I don't wear my lucky socks, I won't play well today" -- and the prediction came true.

Now if you will excuse me, I have to go to lunch and it's raining out. You see, every time I forget to bring my umbrella it rains during lunch hour. I've proved that scientifically by making a prediction that came true.

Not according to the court. From the findings in the actual court case:

The Supreme Court has held that "an arrest warrant founded on probable cause implicitly carries with it the limited authority to enter a dwelling in which the suspect lives when there is reason to believe the suspect is within."

But it was the radar that gave them "probable cause", right? Nope. Ibid:

We're the first to admit that in isolation none of these facts may mean much. Even together they hardly prove a suspect is home. But in combination we believe they are enough to establish probable cause (a fair probability) for such a conclusion.

What are "these facts"? Nothing that included "radar said so". And the court went so far as to point out that the Supreme Court ruling did not require "probable cause", but only "reason to believe".

What about the search that found the guns? Ibid:

It is settled law, though, that officers lawfully entering a home to effect arrest can conduct "a quick and limited search of premises" -- what is sometimes called a "protective sweep" -- if they have reason to worry about someone lurking inside who could pose a danger to them ... And there is much to suggest this standard was met in our case. ... Mr. Denson was a fugitive ... he had a history of violent crime. ... he was a gang member and had violent associates. ... a second person lived in the home who was wanted on an outstanding warrant."

The court goes on to say that the use of the radar might have negated the concern about a second person in the home who would constitute a danger, but then questions whether the radar could actually detect every potential occupant or even differentiate between one and more than one target.

Sorry, the case used to whip up a frenzy over the "wide-spread" "nation-wide" willy-nilly free-range use of this technology doesn't actually show anything of the sort. A fugitive felon who was reasonably believed to be at home can be served an arrest warrant and the radar device was actually irrelevant. It provided neither probable cause for believing he was at home, nor was it necessary to prove probable cause for a search for weapons.

"Gosh, guys, we rang the doorbell and shouted 'Federal Marshals' and nobody opened the door. The guy we've got the warrant to arrest must not be here. Let's go get some donuts and come back tomorrow..." If only it should be that simple to avoid an arrest warrant. A well-stocked larder and pizza delivery could delay a federal arrest by months.

And where did the article say the 50 police agencies involved are the 50 largest?

I read the article. The use being made of the device by the marshal service was during the execution of an arrest warrant to determine if the residence was occupied prior to entry. The defense tried to get guns found during the arrest thrown out because the radar was used without a warrant. The problem is, the actual search that took place was part of the arrest which WAS based on a warrant, not based on the radar information.

If you've got an arrest warrant that the marshals are coming to serve, you're not Joe Citizen just being rousted by the cops for no reason at all. You've already had your due process and lost. Thinking you can get out of the warrant by just being really quiet when they ring the doorbell and hoping they go away because they think you aren't home is, well, just silly. Claiming that the use of the device to determine of you are home when they come to arrest you on a warrant is not "unwarranted" use.

What is the "routine uwarranted use"? Is it similar to the "routine uwarranted use" of pat-downs for weapons during initial contact that the courts have ruled are justified? Is it similar to the "routing unwarranted" search of a room subsequent to arrest of an occupant? Is it "routine unwarranted use" if the devices are used to determine whether a space is occupied prior to executing a search warrant?

I notice you made a great leap from "fifty police agencies" to "police nation-wide". The latter implies large-scale use, while the former is a pretty small number. If I took a few minutes I could probably come up with fifty "police agencies" in just this and two neighboring counties where I live.

But "fifty police agencies use wall-penetrating radar" wouldn't be as good a headline.

Damn, some asshole has my pencil.